|
LESLEY
MOLSEED |
THE INNOCENT STEFAN KISZKO WAS FRAMED FOR THIS MURDER BY POLICE WHO KNEW HE WAS NOT THE KILLER BUT THEY HAD A CONFESSION AND WERE SURE OF A COURT CONVICTION WITH THAT.
IN 2007 RONALD CASTREE, ANOTHER INNOCENT MAN WAS
FRAMED FOR THIS SAME MURDER BY ROGUE COPS WHO HAVE FABRICATED DNA EVIDENCE TO SOLVE IT.
Check out what a foremost American scientist has to say about low copy number DNA on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbIdo6uJA5A
On 5th October 1975 11 year old Lesley Molseed was abducted and brought
to an isolated lay by where she was stabbed in the neck and chest twelve times
with a small knife and sexually abused by her assailant who masturbated over
her in a similar attack to one on 14 year old Tracy Browne
a few months before. The deviant sexual motive was similar. A white car with
red markings of some vague description was seen near the scene but nobody witnessed
the attack. Peter Sutcliffe had just such a car. Stefan Kiszko was arrested a few days before Christmas
and stitched up by Chief Superintendent Dick Holland and the police never wished
to look again at this murder eventhough it is officially an unsolved crime once
again. By linking Sutcliffe to the Molseed murder now, they would be focusing
on their own mistakes and would unravel a litany of frame ups and corruption.
A book entitled INNOCENTS was written and published in 1997 which claimed to
have the solution to the murder of Lesley Molseed but subsequent events have
shown that book to be deeply flawed.
While the innocent Stefan Kiszko was in prison awaiting trial, Peter Sutcliffe
attacked Marcella Claxton, a black girl who was walking
home in the Ripper’s chosen territory. He hit her on the head and dazed her,
then masturbated and cleaned himself with tissues which he deliberately threw
to the ground, knowing they matched the Molseed tissues. Such a crime must be
very rare and it is surprising, to say the least that they were not compared
at the time. However the police never looked at the possibility that this attack
might be committed by the killer of Lesley Molseed. After all they had Kiszko
in jail. They had a confession. They were confident of a conviction and that
is the name of the game. The Molseed murder had been solved many years earlier
by detective chief Superintendant Dick Holland who was now questioning Peter
Sutcliffe about his Ripper crimes after his arrest in 1981. The Molseed murder
had been solved and would not even be considered even if Sutcliffe confessed
to it.
|
Dick Holland |
George Oldfield |
To think that there were two men in that area, at that time, both with white
cars who attacked young girls and masturbated over them is stretching the imagination.
It is an unheard of crime. We know Sutcliffe did the attack on Tracy Browne
and Miss Claxton. I believe he should be seriously considered suspect for the
Lesley Molseed murder, however with the Kiszko conviction keeping it buried
for 16 years and now the book referred to above helping to divert further scrutiny,
added to the fact that the semen evidence is gone missing, it is most unlikely
that this will ever be considered. Dismissing the corruption charges against
Dick Holland and scientist Ronald Outteridge is a further travesty. The Marcella
Claxton page should be studied in conjunction with the Molseed murder.
Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean embarked
on a new enquiry in 2001 when he claimed that new evidence had been unearthed.
My dossier was sent to him without acknowldgement as soon as this came to my
attention. As with my previous attempts over twenty years to arouse their interest,
they dont want to look at the evidence I have as it would get many policemen
into serious trouble.
Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean
|
PART In |
Victims Stefan Kiszko and his mother Charlotte
The following summary of the Kiszko case is by Julian Burnside
Stefan Kiszko was convicted of murder twenty five years ago – on 21 July 1976. The victim was11 year-old Lesley Molseed.She had been stabbed to death on the Yorkshire moors.The killer had ejaculated on her underclothes.
Kiszko spent the next 16 years in prison.He was released in February 1992 after the decision of the Court of Appeal.He had collapsed mentally and physically.
Stefan Kiszko was innocent.Lesley Molseed’s real killer has never been prosecuted.
Stefan Kiszko was the son of a German mother and a Ukrainian father who had fled to England after the second world war.They were hard-working ordinary folk who lived in Rochdale in the north country and were proud of their son when he got a job in the tax-collector’s office: he was the first in the family to wear a suit and tie to work.
Stefan was a large child-man: although apparently of average intelligence, he was grossly immature because of hypogonadism – his testes were completely undeveloped.This condition was not diagnosed until he was 23.As a student, he had been the butt of schoolyard jokes; when he began work as a clerk, he became the butt of office jokes.He had no friends, and no social life beyond his parents and his aunt Alfreda.Then his father died, and he had only his mother and aunt – but he wanted nothing more.He was a lumbering, good-natured child in a man’s body.
Lesley Molseed was a small, frail 11 year-old.She lived in Rochdale with her mother and step-father.On 5 October 1975, she agreed to go down to the shop to get some bread.Her body was found 3 days later, on the moors nearby.She had been stabbed 12 times.Her clothing was undisturbed, but the killer had ejaculated on her underwear.
An enormous police investigation began when the body was found.The police took statements from over 6000 people, including girls in the Rochdale area who had seen a man indecently exposing himself during the weeks immediately before Lesley Molseed was killed; and people who had seen vehicles in the parking area near the place on the moors where the body was found.
Two girls identified Kiszko as the man who had exposed himself to them.Police quickly formed the view that Kiszko fitted the profile of the person likely to have killed Lesley Molseed.They pursued evidence which might incriminate him, and ignored leads which would have taken their enquiries in other directions.
The police questioned Kiszko closely.They were convinced he was the murderer, and they seized on inconsistencies between his various accounts of the relevant days as further demonstration of his guilt.They paid no attention to his gross social backwardness; they did not tell him of his right to have a solicitor present; when he asked if he could have his mother present when he was questioned, they refused; they did not caution him until well after they had decided he was the prime suspect.
Kiszko made a confession, which he retracted shortly afterwards.He explained that he had confessed because the police had assured him he could go home to his mother if he told them what had happened.
* * * * * *
The trial began on 7 July 1976.Kiszko was defended by David
Waddington QC and Philip Clegg.The prosecutor was Peter Taylor
QC (later Taylor LCJ) with Matthew Caswell.
The defence made 3 significant mistakes:
First, they did not seek an adjournment when the Crown delivered thousands of pages ofadditional unused material on the first morning of the trial. Among the additional material was a statement by a taxi driver who admitted being the person who had (inadvertently) exposed himself in front of the two girls: it was the incident which had initially attracted police attention to Kiszko; it was an incident to which he had confessed in his statement to police.It gave the clearest grounds for suspecting the reliability of Kiszko’s confession.
Second, instead of seeking to exclude the confession on a voir dire, they sought to impeach its voluntariness and veracity in the course of the trial itself.This meant not only that the jury saw the confession, but also that they heard all of Kiszko’s pitiable frailties and shortcomings as a human being.
Third, and most difficult to understand, they ran inconsistent defences.Kiszko had recently been put on a course of hormone treatment to deal with the consequences of his immature testes.The scientific evidence was that this could cause uncharacteristic changes of mood, although even here the defence put forward an exaggerated version of the likely effects.So the defence involved a denial that Kiszko committed the murder, coupled with a defence of diminished responsibility: “if he did it, it was because of the hormone treatment which turned him into a sex monster”.It is hard to imagine how any jury could exclude the effect of the second defence from their consideration of the first.In any event, Kiszko’s endocrinologist would have said (if called) that the effect of the hormone treatment was only to exaggerate existing personality traits, and that the effect of the hormones on Kiszko would certainly not have caused him to commit a crime so grotesquely at odds with his normal personality.
Kiszko appears not to have been consulted about the second line of defence. From first to last (apart from the retracted confession) Kiszko insisted that he had never met Lesley Molseed, and did not kill her.
He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
* * * * * *
For a person convicted of sexually molesting and killing a child, life in gaol is hard.Kiszko was frequently beaten by other prisoners, and eventually retreated into a world of private delusion, in which he was the victim of an immense plot to incarcerate an innocent tax-office employee in order to test the effects of incarceration.He ultimately came to believe that even his mother was party to this elaborate conspiracy.
Meanwhile Kiszko’s mother was the only person who clung tenaciously to
a belief in his innocence.She pleaded his case to anyone who would
listen. She was steadfast in her certainty that Stefan was innocent.As
her entreaties became more desperate and forlorn, so her audience became less
receptive.But eventually, in 1987, Campbell Malone agreed to take
a look at the case.He consulted Philip Clegg (who had been Waddington’s
junior at the trial).Clegg expressed his own doubts about the
confession and the conviction.After lengthy investigations, they
prepared a petition to the Home Secretary.The draft was finally
ready on 26 October 1989. On the same day, by the most remarkable
coincidence, a new Home Secretary was announced: David Waddington QC MP.Despite
(or perhaps because of) Waddington’s exquisitely delicate position in the matter,
more than a year passed before a police investigation into the conduct of the
original trial was begun.
Campbell Malone solicitor
Detective Superintendent Trevor Wilkinson was assigned to the job.After a great deal of painstaking work, Wilkinson’s team of investigators discovered 4 vital things:
First, that the additional unused material disclosed to the defence on the first day of the trial included crucial evidence, but the late disclosure had made it impossible for the defence team to pursue the ramifications of that evidence;the evidence, if pursued, would have cast doubt on the reliability of the confession.
Second, the matter of the two girls who identified Kiszko as the person who had exposed himself to them. Their statements had been read to the Court; they were not cross-examined. During the investigation in1990, the girls (by then they were mature women) admitted that they had made up the story: they had simply seen the taxi driver urinating behind a bush.
Third, that the pathologist who examined Lesley Molseed’s clothing had found sperm in the semen stains on the underwear.This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court.
Fourth,that the police had taken a sample of Kiszko’s semen at the time of the investigation: it contained no sperm at all. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court.
It therefore became apparent that the evidence led against Kiszko had been flawed and partial, and that vital evidence had been withheld from the Court and from the defence.
These investigations culminated in an application which was heard by the Court of Appeal on 17 & 18 February 1992. At the conclusion of the argument, the appeal was allowed.Lane LCJ said
“It has been shown that this man cannot produce sperm.This man cannot have been the person responsible for ejaculating over the girl’s knickers and skirt, and consequently cannot have been the murderer”.
On the same day, Peter Taylor QC was appointed Lord Chief Justice. He died of cancer in 1996.
Kiszko was released immediately. He needed 9 months rehabilitation before he could go home to his mother. He received 500,000 pounds in compensation for his 16 years in prison.However his physical and mental health had been destroyed.He died eighteen months later, aged 41.The date of his death was 23 December 1992: exactly 18 years after his arrest.His mother died 6 months later.
The Court of Appeal decision by which Kiszko was released is not reported.So far as the legal system is concerned, the life it destroyed is nothing but a footnote in R v McKenzie.
Julian Burnside
This interesting corrospondance with Dave,
may help to throw light on the Molseed case.
To: Subject: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:08:51 -0000
Hi
. I was interested in your piece at claxton naming Sutcliffe as the
murderer of Lesley Molseed in 1975. I have read a lot of literature on this case
and I tend to agree with the allegation that Raymond Hewlett (born Blackpool
24th January 1945), an alleged serial child sex offender was/is responsible for
Lesley’s murder. The evidence is quite overwhelming including testimonies from
witnesses present in 1975, particularly those present on the evening of the 5th
of October that year. ( the evidence given by Rosalie Dolan is particularly
damning ) Unfortunately this could not be proven due to the fact that DCI Richard Holland
and Doctor Ronald Outteridge had destroyed the forensic evidence which could
have proved the innocence of Stefan and the guilt of the real murderer ( they
were formally charged with suppressing evidence in 1994.), however I heard today
that new evidence regarding this case has come to light. Why are you so certain
that Sutcliff is responsible ?
Dave
From: Noel O’Gara | Block Address | Add to Address Book Subject: Re: Stefan
Ivan Kiszco To: DST
Hi Dave, I am not certain but there are compelling reasons for suspecting
him. Your statement about the lost evidence is evidence of perhaps a more
serious crime by Holland and co. Where did you get the statements you are
talking about and the witness reports/ why were these witness reports not used
at the time of Kiszko’s trial? You should be aware that there has been a process
of disinformation about this case to muddy the waters. I am showing only
evidence I know of. The M.O. and the car, the times dates and places. do you
think there were more attackers like Sutcliffe ? in that place at that time?
From: “DST” | Block Address | Add to Address Book To: “Noel O’Gara” Subject:
Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:14:48 -0000
Hi Noel,
thanks for the reply. The statements I referred to in my earlier e mail were
made by eye witnesses who saw Hewlett’s van in the lane where Lesley was
abducted (his van was also seen in the lay-by at the time of the murder ), their
testimonies were never revealed at the trial. The most revealing statement was
made by Rosalie Dolan,(she was Helett’s 15 year old girlfriend at the time) she
gave an alibi for Hewlett on the day of the murder. When the case was re opened
in 1992 the police tracked her down to Australia and brought her back to the UK,
in her new statement she gave damning evidence against Hewlett. Two of the main
points of her interview were that Hewlett disappeared for two hours at the time
of the murder and when he returned in a distressed state he said that he was in
trouble and they should leave for Ireland immediately, which they did. (Ireland
was the place Hewlett retreated to every time he committed an offence) Secondly
he asked her to provide him with a false alibi in case anything should happen.
