|
THE
PRESTON CONNECTIO N
JOAN HARRISON

Joan Harrison was a poor vulnerable single girl
who was murdered by being kicked to death in a disused garage
near the centre of Preston on the 20 November 1975.
She had been sexually assaulted to such an extent
that semen was found both in her rectum and her vagina .Her killer
also bit her deeply on her left breast and stole her jewellery.
He ritually placed some of her clothing and shoes in positions
which were to be repeated in later murders in Yorkshire. Semen
revealed that the killer was of the rare B blood group and was
a secretor, that is, one whose semen saliva etc also reveal the
blood group. This was a rare individual. One in sixteen
people or 6% of all suspects. It was also the key to the police
efforts to identify and eliminate suspects. On average 94% of
suspects would be outside the frame. The police were confident
of identifying him because of the circumstances and the way Joan's
purse and handbag were discarded at intervals as her killer walked
away from the scene. Unlike many of the later Ripper victims in
West Yorkshire, Joan was not a soliciting prostitute looking for
motoring punters from the sidewalk.For all these reasons the police
were looking for a local man who was not a motorist.
The killer left a deep bite on Joan's left breast
showing the track of his teeth revealing a distinct gap of almost
one inch between the top front teeth. This bite mark was his signature
and if ever apprehended this rare combination of clues was powerful
and conclusive evidence to positively identify the culprit. Her
purse was found under a hedge a short distance away indicating
her killer was on foot and dumped it as he went.
A massive house to house dragnet was carried out
in Preston and every man was asked to spit into a small glass
jar so the police could observe his teeth as he spat. Suspects
with any gap or dentures had their saliva tested. Thousands were
asked to cooperate.
Nobody was told the reason for the spit but it
was a ploy to observe the person's teeth.

The search was confined to Preston which Billy Tracey
had visited for the day probably accompanied by his wife, who
may have been left waiting in a cinema. The Lancashire police
regarded this murder as a challenge to them and for this reason
they did not want it publicly associated with the growing toll
of murders in West Yorkshire. They wanted to get their man. With
the Ripper murder of Irene Richardson in Leeds in February 1977 came
the first clues that Joan Harrison was killed by the same person.
Both were poor girls,neither was a soliciting prostitute, but
vulnerable to being proposioned for cash by a clever man who could
spot their weakness. Both were violently murdered. Harrison was
robbed of her bits of jewellery as was Wilma McCann of her money. Both
Harrison and Richardson were obscenely sexually assaulted. The
police never spelt out the exact facts in the Richardson case,
but because she was in her period and one leg had been removed
from her tights it may have been buggery. Both victims had their
boots repositioned and draped over their legs. Both bodies were
covered by their coats. The notable difference was that the killer
didnt use a hammer or a blade in Harrison's case. This may not
have been premeditated in the way the later murders were, as the
pattern emerged.
It was a hall mark of all the Ripper murders
that the killer was a smooth talker who could entice his victim
into a dark place on some pretext before turning on them without
warning.
Joan Harrison was conned by the smooth talking Tracey
into entering an empty garage with him. He probably persuaded
her to masturbate him for ten pounds or so. The speed, joking
and confidence with which Tracey could do this would have to be
seen to be believed. I witnessed this performance several times
with total strangers who would be taken in so quickly. It was
like a piece of magic.



Wilma McCann had been murdered in Leeds three weeks
earlier by Billy Tracey and traces of B secretor semen were found
on her in addition to the ritual rearrangement of her clothing
and body. She had also been robbed. Despite the fact that two
months later there would be three more murders in Leeds which
initiated the Ripper hunt , and there would be an additional five
murders in West Yorkshire, all of which would be immediately linked
to the Ripper; it was not until September 1978 that the West Yorkshire
police included the Preston murder publicly in the Ripper frame.
This was done because of information sent by letters, posted in
Sunderland to George Oldfield by the man police then believed
was the Ripper. The paper bore his deliberate teeth imprints identical
to those found on Joan Harrisons breast and the saliva traces
confirmed the writer to be B secretor blood group. The author,
Billy Tracey, signed the letter with his teeth.
A third letter sent on 23rd March 1979 promised
another murder . The last murder had been almost one year earlier.
Little more than one week after posting his letter, the respectable
Building Society clerk Josephine Whittaker was murdered in Halifax by the
Ripper. He bit her deeply on the left breast to authenticate his
letters . The bite mark was identical to the one on Joan Harrisons
breast in Preston and also on the letter.
Had this bite mark been
different there is no way the two murders could have been in the
same frame.There they remained until
Sutcliffe's arrest and elimination by the Lancashire police, who
would not wear his confessions.
(above) Extract from Sunday Times analysis after
the Hill murder in November 1980
Coincidentally, Sutcliffe has a gap between his
top front teeth but it is very small, about one eighth of an inch,
and his teeth dont match the bite marks which were made by the
Ripper with very irregular teeth and a large gap in the top front.The
police never commented on the teeth pattern before or after his
arrest except to vent their anger at that time with the magazine
who published minimal details about the gap. Never dreaming for
a moment that the police were covering up a huge blunder with
Sutcliffe's confessions, this led to speculation such as was reported
in the Sunday Times article above. From the Whittaker murder onwards
the police were certain that the letter writer was the Ripper
and they redoubled their efforts to trace him.

