Risky kill-sites - how and why?

[Paul Sutton]

PC Andrew Letlew was interviewed as part of a recent documentary, when I say recent I mean probably within say the last 15 years.

He did not put it across as you put it across in an earlier post.

According to Letlew, two police officers, including Letlew, went to interview Sutcliffe at his home. I can't remember why but I'm pretty sure it was routine door to door enquiries as opposed to any lead.

PC Letlew, and his colleague, were not happy with Sutcliffe. They noticed the gap in his teeth, they noticed that his shoe size was about right, and they did not like the couple. PC Letlew and his colleague both felt there was something sinister about him, and that his wife was strange also.

I could be wrong on this one because I'm going from memory, but I don't think PC Letlew mentioned any photofit in this interview.

When they left Sutcliffe's home they said to one another that he demands a good look and so PC Letlew filed a report.

By the way, this was after senior police officers had decided to put their eggs in the Wearside Jack basket.

According to George Oldfield, he never saw that report, it was simply one of thousands that were popping up on a weekly basis and passing his desk. Neither Oldfield nor PC Letlew mentioned anything about threats of disciplinary action in their interviews. PC Letlew didn't get a response nor chased a response, in his own words.

Speaking of the police, senior Northumbria police officers sat down and analysed the letters. They believed that there was nothing in those letters to conclude that the author was the murderer. The difference was that Northumbria police were able to look at it objectively because they hadn't been under pressure for 5 years, they hadn't been inundated with statements, we're talking hundreds of thousands of bits of paper here; they hadn't been working through the night trying to catch this murderer for years. They were detached from it and they gave it a detached appraisal. West Yorkshire senior police officers clutched at that straw because they were getting nowhere, they were desperate and they put two and two together and got five when in a different situation they wouldn't have been so quick to arrive at five.

It was extremely poor police work to believe those letters were authored by the murderer. Senior West Yorkshire officers made a big mistake. But, let's not forget that those police officers weren't the murderer. And, it is not remotely the reason why they didn't catch Sutcliffe earlier.

Sutcliffe was extraordinarily lucky because nobody turned the corner at the right time and all of his details, including his known record and the number of times he was interviewed, were scattered among hundreds of thousands of bits of paper.

What an astounding insight that 'those police officers weren't the murderer.' Nice work!

It's ridiculous to claim that the Wearside blunder is 'not remotely the reason why they didn't catch Sutcliffe earlier.'

I'm new here, but you seem prone to make absurd statements using the word 'remotely'- for example that Berry, Chapman or Druitt were not 'remotely possible'.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What an astounding revelation that 'those police officers weren't the murderer.' Nice work!

Thanks.

On the plus side, you may have learned that your view of PC Andrew Letlew's suspicions and actions associated with those suspicions, do not match the words that came out of his mouth.

Good luck!

[Paul Sutton]

Thanks.

On the plus side, you may have learned that your view of PC Andrew Letlew's suspicions and actions associated with those suspicions, do not match the words that came out of his mouth.

Good luck!

I never read your posts, just scan them quickly for the obvious nonsense - not hard to spot, as they have no content, just simmering outrage then lengthy regurgitation.

[New Waterloo]

Hello all. I think the idea of examining the how and why of risky kill sites is a great idea. I think we should pursue this as regards JTR and the Whitechapel murders or the discussion may go off at two much of a tangent and we will miss an opportunity for fresh thinking. (although I agree sometimes some diversion puts matters into perspective and allows comparison of techniques/methods etc)

I think there seems to be three reasons the sites are chosen by the killer/JTR

1. Opportunist. Spur of the moment

2. Site selected and taken there by killer

3. Site selected and taken there by victim

In the case of selection, this may of course be considered over a period of time or selected very quickly because of prior knowledge of the site. I think selection would require this prior knowledge otherwise it would fall into opportunist.

If we consider each murder we just might pull out something new.

