On 5th October 1975 11 year old Lesley Molseed was abducted and brought to an isolated lay by where she was stabbed in the neck and chest twelve times with a small knife and sexually abused by her assailant who masturbated over her in a similar attack to one on 14 year old Tracy Browne a few months before. The deviant sexual motive was similar. A white car with red markings of some vague description was seen near the scene but nobody witnessed the attack. Peter Sutcliffe had just such a car. Stefan Kiszko was arrested a few days before Christmas and stitched up by Chief Superintendent Dick Holland and the police never wished to look again at this murder eventhough it is officially an unsolved crime once again. By linking Sutcliffe to the Molseed murder now, they would be focusing on their own mistakes and would unravel a litany of frame ups and corruption. A book entitled INNOCENTS was written and published in 1997 which claimed to have the solution to the murder of Lesley Molseed but subsequent events have shown that book to be deeply flawed.

While the innocent Stefan Kiszko was in prison awaiting trial, Peter Sutcliffe attacked Marcella Claxton, a black girl who was walking home in the Ripper's chosen territory. He hit her on the head and dazed her, then masturbated and cleaned himself with tissues which he deliberately threw to the ground, knowing they matched the Molseed tissues. Such a crime must be very rare and it is surprising, to say the least that they were not compared at the time. However the police never looked at the possibility that this attack might be committed by the killer of Lesley Molseed. After all they had Kiszko in jail. They had a confession. They were confident of a conviction and that is the name of the game. The Molseed murder had been solved many years earlier by detective chief Superintendant Dick Holland who was now questioning Peter Sutcliffe about his Ripper crimes after his arrest in 1981. The Molseed murder had been solved and would not even be considered even if Sutcliffe confessed to it.

To think that there were two men in that area, at that time, both with white cars who attacked young girls and masturbated over them is stretching the imagination. It is an unheard of crime. We know Sutcliffe did the attack on Tracy Browne and Miss Claxton. I believe he should be seriously considered suspect for the Lesley Molseed murder, however with the Kiszko conviction keeping it buried for 16 years and now the book referred to above helping to divert further scrutiny, added to the fact that the semen evidence is gone missing, it is most unlikely that this will ever be considered. Dismissing the corruption charges against Dick Holland and scientist Ronald Outteridge is a further travesty. The Marcella Claxton page should be studied in conjunction with the Molseed murder.

Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean embarked on a new enquiry in 2001 when he claimed that new evidence had been unearthed. My dossier was sent to him without acknowldgement as soon as this came to my attention. As with my previous attempts over twenty years to arouse their interest, they dont want to look at the evidence I have as it would get many policemen into serious trouble.

Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean

Victims Stefan Kiszko and his mother Charlotte

The following summary of the Kiszko case is by Julian Burnside

Stefan Kiszko was convicted of murder twenty five years ago - on 21 July 1976.  The victim was11 year-old Lesley Molseed. She had been stabbed to death on the Yorkshire moors. The killer had ejaculated on her underclothes. 

Kiszko spent the next 16 years in prison. He was released in February 1992 after the decision of the Court of Appeal. He had collapsed mentally and physically.

Stefan Kiszko was innocent. Lesley Molseed's real killer has never been prosecuted.

Stefan Kiszko was the son of a German mother and a Ukrainian father who had fled to England after the second world war. They were hard-working ordinary folk who lived in Rochdale in the north country and were proud of their son when he got a job in the tax-collector's office: he was the first in the family to wear a suit and tie to work.

Stefan was a large child-man: although apparently of average intelligence, he was grossly immature because of hypogonadism – his testes were completely undeveloped. This condition was not diagnosed until he was 23. As a student, he had been the butt of schoolyard jokes; when he began work as a clerk, he became the butt of office jokes. He had no friends, and no social life beyond his parents and his aunt Alfreda. Then his father died, and he had only his mother and aunt - but he wanted nothing more. He was a lumbering, good-natured child in a man's body.

Lesley Molseed was a small, frail 11 year-old. She lived in Rochdale with her mother and step-father. On 5 October 1975, she agreed to go down to the shop to get some bread. Her body was found 3 days later, on the moors nearby. She had been stabbed 12 times. Her clothing was undisturbed, but the killer had ejaculated on her underwear. 

An enormous police investigation began when the body was found. The police took statements from over 6000 people, including girls in the Rochdale area who had seen a man indecently exposing himself during the weeks immediately before Lesley Molseed was killed; and people who had seen vehicles in the parking area near the place on the moors where the body was found.

Two girls identified Kiszko as the man who had exposed himself to them. Police quickly formed the view that Kiszko fitted the profile of the person likely to have killed Lesley Molseed. They pursued evidence which might incriminate him, and ignored leads which would have taken their enquiries in other directions. 

