Why those particular victims?

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: This has been pointed out to me before, Christer, but I am referring to the interview Sutcliffe gave to the police immediately following his confession. In return for information Sutcliffe asked that he could break the news to his wife himself, and the floodgates opened..

Thatīs a cute story, no doubt. But I would advice strongly against believing in it.

The world is full of full-blood psychopaths who have cried their eyes out in many a situation. The point of the matter, though, is that psychopaths FEIGN feelings! They know when to cry, when to laugh, when to look devastated - and how to gain advantages from it.
A psychopath is typically a person with a crippled sense of emotions, driven by his or her own ego and convinced that he or she is a superior human being. Yeah, itīs a rough picture, but it is not far off target.

So the floodgates that Sutcliffe opened are more likely than not to be acting - IF he is a real psychopath, that is.
His story of how he crawled away on his belly, scared stiff, is something that must be taken with a ton o salt - psychopaths do not feel fear the way we do. In a crowd that panics, the psychopath does not cotton on - he stays calm. And so on.

We are speaking of a single isolated occurence here, so itīs hard do be sure, but overall, when a psychopath cries and shows emotion, it is all acting and nothing else.

I don`t doubt it exists. I was just giving you one example of a murderer, similar to the Ripper, who did run.

Of course, we sonīt know if the killer resembled the Ripper. We can o0nly say that his deeds were superficially similar to an extent.

If he ran, he ran because he had taken a consious decision to do so, again IF he was a psychopath.
Normal people react with the startle reflex and the tension in the muscles - we run first, and then we ask ourselves if it is the right thing to do.
Psychopaths begin by asking themselves: should I run? Is it advantageous? Or is it more fun to stay put and fool a lot of dumb people?
The reflex does not come into play.

I hope you can see the difference, and I hope that you can take on board that these mechanisms mean that it is far, far more credible that a psychopath will stay put at a murder site and bluff it out, than it is that a normal person would do so.

And that - as you will understand - is the message I am trying to get across. Or alechmere, to be more to the point.

The best,
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

To begin with, Jon, I would not take anything Peter Sutcliffe says as being the unquestionable truth. If you take a look at psychopaths and their behaviour, one thing that stands out is that they are very often compulsive liars. It is one of the points that are listed by Robert Hare in his definition of what a psychopath is about.

To carry on, the startle reflex and the muscle tension is not something I have thought up - it is on record and scientifically underbuilt and tested. This IS an example of how psychopaths differ from the rest of us.

You may have noticed that the reflex is not necessarily totally lacking in all psychopaths - it is partly OR totally lacking.

What you also need to take on board is that any intellectually unchallenged psychopath will be able to see that being discovered in the act of attacking another person will carry with itself the risk of being caught. And they will try and avoid that - but that is not a reflex, it is a conscious choice, made after realizing the development and realizing that flight will enable staying out of prison.

We may well have a parallel with Stride, if she was a Ripper victim - the killer is disturbed, he is NOT frightened but he recognizes the fact that he may get caught if he proceeds, so he instead aborts and leaves.

In my scenario, the killer bluffs it out in Bucks Row. That would predispose that he chose that option over running. In other words, he was not scared. Annoyed, yes, irritated, yes, but scared - no.

However, once he had played that card, he could do it no more. He could not afford to bluff it out in Dutfields Yard or in Mitre Square, since he knew that he would be recognized and the game would be up.

Whether that is real or not, we donīt know. It IS however a proven thing that psychopaths do not function reflex- or muscle tensionwise like non-psychopaths do when suddenly suprised.

But as always, everything that may seemingly point to Lechmere must be questioned, no matter if it is on record scientifically! But thatīs alright, Iīm used to it, and I can only hope that you can see the relevance of the argument I am making: on a reflex and muscle tension basis, there are no grounds for a psychopath to run in situations where the rest of us would have legged it.

All the best,
Fisherman

Being confident in his ability to charm his way out of the situation is classic serial killer behavior. If Lech was the killer he chose hiding in plain sight & the ability to lie thru his teeth. He would sure have to cool and calm as hell to pull that off, and the ripper likely would.

[Jon Guy]

Thatīs a cute story, no doubt. But I would advice strongly against believing in it.