I hope this suggestion stimulates some thoughts about our killer and tries to answer why the risky kills sites. (or I am talking a load of rubbish, which is not unusual)

NW

[Paul Sutton]

Hello all. I think the idea of examining the how and why of risky kill sites is a great idea. I think we should pursue this as regards JTR and the Whitechapel murders or the discussion may go off at two much of a tangent and we will miss an opportunity for fresh thinking. (although I agree sometimes some diversion puts matters into perspective and allows comparison of techniques/methods etc)

I think there seems to be three reasons the sites are chosen by the killer/JTR

1. Opportunist. Spur of the moment

2. Site selected and taken there by killer

3. Site selected and taken there by victim

In the case of selection, this may of course be considered over a period of time or selected very quickly because of prior knowledge of the site. I think selection would require this prior knowledge otherwise it would fall into opportunist.

If we consider each murder we just might pull out something new.

I hope this suggestion stimulates some thoughts about our killer and tries to answer why the risky kills sites. (or I am talking a load of rubbish, which is not unusual)

NW

Many thanks - that taxonomy is perfect. Interesting to see how it applies to Lechmere - not just for Nichols - and the 'route to work' claim. That ostensibly suggests, if it's him, then all just 1. But he could vary his routes, for preferred sites.

Looked at just from the victims (clearing the mind of any suspect) and labelling the five canonical A - E, it would seem to be:

A.2
B.3 or 2
C.3 or 1
D.2 or 3
E.3

But this can be massively discussed! All of them especially C (Stride). And they can be merged - for example, if it's opportunistic then there's surely always an element of victim selection, but with possible killer input.

[A P Tomlinson]

PC Andrew Letlew was interviewed as part of a recent documentary, when I say recent I mean probably within say the last 15 years.

He did not put it across as you put it across in an earlier post.

According to Letlew, two police officers, including Letlew, went to interview Sutcliffe at his home. I can't remember why but I'm pretty sure it was routine door to door enquiries as opposed to any lead.

PC Letlew, and his colleague, were not happy with Sutcliffe. They noticed the gap in his teeth, they noticed that his shoe size was about right, and they did not like the couple. PC Letlew and his colleague both felt there was something sinister about him, and that his wife was strange also.

I could be wrong on this one because I'm going from memory, but I don't think PC Letlew mentioned any photofit in this interview.

When they left Sutcliffe's home they said to one another that he demands a good look and so PC Letlew filed a report.

By the way, this was after senior police officers had decided to put their eggs in the Wearside Jack basket.

According to George Oldfield, he never saw that report, it was simply one of thousands that were popping up on a weekly basis and passing his desk. Neither Oldfield nor PC Letlew mentioned anything about threats of disciplinary action in their interviews. PC Letlew didn't get a response nor chased a response, in his own words.

Speaking of the police, senior Northumbria police officers sat down and analysed the letters. They believed that there was nothing in those letters to conclude that the author was the murderer. The difference was that Northumbria police were able to look at it objectively because they hadn't been under pressure for 5 years, they hadn't been inundated with statements, we're talking hundreds of thousands of bits of paper here; they hadn't been working through the night trying to catch this murderer for years. They were detached from it and they gave it a detached appraisal. West Yorkshire senior police officers clutched at that straw because they were getting nowhere, they were desperate and they put two and two together and got five when in a different situation they wouldn't have been so quick to arrive at five.

It was extremely poor police work to believe those letters were authored by the murderer. Senior West Yorkshire officers made a big mistake. But, let's not forget that those police officers weren't the murderer. And, it is not remotely the reason why they didn't catch Sutcliffe earlier.

Sutcliffe was extraordinarily lucky because nobody turned the corner at the right time and all of his details, including his known record and the number of times he was interviewed, were scattered among hundreds of thousands of bits of paper.

The initial interview was scheduled, based on Sutcliffe's car being spotted several times in the red light districts with a lone driver. It was also one of the makes/models that was fittted with the tyres that had left an imprint at one of the scenes. It was thin, but they were trying to be methodical.
Oldfield, and as a result - Holland, only cared if there was a Geordie/Wearside connection. George had become fixated on the idea that it had become a personal duel between him and The Ripper, and the Ripper was taking the piss out of him.

