wrote in message
news:987226b2-6bfe-49ec-9f63-f9b1bd726d16@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Mar, 23:17, "Westprog" wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We're talking about autopsies, and medical examiners stating that
> Peter Sutcliffe's killings did not have the 'trademarks' of the
> Yorkshire Ripper. George Oldfield kept those details secret, of
> necessity; otherwise we could not know that Peter Sutcliffe is not the
> Yorkshire Ripper.
We should, in the UK, be talking about post-mortems, not autopsies. This is
not Quincy ME.
But if Oldfield kept details of those examinations secret (which doesn't
suprise me in the slightest), how do WE know that? And it makes more sense
for a medical examiner to state what they found, not that what they found
matched "trademarks", if any. For one thing, they are meant to be objective,
and for another, it would have strengthened the police case if they had not
been informed beforehand of these "trademarks". I'm seriously wondering, not
for the first time, why you and O'Gara seem so ignorant of the basics of
investigatory techniques. It wasn't the most brilliant investigation of all
time, but on the other hand you and O'Gara miss one major fact: that no
murder in Yorkshire in years since Sutcliffe's arrest has matched the
Yorkshire Ripper's M.O. Now, what does that tell you?
> Sutcliffe doesn't want to know about Noel O'Gara's efforts because if
> he steps out of line now, Sutcliffe may scupper his chances of parole.
|