follow the truth with the links below
preface
author
introduction
the victims
sutcliffe's role
life with sonia
the story
my story
huddersfield link
preston link
manchester link
congleton link
Nº 1 suspect
the arrest
the deal
aftermath
police officers
chronology
david yallop
roger cross
john beattie
buy the book
contact author
feedback
Michael Bilton
Patrick Lavelle
John Humble
Yorkshire Ripper Forum FORUM
The Yorkshire Ripper

LESLEY MOLSEED


 

Lesley Molseed was an 11 year old girl who was battered and sexually abused by her assailant who masturbated over her in a similar attack to the one on 14 year old Tracy Browne a few months before. The deviant sexual motive was similar. A white car with red markings of some vague description was seen at the scene but nobody witnessed the attack. Sutcliffe had just such a car. Stefan Kiszko was arrested and stitched up by Chief Superintendent Dick Holland and the police never wished to look again at this murder even though it is officially an unsolved crime once again. By linking Sutcliffe to it now they would be focusing on their own mistakes. A book entitled INNOCENTS was written and published in 1997 and claims to have the solution to this murder.

While the innocent Stefan Kiszko was in prison awaiting trial, Peter Sutcliffe attacked Marcella Claxton, a black girl who was walking home in the Ripper's chosen territory. He hit her on the head and dazed her, then masturbated and cleaned himself with tissues which he deliberately threw there, knowing they matched the Molseed tissues. Such a crime must be very rare and it is surprising, to say the least that they were not compared at the time. However the police never looked at the possibility that this attack might be committed by the killer of Lesley. After all they had Kiszko in jail. They had a confession. They were confident of a conviction and that is the name of the game. Molseed had been solved many years earlier by Dick Holland when he was questioning Peter Sutcliffe about his crimes after he was arrested in 1981. It would not even be considered.

To think that there were two men in that area, at that time, both with white cars who attacked young girls and masturbated over them is stretching the imagination. It is an unheard of crime. We know Sutcliffe did the attack on Tracy Browne and Miss Claxton. I believe he should be seriously considered suspect for the Molseed murder, however with the Kiszko conviction keeping it buried for 16 years and now the book referred to above helping to divert further scrutiny, added to the fact that the semen evidence is gone missing, it is most unlikely that this will ever be considered. Dismissing the case against Holland and Outteridge is a further travesty.

The claxton page should be studied in conjunction with this one.



This interesting correspondence with Dave, email address withheld by Noel, may help to throw light on the Molseed case.



To: Subject: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:08:51 -0000

Hi

. I was interested in your piece at http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/claxton.htm naming Sutcliffe as the murderer of Lesley Molested in 1975. I have read a lot of literature on this case and I tend to agree with the allegation that Raymond Hewlett (born Blackpool 24th January 1945), an alleged serial child sex offender was/is responsible for Lesley's murder. The evidence is quite overwhelming including testimonies from witnesses present in 1975, particularly those present on the evening of the 5th of October that year. ( the evidence given by Rosalie Dolan is particularly damning ) Unfortunately this could not be proven due to the fact that DCI Richard Holland and Doctor Ronald Outteridge had destroyed the forensic evidence which could have proved the innocence of Stefan and the guilt of the real murderer ( they were formally charged with suppressing evidence in 1994.), however I heard today that new evidence regarding this case has come to light. Why are you so certain that Sutcliff is responsible ?

Dave



From: Noel O'Gara | Block Address | Add to Address Book Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco To: DST

Hi Dave, I am not certain but there are compelling reasons for suspecting him. Your statement about the lost evidence is evidence of perhaps a more serious crime by Holland and co. Where did you get the statements you are talking about and the witness reports/ why were these witness reports not used at the time of Kiszko's trial? You should be aware that there has been a process of disinformation about this case to muddy the waters. I am showing only evidence I know of. The M.O. and the car, the times dates and places. do you think there were more attackers like Sutcliffe ? in that place at that time?



From: "DST" | Block Address | Add to Address Book To: "Noel O'Gara" Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:14:48 -0000