Thanks for the advice, but you are obviously not aware of the interview of which I speak, it`s relevance and why it is regarded by the police and others as possibly the closest we will get to know about Sutcliffe`s crimes.
Besides, these type of killers rarely boast about shitting themselves !!

The world is full of full-blood psychopaths who have cried their eyes out in many a situation. The point of the matter, though, is that psychopaths FEIGN feelings! They know when to cry, when to laugh, when to look devastated - and how to gain advantages from it.
A psychopath is typically a person with a crippled sense of emotions, driven by his or her own ego and convinced that he or she is a superior human being. Yeah, itīs a rough picture, but it is not far off target.
So the floodgates that Sutcliffe opened are more likely than not to be acting - IF he is a real psychopath, that is.

Who is talking about crying ? Where did that come from, Christer ?

His story of how he crawled away on his belly, scared stiff, is something that must be taken with a ton o salt - psychopaths do not feel fear the way we do. In a crowd that panics, the psychopath does not cotton on - he stays calm. And so on..

I`m afraid I know a lot more than you regarding this particular psychopath.
He **** himself, just like Bundy panicked like a drunk teenage boy when he was stopped by a police patrol car.

We are speaking of a single isolated occurence here, so itīs hard do be sure, but overall, when a psychopath cries and shows emotion, it is all acting and nothing else...

Of course, we sonīt know if the killer resembled the Ripper. We can only say that his deeds were superficially similar to an extent....

It`s a fairer leap of faith than you trying to make us believe Cross was the Ripper.

I hope you can see the difference, and I hope that you can take on board that these mechanisms mean that it is far, far more credible that a psychopath will stay put at a murder site and bluff it out, than it is that a normal person would do so.

I can see you are working backwards with your preferred suspect and why he didn`t run.
Why his first instinct is to touch Paul on the shoulder - not very likely if he`s just mutilated someone with a knife.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Thanks for the advice, but you are obviously not aware of the interview of which I speak, it`s relevance and why it is regarded by the police and others as possibly the closest we will get to know about Sutcliffe`s crimes.
Besides, these type of killers rarely boast about shitting themselves !!

If "these types of killers" refer to psychopaths, then they donīt **** themselves in the first place.

Who is talking about crying ? Where did that come from, Christer ?

From me - when you spoke about the "floodgates opening", I surmised you spoke of somebody breaking down and crying.

I`m afraid I know a lot more than you regarding this particular psychopath.
He **** himself, just like Bundy panicked like a drunk teenage boy when he was stopped by a police patrol car.

Once more, psychopaths donīt panick and/or **** themselves. If Sutcliffe did **** himself with fear, then he is not much of a psychopath.
He got away from that attempt, right? So how do we know that he DID **** himself?
Because he said so himself, and he would not lie ...?

As for Bundy, you must look at the implications. If I donīt misremember, he had a VW with one seat taken out and with a lot of gear in it that told the story about who he was and what he did. Then it stands to reason that he realized that he was facing the death penalty if he didnīt manage to get away.
So what you describe as "panicking" may well have been a conscious decision that the best way to deal with matters for Bundy was to try and flee. Thatīs the "panicking" you describe, by the way: he sped away. How actually "panicked" he was is very much open to questioning.

I am not saying that psychopaths will always try to bluff it out - if they know they will get nicked, then fleeing is the best option.

It`s a fairer leap of faith than you trying to make us believe Cross was the Ripper.

We donīt know, Iīm afraid. It boils down to who and what the Ripper was. How fair a leap it is on your behalf cannot be established before we know that.

I can see you are working backwards with your preferred suspect and why he didn`t run.

Yes, that is how you would describe it. I would describe it as a fair bolstering of my take that he was a psychopath killer. I think that it applies to the overall question very much.
Maybe you disagree? Maybe you think that we should not be allowed to look at possible explanations to a known behaviour?

Why his first instinct is to touch Paul on the shoulder - not very likely if he`s just mutilated someone with a knife.

A/ I am not saying that he was a brilliant genius, unable to make mistakes.
B/ I think that he was pressed for time when it all went down. He noticed Paul, he swiftly covered Nichols up and he got out into the middle of the street waiting for Paul to come closer, and all the while his brain was doing a 150 mph;
Had the newcomer seen him? What did he know? Would it be possible to con him? Should he kill him?