Incidentally Stefan was convicted primarily on statements made by three 10 year
old girls who said that he had indecently exposed himself to them just days
before the murder. When these women were re interviewed again in 1992 they all
confessed to making the allegations up.(I don’t know how these women live with
themselves) Hewlett was on the police short list of 8 prime suspects after the
murder but with the arrest of Stefan the investigation was wound up. He was re
arrested in 1992 and questioned about the murder. When he heard that Rosalie was
in the country he confessed to his cell mate that he had done the murder and
that there was a woman who could prove his guilt. However, during his
interrogation he learned that the forensic evidence had been destroyed and knew
that only his words could incriminate him. At that point he refused to answer
any questions put to him and consequently the police ran out of time and had to
release him. He still remains the prime suspect. As for the trial, DCI Holland, CS Dibb
and Dr Outteridge conspired to surpress evidence that they knew could prove
Stefan’s innocence, they knew that the samples taken from Stefan proved that he
was sterile and could not produce sperm heads, the semen taken from the body
contained sperm heads. They also with held statements from the defence, which
proved the whereabouts of Stefan on the day of the murder.(all the forensic
evidence went missing after the trial) In 1994 Holland and Outteridge were
formally charged with suppressing evidence but on May 1st 1995 magistrate Jane
Hayward prevented the case from proceeding citing that because of the death of
Jack Dibb the two remaining defendants could not receive a fair trial.( Holland
and Outteridge both blamed Dibb for any wrong doing ) The most in-depth
investigation I’ve read is a book called Innocents : How Justice Failed Stefan
Kisko and Lesley Molseed by Jonathan Rose, Steve Panter, & Trevor Wilkinson
/ Hardback / Fourth Estate / 1997 (Jonathan Rose is a barrister in Leeds. Trevor
Wilkinson is a former deputy chief constable who re-opened the Kiszko case, and
Steve Panter is a journalist on the Manchester Evening News who knew the Kiszko
family and covered the entire Kiszko story). This book gives an honest insight
into events surrounding the case from start to finish, I think it’s a must. You
are right about the white car with the red paint being seen in the alley and at
the lay-by, ot was one of seven cars the police were investigating at the time.
I think you might be right about more people like Sutcliffe being in the area at
that time.
Dave.
—– Original Message —– From: Noel O’Gara To: DST Sent: Monday, March
19, 2001 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:34:52
-0800 (PST) From: Noel O’Gara | Block Address | Add to Address Book Subject:
Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco To: DST
|
Jonathan Rose |
 |
Steve Panter |
Hi Dave.
I read about that book by Rose and Wilkinson a few years ago.I have read your
letter and the facts as you outline them are just not credible. If all these
sightings of the same van in the abduction spot and the murder spot at the right
time were known there would have been a clear suspect. This book is
misinformation, to divert the public towards Hewlitt and the evidence is lost.
If the evidence stated by you were true they would be ashamed to say it.I
wouldnt call that evidence. It’s rather like the taxi drivers who said they saw
Sutcliffe attacking Helen Rytka. Remember them? After the trial the police said
they confirmed that. Where were they when Oldfield was pleading for help after
the murder? This was misinformation also. I dont believe a murder investigation
would be conducted like that. Also this girl who was brought back from
aussieland was part of that disinformation exercise.You must ask yourself how
they persuaded her to come back or what happened. It looks to me like they
leaned on her to get a story to incriminate a known paedophile.Because of his
record he is blackened already. He was a likely mark to blame who cannot defend
himself because of his record. Why say all this when no charges can be brought.
I dont buy it. People have been convicted on less.They had all these great
witnesses and her evidence of the lost time in the murder spot. If Hewlit was
one of 8 suspects and the police knew a van like his was seen where you say,
they would not rely on the alibi of a 15 year old girl friend. they would look
for other alibis. The bit about the cellmate is incredibly suspect. This kind of
evidence is total fabrication or useless in a court of law and the police know
it, but a gullible public swallow it. I would not be surprised if the authors
are masons doing a favour for the establishment. Do you know anything about
Wilkinson? Wasnt he involved in the ripper investigation? You must also ask
yourself why would a barrister and cop with much to hide, at the time I was
saying Sutcliffe may be the killer of Lesley Molseed, write a book with such
hearsay “evidence” Where were they when poor old Stefan Kiszko was pleading his
innocence? They are the pits. I must check out Wilkinsons involvement.. what do
you think of my analysis?
noel
From: “DST” | Block Address | Add to Address Book To: “Noel O’Gara” Subject:
Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:11:12 -0000
Hello Noel.
You raise some interesting points in your e mail, a lot of which I have to
agree with though I still remain convinced that Hewlett is guilty, maybe I’m too
keen to swallow the information as it is presented, I don’t know. The evidence I
have read seems pretty compelling, maybe some of that has been lost in my
translation of the facts. The point about the van was the most frustrating part
of the investigation for me, it was such a crucial part of the case and it
wasn’t given the appropriate attention it required.( the van was unregistered
and was destroyed in Liverpool 2 days after the murder, Dolan confirmed that
Hewlett was driving it on the day of the murder and that they used it to escape
to Ireland ) This was the case throughout the investigation, the standard of
inquiry was very poor. As a post script to this a witness claimed to have seen
Lesley in a white car with red paint, on the day of the murder. As for
Wilkinson, the only comment I can make is that he did right by Stefan. In
November 1996 he was put in a position to expose police corruption and he didn’t
waiver from that, he ploughed ahead regardless of consequence when he could have
easily turned a blind eye. I don’t know how or what was said to entice Dolan
back into the country or what her reasons were for doing so, you may have a
point about the motives of both parties. I do know that at the time of the
murder she wasn’t required to make a statement because by the time Hewlett was
picked up on another outstanding charge Stefan had confessed and so far as the
police were concerned the case was closed. Hewlett, although on the short list
of suspects was never questioned at the time. I think we are raising more
questions than we are answering 😉 I don’t think that we will ever get to know
the real details of this case but I will be interested to see what the police
have turned up in their recent investigations. My biggest regret in this whole
sad episode is that Holland and Outteridge walked away free men.
Dave.
PS. The QC for the defence at the trial was none other than David Waddington
( went on to be Home Secretary ) and the prosecuting QC was Peter Taylor,
there’s your Freemason link.
|
Peter Taylor |
Philip Clegg now a judge in Basildon |
Lord Waddington |
Post script by Noel O’Gara.
I would suggest that the reason the evidence was destroyed in this case was
because the semen matched that of Peter Sutcliffe. If this was ever found out
it would open the whole Ripper case up to renewed scrutiny and Holland et al
would definitely be facing serious criminal charges. The Ripper case is what
they were all afraid would be uncovered. They have much to lose.Kiszko didnt
have a white car while Sutcliffe did, with red upholstry to boot. Secondly all
this new evidence was only looked at in 1997 when Kiszko was dead. Where were
all these do gooders for the previous 20 odd years? Why should Dolans recollections
of Hewlitt and his van and movements 20 years earlier be so credible and yet
the case against Holland and Outteridge was dismissed because of the lapse of
time? The most important thing to bear in mind about Kiszko is that the forensic
evidence of the semen was not brought up at his trial and he was convicted because
of his confession and a woefully inadequate legal defence team. After Kiszko’s
pardon they were busy hatching up an alternative solution just to cover themselves
and to deflect serious investigation of this murder. None of these people gave
the slightest help to Kiszko while he was detained. Their allegations might
have had some credit had they been on record for years before 1992 trying to
highlight a miscarriage of justice that they were aware of. Publication of their
book after Kiszko’s release was a dance on his grave and can only have been
done to protect high up law officers and the judiciary from further scrutiny.
It was meant to close the case forever to save all these peoples faces.This
was an exercise in PR to end calls for a new investigation. It certainly was
not written to exonerate Kiszko. I personally would have no faith in anything
the police said about this case now or any new evidence they produce, because
they are only concerned about covering themselves. How could anybody believe
anything they produce now? With all the murders happening every year in the
UK isnt it strange that they wrote a book to deliver a solution to this particular
murder at this time when I began to focus attention on to Sutcliffe’s involvement.
The book is a dossier of speculation and hearsay, written by people who could
have helped Kiszko when he was inside but only needed to do so after he was
pardoned. Stever Panter, the Manchester Evening News reporter who lent his name
to the book was conspicuously silent for the 16 years Kiszko was locked up.Trevor
Wilkinson was a senior police officer for all that time also. Where was he then
if he knew so much ? Isnt that his job ? to apprehend criminals he knows about,
instead of writing a book about what might have been after Kiszko’s death. David
Waddington, Kiszko’s defence council, who later was a Home Secretary with a
vested interest in keeping Kiszko locked up was made a life peer in November
1990 and was elevated to Governor of Bermuda in August 1992, six months after
Kiszko was pardoned. Rose’s book certainly helped to shield him from further
scrutiny of his totally incompetant defence of Kiszko. Peter Taylor , the prosecuting
QC was only concerned with winning a conviction.The Judiciary put blind faith
in the police then and men like Holland were looked on as heroes whose every
word was believable. They were doing the dangerous job of protecting citizens
from murderers and for this they got total credibility. That is why they were
so incredibly cock sure and arrogant.
Finally, I want to say that Jane
Hayward, stipendiary magistrate at Rochdale who threw out Holland and Outteridge’s
case has condemned herself, and not only is she unfit to serve as a judge but
she is a disgrace to the word justice. She had an ulterior motive in dismissing
this case but cited the obvious cop out.
An independant and concise account of the
crime against Stefan Kiszko can be accessed on this web
page.
Also the gloomy comments of legal practicioners such as Cambell
Malone and Michael Mansfield on the present state of the
judiciary and its propensity to fabricate convictions are borne out in the trial
of Ronald Castree.
Convicted paedophile Raymond Hewlett
Moving forward to recent events
There is a sudden urgency to solve all the loose ends of the Ripper case principally
the alleged hoaxer, the Preston murder and the Molseed murder. These loose ends
have the potential to cast doubt on Sutcliffe’s conviction and needed to be
shored up by solving them. They have already framed the vulnerable alcoholic
John Humble for the hoax letters
and tape and there was newspaper talk about him being responsible for the murder
of Joan Harrison in Preston in 1975.
That is a frame up that the Lancashire police have baulked at. So far. I have
put them on notice. Obviously the Northumbria police have given up their local
citizen and colluded with the West Yorkshire police by keeping silent and allowing
them to frame Humble. Now the Manchester police have turned in one of their
own to the desperate West Yorkshire police and they are watching this debacle
being played out and have chosen to remain silent in solidarity with their police
colleagues.
The Molseed murder is an embarrassment to the police because of all the attention
that I have drawn to it in my efforts to expose the Ripper cover up ever since
Sutcliffe was arrested and convicted. The links to Sutcliffe are clear and it
was not difficult to conclude that Kiszko was framed when I saw how Dick Holland
had allowed the Real Ripper to get away and took the confessions of the copycat
killer to close the case. This was in the light that Kiszko made his confessions
under interrogation and without a solicitor. Since the exhoneration of Kiszko
the police are under pressure to solve it and several years ago they said that
they would reopen the investigation and they made the usual threatening sounds.
Now having successfully convicted Humble with fabricated DNA evidence a charade
orchestrated by the now deceased chief constable, the same police team of rogue
officers now felt that they can do a similar stunt with another patsy to solve
the outstanding Molseed murder. They targetted an Oldham resident, 53 year old
Ronald
Castree and what man could claim to be innocent if he was arrested and charged
with a child sex murder in a blaze of publicity and the police were telling
the media that they had found his DNA on the victim?
The frame up began with the media briefing that brought headlines in the Sun
the next day effectively sealing Castree’s fate before he was able to enter
a plea. Headlines such as these sealed the fate of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford
4, the Maguire 7 and many other high profile cases that needed to be solved
by desperate police who need to draw a line under crimes that they are unable
to solve or need to solve to satisfy the public need.
DNA
traps girl’s ‘killer’ 31yrs on was the headline
The Manchester Evening News joined the herd with Comic
shop owner held in hunt for killer of schoolgirl 30 years ago
Castree
was born in Littleborough, where Lesley’s family still lives, and went to
school in neighbouring Rochdale. In 1973 he married his first wife, Beverley,
and their first son, Jason, was born a fortnight before Lesley was killed
proof that Ronald Castree was a normal male as
far as his ability to produce semen was concerned and consequently he could
not have been the man with a low sperm count who masturbated over the victim.
At the time, Mr Castree was working as a taxi driver, according to sources
in the investigation, and living in Oldham, although he later worked as an administration
manager before opening a market stall selling secondhand books in the 1980s.
Subsequently he specialised in selling collectible comics, opening shops trading
as Arcadia Comics in Ashton-under-Lyne and Rochdale in the 1990s and making
around £50,000-a-year.
Interviewed by the Daily Mail in 1994, he posed in a Batman baseball cap surrounded
by hundreds of his comics and said he had been a fan of the genre since childhood.