The wanker who sent those messages to Oldfield was responsible for several deaths that may have been avoided if Laptew had been able to present his findings without the Wearside Jack obsession.

It was DI Dick Holland who Laptew voiced his opinions to, and who gave him the chewing out in public. It's highly likely that Oldfield never saw saw/heard what Laptew had found, because after that public bollocking Laptew kept it to himself, and Dick was unlikely to have gone to George with it afterwards. George would have given Dick double what Dick gave Andy!!

[Paul Sutton]

The initial interview was scheduled, based on Sutcliffe's car being spotted several times in the red light districts with a lone driver. It was also one of the makes/models that was fittted with the tyres that had left an imprint at one of the scenes. It was thin, but they were trying to be methodical.
Oldfield, and as a result - Holland, only cared if there was a Geordie/Wearside connection. George had become fixated on the idea that it had become a personal duel between him and The Ripper, and the Ripper was taking the piss out of him.

The wanker who sent those messages to Oldfield was responsible for several deaths that may have been avoided if Laptew had been able to present his findings without the Wearside Jack obsession.

It was DI Dick Holland who Laptew voiced his opinions to, and who gave him the chewing out in public. It's highly likely that Oldfield never saw saw/heard what Laptew had found, because after that public bollocking Laptew kept it to himself, and Dick was unlikely to have gone to George with it afterwards. George would have given Dick double what Dick gave Andy!!

Holland comes across very badly, yet in Bilton's book he's also clearly a friend of the author's. My main point about Wearside Jack is how many were sceptical, and the terrible effect it had - not just through crass elimination based on accent/handwriting, but on the confidence in Holland/Oldfield felt by those lower down. One gets the impression they thought the tape was absurd.

Do you know if Laptew was aware of the brilliant payroll enquiry, and how it had narrowed the fiver down to a few companies, including Sutcliffe's? I think not.

[A P Tomlinson]

Holland comes across very badly, yet in Bilton's book he's also clearly a friend of the author's. My main point about Wearside Jack is how many were sceptical, and the terrible effect it had - not just through crass elimination based on accent/handwriting, but on the confidence in Holland/Oldfield felt by those lower down. One gets the impression they thought the tape was absurd.

Do you know if Laptew was aware of the brilliant payroll enquiry, and how it had narrowed the fiver down to a few companies, including Sutcliffe's? I think not.

Holland was a 1970s Yorkshire copper in CID, he was under orders and he gave orders. He was probablly a great bloke down the pub, but would have been a bastard to work for.

Laptew interviewed Sutcliffe in 1979, (which was the fifth of his nine Police interviews) The fiver investigation had been conducted 2 years earlier in 1977.
He would have known about it. Whether he made the connection in his notes, I'm not sure off the top of my head. My gut tells me that if he had, Holland might have paid more atttention. Maybe not...
I'll check and see if I can find anything that gives details of his notes.

Edit to add: Brain clicked into gear after more coffee...
There's a slight chance Laptew MIGHT not have known. It's unlikely but possible. He wasn't in CID in 77, and was still a woodentop. He joined in 71 and was either 7 or 8 years in uniform before joining CID. He would have been VERY green, and that would have increased the likelihood of him not being taken seriously.

[A P Tomlinson]

Sorry, should have added this to previous post.

Regarding Wearside Jack, its hard to know how many were skeptical. Quite a few said so down the line, but loyalty was a big factor, and few would have been open to criticise their boss. There will always be "revisionists." (A bit like Manchester United fans around my age, ALL of whom claim to be the one fan who fully supported Alex Fergsuon through his abysmal first five years at the club and didn't want him thrown out... they're all liars!!!

