Sutcliffe launches legal challenge against 'die in jail' ruling.

[Roy Corduroy]

Quoting myself

Why did he not get the "whole life tariff" at the original sentencing?

Not being familiar with UK justice I looked it up, and the Whole Life Tariff did not become law until 1983, two years after the Sutcliffe verdict. That explains why.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any help would be appreciated.

Roy

[Zodiac]

Quoting myself



Not being familiar with UK justice I looked it up, and the Whole Life Tariff did not become law until 1983, two years after the Sutcliffe verdict. That explains why.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any help would be appreciated.

Roy

Hi Roy,

You are not wrong, it was only in 1983 that the Whole Life Tarriff or "Whole Life Order" as it is also known was introduced. It came into being when the Home Secretary began to set minimum terms that convicted killers had to serve before being considered for release on licence. The intention of a whole life tariff being for a prisoner to spend an entire lifetime behind bars without possibility of release. Then it all gets really complicated! I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the ins and outs of every case, but I will try to give you a sort of rough timeline as regards Sutcliffe's sentence.

May 22 1981 In sentencing Sutcliffe, the Judge, Mr Justice Boreham said: "I have no doubt that you are a very dangerous man indeed. The sentence for murder is laid down by the law and is immutable. It is a sentence that you be imprisoned for life. I shall recommend to the Home Secretary that the minimum period that should elapse before he orders your release on license shall be 30 years. That is a longer period, an unusually longer period in my judgement, but I believe you are an unusually dangerous man. I express my hope that when I have said life imprisonment, it will precisely mean that. For reasons that I have already discussed with your counsel in your presence I do not believe that I can make that as a recommendation in statute."

December 9 1994 It was reported that Peter Sutcliffe, along with about twenty other prisoners, would be notified by the Home Secretary within the next six weeks that they would never be released. This allowed Sutcliffe's lawyers to argue that politicians should not have the right to increase a sentence set by the judiciary.

May 28 2002 The European Court of Human Rights rules that sentencing of prisoners is for the judiciary, and not for politicians. The repercussion could effect the changes in length of sentence by various Home Secretaries applied to murders such as Sutcliffe, where their original minimum sentence was increased. Sutcliffe's original sentence was a minimum of thirty years, but he was one of about twenty prisoners later given "whole life" tariffs by various Home Secretaries, meaning that they would never be released.

November 25 2002 The Law Lords found against the Home Secretary being able to increase the minimum life sentencing tariff recommended by the judiciary.

March 1 2010 After reporting restrictions were lifted, it was reported that Sutcliffe was asking the High Court to determine a finite minimum sentence. A directions hearing in London in front of Mr Justice Mitting would decide the form that tariff-setting hearing would take, including what evidence would be allowed to be admitted. The judge at that hearing would have the power to impose a finite number of years that must be served by Sutcliffe before he could apply for release. The judge could also rule that Sutcliffe must spent his entire life behind bars.

May 6 2010 Sutcliffe's application for a tariff-setting hearing was set for July 16 2010 at the High Court on London.

July 16 2010 At the High Court in London, Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that Peter Sutcliffe must serve a whole life tariff, stating that he had no doubt that the "appropriate minimum term is a whole life term".

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1741.html

August 4 2010 It was confirmed that Sutcliffe has started appeal moves to challenge the recent High Court judge's decision that he must serve a whole life tariff. A Judicial Communications Office spokeswoman stated: "I can now confirm that an application for leave to appeal the whole life order by Mr Justice Mitting has been lodged with the Court of Appeal."

Hope that I have been able to be of some help to you.

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

P.S. Current sentencing guidelines are as per the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

[caz]

Caz,
I am getting sick and tired of you playing these stupid games.If you want to discredit me and what I write and say ,just say so --and explain why, instead of raking up old posts from other threads all the time .You drone on and on and on like a stuck needle .As Claire told you a week or so ago when you decided to have a go at her ---- its so tiresome -go find someone else to pick on .

Hi Nats,

I explained to you that I wasn't having 'a go' at Claire and was essentially in agreement with what she had written down in Pub Talk. You chose to ignore this so you could repeat the accusation here, so it's a bit rich to talk to me about stupid games.

Posters can only ever discredit themselves with what they write (what was that saying - one can only be made to feel inferior with one’s own consent), but they must certainly expect to be challenged, particularly if they choose to attack the views of others while gaily contradicting themselves and the facts.

I read again what you posted about Sutcliffe on the A6 thread earlier this month and you were absolutely seeking to compare Alphon with this serial killer via a specific mental illness, which you suggested they could have had in common, causing them both to go on a murderous ‘moral’ crusade.

There is no evidence that Alphon killed anyone - voices in his head or not - and all the evidence suggests that Sutcliffe killed because he wanted to, and not because he couldn’t control himself. It seems he is currently enjoying the control he has over the taxpayers.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Caz,
I found the manner in which you decided to rake up old posts from other threads to demonstrate perceived inconsistencies in what I have written to be rather "bad form" [like you say my using "bold" is
For example,the remark you refer to ,taken out of its original context that I made about Alphon and Sutcliffe .
The comparison begins and ends with the assertion Sutcliffe made about wanting to "clean up the streets" [of prostitution] and Alphon"s assertions that he wanted to "get rid of immorality and indecency".
However, I do not believe any comparison between Alphon and Sutcliffe goes much further than that.
Whether or not Sutcliffe was mentally ill and suffered from paranoid schizophrenia was for his examining doctors to decide and they decided he was faking it.He was ,though married to a person said to suffer from schizophrenia and its possible she had a very moralistic value system which he agreed with, but in his case took what he did about it took on a very different trajectory .
With regards to Alphon I would like to quote from Campbell on Psychiatry.[He quotes too re" psychopathic " behaviour and from Cleckley"s masterpiece of psychiatry, "The Mask of Sanity" which may help give some insight into Sutcliffe.
Campbell:
"Many of the most incurable Nazi"s have been found to have schizoid personalities....."

