In the first article in the series Toms’ Lives Matter 1: “Hope”, Tim analysed the heartless refusal of North Yorkshire Police (NYP) to investigate the murder of an unknown woman -thought to be a prostitute- near Scarborough in 1979 who he has called “Hope”.

In this article he covers a development on the way most Forces in the British Police Service investigates prostitute murders and compares it to the way NYP and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) treat prostitute murders.

*Tim is originally from London. “Tom” is cockney riming slang for a prostitute, from Thomas More = Whore.

Toms’* Lives Matter 2: Helen Sage

by TIM HICKS

~~~~~

Introduction: Misogyny in the Police Service

Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It can be practiced by women as well as men.

Historically the Police response to crimes of violence and sexual abuse against women and girls was to ignore it. In particular assaults on one group of acutely vulnerable people –sex workers were usually ignored. Even if they resulted in a murder, not much effort was put into investigating them. A classic example of misogyny.

Here I quote Mrs Theresa May when she was Home Secretary:

“I want to talk about one such issue in particular – the Police response to domestic abuse and vulnerable victims more widely.

Because for years the violence, rape and emotional abuse that takes place every day behind closed doors was simply not being taken seriously enough, and all too often treated as a ‘second class’ crime. Claims neglected and ignored, suffering dismissed, blame and recrimination cast back at victims, rather than those responsible. In many cases, brutal violence was downplayed as ‘just a domestic’ and too little was being done to protect victims.”

NYE Article covering this here.

In my view prostitute murders were ignored by the Police because:

• The Police regarded violence as an occupational hazard arising from a lifestyle choice to be a prostitute. In this documentary on the Midlands Ripper Alun Kyte, Chief Constable Mick Creedon of Derbyshire Police – who as a Detective Superintendent led the successful cold case investigation into Kyte – laments attitudes to prostitute murders in the media, Police and the public, which was unsympathetic, because of this perception.
• Prostitute murders were usually committed by strangers, which made them very much more difficult to successfully investigate. So there was a feeling within the Police Service that solving them was an impossible task and it was a waste of time investigating them further, once the initial lines of enquiry had been exhausted.
• The relationship between the Police and prostitutes was adversarial, so prostitutes were reluctant to come forward to the Police with evidence, again making crimes against them more difficult to solve. A knock on effect of this was that it made the Police even more unsympathetic, regarding prostitutes that were victims of violence as a problem, not victims.
• Prostitutes tended to be from lower socio-economic classes, were not articulate and their cases were not taken up by the media, their families or local politicians. So it was easier for the Police to ignore the crimes committed against them and move on to other investigations, which had a higher public profile and were easier to resolve.

The media was also equally unsympathetic and did not cover these crimes. This 2011 article from the Independent sums up the Police approach to prostitute murders very well: The prostitute murder mysteries

This started to change after the investigation into Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe in the 1970s, which was severely affected by these attitudes and misogyny more generally within the Police service.

Following Sutcliffe’s death in November 2020, Chief Constable John Robins of West Yorkshire Police apologised for the way that historically Police treated prostitutes that had been the victims of crime. His statement can be read here.

In my belief the Police service has improved its response to crimes against women including prostitutes since the Yorkshire Ripper investigation. However, there are still at least two Forces that will not investigate prostitute murders effectively. One of them is NYP and this was covered in the first article in this series: Toms’ Lives Matter 1: “Hope“.  The other is Greater Manchester Police (GMP). To illustrate the point, I am focussing on the murder of Manchester sex worker Helen Sage.

The Murder of Helen Sage

Briefly, Helen Sage was a devoted single mother who supplemented her income with prostitution. She went out to work the streets in Manchester one night in August 1997, leaving her daughter with a neighbour and disappeared. Since then, there has been no trace of Helen Sage and no proof of life has been discovered.

The author has concluded she has been murdered and her body concealed, which in Police parlance is called a “no body murder” because:

• There was no known reason for her to disappear.
• Helen has been missing for twenty two years and no trace has ever been found of her.
• Helen had no other way of earning money other than being a prostitute, yet has not come to the attention of the Police since her disappearance.
• Helen was a devoted mother and abandoned her child. This is normally accepted as the key indicator of a “no body murder” of a woman.
• Helen was a prostitute, an occupation that makes the victim more vulnerable and liable to violence.
• The National Crime Agency (NCA) has confirmed there is no proof of life.

However, GMP has classified Helen Sage’s disappearance as a missing person, not a crime. Officially, this is because GMP will only declare a “no body murder” if there is physical evidence to show that a crime has been committed, so circumstantial evidence is ignored.

Detective Sergeant Clare Carr, from GMP’s Cold Case Unit, said:

“At the time of Helen’s disappearance a number of hypotheses were explored to establish what happened to her. 

As with cases of this nature, this is normal procedure to make sure that every outcome is considered to try and find that person. 

Helen’s disappearance is not currently being treated as murder as there has never been any physical evidence to suggest she was killed. 

Of course, if any new information came to light we would review this.”

In my view, this approach is perverse, because sex workers have to get into a car with an unknown man. It is therefore impossible to detect physical evidence of crime at the abduction point, because there is none. The crime occurs later in the car, or at the place where intercourse occurs. If the murderer conceals the body skilfully, there will be no physical evidence of a crime there either. Consequently, the victim will then remain a missing person indefinitely, unless the body is discovered, or the murderer is arrested in connection with another offence and confesses.

Clearly the absence of any physical evidence or a crime scene does not rule out the possibility of a “no body murder”. In my view it should not therefore be used as the sole elimination criteria. Imposing a requirement for physical evidence is an impossible barrier to surmount in some “no body murders” particularly if the victim is a sex worker.

No other Force in the UK I am aware of adopts this rigid definition. Some examples of Forces that have conducted successful “no body murders” when there was no physical evidence of a crime can be seen in this article Helen Sage: NYE vindicated.

Interestingly, Helen Sage is listed as murdered in the Wikipedia list of murdered sex workers in the United Kingdom.

So why has GMP adopted this intransigent and blatantly perverse position?

There are in my view five reasons for this and they apply equally to NYP’s response to the murder of “Hope”.

1. Failure of effective supervision

In Manchester holding GMP Chief Constable Ian Pilling to account is the duty of Baroness Beverley Hughes. Greater Manchester’s Deputy Mayor for Policing, Crime, Criminal Justice and Fire who is responsible to Mr Andy Burnham the Mayor of Greater Manchester for the efficiency of GMP.

In North Yorkshire, holding Chief Constable Winward to account is the duty of the Police Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC) for North Yorkshire Mrs Julia Mulligan. Holding Mrs Mulligan to account is the duty of the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel (PCP).

When I raised the cases of “Hope” and Helen Sage with Baroness Hughes for GMP and PFCC Mulligan and the PCP for NYP:

PFCC Mulligan, the North Yorkshire PCP and Baroness Hughes all responded by refusing to comment on “Hope” or Helen’s cases by asserting it was an operational matter for Chief Constable Winward and Chief Constable Pilling that they could not intervene in. The role of the PFCC is to be the voice of the people and hold the Police to account. They are responsible for the totality of policing. Source: Association of Police & Crime Commissioners Given these matters relate to Force policy, efficiency and the accuracy of the crime figures, which are not operational matters, the conclusion is inescapable that their response was a cop out to evade their duty to face up to misconduct in their respective Forces.

When I continued to press PFCC Mulligan, her lawyer wrote to me thus:

“In accordance with the Commissioner’s policy on unreasonable and unacceptable complainants and the IOPC statutory guidance on handling complaints, we are writing to advise you that the volume of your correspondence is excessive, unreasonably persistent and that (whilst some correspondence is appropriately raised with this office and the complaints team) the nature of your correspondence is often unreasonable, derogatory containing unsubstantiated allegations/assertions, or constitutes ineligible purported complaints. Your behaviour in corresponding in this manner is unacceptable due to the substantial impact that responding to you alone has on public resources.”

In short, the supervisory authorities in both Forces simply rubber stamped the Chief Constable’s position and failed to hold the Police to account. Thereby allowing serious crimes against women to be ignored and go unreported.

Normally, neither Chief Constable Winward or Chief Constable Pilling would dare refuse to record the murder of a woman as a crime. However, because both victims were prostitutes and their policy is perversely supported by the officials responsible for holding them to account, they can get away with it.

This represents a complete failure in supervision of both Chief Constables.

2. Falsification of crime figures

“No body murders” are notoriously difficult to resolve, because there is often no forensic evidence or crime scene. In the case of a prostitute murder this is doubly so, because they are usually stranger murders. So recording a prostitute murder as a crime will worsen the Force crime figures for unsolved murders, with very little realistic prospect of it being solved.

An inspection by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) recently concluded that GMP was failing to record 80,000 crimes a year. BBC report here. HMICFRS report here.

Specifically GMP:

• • Failed to record more than one in every five crimes reported by the public and more than one in every four violent crimes.
  • Did not record an estimated 80,100 crimes reported to it between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020. This amounts to approximately 220 crimes a day where victims may be denied the opportunity to get the justice they deserve.
  • Failed to record a high proportion of violent crime including domestic abuse and behavioural crimes, such as harassment, stalking and coercive controlling behaviour.
  • Failed to make sure all investigations were conducted effectively, with investigation plans not completed to an acceptable standard and no appropriate levels of review and supervision applied.

HMICFRS found multiple failures to record crimes since at least 2016. It is apparent that this situation has been going on for many years before. One of the violent crimes against vulnerable women that were not recorded is the murder of Helen Sage, which I reported to the GMP in 2019.

Given the circumstances of the case outlined above, the idea that GMP is unaware that Helen Sage has been murdered is preposterous. But nevertheless, it has preferred to record Helen Sage as a missing person, not a murder victim.

Likewise, NYP has recorded “Hope’s” death as a suspicious death, not a murder. It is also refusing to follow up on new evidence that would establish her identity so her family can be notified and possibly the circumstances of her death so she could be re-classified as a murder victim.

Chief Constable Lisa Winward of NYP

Refusing to follow up  new lines of enquiry generated by local media appeals in a prostitute murder.

This is convenient for the Chief Constables of both GMP and NYP; because it evades having undetected prostitute murders in the Force crime statistics and improves both the crime figures and the detection rates.

3. Misogyny

When a murder occurs, the organisation responsible for securing justice for the victim and her family is the Police. This is a sacred duty on our Police service. It is unacceptable for Chief Constables’ to discriminate against victims by picking and choosing which crimes their Force will investigate based on their own personal attitudes and social prejudices of misogyny, racism, religion, nationality, politics, lifestyle, or socio economic class.

Helen Sage was a single mum that was going through hard times and paid for the upkeep of her child through prostitution. When I contacted the GMP Press Office and the Mayor’s Office and asked for a press comment, such is the lack of interest, that I received no comment from either GMP or Mr Burnham. Helen does not appear on the GMP website as a missing person, so GMP is not treating her disappearance as a “no body murder” or a missing person’s investigation. In “Hope’s” case Chief Constable Winward is refusing to follow up on witness evidence developed by the NYE.

In short, both cases have been ignored and buried because both victims were prostitutes.

This BBC article alleges that Police Scotland are ignoring the murder of Glasgow prostitute Emma Caldwell in 2005 and other attacks on prostitutes. “The women spoke of reporting rapes and attacks to the Police and said they were rarely believed. They said they felt silenced, as though their voices were worthless”.

It therefore saddens me very deeply that these misogynistic attitudes which deny victims their right to justice and endanger women’s lives still prevail in GMP and NYP. Solely for the convenience of the Police and keeping the crime statistics low. This is a betrayal of all women; because men that attack women often go on to attack other women. Each time an attack on a woman goes unpunished, it encourages them to commit other crimes against women.

I believe that “Hope” was probably murdered by Peter Sutcliffe, but I could be wrong in this. If so, her murderer could still be alive and may have committed other murders of women. Helen’s killer may also be free and may have gone on to murder other women. Yet GMP is not pursuing him.

The brave GMP whistle-blower Detective Constable (DC) Maggie Oliver, who exposed the unacceptable attitude of GMP to the Manchester grooming gangs, can be seen commenting on misogynistic attitudes within the Police here. This Channel 4 investigation shows how senior Officers in GMP ignored the murder of Victoria Agoglia and other girls that were being Forced into prostitution, based on the fact that they were from lower socio economic groups.

Interestingly, the former Chief Constable of NYP -Dave Jones- was Head of GMP CID at the time. His part in the grooming scandal was exposed in this Manchester Evening News (MEN) article. Chief Constable Jones has been accused of participating in a cover-up into the grooming scandal; MEN article here.

These attitudes seem to be embedded in some Forces. Chief Constable Jones’s successor as Chief Constable of NYP is a woman. However, this has not prevented her pursuing the same misogynistic policies of refusing to investigate crimes against some women that Chief Constable Jones is accused of pursuing as Head of GMP’s CID.

4. Lack of empathy for victims of crime that are vulnerable, or from lower socio economic groups

Both “Hope” and Helen were victims of crime from lower socio economic groups. They were therefore vulnerable to having their cases ignored because they were not articulate or wealthy and had no known family ties. This made it easier for the Police to ignore their right to justice by refusing to record their murders as a crime, so they could focus on less serious crimes which improved the Force crime statistics.

Likewise, Greater Manchester Police ignored victims of the grooming scandal, because they were children from lower socio economic families, who could not challenge the Police. Preferring instead to focus on “acquisitive crime” (street robberies, car theft burglaries etc.), so their cases were simply ignored.

In March 2021, detectives from NYP started questioning local residents about Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Savile. It is not known what these enquiries are in connection with. They may be part of Operation Manuka, the investigation into abuse at Throxenby Hall, or they may be to do with the mysterious disappearance of one of Jaconelli’s victims, or they may be to do with some other aspect of his offending.

The NYE wrote to Chief Constable Winward confirming it was in touch with some of Jaconelli’s victims and asking if she wanted us to put NYP in contact with them. Although the boys at Throxenby Hall and most of his victims were all from under-privileged backgrounds, they have a right to justice and help. Needless to say, Chief Constable Winward ignored this offer of help and did not respond.

Refusing to interview any of the victims is exactly the same policy NYP followed when it tried to cover up the Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Savile paedophile ring in Scarborough. NYP then claimed there was no evidence of any crime, to conceal misconduct and past mistakes by NYP and its predecessor Forces. It was only when the NYE and BBC ran a joint investigation that NYP admitted the truth, the victims were heard and received support and counselling.

PFCC Mulligan is the Association of Crime Commissioners (ACC) lead spokesperson for victims and its strategy for Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG). In both this capacity and as PFCC for North Yorkshire she has held herself out as a champion of victims’ rights.

Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner Julia Mulligan

Association of Crime Commissioners (ACC) lead spokesperson for victims’, calling for a comprehensive VAWG strategy that excludes prostitutes.

In my view a comprehensive strategy for combatting VAWG should include investigating murders of women, whatever their lifestyle or socio economic class. Yet PFCC Mulligan has resolutely refused to intervene in Hope’s case, or even comment on it. Thereby acquiescing to it being ignored by Chief Constable Winward.

5. Bureaucratic intransigence

Neither GMP nor NYP will accept any form of criticism or dissent.

When I wrote to GMP asking for Helen Sage’s case to be reviewed and classified as a murder, GMP refused to re-consider its position or review the case. It insisted that Helen Sage was missing -not murdered. When I challenged this, the GMP Press Office responded:

“we will not be drawn further on this matter.”

DC Maggie Oliver resigned from GMP over the way it treated victims. She is quoted in this BBC article confirming that she had a meeting with Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham in 2018 to highlight “serious concerns” and she was “treated with contempt“. She alleged there is a “culture of arrogance and cover-ups” in GMP and a “radical overhaul” was needed. (NYE coverage of Maggie Oliver and the Manchester grooming scandal here.)

DC Oliver can be seen being interviewed here stating that nothing has changed in GMP since its catastrophic failure in the grooming scandals. In this BBC article, Mr Burnham himself confirmed that a major part of the problem with GMP’s crime recording was its defensive culture. My own experience with GMP is the same. It has simply refused to consider any criticism or acknowledge any failings.

When I wrote to Chief Constable Winward raising my concerns over “Hope’s” case, she responded “your frequent correspondence on matters relating to investigations distracts from the investigations themselves, wastes Police time”.

The response of both Forces to the author’s concerns can only be described as arrogant, intransigent and perverse. Worse, it endangers women’s lives.

Summary: The principles at stake and a wider concern

Some will argue it was all a long time ago and prostitutes have to accept the risk of the lifestyle they lead. I disagree and would argue that:

• No one deserves to be murdered and in a civilised and humane society, everyone is entitled to the protection of the Queen’s Peace, no matter what their lifestyle or socio-economic class. Essentially the position taken by Chief Constable Robins above.
• Men who are violent towards women must know that their attacks will be investigated relentlessly, to deter them from committing other attacks. Failure to investigate prostitute murders simply puts other women at risk.
• Misogyny still affects the way the Police investigate serious crime article here and the media has a duty to oppose it, so we have an efficient Police Force and a safer society.

In this article I have only covered two historical cases, but there could be others.

The truly frightening wider concern is that there could be many other cases of women the Police have classified as missing, who in fact have been murdered and the killers are still at large and free to do further violence to women.

NYP Chief Constable Winward, PFCC Mulligan, Councillor Carl Les, GMP Chief Constable Pilling, Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham and Deputy Mayor Baroness Hughes all received a draft copy of the article and were invited to comment. Such is their lack of concern at this appalling prospect that none of them bothered to respond. Further evidence that misogyny is alive and well in NYP and GMP.

The response of both GMP and NYP to this issue is a disgrace and typical of the attitude condemned by Chief Constable Robins and Chief Constable Creedon above. It represents everything that was wrong about policing in the past. Both GMP and NYP are in need of radical overhaul, which the current leadership is obviously incapable of delivering.

Right of Reply

If you are mentioned in this article and do not agree with the views expressed in it, or if you wish to correct any factual inaccuracy, please let me know using the letters@nyenquirer.uk e mail address. Your views and a correction will be published if appropriate.

Readers are left to place the protagonists in the context of news articles.

Enjoy!

[Satire] ]]> http://nyenquirer.uk/toms-matter-1/ Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:49:49 +0000 http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=27342 Tim Hicks writes on a deeply disturbing set of correspondence from the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police (NYP) concerning her refusal to investigate Scarborough’s greatest murder mystery, because the victim is thought to be a prostitute.

*Tim is originally from London. “Tom” is cockney rhyming slang for a prostitute, from Thomas More = Whore.

Police Misogyny: Tom’s* Lives Matter 1: “Hope”

by TIM HICKS

~~~~~

Introduction: The Murder of “Hope” and Misogyny in the Police

Regular readers will know that for some time the North Yorks Enquirer has been conducting an investigation into what must be the greatest murder mystery in the history of policing in North Yorkshire. The 1981 discovery of the naked body of a woman, who remains unidentified to this day and is known as the “Nude in the Nettles” murder.

For reasons of decency and to engage public interest, the NYE has named her “Hope”.

The NYE investigation concluded that “Hope” had been murdered by the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. Many of Sutcliffe’s victims were prostitutes. A key aspect of the failure of the Yorkshire Ripper investigation was institutionalised misogyny in the Police – by both male and female Police Officers – who regarded sex workers as pursuing a lifestyle choice which involved acceptance of violence from their clients. This resulted in a refusal to investigate prostitute murders effectively.

I was therefore pleased to see the following statement from Chief Constable John Robins of West Yorkshire Police (pictured above) following Sutcliffe’s death in November 2020:

Response to the death of Peter Sutcliffe 

Peter Sutcliffe was convicted at court in 1981 for the murder of thirteen women and the attempted murder of seven other victims, in crimes which created a climate of fear across the country. 

I am sure the news of his death will bring back a range of mixed emotions and trauma for surviving victims and relatives of those whose lives he cruelly took away.

Those who died and were assaulted, as well as those relatives who are still suffering today, are at the forefront of our thoughts and our condolences.

The investigation into offences committed by Peter Sutcliffe was, at the time, the largest ever conducted by a UK Police force and was subject to two exhaustive reviews in the immediate aftermath.

The 1981 report by Sir Lawrence Byford and a subsequent review conducted by former West Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Colin Sampson identified the extensive efforts made by the enquiry team, as well as what clearly went wrong. 