The police questioned Kiszko closely. They were convinced he was the murderer, and they seized on inconsistencies between his various accounts of the relevant days as further demonstration of his guilt. They paid no attention to his gross social backwardness; they did not tell him of his right to have a solicitor present; when he asked if he could have his mother present when he was questioned, they refused; they did not caution him until well after they had decided he was the prime suspect.

Kiszko made a confession, which he retracted shortly afterwards. He explained that he had confessed because the police had assured him he could go home to his mother if he told them what had happened.

* * * * * *

The trial began on 7 July 1976. Kiszko was defended by David Waddington QC and Philip Clegg. The prosecutor was Peter Taylor QC (later Taylor LCJ) with Matthew Caswell. 

The defence made 3 significant mistakes:

First, they did not seek an adjournment when the Crown delivered thousands of pages of additional unused material on the first morning of the trial. Among the additional material was a statement by a taxi driver who admitted being the person who had (inadvertently) exposed himself in front of the two girls: it was the incident which had initially attracted police attention to Kiszko; it was an incident to which he had confessed in his statement to police. It gave the clearest grounds for suspecting the reliability of Kiszko's confession.

Second, instead of seeking to exclude the confession on a voir dire, they sought to impeach its voluntariness and veracity in the course of the trial itself. This meant not only that the jury saw the confession, but also that they heard all of Kiszko's pitiable frailties and shortcomings as a human being.

Third, and most difficult to understand, they ran inconsistent defences. Kiszko had recently been put on a course of hormone treatment to deal with the consequences of his immature testes. The scientific evidence was that this could cause uncharacteristic changes of mood, although even here the defence put forward an exaggerated version of the likely effects. So the defence involved a denial that Kiszko committed the murder, coupled with a defence of diminished responsibility: "if he did it, it was because of the hormone treatment which turned him into a sex monster". It is hard to imagine how any jury could exclude the effect of the second defence from their consideration of the first. In any event, Kiszko's endocrinologist would have said (if called) that the effect of the hormone treatment was only to exaggerate existing personality traits, and that the effect of the hormones on Kiszko would certainly not have caused him to commit a crime so grotesquely at odds with his normal personality.   

Kiszko appears not to have been consulted about the second line of defence. From first to last (apart from the retracted confession) Kiszko insisted that he had never met Lesley Molseed, and did not kill her.

He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

* * * * * *

For a person convicted of sexually molesting and killing a child, life in gaol is hard. Kiszko was frequently beaten by other prisoners, and eventually retreated into a world of private delusion, in which he was the victim of an immense plot to incarcerate an innocent tax-office employee in order to test the effects of incarceration. He ultimately came to believe that even his mother was party to this elaborate conspiracy.

Meanwhile Kiszko's mother was the only person who clung tenaciously to a belief in his innocence. She pleaded his case to anyone who would listen.  She was steadfast in her certainty that Stefan was innocent. As her entreaties became more desperate and forlorn, so her audience became less receptive. But eventually, in 1987, Campbell Malone agreed to take a look at the case. He consulted Philip Clegg (who had been Waddington's junior at the trial). Clegg expressed his own doubts about the confession and the conviction. After lengthy investigations, they prepared a petition to the Home Secretary. The draft was finally ready on 26 October 1989.  On the same day, by the most remarkable coincidence, a new Home Secretary was announced: David Waddington QC MP. Despite (or perhaps because of) Waddington's exquisitely delicate position in the matter, more than a year passed before a police investigation into the conduct of the original trial was begun. 

Campbell Malone solicitor

Detective Superintendent Trevor Wilkinson was assigned to the job. After a great deal of painstaking work, Wilkinson's team of investigators discovered 4 vital things:

First, that the additional unused material disclosed to the defence on the first day of the trial included crucial evidence, but the late disclosure had made it impossible for the defence team to pursue the ramifications of that evidence; the evidence, if pursued, would have cast doubt on the reliability of the confession.

Second, the matter of the two girls who identified Kiszko as the person who had exposed himself to them. Their statements had been read to the Court; they were not cross-examined.  During the investigation in 1990, the girls (by then they were mature women) admitted that they had made up the story: they had simply seen the taxi driver urinating behind a bush.

Third, that the pathologist who examined Lesley Molseed's clothing had found sperm in the semen stains on the underwear. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court.

Fourth,that the police had taken a sample of Kiszko's semen at the time of the investigation: it contained no sperm at all.  This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court. 

It therefore became apparent that the evidence led against Kiszko had been flawed and partial, and that vital evidence had been withheld from the Court and from the defence.