He added: “The timeless appeal of the comic is escapism. As people increasingly
need a break from real life it can only mean greater popularity for comics of
all kinds.”
He had two more sons by his first wife, Nicholas, now 27, and Daniel, 22, but
the couple split up in the mid-1990s and Mr Castree remarried, to divorcee Karen
Curtin.
She has five children by two previous relationships and the youngest, aged
seven, nine and 11, are believed to have lived with her and Mr Castree.
Ronald Castree above and being taken into court
The fact that there are strong reasons to show that Peter Sutcliffe was responsible
for the Lesley Molseed murder is reason enough to bury this potentially embarrassing
sore spot on the police record. Any investigation in that area would shine a
spotlight on Sutcliffe that they dread because it would expose his real motive
for sex crimes on children and reveal to the public that he was not the Yorkshire
Ripper but rather an inadequate mentally disturbed sexual predator who hated
women and he became involved in the Ripper murders by police error.
|
RONALD CASTREE FROM OLDHAM THE NEXT PATSY FOR A FRAME UP |
I travelled to Manchester with a number of supporters and had several thousand
leaflets with the following text and distributed them in the home area, the
town of Shaw,Oldham and Manchester city centre and I sent a copy to Castree
in jail with this letter.
Noel O’Gara,
Ballinahowen Court,
Athlone,
County Westmeath,
Ireland.
November 26th, 2006
00353906430107
THE RONALD CASTREE STITCH-UP IN PROGRESS
To Mr Ronald Castree
Remand prisoner in Armley Prison.
Dear Ronald,
I wrote a book about the Yorkshire Ripper and the Molseed murder features in
it.
I am writing to you directly because I know you have no friends where you are
now and please write back to say if you got my letter.
Under article 6 (1) of the European convention on human rights your human rights
would be breached if the prison authorities prevented you writing to anybody
or receiving letters. Keep that firmly in mind as they may try to keep you isolated
in order to work on you.
I know you are innocent of the charges against you for reasons I will explain.
I’m sure you heard of the Birmingham six?
The Guildford four?
Stefan Kiszko?
Judith Ward?
Anthony Steel?
And many other innocent people who have been forced to confess to crimes.
Some corrupt police have ways of making you confess by breaking your will.
I understand you were questioned about another matter and that was probably
used against you. They pick on vulnerable people and try to get confessions
to crimes they really need to solve in any way possible. McLean has already
been to the victim’s family and your own family and been brainwashing
them that you are the killer to turn them all against you in order to leave
you with no support.
Let’s face it Ronald, if they had the hard evidence that you were the
killer of Lesley Molseed why would they interrogate you for 48 hours and why
even ask for a confession? They have no hard evidence. All that talk about DNA
is total fabrication designed to convince you that you will be convicted and
then they will offer you a deal with leniency and promise you a short sentence
and no trial but only if you confess. They haven’t an ounce of real evidence
against you and you are vulnerable simply because you have no alibi since it
happened 31 years ago.
Kiszko actually had a sound alibi but she was on holiday in Italy during his
sham trial and his useless lawyers never even protested this fact. The poor
fellow was clearly set up and you are in line for the same treatment now.
They tried to convince Mr Terry Hawkshaw that he was the Yorkshire Ripper and
told him he may not even be aware of his Jeckyl and Hyde personality when he
was in his normal mind.
So relax Ronald I can help you to prove your innocence. I know you are not responsible
for that murder simply because there is a strong case that Peter Sutcliffe is
the killer of Lesley Molseed and the police are desperate to conceal that line
of enquiry, because they have fooled everyone into thinking that he is the Ripper
rather than a lunatic copycat killer who was framed by them and they let the
real Ripper get away. They need to convict a fall guy to get that murder off
the books. Perhaps that explains why there has been such a lot of interest in
this particular 31 year old murder when there are hundreds of unsolved murders
in Britain every year. This one is special because of the Ripper.
Sutcliffe actually assaulted a 14 year old girl in Silsden near Bradford about
two months before the Molseed murder. He masturbated over her also. His semen
was put under the microscope and he is reported to be nearly sterile. He was
unable to have children.
Would you think that there was more than one lunatic who masturbated on young
girls, in that area and at that time?
You are in danger of becoming a second Kiszko now because there are a few corrupt
cops who are desperate to close this case for good, just to protect themselves
for letting the real Ripper get away.
The Real Yorkshire Ripper, Billy Tracey, a man who used to work for me is still
at large and living freely in London.
They are capable of framing you by saying they have DNA evidence that is so
infinitely minute that nobody could verify it, but remember that the evidence
if they have any, has been so contaminated with chemicals etc by so many experts
and handlers over many years that it is impossible to prove, but they will not
tell you that. All the evidence was destroyed about 15 years ago probably by
Dick Holland who was going to trial himself for framing Kiszko and now they
are saying that this evidence has reappeared. They will lie like hell to convince
you that you did it and that they can prove it, even if they haven’t a
scrap of proof. Don’t fall into their trap.
They framed Sutcliffe as the Ripper.
They framed Richard Webb as the killer of Josephine Gross Nicklaus.
They framed Anthony Steel as the killer of Carole Wilkinson.
They framed Stefan Kiszko as the killer of Lesley Molseed.
They framed Judith Ward as the bus bomber.
They framed John Humble as the hoaxer.
They would love to frame Humble as the killer of Joan Harrison in
Preston.
Now they are trying to frame you as the killer of Lesley
Molseed because that unsolved murder appears to have Sutcliffe’s prints all
over it. It’s not an impressive record for the West Yorkshire police,
so bear it in mind.
Now the main points that proved you are innocent are as follows and you should
study them carefully.
1. Alleged evidence of new techniques of getting a DNA profile is a blatant
lie to fool suspects into confessing. Particularly as in this case the evidence,
ie clothes of the victim was destroyed.
2. After 31 years anyway the sample if indeed we were to believe that there
was some still in existence, would be unidentifiable because of the time lapse
and natural erosion, obsolescence and decomposition of everything over time
in this natural world we inhabit. They will tell you otherwise and they won’t
tell you about how vulnerable any evidence is to contamination by police handlers,
laboratory technicians or store keepers who organize the boxes of evidence.
3. Records of the semen that was used to convict Kiszko could be used by you
to prove that it doesn’t match your semen type because as I recall that
semen was almost sterile while Kiszko was completely sterile. Your semen is
most likely very prolific and the proof is that you have several children. Kiszko
was incapable of producing children by his semen. That evidence alone would
eliminate you for this murder and this is something McLean overlooked in his
rush to frame you.
4. 48 hours of interrogation. They said ‘questioning’ but you know
that is not the correct word for it. If they had the evidence to prove you were
the killer why question you at all?
5. The team of police and scientists who are involved in your arrest are
the same team who framed John Humble with fake DNA as the Ripper hoaxer.
Humble was a drunk and he attempted to murder his own brother and that’s
how they forced him to cooperate and confess to being the hoaxer but he did
not write the letters.
6. The rogue cop, Max McLean, most likely planted your DNA on something they
claim is belonging to the victim, so watch out for him. There are a lot of decent
cops out there trying to do their best but a few bent ass holes like him screw
them all up and does them all a grave disservice. He is controlling your case,
just as Chris Gregg controlled Humble’s case.
7. Can you remember the car you had if any at the time of the murder? They were
looking for a Morris?, a white car with red markings of some kind?. The killer
had to be a motorist to get to that outlying area. Perhaps you didn’t
even have a car or a drivers license then?
8. I read that your lawyer is Jonathan Rose. If that is true you need a different
lawyer. He co-wrote a book with a policeman in 1997, after Kiszko died, blaming
Raymond Hewlett as the killer of Lesley Molseed. He was wrong with that too
but it was done at the time to take suspicion away from Sutcliffe. Be careful
Ronald, you are surrounded by poisonous snakes. The only reason they couldn’t
charge Hewlett at that time was because all the evidence was destroyed but now
it seems McLean has personally resurrected it and I tell you he is a blatant
liar. He is used to this all through his career so its easy for him to lie because
he has gotten away with so many stitch ups in the courts and lying to the press.
9. The sub microscopic DNA they claim to have is a fabrication. How could they
get that if they don’t have the original semen samples that were used
in the Kiszko case to convict him? This new alleged DNA is supposed to be an
infallible print but it has to come from the semen left on the victims clothing
and that shows a sperm count different to yours. It’s a lie and they don’t
have any such thing so you let them prove it to a jury and their bluff will
be called. However they will drop the charges before that happens. If there
was enough honest police in the force they would arrest the rogue McLean for
attempting to frame you before it goes any further not to mention the way he
has misled them.
10. It was reported that you were arrested twelve months before this latest
arrest on another matter and DNA was then taken from you. If their DNA evidence
was half as good as they pretend it is, why did it take them nine months to
identify you as the killer? For the past three years they have been saying that
they can eliminate a suspect very quickly with a simple swab test.
Ronald, you are in serious trouble with a gang of liars who will lie and cheat
just to get a conviction and get that murder off their unsolved list. Will you
please write to me when you get this letter and I would be willing to travel
to Leeds and meet you but you must give consent first. Finally, be careful who
you talk to there as McLean is liable to plant a snitch in with you to testify
against you and he will lie that you confessed the Molseed murder to him if
he is promised early release.
Noel O’Gara
PS.
I have sent a copy of this letter to your MP’s, the judge, the local newspapers
and other media and also to the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Colin Cramphorn.
Colin
Cramphorn, a fit man of 50 dropped dead on the 30th November after he read
this letter because he knew at that moment that the coordinated stitch up that
he had been instrumental in supervising of John Humble
and Ronald Castree was about to fall apart. Nobody drops dead from prostate
cancer and especially not a fit policeman who would be getting the best of medical
attention and who would have left his job if it was advanced. Cramphorn died
of shock and horror with a seizure after a blazing row with Det Chief Superintendant
Max McLean who was blaming him. He was still serving in office eventhough they
were looking for a replacement for him. Had he been so ill as to be unfit for
office from prostate cancer then he would not have been at work. The established
media put it about that he died from prostate cancer but we all know that people
dont just drop dead from that. Mr Cramphorn would have had access to the finest
medical treatment in the UK and if he had been deemed unfit for work it is obvious
that he would have stepped down regardless of his replacement not being found.
|
Det Chief Superintendant Max McLean |
Former Chief Constable Colin Cramphorn |
Hopefully Castree’s lawyers will not engage in a plea bargain for his confessions
as Humble’s lawyers did. The lawyer is only interested in a deal because he
will believe the DNA evidence and refuse to believe that the police have planted
it. Under those circumstances Castree will be told that if he fights the charges
he will risk losing before a jury who will believe the police evidence and he
could be locked up for the rest of his life. The alternative is to plead guilty
with diminished responsibility and the police will help him get a lenient sentence
for cooperating therby not putting the family of the victim to the pain and
trauma of reliving the murder and for that he will not have a trial. Such is
the anatomy of a frame up for murder and it is a tried and tested science that
is known only to the corrupt policeman who will secure a conviction at any cost
because he feels that the man is a criminal anyway and he deserves no better.
Such twisted logic has led to many hundreds of frame ups in Britain over the
years but it has also been a green light for the real killer who knows how the
authorities solve their crimes.
It must be a very trying time for any person accused in the wrong and most
especially when they are being deliberately framed up with fabricated evidence.
It is almost a repeat of the Kiszko frame up except that this time there are
more players in the police and they are relying on DNA science which is almost
impossible to refute because of the cost of hiring expert witnesses and the
esteem that DNA is held in by the general public who have not been informed
about its vulnerability to contamination and to being simply planted within
the crime scene evidence by a rogue cop who miracoulously is able to direct
an unwitting scientist to rediscover it. That is what happened in the Humble
case and short of having the financial resources of O J Simpson, he couldnt
counter that level of evidence.
Mr Castree spoke in court only to confirm his name at the 30-minute court hearing.
Lesley’s parents and other family members sat in the packed public gallery
along with police officers who are using them as PR pawns in their game of fooling
the general public.
Jonathan Rose, the lawyer who helped write the book about the Molseed murder
and Kiszko referred to above is defending him and he made an application for
bail but The Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen Gullick, postponed his decision
until Monday.
Bail was refused later and Mr Castree was remanded in custody and is expected
to stand trial on 22 October.
Imagine having a lawyer like Jonathan Rose defending your life and liberty,
a man whose record is tarnished in this very case and who has a vested interest
in having the case solved at any price just to clear his own name.
This frame up attempt on Ronald Castree
must be viewed in the overall context of the aftermath of the Yorkshire Ripper
case.
The conviction of Sutcliffe is so fatally flawed and it is well known today
by most informed people within the UK media, the police and the authorities
that Sutcliffe is not responsible for all the murders that he confessed to,
the obvious corollary being that the real Ripper remains free and at liberty
with their knowledge.
The police like to draw a line under these high profile murder cases and a conviction
in court is that guarantee of closure for them regardless of the veracity or
safety of that conviction. They can always say that a court found them guilty.
That ends the matter as far as they are concerned and perhaps explains why I
was sidelined for so long.
