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
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
The claxton page should be studied in conjunction with
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
. 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 ?
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.