Failings and mistakes that were made are fully acknowledged and documented. We can say without doubt that the lessons learned from the Peter Sutcliffe enquiry have proved formative in shaping the investigation of serious and complex crime within modern day policing. 

West Yorkshire Police is committed to ensuring that those harmed by crime are at the heart of what we do.

Apology to surviving victims and relatives

On behalf of West Yorkshire Police, I apologise for the additional distress and anxiety caused to all relatives by the language, tone and terminology used by senior Officers at the time in relation to Peter Sutcliffe’s victims. 

Such language and attitudes may have reflected wider societal attitudes of the day, but it was as wrong then as it is now.

A huge number of Officers worked to identify and bring Peter Sutcliffe to justice and it is a shame that their hard work was overshadowed by the language of senior Officers used at the time, the effect of which is still felt today by surviving relatives.

Thankfully those attitudes are consigned to history and our approach today is wholly victim focused, putting them at the centre of everything we do.

The well-documented Byford and Sampson reviews fully explored many issues. However, the reports did not fully address the issue of how victims were portrayed and described, which impacted on families, friends and wider public perception.

I offer this heartfelt apology today as the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police.

John Robins QPM

Chief Constable

West Yorkshire Police

 I felt this was an impressive and highly commendable statement by Chief Constable Robins.

It indicates a sea change in Police attitudes towards crimes against women, particularly against prostitutes in most forces. I say “most”, because misogyny still affects policing in the UK article here and there are still at least two forces that will not investigate prostitute murders effectively.

One of them is NYP.

The murder of “Hope”, Scarborough’s greatest murder mystery

An appeal for information by NYP as part of a 2011 cold case review gives the facts of “Hope’s” murder:

“An anonymous male caller telephoned North Yorkshire Police providing the exact location for Police Officers to search. On Friday 28^th August 1981 Police Officers attended the described location, a lay by on the unclassified road leading from Sutton Bank to the villages of Scawton and Rievaulx. The location is a quiet road used by local people and occasional caravaners heading to a nearby site. The rural area consists mainly of arable and pasture farmland with occasional conifer plantations. It was to the side of this road and between two small plantations that Officers found the skeletal remains of an unknown female laid in undergrowth.

A forensic examination of the naked body revealed no jewellery or personal effects laid nearby that may assist in establishing who she was. A Home Office pathologist estimated she may have laid at that place situ for up to two years due to plant growth and state of the body. The post mortem did not establish a cause of death.

Thirty years later the same questions remain. The anonymous male caller that started this 30 years Police investigation may have the answer to the other questions – who is this lady left undiscovered at the top of Sutton Bank?, what was she doing there? and how did she die.

North Yorkshire Police’s commitment to finding the answers to these questions remains the same, so that her family can have the answers they deserve. For this reason if you know the identity of the lady or the male caller please make contact.”

(My emphasis in bold)

At the time, it was speculated that the victim was a prostitute. The “mystery caller” was designated as the prime suspect in both the 1981 and 2011 investigations.

For more information please see this Yorkshire Post article, which the NYE assisted with; Part 2 can be viewed here.

The NYE investigation included repeated appeals for information and identified:

• A key witness, Alderman Norman Murphy of Scarborough, who believes he knew “Hope” and another witness that has supported Alderman Murphy’s information.
• A name for the mystery caller, explanations of how the body was discovered and why the “mystery caller” could not come forward to the Police.
• Credible evidence that Peter Sutcliffe should be designated as a suspect in the murder.

In accordance with the above appeal for information, the NYE has been trying to pass this evidence on to NYP, however NYP has resolutely refused to meet, or interview Alderman Murphy, to identify “Hope” – “so that her family can have the answers they deserve”.

Based on a letter I received from Chief Constable Winward in April 2018 covered in this NYE article ‘A Letter from the Chief‘, this is obviously a deliberate policy decision not to engage with the NYE. I believe this is because:

a) She is retaliating against the NYE for exposing scandals in North Yorkshire Police. The most famous of which is NYP’s inexcusable failure to arrest Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Savile. The NYE’s investigation revealed thirty sexual offences and revealed allegations of Police corruption resulting in wide ranging criticism of the force.

b) “Hope” is believed to be a prostitute and she is not interested in resolving prostitute murders. Interestingly, following the publication of the above article by the Yorkshire Post, which also included an appeal for information, NYP did not bother contacting the Yorkshire Post either. This demonstrates NYPs complete lack of interest in doing anything to progress this murder, because the victim was probably an alcoholic prostitute, and that misogynistic policing is alive and well in NYP.

c) She is passionately loyal to the reputation of her force and does not want to admit that it bungled the Yorkshire Ripper investigation and both investigations into “Hope’s” murder. NYE analysis of the 1981 and 2011 investigations here.

I have now had a letter which appears to have been written by a Ms Xanthe Tait. It is written on behalf of Chief Constable Winward and the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel (PCP). The letter deals with the two issues I was corresponding with Chief Constable Winward about at the time; the murder of “Hope” and breaches of the Coronavirus Regulations by Chief Constable Winward and other Police Officers from NYP. The letter is reproduced below:

In her letter, Ms Tait uses the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to justify:

1. Ignoring complaints about Police Officers breaching the Coronavirus Lockdown Regulations.
2. Refusing to respond to any correspondence from the NYE, even though it is the leading media outlet for the Scarborough area. (NYE article covering these first two aspects of the letter here: Sleeping Beauties: The Chief Bites Back, here.)
3. Ignoring the evidence and witnesses generated by the NYE in the murder of “Hope”. Which is the issue covered in this article.

Chief Constable Winward and “Hope”

In her letter Ms Tait makes a number of allegations against me:

• I am withholding information from the Police on the murder of “Hope”. This is a falsehood. I have run a successful media campaign which has generated fresh witness evidence, but Chief Constable Winward is refusing to interview the witnesses.
• “your frequent correspondence on matters relating to investigations distracts from the investigations themselves, wastes Police time” This is a falsehood. My correspondence is obviously intended to assist the North Yorkshire Police investigate “Hope’s” murder.
• I should ask the person I believe is the “mystery caller” to contact NYP. Unfortunately I do not have contact with him. I only have his surname and rank in 1983. I have never suggested that I have any contact with this man. Ms Tait’s request for me to ask him to contact the Police demonstrates at best, an inadequate review of my correspondence, or deliberate obfuscation and falsehood. Further, it would be very wrong for me as a journalist to contact the prime suspect in a murder enquiry, because if he is the murderer this would alert him and could result in him destroying evidence, leading to allegations that I had undermined a murder investigation.
• I am requesting immunity from prosecution on behalf of the prime suspect in “Hope’s” murder. This is ridiculous; the “mystery caller” is unknown to me. The information I have indicates that he is an innocent witness who could not come forward at the time because he was a serviceman acting under orders to withhold information on an exercise that was taking place from the Police, for reasons of national security. The investigations into this crime in 1981 and 2011 wrongly designated this witness as the prime suspect. This ensured the “mystery caller” would not contact NYP because he risked being arrested for a murder he did not commit. I am also concerned that if his identity is revealed, that as an ex-serviceman he would be prosecuted for misconduct in public office, which would be unfair and contrary to the public interest. I asked for assurances that -provided he is not the murderer- he will not be prosecuted, so I can disclose his details in good conscience.
• “your frequent correspondence on matters relating to investigations…… is an interference with live matters”. Officially murder investigations are never closed and “Hope’s” murder is a live investigation. This comment shows that de facto Chief Constable Winward has closed the investigation, even though this is contrary to standard Police and Home Office policy. Hence the reason Chief Constable Winward has stonewalled for three years to prevent investigation of the witness evidence generated by the NYE. Ms Tait’s remarks are even more bizarre, given that the NYE has been a source of assistance to the Police since its inception and regularly runs NYP appeals for information. NYE journalists have been formally thanked by NYP for their work on the Claudia Lawrence enquiry (Operation Essence) and the Jimmy Savile/Peter Jaconelli paedophile investigation (Operations Yewtree and Hibiscus).
• “the volume of your correspondence is excessive, unreasonably persistent and that (whilst some correspondence is appropriately raised with the force or the complaints team) the nature of your correspondence is often unreasonable” Ms Tait does not provide any examples of the same, so this is yet another unsubstantiated allegation. I have been corresponding with Chief Constable Winward on the murder of “Hope” for nearly three years and it has been impossible to get her to interview a witness that believes he knew the deceased, so she can be identified, or another witness that may be able to identify the “mystery caller”. Hence the need for me to be persistent, which is not unreasonable under the circumstances.
• My correspondence is “derogatory”. Predictably Ms Tait does not provide any examples to support this allegation. Derogatory has a wide range of meanings, including “showing a critical or disrespectful attitude”, or “challenging”. It is entirely right and proper for a journalist in a democratic society to criticise and challenge the Police. I have no doubt that the Chief Constable is angry and offended at the criticisms I have issued against her and her force. However, facts do not have feelings; this does not justify her retaliating against the NYE by refusing to progress a murder investigation.
• My correspondence contains “unsubstantiated allegations/assertions”. NYP has yet to interview Alderman Murphy or myself, so cannot assess if my assertions are substantiated or not. Her remarks therefore constitute derogatory, unsubstantiated falsehood and Ms Tait therefore is indulging in the same unprofessional conduct she falsely accuses me of.
• “Your behaviour in corresponding in this manner is unacceptable due to the substantial impact that responding to you alone has on public resources”. In other words, it is too expensive to interview two witnesses in a murder enquiry. I would point out that Chief Constable Winward was quite willing to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers money prosecuting NYE journalists for criticising NYP (report below), so that she could personally gain financially from damages. It therefore appears somewhat hypocritical to refuse to investigate a prostitute murder, on the basis she is saving public money.

I received a similar letter from Mrs Julia Mulligan Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (PFCC), supporting the Chief Constable’s decision not to investigate “Hope’s” murder.

Presumably the response of both ladies would be very different if “Hope” victim had been the daughter of a Policeman, or a Conservative politician.

Open Letter to Chief Constable Winward

Chief Constable Winward, PFCC Mulligan, Ms Tait and the PCP have all had sight of an initial draft of this article and the opportunity to comment.

From: Timothy Hicks

Sent: 19 March 2021 15:50

To: Legal.servicescentral@Northyorkshire.Police.uk; ExecutiveSupport@northyorkshire.Police.uk; customerservice@northyorkshire-pfcc.gov.uk

Cc: cllr.carl.les@northyorks.gov.uk
Subject: Open letter re: Murder of “Hope” in Scarborough in 1979. 

Dear Chief Constable Winward,

Dear PFCC Mulligan,

Dear Ms Tait, 

Open letter re: Murder of “Hope” in Scarborough in 1979.

Please find attached an initial draft of an article commenting on your letters of the 3^rd of March 2021. It will change before publication. 

I would welcome any comment you would wish to make for publication. I have copied Councillor Les in on this e mail so that the PCP has the opportunity to comment if it wishes to.

Please can I repeat my request that North Yorkshire Police make arrangements to interview myself and Alderman Murphy, so we can pass over our evidence to your Officers and can progress the investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Hicks

NUJ Membership Number WO 15306

Needless to say, none of them would comment or offer any refutation of my remarks above.

Why the NYE is taking an “unreasonably persistent” (.e. determined) line on “Hope’s” murder

“Hope’s” Case raises a number of important issues:

1. When a murder occurs, the Police have a duty to investigate it, and obtain justice for the victim. Because “Hope” was a prostitute and from a lower social economic class does not justify the Police denying her right to justice.
2. The Police must investigate all crime impartially. It is unacceptable for the Chief Constable to discriminate against victims by picking and choosing which crimes her force will investigate based on her personal prejudices around misogyny, racism, religion, nationality, politics, lifestyle, or socio economic class.
3. Each time an attack on a woman goes unpunished, it encourages other crimes against women. Although I genuinely believe that that “Hope” was murdered by Peter Sutcliffe, I could be wrong. If so, her murderer could still be living in Scarborough, because Chief Constable Winward refuses to investigate a prostitute murder.
4. “Hope’s” family have the right to know what happened to her and “Hope” has the right to have her name on her gravestone. The Chief Constable’s decision to ignore new evidence on her identity potentially denies this to them and is inhumane.
5. For a public servant to lie to pervert the course of a murder enquiry and allegations of misconduct by Police Officers is a deeply corrupt act. This raises other issues. The Crown Prosecution Service has to investigate all cases impartially, including those brought against Police Officers. Ms Tait was formerly Chief Crown Prosecutor for North Yorkshire, and is now working for NYP. This must cast doubt on her impartiality when considering cases brought against the Police, when she was a crown prosecutor. There also appears to me to be a potential conflict of interest when a lawyer leaves the CPS for a job with the Police.
6. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 was never intended to authorise the Police to ignore evidence in a murder investigation, or to supress legitimate concerns about the quality of policing. Its use for these purposes is perverse and an abuse of the Chief Constable’s powers.
7. “Hope” was obviously murdered, yet her death is officially recorded as a suspicious death. Manipulating the crime figures by refusing to progress evidence that will transform a suspicious death into an unsolved murder is a corrupt practice.
8. It is an abuse of the public trust and purse for the PFCC and the PCP to take the taxpayers money to hold the Police and PFCC to account, then rubber stamp all of their decisions.
9. In a democratic society, the media must be free to criticise public bodies and particularly to expose Police misconduct, without fear of retaliation or intimidation by the Police. Deputy Chief Constable Gareth Morgan, the National Police Chiefs Council Lead for Media Relations said: “The media play a vital role in holding the Police service to account and in connecting us with the public – this includes highlighting when things may have gone wrong or where policing is under legitimate scrutiny. The relationship should also therefore be challenging and we need to recognise the role the media discharge on behalf of the public in ensuring that we are accountable. The responsibility to be open, transparent and accountable is part of the Code of Ethics and sits with everybody in policing. In recent years there has been a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the Police have withdrawn and communicate less openly with the media. This does policing a disservice and I am determined that we need to reset the relationship with the media – an appropriate and professional relationship between the Police and the media is in the public interest.” The Chief Constable’s policy of disengagement from and retaliation against the NYE is an attack on freedom of the press, aimed at preventing legitimate media scrutiny of bungled investigations and Police misconduct. This is unacceptable in a democratic society.
10. NYP has a very good cold case unit which has had some notable successes recently. The Chief Constable’s media policy makes it impossible for it to progress “Hope’s” murder. A classic case of failure of leadership. They deserve better.

In England and Wales, we do not have a national Police Force and each Chief Constable cannot have his or her operational decisions questioned by anyone. In real terms, it is practically impossible to remove a Chief Constable. These are constitutional safeguards to prevent political interference in the Police.

However, the down side of this is that Chief Constables’ are effectively able to do what they want. Particularly -as in this case- if they are blindly supported by the PFCC and the PCP.

Chief Constable Winward’s conduct is a disgrace and is typical of the attitudes so properly condemned by Chief Constable Robins and Deputy Chief Constable Morgan above. It represents a style of policing that I should have become extinct long ago and which has no place in twenty first century policing.

Coming Next

Toms’ Lives Matter 2, investigating another case of another prostitute murder the Police are refusing to investigate.

NYE Appeal for information

Do you recognise “Hope”?

Three-dimensional wax reconstruction of “Hope’s” head and face

• “Hope” was 5’ 2” in height, aged between thirty five and forty.
• She had a slender build and wore her natural dark brown hair in a page-boy style.
• She had given birth to two or three children and had a displaced septum between her nostrils.
• Her toenails were painted pink – the varnish coming from the Max Factor Maxi range.
• She would have worn a size four shoe.
• She was a heavy smoker who did not look after herself.
• She had a Yorkshire or Lancashire accent, but may not be originally from Scarborough.
• All her upper teeth were missing, she had an upper dental plate fitted, and she had only six lower teeth.
• She had an old fracture to her right ankle and an abnormality to her neck vertebrae which would have caused backache.

Please ask yourself:

• Do you remember someone like this from the bus shelter in Victoria Street?
• Were you one of “Hope’s” clients?
• Were you a Police Officer in Scarborough in 1977 – 1979? Did “Hope” come into custody for being drunk and disorderly, soliciting, theft, burglary or vagrancy, or did you see her at the shelter?
• Were you a social worker, Salvation Army worker or health worker, who came into contact with “Hope” or other alcoholics from Victoria Road Scarborough?
• Did you find a dark blue quilted body warmer, blouse, jumper, dark mini skirt discarded along the A170?
• Did you serve in the RAF at RAF Linton on Ouse, or RAF Fylingdales in the period 1978 – 1985?
• Were you a taxi driver for Boro Taxis next to the café on Victoria Road, or did you use taxis from there?

• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe or his distinctive lorry (pictured above in 1976) in Scarborough?
• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe at Victoria Road, Roscoe Street, Andrews of Scarborough (motorcycle dealers), Deardens builder’s merchants, North Sea Winches, D Wray and Sons, Scarborough Ignition Co Ltd or Pickups or the old goods yard which is now Sainsbury’s?
• Did you frequent the café in Victoria Road and see Peter Sutcliffe there?

If you have any information that you want to pass on confidentially, you can talk to a journalist by contacting the North Yorks Enquirer using our letters@nyenquirer.uk address. All responses will be treated in the strictest confidence.

Right of Reply

If you are mentioned in this article and do not agree with the views expressed in it, or if you wish to correct any factual inaccuracy, please let me know using the letters@nyenquirer.uk email address. Your views and a correction will be published if appropriate.

