Peter William Sutcliffe

[Blue Mist]

I also think the reason why the judge insisted it remained a murder charge and was not watered down was because of Myra Hindley.
One of the most evil women in the world had Lord Longford (and his supporters) campaigning relentlessly for her to be freed. I was amazed how many believed what he said, perhaps simply because he was a Lord ?
Perhaps the judge/Government didnt want Sutcliffe in a mental hospital, being cured and then people demanding his release. If you convict him of murder you can then send him to Broadmoor or anywhere else you want.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I also think the reason why the judge insisted it remained a murder charge and was not watered down was because of Myra Hindley.
One of the most evil women in the world had Lord Longford (and his supporters) campaigning relentlessly for her to be freed. I was amazed how many believed what he said, perhaps simply because he was a Lord ?
Perhaps the judge/Government didnt want Sutcliffe in a mental hospital, being cured and then people demanding his release. If you convict him of murder you can then send him to Broadmoor or anywhere else you want.

There’s plenty of force in what you say, but was anyone other than Longford seriously advocating releasing Hindley at any point?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

At least two of the psychiatrists testified that, if Sutcliffe were shown to have a sexual motivation for the crimes or derive sexual pleasure from them, their diagnosis would fall. There was plenty of evidence to that effect, not all of it put forward by the prosecution during the trial.

Given the medical professionals' own words, I believe that the judge was vindicated in wanting the jury to measure Sutcliffe's recorded actions against his self-serving version of events which was the sole basis for the psychiatrists' diagnoses. Nor do I think it was unreasonable for the jurors to reach the verdict that they did. My opinion is that the Crown, in first accepting a manslaughter plea, wanted to stop aspects of the investigation coming to light in the trial that would seriously embarrass the police.

I do believe that Sutcliffe was indeed mentally ill, but he was a mentally ill sex attacker. I don't buy the idea that he was on what he believed to be a God-instructed campaign to rid the streets of sex-workers. Two months before he killed his first commonly attributed murder victim, he tried to kill a 14-year-old schoolgirl in a country lane, which I can't square with that divine mission stuff. I see the latter as a way to evade responsibility for the sexual element of his crimes.

They may have given evidence to that effect, but the terminatory ruling was before they’d given evidence. Did the psych reports say that too, or did that only come out in cross examination?

Not saying the Judge was wrong btw, but it was an intellectually dishonest decision imo - not unusual for the senior judiciary tbf.

 

[petrusha]

They may have given evidence to that effect, but the terminatory ruling was before they’d given evidence. Did the psych reports say that too, or did that only come out in cross examination?

Not saying the Judge was wrong btw, but it was an intellectually dishonest decision imo - not unusual for the senior judiciary tbf.

To be honest, I don't know what was in the psychiatric reports, just that it definitely came out in cross-examination. I've always thought that the prosecution was too willing to accept Sutcliffe's own self-serving version of events, and that it was inadequate to commission psychiatric evaluations that were based solely on what he said. That there was an aim to prevent details of the case from becoming public to protect the reputation of West Yorkshire Police is just my speculation.

I accept what you say about the judge being intellectually honest in his decision and take the point that he made the decision in question without having heard the evidence in full. I do think his stance was subsequently justified, but I'm not unbiased here. I've always been fascinated by this case, and it's always been a hobbyhorse of mine that Sutcliffe tried to portray himself as a moral crusader when in fact IMO he's a vicious, tawdry and utterly repellent dysfunctional sex killer.

I don't know if anyone on here heard it, but there was a recording doing the rounds several years ago of him talking about his attack on Tracey Browne. It was utterly nauseating and typifies my objection to the way he sought to portray himself down the years.