It's also tough to know if Oldfield would have been replaced by Hobson even if he HADN'T had his heart attack in 79. And history doesn't relate if Laptew said anything to him. (Though its doubtful given that he'd have had to go through Holland again)

[Paul Sutton]

Holland was a 1970s Yorkshire copper in CID, he was under orders and he gave orders. He was probablly a great bloke down the pub, but would have been a bastard to work for.

Laptew interviewed Sutcliffe in 1979, (which was the fifth of his nine Police interviews) The fiver investigation had been conducted 2 years earlier in 1977.
He would have known about it. Whether he made the connection in his notes, I'm not sure off the top of my head. My gut tells me that if he had, Holland might have paid more atttention. Maybe not...
I'll check and see if I can find anything that gives details of his notes.

Edit to add: Brain clicked into gear after more coffee...
There's a slight chance Laptew MIGHT not have known. It's unlikely but possible. He wasn't in CID in 77, and was still a woodentop. He joined in 71 and was either 7 or 8 years in uniform before joining CID. He would have been VERY green, and that would have increased the likelihood of him not being taken seriously.

Thanks. It astounds me (from the Home Office review) how much time the senior people spent re-reading reports of interviews etc, not steering the enquiry and providing this overview, based on - say - two very extensive enquiries: 1) The car tyres; 2) The payroll fiver.

The first was definitely pulled just short of it producing, in what seemed an act of dick-waving to show authority. Not sure about the truly brilliant second, but it also narrowed things down, yet was stopped.

It seems both weren't given as an overview, whereas the bullet points for elimination (based on Wearside) were. There were clear warnings, including of the resemblance to 'Dear Boss' given to Holland/Oldfield, yet these were ignored. And didn't the FBI say it was a fake?

One can always say - 'ah, but hindsight is perfect' - but my point is how good the people lower down were, and how rubbish some in the many layers above. And why so many layers? If senior people are just doing the same as those below (plus endless office politics) no need for them.

That especially applies to the Chief Constable, who seems a risible figure.

I can't find the source, but I heard that Sutcliffe's nickname in his transport firm was 'The Yorkshire Ripper', so often had he been interviewed. Since they seemingly interviewed all of West Yorkshire, one wonders if the police had heard this? Anecdotal, of course.

And they got a letter from Sutcliffe's best mate, in the December before he was arrested, with very specific details for his suspicions. Yes, buried in paperwork, but...

[Paul Sutton]

Sorry, should have added this to previous post.

Regarding Wearside Jack, its hard to know how many were skeptical. Quite a few said so down the line, but loyalty was a big factor, and few would have been open to criticise their boss. There will always be "revisionists." (A bit like Manchester United fans around my age, ALL of whom claim to be the one fan who fully supported Alex Fergsuon through his abysmal first five years at the club and didn't want him thrown out... they're all liars!!!

It's also tough to know if Oldfield would have been replaced by Hobson even if he HADN'T had his heart attack in 79. And history doesn't relate if Laptew said anything to him. (Though its doubtful given that he'd have had to go through Holland again)

The managerialism is astounding, it seems to have been the main concern of the more senior men. One thing the TV show highlights, which I didn't get from the book, was how ruthlessly Oldfield got himself appointed in overall charge, dislodging Hoban. Yet Oldfield is portrayed in the book as a country buffoon, arrogant but inexperienced in urban policing. Good on bullying people but stupid and arrogant. Now, that's just how it comes across.

To 'blame' is the Chief Constable, who appointed him?

[New Waterloo]

I agree Paul about the opportunistic always having some selection element but I do think for this to work we need to perhaps suggest that if it isn't in either victims or offenders mind say 15 minutes before they enter the site then its opportunistic.. The reason I think this is sensible is that certainly in the victims case (we cannot be sure about offender) they would know of many locations in the area. What I mean by selected is premeditated (is that the right word) or intentional selection of a place. Yes it could be thought of quite close to the killing time and still be selected but I do think most people would agree that if the thought of a place enters some persons mind a very short period of time before the attack then an opportunistic choice of location.

That isn't to say that the murders were opportunistic. No, I am talking about the decision to use a particular site as the murder location as either selected or opportunistic. If that makes sense.