Following on from the death of “Yorkshire Ripper” Peter Sutcliffe, in a ground-breaking series of articles, CHRIS CLARK & TIM HICKS now cover his attacks in London and the surrounding area.

~~~~~

The Ripper’s London Attacks #9

by TIM HICKS & CHRIS CLARK

Introduction

Until now, the conventional wisdom was that all of Sutcliffe’s attacks were launched from his car. Chris Clark however was convinced that this was not so. Witness evidence received in the murder of “Hope” in the “Nude in the Nettles” murder in North Yorkshire, the abduction of two girls by Sutcliffe from London in 1977 or 1978 and the attempted abduction of a schoolgirl in Leicester in 1980 has confirmed that Sutcliffe used his lorry to attack women, not just his car.

The murders the authors believe were committed while Sutcliffe was driving his lorry are covered in the following articles:

• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 1. Bedgebury Forest Woman
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 2. Ilkley: Proof positive
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 3. More ligature killings
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 4. Doncaster and Sheffield
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 5. Bristol, Sussex and Essex
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 6. “Hope”: More information
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 7. Leicester and Nottingham
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 8. Hammersmith and Leicester

In the London articles in the Lorry Murders series, the authors give the background and more information on the eleven murders, (Jacqueline Ansell-Lamb, Barbara Mayo, Gloria Booth, Eve Stratford, Lynne Weedon, Margaret Lightfoot, Elizabeth Parravicini, Lynda Farrow, “Margaret” known as “Bedgebury Forest Woman”, Sally Shepherd and Patricia Morris) one attempted murder (Marie Burke) and two abductions (Child A and Child B) in London the authors believe Sutcliffe should be considered as a suspect for.

The murders of Lucy Tinslop and Judith Roberts, and attempted abduction of Child C have been included because the authors believe they were committed while travelling from London to Bradford.

The murder of Wendy Sewell in Bakewell in 1973 has been included because it has been linked to the murders of Jacqueline Ansell-Lamb and Barbara Mayo.

One murder in Essex (Kay O’Connor in Colchester in 1974) and the murder of an unidentified woman in Norfolk known as “Cockley Cley Woman” are included because the authors believe Sutcliffe committed them while staying with his sister in Duxford. In accordance with their custom when dealing with unidentified victims, the authors have assigned “Cockley Cley Woman” the name ‘Jane‘.

Two other murders have been included because the authors believe Sutcliffe committed them while driving to and from his home in Bradford to Duxford or London. These are Rosina Hilliard in Leicester in1974 and Carolyn Allen in Nottingham in 1974. The murder of Alison Morris in September 1979 at Ramsey in Essex has been included for completeness because of its proximity to Duxford and London.

Attacks the authors believe were conducted using a car are also included in these articles to give a comprehensive picture of the Ripper’s offending in London. For this reason the last articles in the series are called The Ripper’s London Attacks.

Background: Sutcliffe’s access to vehicles

Sutcliffe always had an interest in vehicles and started driving early. In 1963 aged fourteen he was charged with driving whilst only having a provisional licence. As an adult he occasionally worked in a garage as a mechanic, changed cars frequently and -according to his workmates- often fitted his cars with false number plates.

Sutcliffe was made redundant in 1975 and used the redundancy money to finance HGV driver training around Harrogate, Keighley and the nearby village of Silsden. All of which the authors believe were to be the scene of Ripper attacks.

Sutcliffe got his HGV licence on the 4^th of June 1975. Sutcliffe then started employment as a lorry driver on the 29th of September of 1975 working first for the Common Road Tyre Company, at Okenshaw, then for T & WH Clark in Bradford, in September 1976 until his arrest in 1981.

The authors have established, through eyewitnesses, that Sutcliffe used his lorry to attack women. It was a perfect cover. He was alone, unsupervised; his driving took him all over the country giving him the opportunity to pick up hitch-hikers. The sleeping area in the back of the cab meant he could stay out overnight in lorry parks and he could also entice women into his cab to have sex. They believe these advantages featured heavily in his decision to become an HGV driver.

Background: Sutcliffe’s travelling and access to London, 1970 – 1980

Peter Sutcliffe did not just confine his travels to West Yorkshire and the surrounding area. He enjoyed driving. Sutcliffe would regularly collect his brother Mick in the lorry and they would go off for two or three days at a time whilst Sutcliffe was delivering and collecting for his firm.

Peter Sutcliffe would regularly be away from home 3 nights a week and return during the afternoon of the fourth day. As an example, Sutcliffe’s mother died of heart disease on 8th November 1978, at the age of 59 years. The following day, Sutcliffe went in his lorry on an overnight run with his youngest brother, Carl. On the return journey, they visited their sister Anne in Morecombe.

Sutcliffe lived in London for some time and had many reasons to visit there in the period 1967 to the time of his arrest in 1981.

1967 – 1971

• Sutcliffe met his future wife Sonia (nee Szurma) in 1967. She had a sister Marianne, who moved to London in about 1966. Peter Sutcliffe visited his future sister-in-law Marianne at Alperton near Wembley off the A406 North Circular Road from 1967 onwards.
• In 1969, Marianne became a graduate member of the Royal Academy of Music. There are anecdotal reports that Sonia and Peter Sutcliffe attended her piano recitals and then Peter drove back to Yorkshire on his own.
• Sonia trained to be a teacher at the Rachel McMillan Teacher Training College in Deptford from September 1970 until mid-1972. At first she lived in a dormitory with a strict “no men” policy. When visiting Sonia in London, Sutcliffe slept in his car or used a small tent pitched on waste ground to camp out. Later Sonia lodged with her sister Marianne and Peter Sutcliffe visited her in London most weekends.
• For the first few weeks of the autumn of 1970, Peter Sutcliffe drove up and down the M1 to spend weekends with Sonia in London, staying at Marianne’s home in Alperton. He then moved to London, taking occasional jobs as a mechanic at a garage in Deptford South East London, while he lived in bed and breakfast accommodation or a bedsit. He worked itinerantly in Yorkshire and Deptford until the end of 1971. By his own account Sutcliffe lived in London for about a year.
• Sutcliffe had an additional reason to visit London. He was very fond of his sister in law Marianne. According to his brother-in-law Robin Holland at Sutcliffe’s trial in 1981, Sutcliffe carried a photograph of Marianne clad only in her underwear in his wallet. The nature of his relationship with her is unclear. It is also unknown if he visited Marianne on his own without Sonia.
• At the end of 1971 Sutcliffe left London and returned to Bradford to work in a factory.

1972 – 1975

• In mid-April 1972 after the Easter holiday, Sonia started her summer term at the Rachel McMillan Teacher Training College. No doubt Sutcliffe drove his wife down the M1 to London beforehand and returned the next day. The same day Marie Burke was abducted from the M1 in London, attacked and left for dead in St Albans.
• In May 1972, Sonia left the Rachel McMillan Teacher Training College in Deptford. She was suffering from mental illness and spent some time in hospital. First in Bexley South East London, then in Yorkshire. During May and June Sutcliffe travelled from Bingley along the M1 to see her in Bexley. In June 1972 Judith Roberts was murdered in Wigginton near Tamworth, just off the M1. Sutcliffe was able to do what he pleased at this time from 1972 to sometime in 1973. His evenings and weekends were free to travel and visit the red light districts in West Yorkshire. In April 1973 Sutcliffe started working night shifts leaving the days free, only visiting Sonia in hospital on weekends. His movements at this time are completely unknown.
• Peter Sutcliffe worked as a furnace man at Anderton International in Bingley from April 1973 until taking redundancy in February 1975. During this time there was a “three-day Week” from 31 December 1973 until early March 1974 due to industrial unrest. This meant that for two days a week there was no work because rota electricity cuts were enforced caused by a shortage of coal. Sutcliffe would certainly have been on short time or been laid off from his job, which depended on coal. This would have given Sutcliffe far more time to roam and go further afield. Again, his movements at this time are completely unknown.
• Peter Sutcliffe’s sister Maureen had been seeing Robin Holland from Keighley who was a serving soldier. On the 3^rd of March 1973 she married him at Worth Valley Register Office. He was stationed at Waterbeach Barracks situated between Ely and Cambridge in Cambridgeshire, then later at Barracks in Colchester. They moved to married quarters at Whitehall Gardens, RAF Duxford in Cambridgeshire and Maureen gave birth to a boy at the RAF Hospital in Ely on the 1st of April 1974. Sutcliffe would visit the family regularly, sometimes from Bradford, sometimes from his sister-in law Marianne’s home in Alperton, before returning direct to Bradford. Sometimes he would be with his wife Sonia, sometimes alone. The route between his sister-in law’s home at Alperton and his sister’s home at Duxford would take Sutcliffe across London to the A1M and then on to Duxford. His route from Bradford to Duxford would use the M1 crossing over to the A1. His return journey to Bradford would be via the A1. This would make the Midlands easily accessible to him. Robin and Maureen Holland stayed at Whitehall Gardens before moving to army married quarters in Germany in 1975.
• Peter Sutcliffe married Sonia on Saturday the 10^th of August, 1974 which was her 24th birthday. The happy couple went on a short honeymoon to Paris. They stopped at the Duxford home of Robin and Maureen Holland on either the 10th or 11^th of August. It is unknown how long they stayed with them for. This ties in with the murder of “Cockley Cley Woman” an unidentified body dumped in the countryside in Norfolk, who is still unidentified to this day.

1975 – 1981

• Sutcliffe started work as a lorry driver from September 1975 until his arrest in 1981. He is known to have made deliveries in Essex and London. Sutcliffe had an extensive collection of A-Z guides of many cities, delivered to London regularly and had lived there. In short he knew London very well and could easily navigate his way around it. One witness has come forward and stated that when he was working in London, Sutcliffe drank regularly in the Conquering Hero pub at 262 Beulah Hill, London SE19 3HF. The authors believe this would have been between 1976 and 1980.
• During 1977 and 1978 Sutcliffe’s wife Sonia frequently went to stay with her Sister Marianne and her family in Alperton. Peter Sutcliffe would take her there and collect her afterwards in his car. She may also have travelled down to London in his lorry if he had a drop there.
• In 1977 or 1978, Sutcliffe abducted two schoolchildren aged thirteen or fourteen from Hammersmith in his lorry and released them in Sunderland. This new evidence was uncovered by Chris and is of crucial importance, because it established that Sutcliffe was committing serious offences in London using his lorry.
• In 1979, a woman was murdered in North Yorkshire. Her body was discovered in 1981 and she was never identified. A witness came forward to the NYE with an identity for the victim and confirming she was a prostitute that lived in Scarborough. He also confirmed that Sutcliffe delivered to Scarborough in his lorry and frequented a café opposite the bus shelter where this woman plied her trade.
• Sutcliffe regularly delivered to London, particularly to the LEP Depot in Charlton.

Sutcliffe spent long periods in London and travelling to and from London. He was alone for most of these journeys. There were no tachographs at this time and his record of hours driving would have been handwritten by Sutcliffe. It is therefore clear that he had the opportunity to visit London on his own and cruise around, and there is no way of knowing where he was or what he was doing.

Sutcliffe enjoyed using prostitutes. After he had finished visiting Sonia and Marianne, he could move around in London on his own and pick up prostitutes at Soho, Shepherds Market, Commercial Road and/or Spitalfields, before driving home in his car up the M1. When he was in his lorry, Spitalfields is a more likely pick-up point. It was normal for lorries to deliver there, so he did not stick out and it had manoeuvring space.

Cluster and Route Analysis

Sutcliffe’s modus operandi ensured that he always worked from a vehicle and had easy access to an escape route on a fast road, preferably an A-road leading to a motorway.

The authors have utilised some very effective graphic work by Nigel Ward, to correlate attacks they believe were perpetrated by Sutcliffe but never attributed to him, with routes and locations he is known to have frequented. This is the first time geographical analysis of this type has ever been performed on Peter Sutcliffe’s movements.

Sutcliffe’s attacks were previously known to fall into a series of known clusters around red light districts in Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Manchester and Huddersfield, as shown between the photo-fits in the lead illustration. This new analysis presents a more detailed picture.

Attacks committed prior to the 29th of September of 1975, when he got his first job as a lorry driver, were committed in his car or, on one occasion, in a friend’s car. Thereafter, they were committed using his lorry or his car. The authors believe that he only used his lorry for some routes in the period 1975 to 1980:

• Bradford to and from Scarborough.
• Bradford to and from Harwich.
• Bradford to and from LEP Depot Charlton.
• London to and from Sunderland

The remainder he used in his lorry for work in the period 1975 to 1980 and his car socially, during the period 1969 to 1980.

Murders along routes not associated with London

Route 1: Bradford to and from Harwich: Murder of Alison Morris in September 1979 (28) at Ramsey in Essex, probably on the return journey to Bradford using the A120, M111, A14, A1M route to Bradford. It was covered in this NYE article.

Route 2: Bradford to and from Scarborough via M1, M62 and A64: Attempted abduction of two women in York in June 1980 (27), covered in this NYE article. Murder of “Hope” or the “Nude in the Nettles” in August 1979 (25); return via A170 to conceal the body more easily. It was covered in this NYE article and the authors have linked it to the murder of “Jane” or “Cockley Cley Woman” (22) in Norfolk in August 1974. Attempted abduction of two women in York. NYE article here.

Route 3: Bradford to and from Brighton: M62 M1, A406, A10, A202, A23: Murder of Margaret Frame (23) in October 1978 at Brighton. It was covered in this NYE article.

Route 4: Bradford to and from Sunderland Docks using the M1, M62, A1(M), A19 route: Murder of Stephanie Spencer in Darlington in May 1977 (26) which is covered in this NYE article. Attempted murder of a sixteen year old schoolgirl at Harrogate in February 1979, covered in this NYE article.

These murders are not in London or on the journey to or from London and are included here for completeness. However, the following groupings of attacks were mounted in London, or during the journey to and from London, or have been connected to London attacks:

Murders along routes between Bradford and Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton (Car and Lorry):

Route 5: Route home to Bradford from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton using the M1 M62 with a diversion via the A453 and A60 to Bath Street, Nottingham return to the M1 via the A60, A6130 and A610: Murder of Lucy Tinslop August 1969 Nottingham.

Route 6: Direct route home to Bradford from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton using the M1 M62: Barbara Mayo abduction from the M1 (2) and deposition (15) site in October 1970.

Route 7: Route home to Bradford from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton with a diversion from the M1, A42, A444, or M42 A5, B5000, A513 to Wigginton, Tamworth Staffs, then returning to the M1 via B4593 and A42: Murder of Judith Roberts (17) in June 1972,

Route 8: Route home to Bradford from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton via the M1 using the A14 crossover to the A1(M): M1, A414, A1M, M62: Marie Burke abduction from the M1 (4) and deposition (16) sites in April 1972.

Route 9: Route home to Bradford from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton via Manchester, using the M1, M6, or M1, A50, M6; then M50, M62: Jacqueline Ansell-Lamb abduction from the M1 in March 1970 (1) and deposition (14) sites.

Route 10: Western route home from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton using the A40, M40 and M1: Murder of Gloria Booth in June 1971 (3).

Route 11: Route home to Bradford from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton using the M1 M62 with a diversion via the A563 to Checketts Road returning to the M1 along the A563 and A50: Attempted murder of Child C in April 1980 from Checkett’s Road Leicester (Also 19).

Abductions from London on the route to and from Sunderland Docks

Route 12: London to Sunderland Docks, M1 or A1(M) A19: Abduction of Child A and Child B (Lorry) from Hammersmith London deposited in Sunderland in 1977 or 1978.

Cluster of murders in South West London

Route 13: South Western route home to Bradford from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton using the A4, M4, M25 and M1: Murders of Lynne Weedon in September 1975 (6), Elizabeth Parravicini in September 1977 (7) and Patricia Morris in June 1980 (10).

Cluster of murders around the LEP Depot at Charlton

Route 14: Bradford to the LEP Depot at Charlton (Lorry) using the M62, M1, A406 North Circular Road, A10, A2: Abduction of “Margaret” or “Bedgebury Forest woman” in October 1979 (12), or (13), and murder at Bedgebury Forest (24). Chris has established that Sutcliffe delivered in Europe and it is possible that he drove to the continent via Dover. If so, then the deposition site at Bedgebury Forest may be associated with the onward route to Dover using the M2 or M20 via Bedgebury Forest, then on to Dover using the A20. Murder of Sally Shepherd (9) in December 1979 is in this area which Sutcliffe knew very well. Abduction of Child A and Child B from Hammersmith may have been on the return journey to Sunderland from the LEP Depot.

Cluster of murders along the route from Sutcliffe’s sister-in-law Marianne’s house at Alperton to his Sister Maureen’s home in Duxford:

Route 15: Eastern route to leave Marianne and visit Maureen using the A406 North Circular Road and M11: Lynda Farrrow in January 1979 (8), Eve Stratford in March 1975 (5) and Margaret Lightfoot (11) in November 1975.

Cluster of murders associated with Sutcliffe’s sister Maureen’s home at Duxford

The authors believe that:

• Kay O’Connor was murdered in March 1974 in Colchester, by Sutcliffe after he had visited his sister Maureen and brother in law Robin Holland in Duxford, (Robin was a soldier stationed at Colchester), or while driving through Colchester to go to/return from Clacton on Sea.
• “Jane” or “Cockley Cley Woman” (4) was murdered between the 7^th and 14^th of August 1974 in Norfolk by Sutcliffe, who was staying with his sister Maureen at Duxford, one hours drive away from the deposition site via the A11 at the time.

The murder of Alison Morris in September 1979 at Ramsay in Essex was probably committed on the return journey to Bradford from Harwich Docks for Sutcliffe’s work and not associated with Duxford or Sutcliffe’s Sister Maureen. It is included for completeness only.

The authors also believe that the following murders were committed while travelling between Bradford and Duxford:

Route 16: Murder of Wendy Sewell (1) in September 1973, by taking a short detour off the M1 to Bakewell, using the A6, A619, A621, A6102 and A630.

Route 17: Murder of Rosina Hilliard (2) in February 1974 in Leicester just off the A47 using the A47 to crossover between the A1M to the M1 through Leicester to return to Bradford from Duxford.

Route 18: Abduction of Carolyn Allen in April 1974 (3) in Nottinghamshire, body hidden at Old Dalby Wood Leicestershire while using the A 46 and A606 to crossover between the A1M and the M1 to go through Nottingham on the way to or from Duxford to or from Bradford.

It is also possible that the murders of Carolyn Allen, Rosina Hilliard and Wendy Sewell were committed from the M1 or A1(M)/A1 on a journey to or from London, but the authors feel it is more likely they were committed on the journey to and from Duxford.

Structure of the Articles

The Ripper’s London attacks 9:

• • Cluster analysis
  • Routes
  • Access to vehicles
  • Access to London

The Ripper’s London attacks 10: The M1 Hendon abductions

• • Jacqueline Ansell-Lamb. 03/70 Returning to Bradford from Alperton
  • Barbara Mayo. 10/70 Returning to Bradford from Alperton

The Ripper’s London attacks Part 11: The Western and South Western routes

• • Gloria Booth 06/71 Returning to Bradford from Alperton
  • Elizabeth Parravicini 09/77 Returning to Bradford from Alperton
  • Patricia Morris 06/80 Returning to Bradford from Alperton

The Ripper’s London attacks 12: The Northern route 1

• • Child C 1980 Returning to Bradford from Alperton
  • Marie Burke 04/72 Returning to Bradford from Alperton

The Ripper’s London attacks 13: The Northern route 2

• • Lucy Tinslop 08/69 Returning to Bradford from Alperton
  • Judith Roberts 06/72 Returning to Bradford from Alperton

The Ripper’s London attacks Part 14: The South Eastern cluster

• • Child A and Child B 1978 or 1979 Delivering to the LEP Depot
  • Margaret”/“Bedgebury Forest woman” 10/74 Delivering to the LEP Depot/Dover
  • Sally Shepherd 12/79 Delivering to the LEP Depot

The Ripper’s London attacks 15: The Eastern route and Weedon Links

• • Eve Stratford 03/75 Travelling from Alperton to Duxford
  • Lynda Farrow 01/79 Travelling from Alperton to Duxford
  • Lynne Weedon. 09/75 Returning to Bradford from Alperton

(These are grouped because they have been linked by the police)

The Ripper’s London attacks 16: The Eastern route 2

• • Margaret Lightfoot 11/75 Travelling from Alperton to Duxford

The Ripper’s London attacks 17: The Duxford Cluster 1

• • Rosina Hilliard 02/74 Travelling between Duxford and Bradford
  • Kay O’Connor 03/74 Staying at Duxford

The Ripper’s London attacks 18: The Duxford Cluster 2

• • Carolyn Allen 04/74 Travelling between Duxford and Bradford
  • Alison Morris 09/79 Returning to Bradford from Harwich

The Ripper’s London attacks 19: The Duxford Cluster 3

• • “Jane”  08/74 Staying at Duxford

The Ripper’s London attacks 20: The Duxford Cluster 3

• • Wendy Sewell 09/73 Travelling between Duxford and Bradford
  • The linking of the cases.

The Ripper’s London attacks 21: The antecedent investigations

• • Why the police failed to link the cases during the 1981 Byford antecedent investigation, the Hellawell 1982 – 1992 antecedent investigation and subsequent cold case investigations.

The vehicles the authors believe the Ripper used are shown in Column F “Vehicle Used” in Table 13, below.

TABLE 13

by CHRIS CLARK & TIM HICKS

~~~~~

Introduction: “Hope”

For some time now, the NYE has been covering “Yorkshire Ripper” Peter Sutcliffe and his potential involvement in many more crimes than he was convicted of, including attacks in North Yorkshire.

In particular, when the authors started publishing Chris’s antecedent investigation into Sutcliffe, they were hopeful they would be able to progress one of the great murder mysteries of Yorkshire, “The Nude in the Nettles” murder. Which the authors assessed had probably been perpetrated by “Yorkshire Ripper” Peter Sutcliffe.

The authors have recently worked with the Yorkshire Post on a series of articles on this crime, which can be accessed here.

To help generate public interest, the authors have named the victim “Hope”.

Another witness comes forward, giving important new information on Sutcliffe’s modus operandi

In all of our articles, the authors have always included an appeal for information and this has produced an important new witness. Child D has now come forward to the NYE given this account of an encounter she and another child (Child E) had with Sutcliffe:

“My friend and I both female I got a lift from Peter Sutcliffe in 1974 we only realised years later. 

We had been to see a Mott the Hoople concert and spent our fare back to Wakefield so we were hitching.

He picked us up after the gig, in Bradford on Wakefield Road so sometime after 11 pm and he and took us all the way to and dropped us off at the Redbeck cafe an all-night cafe on Doncaster Rd in Wakefield. 

He had an odd laugh, said his name was Pete and that he used to work nights in a TV factory so didn’t sleep well. He gave us money for a cup of tea at the Redbeck but didn’t come in. We did a runner out of the back because he was strange

At 15 years old the pair of us with no concept of danger. 

Our gig was 7th November we were so close then. 15 years old the pair of us with no concept of danger 

No idea about the car because we were 15.”

