Special.Care03@googlemail.com wrote:
> 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.'
Which were? Just saying that the murders were different is nothing at all.
Which is all we get on this matter.
I don't care what the Yorkshire police were issuing in press releases, or
what the Daily Mail was speculating. What is the hard evidence?
--
J/
SOTW: "Rat(tlesnake) In Mi Kitchen" - UB40
www.tolife.shadowcat.name
|