As the years went by and my book exposing this serious police crime became more
widely known and with the advent of the internet on which there is a comprehensive
web site that explains this amazing story in great depth, and as men and women
convicted of murders were released from prisons under the misnomer ‘miscarriage
of justice’ it became imperative for the police to close off some obvious
loopholes in the Ripper case in order to bolster the case against Sutcliffe
and basically to ensure the credibility and safety of the police which has been
eroded so much by the revelation of so many false convictions or ‘frame
ups by corrupt police’ as they should be called.
These loose ends to the Ripper case created a pressing need to find the man
responsible for sending the letters and a tape recording to George Oldfield,
later branded as a hoaxer because Sutcliffe obviously didn’t fit the bill
due to his handwriting, accent and denials of that.
Until Sutcliffe’s arrest in 1981 and confessions without a trial, the
Preston murder was firmly in the Ripper frame as was the certainty that it was
the Ripper who sent the letters and tape to Oldfield.
|
John Humble |
Det Chief Supr Chris Gregg
|
John Humble fitted this pressing need because
he was a down and out alcoholic Geordie about the correct age and with no family
support who had a criminal record and because he was vulnerable to facing charges
of attempted murder of his own brother, so he was selected as a mark for that
and he was blackmailed into doing a deal with the police in exchange for his
confessions without a trial and the murder rap was dropped by the police.
The next obvious loose end was the unsolved murder of Joan Harrison in Preston
in 1975 and it is my belief that Humble was targetted to be framed for that
murder also but my emails to the Lancashire police departments and public notice
boards mainly with the help of the internet along with my supporters help have
prevented that from coming to fruition.
The pardoning of Anthony Steel for the murder of Carole Wilkinson in Bradford
means that this murder is an unsolved case again and that is a major worry for
the police because the evidence shows that Peter Sutcliffe was responsible for
this murder and he has never been questioned about it for obvious reasons. It
would undermine his conviction as the Ripper and focus attention on him as a
copycat killer.
Another loose end emerged with the release and exhoneration of Stefan Kiszko
in February 1992 for the murder of Lesley Molseed in 1975. Following on from
the release of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven,
the judiciary were obliged to recognize that the public no longer trusted the
police as in the past and it was inevitable that Stefan Kiszko would be pardoned
much to the dismay of the police. He had been framed for that murder by corrupt
policemen and with the full complicity of many others involved both in the judiciary,
the CPS, the forensic scientists and the police force. His framing was blatant,
perverse, deliberate and his alibi was discarded by his own lawyer David Waddington
QC and later leader of the House of Lords. Waddington destroyed him in court
by accepting a plea of diminished responsibility which effectively amounted
to an admission even though Kiszko always denied involvement in the crime.
An article in the Manchester
Evening News dated the day Ronald Castree was arrested explains the background
to the Kiszko case and the clear evidence known at the time but suppressed by
all parties including his own defence.
In
an article published the same day the newspaper reported about the arrest
of Castree and misleadingly suggested that it was DNA that caused Kiszko to
be released and pardoned and the implication is that it was police who instigated
his release which couldnt be further from the truth.
One must bear in mind that Steve Panter who wrote for that newspaper was the
main author of the book ‘Innocents’ in conjunction with Detective
Superintendant Trevor Wilkinson and Lawyer Jonathan Rose and he worked in concert
with the police who use him or abuse him if you prefer, because of his position
in that important artery of information, to massage public opinion in the direction
they want and he of course feeds off the back of these tit bits of confidential
police information which most crime journalists crave.
The police were desperate to solve
that newly unsolved murder because of its connection to Peter Sutcliffe the
man that the whole world believed was the Yorkshire Ripper and any link with
him could shine a spotlight on his real role as a copycat killer who was framed
by that same policeman for the Ripper’s murders as well as his own crimes
one of which most likely was the Molseed murder.
In 1993 the police focused their attention on known child molester Raymond Hewlett
and in January 1993 tried to frame him for the Molseed murder but didn’t
succeed.
Following this failure they tried to convince the public that Hewlett had escaped
justice because the vital evidence they needed to secure the conviction had
been inadvertently lost or destroyed. To achieve this they conspired together
to write a book entitled ‘Innocents’ published in 1997 which sought
to blame Hewlett for the Molseed murder.
The following are extracts from the book INNOCENTS
“Detective Superintendent Wilkinson was acting in frustration; the frustration
of a detective who knows he has got his man, but cannot quite seal the case.”
When Hewlett realised that the five slides obtained from Lesley Molseed had
been mislaid, his confidence grew, and he actually remonstrated with the officers
that he could have been eliminated from the enquiries had those samples not
been lost”
“From the underwear, what appears to be semen stains. He (Ronald Outteridge)
makes up microscopic slides from these stains and looks further: his initial
belief is confirmed. He can see sperm heads. He applies the test then in use
to record the amount of heads: +H is the lowest, ++++H the highest. He writes
‘+H’ in his notes. There is a low sperm count given the large area
of seminal staining.”
“He (Raymond Hewlett) married Susan Ginley in 1963. Over the next five
years she was to give him four children whilst he was to give her increasingly
long breaks from his attentions, as he spent more and more time in prison, for
offences ranging from dishonesty to possession of a firearm.”
Clearly the ‘+H’ semen could not be Ronald Castree’s or Raymond
Hewlett’s when they both have fathered many children. Sutcliffe on the
other hand never fathered any children and failed to get an erection even after
ten minutes of fondling by the prostitute he was with the night of his arrest.
His behaviour masturbating on Marcella Claxton and with the 14 year old Tracy
Browne indicates that he couldn’t achieve an erect penis and penetrate
a female in the normal sense.
“The file was given intense consideration (by the Crown Prosecution Service
special case unit in London) but at a conference held in January1993,Detective
Superintendent Trevor Wilkinson and his trusted lieutenant Detective Chief Inspector
Bernard Browse were informed that, in view of the absence of an admission from
the suspect, the evidence was not sufficient to guarantee that Hewlett would
be convicted of Lesley’s murder”
“All the witnesses amassed by Detective Superintendent Trevor Wilkinson’s
team, including the prison inmates, signed statements to support the prosecution
of Raymond Hewlett.”
“Dick Holland in an interview with the Manchester Evening News’
said, ‘I did an honest and professional job. I didn’t stitch up
Stefan Kiszko.’
In July 1994 Detective Superintendent, Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge were
acquitted of framing-up Stefan Kiszko. The following is an extract from INNOCENTS
“In July 1994 Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge, the leading forensic
scientist in the Kiszko case were formally charged with suppressing evidence
in the case against Kiszko, namely the results of scientific tests on semen
taken from Lesley’s clothing and on the semen samples given by Kiszko.
The case against the two men progressed slowly through the Magistrates’
Court at Rochdale, moving inexorably towards a committal and an undoubtedly
high profile trial in the Crown Court. But on May Day 1995 the case was challenged
in the Magistrates’ Court, barristers for both defendants arguing before
the Stipendiary Magistrate. Jane Hayward, that the case was an abuse of process.
Jayne Hayward was a professional magistrate, a lawyer with the knowledge and
experience to consider with care the arguments placed before her. The argument
was that the case should not be allowed to progress any further, but should
be stayed, because the passage of time since the events alleged made a fair
trial impossible. Jayne Hayward listened with care to the arguments on both
sides before ruling that proceedings should be stayed against both Holland and
Outteridge, on the basis that they could not receive a fair trial.”
13 years farther on Ronald is now being managed for a stitch-up and they are
using the most modern scientific evidence of DNA a science which is absolutely
dependant on honest handling.
As in the case of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4 and the Maguire 7 the scientific
evidence is very suspect but because of the nature of that it is often beyond
the capacity of an accused person to challenge it and people believe that it
is solid evidence.
But the slides containing the vital semen samples of the killer have gone missing
and it is my belief that they were destroyed to break the link to Peter Sutcliffe.
Had they been available at the trial of Raymond Hewlett they would have exonerated
him and indeed would have been capable of aiding the prosecution of Dick Holland
and Ronald Outteridge.
The new alleged DNA must come from some part of the killer’s anatomy,
what else only that lost seminal fluid preserved on slides.
How Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean has managed to resurrect this
magical DNA from the lost slides is a mystery that he will have to explain in
court. His poking around forensic science laboratories looking for lost evidence
is something that is far from reassuring in the fight against crime and the
finding of this lost evidence will take some convincing particularly after it
was lost for the trial of Hewlett in 1993 and the others in 1994, particularly
after the way the scientists were exposed as being complicit in concealing evidence
in the cases referred to above.
It is imperative for Ronald to start protesting his innocence right now, rather
than waiting to do that from a prison cell after a guilty verdict and over many
years because he is not just fighting corrupt and lying policemen but an uncaring
and vindictive prosecution team whose only goal is to win a conviction even
if it means hiding vital evidence that would acquit him, not to mention putting
his trust in a judge who may be living in the clouds.
Remember that all the victims of miscarriages of justice in the past believed
that they would be cleared or found to be not guilty by the courts because while
they didn’t trust the police anymore, they trusted the system and the
judges, a system that worked against them.
At all times Ronald should proclaim that he is being framed by corrupt police
for a crime he didn’t commit, because silence on this matter plays into
the hands of those police. That is what they want. Ever since he was arrested
the general public can only assume that he is guilty because of his failure
to protest.
If Ronald says repeatedly and loudly and at every opportunity that he is innocent
and being framed, the general public will take more interest and be more questioning
as to whether he is guilty because the media will report those claims.
Protests of innocence are much stronger than a not guilty plea on its own.
Protests of being framed are unheard of because lawyers would never allow a
client to say that, but this case will be ground breaking because of the wealth
of evidence that is available to prove that claim.
The police case rests with alleged DNA alone and no other evidence, so let
them put their case to the jury with what we know is fabricated DNA and being
spun by a lot of liars, some knowingly and some innocently or recklessly perhaps,
ie by scientists who have unflinching faith in the honesty of policemen and
don’t realize that they are being used by liars whom they trust.
In the defense we can show how fragile and flimsy the whole process is by going
into great detail on how that evidence was found, where it remained in storage
for 31 years, how secure it was, and all the steps that were taken to the point
where a match came on Ronald.
The fact that Ronald amongst many other suspects was swabbed 9 months prior
to a match will weigh heavily in his defense and this stark fact alone is capable
of undermining the authenticity and reliability of that alleged DNA.
Everyone knows that a DNA match can be done in a matter of a few weeks and once
that is matched an arrest is inevitable. Why wait for nearly a year if you have
the hard evidence?
Ronald should also tell how the police tried to damn him with his own family
and friends as they swamped him with blame without any reason.
His defence will lie in undermining the credibility of the police who are accusing
him and he must forcibly contend that the alleged DNA evidence has to be fabricated
by liars.
There could be no other reason because he is innocent. They will not be able
to prove that it is reliable because of the number of hands it has passed through,
the passage of time and the risk of contamination. These three areas are ones
in which a potentially honest mistake can be made but overshadowing that is
the deliberate contamination by corrupt policemen who are bent on trying to
frame him for the murder. That is his defence and the evidence supports that
claim.
Great play will have to be made about the Kiszko case and how it was always
clear that an innocent man was framed by corrupt police, the CPS officials and
defence lawyers were all complicit in their negligence, as of course was the
judge who oversaw the trial.
The book Innocents by Steve Panter of the Manchester Evening News and Jonathan
Rose and Trevor Wilkinson a senior policeman will have to be read by the jury.
That is an imperative, because of the evidence of the failed police attempt
to frame Raymond Hewlett for that same murder.
Anthony Steel’s case can be used as evidence of police frame ups so that
there is no denying that deliberate frame-ups happen. It would be great if we
could locate him.
We must show that these are not mistakes of the judiciary but deliberate crimes
against innocent people who are seen as vulnerable by corrupt policemen. The
term ‘miscarriage of justice’ must be replaced by the term ‘police
crime’ and demands for fresh independent police to oversee the corrupt
police should be made.
Great play has been made about the semen and the low count of sperm
heads in the sample taken from the victim only after Kiszko had spent fifteen
years in jail but one has to wonder whether this semen or seminal fluid also
yielded the blood group of the killer and whether in fact that was the real
reason that the evidence was kept from the jury in the trial of Kiszko. We may
never know this as the evidence has been destroyed for obvious reasons but my
belief is that it matched the disturbed copycat killer Peter Sutcliffe who had
similarly assaulted a fourteen year old girl in Silsden Bradford only a few
months prior to the Molseed murder. This dangerous killer had committed this
crime just across the border within the Yorkshire police area while the investigation
was centred on the Rochdale area in Greater Manchester. That investigation
was under the control of the Yorkshire police who were unfamiliar with the area
but the location of a body determines the police responsibility for the subsequent
investigation. Sutcliffe was known to be very critical of the police and their
methods and was deeply involved in trying to hijack the Ripper investigation
as he engaged in a battle of wits with both the police and the real Ripper,
a battle he lost when he admitted that after the Leach murder he had lost the
battle. His poem titled CLUELESS
and signed “The Streetcleaner” sent to the Sheffield Star shortly
before his arrest sums up his frustration with the police.