The authors have reviewed this evidence. We asses that this is an accurate account and that the driver who picked up Child D and Child E was Sutcliffe. The reasons for this are:

• Sutcliffe used to work at Bairds Television Factor assembling Televisions. After Bairds asked him to go on the road as a salesman he left in April 1973 and immediately began a job doing permanent night shift at the Britannia Works of Anderton International as a furnace-man. So the description he gave of his work fits Sutcliffe perfectly.
• Child D stated that Queen was on the line-up for the Mott the Hoople concert and this tallies with their concert on Wednesday the 6^th of November 1974 at St Georges Hall, Bradford. The support band was Hustler. So this verifies the date of the encounter in Bradford, which is an area Sutcliffe was known to frequent.
• Child D’s account is corroborated by a very similar account given by Ms Kristina Rose (Child A). Kristina and another girl (Child B) were abducted by Sutcliffe in 1977 or 1978 in his lorry. Then taken from Hammersmith in London to Sunderland. The evidence of Kristina Rose can be accessed in full here.
• Another witness Child C has confirmed that Sutcliffe accosted her from his lorry in 1980 when she was a schoolgirl in Leicester. Child C narrates her story in her own words below:
  

“I happened to be watching a documentary this evening on the Yorkshire Ripper. For what it’s worth it wanted to let you know that I believe I had an encounter with Peter Sutcliffe in what I believe would have been 1980 on a road called Checketts Road in Leicester. I vividly remember that day because he scared me to no end.  

His truck was parked on the opposite side to me and he crossed over to my side of the Road. I was on my way home from school and I remember the time to be around 3.40 pm as he asked me what time it was. He then asked me if I was free which scared me so I said ‘no’ and started walking faster. I looked behind and he was following me. I started running and he also started running right up to my street. Luckily he didn’t see me go into the house.  

I peeked through the window and saw him walk all the way to the end of my street and back. I was terrified. I recognised him from the pic in the papers following his arrest a year later. I did not report this as I did not want to be associated with him. I’m not sure whether this disclosure matters at all but I had to let my story and him out of my system.  

After watching the documentary last night, I Googled to check whether it was ever proven that he went past Leicester during his killing spree. Surprisingly I came across the Leicester Mercury article which I have just realised was from 2013. It had your email address and mobile number. I realised that your investigation or interest was linked to murders committed much earlier in Leicester but it seemed like a good idea to mention my encounter and lucky escape. 

I had thought of reporting my encounter to the police numerous times but would not have known how best to go about it. He had parked the truck by the school on the opposite side of the road. He walked across the road clad in a denim shirt and trousers, very short and skinny. I remember not being scared at this point. I believe I had walked passed Bernard’s Rd but before Victoria Rd. My route that I took every day and on that day was Checketts Rd up to Loughborough Rd and crossing at the traffic lights and walking towards home. I was lucky that when I approached the traffic lights, the road was clear but when he approached it, there was traffic giving me time to get to my house in the middle of the street before he reached the corner. I would have been 15 the time but always looked a couple of years older and yes I was in my school uniform although it could have been mistaken for normal clothing; yellow shirt, blue skirt and cardigan. I know it was a warm day with blue skies. I don’t remember wearing a jacket just the shirt, Cardigan and skirt. I also remember that it was the beginning of holidays and we were let out early from school. So that would probably be the Eastern break or half term break after Easter. I don’t think it would have been any term breaks after that as the temperatures would have been much higher. Also on the account that it was really quiet on Checketts Rd makes me think it was not a Friday as perhaps I would have expected more people around. 

I don’t remember that there was a cafe on Checketts Rd but there was a pub, now called the Flamingo, a restaurant, at the corner of Cheketts Rd and Loughborough Rd which he could have frequented. Also what is now The Jungle Club, and Indian restaurant used to be a Conservative’s Club. I do remember that on that day, Cheketts Rd was eerily quiet; there was absolutely no other person on that Rd although there were cars driving past. I hope this information helps.”

Child C’s account describes an attempt to enter into conversation with a school girl while with a vehicle, which also corroborates Child D’s account

• Fifteen year old school girls fitted with Sutcliffe’s victim preferences. Child A has confirmed that both she and Child B were clearly under age. Child C was in school uniform. Tracey Browne was fourteen when she was attacked on the 27^th of August 1975 (Case 42). The authors believe Sutcliffe targeted children because they were less likely to be able to resist him, than a fully grown woman.
• All three witnesses recognised Sutcliffe from photographs published immediately after his arrest.

The authors’ analysis of this new evidence

The authors are satisfied that Sutcliffe intended to murder Child D and Child E:

• Sutcliffe was cruising around Wakefield Road, Bradford at 11 p.m. when he picked up Child D and Wakefield Road is about three miles from Bradford’s Red Light district in Manningham and in the opposite direction (South) to his home at 6 Garden Lane, Heaton, which is North of Manningham. The implication must be that he had been cruising Bradford’s Red Light district looking for a victim to attack, when he changed hunting ground by going to Wakefield Road at closing time, hoping to find a hitch hiker to offer her a lift.
• It is clear that Sutcliffe spotted two vulnerable girls on a freezing cold November night, desperate for a lift. He would have known straight away that they were under age. So why did he pick up two underage girls at 11 p.m. taking the considerable risk of being arrested for abduction if he was stopped by the police. Having picked both girls up, he then headed west along the M62 for about 30 or 40 minutes to the Redbeck Café on Doncaster Road, which is the other side of Wakefield. It is inconceivable that he went to this effort from the kindness of his heart. It can only be the case that he did this because it was his intention to murder them.
• The authors believe he did not go into the café with them, because he did not want to be seen with them and then recognised, when they were subsequently found murdered.
• Offering a lift as a precursor to attacking a victim is entirely consistent with Sutcliffe’s modus operandi. The first attempted murder of Maureen Long in Bradford on the 10^th of July 1977 started with Sutcliffe offering her a lift home. He then drove her to a secluded spot on waste ground and attacked her while she was urinating. He partially stripped her, and then concealed her body under a mattress. Fortunately she was not dead, survived his attack and was discovered the next day. Otherwise, her body may never have been found, -or like “Hope’s”- found two or three years later and not connected to the Yorkshire Ripper. He may have made another attempt on her life to eliminate her as a witness in 1980, NYE coverage here.
• Child A has confirmed to the authors that when Sutcliffe abducted her and Child B, Sutcliffe stopped at a secluded spot and urinated. Both girls were very frightened and stayed in the cab. This is probably what saved them. The authors believe that if one of them had got out of the cab to urinate, they would have been murdered. The first while urinating like Maureen Long, followed swiftly afterwards by the other. In the case of Child D and Child E, the authors believe Sutcliffe intended to stop the vehicle on the second stage of the journey between the Redbeck Café and their homes in Wakefield in a secluded place on the pretext of needing to urinate. He knew the area and routes around Wakefield very well and would have had no difficulty in pre-selecting a suitable location. He would then entice or pull one of them out of the car and murder them both one after the other.

Fortunately in all three cases, all five children realised that Sutcliffe was dangerous and escaped from him. They are all lucky to be alive.

Child D’s evidence is critical, because we now know he picked up women in his lorry, which had a sleeping space in the back of the cab. Child A and Child B were abducted in Hammersmith, London which proves that Sutcliffe was abducting women in a far wider geographical area than just West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester – as the authors have always maintained.

We have not been able to trace Child B or Child E. But nevertheless there are now three witnesses that independently confirm Sutcliffe tried to entice vulnerable people in this case schoolgirls into his vehicle.

This would also explain why he routinely turned up at work in a car bearing false number plates. In 1969, Sutcliffe attacked a prostitute in Bradford and badly beat her. He was in his friend Trevor Birdsall’s vehicle. His victim noted the number plate and he was traced by the police. Unfortunately she was a married woman who had turned to prostitution because her husband was in jail. She did not want to press charges because she feared her husband would find out about her prostituting herself. The authors assess that Sutcliffe had learned from this narrow escape and the reason he was routinely driving around with false plates rather than just use a false registration plate while he was on an attack and then remove it immediately afterwards, is that he was using false plates in the hope of evading detection when he was looking for hitch hikers to pick up.

The Yorkshire Ripper and the “Hope” investigation

This all fits with the murder of “Hope”, which contains many of the classic Yorkshire Ripper indicators.

The authors believe that Sutcliffe knew by 1977/1978 that the police surveillance in the West Yorkshire red light districts made it more risky for him to operate there. So he modified his modus operandi to hunt further afield in different force areas than West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. Hence his attack in Sheffield in South Yorkshire in 1981, which led to his arrest. This would also explain why in 1979 he would have preferred to make an attack in Scarborough, North Yorkshire where the police believed he was not operating.

The evidence of Marcella Claxton, Maureen Long, Marilyn Moore, Child A, Child C and Child D confirms that Sutcliffe tried to entice victims into his vehicle in the period 1974 to 1980.

The authors believe that “Hope” was an alcoholic prostitute that frequented a bus stop in Victoria Road Scarborough. They believe Sutcliffe saw “Hope” from Iris Scott’s café, realised she was desperate and a prostitute. He enticed her into his lorry on the promise of money in return for sex, or possibly in return for a lift to a truck park where she could ply her trade more profitably. He then murdered her and dumped her body at Sutton Bank on the return journey to Bradford.

Because of the time “Hope’s” body had been in the open and because animals had interfered with the body, the pathologist was unable to determine the cause of death. Her skull was intact, which ruled out the usual method Sutcliffe used to kill his victims of hitting them over the back of their head with a hammer. There were no nick marks on any of the bones that were recovered, so it is possible she was stabbed to death or strangled with a ligature. Sutcliffe used a ligature to strangle Marguerite Walls and Uphadya Bandara and had a ligature on him when he was arrested in 1981. He used a knife and a screwdriver to stab many of his victims.

The authors believe that Sutcliffe strangled “Hope” with a ligature in the cab of his lorry.

Sutcliffe knew that his records at Clark’s Transport would confirm that he had been in Scarborough on the day “Hope” disappeared. The implication being that he had to prevent the discovery of the body and prevent the pathologist from dating the time of death to escape being placed in Scarborough on the day of the murder. So as with Maureen Long, Jean Jordan, Helen Rytka, Marguerite Walls and Yvonne Pearson, he concealed the body.

“Hope” was found nude. We should not forget that many of Sutcliffe’s victims were found partially stripped, but the bodies of Jean Jordan and Marguerite Walls were also found nude. However, in no known case did Sutcliffe remove all of the victim’s clothes from the scene. Sutcliffe’s fear of detection from the Clarke’s transport records would also explain why on this occasion he fully stripped “Hope’s” body and took her clothes, to hinder identification of the body, which would inevitably give detectives a line of enquiry that would result in confirming the date of disappearance.

Like “Hope”, Jean Jordan’s body had initially been very well hidden under thick foliage.

Sutcliffe was known to burn his clothes after an attack in a garden incinerator. Having removed “Hope’s” clothes from the scene he probably burned them along with his own clothes in his garden incinerator. Certainly, her clothes have never been found.

The authors believe that to mislead the detectives as to the date of the murder, he returned to “Hope’s” body later to put a dated item under the body (a yoghurt top with a sell by date), as he did with Yvonne Pearson (a copy of the Daily Mirror).

The wider implications of this evidence

The authors have now had time to analyse this new line of enquiry.

Both authors believe the actual total of murders and attempted murders committed by Sutcliffe is much, much, higher than previously assessed, and they occurred across a much wider area. This is now confirmed by the evidence of the witnesses traced by Chris:

• Sutcliffe’s work as a lorry driver took him to Scotland and all over England. The evidence of Kristina Rose is that Sutcliffe was not just attacking women in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, but was operating as far afield as London. It is a logical extension of this that he was attacking women all over England and parts of Scotland.
• Sutcliffe first had access to a vehicle in 1963. The evidence of Child D confirms that Sutcliffe he was abducting hitch hikers in his car in November 1974, prior to him having access to a lorry in October 1975.

These are aspects of his modus operandi not previously realised and now revealed exclusively in the NYE.

Further, when Sutcliffe picked up Maureen Long and as he thought killed her, he concealed her body. Fortunately she survived and was discovered. He may have done the same with other victims like “Hope”, who have never been discovered. The new evidence means that from 1963 until his arrest in 1980. Sutcliffe is potentially as a suspect for:

• Every unsolved murder or suspicious disappearance of a hitch-hiker.
• Every murder or suspicious disappearance of a woman that accepted – or may have accepted – a lift home late at night from a stranger.
• Every case like “Hope’s” of bodies that have been concealed and discovered years later.

A few cases stand out. These are the murders of Jacquelline Ansell-Lamb and Barbara Mayo in 1970, Gloria Booth in 1971, Marie Burke in 1972, Caroline Allen 1974, Dawn Webster and Bedgebury Forest Woman in 1979.

In the meantime, Sutcliffe continues to be a prisoner in HM Prison Frankland, going regularly to Sunderland Hospital for medical treatment. There is little realistic prospect of him making a full confession. The NYE is still nevertheless trying to progress the investigation, in the hope of resolving some of these cold cases.

NYE Appeal for Information

Peter Sutcliffe pictured in his TW Clark lorry, circa 1976

• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe (Image at beginning of the article) or a lorry from TW Clarke (image above) in Scarborough or at any lorry park or transport cafe?
• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe pick up a hitch hiker in his car or his lorry?
• Did Peter Sutcliffe ever offer you a lift in his car or lorry?
• Did you work at Victoria Road, Roscoe Street, Andrews of Scarborough (motorcycle dealers), Deardens builder’s merchants, North Sea Winches D Wray and Sons, Scarborough Ignition Co Ltd or Pickups or the old goods yard which is now Sainsburys?
• Were you a taxi-driver for Boro Taxis next to the café, or did you use taxi’s from there?
• Did you frequent the café in Victoria Road and see Peter Sutcliffe there?
• Did you know the café owner Iris Scott, or see Sutcliffe in her cafe?

If you have any information on the “Nude in the Nettles” mystery that you want to pass on confidentially, you can talk to a journalist by contacting the North Yorks Enquirer using our letters@nyenquirer.uk address. All responses are followed up and will be treated in the strictest confidence.