Meanwhile, Sutcliffe, the disturbed Copy Cat
killer, who believed he was the Ripper, was being eliminated because
he was O blood group and did not have the big gap in his teeth.
It was an easy matter for the police to eliminate Ripper suspects
and thousands were eliminated on these factors, as was every man
in Preston who was asked to cooperate

Generally the newspapers gave the police full cooperation
and only published what they asked. It is a measure of what the
police thought of the public when they didnt state publicly that
they were looking for a man with a large gap in his top front
teeth.The thousands of suspects and fears of relatives and friends
of suspects could have been averted if they had done so. In addition
the killer may have been identified earlier. However the potential
fame of getting their hands on this easily identifiable killer
was evidentally more important for them and so the public were
kept in the dark, and as the murders escalated so did the prospective
fame of the Sherlock Holmes' of West Yorkshire who confidently
expected to apprehend this murderer who had given them everything
about himself except his name and fingerprints as he clearly taunted
them both with the murders and his letters and taped message.
Finally in January 1981 Sutcliffe was arrested in
Sheffield .The South Yorkshire police did not know these vital
points of evidence. The West Yorkshire police confidently expected
to capture the real Ripper and wanted to retain the glory. Sutcliffe,
the Copy Cat s, instant confessions upset their plans and a media
euphoria, compounded by police tactical blunders, panicked them
into a deal with him, which included a place in a secure mental
home, with no trial and parole in 10 years. The case was
to be closed without a trial with the aid of Sutcliffe's confessions
supported by four eminent psychiatrists who would give evidence
that he was indeed a mental case.
After he was charged with the murder of Jacqueline Hill and the massive publicity on the
arrest of the Ripper broke, Detective Frank Gardner of Preston
CID and another, went to West Yorkshire to interview Sutcliffe
in relation to their Preston murder. They took one look at his
teeth, confirmed he was O blood group and baulked at cooperating
with Dick Holland who had secured
Sutcliffe's confessions to anything he wanted, as he conspired
to close the whole file. The Preston murder was ruled out.The
Lancashire constabulary would not accept it. There was a lot of
police argument and infighting because of this but this was lost
in the euphoric reporting of the trial.
This murder is still officially an open case but
nobody ever had the will to interview Billy Tracey, who had served
time in Preston prison years earlier, and knew his victim as
indeed he knew other victims in West Yorkshire. Joan had been
up in Court a short time earlier and indeed it is possible Tracey
met her there as he frequented the Courts as a spectator of theatre,
where peoples vulnerabilities, records, names and addresses are
exposed for all to see and hear.
The West Yorkshire police had Joan Harrison in the
Ripper frame through 1979 and 1980 until the arrest of Sutcliffe,
whose confessions, and Lancashire's unwillingness to conspire
to a cover up, forced them to change the goal posts. The strong
links with the murder of Irene Richardson and the bite marks identical to
those on Josephine Whittaker, coming days after including
Joan Harrison in his count when he wrote to George Oldfield, ensured
that all three killings were in the same frame.