And then it all happens quickly, Paul is pressed for time and walks very quickly, so he is suddenly almost past Lechmere before he has made his mind up.

That is why he reaches out to stop Paul, and that is why he hasnīt said one single word before that moment - it is a late decision.

If it had been you, Jon, standing there in the middle of the street, knowing that there was somebody lying on the pavement who was potentially very much in need of help - is that what you would have done? Would you have positioned yourself in the middle of the street, totally silent, letting the newcomer pass you by before you spoke to him and asked for help?

Do you know what I would have done? I would have been startled to see the body, and then I would have approached it so see what had happened. If I in that moment heard a newcomer, I would wait until I could make him out, and then I would say "Hello! Can you help me out here? Thereīs a woman here who may be hurt!"

That is to say that I would contact him when he was thirty, forty yards away. Then again, Lechmere does not say that he SAW the other man from forty yards away, and indeed it would be odd if he did - since he could barely make out the woman five yards away.

No, what Lechmere says is "He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from."

So he could HEAR that the other man was thirty, forty yards away, but he couldnīt see him until later.

Why is it, do you think, that he mentions that he heard the other man as he was thirty, forty yards away? What use is it of to the coroner and jury? Why does he not just say that he noticed that there was another man coming down the street?
Why does he press the point that he heard him in the exact moment when he stepped out into the street?
Why does he press the point that he was thirty, forty yards away at that stage?
Why did he not hear him earlier, in an empty street that was an accoustic tunnel? He said that he would have noticed (and that means hear) if anybody had moved down by Browns Stable Yard as he came into the street, 130 yards away.

Yes, Jon, maybe you DO know more about Sutcliffe than I do, who can tell.
Then again, I may just know more about Lechmere than you do.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Letīs bring another serialist and proven psychopath into the mix: Carl Panzram. When he was sentenced to death, he wrote to the president when it was said that the verdict could be altered. He did not want that, he looked forward to dying.

Hereīs a description from Crime Library about his execution:

Panzram's demeanor was rebellious as always. He cursed his own mother for bringing him into this world and the "whole damned human race!" Escorted by two U.S. Marshals, he walked briskly to the wooden scaffold "with teeth clenched, defiantly facing the crowd of officials, newspaper men and guards gathered in the enclosure." He climbed the 13 steps to the platform and stood erect as the Marshals attempted to place a black hood over his head. Before they completed their task, Panzram spit in the executioner's face and snarled: "Hurry up you bastard, I could kill 10 men while you're fooling around!" After the hood was secured, the Marshals stepped back without delay, and at exactly 6:03 a.m. the trap doors sprung open with a crash. Panzram dropped five and a half feet down. His large body jerked repeatedly and swung from side to side in the sudden silence. He was pronounced dead by Dr. Justin K. Fuller at 6:18 a.m.

This is psychopathy for you. They are not likely to panick, and they donīt feel fear the way we do.

Lying on the scaffold, Peter Kürten awaited the arrival of the guillotine blade, hoping to be able to hear his own blood trickle out. Fear was not present at his execution.

Have another look at the instance when you think that Bundy panicked - what did he do? He sped away, yes, but then what? When he realized that he was not getting away, he pulled into a gas station, stopped his car, calmly stepped out of it and walked over to the police car that had given chase. When he was asked about the items in his car, he remained totally calm and said that the mask was for skiing and that he had found the handcuffs in a dumpster.
No panick there!

This is what psychopaths are about. The ones that do not engage in crime often become heroes, since they are ready and willing to step out into a hailstorm of bullets in a war, for example. Afterwards, we commend them on their courage, and pin medals to their chests, claiming that they have overcome fear. They havenīt - it was never there.

[Jon Guy]

If "these types of killers" refer to psychopaths, then they donīt **** themselves in the first place.

I don`t know if "these types of killers" are psychopaths, but Sutcliffe`s crimes are similar to the Rippers and these are the "types of killer" we should be referencing.

When you spoke about the "floodgates opening", I surmised you spoke of somebody breaking down and crying.

No, after Sutcliffe had been arrested he was interviewed for hours, and then finally he told the detectives that he was the man they were looking for. It was obviously a relief for him to finally admit that he was the Ripper. He didn`t cry but anyone who has read the interview transcripts (and if you haven't you should) will know he was telling it as it was, and none of the schizophrenia bullshit he`d later turn to.