by CHRIS CLARK & TIM HICKS

~~~~~

Introduction: “Hope”

For some time now, the NYE has been covering “Yorkshire Ripper” Peter Sutcliffe and his potential involvement in many more crimes than he was convicted of, including attacks in North Yorkshire.

When the authors started publishing Chris’s antecedent investigation into Sutcliffe, they were hopeful they would be able to progress one of the great murder mysteries of Yorkshire, ‘The Nude in the Nettles’ murder. The authors assessed that it had probably been perpetrated by “Yorkshire Ripper” Peter Sutcliffe that the original North Yorkshire Police investigation had been poor, and had failed because it prematurely focussed on false lines of enquiry. They further assessed that there had also been a failure to impartially and independently review the case after its closure in 1982.

For new readers, the facts of the case are set out by Chris below:

“On Friday 28 August 1981 three days before August Bank Holiday a woman’s naked and decomposed skeletal remains was found dumped in nettle bushes amongst tall rosebay willow herbs in remote moorland about 10 feet from the country road leading to Scawton Moor House situated between Scawton and Rievaulx at Sutton Bank on the North Yorkshire Moors, adjacent to the A170 Thirsk to Pickering road. There were woods on either side of the road a place where people stopped to picnic; it was also a lover’s lane. 

The cause of death was unknown but the pathologist’s report concluded that the woman had been dead for up to two years when found and the case became known as the ‘Nude in the Nettles’ due to the location of the body. 

It was later established that sometime during 1979 a local jockey had exercised his horses along a bridleway adjacent to where this body was found and had noticed a foul smell emitting from the area.

The woman was 5’2” tall, aged between 35 and 40 and probably had given birth two or three times, wore her dark coloured hair short in a page-boy style, took size 4 shoes and painted her toenails pink. All of her upper teeth were missing and she had an upper dental plate fitted and only six teeth left in her lower jaw. She smoked and drank heavily and paid little attention to herself; she also had a displaced septum, the bone between her nostrils which could have resulted by a blow to the face. The police suspected she may have been a prostitute. 

In November 1981 medical students constructed a waxwork facial reconstruction of the woman’s face. Her remains were buried; but during 2012 the body was exhumed to extract DNA and perform other tests.

For a lorry driver travelling north from Shipley in West Yorkshire to Sunderland Docks or Scarborough to get to Sutton Bank is an easy journey of 50 miles via the A658 to the A1 North the A168 through Topcliffe and the A19 at Thirsk where you can continue north on the A19 to Sunderland or take the A170 to Scarborough. This would be a regular route for Sutcliffe with truck stops in North Yorkshire at the A1 Services Boroughbridge and A168 Thirsk where in the late 1970’s prostitutes abounded, and plied their wares in the lorry parks.  

I concluded that she could have been a victim of Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe and contacted The York Press, which ran this article Retired policeman believes there is a Yorkshire Ripper link to victim of Sutton Bank murder. 

Unfortunately this did not lead to any interest from North Yorkshire Police and I was not able to get the case re-opened.  

Then in 2019 I teamed up with Tim and the NYE. We started a media campaign to obtain fresh information to try and progress the “Nude in the Nettles” case. The NYE started running appeals for information on the unknown victim; who we named “Hope”. These were successful and more witnesses came forward and led to a major breakthrough. Steadily we started building up a fuller picture of the circumstances surrounding the murder of “Hope”, which has now led to further local media interest.”

NYE co-operation with the Yorkshire Post, to progress the ‘Nude in the Nettles’ case

As a result of the NYE articles, the Yorkshire Post contacted the authors and asked for their assistance in covering the case. Such was the interest in the case and the amount of material involved, that the Yorkshire Post decided to cover the case in two large articles. Chris and Tim both understand the importance of media coverage in cold cases and readily agreed to assist, as a way of generating further public interest. Links to the articles are below:

• https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/interactive/nude-in-the-nettles-I
• https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/interactive/nude-in-the-nettles-II

Both articles are well worth reading and are well written by an exceptionally talented and relentless investigative journalist, Ms Sarah Wilson. Sarah meticulously researched the articles going through all of the material published by the NYE over the last two years. She then interviewed both authors at length, before conducting her own research.

Having now reviewed both articles, Tim and Chris are very happy that the close co-operation between the NYE and the Yorkshire Post has produced such high quality investigative journalism.

The Yorkshire Post has an impressive reputation as a reputable paper that delivers skilful, first class investigative journalism. The authors were both very pleased to work with the Yorkshire Post and this must give further confirmation to our readers of the quality of the NYE’s investigative journalism and its acceptance by the mainstream media. 

A major breakthrough in the ‘Nude in the Nettles’ case

Unfortunately, for legal reasons the Yorkshire Post did not cover the latest information unearthed by the NYE. The major breakthrough occurred when former SBC Councillor Norman Murphy, who is a long term Scarborough resident, came forward to the NYE with a completely credible identification for “Hope”. The authors were then able to develop other witnesses as specified below.

Witness 1: Norman Murphy

In summary from emails and conversations, Norman’s evidence is as follows:

“I owned the shop Murphyvacs 190/192 Victoria Road Scarborough YO11 1SX. My business was repairing, selling and refurbishing vacuum cleaners. Attached to the side wall of my shop is a Victorian shelter which is large enough to accommodate about 8 people. This shelter became a refuge for several alcoholics and drug addicts and they would habitually congregate in the shelter to drink and be out of the bad weather.  

The shop and bus shelter

When I opened my shop in October 1975 the café opposite was owned by a guy called David Siddle. The cafe had no name as far as I can remember. The café is directly opposite my shop and is the window with the white blinds to the right of the yellow logo. Interestingly, the window with the yellow logo was a taxi office and still is. Drivers used the café and were in and out all the time. Not far from the café was the driving test centre for Scarborough and the instructors used the café all the time when their pupils were taking their tests.

Dave Siddle sold the café in I think about 1977. In about 1978/9 I think Iris Scott bought the cafe. So if memory is correct the period I am referring to must have been from 1978 till Sutcliffe was caught in 1981.  

I would go to the café each morning for a cup of tea. It was very convenient as I could watch the shop from the seat in the window. From time to time a tall dark haired man with a neatly-trimmed beard and moustache and a strong Yorkshire accent would come to the café and have something to eat and chat to the café owner Iris Scott. I am sure he was not a local. I think it may have been Sutcliffe. He told Iris that he was a wagon driver and as at that time there were loads of small engineering firms in the area, and other commercial businesses his arrival at the café was perfectly logical as he could park up and walk to the café. 

When the Ripper was caught and his picture was all over the media, Iris was convinced that the same tall dark haired man who had eaten at the café was the Ripper. And maintained this view until the day she died often repeating the claim.

With regard to the woman whose artist’s impression featured in the NYE article the connection is this. As I recall she was one of the people who used to drink in the shelter. I remember her as she was small and would have been about 40 at the time. 

As I recall it she usually wore a kind of quilted body warmer winter or summer. It was dark blue I think underneath she would usually wear a blouse or jumper. She usually wore dark coloured miniskirts or if not mini quite short. She was small stocky but not fat. Dark brown frizzy hair, very similar to the drawing. 

I believe she might have been selling herself when she was in Scarborough, hence the very short mini-skirts years too young for her. Accent as I recall was Yorkshire or Lancashire. I don’t think she was local to Scarborough but I am not sure why I think that. I think she may have smoked. 

Also the drinking gang were always fighting and one day when she came in she had been beaten up and had some of her teeth knocked out. I have no idea of medical history or where she received treatment, if any. 

Not sure where any of them lived or slept I would think they all had bouts of homelessness and the Salvation Army HQ is not far from my shop so would not be surprised if they/she did not have contact with them.  

I would say it was inevitable that they were all known to the police. They were habitual drinkers probably drug users as well, although I can’t say I ever saw them take drugs. The shelter next to my shop was a regular haunt for them and well known to the police who had to drive right by it to get to our police station.

Suddenly this group all disappeared. It was a bit strange and might be coincidental. I of course thought nothing of it at the time.  

I don’t remember any police investigation into the “Nude in the Nettles” murder or this woman. I would still not have thought anything of it but for the article in the NYE jogging my memory. 

No idea where Sutcliffe’s lorry might have been parked, but in those days it was a lot easier to park up my end of town. Also there were several places he could have been delivering to so he might have used their premises I suppose he could have been being loaded so might have gone for a cuppa while he was loaded up. 

There were a lot of engineering firms around my end of town in those days. In Roscoe Street alone there was Andrews of Scarborough (motorcycle dealers), Deardens builders merchants, North Sea Winches (they did work relating to marine engineering but also did a lot of welding work), D Wray and Sons was a bakery but they had their vehicle workshop in Roscoe St, Scarborough Ignition Co Ltd (automobile electrical engineers) then there was Pickups (a really big engineering firm – this firm still exists and is now situated on our trading estate). Pickups had deliveries every day and as Roscoe St is not very wide there deliveries were resented by the residents in the area. However, the old goods yard was quite busy in those days; it is now our Sainsburys. As an aside many of the people who worked at these firms used Iris’s cafe so if they had Sutcliffe deliver to them they would have almost certainly either taken him, or directed him to the cafe.”

Witness 2

Witness 2 is Iris Scott, who is now sadly deceased, as is her husband. Her evidence at the time as related to the NYE by Norman and specified above, was that Peter Sutcliffe had been a regular patron of her café.

Witness 3

Witness 3 was traced by Chris as part of our effort to verify Norman’s evidence. He is a friend of Mr and Mrs Scott who has perfectly confirmed Norman’s account that Iris Scott was definite she had seen Peter Sutcliffe in her café on multiple occasions:

“Yes top end next to Boro taxis. She was our neighbour for a while at Newby. I remember Iris saying she was convinced Peter Sutcliffe had been in her café. Sadly after retirement both Iris and her husband Bill passed away”.

Witness 4

Witness 4 was not directly involved in these events. His information relates to the mystery caller. However, the authors are not prepared to release anything more, for reasons of national security.

Witness 5

Witness 5 is Ms Kristina Rose who has now consented to be named, but was previously referred to as “Child A” in the NYE coverage. Kristina and another girl were abducted by Sutcliffe in 1977 or 1978 in his lorry and taken from Hammersmith in London to Sunderland.

Her evidence is critical, because supports the conclusion that Sutcliffe used his lorry to abduct women. It can be accessed in full here.

Witness 6

Witness 6 was involved in these events. His information came to the NYE through a third party. However, the authors are not prepared to release anything more to maintain the confidentiality of our source.

Witness 7

Witness 7 is Tim Hicks. His information relates to the identity of the mystery caller. However, he is not prepared to release anything more, for reasons of national security.

The response of North Yorkshire Police’s Cold Case Review Team

The authors always felt the case was one witness away from a resolution. As Tim wrote to Chief Constable Winward on the 11^th of May 2019 “I believe this murder is still solvable”. Unfortunately, the North Yorkshire Police Cold Case Review Team has ignored requests from the authors to make arrangements so that all of this information can be passed on. This is not a reflection on the Cold Case Review Unit or its leader Mr Adam Harland. Chief Constable Winward pursues a policy of prohibiting contact between her force and the NYE, which they have to comply with. This is unfortunate, because media coverage is essential in resolving cold cases and the Chief Constable’s policy inhibits the ability of Mr Harland and his team to progress the case. A clear example of “Lions led by Donkeys”.

The authors have been highly critical of both the 1981 and 2011/12 investigations by NYP, in the articles below:

• The failures in the 1981 investigation are discussed in this article: Nude in the Nettles – Was it Sutcliffe?
• The various phases of the NYP investigations from 1981 and 2012 are analysed in this article: Nude in the Nettles – New Developments

Both investigations maintained that the person known as the “Mystery Caller” was the prime suspect. When in fact it was obvious to the authors that he was someone that had inadvertently discovered the body, did not want to get involved for fear of becoming a suspect. Designating this important witness as a suspect was a serous failure, because it diverted police attention away from other suspects and ensured that he would not come forward.

The NYE team know that our articles are read by many Officers from North Yorkshire Police including officers from the Cold Case Review Team. It appears that our articles have had a positive impact. NYP have confirmed to the Yorkshire Post that they now accept that the mystery caller is no longer designated as a suspect and that he was probably a witness, as the authors have consistently maintained. Again, this vindicates the quality of the NYE’s investigative analysis.

The authors cannot help but feel that the police assessment that this poor woman was a prostitute or “down and out” has affected the police investigation. If she was a policeman’s wife or a school teacher with vociferous relatives demanding answers, the Chief Constable would have no choice but to order that the witness evidence developed by the NYE was investigated. As it is, because there is no one championing her cause other than the authors, the Chief Constable can follow her media policy of not engaging with the NYE, which the authors believe is damaging and retarding the NYP investigation with impunity.

Throughout this investigation, a key concern of the authors has been that although the evidence is overwhelming that “Hope” is a victim of Peter Sutcliffe, they could be wrong. If this is so, then a murderer is still at large, possibly one of “Hope’s” clients, who may still be resident in Scarborough.

Tim has therefore written to Scarborough & Whitby MP Mr Robert Goodwill (Conservative) asking him to raise this with the Chief Constable, in the wider interests of progressing the investigation into the murder of his constituent. The NYE will report back on his response in due course

The impact of the new evidence on our knowledge of Sutcliffe’s murders

The authors allege that “Hope” was murdered by Peter Sutcliffe in his lorry, probably by ligature strangulation, or he took her to Sutton Bank in his lorry and murdered her there.

Until now, Sutcliffe was believed to have offended only in his car, in the West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire Police force areas. The new evidence discovered by the NYE shows that Sutcliffe used his lorry to commit murders. He drove his lorry all over the country from Scotland to Dover. So the conclusion is inescapable that Sutcliffe operated across a wider geographical range than previously believed possible and had many more opportunities to attack women. It follows from this that that Sutcliffe had many more victims than previously believed.

The NYE will be following up on this line of enquiry with a series of articles entitled the lorry murders, covering all of the unresolved murders that Sutcliffe may have committed from his lorry.

Finally, as usual, we will finish the article with an appeal for information.

NYE Appeal for Information

“Hope” 

Three-dimensional wax reconstruction of the victims head and face

• She was 5’ 2” in height, aged between thirty five and forty.
• She had a slender build and wore her natural dark brown hair in a page-boy style.
• She had given birth to two or three children and had a displaced septum between her nostrils.
• Her toenails were painted pink – the varnish coming from the Max Factor Maxi range.
• She would have worn a size four shoe.
• Staining on her teeth revealed that she was a heavy smoker that did not look after herself.
• She had a Yorkshire or Lancashire accent, but may not be originally from Scarborough.
• All her upper teeth were missing, she had an upper dental plate fitted, and she had only six lower teeth.
• She had an old fracture to her right ankle and an abnormality to her neck vertebrae which would have caused backache.
• Do you remember someone like “Hope” from the shelter in Victoria Street, Scarborough?
• Were you one of “Hope’s” clients?
• Were you a police officer in Scarborough in the period 1977 – 1979? Did “Hope” come into custody for being drunk and disorderly, soliciting or vagrancy, or did you see her at the shelter?
• Were you a social worker, health care professional, or member of the Salvation Army that came into contact with “Hope” and other down and outs from Victoria Road Scarborough?
• Did you find a dark blue quilted body warmer, blouse, jumper, dark mini skirt discarded along on the A170?

Peter Sutcliffe

• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe or a lorry from TW Clarke (Image at beginning of the article circa 1976) in Scarborough, or any location mentioned in the article?
• Did you work at Victoria Road, Roscoe Street, Andrews of Scarborough (motorcycle dealers), Deardens builder’s merchants, North Sea Winches D Wray and Sons, Scarborough Ignition Co Ltd or Pickups or the old goods yard which is now Sainsburys?
• Were you a taxi driver for Boro Taxis next to the café, or did you use taxis from there?
• Did you frequent the café in Victoria Road and see Peter Sutcliffe there?
• Did you know the café owner Iris Scott, or see Sutcliffe in her cafe?

If you have any information on the ‘Nude in the Nettles’ mystery that you want to pass on confidentially, you can talk to a journalist by contacting the North Yorks Enquirer using our letters@nyenquirer.uk address. All responses are followed up and will be treated in the strictest confidence.

“Hope”: More information

by TIM HICKS and CHRIS CLARK

~~~~~

Introduction

Until now, the conventional wisdom was that all of serial killer Peter Sutcliffe’s attacks were launched from his car. However, retired police intelligence officer Chris was convinced that this was not credible and conducted his own research on the basis that Sutcliffe used his lorry on some of the murders. This has led to some startling revelations and new information on how Peter Sutcliffe operated.

The authors have collated all the cases Chris has identified as committed from Sutcliffe’s lorry. They are shown as “V5” in Column F “Vehicle Used” in Table 13, here.

• Table 13 Victim list and vehicles used

The murders committed while Sutcliffe was driving his lorry are covered in greater detail in articles as follows:

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 1. Bedgebury Forest Woman

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 2. Ilkley: Proof positive

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 3. More ligature killings

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 4. Doncaster and Sheffield

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 5. Bristol, Sussex and Essex

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 6. “Hope”: More information.

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 7. Leicester and Nottingham

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 8. Hammersmith and Leicester

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 9. London

For editorial reasons, they have not been published in chronological order.

Background: Sutcliffe’s access to lorries

Here Chris gives the background and more information on the individual murders the authors believe were committed from Sutcliffe’s lorry.

“Sutcliffe then started employment as a lorry driver on the 29th of September of 1975 working for a Common Road Tyre Company, Okenshaw situated at the junction of the M62 Motorway and a spur off the M606 into Bradford; the work involved short and medium distance hauls all over the North and the Midlands. He used the experience to familiarise himself with the network of motorways and trunk roads linking its destinations to each other including the best access routes to many towns and city centres an art that he perfected from his already overall extensive knowledge that he had gained from socially driving around the North of England, the Midlands and London and Home Counties.  

However after just over a fortnight’s employment on 15 October 1975 he was caught stealing second hand tyres and the police were informed. Sutcliffe was arrested and during the following year after entering a guilty plea at a later court hearing on 5 March 1976 he was fined and he was later sacked in that April for bad time keeping. 

In October 1976 Sutcliffe finally found work as a lorry driver for T&WH Clark (Holdings Ltd) situated on the Canal Road Industrial Estate between Shipley and Bradford. They were a small engineering transport firm and working for them took him all over the country and involved a lot of overnight stops where he would use the bunk bed in the rear of the cabin and he was once on his own again with no one to account to and left to his own devices. He started proving himself over several months in one of the firm’s four and six ton big rigid Lorries and then onto a Ford Transcontinental which at £250,000 was the most expensive and advanced HGV vehicle in England at the time.  

Sutcliffe clearly suffered from ‘little man syndrome’ as well as ‘obsessive compulsive disorder’ and enjoyed the height, mass and speed of the lorry; as well as spending hours cleaning and polishing both the inside and outside of the cabin whilst awaiting loading and unloading. This would have removed any forensic evidence from the cab. 

At work Sutcliffe was one of Clark’s most conscientious drivers who kept immaculate logs and repair records. His workmates saw him as a loner who never showed any sign of violence did not swear or speak crudely about women although he christened his lorry ‘Wee Willie’ which was a source of amusement for them. Sutcliffe was well liked by his bosses and colleagues alike and was recognised to be brilliant at roping-and-sheeting large and often difficult loads. He was the person that everyone turned to when they got a delivery ticket for an unfamiliar town he had ‘A-Z’ street maps for every possible destination. 

At Clark’s at the beginning of 1980, Sutcliffe must have felt he had got a really secure job even a job for life. The firm had been forced to sack all their drivers for alleged thefts from the loads but not him. He had been the one exception the one driver Chairman Tom Clark felt he could trust. Yet there were those at Clarks who had noticed Sutcliffe’s habit of occasionally turning up at work with false number plates on his car. A fact considered insignificant by his workmates, at least until the first weekend of 1981. 

The management had been so impressed with Sutcliffe regarding him as possessing all the virtues required by the best lorry drivers that he was chosen to appear in a promotional brochure for the firm. In the following photograph he is shown hair in place, beard neatly trimmed as usual behind the wheel of ‘Wee Willie’ and a giant enlargement of the photograph was given pride of place in the entrance to the firm’s offices.” 

Background The “Nude in the Nettles Murder” (regular readers will be familiar with this)

One of the great murder mysteries of North Yorkshire is the “Nude in the Nettles Murder”. On Friday the 28^th of August 1981, North Yorkshire Police (NYP) officers from Thirsk responded to an anonymous telephone call and discovered the decomposing body of a woman at Sutton Bank just off the A170 on the North York Moors.

Despite determined and relentless efforts, NYP have not been able to identify her. An appeal for information was made by NYP in 2011 as part of a cold case review gives the facts of the case as follows:

“An anonymous male caller telephoned North Yorkshire Police providing the exact location for police officers to search. On Friday 28^th August 1981 Police officers attended the described location, a lay by on the unclassified road leading from Sutton Bank to the villages of Scawton and Rievaulx. The location is a quiet road used by local people and occasional caravaners heading to a nearby site. The rural area consists mainly of arable and pasture farmland with occasional conifer plantations. It was to the side of this road and between two small plantations that officers found the skeletal remains of an unknown female laid in undergrowth. This discovery marked the start of an 18 month police investigation led by Detective Chief Superintendent Strickland Maunsel Carter to establisher her identity and why she was there. 

A forensic examination of the naked body revealed no jewellery or personal effects laid nearby that may assist in establishing who she was. A Home Office pathologist estimated she may have laid at that place situ for up to two years due to plant growth and state of the body. The post mortem did not establish a cause of death. 

What could be established was that body was that of a female, 5’ 2” in height, aged between thirty five and forty and may have been a mother. The deceased appeared to have short dark coloured hair. There was evidence of an old fracture to the right ankle but nothing conclusive to provide an identification. 

During the 18 month police investigation extensive enquires were conducted and a number of people were identified as possible matches for the deceased but none could be positively identified as the deceased. 

A line of enquiry reported on at the time related to a female prisoner that had escaped from Askham Grange open prison almost two years earlier but has not been seen since or spoken to by police. 

Thirty years later the same questions remain. The anonymous male caller that started this 30 years police investigation may have the answer to the other questions – who is this lady left undiscovered at the top of Sutton Bank?, what was she doing there? and how did she die. 

The thirty years that have elapsed since the discovery of this lady has seen significant developments in police technology that are used in current police investigations, and possibly viewed as normal enquiries. 

At the time a three-dimensional wax reconstruction of her head, which was first such reconstruction, indicated the investigators were keen to use new technology. It was a positive actions as the circulations of this image generated significant interest and possible identities but these failed to provide the identification required.  

We need to recognise that at the time of her discovery the Police National Computer that holds vehicle and person details was in its infancy, The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) had not been invented and the first mobile telephone call to be made in the UK would not take place for another three and half years.  

Although the passage of time has changed police technology, North Yorkshire Police’s commitment to finding the answers to these questions remains the same, so that her family can have the answers they deserve. For this reason if you know the identity of the lady or the male caller please make contact.”

The 2011 appeal was closely co-ordinated with the local media, who were commendably supportive of police efforts to try and resolve the case. Article by Jennifer Bell of York Press here.

Failure of the NYP investigations

The “Nude in the Nettles Murder” led to a major investigation by NYP which essentially fell into six phases from the discovery of the body in 1981 to the present. The authors reviewed the investigation and believe serious errors were made in each phase and these are documented in the NYE article here.

Despite all of the police effort and manpower expended on this case over the years, there were only five successes in the 1981 and 2011/2012 investigations. These were:

1981

1. The autopsy could not identify the date or cause of death, but analysis of the plant growth confirmed that there had been two seasons of plant growth since the body was dumped, identifying the date of deposition as 1979.
2. Witness 1 came forward and confirmed that when he visited the deposition site in 1979, he noticed a foul smell, which the police concluded was from the body decomposing, confirming the year of death as 1979.
3. The investigation deduced the victim was a prostitute. However, the authors suspect this may have eliminated Scarborough and the A170 from the geographical assessment, because it did not have a red light district or any history of large scale prostitution. Instead the police investigation may have focussed on A19 truck stops in the belief that “Hope” was a “truck hopper” prostitute that serviced lorry drivers parked overnight in truck stops.
4. A facial reconstruction was obtained (see below). This was to lead to an additional and important witness coming forward to the NYE investigation in 2019.

2011

5. Body was exhumed and DNA successfully extracted.

Thereafter, NYP appear to have abandoned all interest in the case and are not responding to new witness evidence discovered in the “Nude in the Nettles murder” by local investigative journalists from the NYE.

The NYE investigation into the “Nude in the Nettles”. 2018 onwards

When the authors started publishing Chris’s antecedent investigation into Sutcliffe, they were hopeful they would be able to progress the “Nude in the Nettles” murder. They assessed that it had probably been perpetrated by Sutcliffe, that the 1981 investigation had been poor and had failed because it prematurely focussed on false lines of enquiry. The 2011/2012 investigation had failed to impartially and independently review the case since the original investigation was closed.

The objectives of the authors investigation became and remain:

1. To try and identify the woman known as the “Nude in the Nettles”, so her next of kin can be notified and she can have a memorial service in her own name.
2. To try and obtain justice for her even at this late stage by identifying her killer.

Please note that the authors state above in point 2 that they wish to identify the killer, not that they want to identify Peter Sutcliffe as the killer. This is because both authors are open minded and recognise that although the evidence is mounting up that it was Sutcliffe, it is possible that it was not and another man or men committed this murder. If this is so, then it means that there could be a killer on the loose, possibly still residing in Scarborough.

The authors and NYE correspondent Nigel Ward always felt that as a local media outlet, the NYE was best placed to provide the local media coverage that would generate local interest and produce information. To assist in the investigation and help generate public interest the authors provisionally gave the victim the name “Hope”.

The NYE always ran a very detailed appeal for witnesses with each article. This bore fruit and a number of key witnesses have come forward with credible evidence, which the authors have been able to develop.

It is well known that Sutcliffe routinely travelled through North Yorkshire as part of his work as a lorry driver. Interestingly at one point the Ripper enquiry was actively considering the possibility that the Ripper may live in North Yorkshire. Following the murder of Irene Richardson in 1977, West Yorkshire Police started checking vehicles to identify if they had tyres matching the tracks found at the crime scene. Cars in West Yorkshire and Harrogate in North Yorkshire were checked. Indicating that the investigation suspected the Yorkshire Ripper might live and/or operate in North Yorkshire.

