Very dangerous woman and yes, on the interviews you can see how unhinged and manipulative she is. The whole thing was like water off a duck's back to her. The picture of her as a child, looked so ordinary and angelic
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Peter William Sutcliffe
- Thread starter bluethrunthru
- Start date
Very dangerous woman and yes, on the interviews you can see how unhinged and manipulative she is. The whole thing was like water off a duck's back to her. The picture of her as a child, looked so ordinary and angelic
Same as as me.I was born in 74 so the 70s are a blur but when i see photos and tv footage of that time everyone just looks scruffy as fuck, the streets looked full of litter. It looked a horrible decade.
Probably why we revere the 80’s so much...like the electrics were put back on.
Conversely, the US looked cool in the 70’s.
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
Cultural and fashion revolution of the 60s, economic revolution of 80s ?Same as as me.
Probably why we revere the 80’s so much...like the electrics were put back on.
Conversely, the US looked cool in the 70’s.
dont know what went on in the 70s ;)
Try power cuts, a 3 day week and endless strikes just for starters.Cultural and fashion revolution of the 60s, economic revolution of 80s ?
dont know what went on in the 70s ;)
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
Yeah thats it.Try power cuts, a 3 day week and endless strikes just for starters.
Big Swifty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 4,363
Plus massive inflationYeah thats it.
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
Looked a difficult decade to love throughPlus massive inflation
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Name me a decade that wasn’t.Looked a difficult decade to love through
@worsleyweb agreesName me a decade that wasn’t.
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 10,586
August 2005, the Wetherby forensic lab, where the tape and letters had been sent for analysis, confirmed they had extracted John Humble's DNA from the gum he had licked on the back of the envelope (they just didn't yet know it was Humble's). October 18th 2005, police database identified the DNA as Humble's - he'd had to give saliva after being arrested for being drunk in 2001. During the initial interview with Humble in Wakefield he refused to speak, just nodded or shook his head - it was claimed by the police he did this so they couldn't compare his voice to the one on the tape (Humble was indeed from Sunderland - "Wearside Jack"). In the evening, the police told him they had his DNA on the envelope and that it was a billion to one that the DNA wasn't his. He then admitted his guilt and explained why he'd done it - the guy was claimed he never meant it to have caused so much grief, he'd done it as a means to intensify the investigation. He was a career petty criminal, drunk and not the brightest spark.8 years.
Amazing how he was caught.