It could lead to questions like previous knowledge of a site, places of work, what else is in the area. all sorts

What do you and others think. Or is this a daft idea.

[Paul Sutton]

I think it's a great idea. For some suspects, each site has been linked to them - I'm thinking of Thompson. In fact, that only works in conjunction with his vaguely possible link to Whitechapel itself! So all of the five would be category 2. At the other extreme - and correct me if wrong - the Lechmerites claim all of them were category 1, albeit with Lech having some vague reason for being around, but not having decided on any specific site.

My background idea is that site was everything to the killer, and he in advance had a number of safe havens to hide in. He had keys to many properties, and knew which were empty or had spare rooms.

[A P Tomlinson]

Thanks. It astounds me (from the Home Office review) how much time the senior people spent re-reading reports of interviews etc, not steering the enquiry and providing this overview, based on - say - two very extensive enquiries: 1) The car tyres; 2) The payroll fiver.

The first was definitely pulled just short of it producing, in what seemed an act of dick-waving to show authority. Not sure about the truly brilliant second, but it also narrowed things down, yet was stopped.

It seems both weren't given as an overview, whereas the bullet points for elimination (based on Wearside) were. There were clear warnings, including of the resemblance to 'Dear Boss' given to Holland/Oldfield, yet these were ignored. And didn't the FBI say it was a fake?

One can always say - 'ah, but hindsight is perfect' - but my point is how good the people lower down were, and how rubbish some in the many layers above. And why so many layers? If senior people are just doing the same as those below (plus endless office politics) no need for them.

That especially applies to the Chief Constable, who seems a risible figure.

I can't find the source, but I heard that Sutcliffe's nickname in his transport firm was 'The Yorkshire Ripper', so often had he been interviewed. Since they seemingly interviewed all of West Yorkshire, one wonders if the police had heard this? Anecdotal, of course.

And they got a letter from Sutcliffe's best mate, in the December before he was arrested, with very specific details for his suspicions. Yes, buried in paperwork, but...

There's a lot made of Lamptew's near miss, but there was an even closer call for Sutcliffe.

His EIGHTH interview was about a year before his eventual arrest. 2 DCs arrived at his workplace to interview him and search his cab.
The 2 coppers, however, were only phoninig it in, because they were also supposed to search his home and car but had read that they had been searched previously and yielded no results, so they just didn't bother but reported that they had.

When they arrived at Sutcliffe's employers they asked to search the cab of his lorry, and he realised as he was climbing up the grated steps that he was wearing the boot that the coppers literally had a poto of in their notes. He knew that if they bothered to check the wellington, (which was obviously the same make and style they were looking for") the print would be a 100% match. They must have seen it as they watched him climb up and open the door, but just didn't notice.
It was during the confessions that he told them, the answer had been right in front of their noses.

And people believe without question that Victorian constables always made their beats on time and properly...

[Paul Sutton]

There's a lot made of Lamptew's near miss, but there was an even closer call for Sutcliffe.

His EIGHTH interview was about a year before his eventual arrest. 2 DCs arrived at his workplace to interview him and search his cab.
The 2 coppers, however, were only phoninig it in, because they were also supposed to search his home and car but had read that they had been searched previously and yielded no results, so they just didn't bother but reported that they had.

When they arrived at Sutcliffe's employers they asked to search the cab of his lorry, and he realised as he was climbing up the grated steps that he was wearing the boot that the coppers literally had a poto of in their notes. He knew that if they bothered to check the wellington, (which was obviously the same make and style they were looking for") the print would be a 100% match. They must have seen it as they watched him climb up and open the door, but just didn't notice.
It was during the confessions that he told them, the answer had been right in front of their noses.

And people believe without question that Victorian constables always made their beats on time and properly...

Christ! And wasn't his lorry-cab full of weird jottings, about his God-like power etc.

I bet he climbed in and said he had an urgent job - did they in fact ever search his cab before his arrest? If they did, then it would be even more astonishing.