The NYE investigation has delivered the following successes:

1. Chris separately identified that an attack on a woman in Harrogate on the 18^th of February 1979 was an attack by the Yorkshire Ripper. NYE investigation here
2. The NYE investigation identified Witness 2 (former SBC Councillor Norman Murphy) who confirmed a positive investigation of “Hope” from a facial reconstruction published in an NYE Norman confirmed she was an alcoholic prostitute, that frequented a bus stop in Victoria Road Scarborough.
3. Witness 2 stated that he saw a man who may have been Sutcliffe in a café owned by Witness 3 (Iris Scott deceased), who before her death was adamant that Peter Sutcliffe was a regular visitor to her café. This would fit with him making deliveries to Scarborough during his work as a lorry driver.
4. Chris identified Witness 4, an associate of Iris Scott, who confirmed that she had told him he had seen Peter Sutcliffe in her café.
5. Chris identified a local man (Witness 5), who came forward with important information on the discovery of the body and the identity of the person known as “the mystery caller”. As a result of Witness 5’s evidence, we now have a credible explanation of how the body was discovered and information on the possible identity of “the mystery caller” who remains the prime suspect – wrongly, in the author’s opinion. His information has independently confirmed the original deductions of the authors as to how the body was discovered.
6. A local man (Witness 6) came forward through a third party to confirm he remembers Norman Murphy’s vacuum shop and the covered bus stop next to it. He has confirmed that the covered bus shelter was used for prostitution, independently verifying Norman Murphy’s evidence that there was prostitution going on in Victoria Road, Scarborough, at the time of the murder.
7. Chris identified two women (Witness 7 and Witness 8) who were subjected to an abortive attack in York in June 1980. It is unclear if this attack was mounted from a car or Sutcliffe’s lorry. Both women were in “Café-Tiara” in York at dusk. Sutcliffe was the only other customer and he frequently stared at them whilst writing in a notebook. He was wearing lace up boots, indicating that he was working. In the days before tacographs, he was probably completing his manual record of hours driving his HGV lorry. Both women felt uneasy and left. Sutcliffe followed them, so they ran and he ran after them. So they hailed a taxi and got away. They were so unnerved that they reported it to NYP. Both witnesses positively identified Sutcliffe when one of them saw a photo of Sutcliffe after his arrest.
8. The two York victims are the first witnesses with a positive identification of Sutcliffe attacking in North Yorkshire. The authors understand the attack took place in about June 1980, i.e. between the murder of “Hope” in 1979 and the discovery of her body in August 1981. This would fit with an important variation in Sutcliffe’s modus operandi. Towards the end of his reign of terror he was varying the areas he was offending in, because the police activity in Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield and Manchester was making operating there much more risky. The importance of this evidence is that, taken with the attack in Harrogate (Case 48) on an unnamed victim (NYE article here) on the 18^th of February 1979, the murder of “Hope” also in 1979 and the attack in York in June 1980, supports the authors belief that Peter Sutcliffe was regularly offending in North Yorkshire, not just travelling through North Yorkshire on journeys to Sunderland and Scarborough. His attacks in the “North Yorkshire murder triangle” between Scarborough, Sunderland and his work in Bradford are shown in the illustration below. NYE investigation into the murder of Stephanie Spencer in Darlington shown on the map (Case 33) here.

The North Yorkshire murder triangle

9. In response to an NYE appeal for information, the NYE was contacted by Child A, (Witness 9), who along with another young girl Child B was abducted by Sutcliffe in Hammersmith and dropped off in Sunderland. This fits perfectly with Sutcliffe’s work, because we know that he regularly drove to London and to Sunderland Docks.
10. The authors concluded that “Hope” was picked up by Sutcliffe in Victoria Road Scarborough, enticed into his lorry for sex, murdered and her body dumped at Sutton Bank just off the A170. This established that Sutcliffe probably used his lorry to commit attacks. This has widened our knowledge of how Sutcliffe operated and the geographical range of his offending. This is explored in the ‘Lorry Murder’ articles above.

The new evidence

Information came into the NYE newsroom that “Hope” and the other down-and-outs that hung around the covered bus shelter in Victoria Road, Scarborough, were responsible for a series of burglaries and thefts in Scarborough. The information indicated that “Hope” and her friends were known to the police for stealing articles locally, then selling them off to finance their drinking.

Anatomy of a cover-up 

The authors. coverage of the “Hope” murder can be seen below.

20.04.2018: Nude in the Nettles: Was it Sutcliffe?

23.04.2018: Peter Sutcliffe – or “The Harrogate Ripper”?

28.05.2018: NYP and the Ripper

06.06.2019: Nude in the Nettles: New developments

26.06.2019: ‘Hope’ new evidence

02.08.2019: Another Letter to the Chief

22.01.2020: The Rippers Lorry Murders 8: Hammersmith and Leicester

This latest evidence has quite profound implications for the NYP investigation. Quite apart from the fact that the 1981 and 2011/12 investigations should have discovered this, the criminal record of “Hope” from the period 1978 to 1979 will still exists and she can be identified from it.

Nevertheless, North Yorkshire Police will not work with the NYE over the new evidence the NYE has uncovered and will not interview any of the witnesses.

It remains deeply concerning that under the leadership of Chief Constable Winward, NYP will not cooperate with local community journalists and internet media outlets to investigate crime. Particularly as this is a case involving a serious crime that her force with all of the resources available to it has failed to progress; whilst an impartial investigation and a series of appeals and articles by a retired policeman working closely with a local media outlet, has led to additional information and major progress. This demonstrates why it is so important that the police is subjected to impartial media scrutiny and challenge, by a free press.

The fact that North Yorkshire Police is ignoring information in a murder enquiry, has essentially forced the authors to go it alone, without the police – as the NYE team was forced to do with its Peter Jaconelli investigation. BBC investigation here. The NYE investigation forced NYP to apologise for the inexcusable failure of Scarborough CID to arrest Savile and Jaconelli (here).

As usual, we conclude the article with an appeal for information on the murder of “Hope”.

NYE Appeal for information

“Hope”

Three-dimensional wax reconstruction of the victims head and face

• She was 5’ 2” in height, aged between thirty five and forty.
• She had a slender build and wore her natural dark brown hair in a page-boy style.
• She had given birth to two or three children and had a displaced septum between her nostrils.
• Her toenails were painted pink – the varnish coming from the Max Factor Maxi range.
• She would have worn a size four shoe.
• Staining on her teeth revealed that she was a heavy smoker that did not look after herself.
• She had a Yorkshire or Lancashire accent, but may not be originally from Scarborough.
• All her upper teeth were missing, she had an upper dental plate fitted, and she had only six lower teeth.
• She had an old fracture to her right ankle and an abnormality to her neck vertebrae which would have caused backache.
• Do you remember someone like this from the shelter in Victoria Street?
• Were you a victim of a burglary or theft by “Hope”, or any of the down and outs that hung around the bus shelter at Victoria Road?
• Were you one of “Hope’s” clients?
• Were you a police officer in Scarborough in the period 1977 – 1979? Did “Hope” come into custody for being drunk and disorderly, soliciting, theft, burglary or vagrancy, or did you see her at the shelter?
• Were you a social worker, health care professional, or member of the Salvation Army that came into contact with “Hope” and other down and outs from Victoria Road Scarborough?
• Did you find a dark blue quilted body warmer, blouse, jumper, dark mini skirt discarded along on the A170?
• Did you hang a full set of formal female dressware on a coat hanger suspended from a tree by the hairpin bend on Sutton Bank.
• Did you serve in the RAF at RAF Linton on Ouse, or RAF Fylingdales in the period 1979 – 1984?
• Were you a taxi driver for Boro Taxis next to the café on Victoria Road, or did you use taxi’s from there? If so, did you see Peter Sutcliffe or “Hope”.

Peter Sutcliffe

Peter Sutcliffe pictured in his TW Clark lorry circa 1976

• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe or his distinctive lorry in York?
• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe (Image at beginning of the article) or a lorry from TW Clarke (image above) in Scarborough or York?
• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe at Victoria Road, Roscoe Street, Andrews of Scarborough (motorcycle dealers), Deardens builders merchants, North Sea Winches D, Wray and Sons, Scarborough Ignition Co Ltd or Pickups or the old goods yard which is now Sainsburys?
• Did you frequent the café in Victoria Road and see Peter Sutcliffe there?
• Did you know the café owner Iris Scott?

If you have any information on the “Nude in the Nettles” mystery that you want to pass on confidentially, you can talk to a journalist by contacting the North Yorks Enquirer using our letters@nyenquirer.uk address. All responses will be treated in the strictest confidence.

by TIM HICKS & CHRIS CLARK

~~~~~

Until now, the conventional wisdom was that all of Sutcliffe’s attacks were launched from his car. Chris however was convinced that this was not so and conducted his research on the basis that Sutcliffe used his lorry on some of the murders.

In this article the authors have collated all the cases Chris has identified as committed from Sutcliffe’s lorry, not his car. They are shown as V5 in Column F “Vehicle Used” in Table 13 of our spreadsheet (Victim list and vehicles used), here.

The cases are not in chronological order for editorial reasons of space management and to group some cases by force area in each article. They are in nine parts as follows:

• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 1. Bedgebury Forest Woman
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 2. Ilkley: Ilkley: Proof positive
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 3. More ligature killings.
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 4. Doncaster and Sheffield
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 5. Bristol, Sussex and Essex
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 6. “Hope”: More witnesses
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 7. Leicester and Nottingham
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 8. Hammersmith and Leicester
• The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 9. London

Here Chris gives the background and more information on the individual murders the authors believe were committed from Sutcliffe’s lorry.

Background: Sutcliffe’s access to lorries

“Sutcliffe then started employment as a lorry driver on the 29th of September of 1975 working for a Common Road Tyre Company, Okenshaw situated at the junction of the M62 Motorway and a spur off the M606 into Bradford; the work involved short and medium distance hauls all over the North and the Midlands. He used the experience to familiarise himself with the network of motorways and trunk roads linking its destinations to each other including the best access routes to many towns and city centres an art that he perfected from his already overall extensive knowledge that he had gained from socially driving around the North of England, the Midlands and London and Home Counties.  

However after just over a fortnight’s employment on 15 October 1975 he was caught stealing second hand tyres and the police were informed. Sutcliffe was arrested and during the following year after entering a guilty plea at a later court hearing on 5 March 1976 he was fined and he was later sacked in that April for bad time keeping.

In October 1976 Sutcliffe finally found work as a lorry driver for T&WH Clark (Holdings Ltd) situated on the Canal Road Industrial Estate between Shipley and Bradford. They were a small engineering transport firm and working for them took him all over the country and involved a lot of overnight stops where he would use the bunk bed in the rear of the cabin and he was once on his own again with no one to account to and left to his own devices. He started proving himself over several months in one of the firm’s four and six ton big rigid Lorries and then onto a Ford Transcontinental which at £250,000 was the most expensive and advanced HGV vehicle in England at the time.  

Sutcliffe clearly suffered from ‘little man syndrome’ as well as ‘obsessive compulsive disorder’ and enjoyed the height, mass and speed of the lorry; as well as spending hours cleaning and polishing both the inside and outside of the cabin whilst awaiting loading and unloading. This would have removed any forensic evidence from the cab. 

At work Sutcliffe was one of Clark’s most conscientious drivers who kept immaculate logs and repair records. His workmates saw him as a loner who never showed any sign of violence did not swear or speak crudely about women although he christened his lorry ‘Wee Willie’ which was a source of amusement for them. Sutcliffe was well liked by his bosses and colleagues alike and was recognised to be brilliant at roping-and-sheeting large and often difficult loads. He was the person that everyone turned to when they got a delivery ticket for an unfamiliar town he had ‘A-Z’ street maps for every possible destination. 

At Clark’s at the beginning of 1980, Sutcliffe must have felt he had got a really secure job even a job for life. The firm had been forced to sack all their drivers for alleged thefts from the loads but not him. He had been the one exception the one driver Chairman Tom Clark felt he could trust. Yet there were those at Clarks who had noticed Sutcliffe’s habit of occasionally turning up at work with false number plates on his car. A fact considered insignificant by his workmates, at least until the first weekend of 1981. 

The management had been so impressed with Sutcliffe regarding him as possessing all the virtues required by the best lorry drivers that he was chosen to appear in a promotional brochure for the firm. In the following photograph he is shown hair in place, beard neatly trimmed as usual behind the wheel of ‘Wee Willie’ and a giant enlargement of the photograph was given pride of place in the entrance to the firm’s offices.” 

Background: Sutcliffe’s interrogation reveals that (1) he carried a ligature in the cab of his lorry and that (2) he used a ligature to murder his victims 

Chris has now researched one of Sutcliffe’s interrogations, which took place following the search of his lorry, home and his mother’s home in 1981. The content is highly relevant to the lorry murders:

Transcript of the 10^th of February 1981 interview with Peter Sutcliffe.

After Peter Sutcliffe’s arrest and police interviews during January and February 1981, he was further interviewed on 10 February 1981in order to clarify certain items found by police searches of his home, his mother in law’s home where he used to live and his lorry including various lengths of rope. Here is the transcript: 

1) I have a number of lengths of rope which have been recovered variously from your house and garage; I want you to assist me in identifying them.

He was shown a piece of rope recovered from the garage at his mother in law’s house.

2) Do you recognise that?

3) Never seen it before.

He was shown a piece of rope in a noose, recovered from his lorry. 

4) I don’t think I recognise that one but I use ropes all the time to pull engines out.

 He was then shown a piece of rope with a length of twine attached. He said:

5) That’s a piece of lifting rope, I had two or three in the garage and the twine would stop it slipping.

He was shown a length of rope knotted at each end and recovered from his garage. 

6) Yes, I’ve seen that one before, that’s one of mine, I’ve held the car boot down with it and used it to carry an engine.

He was shown a piece of rope recovered from his bedroom.

7) I can’t recognise that one. 

He was shown rope recovered from garage. 

8) That’s a lifting piece for lifting engines out. 

He was then shown more rope recovered from garage. 

9) That’s another piece I’ve used for lifting engines. 

He was then shown a piece of pink and blue cord found in his possession when arrested in Sheffield.

10) That’s a piece of rope I used for the Bandara and Walls incident. I think I used the same rope on both but I’m not hundred per cent sure.

11) Have you used any piece of rope or wire as ligatures and thrown them away? 

12) I’m certainly not aware of having thrown any away.

 Here Chris continues with his analysis of the information disclosed above by Sutcliffe in the interview:

The key points to emerge from the Interview are:

• Peter Sutcliffe had a number of lengths of rope in his everyday use that could be used as a ligature.
• He admitted using a ligature in the murders of Marguerite Walls (20^th of August 1980 at Leeds) and attempted murder of Uphadya Bandara (24^th of September 1980 at Leeds).
• He had a rope which had been uniquely modified by the addition of a noose, which would make it perfect for swift use as a ligature in a confined space such as the cab of a lorry.
• Peter Sutcliffe denied recognising the ligature with a noose from the lorry, although it was distinctive, so it is unlikely he would not remember it. The implication being he did not want to admit knowledge of the noosed ligature because it connected his lorry to other crimes.
• Sutcliffe was in possession of a pink and blue ligature when he was arrested in his car in Sheffield with his next intended victim Olivier Reivers on the 2^nd of January 1981. In addition to the ligature found in his possession in Sheffield, he kept a second ligature in the lorry. The presence of a ligature in the lorry indicates that a ligature was kept in the lorry permanently, ready for an opportunistic attack on a hitch hiker or prostitute that he saw, or was able to lure into the cab. Thereby confirming that he used the lorry to commit murders as well as the car.
• The article The Ripper’s lorry murders Part 8. Hammersmith and Leicester established that on a number of occasions Sutcliffe abducted children. A ligature would be a useful weapon to use on a schoolgirl that had been enticed or bundled into the cab.
  
• Ligature strangulation does not leave any blood and Sutcliffe was known by his workmates for meticulously cleaning the interior of his lorry. Was he disposing of forensic evidence?

It is now clear that Sutcliffe used his lorry – not just his car – to commit murders. This verifies the author’s belief that Sutcliffe’s offending was not just confined to West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, but potentially covered every force area in the UK that Sutcliffe’s work as a lorry driver took him to. That is, all over England and parts of Southern Scotland.  

A ligature could have been used in several crimes that I have researched, including the Nude in the Nettles murder. What is not known as I do not have the pathologist reports on them is whether a ligature was found to have been used in any other of his admitted catalogued crimes prior to the summer and autumn of 1980 when he used a ligature in his last three attacks.

Sutcliffe was forensically aware and never fouled his car with forensic evidence from his victims’ death. The authors believe it possible that when using his lorry, Sutcliffe:

1. Enticed victims into the cab then drove them to the place where they were subsequently killed on the basis that they were going there to have sex.
2. Enticed victims into the cab to have sex (the lorry had a sleeping space in the cab) on the basis that a prostitute would not agree to being driven away from her patch, when she could have sex in the cab. Then murdered them in the cab using a ligature, which left limited forensic traces.
3. Enticed hitch hikers into the cab on the pretext of giving them a lift. Then either murdered them in the cab using a ligature, or enticed them out of the cab at a remote place possibly to go to the toilet and murdered them by the side of the road.
4. Enticed or forced schoolgirls into the cab, then murdered them with a ligature.

Chris has identified another two murders he believes were committed by Sutcliffe using the ligature he kept in the cab of his lorry. 

The murder of Dawn Webster (Case 56) (Police Scotland) 

Sutcliffe had admitted to his workmates that he was having an affair with a 35 year old Scots divorcee woman who lived in a village near Glasgow. He had met her at the Crown Bar in Holytown, Motherwell some 12 miles from Glasgow when he had made a delivery to the nearby Motherwell General Motors Plant during April 1979. He returned regularly and had won her family over and doted on the woman’s five young children playing with them for hours. He gave the woman the story that he was Peter Logan a widower and lived in a big house in Yorkshire he also wrote romantic letters using his father’s address for return. 

Could he be responsible for the following crime which occurred somewhere between Grangemouth and Stenhousemuir? On Friday 14 September 1979. 

18-year-old Dawn Webster from Stenhousemuir went to a 21st Birthday party at the ICI Club in Grangemouth. She was given a lift back to an address in Beech Place, Grangemouth and then returned to the ICI Club which was the last place that she was seen alive. 

Some fifteen days later on Saturday 29 September 1979 Dawn’s partially stripped and naked decomposed body was found by police using tracker dogs down an embankment beside the M9 motorway about a mile from the ICI Club. At this point there is a roundabout intersection which connects two roads to Stenhousemuir some six miles to the north-east of Grangemouth they are the A904/A9 route and the A905/A88 route. It is probable that Dawn was hitch hiking back to her home when she was abducted murdered and dumped at the location found. 

The pathologist concluded that she had died from a heart attack following a blow or pressure to certain parts of her body but there was no bruising that they could find. Did Sutcliffe use his knotted rope? This would only leave very small bruises under the neck tissue and not be visible on the skin surface. 

Daily Express article here 

A Police Scotland spokesperson commented:

“Police Scotland reviews all undetected and unresolved homicides and meets regularly with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to pursue a resolution. 

We would welcome any new information that could assist with our enquiries into the murder of Dawn Webster.

Anyone with information can get in touch with Police Scotland on the non-emergency number 101 or alternatively, you can call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 where anonymity can be maintained.”

The Murder of Margaret Lightfoot (Case 24) Metropolitan Police 

At lunchtime on Monday 24 November 1975 Mrs Margaret Lightfoot a dedicated WRVS charity worker for pensioners as was usual took her pet Airedale Terrier Tessa for a walk from the family home in Connaught Avenue, Loughton near Epping in Essex along Earl’s Path to the nearby Epping Forest. She was last seen going into the forest with her puppy on a lead at 1:00pm by a 20 year old garage receptionist as he cycled to work. She was not seen alive again. Her pet dog was found wandering without her lead and taken home during the afternoon. Margaret’s husband Roy reported her missing to the nearby police station upon arriving home from work.

Immediately, dozens of police officers – some with dogs – combed the forest area on the Nursery Road and Earl’s Path areas accompanied by about 80 members of the public with torches. Searches continued until the early hours of Tuesday morning and this was resumed at daylight. At 8:20am the dead body of Margaret Lightfoot was found in a thicket by police dog handler Charles Fox and his Alsatian Rudy Three. Margaret had been hit on the head and strangled with a ligature, which detectives believed was the missing lead. Her body had been stripped of her anorak, trousers and underwear, which were scattered around her body. Her wellington boots were underneath her.

The post-mortem identified the cause of death as strangulation and noted that her hand was cut from a knife. Detective Inspector Maurice Marshall said shortly afterwards that Mrs Lightfoot met her death violently and that some of her clothes had been disturbed after she was dragged into the thicket.

The long walk route which Margaret took on the day in question went past Nursery Road and a pond up to the A11 Car Park, left down a new horse ride to the bottom, onto a grass path and back home.

On Thursday 5 December, Shaw Taylor and his ‘Police Five’ Team retraced Margaret’s route, shooting film at recognisable spots in an effort to jog people’s memories including dog-walkers and horse-riders who may have seen a man acting suspiciously in the area.

On 12 December, police issued to the Press an image of how Mrs Lightfoot looked on the day in question and asked if anyone saw her walking in or near Epping Forest. Shown as the lead illustration

As with many similar locations around the country, Epping Forest attracts naturists, naturalists, courting couples and weirdos. On the day in question a young male ‘Streaker’ who had been jumping out naked in front of horse-riders at lunchtimes was again active. Police laid a trap for him but were unsuccessful in arresting him. Local Collator records were checked, all known local sex offenders were interviewed, but all had water tight alibis. 

There were other reports of women being pestered by perverts who frequented the woods and one in particular stood out to the detectives investigating the murder.

On Sunday 21 December photo fits of five main suspects were put on display in Loughton Village Hall for the some 80 witnesses who had made statements to look at in the hope that the main suspect could be pin-pointed.

The man was never traced. It is difficult to see why he was designated as the prime suspect. His behaviour was strange, but not violent or sexual. It may not even have been criminal. Although he is obviously a person of interest, it is difficult to see the justification for designating him as the prime suspect. Particularly as they had not eliminated the streaker from their enquiries. The authors believe that Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe should have been considered as a suspect after his arrest in 1981. The attack and murder fits into some of Sutcliffe’s various methods including:

• Stalking victim prior to the attack
• Use of a ligature
• Use of a knife
• Blows to the head/face
• Frenzied stripping of clothing to reveal genitalia
• Dragging of the body off footpath into a secluded area
• Hurriedly leaving the scene undetected
• Sutcliffe visited his sister-in-law Marianne at Alperton near Wembley off the A406 North Circular Road. His sister Maureen, who was married to a serving soldier, was living at married quarters situated on the A11 at Duxford in Cambridgeshire. Further down past Loughton and Epping Green the A11 to Duxford connects to the North Circular Road at Walthamstow. This route between his sisters would take him right past Epping Forest where Margaret Lightfoot was murdered.
• Clark’s Transport was known to have made deliveries in the Essex Did Sutcliffe make deliveries there for the Common Road Tyre Company?
  

In the meantime the case stalled and went cold until 2016 when the Metropolitan Police were quoted in this 2016 BBC article: 

“Despite an extensive investigation, during which more than 100 potential suspects were interviewed, police were unable to identify Mrs Lightfoot’s killer. However, a detailed type-written report of the case from the officer in charge at the time has been recovered from police archives, together with items of evidence known as “exhibits”. And they’ve given police renewed hope of a breakthrough. 

“We have been lucky, because we still have some property from the crime scene,” says acting Detective Inspector Susan Stansfield, an officer from the Metropolitan Police’s cold case unit. “We’ve asked our forensic scientists to re-examine those items to see if we can use any modern-day techniques – back then we would only have been able to fingerprint items,” says DI Stansfield. She is part of small unit of detectives based at a south London police station who regularly review unsolved cases to see if there is any work to be done. The “new techniques” are DNA-based and some of them can be used to retrieve samples in a way that was not possible before. Contact or touch DNA can now be extracted from skin cells left behind when someone comes into contact with an object.

In the Margaret Lightfoot case, officers began looking at the case again after her widower – now aged 90 – saw something on TV and rang the police. Scientists are focusing on the two Wellington boots Mrs Lightfoot had been wearing, found underneath her body. Detectives believe the boots had been pulled off by her killer and may therefore contain traces of his DNA. But DI Stansfield says there’s a hurdle to overcome first. The way the boots were fingerprinted in 1975 may have compromised later tests. “The methods that were used can sometimes be very destructive of DNA processes now, so we have really got our fingers crossed,” she says. In some cold cases, DNA profiles can’t be obtained because the science isn’t advanced enough.  

In the case of Margaret Lightfoot, police are still actively investigating, hoping that scientific tests will lead them to the killer.

The Metropolitan Police Press Office were very helpful and released this media statement to the NYE:

“Having assessed all of the evidence and information available in relation to the Margaret Lightfoot case, there is nothing to link this murder to the crimes committed by Peter Sutcliffe. However, any further evidence that comes to light will be assessed and investigated accordingly.”

The authors respectfully disagree and this is to be covered in the next article in the series:

The Ripper’s Lorry Murders Part 9. London

The Murder of “Hope” known as the “Nude in the Nettles” Case (Case 52) North Yorkshire Police

Briefly, “Hope’s” body was found in on Friday the 28^th of August 1981 at Sutton Bank just off the A170 on the North York Moors. It is believed that her body had lain there undiscovered for about two years.

She was never identified and the NYE has named her “Hope” to help generate media interest. Her case is unquestionably the greatest murder mystery in the history of North Yorkshire. NYE coverage is below:

• Nude in the Nettles was it Sutcliffe?
• NYP and the Ripper
• Hope: New evidence

“Hope’s” body had been disturbed by animals and the autopsy was unable to identify the cause of death. It did identify that the skull was intact, ruling out Sutcliffe’s normal method of attack, which was to smash the victim’s skull in with a hammer. There were no nick, marks on the skeleton from a knife attack, indicating that ligature strangulation could have been the cause of death.

Witnesses have confirmed that the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe regularly visited Scarborough in his lorry. As a result of fresh evidence from former Councillor Norman Murphy, we believe that “Hope” was a prostitute who operated from a bus shelter in Victoria Road, Scarborough. Witnesses that put Sutcliffe in Victoria Road.

The authors believe that Sutcliffe enticed her into his lorry on the pretext of contracting for sex or giving her a lift to a truck park so she could solicit business and then strangled her in the cab with a ligature.

NYE Appeal for information

Three-dimensional wax reconstruction of the victims head and face

• Do you remember someone like this from the shelter in Victoria Street Scarborough?
• Were you one of “Hope’s” clients?
• Were you a police officer in Scarborough in the period 1977 – 1979? Did “Hope” come into custody for being drunk and disorderly, soliciting or vagrancy, or did you see her at the shelter?
• Were you a social worker, health care professional, or member of the Salvation Army that came into contact with “Hope” and other down and outs from Victoria Road, Scarborough?
• She was 5’ 2” in height, aged between thirty five and forty.
• She had a slender build and wore her natural dark brown hair in a page-boy style.
• She had given birth to two or three children and had a displaced septum between her nostrils.
• Her toenails were painted pink – the varnish coming from the Max Factor Maxi range.
• She would have worn a size four shoe.
• Staining on her teeth revealed that she was a heavy smoker that did not look after herself.
• She had a Yorkshire or Lancashire accent, but may not be originally from Scarborough.
• All her upper teeth were missing, she had an upper dental plate fitted, and she had only six lower teeth.
• She had an old fracture to her right ankle and an abnormality to her neck vertebrae which would have caused backache.

Did you find a dark blue quilted body warmer, blouse, jumper, dark mini-skirt discarded along on the A170?

by TIM HICKS & CHRIS CLARK

