On 26 Mar, 22:16, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>
> There's fools, and there's O'Gara, and there's you. Given that the Byford
> Report said that the Ripper investigation was a shambles, why on earth
> should the West Yorkshire Police be regarded as authoritative on this? They
> got more than one thing wrong at the time, whch hardly gives them a
> reputation for independent analytical skills. Or you. It seems you'll clutch
> at any straw blowing in the wind to prop up this discredited nonsense of
> O'Gara's. And I wonder why? Have you no mind of your own?
==============================================
We're talking here about a serial killer who left his own special
'trademarks' on and near the bodies of his victims to convey to the
police that he was the killer.
Peter Sutcliffe did not know what the 'trademarks' of the Yorkshire
Ripper were, so it was clear to the medical examiner who carried out
the autopsies that Peter Sutcliffe's killings were not Ripper
killings.
This is not so much about a shambles on the part of the West Yorkshire
Police. If you read what I wrote, you will find that Jim Hobson etc.
were basing their statements that Peter Sutcliffe's killings were not
Ripper killings on cold medical facts based on autopsies which showed
that Sutcliffe did not know the Ripper's 'trademarks.' |