These investigations culminated in an application which was heard by the Court of Appeal on 17 & 18 February 1992.  At the conclusion of the argument, the appeal was allowed.  Lane LCJ said

"It has been shown that this man cannot produce sperm. This man cannot have been the person responsible for ejaculating over the girl's knickers and skirt, and consequently cannot have been the murderer".  

On the same day, Peter Taylor QC was appointed Lord Chief Justice. He died of cancer in 1996.

Kiszko was released immediately.  He needed 9 months rehabilitation before he could go home to his mother.  He received 500,000 pounds in compensation for his 16 years in prison. However his physical and mental health had been destroyed. He died eighteen months later, aged 41. The date of his death was 23 December 1992:  exactly 18 years after his arrest. His mother died 6 months later.

The Court of Appeal decision by which Kiszko was released is not reported. So far as the legal system is concerned, the life it destroyed is nothing but a footnote in R v McKenzie.

Julian Burnside

This interesting corrospondance with Dave, may help to throw light on the Molseed case.

To: Subject: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:08:51 -0000

Hi

. I was interested in your piece at claxton naming Sutcliffe as the murderer of Lesley Molseed in 1975. I have read a lot of literature on this case and I tend to agree with the allegation that Raymond Hewlett (born Blackpool 24th January 1945), an alleged serial child sex offender was/is responsible for Lesley's murder. The evidence is quite overwhelming including testimonies from witnesses present in 1975, particularly those present on the evening of the 5th of October that year. ( the evidence given by Rosalie Dolan is particularly damning ) Unfortunately this could not be proven due to the fact that DCI Richard Holland and Doctor Ronald Outteridge had destroyed the forensic evidence which could have proved the innocence of Stefan and the guilt of the real murderer ( they were formally charged with suppressing evidence in 1994.), however I heard today that new evidence regarding this case has come to light. Why are you so certain that Sutcliff is responsible ?

Dave

From: Noel O'Gara | Block Address | Add to Address Book Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco To: DST

Hi Dave, I am not certain but there are compelling reasons for suspecting him. Your statement about the lost evidence is evidence of perhaps a more serious crime by Holland and co. Where did you get the statements you are talking about and the witness reports/ why were these witness reports not used at the time of Kiszko's trial? You should be aware that there has been a process of disinformation about this case to muddy the waters. I am showing only evidence I know of. The M.O. and the car, the times dates and places. do you think there were more attackers like Sutcliffe ? in that place at that time?

From: "DST" | Block Address | Add to Address Book To: "Noel O'Gara" Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:14:48 -0000

Hi Noel,

thanks for the reply. The statements I referred to in my earlier e mail were made by eye witnesses who saw Hewlett's van in the lane where Lesley was abducted (his van was also seen in the lay-by at the time of the murder ), their testimonies were never revealed at the trial. The most revealing statement was made by Rosalie Dolan,(she was Helett's 15 year old girlfriend at the time) she gave an alibi for Hewlett on the day of the murder. When the case was re opened in 1992 the police tracked her down to Australia and brought her back to the UK, in her new statement she gave damning evidence against Hewlett. Two of the main points of her interview were that Hewlett disappeared for two hours at the time of the murder and when he returned in a distressed state he said that he was in trouble and they should leave for Ireland immediately, which they did. (Ireland was the place Hewlett retreated to every time he committed an offence) Secondly he asked her to provide him with a false alibi in case anything should happen. Incidentally Stefan was convicted primarily on statements made by three 10 year old girls who said that he had indecently exposed himself to them just days before the murder. When these women were re interviewed again in 1992 they all confessed to making the allegations up.(I don't know how these women live with themselves) Hewlett was on the police short list of 8 prime suspects after the murder but with the arrest of Stefan the investigation was wound up. He was re arrested in 1992 and questioned about the murder. When he heard that Rosalie was in the country he confessed to his cell mate that he had done the murder and that there was a woman who could prove his guilt. However, during his interrogation he learned that the forensic evidence had been destroyed and knew that only his words could incriminate him. At that point he refused to answer any questions put to him and consequently the police ran out of time and had to release him. He still remains the prime suspect. As for the trial, DCI Holland, CS Dibb and Dr Outteridge conspired to surpress evidence that they knew could prove Stefan's innocence, they knew that the samples taken from Stefan proved that he was sterile and could not produce sperm heads, the semen taken from the body contained sperm heads. They also with held statements from the defence, which proved the whereabouts of Stefan on the day of the murder.(all the forensic evidence went missing after the trial) In 1994 Holland and Outteridge were formally charged with suppressing evidence but on May 1st 1995 magistrate Jane Hayward prevented the case from proceeding citing that because of the death of Jack Dibb the two remaining defendants could not receive a fair trial.( Holland and Outteridge both blamed Dibb for any wrong doing ) The most in-depth investigation I've read is a book called Innocents : How Justice Failed Stefan Kisko and Lesley Molseed by Jonathan Rose, Steve Panter, & Trevor Wilkinson / Hardback / Fourth Estate / 1997 (Jonathan Rose is a barrister in Leeds. Trevor Wilkinson is a former deputy chief constable who re-opened the Kiszko case, and Steve Panter is a journalist on the Manchester Evening News who knew the Kiszko family and covered the entire Kiszko story). This book gives an honest insight into events surrounding the case from start to finish, I think it's a must. You are right about the white car with the red paint being seen in the alley and at the lay-by, ot was one of seven cars the police were investigating at the time. I think you might be right about more people like Sutcliffe being in the area at that time.