~~~~~

Introduction

Following on from the new evidence gathered by the authors and NYE citizen journalist Nigel Ward, and revealed in the article “Hope”: New Evidence.

The authors have had time to consider the impact that this new evidence has had on their knowledge of the full range of Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe’s pattern of offending. It is quite startling.

Background: Numbers of victims

Peter Sutcliffe’s reign of terror finished on the 2^nd of January 1981 when he was arrested in Sheffield by South Yorkshire Police, armed and with a prostitute. This woman was no doubt intended to be another of his victims and his arrest (and hers) certainly saved her life.

He was convicted of having committed thirteen murders and seven attempted murders.

These are shown in Table 1. In addition to the offences he was convicted of, he admitted two offences and was not charged in another four, which are also shown in Table 1 below.

An antecedent investigation conducted by Chief Constable Sir Lawrence Byford – which has never been released to the public in full, only a redacted copy – is believed to have identified another murder and eight attempted murders that Sir Lawrence was satisfied that Sutcliffe had committed.

These are shown in Table 2 below.

A grand total of thirty-five murders and attempted murders, tightly and conveniently concentrated in the West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester force areas.

A similar investigation to Sir Lawrence Byford’s conducted by Assistant Chief Constable Keith Hellawell for West Yorkshire Police originally looked at 78 additional cases which he firstly reduced down to 60 then down to 45 and eventually, because of weight of numbers, down to a final 22. Twelve in West Yorkshire and ten elsewhere. The victim names have never been released.

Ripper Spreadsheet 1

Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3

Sutcliffe’s offending was perceived to be limited to offences localised to the GMP, WYP and SYP force areas. In all of these offences, he was believed to have used his own vehicle.

Other than the attempted murders of Ann Rooney and Tracey Brown – which he admitted – Sutcliffe has denied committing all of the many offences that were put to him after his conviction.

Neither of the authors were convinced by the accepted police assessment of thirty-five attacks, or by Sutcliffe’s denials.

Chris, however, took it a stage further and using his experience as a police intelligence officer, conducted his own antecedent investigation into the full extent of Sutcliffe’s offending. This was published in his book “Yorkshire Ripper The Secret Murders”, NYE review here.

Chris’s investigation revealed a far wider pattern of offending. The author’s assessment is that Peter Sutcliffe should be considered as a suspect in at least sixty-five murders and attempted murders over multiple force areas, not the thirty-five in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester recognised by the police. These are shown in Table 13 below, which has been continually updated by the authors as more information has emerged.

Ripper Spreadsheet  6

Table 13 Victim list and vehicle access

The authors assert that this is the most comprehensive assessment of the potential number of Sutcliffe’s crimes available anywhere.

The most concerning of these four tables is Table 3. Please note the difference in the numbers of attacks compared to 1977. Serial killers generally become more prolific as time progresses because they acquire a taste for killing, enjoy it more, become more confident and also more skilled at what they do. However, the frequency of Sutcliffe’s known murders is not consistent with this pattern. It shows a peak in 1977, when one would expect it to show a steady rise in the number of attacks over the period of his offending, with the peak in 1980.

This leads the authors to conclude that it is still incomplete. They fear the true number of Sutcliffe’s victims is probably very much higher than the sixty-five the authors have identified above. Far-fetched? Chief Constable Hellawell’s initial assessment, remember, was seventy-eight.

Sutcliffe’s access to vehicles

Sutcliffe was a car and motorbike enthusiast and enjoyed driving. During 1963, at age seventeen, he obtained a provisional driving licence and was stopped and reported by Keighley Police for driving a motor car whilst unaccompanied and failing to display L-plates.

There was a similar case against him during May 1964. During this time, Sutcliffe was heavily into motorcycles, which interest would continue until the late 1960s. During a Sunday night in March 1965, when he was age 19, he was seen with another man trying door handles of several unattended motor vehicles in Old Main Street, Bingley, beside the River Aire. Both were arrested for attempting to steal from an unattended motor vehicle and appeared at the Bingley West Riding Magistrates Court on 17 May 1965.

His address was given as 57 Cornwall Road, Bingley, which was his parents’ address. He was fined £5 and his fingerprints would have been taken then. His descriptive form included that he had black curly hair, brown eyes and (at that time) a fresh, clean-shaven complexion. Sutcliffe gained more motoring convictions during 1965 and 1966.

Sometime during 1965 or 1966, Sutcliffe had an accident on a motorcycle whereby he received a head injury, which he claimed at his trial in 1981 had given him depression.

Sutcliffe had been able to drive since he was age 17 but didn’t hold a full licence until he was 22, during 1968. This restricted his driving ability to go further than his local district until then.

Other than one attack in 1969 (4), where he used a friend’s car, in all the offences accepted as having been committed by Sutcliffe in Tables 1 and 2, he used his own car.

During February 1975, Sutcliffe took redundancy from Anderton International and used part of the £400 payoff to train for an HGV licence. He trained as an HGV driver in the Harrogate area in February 1975. Two days after his 29th birthday, on the 4^th of June, 1975 Sutcliffe gained a Heavy Goods Vehicle driving licence.

Sutcliffe then started employment as a lorry driver on the 29th of September 1975 working for a Common Road Tyre Company, Okenshaw, situated at the junction of the M62 motorway and a spur off the M606 into Bradford; the work involved short and medium distance hauls all over the North and the Midlands. He used the experience to familiarise himself with the network of motorways and trunk roads linking its destinations to each other including the best access routes to many towns and city centres. Capitalising on his already extensive knowledge gained from socially driving around the North of England, the Midlands, London and Home Counties. He collected a small library of A-Z indexes of British cities so he could operate in them. He travelled widely.

However, after just over a fortnight’s employment, on 15 October 1975, Sutcliffe was caught stealing second-hand tyres and the police were informed. He was arrested and during the following year, after entering a guilty plea at a later court hearing on 5 March 1976, and was fined. He was sacked that April for bad time-keeping and was then unemployed until he started working as an HGV driver in October 1976.

In summary, Sutcliffe worked as an HGV driver in Bradford from October 1975 to March 1976 then from September 1976 until his arrest in January 1981. Giving him access to a lorry, during these two periods when he was driving all over the UK unsupervised.

His use of vehicles is shown in Table 13 above. Please note the key to his vehicle use:

V1: No car

V2: Victim’s car

V3: Own car

V3a: Own car, accompanied by a friend

V4: Friend’s car

V5: Employer’s lorry

V6: Own car, false plates

False number plates

Sutcliffe was arrested on the 2^nd of January 1981 in Sheffield with a prostitute, in his car with false plates, armed with a hammer, two knives and a ligature. This was the only time his use of false number plates was connected to a Ripper attack. He had taken the false plates earlier that day from a scrap yard in Cooper Bridge, near Mirfield. They were from a Skoda saloon that had been written off in an accident. Obviously they were obtained specifically for this attack which was out of his usual area of operations in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.

According to employees at T&WH Clark (Holdings Ltd), Sutcliffe occasionally turned up at work with false number plates on his car. Yet the police did not find any false plates when they searched Sutcliffe’s home. The conclusion is inescapable that when he operated out of his local area, he sometimes bought false plates on the day of the attack, so he could not be traced by the police surveillance. He ditched the plates shortly afterwards, so they could not incriminate him.

It must therefore be a concern that there were other occasions when he used false plates in attacks outside West Yorkshire, which were never attributed to him.

Sutcliffe’s offending, by police force areas

Sutcliffe did not recognise the concept of “no go areas” that were immune to his offending. He was forensically aware and capable of planning. The police suspected from geographic profiling that he was based in West Yorkshire. His arrest in Sheffield in 1981 demonstrated that he varied his areas of operation (until that point he was thought to operate only in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester) to ensure his offending was not attributed to him.

There is no doubt that Sutcliffe struck South, West and North.

Northern Police Forces

The authors believe Sutcliffe committed at least three attacks North of the West Yorkshire Police force area in the Harrogate, Sunderland, Scarborough triangle. These are covered in our article The Ripper Strikes North.

The Scottish Attack(s): Police Scotland

Sutcliffe is known to have operated in Scotland. The authors believe he should be considered as a suspect in the murder of 18-year-old Diane Webster from Stenhousemuir (55).

The Western Attacks: Greater Manchester Police

For some of Sutcliffe’s attacks, he left his primary hunting grounds in West Yorkshire and struck west along the M62 into Manchester. Because of Manchester’s proximity to West Yorkshire this was recognised at the time and, so far as the authors can tell, his offending in Manchester was fully identified in the Ripper Enquiry (See Table 1 and Table 2) and attributed to him.

The Southern Attacks.

Sutcliffe was arrested in South Yorkshire, in a car bearing false plates, armed and in the company of a prostitute. He undoubtedly intended to kill her, but was never charged with any offence in connection with this planned attack.

The authors believe that this was not the first time he had operated in South Yorkshire. In particular, the attacks on Barbara Young (29) and an unknown Doncaster prostitute (38) were not attributed to him, although the authors believe he should have been considered as a suspect. Nor was he charged with the attempted attack on Olivier Reivers (65) which led to his arrest.

As shown in Table 13, there are a long list of attacks in other force areas the authors believe Sutcliffe should be considered a suspect for.

Did the Ripper Strike East?

Given that Sutcliffe used the M62 to travel into the GMP area, it is equally possible that he may have used it to strike into Humberside. Certainly this was considered a possibility at the time and Humberside Police put the red light district in Hull under surveillance in anticipation of a Ripper attack.

The authors have considered this possibility but are not aware of any Humberside connection, even though it would be a clear drive from Bradford for deliveries to the Continent. They are unable to identify any case in the Humberside Police area of a murder or attempted murder that Sutcliffe should be considered as a suspect for. With missing person’s it is a different situation, because the information on missing persons available from open sources is very limited. We know from the “Nude in the Nettles” and Yvonne Pearson cases that Sutcliffe concealed bodies. It is therefore possible that some cases of missing persons in the period from October 1975 to March 1976 then from September 1976 until his arrest in January 1981 are in fact victims of Sutcliffe that were not identified as such at the time, or in the subsequent 1981 investigation.

The Missing Ones: The implications of the Yvonne Pearson (40) and “Hope”/”Nude in the Nettles” (51) cases.

One of the major revelations to emerge from Chris’s work is that it became clear that Sutcliffe was forensically aware and routinely changed his modus operandi, to confuse the police investigation. He used different weapons (ball pein hammer, claw hammer, masonry/lump/walling hammer, knife, ligature, cross head screwdriver, bradawl made from a sharpened cross head screwdriver) to kill and mutilate his victims. He changed his car regularly and varied his geographical area of operation. As an example, the foray into South Yorkshire in 1981 was undoubtedly due to his caution in avoiding the red light districts in West Yorkshire, because he knew they were under close police surveillance.

Arguably the most puzzling of Sutcliffe’s attacks was his murder of Yvonne Pearson (Case 40 A15). This appeared to be unique because Sutcliffe deliberately concealed the body beneath a sofa and it remained undiscovered for two months. NYE article with more information here.

The body was only discovered because a passer-by noticed an arm poking out from the sofa. When the body was removed, the police found a newspaper underneath the body dated the 21^st of February 1978. The police investigation identified that other witnesses who had passed the sofa confirmed that there had been no arm showing in the period between the murder on the 22^nd of January 1978 and the discovery of the body.

They concluded – correctly, in both authors’ opinions – that Sutcliffe had returned to the body, placed the newspaper underneath the body, hoping the police would use the date on the newspaper to establish the wrong date for the murder. Thereby establishing a false alibi for himself. He then moved the arm so it was exposed, to ensure discovery of the body with the newspaper underneath it shortly afterwards.

In their article The Ripper Strikes North, the authors covered two murders and an attempted murder they believe were committed by Sutcliffe, but never attributed to him by the police. One of these is the famous “Nude in the Nettles” murder of a woman who remains unidentified and whom the authors have called “Hope”. The authors have recently made a major breakthrough in this case. Article here, which North Yorkshire Police are ignoring.

“Hope’s” body was also concealed (two years, not two months) and a dated item (a yoghurt top) put underneath it. The authors believe this was to establish a false alibi. Exactly the same method used in the Yvonne Pearson attack. This deduction has profound implications. It has enabled the authors to expand their analysis of Sutcliffe’s offending, both in terms of his modus operandi and the geographical extent of it.

The implication of the new evidence developed by the NYE is that:

• Sutcliffe picked up his victim “Hope” from Scarborough in his lorry.
• Sutcliffe’s lorry had a large cab and could be used to sleep in. Here opinion is divided between the authors. Sutcliffe never contaminated his vehicle by killing in it and therefore Chris is convinced that Sutcliffe would not have murdered anyone in the cab of the lorry. Tim is not so convinced. Ligature strangulation leaves no blood and is quiet. Tim believes it is just possible that Sutcliffe may have murdered in the cab using ligature strangulation. This would certainly be a departure from Sutcliffe’s known modus operandi, but Sutcliffe often varied his modus operandi. He is also known to have fanatically cleaned his cab, which would destroy any forensic evidence. So Tim believes this cannot be ruled out.
• Sutcliffe concealed the body.
• Sutcliffe checked the newspapers to identify if the body had been found, then having ascertained it was undiscovered, returned later to place the dated yoghurt top underneath it. Thereby establishing a false date of death and an alibi. Had he not done this the records of his employer would show the exact dates that he had been in Scarborough. If the body was discovered the day after the murder, this would tie him to it.

