Peter William Sutcliffe

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

dont know what went on in the 70s ;)

Wide bottomed trousers, long hair, high heeled platform shoes and that was just the men.....

 

[johnnytapia]

Not sure that's correct mate* (Jeremy Bamber was definitely 10-2) but even so they won’t have thought he wasn’t guilty, most likely. They will have effectively thought he was guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (which he’d already pleaded guilty to). A verdict of which all four medical reports produced for the trial strongly supported. Sutcliffe was almost certainly a severe paranoid schizophrenic.

in fact, in light of that medical evidence, before the trial, the prosecution wanted accept those diminished responsibility pleas (and therefore drop the murder charges), but the judge denied the prosecution leave to accept those pleas against the overwhelming weight of the medical evidence and the trial was therefore put before a jury. An outrageous decision in terms of blind justice, but a highly pragmatic one too.

There was no way the establishment was going to play with a straight bat with Sutcliffe, which is somewhat understandable. He was a horrible ****.

*happy to be proven wrong on the majority verdict btw

10-2 is correct. 6 hours of deliberation couldn't produce unanimous vote, 47 mins later majority verdict. Sentenced 22nd May 1981, which, as a horrible coincidence, would have been the 21st birthday of his last victim, Jacqueline Hill.

 

[johnnytapia]

Your memory is better than you think x

A prison officer gave evidence at the trial that he’d said to Sonia during a visit that if he convinced them he was mad he’d get ten years in a mental hospital, but I wouldn’t bet my life on that being true, and in any event, he was hopelessly wrong. There was no way he was ever being released. Like Hindley, simply inconceivable he’d ever be let out; quite rightly btw. Mad or not, he was undeniably dangerous.

Going against four psychiatric reports is pretty hardcore, though. I guess the Judge was doing what was required of him, by any means necessary. Refusing those pleas was pretty mental, highly unusual and unexpected - and was doubtless politically motivated.

Judge went through all the reports with the defence lawyer and asked (demanded) to see the evidence for their reports - the judge felt (correctly I think) that they (the reports) were based solely on the word(s) of Sutcliffe. He said the reports, and Sutcliffe should face the full weight of trial by jury. He was a stickler for the law and the law being seen to be done.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

10-2 is correct. 6 hours of deliberation couldn't produce unanimous vote, 47 mins later majority verdict. Sentenced 22nd May 1981, which, as a horrible coincidence, would have been the 21st birthday of his last victim, Jacqueline Hill.

That's a ridiculously short time for a majority direction in a murder trial - the minimum allowed in any trial is two hours ten minutes (I understand the ten minutes is to cover all the to-ing and fro-ing (hope I've spelt them correctly!))

Well done to @crublue1 !

 

[johnnytapia]

Odd Sutcliffe fact - the police found the knife and hammer he'd hidden on Jan 3rd 1981 at approx 11pm. "It's our man" was the claim in Sheffield. Same day we beat Palace 4-0 in the FA Cup and Big Mal ran on the pitch.

 

[crublue1]

Wide bottomed trousers, long hair, high heeled platform shoes and that was just the men.....

And the women had unruley hairy cloppers. A 70's jazz mag was full of magnificent pant beards.
So my mate reckons.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Judge went through all the reports with the defence lawyer and asked (demanded) to see the evidence for their reports - the judge felt (correctly I think) that they (the reports) were based solely on the word(s) of Sutcliffe. He said the reports, and Sutcliffe should face the full weight of trial by jury. He was a stickler for the law and the law being seen to be done.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I highly doubt all four psychiatric reports would have been commissioned by the defence. At least one would have been via the prosecution (and would have been disclosable to the defence even if it wasn't used in evidence as part of the prosecution case). Inconceivable that the prosecution didn't have a psych report if the defence had been granted leave by the court to get one.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.
Amazing how he was caught.

Equally amazing how he deceived WYP to that extent.

I was always intrigued by the accuracy of the experts who pinpointed the accent to the extent they did, to a particular district in Wearside. I think I've got a decent ear for an accent, but not even remotely to that extent.

 

[johnnytapia]

Looked a difficult decade to love through

The film, DOA, shows perfectly, just how fucking grey everything was in the '70s. Fuck all worked, phones, trains, cars etc. Everyone and every thing beholden to the unions (and I say that as a strong union supporter).
Politically, a fascinating era, Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Thorpe, Grimond. Then Thatch rocked up, well, that's for a different thread!

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

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.
Amazing how he was caught.

Turned out he was just a ****, a top waster scrote who shared a shithole flat with another drunk. The chaos and sadness he brought about was lost on him and made worse by his earlier failure to hold himself to account and come clean. The senior detective who managed that enquiry was a DC back on the original Ripper enquiries and I cant think of a nicer way to wrap your career up than running the job that fetched that **** into prison.
I think John Humble died this year. Maybe last.