 

[KS55]

FWIW, I was on nodding acquaintance with Sutcliffe. We often drank in the same pub. He always seemed quiet and unassuming. But dont they always?
His two brothers, however, were well known: one a drug dealer and one a thief.
The dealer never was prosecuted even tho' he dealt openly and ran a Porsche while officially unemployed. It was said the drug squad tipped him off. Retired to a farm he bought.
The thief 'went away' on a regular basis.
The NoW got wind of the drug dealing and spent several weeks in the local trying to buy drugs off the dealer as part of a sting. Typically, they got the wrong brother and could not understand why he was reluctant. We knew who the reporters were, but never let on to them their mistake. Eventually, the thief sold them some pills and was caught and prosecuted. He retired to a block of sheltered housing as their security manager!
Two mates went out with Sutcliffe's two sisters, nothing outrageous to report.

 

[KS55]

To be honest, I don't know what was in the psychiatric reports, just that it definitely came out in cross-examination. I've always thought that the prosecution was too willing to accept Sutcliffe's own self-serving version of events, and that it was inadequate to commission psychiatric evaluations that were based solely on what he said. That there was an aim to prevent details of the case from becoming public to protect the reputation of West Yorkshire Police is just my speculation.

I accept what you say about the judge being intellectually honest in his decision and take the point that he made the decision in question without having heard the evidence in full. I do think his stance was subsequently justified, but I'm not unbiased here. I've always been fascinated by this case, and it's always been a hobbyhorse of mine that Sutcliffe tried to portray himself as a moral crusader when in fact IMO he's a vicious, tawdry and utterly repellent dysfunctional sex killer.

I don't know if anyone on here heard it, but there was a recording doing the rounds several years ago of him talking about his attack on Tracey Browne. It was utterly nauseating and typifies my objection to the way he sought to portray himself down the years.

I've always felt that public opinion was the reason for the judges decision, rather than police reputation. The fear in Yorkshire was palpable and the public would not wear anything less than a murder trial.
The rep of WY Constabulary was pretty dire at the time, violent, incompetent and, some said, corrupt.
A horrible example from over 35 years ago:
My mate and his pregnant gf were walking down the street, when a drunken driver mounted the pavement and smashed into them at high speed, carrying them some distance. The girl died instantly and my mate was so badly injured that they covered him up. A later check revealed he was still breathing, so they collected his nose from 25 yards away (Dont laugh) and carted him off to hospital where he stayed for several months. He has never fully recovered but, mirabile dictu, he can walk even on his mashed up legs.
The drunken driver turned out to be a policeman. He got 5 years, which seemed very light to me.
When he came out after about 3 years, the police had a 'coming out' party for him in a pub just a stones throw from the scene of the crime.
No police rep ever visited my mate (except for getting his statement) and he never received apologies or condolences for his loss.
He did, however, sue them successfully.

 

[Blue Mist]

There’s plenty of force in what you say, but was anyone other than Longford seriously advocating releasing Hindley at any point?

He did seem to have a number of people agreeing with him and I remember all the air time he was given. he always seemed to be on tv or radio. Perhaps my memory is fogged with time but I seem to remember the outrage because there was the possibility of release.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He did seem to have a number of people agreeing with him and I remember all the air time he was given. he always seemed to be on tv or radio. Perhaps my memory is fogged with time but I seem to remember the outrage because there was the possibility of release.

Not my recollection pal. Utterly inconceivable Hindley or Sutcliffe would ever be released. As I recall, in terms if Hindley, her parole dates (as they then were) were deployed by the Sun and the Mail to work people into a frenzy about something that was never going to happen.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I accept what you say about the judge being intellectually honest in his decision and take the point that he made the decision in question without having heard the evidence in full. I do think his stance was subsequently justified, but I'm not unbiased here. I've always been fascinated by this case, and it's always been a hobbyhorse of mine that Sutcliffe tried to portray himself as a moral crusader when in fact IMO he's a vicious, tawdry and utterly repellent dysfunctional sex killer.

Agreed. He was a horrible ****. tbf, I’d probably have done the same if I was the Judge.

 

[Blue Mist]

Not my recollection pal. Utterly inconceivable Hindley or Sutcliffe would ever be released. As I recall, in terms if Hindley, her parole dates (as they then were) were deployed by the Sun and the Mail to work people into a frenzy about something that was never going to happen.

Yeh probably, it sold papers then and now the same sells clicks/advertising, as you say never going to happen but a great way to create interest.