Heartland

So, West Yorkshire Police arrested someone in Sunderland yesterday evening. A suspect is currently being held in Leeds Bridewell under suspicion of making the "Wearside Jack" tapes and letters that threw the "Yorkshire Ripper" case off-course for several years. If anyone doesn't remember, because of these letters and tapes, Peter Sutcliffe was eliminated from enquiries several times, due to his lack of a Sunderland accent.

Anyone up for some wild speculation as to his identity?

• An accomplice of Sutcliffe?
• A disaffected police officer?
• Just a random nutter?

I think the random nutter hypothesis can be dismissed outright, because, IIRC, "Wearside Jack" had information about the killings that only the Police investigating team (and the killer) could have known.

And how have they caught him (if it's the right man) at long last?

...and the police are trotting out the predictable "impossible to tell whether the lives of those killed by sutcliffe after his initial questioning and release would have been saved if we had not fallen for the hoax".
utter bollocks -if the ripper had remained in custody until efficiently cleared of suspicion (ie not) then of course they would have lived!

however the loony theory is still perfectly possible. the details that were known to "weirside jack" were not unknown to some of the public. they were details of the "ripper" aspect -disembowelling etc,- that had been omitted from press releases but were gorily being traded thanks to mortuary staff etc. at the hospital whose grounds were where one of the bodies was found. i know this because my ex''s grandma was a matron there and had even seen the body herself. nurses may be "angels" but i havent met one yet who won't regale you with gory yucky hospital tales.

diana?

oops no i retract that. or i won't be able to eat my lunch, if she starts.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:however the loony theory is still perfectly possible. the details that were known to "weirside jack" were not unknown to some of the public. they were details of the "ripper" aspect -disembowelling etc,- that had been omitted from press releases but were gorily being traded thanks to mortuary staff etc. at the hospital whose grounds were where one of the bodies was found. i know this because my ex''s grandma was a matron there and had even seen the body herself. nurses may be "angels" but i havent met one yet who won't regale you with gory yucky hospital tales.

I didn't think of that.

Mind, nor did the Ripper-hunting police.

emilystrange wrote:diana?

oops no i retract that. or i won't be able to eat my lunch, if she starts.

I'm not that bloody old ya cheeky git.

i meant your gory tales, m'dear...

markfiend wrote:So, West Yorkshire Police arrested someone in Sunderland yesterday evening. A suspect is currently being held in Leeds Bridewell under suspicion of making the "Wearside Jack" tapes and letters that threw the "Yorkshire Ripper" case off-course for several years. If anyone doesn't remember, because of these letters and tapes, Peter Sutcliffe was eliminated from enquiries several times, due to his lack of a Sunderland accent.

not really true. sutcliffe had already "slipped through the net" on several occassions even before the hoax. this was a massive manhunt in a pre-computerised age when cross-referencing of thousands of pieces of information was time-consuming and prone to human error. it is true that one detective constable's strong suspicions that sutcliffe could be the ripper was disregarded by senior officers on the basis of the wearside jack hoax but this interview did not take place until the end of July 1979 and wasn't reviewed (and ultimately discarded) by those senior officers for some nine months (which gives some indication of the volume of information the inquiry team were dealing with). sutcliffe had already murdered ten women by the time of that interview. one more died during those nine months so arguably only the ripper's final two victim's could be seen to have lost their lives partly due to wearside jack.

the ripper's crimes were unimaginable. it is only natural that we should wonder how he was not stopped sooner but it is too easy to lay the blame solely at the feet of an overstretched police force faced with an operation rarely (if ever?) seen before. wearside jack, on the other hand, is clearly, in way or another, a very disturbed individual.

Anyone up for some wild speculation as to his identity?

• An accomplice of Sutcliffe?
• A disaffected police officer?
• Just a random nutter?

I think the random nutter hypothesis can be dismissed outright, because, IIRC, "Wearside Jack" had information about the killings that only the Police investigating team (and the killer) could have known.

i'm tempted by the accomplice thoery. maybe not someone who actually aided sutcliffe directly but someone with whom he shared his secrets? i seem to recall something about sutcliffe being seen at truck stops with a man who has never been traced?

And how have they caught him (if it's the right man) at long last?

what makes it odder is that i'm sure i remember a news story from sometime in the last twelve months or so about west yorkshir police admitting that they'd lost the original letters and tape in a "reorganisation". linked to today's news?

RicheyJames wrote:sutcliffe had already "slipped through the net" on several occassions even before the hoax. this was a massive manhunt in a pre-computerised age when cross-referencing of thousands of pieces of information was time-consuming and prone to human error.

Of course. It's mind-boggling to think of the amount of information that they must have had to go through. It's all to easy to take computer technology for granted.

RicheyJames wrote: it is true that one detective constable's strong suspicions that sutcliffe could be the ripper was disregarded by senior officers on the basis of the wearside jack hoax but this interview did not take place until the end of July 1979 and wasn't reviewed (and ultimately discarded) by those senior officers for some nine months (which gives some indication of the volume of information the inquiry team were dealing with). sutcliffe had already murdered ten women by the time of that interview. one more died during those nine months so arguably only the ripper's final two victim's could be seen to have lost their lives partly due to wearside jack.