K Lintern may be available to show how the police refused to investigate her
evidence about the unsolved murder of Carole Wilkinson now that Steel has been
exonerated and it has been recognized that he was framed.
The jury will have to read my book The Real Yorkshire Ripper and related articles
about John Humble.
We will produce Humble’s
letter to the jury and compare it to the Ripper’s letters and discuss
the Humble frame up.
|
The Ripper’s handwriting |
 |
Humble’s handwriting |
Judith Ward will be asked to give evidence against the police and show how
George Oldfield framed her for multiple murders.
Marcella Claxton will be in court to give her account of her treatment. She
no longer believes that she is a Ripper victim after reading my book.
|
Judith Ward framed for murder by |
Anthony Steel served 20 years in jail for |
Michael Bilton’s article
stating how a perplexed but honest policeman Detective Alan Foster refused to
burn all the evidence that he was ordered to do by the chief Constable will
be sub poenaed to give that evidence in court. This honest cop was ordered to
burn all the evidence gathered against Peter Sutcliffe. Does that not tell a
story that they were covering their tracks in case of any appeal or reinvestigation
of the case. The Molseed evidence was similarly destroyed deliberately to conceal
the truth.
Basically the defence of Ronald will lie in undermining the credibility of the
West Yorkshire police who prosecute this case.
Their evidence will be seen as worthless fabricated evidence and they will be
effectively on trial.
There are a lot of decent and good cops out there and they need to see the light.
We will be calling for the arrest of Max McLean and his assistant and they should
face charges of conspiring to pervert the course of justice just like Dick Holland
was.
Ronald does not need to talk about his own background but confine his defence
to attacking their credibility which is threadbare and totally exposed and the
vast majority of the British public now have little trust in them in any case.
Sutcliffe was seen loitering on the Ravenscliffe Estate in Bradford on numerous
occasions, and visited Kay Lintern’s house, which is located just opposite
Carol Wilkinson’s home. This was reported to detective Danny Bolton in Bradford
police station but he failed to act on the information.
For this full Report
By Mark Metcalf. go to articles and click on the Sutcliffe article.
‘Was Peter Sutcliffe responsible for the murder of Carol
Wilkinson in Bradford in 1977’?
|
Carol Wilkinson murder unsolved |
Peter Sutcliffe |
In 2005 news leaked from Broadmoor mental hospital
that Sutcliffe has sensationally claimed that he wrote a book about his crimes
and he is adamant that he is not the Ripper and says that he didnt do all the
murders but his book will never see the light of day for obvious reasons. Meanwhile
the real Ripper remains free while the police are still engaged in shoring up
their greatest blunder in criminal history.
This web page has been created by Noel O’Gara the
author of the book the Real Yorkshire Ripper to help Mr Castree and to inform
the public of the serious corruption of the justice system that he has encountered.
My colleague Patrick Cullinane arranged a visit to Ronald Castree so that we
may convey these details to him.
Patrick Cullinane
|
A
protracted exchange of emails and phone calls by Patrick Cullinane with Armley prison officers eventually led to a meeting between Mr Castree and Patrick and myself being arranged for 28th August 2007. |
Ronald told us that a bail application was due to be heard shortly and was
hoping that it would succeed so that he could prepare his defence in freedom.
As a result of our meeting Mr Castree signed an authorisation giving Patrick
Cullinane authority to legally represent him and said that if the current bail
application is rejected that Patrick should then take over immediately his legal
affairs.
|
This
is Mr Cullinane’s bail application on behalf of Ronald Castree and was submitted to the court prior to the hearing of the scheduled bail application by Mr Castree’s then lawyerMr Stephen Couch. It was destined never to be put to the court by a conspiracy of the judges. |
Authority signed by Ronald Castree during a prison visit making
P Cullinane his legal advocate. This was witnessed by the author Noel O’Gara.
It was an authorisation that alarmed the judges who took steps to frustrate
Castree’s wishes.
Patrick Cullinane, George Westcott and the writer Noel O’Gara
waited in the hall of the court to hear this second bail application on behalf
of Ronald Castree. There were two policemen waiting outside the court which
had a sign hanging on the door with the word COURTROOM SEALED. When the court
usher opened the door about five minutes before the appointed time, the policemen
entered and we followed them in. There were two young female journalists already
sitting just opposite the area of 12 seats reserved for the public. The courtroom
is a main hall with an elevated podium on which the judge sits and under his
gaze lies the well of the court which is not visible from the public gallery
so that the lawyers cannot be observed by the public. The defendant is brought
in by a back door in chains and sits directly in front of the judge about twenty
five feet away and with the lawyers in the middle and he cannot be seen unless
one stood up and leaned in over the partition. The public and press gallery
is a small room on one side of that main hall. It is designed so that the public
have a very limited view of proceedings.
We sat in the front row of seats and immediately one of the policemen
asked us to vacate them as he said he was reserving them for the family of the
victim. We refused to move as it would be impossible to observe anything from
the back seats and Patrick would have no chance to make his application from
that position. As it was we were unable to see the judge unless we stood up,
so we told the policeman that we would not move and we had a right to come and
sit where we chose as we were interested in this case. I asked him for his name
and he refused to give it just saying that he was a detective in the West Yoorkshire
force. Then I asked him if he would be interested in knowing the wherabouts
of the Real Yorkshire Ripper Billy Tracey and he wouldnt answer me. Shortly
after that the family members came in with more policemen including Max McLean
who sat with them at the back of the small public gallery and then the judge
entered and the case commenced and it became obvious that the lawyers had already
been in the well of the court as were the journalists while it was supposedly
sealed.
Mr Stephen Couch barrister for Mr Castree who replaced Jonathan
Rose submitted his bail application in quiet tones before justice McKinnon and
such a weak and half hearted argument one would be hard pressed to replicate.
Couch’s application had already been lodged in court and no doubt the judge
had read it before he entered and had his replying judgement already written
down for a later delivery, but the show was put on for the consumption
of the press, the family members of Lesely Molseed and the wider public.
Judge McKinnon then read out a long harangue about the seriousness
of the charges and actually blamed
Ronald Castree for contributing to Stefan Kiszko’s long sentence in prison without
a word of blame for the judge, the scientists, the CPS lawyers who prepared
the case and police who framed him and denied him his basic human rights.
Then he rejected the application and Castree was taken immediately from the
court without another word.
If ever there was a prejudiced
judge hearing a bail application this surely was evidence of it and judge McKinnon
will forever have it on his record.
Patrick stood up immediately he had finished and asked the judge
if he had read his application and he retorted that he saw it and he stated
“you have no standing in this court” and he got up and left the room.
If McKinnon had been an honest judge he would have recalled Castree immediately
and asked him what was the status of Patrick Cullinane but he didnt want to
do that because he is engaged in the conspiracy to frameCastree.
Max McLean and another six foot six plain clothes colleague
stood up when the Molseeds left the room and I said to him “Max You should
be arrested” and Patrick repeated it. Max didnt respond and left the room.
Outside the courtroom we went to the court office and Patrick
asked the lady if he could put in an emergency application for bail for his
client and she said it was not possible as it would have to be one month more
before another application could be lodged.
Then we returned to the court and I took out my mobile phone
to take a photo of the group of policemen who had been in court as they were
still standing near the courtroom. I held it up and took one picture from a
distance of about thirty feet and looked at it and it was impossible to identify
anyone on that small picture. That was the only photo I took and later when
we were down in the office again that policeman who now identified himself as
Detective Steven Ridge asked us to come into the office and when there he said
we had been taking photos and that was contempt of court.
We all denied it and then when I saw he was serious I told him
that I took one picture and he was looking at me as I took it. He later stated
in court in evidence that he saw me take a picture. Another policeman came to
his assistance and they searched us and found a dictaphone in Patrick’s pocket.
I again told them both that I wrote a book entitled the Real Yorkshire Ripper
and gave them a brief summary of the allegations in it and asked them if they
would like to know where the real Ripper is right now. They didnt want to know
anything about it. Three of us were arrested for contempt of court and brought
upstairs where we were handcuffed and taken to a cell to await our fate. Myself,
Patrick Cullinane who is the authorised legal caseworker for Ronald Castree
and George Westcott, a man from Somerset who read my book and is concerned that
the real Ripper be apprehended and for that reason he accompanied us to the
bail application in Bradford.
We were held for most of the day in a cell over the court and
all our possessions were taken from us immediately including our phones pens
papers etc. We were taken in handcuffs to the court at about 4.0pm that afternoon
and judge Gullick the Recorder for Bradford sat facing us about twenty five
feet away. We were behind a bulletproof glass screen and he stated that ‘we
had been found to be recording and taking photographs in court and that is a
very serious crime punishable by up to two years inprisonment.’ Patrick
said that he should stand down as he had a conflict of interest and he rejected
that. I stated that we had done nothing wrong and he rejected that also. George
Westcott had done nothing other than that he happened to be with us and judge
Gullick trampled on his rights also. He ordered that we be remanded in custody
and should appear in his court next morning and he would deal with the case
next afternoon when his case load was finished. He advised us to agree to accept
legal aid and we said that we felt it unnecessary. He was very threatening in
his tone and manner and it was obvious that he knew our involvement in the Castree
case and he knew all about me and my book the Real Yorkshire Ripper because
I had written to him telling him and I had also sent him a copy of the letter
I sent to Ronald Castree which is reproduced earlier in this web page. Patrick
had sent him a submission two weeks earlier which included this web page so
there is no doubt that he was well briefed on us and our involvement in helping
Ronald Castree to prevent him from turning into another Stefan Kiszko. Gullick
had been the judge who remanded Castree in court back in November and he had
also rejected his bail application put by Jonathan Rose in April, so clearly
he knew all about us and our allegations about the framing of Castree and for
those reasons he should have stood down in this case.
judge Gullick
Next day we were brought to court after a night in Keighley
police station where we had to lay on a concrete floor on a tiny plastic mattress
with food that a dog would not eat.. Enough said about that. We were taken in
a horse box style wagon to Bradford court and held in a smaller cell from where
we were taken in handcuffs to see Gullick and inform him that we would accept
his lawyers. Then he handed us a charge sheet unsigned and which he had made
up and a copy was passed back to each of us. We had to wait in that cell all
day without food until Gullick was ready and about an hour before that we were
taken to meet the lawyers who were surprised that such a big deal was being
made of such a trivial matter. They all assured us that we would be released
that afternoon and at least we would get bail so that we could prepare a defence
if they wanted to take it further. They could see that our human rights had
been violated by Gullick but they were too much afraid of him to broach that
in court. After all they have a career in those court rooms and falling foul
of a senior judge would not help that one bit.
Then they went to meet the policemen and judge Gullick and when
they met us a second time the story was very different. They were told that
one photo was taken by me with my mobile phone outside the court room and I
insisted that this did not amount to any contempt of the court. Patrick Cullinane
told his legal team that Gullick had a conflict of interest and another judge
should be enlisted. They returned to the court without us and then we were taken
to them a third time for further consultaiton. Then we were taken to the court
room and the case got underway with Gullick directing the proceedings. The barristers
were in awe of the judge and mine never mentioned that I was the author of the
book ‘The Real Yorkshire Ripper’ despite my instructing her to say that. Detective
Ridge perjured himself by stating on oath twice that we had been seen filming
in court. Our lawyers never challenged him on that and we were not asked to
speak and were kept outside the proceedings in reality.
The second policeman detective constable Sherwood from the North
Yorkshire force came to the stand to give evidence and the judge told him not
to bother swearing in and read out his notes of sergeant Ridge’s evidence and
then asked him if that was correct. Sherwood said that was it and he was dismissed.
Both policemen had been waiting in the court room together and that is a breach
of process that Gullick oversaw. The barristers made a few observations saying
that we had been punished enough. The judge retired and when he returned he
read out a long judgement emphasising the seriousness of the crime and how sinister
it was that a tape recording could be used for many other purposes. Then he
accepted that George Westcott should be freed as there was no evidence of crime
against him. He sentenced me to fourteen days in jail. Then he launched into
a rant about how he wanted to take Patrick Cullinane out ot the way of interfering
with Ronald Castree’s trial and to achieve that he sentenced him to four months
imprisonment. Castree’s trial is scheduled to start on 22nd October before judge
Openshaw and it was reported that it will take 9 weeks. This is more evidence
that they will just muddy the waters talking about matters that are only designed
to confuse the jury when we all know that if they had real solid DNA that could
not be assailed as contaminated or fabricated then they would be able to produce
that to a juey in hours rather than days or months as they have planned.
Such summary justice was a shock to us all but it vividly showed
us how the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire 7, Stefan Kiszko and many
others could be framed up by a judge who was clearly prejudiced against them.
This was a criminal judge in action who abused his position of authority and
perverted the process of justice to satisfy his own prejudices. He accepted
the lies of the police and treated us as criminals when we were trying to prevent
a miscarriage of justice from taking place.
Stephen Gullick is a corrupt judge of the worst kind who is
a disgrace to the bench and by his actions he has brought shame on the whole
British judiciary. The recording of the record is simply a record of the true
words spoken in the court and one can only wonder why he would regard that as
a crime. What crime is he trying to hide? The crime of framing Ronald Castree!