Alphon was a self declared Nazi and admirer of Hitler and what he did.


" Associated with a high degree of conscience is a cold,callous,egocentric attitude, which is the outward manifestation of an immature emotional development.This gives rise to a psychologically interesting combination,in that within the same individual we find visionary ideals [ Alphon"s love of Nazi ideals in his case] plus a cool,dispassionate attitude which would recognise no bounds in accomplishing its ideals "

This is the impresssion I have of Alphon from the TV interviews in Paris when he actually confessed to the A6 murder.

Now Alphon did not go round "confessing" to murders actually -this is a fact---the only murder he ever confessed to was the A6 one---6 years after the event and when he knew perfectly well the police were not going to charge him with the same murder for a second time---having released him due to Valerie"s failure to identify him.

And yes, I am more and more persuaded that Alphon committed the a6 murder and attack on Valerie that he was originally charged with and that he said he did.

To quote Campbell again,

"In the name of some fanatical ideal he may convince himself that bloodshed is trivial. In order to conceive of a personality type that may be both conscientious and cruel one must remember the combination in the schizoid of a sharp conscience with a dull, inadequate,cold , emotional reaction."

Finally,another clue as to whether or not someone like Alphon has the personality type described is to be found by looking at his "work record".

Viz" It is not unusual for the schizoid to gravitate to a form of work much beneath his intellectual capacity.In fact,any individual who is observed in an endeavour beneath his intellectual and educational background shoul;d be suspected of being a schizoid personality-"----

Caz, I hope this gives you enough information to see where I was coming from in my remarks. I suspect Alphon of having the type of personality type that could cold heartedly---- [and in the event of it going pear shaped through Gregston throwing the duffle bag at him,] "cold bloodedly " kill----having taken the couple ,engaged in what Alphon perceived as an "illicit relationship",on a ride in the countryside at gun point.In my view that was what he was required to do--as a "hit man"-to frighten Valerie off ,[not to kill anyone ] and that when it all went terribly wrong , he was paid £5,000 , in 1961 approx £250,000 in today's money-to keep his mouth shut .

I dont know why you and I are at loggerheads like this.I know you take issue with what I say and I take issue with what you say,but it has become quite unfriendly and I am sorry about that.I always used to enjoy your posts a lot actually.Oh well---maybe we will eventually sort this out.

Best Wishes
Norma

[caz]

Hi Nats,

Yes, I can see where you are coming from here and it's good to see the old Nats back, with your much calmer, more measured and less dogmatic approach.

I could almost agree that your arguments here have merit - if only we didn't have Hanratty DNA from the victim's semen stained undies and the hanky that was wrapped round the murder weapon, and a completely unexplained absence of Alphon DNA anywhere, which makes no sense if he was the one who left the extensive group O semen stain when raping Valerie.

Also, if Alphon was paid ludicrous amounts of money to 'keep his mouth shut' about his own involvement (presumably in the hope that an innocent Hanratty would turn out to a) have the right blood group, b) be picked out by Valerie after she failed to recognise Alphon, and c) have no verifiable alibi and stupidly change alibis mid-trial), why did he do precisely the opposite, by craving attention, blabbing about the large payment and confessing that he, and not Hanratty was the gunman?

What kind of Mr Big in their right mind would have risked their money and their security on such a loose cannon?

Alternatively, a journalist who thought he could smell out a major story of police corruption or whatever, might well have rewarded Alphon generously for coughing up the goods. Didn't Alphon claim at one time that his mission was to show up the police for their failings in this case? He put on a good show for that money, and managed to hoodwink a lot of people even when he went overboard with it.

Ooh I've just realised how far away from Sutcliffe we have drifted. When I've caught up with the A6 thread, perhaps we can discuss this further there? I promise I have no hard feelings on a personal basis over anything you post. It's all about the cut and thrust of debate as far as I am concerned. But I can see how this can come across as 'unfriendly' to posters I sometimes disagree with profoundly. It's just that when I agree with people I rarely say so unless I have something else to add, so it can seem like I'm forever disagreeing - and disagreeable. I'm so not like that in the real world.

Love,

Caz
XX

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
Well its good to see the Caz I have known --and liked again too! [--and whose sense of fun I have always previously enjoyed]!
You are right to remind about the thread being about Sutclliffe.A very differently motivated fellow from Alphon even if he did,in his very warped way,talk about being on a "street cleaning campaign"---odious creature that he is.
But Alphon,of all the players is clearly a very intelligent "nut case" - even though extremely demented at times--managing to avoid the noose by very careful and clever handling of the police apart from anything else,when he was initially charged with the A6 murder.
The 2002 LCN DNA testing,did not, according to the very latest research into LCN testing, prove anything -such a result was invalid -according to recent research.But for more information on this its best to read through Derrick"s very recent posts, spread over two or three recent A6 threads, specifically with regard to the "Reed" and "Caddy" findings.The type of testing carried out on the 2002 tests has been found to have been "unsound" and prone to error,-and very specifically cannot be used---as they were-- to exclude Alphon from the crime---or anyone else for that matter as I understand it.So --I am afraid its just more of the same as far as I am concerned ,that has had Hanratty "linked" to the murder.Modern technology, has shown the extent to which witness statements were fiddled with and Hanratty"s own statements "tampered with" in 1961-and thats before we even get to all the shady characters who were suddenly "co-operating with the police in their enquiries".
Best
Norma