The conclusion
is crystal clear.
If Sutcliffe
did not kill Joan Harrison then he did not kill Richardson or
Whittaker.
The Leach murder was
closely linked to the Whittaker murder by the three cornered file
used to stab both victims repeatedly within
the vagina. The Richardson murder was linked to the Jackson, Atkinson
and Millward murders at least by the ripping open of the hammered
victims stomachs with the claws of the hammer. The Mcdonald and
Rytka murders were linked with these by the hammer blows and the
repeated internal stabbing. All the murders in the Ripper frame at the time of Sutcliffe's arrest were
also linked by the sheer level of brutality and the repositioning
of the victims bodies and clothing so that there was no doubt
that it was the Ripper again. These 10 murders were clearly committed
by one individual and there were two more, that of Jordan and
Pearson, included in the Ripper frame as a result of the Ripper's
letters and taped message. These were in a "grey area" as Oldfield
stated. Apprehending the copy cat was a peripheral objective of
the police. They were concentrating on the main man. After Sutcliffe's
arrest and being cheated of their real quarry, they brought all
Sutcliffe's crimes into the Ripper frame as they attempted to
cover up the whole sorry failed public relations exercise, and
brokered a plea bargain deal with the mentally disturbed Sutcliffe.
Sutcliffe would have confessed to anything at that
time as he was getting leniency the more he confessed to. A deal
had been done in return for a place in a secure home. Sutcliffe
did not want a trial.
Detective Chief Superintendant Wilf Brooks criticised
the West Yorkshire police for ignoring valuable information supplied
in 1979. This was a reference to my tip off to the West Yorks
police which they fouled up.
In January 2001 I placed an advert
for my book in the Lancashire Evening Post and they were interested
in my allegations and printed this story.
LANCASHIRE EVENING POST
Sat, Jan 20, 2001
'I
know who really killed Joan Harrison...' By
David Powles Lancashire Evening Post
The killer of a Preston mother-of-three is a regular visitor
to this area and could be responsible for a string of other
murders, it was claimed today.
Ireland-based author Noel O'Gara claims
to have evidence to prove who was responsible for the brutal
murder of Joan Harrison in 1975.
He has accused Lancashire police, who
have spent 25 years probing the crime, of snubbing his evidence.
But senior officers today dismissed his claims as nothing
new.
He said he had decided to break his
silence to demand the police consider his evidence.
He said: “I have proof of the
person who was responsible for this dreadful murder. Why Lancashire
police do not want to listen, I don’t know. Their complete
disregard of my evidence is an absolute disgrace.”
Mrs Harrison’s battered body
was found in a disused garage in Berwick Road, Avenham, on
November 20 1975. The 26-year-old mother had been savagely
beaten to death and a bite mark had been left on one of her
breasts.
Originally, Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire
Ripper who was convicted of murdering 13 women, was believed
to be responsible.
However, forensic evidence proved otherwise
and Joan’s murder has remained unsolved.
But according to Mr O Gara, who has
spent years studying the case and who has now published his
findings on the Internet, his evidence proves the real Ripper
was not Peter Sutcliffe.
Although he admits Sutcliffe carried
out some of the killings, he claims the real Ripper and the
murderer of Mrs Harrison is the person he names.
Speaking from his home in Athlone, he said: “The evidence
is there to find the killer.
“Until he is caught and charged
he is free to kill again and, for all we know, he may have
already done so.”
For legal reasons the name of the man
he points the finger at cannot be published but Mr O'Gara
claims he is well known to the area and has family in Lancashire.
He is also believed to have spent years
in Preston Prison and grew up near the town.
Det Supt Graham Gooch, of Lancashire
Police, today confirmed he and his officers had looked at
the website but said they had found no fresh information.
He said: “This is not the first
time that authors have propounded their own theories on this
case as fact. We have been reviewing this case since 1997
but have found no evidence to link any of the suspects suggested
by authors to the offence. We will continue to look at the
case and would keep the public informed of any development.”
On Wednesday 24th January 2001 I phoned
Lancashire police headquarters at 01772 614444 and asked to
speak to Det.Inspector Graham Gooch.
Chief Inspector Kellett answered the
call and said Mr Gooch was off duty until Friday. I requested
him to ask Mr Gooch to call me. He asked what it was about
and I said I know the killer of Joan Mary Harrison in Preston
in 1975. He said he would pass on the message immediately.
Friday afternoon I called again and
got through to Superintendant Graham Gooch. I asked him what
did he know about me. He said he "read my website and
many writers make all sorts of assumptions. It happens frequently".
I said I am not a writer or a journalist.
I asked him a few points in the site relating to the Preston
murder and it was clear to me that he hadn't briefed himself
on it in any meaningful way.
He admitted that he did not work on
the Harrison investigation and says he was drafted in from
an outside police force. He asked me what evidence I had about
the Harrison murder. I referred him to the killers blood group
and teeth marks.
I told him Tracey took jewellery from
the victim and sold it in a pawn shop in Manchester. That
he also told me he" buggered that shitbag in Preston."
I said I would like to meet him as
he is not fully briefed on my allegations and has dismissed
them to a reporter without knowing what he was talking about.
He repeated his question "what evidence have you got?"
a few times and I repeated that this is no way to proceed.
I would meet him. He asked where is
Tracey now and I said probably in Yorkshire or maybe even
Lancashire. I said "you are a foolish man for dismissing
my story so lightly, the people of Preston would not thank
you for it."
He said if you wont tell me the evidence
you have then there is no point in talking and he put the
phone down.

Since the frame up of
John Humble, Gooch
is shoring up the police cover up by now suggesting that the
B secretor blood group could be wrong from the start. This
ex policeman is now a lecturer in the university of Lancashire.
He has belatedly attempted to move the
pivotal goal post which was a central part of the whole Yorkshire
Ripper investigation. This policeman refused to meet me to
discuss the evidence I told him I possessed and now he is
a lecturer in policing and crime in a university. The Ripper
has really stood everything on its head.
|