| The main revelation of this book is the hitherto hidden fact that on the night he was arrested, Peter Sutcliffe was wearing a long sleeved V neck sweater in place of underpants with the arms pulled up on his legs and with the V neck allowing his genitals to be exposed. He says that this bizarre attire, which he sensationalized as a murder suit, was not logged in the police reports. |
|---|
When the Attorney General Sir Michael Havers’ initial plea bargain deal was rejected by Judge Boreham, the subsequent trial was convened to determine whether Sutcliffe was in fact mad as the prosecutor and psychiatrists claimed and therefore the plea of manslaughter ought to be accepted, or conversly, he was sane and criminally responsible for murders rather than manslaughter. In effect the Judge wasn’t convinced that Sutcliffe was mad and wanted a jury to decide on this issue. If the latter was found to be the case, the reasoning was that he should then face a trial for murder and face the consequences of life in prison rather than the agreed mental home with the promise of no trial and parole within 10 years which was on offer.
The prosecution, led by Sir Michael Havers, who was then also the Attorney General, was unaware of Sutcliffe’s strange attire on the night of his arrest. It is more than 20 years since this arrest and the revelation of this fact now is only one in a litany of undisclosed facts. Sir Michael was only told what he needed to be told by the police who wished to close this case to hide the many embarrassing failures in their investigation, failures which cost the lives of other innocent victims and put at risk the lives of countless others. Detectives who knew the inside story directed and wrote down Sutcliffe’s ‘confessions’ which were volunteered by this lunatic within days of his arrest. These policemen knew him so well and knew precisely that he was the copycat killer and not the real Ripper. A deal was brokered by his solicitor Kerry MacGill, who is now a crown court judge in Leeds. The deal was that he would be going to a secure mental home as agreed by his legal adviser with the police and he would have no trial and they would accept his confessions to all the murders to clear the slate.
The prostitute,Olivia Reivers, who was with Sutcliffe when he was arrested stated that he was unable to get an erection so clearly he didnt pick her up for sex. The police were quick to suggest that she was lucky to be alive but he just wanted to have a prostitute with him when he was arrested in order to create more suspicion.
Well might the police have forgotten the strange underpants worn by this deranged Ripper suspect on the night of his arrest and far from being a murder suit as the journalist suggests, it is clearly the attire of an insane man.
Some other more damning facts which these police neglected to mention were that Sutcliffe had been eliminated 12 times previously because he didn’t share the rare B blood group or irregular teeth pattern that the Ripper was known to have from semen and bite marks on some victims breasts. Crucially the prior acceptance by police that there was a copy cat
killer somehow involved in the Ripper count was also ignored and with it the possibility that Sutcliffe may be that copy cat
killer. His confessions were going to close the file. In the sanity trial ordered by judge Boreham, Sir Michael Havers was
forced into prosecuting Sutcliffe in court making his earlier pleas look like he himself had been trying to pull the wool over the judges eyes. Some of the facts about the Ripper murders were highlighted by him and showed that the real Ripper was anything but a mental case who had no sexual motive. The psychiatrists were made to look very foolish indeed. They were unaware of the full facts and would have been strengthened in their diagnoses had they known about Sutcliffe’s special underpants and been briefed about the nature of the injuries to all the Ripper victims and the forensic evidence gathered. They didn’t know that Sutcliffe had been eliminated and were shown only his ‘confessions’ which the police knew were false and the ramblings of a mad man.
While Sutcliffe, the copy cat killer was clearly mad, the real Ripper was clearly calculating and controlled but he was now being written out of the records. The psychiatrists were not told that two of the Yorkshire Ripper’s victims may be the
work of a copy cat killer nor that all of the assaulted victims which Sutcliffe was charged with were not included in the Ripper frame at the time of the arrest.
The journalist who was in the Insight team in the Sunday Times and who should have an independent view of the evidence, blindly accepted the words of Dick Holland and detective Desmond O’Boyle, one of the cops who got the confessions from Sutcliffe, as his main sources of information. He retains total confidence in Dick Holland despite the fact that Holland has been shown to be a liar and a policeman who fabricated the confession and evidence in the Stefan Kiszko case.
