Last night, completely by accident, I caught part of
series 1 episode 1 of The Yorkshire Ripper Files
on BBC2 which is available on iPlayer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0003v61/the-yorkshire-ripper-files-a-very-british-crime-story
Which rather paradoxically, covers his trial.
Which indeed was a story in itself. Once he was caught
and confessed to the killings, he was examined by four
forensic psychiatrists, two of whom subsequently appeared
for the prosecution, and two for the defence;all of whom
concluded he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
As a result of which, the Attorney General Sir Michael
Havers was willing to accept 13 pleas of guilty to
manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility
By some process or other this decision was successfully
challenged before a judge by the original lead for the
prosecution Harry Ognall QC* a highly experienced criminal
barrister, and Sutcliffe was instead tried for murder in
front of a jury.
But then astonishingly Havers took over the lead for the
prosecution Despite believing, on the evidence already
put before him and which presumably would re-appear in
Court that Sutcliffe was not guilty of murder, on the
grounds of diminished responsibility.
So that it was Havers who cross examined Sutcliffe, and
according to Ognall subsequently, gave him an easy time.
Whereas it was his Junior, Ognall who was convinced
Sutcliffe was lying, who was tasked with examining and
cross examining the psychiatrists concerning the accounts
Sutcliffe had given them over many hours. Which he did with
some success; showing the Sutcliffe had run rings round them.
One of his questions
quote:
Among the QC's questions was this one: "Over half the attacks
took place on Friday or Saturday nights, when his wife was
at work. If Sutcliffe was no more than the helpless and
hapless victim of God's will, why did God confine himself
so much to those two evenings?"
unquote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2021/04/15/sir-harry-ognall-criminal-qc-high-court-judge-played-decisive/
One of the features of the trial was that according to
Sutcliffe, God had told him to murder prostitutes.
So that the fact that four of the victims weren't
prostitutes rather undermined that defence.
So regardless
of any value judgements being made, that women working
as prostates were more likely to get murdered, the
fact is that whether the women were prostitutes or
not was crucial to Sutcliffe's defence.
Unfortunately Sir Harry Ogden QC, was himself caught out
by this. When questioned by the "friendly" interviewer
as to whether it was unfortunate the victims were
identified as prostitutes, rather than explain
that this was crucial to the trial he merely replied
" I believe in calling a spade a spade"
What was also astonishing, is that after his** having been
found guilty of murdering 13 women, the judge was almost
apologetic in "having" to sentence Sutcliffe to 30 years
in prison. As much as the Great Train Robbers.
bb
As Sir Harry Ognall QC, he was the judge who threw out
all the manufactured "evidence" the police were intending
to produce in the Colin Stagg trial this causing the trial
to collapse
** Sutcliffe not the judge
On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 12:42:21 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
Last night, completely by accident, I caught part of
series 1 episode 1 of The Yorkshire Ripper Files
on BBC2 which is available on iPlayer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0003v61/the-yorkshire-ripper-files-a-very-british-crime-story
Which rather paradoxically, covers his trial.
Which indeed was a story in itself. Once he was caught
and confessed to the killings, he was examined by four
forensic psychiatrists, two of whom subsequently appeared
for the prosecution, and two for the defence;all of whom
concluded he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
As a result of which, the Attorney General Sir Michael
Havers was willing to accept 13 pleas of guilty to
manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility
By some process or other this decision was successfully
challenged before a judge by the original lead for the
prosecution Harry Ognall QC* a highly experienced criminal
barrister, and Sutcliffe was instead tried for murder in
front of a jury.
The "some process or other" was that the judge put it to the
jury whether they would accept a plea guilty to manslaughter
and they declined.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2021/04/15/sir-harry-ognall-criminal-qc-high-court-judge-played-decisive/
But then astonishingly Havers took over the lead for the
prosecution Despite believing, on the evidence already
put before him and which presumably would re-appear in
Court that Sutcliffe was not guilty of murder, on the
grounds of diminished responsibility.
As was his right as DPP.
Accepting a guilty plea for a lesser crime, does not mean that
Havers believed Sutcliffe's defence, just that either he thought
it might run successfully and / or it would save the time, cost
and distress of a full trial.
So that it was Havers who cross examined Sutcliffe, and
according to Ognall subsequently, gave him an easy time.
Whereas it was his Junior, Ognall who was convinced
Sutcliffe was lying, who was tasked with examining and
cross examining the psychiatrists concerning the accounts
Sutcliffe had given them over many hours. Which he did with
some success; showing the Sutcliffe had run rings round them.
One of his questions
quote:
Among the QC's questions was this one: "Over half the attacks
took place on Friday or Saturday nights, when his wife was
at work. If Sutcliffe was no more than the helpless and
hapless victim of God's will, why did God confine himself
so much to those two evenings?"
unquote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2021/04/15/sir-harry-ognall-criminal-qc-high-court-judge-played-decisive/
One of the features of the trial was that according to
Sutcliffe, God had told him to murder prostitutes.
So that the fact that four of the victims weren't
prostitutes rather undermined that defence.
Maybe it did, but of course that presumes that Sutcliffe
could identify prostitutes with 100% accuracy.
What wasn't in doubt was that he killed 13 women and tried
to kill 7 more - he admitted
all that so the issue at his trial was whether he was? culpable for murders, the jury
decided he was.
So regardless
of any value judgements being made, that women working
as prostates were more likely to get murdered, the
fact is that whether the women were prostitutes or
not was crucial to Sutcliffe's defence.
Unfortunately Sir Harry Ogden QC, was himself caught out
Ogden or Ognall? Was he a QC, leading counsel at Sutcliffe's
trial or acting as a junior?
by this. When questioned by the "friendly" interviewer
as to whether it was unfortunate the victims were
identified as prostitutes, rather than explain
that this was crucial to the trial he merely replied
" I believe in calling a spade a spade"
One certainly was. A fresh fiver Sutcliffe had paid her
was recovered in her handbag. This was the most objective
clue WYP had, and many observers, including me, knew this
at the time. Tragically WYP were unable to link Sutcliffe
to it and he went on to murder more women.
parole before that.
What was also astonishing, is that after his** having been
found guilty of murdering 13 women, the judge was almost
apologetic in "having" to sentence Sutcliffe to 30 years
in prison. As much as the Great Train Robbers.
The Great Train Robbers were sentenced to 30 years, they could
get years remission for good behaviour and possibly apply for
Sutcliffe got life with a minimum of 30 years.
This was later increased to whole life.
rubbish?
bb
As Sir Harry Ognall QC, he was the judge who threw out
all the manufactured "evidence" the police were intending
to produce in the Colin Stagg trial this causing the trial
to collapse
and...
** Sutcliffe not the judge
Why not just put a link to Wiki, instead of all the contradictory
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 47:48:48 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,497 |
| Posted today: | 1 |