Gullick has demonstrated that he is engaged in that conspiracy between judge
McKinnon, the West Yorkshire police and the Crown prosecution service who are
bent on framing Castree for that murder to conceal the many other cover ups
that the Ripper case threatens to expose. A judge who facilitates corrupt policemen
who lie on oath in court and who suppresses true facts and prevents the defendant
from talking is a corrupt man and stands exposed for his corruption here. A
judge who is not a barrier to prevent corrupt and lying policmen from making
false charges against a person is worse than those liars. Such a man is judge
Stephen Gullick of Bradford crown court. the O J Simpson case for example demonstrates
how the cameras and recorders are allowed in the American courts. At least the
USA are not actively trying to cover up the goings on in court. In Britain there
is much to hide as the convictions of those miscarriages already referred to
shows. The courts never apologised to the innocent people wrongly convicted
but referred to them as unsafe when they were in fact deliberate frame ups and
the judges failed miserably to do their job.
The experience of our own miscarriage
of justice has shown us vividly how corrupt judges and policemen can pervert
justice and do grave damage to the whole system. They turned a simple matter
of recording the goings on in their court into a crime and deprived us of our
basic human rights and they committed crimes against us by perverting that system
while they were busy trying to frame an innocent man, Ronald Castree, for a
murder that they desperately need to have solved.
Judge Gullick has a record of
misguided judgements such as the John
Roberts murder where he gave a killer less than two years for murder
and he sentenced Patrick Cullinane to four months for recording his own corrupt
practices in court.
All this and the real Ripper still walking the streets of London
and the real bombers still at large but nobody in authority wants to know because
of the way the system works. They are too busy trying to deal with cases that
need to be solved and the Molseed murder is one pressing need. Thats why the
police had chaperoned the family into court and use them to convince the general
public that the killer has been found. These people had only some years earlier
threatened
to sue Raymond Hewlett because the police baulked at charging him with the murder.
The police knew he was innocent but they had already convinced them that they
knew he was the guilty party but didnt have enough evidence to charge him and
the DNA was lost. Now in 2007 they clapped hands and sighed with relief behind
us when they heard judge McKinnon refuse bail to Ronald Castree.
Lets hope that judge Openshaw is not as corrupt as his colleagues
judges Gullick and McKinnon who clearly are conspiring together to ensure Castree’s
conviction for the police by denying him bail and thereby giving him a fair
chance to prepare a defence.
The internet is the weapon that will ensure that they cannot
hide their crimes. It is the new court of public opinion that scares the evil
doers who need to hide their crimes by preventing photography and recording
in their courts where they manipulate events to get their planned conviction.
I sincerely hope judge Openshaw had acquainted himself with it so that he can
study this web site and look at the real evidence although he has admitted to
being a dummy when it comes to computers. click on his name.
judge
Openshaw
I received a letter on the 18th October from Adrian Marshall, the manager of
Bradford crown court informing me that judge Openshaw, the judge assigned to
preside over the Castree case, has made an order that I am barred from entering
Bradford crown court until 31st December 2007.
I wonder what the judge is trying to hide from the public and what crime I committed
to get such an order?
Why would he do this to a citizen of the Irish republic?
Castree’s trial is due to commence next Monday and now I cant attend. What a
shame as I am a witness who could clear Castree’s name and now the judge wont
have it.
By stopping me attending the trial of Ronald Castree, judge Openshaw is perverting
the course of justice and it is proof that he is engaged in a conspiracy with
his colleagues judges Gullick and McKinnon to enable the rogue cop Max McLean
to stitch up an innocent man with fake DNA.
If Openshaw were an honest man why would he be afraid of someone’s evidence?
Surely a judge has the job of encouraging evidence to come forward rather than
stifle it?
These are trying times and while the judges control and manage their victims
in their courts, they themselves to be on trial out here in the great court
of public opinion where all evidence can be put forward.
Patrick Cullinane had a similar letter on 19th October just three days before
Castree’s trial is due to commence. He will now be confined to the court appointed
lawyer who will walk him into jail just as Stefan Kiszko’s lawyer and others
did. The judges will say he is legaly represented and that ensures he will get
a fair trial.
This is the letter and it is clear evidence of judge Openshaw’s
involvement in that conspiracy of perversion of the system of justice which
is orchestrated to criminally frame Ronald Castree for murder in order to cover
up the crimes of other senior policemen who framed Peter Sutcliffe as the Yorkshire
Ripper and allowed the Real Ripper to remain free
to kill again.
Judge Openshaw, judge Gullick and judge McKinnon have the blood
of innocent victims of the real Ripper Billy Tracey on their hands because of
this abuse of their positions and they will be held to account for that in due
course.
|
Patrick
Cullinane wrote to Ronald Castree’s solicitor as follows. |
Ronald Castree’s trial opened on Monday morning 22nd October. One man who read
this web site attended the court to see for himself and was refused admission
to the court building. He phoned to me tell me so that day.
The
BBC reported events on their web site that afternoon with the quote “The
judge urged the jury not to look at press reports and particularly the internet
about the case. He said there was good reason to believe someone was putting
“disinformation on the internet about this case“.
Openshaw calls the true facts “disinformation” but he has deliberately
ordered Castree’s chosen legal adviser not to attend at Bradford court until
the trial is over or face imprisonment thereby ensuring that the facts exposed
here on the internet dont get to the jury. Surely if the contents of this web
page were lies or even actionable, Openshaw would have named the author and
he could have allowed the jury of intelligent people to make up their minds
about the credibility of that information. He cant face the truth and he has
perverted the course of justice to help those policemen to frame an innocent
man. The liar calls the truth “disinformation” because it doesnt suit
his concept of the outcome.
At the outset of the trial of Castree the CPS brought before the jury an allegation
that if it were made in any court room anywhere in the world it would have resulted
in a mistrial. They accused him of a seperate sexual assault on a 9 year old
girl which is alleged to have taken place 9 months after the Molseed murder.
Castree told the writer that that “assault” which was not a violent
attack nor a serious one and he was taken to the magistrates court and he was
not imprisoned for it. The CPS make it look as if it were a violent rape that
took place when it was no more than a feeble attempt to touch the girl in his
car and she ran away and told her parents who reported the matter to the police.
Now in Bradford court it has taken on the semblance of a Ripper attack gone
wrong. The
Rochdale Observer reported it as follows.
Only in Britain could such misinformation called evidence be produced in a
trial for murder and it further proves the bad faith of judge Openshaw and how
they are determined to break all the rules to frame this man. If that happened
in Ireland or the USA or most European courts it would result in an immediate
mistrial application and indeed no judge would entertain that sort of innuendo
in a murder trial which should be tried on the evidence relating to that crime
if they indeed have any real evidence other than smears and associated or similar
but much less serious crimes that the accesed was involved in. They put the
strongest possible connotations of criminal intent on these allegations to blacken
the accused before the trial gets really underway.
RONALD CASTREE’S ALIBI
The greatest and best defence and proof of any accused person’s innocence is
his/her alibi. Everybody other than the killer of Lesley Molseed had an alibi
that would prove their innocence. Clearly Ronald Castree was somewhere and if
he could establish where exactly he was at the specific time of Lesley Molseed’s
abduction he would most likely have witnesses to vouch for his presence with
them and that would free him from any suspicion whatever. He may have been driving
a fare to Manchester airport in his taxi at that time or playing pool in his
local bar feeling dejected because his wife was having an affair and had just
given birth to his first born child Jason and he was unsure if he was the father.
Wherever he happened to be he would have had witnesses to vouch for his presence
there, but after 32 years how could any accused man produce an alibi? Most people
can barely remember where they were one week past at any precise time so for
a man to be accused of a crime so long ago and because he cannot be expected
to have an alibi for where he actually was at the crucial time that is all the
more reason to have overwhelming evidence proving beyond any doubt that he committed
the crime.
CASTREE’S WIFE’S EVIDENCE
His ex wife Beverly was invited by the police to give evidence against her
ex husband and the main feature of that evidence was that he was an unfaithful
husband and she remembered him visiting
her in hospital between 6.0 p.m. and 8.0 p.m. It is just not credible that
she could remember the times he visited her in that hospital 32 years ago but
because she clearly hates him now, that would explain her amazing recollection
of times in her burning desire to hurt him. If she had the assistance of a diary,
her recollections may have been more credible but she didnt have that and the
defence failure to raise these caveats to the jury shows their lack of awareness
of the lies being said in court.
Her evidence is very suspect being that she is an ex wife who clearly now hates
her ex husband but her assertion that Ronald was not the father of that baby
demonstrates that she was also an unfaithful party in the marriage. Not alone
that but the son should be DNA tested by Castree’s lawyers to verify that claim
because of the strong resemblance between Jason and Ronald.
Ronald and Beverley Castree
If indeed Ronald Castree proved to be the father of Jason by means of a DNA
test, that would exhonerate him also because the evidence produced at the Kiszko
trial showed that the semen was at the lowest end of the scale in a sperm count.
Kiszko was infertile and could produce no sperm. Yet he was stitched up by the
police, the CPS, the scientists, the lawyers and the judge who all knew there
were sperm heads in the semen. Now they are claiming that these sperm heads
were left by the killer and they have identified DNA from them, yet Kiszko could
never produce sperm heads and they knew that all along while he was in prison
protesting his innocence. Their
credibility in accusing Ronald Castree is shattered by their own evidence of
their crime against Kiszko.
|
Communication |
Julian Goose QC for the CPS revealed that Lesley’s
clothing was destroyed in 1985. That raises
the question as to why the
clothes were destroyed and the tapes which would have been all stored
together were retained. Stefan Kiszko was proclaiming his innocence from jail
through his mother and aunt and they were being listened to increasingly by
1985. Somebody in the forensic laboratory made a conscious decision to destroy
crime scene evidence and they appeared to have been selective in what they destroyed
if we are to believe them. That in itself is highly irregular and raises a question
over the motive behind the decision to destroy it. Presumably there are records
showing the order and the person who carried out that order to destroy the clothes
and keep the tapes. This action raises many doubts over the credibility of those
keepers of the evidence and their motivation for its destruction and the possibility
that the tapes may in fact have been fabricated to frame Ronald Castree. When,
after Kiszko’s release and death, Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge were charged
with fabricating the evidence in Kiszko’s trial, the fact that it was destroyed
played a large part in having the charges dismissed. How could any jury have
faith in what these people say they have done, now with Mr Castree pleading
innocence and the only evidence they can produce against him is these suspect
tapes. With those tapes as their principal evidence supported by allegations
made by a scorned wife who hates him and evidence of a sexual attempt on a girl
of a similar age to the victim where there was no violence whatever involved
and the girl ran away from him and told her parents who in turn told the police,
that amounts to a very flimsy case for the prosecution and the proven acts of
framing Kiszko in the past shows their bad faith and propensity to fabricate
and embellish facts. No jury of ordinary people would believe that they have
solid evidence that proves that Ronald Castree abducted, masturbated over and
then brutally stabbed Lesley Molseed based on their weasel words and groundless
accusations.
One simple example of the way they embellish facts is their description of
the sex
attack on the young girl with which he was charged. Castree
was not jailed for that assault so clearly the magistrate recognised that it
was a relatively low sexual assault in the scale of such things on a young girl
and the proof is that she ran away from him before anything happened. If one
reads the reports by Julian Goose one could be forgiven for thinking that Castree
had stalked this girl, abducted her and violently just stopped short of murdering
the child. Goose talks of the propensity of Castree to be sexually attracted
to young girls as if it were similar to the crime of masturbating over a girl
and then violently stabbing her to death twelve times. The Molseed murder was
the work of a psychopathic lunatic who had serious sexual problems. The crimes
are worlds apart.
After the first week of Ronald Castree’s trial much information has come to
hand and now the site will be updated as the information unfolds.
31st October update.
If Ronald Castree was such a depraved and mentally disturbed killer as the
man who violently stabbed Lesley Molseed twelve times in the front back and
neck after masturbating over her tiny body how could such a lunatic not come
to the attention of the police in the 30 years since and how could he rear a
family, hold down a job, get a divorce and take care of a second family and
never show a violent streak ever since that alleged show of madness?
Peter Sutcliffe on the other hand went on to murder and assault many more innocent
women and became the mentally disturbed copycat killer of the Ripper and ultimately
confessed to being responsible for all the Ripper killings as well as his own,
in a deal with a corrupt policeman, superintendent Dick Holland, that same cop
who framed Stefan Kiszko for the Molseed murder in 1976. Holland died earlier
this year.
Castree told myself and Patrick Cullinane, and his counsel repeated it in court
that he claimed that the police told him they would stitch him up for the Molseed
murder as far back as 1979/1980. There were several references in court to his
concerns about this fear.
When Kiszko was exhonerated of the Molseed murder in 1992 then it became an
unsolved murder.
Lets look at the police options. Round up the usual suspects is their methodology.
They only have the guys they know about to work on. A criminal who hasn’t
come to the attention of the police or is unknown to them, can never be a suspect
for any crime.
They knew Raymond Hewlett and Robert Black, both convicted paedophiles and that
was the kind of profile they were looking for with this unsolved murder.