Once more, psychopaths donīt panick and/or **** themselves. If Sutcliffe did **** himself with fear, then he is not much of a psychopath.
He got away from that attempt, right? So how do we know that he DID **** himself?
Because he said so himself, and he would not lie ...?.

Ok, fair enough, according to you, Sutcliffe can`t be a psychopath because he did sh#t it. So, it follows that the Ripper may not have been a psychopath either, and therefore your claim that Cross displayed characteristics of a psychopath is irrelevant.
Myself, I believe Cross showed the characteristics of a helpful passer by.

As for Bundy, you must look at the implications. If I donīt misremember, he had a VW with one seat taken out and with a lot of gear in it that told the story about who he was and what he did. Then it stands to reason that he realized that he was facing the death penalty if he didnīt manage to get away.
So what you describe as "panicking" may well have been a conscious decision that the best way to deal with matters for Bundy was to try and flee. Thatīs the "panicking" you describe, by the way: he sped away. How actually "panicked" he was is very much open to questioning....?.

The reason Bundy failed to stop for a routine traffic stop was because he was sh#tting himself. Other wise why not stop first time of asking and do a Mizen scam ?

I am not saying that psychopaths will always try to bluff it out - if they know they will get nicked, then fleeing is the best option.

Which the Ripper apparently did in Bucks Row... unseen.

It`s a fairer leap of faith than you trying to make us believe Cross was the Ripper.

Maybe you disagree? Maybe you think that we should not be allowed to look at possible explanations to a known behaviour?.

No I think we should look at examples, like I did with my Sutcliffe example.

A/ I am not saying that he was a brilliant genius, unable to make mistakes.
B/ I think that he was pressed for time when it all went down. He noticed Paul, he swiftly covered Nichols up and he got out into the middle of the street waiting for Paul to come closer, and all the while his brain was doing a 150 mph;
Had the newcomer seen him? What did he know? Would it be possible to con him? Should he kill him??.

I thought psychopaths remained calm ?

And then it all happens quickly, Paul is pressed for time and walks very quickly, so he is suddenly almost past Lechmere before he has made his mind up.??.

Surely, Paul walking on would have been the perfect solution ?

If it had been you, Jon, standing there in the middle of the street, knowing that there was somebody lying on the pavement who was potentially very much in need of help - is that what you would have done? Would you have positioned yourself in the middle of the street, totally silent, letting the newcomer pass you by before you spoke to him and asked for help?.??.

That`s not what happened, Christer !!

Do you know what I would have done? I would have been startled to see the body, and then I would have approached it so see what had happened. If I in that moment heard a newcomer, I would wait until I could make him out, and then I would say "Hello! Can you help me out here? Thereīs a woman here who may be hurt??

That is to say that I would contact him when he was thirty, forty yards away. Then again, Lechmere does not say that he SAW the other man from forty yards away, and indeed it would be odd if he did - since he could barely make out the woman five yards away.

I certainly wouldn`t have shouted up Bucks Row !!
Especially, if I could see the man was walking swiftly my way.

[QUOTE]
No, what Lechmere says is "He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from."

So he could HEAR that the other man was thirty, forty yards away, but he couldnīt see him until later.

Why is it, do you think, that he mentions that he heard the other man as he was thirty, forty yards away? What use is it of to the coroner and jury? Why does he not just say that he noticed that there was another man coming down the street?
Why does he press the point that he heard him in the exact moment when he stepped out into the street?
Why does he press the point that he was thirty, forty yards away at that stage?
Why did he not hear him earlier, in an empty street that was an accoustic tunnel? He said that he would have noticed (and that means hear) if anybody had moved down

by Browns Stable Yard as he came into the street, 130 yards away?.

Cross heard Paul before he could see him because he was looking at the shape on the other side of the street, which of course would not stop him been able to hear.

Yes, Jon, maybe you DO know more about Sutcliffe than I do, who can tell.

Well, if you`re not aware of that significant interview then I must do.
But I urge you to read it !!

Then again, I may just know more about Lechmere than you do.

Maybe :-)
Stay chilled my friend !!