He had engratiated himself to the Ripper squad during the hunt for the notorious Ripper, couldn’t see the glaring inconsistencies in the case against Sutcliffe at the time of his trial and sheepishly accepted the police version of events and anomolies without question. He was so much in awe of senior detectives Oldfield and Holland that he would not dare to question their judgement. As time progressed the lies became bigger and he had to spin more lies to justify his earlier position and now his book is nothing more than a tissue of lies spun to maintain the original lie that Sutcliffe is the Ripper and nobody else is involved in the murders.
He fails intentionally to put the original Irish Ripper suspect in the picture at all eventhough he is firmly on the record. He has airbrushed him out along with all the other uncomfortable facts that dont fit Sutcliffe. He never addresses the matter of the copycat Ripper in his book. He claims Sutcliffe is B blood group on the word of Dick Holland. He has totally ignored the bites on the Ripper victims and skirts the hard evidence that was available before Sutcliffe’s arrest.
Because he has taken it upon himself to write a book about the Ripper and thereby set himself up as some kind of authority on the subject, he is in fact even more responsible that those lying policemen.
He actually gave credibility to their lies and that sustained their ability to carry on with the cover up for so long.
He would not be so important, if he was not wheeled out by Sky News, ITV, the BBC or others as a credible expert on the Ripper case every time something comes up. These media organizations regard him as a credible expert and in that way he acts as a bridge, giving credibility to a few corrupt lying policemen.
He is not a fool and it has to be said that he is a highly intelligent man. It is for this reason that I contend that he is a revisionist and there is only one conclusion to be drawn. He has knowingly continued the lies in order to support the lies he told in the past and to protect his own career and reputation. He is too proud to admit he was fooled or was wrong and he is now covering not just for his corrupt best friend Dick Holland but for himself also. This deceit has cost other innocent people their lives at the hands of Billy Tracey and may cost Humble his freedom.
As a journalist he has shown himself to have nothing original to contribute and his book is based on the reminiscences of two bent and corrupt policemen.
One example of his lies.
It is clearly documented that all Ripper suspects were blood tested and Sutcliffe had his test reviewed 12 times.
An article in the Sun newspaper dated 10th March 2003 gives further insight into how the police destroyed the evidence relating to Peter Sutcliffe after his conviction and they never expected any details of it to resurface. Detective Alan Foster who was ordered to destroy it obviously never realised that Sutcliffe was just a copycat killer rather than the Ripper and Foster disobeyed his orders in the mistaken belief that the top brass also believed Sutcliffe was the Ripper but were just wrong in destroying the evidence.
When Sutcliffe was ordered to remove his clothes in the police station that night of his arrest and was revealed to be wearing no underpants only this pair of leggings with his crotch open I am sure the police who witnessed him must have broken down laughing at the lunatic in front of them. One can see why chief constable Brownlow ordered his men never to talk about the events of that night and indeed why they decided to destroy the evidence. 22 years on, we can now see just why Chief Constable Brownlow ordered his arresting officers to silence. Anyone could have seen that this man was mentally deranged and a plea of diminished responsibility would never have been on, if the full facts were revealed. Despite the new evidence that the police burned most of the evidence against Sutcliffe coming to light now, he still retains full confidence in them.
Criticism which supports my claims has been levelled against both him and Patrick Lavelle in an article written by author David Peace and published by the New Statesman. in 2003.
saved in this server New Statesman article
The third letter from Sunderland
All previous editions of this letter were edited by the police and didnt contain the information that the author said the same hospital when referring to Mrs Millward.
This was published in his book more than twenty years on.
David Yallop had published the text of the letter in his book in 1981 but the word same was edited out of his version.
Until Yallop’s book, the public had only ever seen a few lines of this letter. The crucial bits were edited out from public scrutiny.
A photo page from his book.
The photofit of the Irish suspect is conspicuous by its absence having been airbrushed out and all Sutcliffe’s photofits are staring out now.
.
This New Statesman cover in 1980 before Sutcliffe’s arrest shows how Sutcliffe began to overshadown the stocky bearded Irish suspect because of his increasing number of assaults thought to be aborted Ripper attacks. Bilton has airbrushed him out of the story completely to bolster the lie that Sutcliffe is the one and only Ripper.
.
This is his own article in the Sunday Times September 1995
| HE IS A CRIME WRITER WITH THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS ON HIS HANDS |
|---|
