Many thanks for visiting this site.
If you have any queries, questions or comments relating to the
content of this website, please email the author HERE.
If you have specific design-related queries or questions, please
email the designer HERE (please note, non design-related emails will simply be ignored).
Reviews and visitor comments :
Roger Ratcliffe. Sunday Times Insight journalist.
"I couldn't put it down, I stayed up all night reading it"
Posted By Andrew Abram (message board) :
Between 1975 and 1981 a series of more than a dozen ritualistic and vicious
murders terrorised the north of England, and caused one of the largest manhunts
in British criminal history. His victims were mainly prostitutes, as well as
other vunerable women and girls. The murders were seemingly connected by the
killer's m.o., and were accompanied by chilling letters and an infamous tape
recording sent to the police, which accurately promised more killings.
Encompassing the West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire police
regions, the investigation employed up to 350 detectives for five years and
cost over 4. In January 1981 Ronald Gregory, Chief Constable of the West
Yorkshire Constabulary, announced that a man was being held in connection with
the murders. Bradford lorry driver Peter Sutcliffe confessed to all of the
offences, except one, and was subsequently convicted at the Old Bailey for the
murders of thirteen women.
First published in 1989, 'The Real Yorkshire Ripper' presents a compelling and
disturbing challenge to the accepted official version of events, perpetuated by
the media, books and recent T.V. programmes, by offering convincing evidence
that Sutcliffe was a copy-cat killer, guilty of onlt four of the murders he
'confessed' to. His m.o. was fundamentally to the other killer's, and, rather
than being interviewed and 'released' twelve times by the police, he was
eliminated by them because hi blood group and teeth marks were unlike those of
the suspect they were hunting. The police knew that he was not the ripper.
Bite marks, semen and saliva left on some of the victims, as well as saliva and
bite marks on an envelope belonging to letters sent to the police, releaved
that the Ripper possessed B blood group, whilst Sutcliffe's was group O. Mr
Ogara's evidence shows that detectives knes that two men were responsible for
the murders, and as early as 1976 they possessed a despcription of their prime
suspect, known to be a 'stocky bearded Irishman' with stained teeth, gold
rings, tatoos and scars. Numerous press reports confirmed this. For example, on
28 March 1978 the 'Daily Mail' reported a 'Copy-Cat Ripper at Large', while in
1980 the 'Sunday Times Insight' stated '[Assistant Chief Constable George]
Oldfield conceded to us - that there is not one Ripper, but - at least - two'.
Likewise, many newspapers in 1976 and 1977 carried accurate descriptions of the
bearded Irish suspect.
'The Real Yorkshire Ripper' points out that faced with enormous operational
errors and desperate to conclude the enquiry, the West Yorkshire Police, lead
by Gregory, Oldfield and Detective Chief Superintendent James Hobson, concocted
a 'deal' with Sutcliffe, in which they accepted his 'confession' to all the
murders in return for Detective Chief Superintendent Dick Holland's promise of
no trial and a private room in a psychiatric hospital, with the possibility of
parole after ten years. Sutcliffe's 'confession' remains highly questionable,
especially as the officer most closely involved in it, Holland, was responsible
for the 'confession' of the vunerable Stefan Kiszko for the murder of Lesley
Moleseed in 1975/6 (of which Holland faced serious criminal charges).
Critically, O'Gara asserts that the real Ripper was not a hoaxer, but was
responsible for the 'Geordie' letters and tape, not only to deride the police,
but in order to implicate the carbon-copy killer. As the former employer of the
man he identifies as the real Ripper, O'Gara appears to possess a particular
ewareness of the case. Both during and after the enquiry he attempted to
present his evidence to the police, but was met by suspicion, closed attitudes
and an unwillingness to comminucate with him. His book convincingly
reconstructs the police prosecution of the case, their framing of the
psychologically unbalanced Sutcliffe, and the extent of the police deception,
described by O'Gara as 'the cover-up of the century'.
