Stefan Kiszko before and after prison
Stefan Kiszko, an innocent, harmless and vulnerable man was pardoned in 1992 after serving 16 years in prison for the murder of Lesley Molseed which he did not commit. The policeman who charged him was Superintendant Dick Holland who witheld the evidence that would have cleared Kiszko. The confession he had earlier forced out the terrified man was used to convict him. This same policeman had overall responsibility for eliminating Peter Sutcliffe as the Ripper 12 times on forensic evidence grounds. His was the last word. After Sutcliffe’s arrest in SouthYorkshire by a police force unaware of West Yorkshire’s “intelligence” , events spiralled out of control and Holland offered Sutcliffe a deal for his “confessions” to all the murders. As in Kiszko’s case a conviction became the prize. The truth became irrelevant.
There were many calls for an enquiry into how such a travesty of justice could take place and also the obvious evidence that Stefan Kiszko had been framed for a murder he did not commit and the CPS did serve summonses on the two people mainly responsible for the frame up, namely Detective Supr Dick Holland and scientist Ronald Outteridge.
These newspaper articles refer to the outcome,
“Stefan cop to face trial” Mirror 12/5/94
“Detective charged” Today 5/11/94
On 2nd May 1995 A magistrate yesterday halted the criminal proceedings against the two men who helped to convict Stefan Kiszko, who spent 16 years in jail for a child murder he did not commit. Unless the ruling is challenged by the Crown Prosecution Service, it means that charges of tending to pervert the course of justice against retired Superintendent Richard Holland, 62, and former forensic scientist, Ronald Outteridge, 68, will be dropped. Yesterday, the CPS, said that it would be studying the ruling before reaching a decision.
Jane Hayward, Rochdale’s stipendiary magistrate, placed a stay on the proceedings and ordered that no details of her decision – which followed applications by counsel for the two men – be published because there may be a judicial review.
Kerry MacGill the junior solicitor who criminally brokered the deal for Sutcliffe’s confessions with detective Superintendant Dick Holland was acting for the defendants and he is now a judge in the crown court in Leeds and Bradford.
The magistrate Jane Hayward has a lot of serious questions to answer about why she prevented the prosecution going ahead and also why she attempted to hush the ruling up, a ruling that was clearly ignored by the press.
The excuse regarding the death of another corrupt policeman provided by the Magistrate for quashing the charges is so lame that she should be charged with perverting justice and facilitating corruption of the highest order.
He died in 2007
In 1992 the innocent Judith Ward was also exhonerated by the court of appeal and George Oldfield was heavily criticised for having had her convicted.
It has taken all this time and this new technology to air the facts and the Authorities who knew Sutcliffe was a disturbed copy cat killer rather than the Ripper now stand exposed along with the Ripper, and their copy -cat who is in a mental home, the correct place for him since his first assault on Mrs Smelt in 1975.
Billy Tracey the Real Ripper has lived in the U.K. since 1984 and undoubtably has killed since.
Scotland Yard detectives who were told these facts in 1983 contacted West Yorkshire and were told its not their business, not their area.They cited their inibility to do any more. Irish police cited the same reasons. Thats the system.
The Ripper keeps his distance from the author because he knows he would be shot on sight. The public only know the official version of events. This is the real but unofficial story. the police cannot say the Ripper killed again because he is supposed to be in jail. The Ripper won’t be pursued for his crimes because it would expose too many important people. However the public should be warned.
Michael Bilton, a journalist who was on the Sunday Times Insight team that covered the Ripper story wrote a book entitled Wicked Beyond Belief which was published in 2003. Bilton gives more details about Sutcliffe that were hitherto unpublished.
This article in the Sun dated 10th March 2003 gives another insight into how the police destroyed the evidence relating to Peter Sutcliffe after his conviction and never expected any details of it to resurface. Detective Alan Foster who was ordered to destroy it obviously never realised that Sutcliffe was just a copycat killer rather than the Ripper and Foster disobeyed his orders in the belief that the top brass honestly believed Sutcliffe was the Ripper but were wrong in destroying the evidence.
When Sutcliffe was ordered to remove his clothes in the police station that night of his arrest and was revealed to be wearing no underpants, only this pair of leggings with his crotch open I am sure the police who witnessed him must have broken down laughing at the lunatic in front of them. One can see why Chief Constable Brownlow ordered his men never to talk about the events of that night and indeed why they decided to destroy the evidence. 22 years on, we can now see just why Brownlow ordered his arresting officers to silence. Anyone could have seen that this man was mentally deranged and a plea of diminished responsibility would never have been on, if the full facts were revealed.
Now after more than 20 years Sutcliffe himself has written a book and claims that he is not the Ripper and that he didnt do all the murders.
This is part of an advertising campaign throughout 2004/5/6
Ron Warren former Deputy Chairman of the West Yorkshire police authority who supports Noel O’Gara and reaffirms on Yorkshire Television on 30th October 2006 that he and the other members were well aware from police briefings that there were two killers involved in the Ripper frame prior to the arrest of Peter Sutcliffe.
In November 2006 Ronald Castree from Oldham was arrested and charged with the murder of Lesley Molseed. The police claimed to have found his DNA on the evidence after new breakthroughs in forensic science.
The Telegraph and Argus newspaper in Bradford have a web site with a forum which developed an interesting debate until it was deleted because it got a bit overheated.
Nevertheless this is the saved version