Hi Noel,

thanks for the reply. The statements I referred to in my earlier e mail were made by eye witnesses who saw Hewlett's van in the lane where Lesley was abducted (his van was also seen in the lay-by at the time of the murder ), their testimonies were never revealed at the trial. The most revealing statement was made by Rosalie Dolan, (she was Helett's 15 year old girlfriend at the time) she gave an alibi for Hewlett on the day of the murder. When the case was re opened in 1992 the police tracked her down to Australia and brought her back to the UK, in her new statement she gave damning evidence against Hewlett. Two of the main points of her interview were that Hewlett disappeared for two hours at the time of the murder and when he returned in a distressed state he said that he was in trouble and they should leave for Ireland immediately, which they did. (Ireland was the place Hewlett retreated to every time he committed an offence) Secondly he asked her to provide him with a false alibi in case anything should happen. Incidentally Stefan was convicted primarily on statements made by three 10 year old girls who said that he had indecently exposed himself to them just days before the murder. When these women were re interviewed again in 1992 they all confessed to making the allegations up. (I don't know how these women live with themselves) Hewlett was on the police short list of 8 prime suspects after the murder but with the arrest of Stefan the investigation was wound up. He was re arrested in 1992 and questioned about the murder. When he heard that Rosalie was in the country he confessed to his cell mate that he had done the murder and that there was a woman who could prove his guilt. However, during his interrogation he learned that the forensic evidence had been destroyed and knew that only his words could incriminate him. At that point he refused to answer any questions put to him and consequently the police ran out of time and had to release him. He still remains the prime suspect. As for the trial, DCI Holland, CS Dibb and Dr Outteridge conspired to suppress evidence that they knew could prove Stefan's innocence, they knew that the samples taken from Stefan proved that he was sterile and could not produce sperm heads, the semen taken from the body contained sperm heads. They also with held statements from the defence, which proved the whereabouts of Stefan on the day of the murder. (all the forensic evidence went missing after the trial) In 1994 Holland and Outteridge were formally charged with suppressing evidence but on May 1st 1995 magistrate Jane Hayward prevented the case from proceeding citing that because of the death of Jack Dibb the two remaining defendants could not receive a fair trial.( Holland and Outteridge both blamed Dibb for any wrong doing ) The most in-depth investigation I've read is a book called Innocents : How Justice Failed Stefan Kisko and Lesley Molseed by Jonathan Rose, Steve Panter, & Trevor Wilkinson / Hardback / Fourth Estate / 1997 (Jonathan Rose is a barrister in Leeds. Trevor Wilkinson is a former deputy chief constable who re-opened the Kiszko case, and Steve Panter is a journalist on the Manchester Evening News who knew the Kiszko family and covered the entire Kiszko story). This book gives an honest insight into events surrounding the case from start to finish, I think it's a must. You are right about the white car with the red paint being seen in the alley and at the lay-by, it was one of seven cars the police were investigating at the time. I think you might be right about more people like Sutcliffe being in the area at that time.

Dave.



From: Noel O'Gara To: DST Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:34:52 -0800 (PST) From: Noel O'Gara | Block Address | Add to Address Book Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco To: DST

Hi Dave.

I read about that book by Rose and Wilkinson a few years ago. I have read your letter and the facts as you outline them are just not credible. If all these sightings of the same van in the abduction spot and the murder spot at the right time were known there would have been a clear suspect. This book is misinformation, to divert the public towards Hewlitt and the evidence is lost. If the evidence stated by you were true they would be ashamed to say it. I wouldn't call that evidence. It's rather like the taxi drivers who said they saw Sutcliffe attacking Helen Rytka. Remember them? After the trial the police said they confirmed that. Where were they when Oldfield was pleading for help after the murder? This was misinformation also. I don't believe a murder investigation would be conducted like that. Also this girl who was brought back from aussieland was part of that disinformation exercise. You must ask yourself how they persuaded her to come back or what happened. It looks to me like they leaned on her to get a story to incriminate a known paedophile. Because of his record he is blackened already. He was a likely mark to blame who cannot defend himself because of his record. Why say all this when no charges can be brought. I don't buy it. People have been convicted on less. They had all these great witnesses and her evidence of the lost time in the murder spot. If Hewlit was one of 8 suspects and the police knew a van like his was seen where you say, they would not rely on the alibi of a 15 year old girl friend. they would look for other alibis. The bit about the cellmate is incredibly suspect. This kind of evidence is total fabrication or useless in a court of law and the police know it, but a gullible public swallow it. I would not be surprised if the authors are masons doing a favour for the establishment. Do you know anything about Wilkinson? Wasn't he involved in the ripper investigation? You must also ask yourself why would a barrister and cop with much to hide, at the time I was saying Sutcliffe may be the killer of Lesley Molseed, write a book with such hearsay "evidence" Where were they when poor old Stefan Kiszko was pleading his innocence? They are the pits. I must check out Wilkinsons involvement.. what do you think of my analysis?

noel



From: "DST" | Block Address | Add to Address Book To: "Noel O'Gara" Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:11:12 -0000

Hello Noel.