Moreover, it reveals a picture of Billy Tracy as a cruel and manipulative
psychopath, who is apparently at large in the UK. It is also possible that he
is resposible for other murders and serious offences. By writing this book Mr
O'Gara has thus placed himself in a potentially dangerous position. Although
the findings of the book have been officially denied or ignored, it is a highly
significant document that demands serious attention. The extent of the cover-up
and the level at which particular senior policemen are implicated is both
criminally and morally significant as it undermines the victims, their
families, the Sutcliffe family, the public at large, and the truth, whilst
failing to identify, apprehend and convict the man who perpetrated the majority
of the murders.
Posted By attymarco (message board) :
Dear Mr. O'Gara,
I'm truly intrigued by your website. I was living in Manchester during the
ripper period and well remember the publicity surrounding the manhunt. After
Sutcliffe was arrested and convicted, I recall speaking with a friend, who was
then stationed at Bootle Street nick, who was adamant that Sutcliffe wasn't
guilty of all the murders and that there was an "Irish connection" to the
killings. At the time, I didn't pay much heed to this as it was really just
said in passing over a pint.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since Sutcliffe went down.
Subsequent revelations about police methods of clearing up crimes in the
seventies and eighties have caused a lot of us to pause and examine the
Mr. O'Gara. You may be quite potty. You may well lead the reader into a
labyrinth far more sinister that the one encountered by Theseus but I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt and, with an open mind, I'll buy and read your
book. I'll write you again when I've read it.
Lastly, did you ever correspond with Paul Foot on this subject?
THE NEWSPAPERS ROLE
comment by Noel O'Gara
The Tabloid press made a meal of Barry George because he was convicted in Court
and because of Jill Dando and her association with Crimewatch there is great
public interest. Copy and outrageous pictures like the one with a gas mask on
George will sell millions of newspapers. That's the name of the game. What many
of the public dont realise is that a few sensational stories such as this are
used by the newspapers which are making millions of pounds selling advertising
space in 50 per cent of the paper. The ads are sold off the backs of the news
stories which are of much greater interest to the reader. A single small
classified ad costs about 50 pounds and a quarter page can cost many thousands.
Thats why they use sensational stories like this to increase circulation
figures and thus to generate higher advertising revenue.
Newspapers are neither charitable nor philantropic
organisations. Robert Maxwell comes to mind. They are huge profit making
corporations which sell advertising space off the back of spicy public interest
stories such as this. Fred West,Ronnie Biggs and the like gave them great
mileage or sales potential. Then comes page 3 pornography. Who wants to read
boring political stuff anyway? Their paper with advertisements alone would not
sell, period. They sold millions of papers on the back of the Yorkshire Ripper
over 5 years and then on Peter Sutcliffe's trial and aftermath because the
courts convicted him and they continued to perpetuate the lie that Sutcliffe
was the Ripper with follow up stories over the years. They dont care that the
hit man who shot Dando is having a pint around the corner while he is polishing
his silencer nor that the Real Yorkshire Ripper is living it up in the West End
of London today. Selling newspapers is their business.
Reply to Keith Brannen by a reader
Dear Keith Brannen, regarding your comments and criticisms of
Noel's book, I would just like to congratulate you on your apparently extensive
library and your self-confessed knowledge of murder cases.
I, and no doubt many others have read quite a bit on serial
killers, but you seem to fall into the familiar trap of appearing to proclaim
yourself as some kind of 'expert'.
To my mind, one of the major hurdles to serious investigations
into certain cases, such as the Whitechapel murderer and the Yorkshire Ripper
is that there are so many 'experts' who claim to know all the 'facts' and will
not or cannot be deflected from their theories.
In defence of Mr O'Gara, he states clearly in his book that
there are inconsistencies in his argument that require further explanation and
possibly research. What surprises me is that if you are as well read as you
say, you cannot or will not see that the police handling of the Yorkshire
Ripper case was shambolic and to some degree criminally negligent.
I have recently read an excellent book on the Stephan Kishko
case, which outlines the largely criminal actions of Dick Holland in obtaining
a 'confession'. I really don't see how anyone can read anything on the ripper
case without getting the impression that the police were and still are involved
in a major cover-up, as well as a serious manipulation of the 'evidence',
including the various books and tv programmes that have appeared subsequently.
Whatever your views are regarding the case and Noel's argument,
you are entitled to them, but please stand back from the official 'evidence'
for a moment and another, more realistic picture might reveal itself.