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: I don`t know if "these types of killers" are psychopaths, but Sutcliffe`s crimes are similar to the Rippers and these are the "types of killer" we should be referencing.

If Sutcliffe was NOT a psychopath, then your whole point is failed, Jon.

No, after Sutcliffe had been arrested he was interviewed for hours, and then finally he told the detectives that he was the man they were looking for. It was obviously a relief for him to finally admit that he was the Ripper. He didn`t cry but anyone who has read the interview transcripts (and if you haven't you should) will know he was telling it as it was, and none of the schizophrenia bullshit he`d later turn to.

If you want to believe that he told everything as it was, then I wonīt take that away from you. If Sutcliffe was not a psychopath, you may be right.
If, on the other hand, he WAS a psychopath, then he would not feel any need at all to come clear about things, and he certainly would not feel relieved to tell it! No true psychopath is burdoned by a conscience.

Ok, fair enough, according to you, Sutcliffe can`t be a psychopath because he did sh#t it.

But DID he **** it?
Who says?
Aw, right, Sutcliffe.

Believe me, Jon, psychopaths would happily lie about such a thing to plant the thought that they were sooo frightened, and that they really, really felt that what they did was wrong.
But in reality, what they feel in a situation like that is simply"Bummer!" And thatīs not because they think they need to fire up the washing machine, but instead because they feel theyīve been deprived of a pleasure.

So, it follows that the Ripper may not have been a psychopath either, and therefore your claim that Cross displayed characteristics of a psychopath is irrelevant.

As per the above - no.
I am not sure that you have grasped what a psychopath is about. Take a look at a man like Arthur Shawcross; he tells story after story, and shrink after shrink run to their superiors and say "I know why he did it!", only to find out that old Arthur told another story to their colleague the day before. Sometimes crying, sometimes uninterested, sometimes happy.
Psychopaths are extremely deceitful, compulsive LIARS, Jon.

Myself, I believe Cross showed the characteristics of a helpful passer by.

When he didnīt help to prop Nichols up too? Where was his helpfulness when he risked being revealed? Why did he not knock on New Cottage to get help? He walked off instead!

The reason Bundy failed to stop for a routine traffic stop was because he was sh#tting himself. Other wise why not stop first time of asking and do a Mizen scam ?

Because he hoped to be able to get away. It failed, and THEN he did a Mizen scam. His preference was not to get hauled in and asked, since his car would give him away. And sure enough, it did.

Which the Ripper apparently did in Bucks Row... unseen.

Yeah, miraculously. Vanished into thin air! Promise!

I thought psychopaths remained calm ?

They remain as calm as possible. But they may be forced to think quickly and make fast decisions. That is what I am saying, not that he panicked. He worked admirably.

Surely, Paul walking on would have been the perfect solution ?

No - it would mean that he would potentially get a good look at the man in the middle of the street, and then he could tell the police about his observation. And then the hunt would be on, with a witness being able to make him.

BUT -and this is an important but - it MAY be that he simply fancied conning Paul, just for the fun of it. He may have been prepared to kill him in any given moment if it failed. We will never know.

That`s not what happened, Christer !!

Yes, it is exactly what happened. Whether Paul was really past him or by his side, I canīt say, but it is an accurate picture anyway.

I certainly wouldn`t have shouted up Bucks Row !!
Especially, if I could see the man was walking swiftly my way.

Okay - but would you have kept quiet all the time until he was directly at your side?

Cross heard Paul before he could see him because he was looking at the shape on the other side of the street, which of course would not stop him been able to hear.

He heard Paul before he could see him because it was too dark to see forty yards. But how did he hear that Paul was forty yards away? And why did he mention the distance to the inquest? Those are the important questions.

Well, if you`re not aware of that significant interview then I must do.
But I urge you to read it !!

I HAVE read it, many years ago. I had the same impression as you did back then. But after that, I have read up a lot on psychopaths and how they work. And it spells disaster for Sutcliffes credibility at ALL times.

Maybe :-)
Stay chilled my friend !!

Iīll give it my very best shot!

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

2 Canonical victims were known to have been less than 100% health wise, and they were out soliciting when someone posing as a potential client meets up with them,....stranger to stranger kill...random...based on who was out, whether they might put up much of a fight, and how desperate they were to earn money that night.