They also knew Peter Sutcliffe and they knew that I had been campaigning by
writing to and phoning the media about the now unsolved murder of Lesley Molseed
and that I was alleging that Peter Sutcliffe was her killer.
It became necessary to protect their prized prisoner Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire
Ripper from such intense scrutiny by leaving this glaring murder unsolved, a
murder which had so many connecting links to him. Something had to be done to
solve it.
Who could they blame? Who could they pin it on? Who could they stitch up for
it?
Ronald Castree had a conviction for a sexual assault against a 9 year old girl
who like Molseed was also a bit retarded and she lived half a mile from the
Molseed home. Castree lived a mile away. She had been taken by him to a disused
building and he started to touch her up when she bolted and told her parents
before any actual sexual assault happened. But it was to be the start of something
big.
Just as Stefan Kiszko was reported for flashing at a few young girls who told
that lie and as a result of that Kiszko came to the attention of the police
and was arrested, now Ronald Castree stood out from the rest of the residents
of Rochdale as a likely mark who would fit the bill as the killer of Lesley
Molseed if only they had some forensic to link him to the crime. This form marked
him out as a vulnerable patsy but they had no evidence to link him to the Molseed
murder and so that would have to be engineered.
The police had fingered him since 1979 and that whiff of suspicion stayed with
Castree now when in the year 1999 Detective Max McLean was the head of the Halifax
division of the West Yorkshire police.
‘Lesley’s
clothing was destroyed in 1985, but scientists examining
the adhesive tapes in 1999 were able to extract a number of sperm heads from
which a clear DNA profile could be obtained’
This quote is taken from the above report in the Yorkshire Post on the second
day of Castree’s trial.
Two glaring questions spring to mind. Who authorized and why was the clothing
which contained vital evidence in the case of an unsolved murder destroyed in
1985 and how can we now be sure that the adhesive tapes allegedly retained were
in fact authentic and should they have any credibility? Surely the clothes were
the main evidence worth preserving.
Secondly, the admission that sperm heads or tadpoles as they appear under the
microscope were still retained on the tapes is solid proof that the police and
the scientists knew for all those years that Kiszko was innocent because he
was incapable of producing any such material and they accept that.
It became necessary to solve this murder which took place just on the Yorkshire
side of the border with Greater Manchester and Max McLean was the man to do
it. He would frame up their candidate, Ronald Castree, with the aid of the new
science of DNA combined with Castree’s past record of the assault on the
other girl and that would convince any jury and guarantee a conviction.
McLean needed a sample of Castree’s DNA. It was an easy matter to get
a sample of his DNA or even his semen if we are to believe his wife that he
was a philanderer. Max got it by some underhanded method and he was later to
ask Castree how could his semen get on to the clothes of Lesley Molseed.
Once the decision was made to frame Castree it was an easy matter for McLean
to plant his DNA on one of the tapes of evidence and then ask the forensic scientists
to look again at the possibility of finding DNA on those tapes with the benefit
of their new technology.
The trap was set.
But it wasn’t to be sprung until absolutely necessary.
It is also easy to see how Goose could be so confidant that the DNA found matched
with Castree’s and spoke of a billion to one chance of a mistake.
The scientists who would discover the new DNA would believe that they found
a profile of the killer. In time Max would be able to grab Castree knowing that
he had him this time. But the scam had many flaws and opened many possibilities
that we can now examine.
Had Noel O’Gara not known that Billy Tracey was the real Yorkshire Ripper
and that insight gave him the certainty that Peter Sutcliffe was not the Ripper,
everyone would have believed that Sutcliffe was the Ripper and that the police
had simply made mistakes in not arresting him sooner. Equally the links between
Sutcliffe and the Molseed murder were so compelling that I could easily conclude
that Stefan Kiszko was innocent when his claims of his innocence first came
to my attention. The logical flow of things was that Kiszko had been stitched
up and as we can all see now, that was the case even though the police have
never admitted that.
Someone within the authorities was responsible for making the decision to charge
Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge and that gives me hope that there are some
honest people there and that hope springs eternally. They are not all corrupt
but one rogue can bring a lot of people with him because people are so fearful
to contradict or expose him even if they know he is a rogue.
Max could now reopen the investigation knowing that he would get him man in
time.
In 2001 he arranged with the BBC for a documentary to be
made highlighting the fact that they now have a DNA profile of the killer using
new technology and it is an easy matter to eliminate any suspect so he invited
people to phone in with any suspicions to that end.
Max’s words need to be highlighted
The worst thing that anyone could do is not report their suspicions to us
when the elimination process is so simple and so final
Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean
Empty words indeed because when they did take a saliva swab from Ronald Castree
in October 2005 and some three years later it was to be yet another full year
before they arrested him on 6th November 2006.
So what happened to the frame up plan during that year? Did Max get cold feet?
Or did Colin Cramphorn the new chief constable of West Yorkshire police get
to know of his plan and hold him off?
Max always knew that Castree was in their trap and he could spring it anytime
he chose. Castree was aware that they had targeted him but he didn’t know
how they had trapped him.
Giving McLean the benefit of the doubt that he might be an honest cop, I had
written to this police superintendent personally when his name was first mentioned
in the media, but he never even acknowledged my letters.
In
this report the BBC were told that the evidence was destroyed
in the 1970’s while at Castree’s trial they say that it was destroyed
in 1985.
More lies from the conspirators. Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we
practice to deceive.
They also for the first time used the media to report that Peter Sutcliffe was
eliminated and that was the main reason for arranging this elaborate stitch
up in the first place. Max could now say that with confidence knowing that Castree’s
DNA which he had planted under the nose of the scientists was yet to be identified
publicly, and he could bide his time on that one.
The really important matter had been fixed that Sutcliffe was not Molseed’s
killer. Stiching up Castree could wait.
But I wouldn’t wear the assurances about Sutcliffe being eliminated and
I was telling the media that it was untrue and putting the facts on the internet
and in newsgroups and I was stating that McLean was lying.
Meanwhile I was making a lot of progress with the help of some new found friends
who had read my book and who could see the full picture of the conspiracy of
deception and cover up. These were Patrick Cullinane, George Westcott and several
others who actively helped me to expose the cover up. I also got more active
with friends on the internet and in newsgroups to explain this unbelievable
and bizarre story.
On 23rd October 2006 at 1.0 a m I spoke to Mike Mendoza on Talk Sport, UK national
radio. Mike had an audience of hundreds of thousands of listeners. This was
the first time that any national medium in the UK published my allegations and
Mike gave me enough time to explain the story and he was supportive because
he had studied my web site. He believed me that Sutcliffe was not responsible
for all the murders at least.
One week later on 30th October and the anniversary of the murder of Wilma McCann,
my colleagues and I organized a press conference in the Merrion hotel in Leeds
city centre and that was attended by Richard McCann, the son of the Ripper’s
first victim Wilma McCann. It was attended by 85 year old Ron Warren, the Deputy
Chairman of the West Yorkshire police authority at the time of the Ripper hunt
and Ron told the audience in no uncertain terms that the police knew that there
were two killers involved in the Ripper frame before the arrest of Sutcliffe.
He was interviewed by Calender, a news magazine on Yorkshire TV and repeated
that statement and for the first time since the conviction of Sutcliffe, they
broadcast that there were two killers in the Ripper hunt.
We had the help of a London bus which drove all around Leeds and Bradford honking
a siren for two days with big banners saying that SUTCLIFFE WAS A COPYCAT KILLER
and displaying other newspaper headlines of the period.
People were taking notice and the police were clearly getting worried and giving
the bus a wide berth.
We visited the chief constable’s office in Wakefield and pressed home
our demands to reopen the Ripper investigation.
In less that one week Cramphorn gave McLean the nod to arrest Ronald Castree.
They had been sitting on his DNA for more than twelve months but were hesitant
to move against him because of all the holes in their case.
This
report was published on 4th October 2005 and if you read
it, you can see that Max McLean was brimming with confidence in his strong belief
that he would catch the killer with his new DNA, ace in the hole, evidence.
Although 250 people had reported various suspects to the police as a result
of the Crimewatch documentary nearly three years before, nobody had reported
Ronald Castree yet. The police didn’t even have to check out the people
reported as suspects but nobody only the senior police knew that.
Imagine the concern of Ronald Castree who had been convicted for a minor sex
assault of a nine year old girl close to where Lesley lived and who had been
beaten up by police and threatened by them that they would stitch him up for
that murder. The net was closing and the police were coming under increasing
pressure to solve that murder.
Earlier in the year they had successfully convicted John Humble as the hoaxer.
He had cooperated because he believed the promise that he would get a light
sentence for this cooperation. He was deceived in this but being an ex convict
and knowing how the police can so easily stitch up an ex con, he knew that there
was no way out for him.
Castree’s comments relayed by his counsel in court show his concern at
this impending stitch up.
On the first day of the trial judge Openshaw
warned the jury about the internet, but now the reader can
be the judge of what he was trying to keep from them because this is the court
of public opinion and everyone can be a juror. Openshaw has much to hide.
When
retired Ronald Outteridge took the stand as a witness for
the prosecution he clearly was flustered and remembering how he almost got jail
for framing Stefan Kiszko, Outteridge baulked and put a serious doubt into the
evidence against Castree. He, more than anyone else knew what evidence was available
and what was destroyed and perhaps he knows that the lot of it was destroyed
which would show him that the police had planted the stuff with Castree’s
DNA. His suggestion that the DNA falls far short of incriminating Castree cast
a serious doubt over the DNA and at least he was not going to help frame another
innocent man for the same murder.
It is almost certain that he had read my postings about himself on the internet.
Significantly the report stated.
The jury also heard that, at a
cold case review of the murder in October 2001, Mr Outteridge
said it could not be proved that someone who matched the DNA taken from Lesley’s
clothes had murdered her.
I would venture to suggest that Outteridge even then knew that they were planning
to frame another innocent man and baulked even then. The BBC failed to mention
this in their report.
The other scientist Dr Gemma Escott. said that she found two DNA profiles on
the tapes. She said one was the victim’s and the other was the killer’s
and that she
had eliminated Stefan Kiszko.
She said that Kiszko could not have been the donor of the semen. This is all
very perplexing because she is saying that it is semen they are looking at or
specifically sperm heads or tadpoles as the ordinary person can identify them.
This is another admission that the scientists knew that Kiszko could not have
been the killer right from the start. Her choice of words ie ‘donor’
is a classic understatement. DNA technology was not needed to prove this because
children in a science laboratory can see tadpoles in semen under an ordinary
microscope.
Her next statement is even more puzzling about vaginal and anal sex when all
the evidence adduced states that the killer masturbated on the victim.
She said she extracted a DNA profile from the tapes in 2000 as part of the cold
case review referred to.
Outteridge, who knew better, said that that did not prove that the DNA came
from the killer while she appears to be the one who found what Max planted in
the residue. No scrutiny has been given to the quality of the profile or the
extent of it and that is a failure of Rodney Jameson who has not challenged
this flakey evidence one bit. Contamination of the evidence is so easy and one
has only to breathe on it to contaminate it. Why was there no DNA from the victims
mother and father who handled Lesley’s clothes or from all the others
who could have touched her prior to her murder? Why did they only find Ronald
Castree’s DNA and no other person’s when so many others came into
contact with them?
Why was Rodney Jameson so silent on all this? Is he a real advocate or is he
complicit in this frame up or simply incompetent?
The
Halifax courier gave a more comprehensive report of proceedings.
They reveal that the killer pulled down her knickers and then
after masturbating he pulled them back up again leaving traces of semen on the
inside of them. Sutcliffe groped his other victims leaving scratches
on them when he attacked them and that meticulous behaviour is not mentioned
in any of the other reports of this trial. Sutcliffe sexually assaulted Anna
Rogulsky in Keightley in July that same year and he interfered
with her underwear and left scratches on her stomach. By the time she was visited
by police in hospital it was just considered a drunken night time brawl and
the evidence of semen was not there. Such a nutter as would masturbate over
a woman whom he had battered to the ground was unheard of then. Similarly one
month later Sutcliffe attacked Olive
Smelt, this time in Halifax and there were scratches on
her stomach also consistent with him groping her and masturbating. Her underwear
was in place when she recovered but in the confusion of an ambulance taking
a victim of an assault to hospital and the nursing staff helping her to get
her to a bed and given medical assistance those people would not be thinking
that she was the victim of a raving lunatic who was to become the copycat to
the Yorkshire Ripper. By the time police came to investigate the assault all
traces of semen would be gone and any on the road where she was assaulted would
be washed away by the rain. In those early days before the word Ripper was even
coined these were common or garden assaults thought to be drink related and
not connected.
Later that same month of August 1975 Peter Sutcliffe sexually assaulted 14
year old Tracy
Brown on a country lane outside Silsden which is a small
village near Keightley, itself a sattelite town of Bradford. She didnt realise
that he masturbated in the heat of the assault because she was nearly unconscious
and only heard him grunting. But tissue was found on the spot and the police
never associated this assault with the Ripper investigation because they had
his blood group which eliminated this attacker as the Ripper who was later known
to be B blood group. Whether this assault was associated with the murder of
Lesley Molseed during the massive murder hunt undertaken by the Manchester police
and the West Yorkshire police under Dick Holland’s command is not known to the
writer but the arrest of Stefan Kiszko put an end to any such speculation and
the Brown attack was not officially acknowledged as being done by Peter Sutcliffe
until many years after his conviction as the Ripper.