You raise some interesting points in your e mail, a lot of which I have to agree with though I still remain convinced that Hewlett is guilty, maybe I'm too keen to swallow the information as it is presented, I don't know. The evidence I have read seems pretty compelling, maybe some of that has been lost in my translation of the facts. The point about the van was the most frustrating part of the investigation for me, it was such a crucial part of the case and it wasn't given the appropriate attention it required.( the van was unregistered and was destroyed in Liverpool 2 days after the murder, Dolan confirmed that Hewlett was driving it on the day of the murder and that they used it to escape to Ireland ) This was the case throughout the investigation, the standard of inquiry was very poor. As a post script to this a witness claimed to have seen Lesley in a white car with red paint, on the day of the murder. As for Wilkinson, the only comment I can make is that he did right by Stefan. In November 1996 he was put in a position to expose police corruption and he didn't waiver from that, he ploughed ahead regardless of consequence when he could have easily turned a blind eye. I don't know how or what was said to entice Dolan back into the country or what her reasons were for doing so, you may have a point about the motives of both parties. I do know that at the time of the murder she wasn't required to make a statement because by the time Hewlett was picked up on another outstanding charge Stefan had confessed and so far as the police were concerned the case was closed. Hewlett, although on the short list of suspects was never questioned at the time. I think we are raising more questions than we are answering ;-) I don't think that we will ever get to know the real details of this case but I will be interested to see what the police have turned up in their recent investigations. My biggest regret in this whole sad episode is that Holland and Outteridge walked away free men.

Dave.

PS. The QC for the defence at the trial was none other than David Waddington ( went on to be Home Secretary ) and the prosecuting QC was Peter Taylor, there's your Freemason link.


 

  

Jonathan Rose (left) and Lord Waddington
 


Post script by Noel O'Gara.

I would suggest that the reason the evidence was destroyed in this case was because the semen matched that of Peter Sutcliffe. If this was ever found out it would open the whole Ripper case up to renewed scrutiny and Holland et al would definitely be facing serious criminal charges. The Ripper case is what they were all afraid would be uncovered.

They have much to lose. Kiszko didn't have a white car while Sutcliffe did, with red upholstery to boot. Secondly all this new evidence was only looked at in 1997 when Kiszko was dead. Where were all these do gooders for the previous 20 odd years? Why should Dolans recollections of Hewlitt and his van and movements 20 years earlier be so credible and yet the case against Holland and Outteridge was dismissed because of the lapse of time?

After Kiszko's pardon they were busy hatching up an alternative solution just to cover themselves and to deflect serious investigation of this murder. None of these people gave the slightest help to Kiszko while he was detained. Their allegations might have had some credit had they been on record for years before 1992 trying to highlight a miscarriage of justice that they were aware of. Publication of their book after Kiszko's release was a dance on his grave and can only have been done to protect high up law officers and the judiciary from further scrutiny.

It was meant to close the case forever to save all these peoples faces. This was an exercise in PR to end calls for a new investigation. It certainly was not written to exonerate Kiszko. I personally would have no faith in anything the police said about this case now or any new evidence they produce, because they are only concerned about covering themselves.

How could anybody believe anything they produce now? With all the murders happening every year in the UK isn't it strange that they wrote a book to deliver a solution to this particular murder at this time when I began to focus attention on to Sutcliffe's involvement.

he book is a dossier of speculation and hearsay, written by people who could have helped Kiszko when he was inside but only needed to do so after he was pardoned. Steven Panter, the Manchester Evening News reporter who lent his name to the book was conspicuously silent for the 16 years Kiszko was locked up.

Trevor Wilkinson was a senior police officer for all that time also. Where was he then if he knew so much ? Isn't that his job ? to apprehend criminals he knows about, instead of writing a book about what might have been after Kiszko's death.

David Waddington, Kiszko's defence council, who later was a Home Secretary with a vested interest in keeping Kiszko locked up was made a life peer in November 1990 and was elevated to Governor of Bermuda in August 1992, six months after Kiszko was pardoned.

Rose's book certainly helped to shield him from further scrutiny of his totally incompetent defence of Kiszko. Peter Taylor , the prosecuting QC was only concerned with winning a conviction. The Judiciary put blind faith in the police then and men like Holland were looked on as heroes whose every word was believable. They were doing the dangerous job of protecting citizens from murderers and for this they got total credibility. That is why they were so incredibly cock sure and arrogant.

Finally, I want to say that the magistrate who threw out Holland and Outteridge's case has condemned herself, and not only is she unfit to serve as a judge but she is a disgrace to the word justice. She had an ulterior motive in dismissing this case but cited the obvious cop out.

 

 


[TOP]


The Yorkshire Ripper website designed by Simon
All content © 2000 - 2006 Noel O'Gara, all rights reserved