Liz Stride left her lodging house with enough doss for her bed, stated she didn't know when she would be back and left items for safe keeping with a lodgemate,.... and wasn't drunk when she died....Kate goes in the opposite direction of where John would be so she has no idea whether he already had money for their bed that night, and Mary is sleeping in her own room.

Liz Stride just broke up with Kidney that same week....Kate and John seem to be less close than is represented by Johns comments...and Mary kicked out her live in lover at the end of October. Mary is also seeing another "Joe" at the time.

Circumstantially, the jilted lovers, or jealous lovers, or new lovers, would be the first place to look in those murders. Have Kidney, Kelly or Barnett been proven to have been incapable or unable to kill the respective women? Do we know who Marys other Joe was? Do we know who Kate met outside Mitre Square? No. Do we know if Liz was meeting someone socially at the club? No.

What we do know is that there is no hard evidence that compels us to assume that they were homeless that night, or soliciting on the streets. The 2 foundation points of the first 2 murders.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'day Michael

and Mary kicked out her live in lover at the end of October.

Except if we believe Joe [and I see no reason not to] he left her because of her prostitution and having prostitutes stay over.

[RockySullivan]

2 Canonical victims were known to have been less than 100% health wise, and they were out soliciting when someone posing as a potential client meets up with them,....stranger to stranger kill...random...based on who was out, whether they might put up much of a fight, and how desperate they were to earn money that night.

Liz Stride left her lodging house with enough doss for her bed, stated she didn't know when she would be back and left items for safe keeping with a lodgemate,.... and wasn't drunk when she died....Kate goes in the opposite direction of where John would be so she has no idea whether he already had money for their bed that night, and Mary is sleeping in her own room.

Liz Stride just broke up with Kidney that same week....Kate and John seem to be less close than is represented by Johns comments...and Mary kicked out her live in lover at the end of October. Mary is also seeing another "Joe" at the time.

Circumstantially, the jilted lovers, or jealous lovers, or new lovers, would be the first place to look in those murders. Have Kidney, Kelly or Barnett been proven to have been incapable or unable to kill the respective women? Do we know who Marys other Joe was? Do we know who Kate met outside Mitre Square? No. Do we know if Liz was meeting someone socially at the club? No.

What we do know is that there is no hard evidence that compels us to assume that they were homeless that night, or soliciting on the streets. The 2 foundation points of the first 2 murders.

Cheers

It's interesting that Kelly and Stride had broken up recently before their murders. I wonder if the killer knew Kidney and it's a reason he took eddowes.

[Rosella]

It wasn't the first time that these women had broken up with their partners though. How do we know that relationships characterised by squabbles, drunken and otherwise, reconciliations, moving away from each other then back in, wasn't typical of the sort of poor people who lived in the lodging houses and deep poverty of the East End?

[Beowulf]

I know it's been posted somewhere around here before but after looking for it and not finding it I just want to ask,

didn't all or most of the canonical five at one time or another live on the same street? What street was that?

Of course then it stands to reason the murderer might've lived on that street at one time and knew them, or went to the same pub or dos house they did r/t the vicinity.

I'm sure that's been looked at, but what questions does that raise?

The other thing I've been thinking of lately, is, regarding motive, was it anger? Or just some morbid desire to carve up women, which I'm sure is a horse beaten to death by regulars but it sure makes one wonder.

[GUT]

I know it's been posted somewhere around here before but after looking for it and not finding it I just want to ask,

didn't all or most of the canonical five at one time or another live on the same street? What street was that?

Of course then it stands to reason the murderer might've lived on that street at one time and knew them, or went to the same pub or dos house they did r/t the vicinity.

I'm sure that's been looked at, but what questions does that raise?

If they all did it was Dorset Street.

[pinkmoon]

I think all of the victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time I've never believed in any of the theories about them knowing each other or been specially targeted by our killer .Could our killer have had other victims who managed to escape him or could someone have disturbed him before he was able to launch his attack.

[Harriet the Student]

Could our killer have had other victims who managed to escape him or could someone have disturbed him before he was able to launch his attack.

A potential Ripper attack survivor would no doubt have been splashed all over the newspapers, given that journalists interviewed anyone and everyone who was even vaguely connected with the murders - worth checking out I think.