One has to wonder what other details of the Moleseed attack the media are
failing to report when the Halifax Courier was the only paper to report these
vital details spoken in open court. Dr Escott admitted that the sample had degenerated
over time but the defence are failing seriously here by not having their own
DNA experts to delve into the contamination, degeneration and reliability of
DNA after 30 years in storage. Dr Escott’s statement about the police practice
of destroying evidence being normal practice is wrong and misleading. It is
always kept in cases that have doubts about the verdict and in most other cases
of murder.
The
Yorkshire Post reported the finding of these sperm heads
thus and confirmed that Castree was questioned and asked for his saliva sample
for an irrelevant matter because nobody had turned him in despite all the appeals
for information. Max had to go and get him in the end and trump up any old excuse.
In this first week of the trial which has apparently been cut to three weeks
from the original nine weeks touted there has been many references to Stefan
Kiszko and his wrongful arrest and imprisonment and the plan of that emphasis
has been to level blame at Castree for all that happened to Kiszko. Yet these
people don’t once refer to how Kiszko was framed or in fact that he was
framed. They refer to it as a miscarriage of justice as if the system had made
a mistake when it was in fact a deliberate stitch up equally as perverse as
what they are perpetrating on Ronald Castree right now in this court.
Castree is not just being blamed for the murder of Lesley Molseed but he is
being blamed for Kiszko’s fate also so that the jury will despise him
for that.
Another stage managed scene to lead the jury to emotional hatred of Castree,
has been the description of the injuries to the victim and the emotional evidence
given by her mother who has from the start been convinced by the DNA lie. She
and her family have been chaperoned and brainwashed by policemen and treated
as VIP’s throughout this farce for this purpose alone.
Molseed family
The Manchester Evening news reported Castree’s alleged sex assault
on another young girl with learning difficulties and pointed to the many similarities
to the Molseed murder. What he fails to point out is the vast difference in
the crimes and the violence heaped on Lesley Molseed as against the lack of
force on the other young girl who ran away from him.
Goose’s inference that ‘He had a propensity or tendency to
seek out a victim who lived within 10 minutes’ walk, to take her away against
her will and to carry out sexual acts upon her.’ is so loaded with a one
sided view that ignores the violence in the murder and almost paints Castree
as a sexual maniac. Proof that the assault was of a non violent nature is that
he owned up to it and was not jailed for it and never reoffended.
On 31st the BBC reported that
alleged sex assault in greater detail because the girl now
41 gave evidence against Castree by video link in court. When Castree’s version
of events was put to her the girl says now that she cant remember if she was
playing a game. If she had been the victim of a frightening sex attack she would
remember every single detail of it and they would be engraved on her mind forever.
Comparing that to the frenzied attack and stabbing of Lesley Molseed
is like comparing apples with grapes. Here again Jameson is so dumb and lacking
in spirit that he misses the oppertunity to press home Castree’s explanation
of the seriousness of that assault and its possible comparison with the murder
of Molseed.
|
Patrick
Cullinane’s submission to Bradford court on 31st October 2007 |
3rd November update
Mr Jameson, the QC for Castree shows
that he is not defending Castree by his failure to object
to the tactic of using unnamed video link witnesses and further not to question
such evidence but meekly to help her to repeat all her allegations. First she
says he flashed but Jameson repeated the full list of what Castree
is supposed to have done and that is not consistent with someone who
flashed and began playing with himself before she ran away. There is
a world of difference between a person flashing his dick at someone and starting
to masturbate and someone who actually held a victim against their will and
forced them to watch him masturbate fully. That is the impression given and
Jameson has helped the police to put that on the record. How could Castree remove
his trousers without giving her a chance to run away? This whole episode reeks
of a defence lawyer actually working for the benefit of the prosecution, particularly
as Castree was himself the victim of these kids attempt to play games with him
which would cost him time and money. He over reacted grossly to their annoying
tactics but that game they attempted to play with him certainly doesnt paint
him as a sexual predator who stalks young girls. These were two young girls
who admitted attempting to play games to waste his time and that is far from
a man who stalks a single girl for a sexual assault but Jameson would not put
that defence to the jury because its clear he has been appointed by the court
to act as a fig leaf of legal defence while Castree’s chosen legal representative
Mr Cullinane was locked in jail for the duration of his trial specifically to
keep him away from it. If Castree had made any kind of serious assault on this
small child she could not have given her attacker a kick and run away so easily.
Jameson fails to get to the bottom of the allegations and leaves
his client badly tarnished by what may well be unfounded and embellished accusations
that are dressed up as a serious sex assault and we must bear in mind that Castree
was convicted of this offence but the magistrate did not impose a jail
sentence on him but rather a fine. Jameson also deliberately failed
to point this out to the jury.
In another report the girls said that Castree had a red car
and they could easily find him later after the police were called by her mother.
He didnt run away as if he had committed a serious crime. The police were looking
for a man with a white car which was seen at the lay-by where Lesley Molseed
was murdered. Castree didnt have a white car but Peter
Sutcliffe did have one.
One other matter to highlight is the fact not
yet revealed in court that the procecution have only been able to use one sub
microscopic piece of evidence to identify Castree’s DNA and that fragment of
evidence was so small that it was destroyed during the process of finding his
DNA. No other fragment of evidence remains and so the jury are expected to believe
that the prosecution witness is infallible because the DNA finding cannot be
independantly verified by another scientist. Even a suspected drunken driver
will get a sealed sample of his own blood to confirm his blood level of alcahol
if he disagrees with the police analysts version of it. It seems in a murder
trial that an accused person has to take the word of the police and their scientists
and we know that they framed Stefan Kiszko with fabricated scientific evidence
for this same murder. Jameson was not reported as having raised questions about
the DNA evidence in any way or cast any doubt on it when the scientists were
giving their evidence.
I await hearing Jameson himself refer
to the Kiszko frame up in his summing up and to question the credibility of
the police and the scientists in that case. Throughout this trial of two weeks
Kiszko has been mentioned almost every day and Jameson has yet to even suggest
that Kiszko was framed by corrupt and lying police, scientists and lawyers,
not to mention a corrupt judge who facilitated it in his court.
Jameson has allowed them
to lay the blame for Kiszko’s stitch
up on his client Ronald Castree.
Will he tell the jury about the impossibility
of verification of the DNA by independant scientists in his summing up? Lets
wait and see how he is complicit in the conspiracy to frame his client.
The courts of England are meant to be always open to the public
and justice should be seen to be done in public. However, this trial of Ronald
Castree is clearly a special case where all the rules of due process and evidence
have been turned on their head. Castree’s choice of lawyer was locked up by
a corrupt judge and he was allotted a useless police oriented legal team. The
trial started out with allegations of Castree’s past crime of a sexual assault
and progressed into evidence given by video link by a scorned wife and unnamed
witnesses. All the while the public were barred from the court and the media
slavishly reported the lies told in court without a word of criticism or even
a raised eyebrow.
A member of the public, 82 year old Mr Norman
Scarth, a man who fought for the liberation of Britain against the Nazis and
who lives in Bradford went to observe the trial of Castree on the opening day.
He was refused entry to the courts because he said he was going to observe the
Castree trial. This trial should be declared a mistrial if Castree had a defence
lawyer to put that forcibly to the judge.
That evidence will be there on appeal if as
expected Castree goes down with the verdict of a jury that is being force fed
with lies, innuendo and exageratted claims and kept from hearing the full facts.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, & of the 1998 Human
Rights Act, says,
‘In The Determination Of His Civil Rights & Obligations,
Or Any Criminal Charge Against Him, Everyone Has The Right A To A Fair &
PUBLIC Hearing, Before An Independent & Impartial Tribunal’.
Castree was like a
lamb to the slaughter as can be seen from his answers to
the police who were video taping the interviews when he was first arrested.
Jameson never questioned the actions of the policemen and accepted the hear-say
evidence of the girl’s friend who Castree tried to grab as well as the other
one. Castree couldnt explain how his DNA got on the evidence of the Molseed
clothes and little did he know that those same cops were the ones who planted
his DNA on the tapes. In the middle of all this Goose continues to bring Kiszko
into the picture and tries to extract sympathy from the jury for his fate and
have their emotions directed at Castree as being the cause of all that, rather
than the lying police and scientists who framed him.
|
Patrick
Cullinane’s directions to the court manager on 5th November |
The first two weeks were confined to the prosecution stating
their case and restating it and on practically every one of those days the sexual
assault on the young girl, references to poor Stefan Kiszko along with the detail
of the violent sexual murder of Lesley Molseed were repeated and reported in
all the online media. Max McLean was conspicuous by his absence from the stand
and there was no report of any policeman giving evidence against Castree except
for selected video taped interviews they had made when he was arrested and which
were shown to the jury.
Then at the start of the third week, it was the turn of the
defence to speak. Reports from the court were sparse for that week of the trial.
For the first time defence counsel Rodney Jameson was actually reported to have
said a few things in his favour but his failure to cross examine witnesses for
the prosecution in the first two weeks stand as evidence of his conspiracy to
help the CPS to frame his client. His abject failure to question and probe and
to produce an expert witness to counter the alleged DNA and explain to the jury
the potential for contamination obsolesence and the ease with which evidence
can be tampered with, will stand forever on his record as a most useless lawyer.
In summing up this case then, Ronald Castree has been depicted
as a sexual predator who preyed on young girls for sex. The offence which he
was convicted of and fined by a magistrate was one on the lower end of the scale
of sexual offences and was the result of him being provoked
by two young girls who actually were stalking him with the intention of playing
a prank on him because he was a taxi driver. He knew their game but totally
overreacted by grabbing one of them and taking her to a disused building where
he flashed his penis at her and started to masturbate before she kicked him
and ran home to tell her parents, who reported the matter to the police, who
easily apprehended him and charged him with the offence. I dont seek to make
light of that offence and Castree admitted it fully and faced the consequences,
but to link that to the brutal sexually motivated murder of Lesley Molseed almost
a year earlier is like linking the men who attended the funeral of an IRA bomber
to being bombers themselves as happened in the Birmingham 6 case. The DNA was
planted on the evidence by Max McLean back in 1999 or 2000 when I started to
raise the unsolved murder of Lesley Molseed with news editors and it became
necessary for the police to solve that unsolved murder rather than have these
news editors suggesting that it might have been Peter Sutcliffe who was responsible.
The scientists of course found it and confirmed that it was Castree’s DNA because
it was taken from him by the police. It was a case of finding a suspect that
they could hang that crime on and Castree had the misfortune to be that man
with that conviction and who lived in the area at the time and who had a broken
marriage and an ex wife who would castigate him and deny him an alibi. On its
own the sexual assault on that young girl could not prove that Castree was a
killer of Lesley but with a trace of his DNA introduced, that would change the
situation completely and guarantee a conviction. All that remained for a corrupt
policeman determined to solve this case was to plant a sample of Castree’s semen
on that tape and he could be taken in any time therafter.
Jameson failed to query or even question the DNA on its reliability
or the storage and security of the evidence for 30 odd years. He never raised
the question as to why it was supposed to have been lost when Dick Holland and
Ronald Outteridge came to trial. He failed to show that the prosecution admitted
that they had semen or sperm heads belonging to the killer and they knew that
Kiszko was incapable of producing any such matter and left him in jail.
Now they expect the jury to believe that those same sperm heads
were Ronald Castree’s.
The verdict was brought in after 11 and a half hours of deliberations
by a jury that went home for the weekend and returned their verdict at lunchtime
on Monday 12th November. They were unable to deliver a unanimous verdict
and while it went unreported, the judge obviously agreed to accept a majority
verdict of 10 to 2 and that is what he got. If two jurors did not accept that
the police and CPS had produced enough evidence to convince them of Ronald Castree’s
guilt, then such a verdict surely has a reasonable doubt attached to it but
that is how the UK courts have been operated for some years now. It makes the
expression ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ sound very hollow indeed.
The Times was the only paper to report
a significant matter that clearly should have been brought to the attention
of the jury by Castree’s barrister Rodney Jameson. They
reported that the young girl whose sex assault by Castree played such an important
part in his trial couldn’t remember anything about it. Castree himself cannot
remember anything about it but the CPS prosecutor Mr Julian Goose made much
about it throughout the trial and most of the media reported it liberally and
daily. The question now arises that perhaps a sex attack never happened at all
and the best measure of the seriousness of that alleged sex attack was the fact
that Castree was not arrested when he was apprehended and the magistrate fined
him 25 pounds and did not give him a jail sentence.They also confirm that Castree had children at that time and the killer of Lesley Molseed was sterile and incapable of producing sperm in his semen, a condition that fits Peter Sutcliffe much better.
|
PATRICK
CULLINANE’S SUMMARY OF THE FRAME-UP FORWARDED TO THE MEDIA AND THE PERSONS INVOLVED dated 20th November 2007 |
To be continued as this case progresses.