Indeed. Perhaps I should have made this information clearer in my original post, but it's far easier to let you do the legwork of research for me as you seem to enjoy it so much

RicheyJames wrote:the ripper's crimes were unimaginable. it is only natural that we should wonder how he was not stopped sooner but it is too easy to lay the blame solely at the feet of an overstretched police force faced with an operation rarely (if ever?) seen before. wearside jack, on the other hand, is clearly, in way or another, a very disturbed individual.

Agreed, on all counts.

RicheyJames wrote:i'm tempted by the accomplice thoery. maybe not someone who actually aided sutcliffe directly but someone with whom he shared his secrets? i seem to recall something about sutcliffe being seen at truck stops with a man who has never been traced?

Ah yes, IIRC isn't this also the guy that has led to some of the wilder "two rippers" rumours that crop up from time to time?

RicheyJames wrote:what makes it odder is that i'm sure i remember a news story from sometime in the last twelve months or so about west yorkshir police admitting that they'd lost the original letters and tape in a "reorganisation". linked to today's news?

My guess is that Sutcliffe himself, in a bid to be released, may finally have told Police who his accomplice / confidant was.

very little research required sadly. when i first moved to leeds i discovered that the student flats where i lived in my first year were (many years earlier) home to the ripper's last victim, jacqueline hill and that she'd been murdered just yards from the entrance. that prompted me to look into the case a bit more (with an entire university library at my disposal) and most of it sort of "stuck". i did have a quick google to check the dates though...

Not too familiar with the case (it being LONG before my time and in another part of the country)... but memories come flooding back now of Francis' Bloktober Grande Tour of Leeds , where he regailed Indrek and I with tales of "this is where the Ripper used to hang out..."

As an aside, my father was teaching at Sunderland Poly (as was) when the Wearside Jack tapes were released.

One of his students sounded very similar to the man on the tape (though arguably a broad Wearside accent would be the only detail anyone would pick up, ignoring the subtlties of different voices). Quite a dilemma, particularly since he knew the student very well and was entirely confident that he couldn't possibly have been involved.

Not an easy decision to make ....

RicheyJames wrote:very little research required sadly. when i first moved to leeds i discovered that the student flats where i lived in my first year were (many years earlier) home to the ripper's last victim, jacqueline hill and that she'd been murdered just yards from the entrance. that prompted me to look into the case a bit more (with an entire university library at my disposal) and most of it sort of "stuck". i did have a quick google to check the dates though...

That would be Lupton Flats then.

Yes, similar with me; I did know the facts you gave, (just yanking your chain a little ) but left it at a simplified version for laziness' sake. Like you say that sort of thing does tend to stick in the mind.

Incidentally, I don't know if Leeds Uni Students Union still does the women's night-minibus, but I was told that it was set up while (and because) the Ripper was still at large.

markfiend wrote:women's night-minibus ... I was told that it was set up while (and because) the Ripper was still at large.

Yep, that was always my understanding. I still remember avidly reading details of the trial in my parents' copy of the Daily Mail in 1981 as I was due to start at University there in the October. As Claire has alluded above, I still sensed his shadow lurking round every corner even after he was jailed. The Women's Mini Bus being a very tangible reminder of the fear he had instilled in Leeds' female population. Especially after he moved from prostitutes to 'nice girls'. You could still sense the fear in any woman who happened to be walking home alone ahead of you at night. So much so that I'd frequently turn off and take a long detour just so as not to make them feel any more uncomfortable. A schoolfriend of mine's sister was at Leeds University during his reign of terror and Pam will never forget the gut-wrenching uncertainty as her first husband was taken away for questioning by the police. Fortunately, his only crime was having a dodgy-looking moustache and a Ford Cortina. Scary times by all accounts.

Francis wrote:You could still sense the fear in any woman who happened to be walking home alone ahead of you at night. So much so that I'd frequently turn off and take a long detour just so as not to make them feel any more uncomfortable.

Francis you're a gentleman.

I have done that myself from time to time. Or cross over the road so as not to walk directly behind someone who is obviously freaking out. It doesn't help that when I'm alone I tend to walk quite quickly; partly out of my own fear of walking alone at nights.

But anyway, there's a name to the suspect now; John Humble, aged 49 (which would have put him in his early 20s at the time) of Sunderland. Apparently his house is cordoned off and is being searched by forensic teams, and is just across the river from the area identified as Wearside Jack's place of origin by the speech experts from the tape.

Also the police have said that it's "forensic evidence" that has led them to this suspect, which seems a little odd in light of RJ's half-recollection of the tapes and letters having gone missing. (A half-recollection I share, for the record.)

[/quote] My guess is that Sutcliffe himself, in a bid to be released, may finally have told Police who his accomplice / confidant was.[/quote]

SURELY not??? I mean, he'll never be released, will he? Isn't he a guaranteed member of the Hindley-Rose West cultural bogeyman and political pawn throw-away-the-key club? And surely he's not mad or stupid enough to think otherwise???

He's not a well man. It wouldn't surprise me if he tried to get some freedom for his last couple of years.

This is entirely speculation on my part though; I've heard or read nothing to support this idea.

Mr Humble has now been charged with peverting the course of justice. and is in deep s**t, methinks. Good!

markfiend wrote:

Francis wrote:You could still sense the fear in any woman who happened to be walking home alone ahead of you at night. So much so that I'd frequently turn off and take a long detour just so as not to make them feel any more uncomfortable.

Francis you're a gentleman.

I have done that myself from time to time. Or cross over the road so as not to walk directly behind someone who is obviously freaking out.

I sometimes do that, and I'm not even a man!

Sorry. Just trying to lighten the mood...