The authors therefore assert that Sutcliffe practised another previously unrecognised and distinct modus operandi of using his employer’s lorry to commit murders and then concealing the body to evade detection.

This is a major development. When Sutcliffe was arrested in 1981, all forces conducted a review of their unsolved murders to ascertain if they had been committed by Sutcliffe. However, the Yvonne Pearson murder being seen as an isolated one-off from his normal modus operandi. At the time it was not realised that Sutcliffe also concealed bodies.

Consequently Sutcliffe was not believed to be responsible for murders of women that had disappeared and were classified as missing persons. This has only been revealed as a result of Chris linking Sutcliffe to the “Nude in the Nettles” murder and the fresh evidence this has generated. So missing persons were not included in the Yorkshire Ripper antecedent investigation.

It means that Sutcliffe could have been committing murders while travelling in his lorry, or staying in lorry parks all over England and concealing the bodies. If so, there could be missing persons cases in these force areas that Sutcliffe was responsible for, which are classified as missing persons, but are in fact murders.

This could be because:

• The criteria for identifying a Ripper attack issued by West Yorkshire Police to all forces (the Charlesworth criteria) were misleading. So some Ripper attacks may have been eliminated in error.
• The official line was that Sutcliffe only operated in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire. Therefore women that were attacked outside those areas will certainly not have realised that they had been attacked by the Ripper.
• Prostitutes have an adversarial relationship with the police. It is therefore possible that some of Sutcliffe’s victims who survived his attacks will not have reported the attack to the police for fear of being arrested for soliciting.
• Some of the victim’s bodies were concealed.
• Sutcliffe was not linked to some crimes because his car had false plates.

This would account for the fluctuations in the numbers of attacks in the later years of his offending revealed by Table 3.

Summary

The authors assessment of the crimes for which Sutcliffe should be considered a suspect by force area is as follows:

Core central area of offending in West Yorkshire

West Yorkshire: 35

North

North Yorkshire: 2

Durham: 1

[These were covered in the article The Ripper Strikes North and are shown in the lead illustration at the top of this page]

Police Scotland: 1

West

Greater Manchester: 2

South

South Yorkshire: 3

Staffs: 1

Derbyshire: 2

Leicestershire: 2

Metropolitan: 7

Essex: 3

Notts: 1

Cheshire: 1

Hertfordshire: 1

Avon & Somerset: 1

Kent: 1

Sussex: 1

It now appears that eleven of these murders were committed from Sutcliffe’s lorry. The authors will be covering this in greater detail in their next article “The Ripper’s Lorry Murders”.

As usual, we conclude the article with an appeal for information on the murder of “Hope”.

NYE Appeal for information

“Hope”

Three-dimensional wax reconstruction of the victims head and face

• She was 5’ 2” in height, aged between thirty five and forty.
• She had a slender build and wore her natural dark brown hair in a page-boy style.
• She had given birth to two or three children and had a displaced septum between her nostrils.
• Her toenails were painted pink – the varnish coming from the Max Factor Maxi range.
• She would have worn a size four shoe.
• Staining on her teeth revealed that she was a heavy smoker that did not look after herself.
• She had a Yorkshire or Lancashire accent, but may not be originally from Scarborough.
• All her upper teeth were missing, she had an upper dental plate fitted, and she had only six lower teeth.
• She had an old fracture to her right ankle and an abnormality to her neck vertebrae which would have caused backache.
• Do you remember someone like this from the shelter in Victoria Road?
• Were you one of “Hope’s” clients?
• Were you a police officer in Scarborough in the period 1977 – 1979? Did “Hope” come into custody for being drunk and disorderly, soliciting or vagrancy, or did you see her at the shelter?
• Were you a social worker, health care professional, or member of the Salvation Army that came into contact with “Hope” and other down and outs from Victoria Road Scarborough?
• Did you find a dark blue quilted body warmer, blouse, jumper, dark mini skirt discarded along on the A170?

Peter Sutcliffe

Peter Sutcliffe pictured in his TW Clark lorry circa 1976

• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe (Image at beginning of the article) or a lorry from TW Clarke (image above) in Scarborough or any of the locations mentioned in the article?
• Did you work at Victoria Road, Roscoe Street, Andrews of Scarborough (motorcycle dealers), Deardens builders merchants, North Sea Winches,  D Wray and Sons, Scarborough Ignition Co Ltd or Pickups or the old goods yard which is now Sainsburys?
• Were you a taxi driver for Boro Taxis next to the café, or did you use taxi’s from there?
• Did you frequent the café in Victoria Road and see Peter Sutcliffe there?
• Did you know the café owner Iris Scott?

If you have any information on the “Nude in the Nettles” mystery that you want to pass on confidentially, you can talk to a journalist by contacting the North Yorks Enquirer using our letters@nyenquirer.uk address. All responses will be treated in the strictest confidence.

by TIM HICKS and CHRIS CLARK

~~~~~

Introduction

Following on from the new evidence gathered by the authors and NYE citizen journalist Nigel Ward, and revealed in the article “Hope”: New evidence.

The authors have had time to consider the impact that this new evidence has had on their knowledge of the full range of ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ Peter Sutcliffe’s pattern of offending. It is quite startling.

Background: Numbers of Victims and Force Areas

Peter Sutcliffe’s reign of terror finished on the 2^nd of January 1981 when he was arrested in Sheffield by South Yorkshire Police armed and with a prostitute. This woman was no doubt intended to be another of his victims and his arrest certainly saved her life.

He was convicted of having committed thirteen murders and seven attempted murders. These are shown in Table 1. In addition to the offences he was convicted of, he admitted two offences and was not charged in another four, which are also shown in Table 1 below.

An antecedent investigation conducted by Chief Constable Sir Lawrence Byford – which has never been released to the public in full (only a redacted copy) – is believed to have identified another murder and eight attempted murders that Sir Lawrence was satisfied that Sutcliffe had committed.

A similar investigation by Assistant Chief Constable Keith Hellawell for West Yorkshire Police originally looked at 78 additional cases which he firstly reduced down to 60, and down to 45, and eventually, because of weight of numbers, down to a final 22. Twelve in West Yorkshire and ten elsewhere.

These are shown in Table 2 below.

A grand total of thirty five murders and attempted murders.

Readers can view Spreadsheet Ripper 1 (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) here. [Opens in a new Tab).

On the 17^th of February 1979 there was an attempted murder in Harrogate. NYE investigation here. Sutcliffe was a suspect in this attack and it was put to him in prison. He vehemently denied being responsible. Obviously his denial cannot be used to eliminate him and it was one of the attacks assessed by Sir Lawrence Byford as having been committed by him. He therefore presumably remains a suspect for this brutal attempted murder, which is entirely consistent with his modus operandi. The authors remain satisfied that Sutcliffe was responsible for this attack.

Sutcliffe’s offending was nevertheless perceived to be limited to offences localised to the GMP, WYP and SYP force areas. The Harrogate attack being seen as an isolated incident. In all of these offences, he was believed to have used his own vehicle.

Other than the attempted murders of Ann Rooney and Tracey Brown – which he admitted – Sutcliffe has denied committing all of the many offences that were put to him after his conviction.

Enter Chris Clark

Neither of the authors were convinced by the accepted assessment of thirty-five attacks.

Chris however took it a stage further and using his experience as a police intelligence officer, conducted his own antecedent investigation into the full extent of Sutcliffe’s offending. This was published in his book “Yorkshire Ripper The Secret Murders”, NYE review here.

Chris’s investigation revealed a far wider pattern of offending. Chris then teamed up with Tim to use the NYE as a vehicle to continue and expand Chris’s investigation. Their partnership has proved eminently successful.

The NYE investigation into the murder of “Hope” or the “Nude in the Nettles” has revealed further evidence.

The authors’ assessment is that Peter Sutcliffe committed at least sixty murders and attempted murders over multiple force areas. These are shown in Table 7 below, which has been continually updated by the authors as more information has emerged.

Readers can view Spreadsheet Ripper 5 (Table 12, Victim List), here. [Opens in a new Tab).

The authors assert that this is the most comprehensive assessment of the full range of Sutcliffe’s crimes available anywhere.

The most concerning of these four tables is Table 3. Please note the difference in the numbers of attacks compared to 1977. Serial killers generally become more prolific as time progresses because they acquire a taste for killing, enjoy it more, become more confident and also more skilled at what they do. However the frequency of Sutcliffe’s known murders is not consistent with this pattern. It shows a peak in 1977, when you would expect it to show a steady rise in the number of attacks over the period of his offending, with the peak in 1980.

This leads the authors to conclude that it is still incomplete. They fear the true number of Sutcliffe’s victims is probably very much higher than the sixty the police and the authors have identified above.

The wider implications of the “Hope”/”Nude in the Nettles” case.

The extra information that emerged from the NYE “Nude in the Nettles” investigation, has now enabled the authors to expand their analysis of Sutcliffe’s offending, both in terms of his modus operandi and the geographical extent of it.

1). Sutcliffe’s “conceal and decoy” modus operandi

One of the major revelations to emerge from Chris’s work is that it became clear that Sutcliffe was forensically aware and routinely changed his modus operandi, to confuse the police investigation. He used different weapons (ball pein hammer, claw hammer, masonry/lump/walling hammer, knife, ligature, cross head screwdriver, bradawl made from a sharpened cross head screwdriver) to kill and mutilate his victims.

He also changed his car regularly and varied his geographical area of operation. As an example, the foray into South Yorkshire in 1981 was undoubtedly due to his caution in avoiding the red light districts in West Yorkshire, because he knew they were under close police surveillance.

One of the more puzzling cases was the murder of Yvonne Pearson. This appeared to be unique because Sutcliffe concealed the body beneath a sofa and it remained undiscovered for two months. NYE article with more information here.

The body was discovered because a passer-by noticed an arm poking out from the sofa. When the body was removed, the police found a newspaper underneath the body dated the 21^st of February 1978. The police investigation identified that other witnesses who had passed the sofa confirmed that there had been no arm showing in the period between the murder on the 22^nd of January 1978 and the discovery of the body.

They concluded – correctly in both author’s opinions – that Sutcliffe had returned to the body, placed the newspaper underneath the body, hoping the police would use the date on the newspaper to establish the wrong date for the murder. Thereby establishing a false alibi for himself. He then moved the arm so it was exposed, to ensure discovery of the body with the newspaper underneath it shortly afterwards.

“Hope’s” body was also concealed and a dated item (a yoghurt top) put underneath it. The authors believe this was to establish a false alibi. Exactly the same method used in the Yvonne Pearson attack.

2). Sutcliffe’s vehicle strategy

In all the offences accepted as having been committed by Sutcliffe in Tables 1 and 2, he used his own car.

The implication of the new evidence developed by the NYE is that Sutcliffe picked up his victim “Hope” from Scarborough in his lorry.

The authors assess that in the murder of “Hope” he concealed the body and returned to place the yoghurt top underneath it to again establish a false alibi, because the records of his employer would show the exact dates that he had been in Scarborough. If the body was discovered the day after the murder, this would tie him to it. By introducing delay and the confusion of the yoghurt top date, Sutcliffe would prevent that.

The authors therefore assert that Sutcliffe had another distinct modus operandi of using his employer’s lorry to commit murders and then concealing the bodies. This is a major development.

3). Geographical range of Sutcliffe’s offending

Sutcliffe trained as an HGV driver in the Harrogate area in February 1975, then worked as an HGV driver in Bradford from September 1975 to March 1976 then from September 1976 until his arrest in January 1981. Giving him access to a lorry.

During these two periods he was driving all over the UK unsupervised and in particular driving from his employer in Bradford to Sunderland Docks and to Scarborough.

Sutcliffe’s lorry had a large cab and could be used to sleep in. Here opinion is divided between the authors. Sutcliffe never contaminated his vehicle by killing in it and therefore Chris is convinced that Sutcliffe would not have murdered anyone in the cab of the lorry. Tim is not so convinced. Ligature strangulation leaves no blood and is quiet. Tim believes it is just possible that Sutcliffe may have murdered in the cab using ligature strangulation. This would certainly be a departure from Sutcliffe’s known modus operandi, but Sutcliffe varied his modus operandi. So Tim believes this cannot be ruled out.

This new evidence also means that Sutcliffe could have been committing murders while travelling in his lorry, staying in lorry parks and making deliveries to Scarborough, Sunderland Docks and many major towns and cities in the Cleveland, Durham, North Yorkshire and Northumbria force areas.

Chris and Tim have identified an attempted murder and two murders in these areas that they believe may have been committed by Peter Sutcliffe.

These are:

1. The murder of Stephanie Slater at Darlington (Durham Constabulary) in May 1977. See below. Northern Echo article by Nigel Burton here.
2. The attempted murder in Harrogate (North Yorkshire Police) on the 17^th of February 1979.
3. The “Nude in the Nettles” murder of “Hope” in Scarborough (North Yorkshire Police) in 1979. North Yorkshire Police have not yet followed up on the new evidence produced by the NYE and consequently he cannot have been eliminated from this enquiry.

4). The murder of Stephanie Spencer

Three of the cases the authors assert were committed by Peter Sutcliffe, were the subject of a miscarriage of justice, in which the wrong man was convicted and subsequently cleared. These are:

• The murder of Carol Wilkinson. Wikipedia article here.
• The murder of Wendy Sewell. Wikipedia article here.
• The murder of Judith Roberts. Wikipedia article here.

In the case of the murder of Stephanie Spencer, Michael Hodgson was convicted of her murder. However the authors are concerned that this may also have been a miscarriage of justice and that the murder was actually committed by Peter Sutcliffe.

Twenty-five-year-old Stephanie Spencer was beaten to death with a rock and her body found concealed in bushes in Darlington on the 29^th of May 1977. An unemployed labourer Michael Hodgson was interviewed. He admitted having an argument with her and said “something snapped, she just provoked me”. This was taken as a confession. The prosecution asserted she had died on the Friday the 27^th of May, but three witnesses said they had seen her alive the next day. Forensic tests identified that she had had sex with a man who was not Hodgson.

Hodgson was convicted of her murder. He continues to maintain his innocence.

The authors believe Sutcliffe should be considered as a suspect because:

• The murder is consistent with Sutcliffe’s modus operandi.
• As a result of the NYE investigation it has now emerged that Peter Sutcliffe was operating over a much larger geographical area and was probably offending along the A19.
• Sutcliffe was seen at the Flamingo’s nightclub on the weekend of the murder.
• A man fitting Sutcliffe’s description was seen arguing with Stephanie Spencer at Flamingo’s nightclub.
• Serial killers operate in areas they are familiar with and comfortable operating in. The deposition site was a lorry park that would have been known to Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe’s work took him to Sunderland, Darlington and Newton Aycliffe regularly. He visited Darlington and nearby Newton Aycliffe at least 14 times during his reign of terror.
• The body was concealed, which is consistent with Sutcliffe’s modus operandi and exactly the same as the “Nude in the Nettles” murder.

Sutcliffe enjoyed driving and travelled widely. Darlington is about one and a half hours drive from Bradford. The 1981 attack in Sheffield shows that Sutcliffe varied his area of operation to evade police surveillance by operating in force areas he was not believed to offend in. The police were never able to ascertain how long he had used this tactic for.

The authors assert that this is why he chose Darlington to commit a murder.

They believe he went there socially in his car to attend the disco and conducted an opportunist attack on Stephanie Spencer, then dumped her body in the lorry park. Probably in a place he had previously selected for this purpose, identified during one of his visits to Darlington in his lorry.

The failure of the 1981 antecedent investigations

The authors have concluded that as a result of the NYE investigation into the “Nude in the Nettles” investigation, it is probable that Sutcliffe was using his lorry to offend in the North Yorkshire, Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria Police Force Areas and, uniquely, concealing the bodies to evade detection. This means that there could be missing persons cases in these force areas that Sutcliffe was responsible for, which are classified as missing persons, but are in fact murders.

This would account for the fluctuations in the numbers of attacks in the later years of his offending revealed by Table 3.

When Sutcliffe was arrested in 1981, all forces conducted a review of their unsolved murders to ascertain if they had been committed by Sutcliffe. The attempted murder in Harrogate for instance was one of those that was put to Sutcliffe as a result of this review.

However, the Yvonne Pearson murder is seen as an isolated one-off from his normal modus operandi. At the time it was not realised that Sutcliffe also concealed bodies. This has only been revealed as a result of Chris linking Sutcliffe to the “Nude in the Nettles” murder and the fresh evidence this has generated.

Consequently, Sutcliffe was not believed to be responsible for murders of women that had disappeared and were classified as missing persons. So missing persons were not included in the Yorkshire Ripper antecedent investigation.

NYE widens the scope of its investigation

Prior to the NYE coverage and the new evidence it generated, the “Nude in the Nettles” murder had never previously been linked to Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe’s offending was believed to be limited to the West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester Police areas and the one attack in Harrogate.

If Sutcliffe did change his modus operandi to include concealing the body, it could mean that there are some women that are officially designated as missing, but were in fact murdered by Sutcliffe, whose bodies are still undiscovered.

This should result in a cold case review of all unsolved murders and attempted murders of women between September 1975 to March 1976 then from September 1976 to December 1980 in the Cleveland, Durham, North Yorkshire and Northumbrian force areas, and all cases of missing women in the same period, to see if they can be attributed to Peter Sutcliffe.

Tim is in the process of writing to the Chief Constables of these forces to bring their attention to this and requesting that a cold case review is conducted to see if any of these cases should be put to Sutcliffe:

Obviously, at a time of austerity, this message will not go down well with the various Chief Constables involved. They will understandably not want to expend scarce resources investigating historical cases, when the probable offender is in prison for a full life term. Nor will they want to admit to past failings by their force, particularly on a high profile case like the Yorkshire Ripper.

Hence Chris and Tim believe that this type of historical cold case investigations should be performed by a specialist centrally organised squad, which can investigate impartially, without being affected by police cap-badge politics.

Coming Next

• “The Ripper Strikes South: The Lorry Murders”

NYE Appeal for information

“Hope”:

Three-dimensional wax reconstruction of the victim’s head and face

• She was 5’ 2” in height, aged between thirty-five and forty.
• She had a slender build and wore her natural dark brown hair in a page-boy style.
• She had given birth to two or three children and had a displaced septum between her nostrils.
• Her toenails were painted pink – the varnish coming from the Max Factor Maxi range.
• She would have worn a size four shoe.
• Staining on her teeth revealed that she was a heavy smoker that did not look after herself.
• She had a Yorkshire or Lancashire accent, but may not be originally from Scarborough.
• All her upper teeth were missing, she had an upper dental plate fitted, and she had only six lower teeth.
• She had an old fracture to her right ankle and an abnormality to her neck vertebrae which would have caused backache.
• Do you remember someone like this from the shelter in Victoria Road, Scarborough?
• Were you one of “Hope’s” clients?
• Were you a police officer in Scarborough in the period 1977 – 1979? Did “Hope” come into custody for being drunk and disorderly, soliciting or vagrancy, or did you see her at the shelter?
• Were you a social worker, health care professional, or member of the Salvation Army that came into contact with “Hope” and other down and outs from Victoria Road Scarborough?
• Did you find a dark blue quilted body warmer, blouse, jumper, dark mini skirt discarded along on the A170?

Peter Sutcliffe:

Peter Sutcliffe pictured in his TW Clark lorry, circa 1976

• Did you see Peter Sutcliffe (image below) or a lorry from TW CLARK (image above) in Scarborough or any of the locations mentioned in the article?
• Did you work at Victoria Road, Roscoe Street, Andrews of Scarborough (motorcycle dealers), Deardens builders merchants, North Sea Winches D, Wray and Sons, Scarborough Ignition Co Ltd or Pickups or the old goods yard which is now Sainsburys?
• Were you a taxi driver for Boro Taxis next to the café, or did you use taxis from there?
• Did you frequent the café in Victoria Road and see Peter Sutcliffe there?
• Did you know the café owner, Iris Scott?

If you have any information on the “Nude in the Nettles” mystery that you want to pass on confidentially, you can talk to a journalist by contacting the North Yorks Enquirer using our letters@NYEnquirer.uk address. All responses will be treated in the strictest confidence.

Peter Sutcliffe – the Yorkshire Ripper