Dave.

----- Original Message ----- From: Noel O'Gara To: DST Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:34:52 -0800 (PST) From: Noel O'Gara | Block Address | Add to Address Book Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco To: DST

Jonathan Rose

Steve Panter

Hi Dave.

I read about that book by Rose and Wilkinson a few years ago.I have read your letter and the facts as you outline them are just not credible. If all these sightings of the same van in the abduction spot and the murder spot at the right time were known there would have been a clear suspect. This book is misinformation, to divert the public towards Hewlitt and the evidence is lost. If the evidence stated by you were true they would be ashamed to say it.I wouldnt call that evidence. It's rather like the taxi drivers who said they saw Sutcliffe attacking Helen Rytka. Remember them? After the trial the police said they confirmed that. Where were they when Oldfield was pleading for help after the murder? This was misinformation also. I dont believe a murder investigation would be conducted like that. Also this girl who was brought back from aussieland was part of that disinformation exercise.You must ask yourself how they persuaded her to come back or what happened. It looks to me like they leaned on her to get a story to incriminate a known paedophile.Because of his record he is blackened already. He was a likely mark to blame who cannot defend himself because of his record. Why say all this when no charges can be brought. I dont buy it. People have been convicted on less.They had all these great witnesses and her evidence of the lost time in the murder spot. If Hewlit was one of 8 suspects and the police knew a van like his was seen where you say, they would not rely on the alibi of a 15 year old girl friend. they would look for other alibis. The bit about the cellmate is incredibly suspect. This kind of evidence is total fabrication or useless in a court of law and the police know it, but a gullible public swallow it. I would not be surprised if the authors are masons doing a favour for the establishment. Do you know anything about Wilkinson? Wasnt he involved in the ripper investigation? You must also ask yourself why would a barrister and cop with much to hide, at the time I was saying Sutcliffe may be the killer of Lesley Molseed, write a book with such hearsay "evidence" Where were they when poor old Stefan Kiszko was pleading his innocence? They are the pits. I must check out Wilkinsons involvement.. what do you think of my analysis?

noel

From: "DST" | Block Address | Add to Address Book To: "Noel O'Gara" Subject: Re: Stefan Ivan Kiszco Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:11:12 -0000

Hello Noel.

You raise some interesting points in your e mail, a lot of which I have to agree with though I still remain convinced that Hewlett is guilty, maybe I'm too keen to swallow the information as it is presented, I don't know. The evidence I have read seems pretty compelling, maybe some of that has been lost in my translation of the facts. The point about the van was the most frustrating part of the investigation for me, it was such a crucial part of the case and it wasn't given the appropriate attention it required.( the van was unregistered and was destroyed in Liverpool 2 days after the murder, Dolan confirmed that Hewlett was driving it on the day of the murder and that they used it to escape to Ireland ) This was the case throughout the investigation, the standard of inquiry was very poor. As a post script to this a witness claimed to have seen Lesley in a white car with red paint, on the day of the murder. As for Wilkinson, the only comment I can make is that he did right by Stefan. In November 1996 he was put in a position to expose police corruption and he didn't waiver from that, he ploughed ahead regardless of consequence when he could have easily turned a blind eye. I don't know how or what was said to entice Dolan back into the country or what her reasons were for doing so, you may have a point about the motives of both parties. I do know that at the time of the murder she wasn't required to make a statement because by the time Hewlett was picked up on another outstanding charge Stefan had confessed and so far as the police were concerned the case was closed. Hewlett, although on the short list of suspects was never questioned at the time. I think we are raising more questions than we are answering ;-) I don't think that we will ever get to know the real details of this case but I will be interested to see what the police have turned up in their recent investigations. My biggest regret in this whole sad episode is that Holland and Outteridge walked away free men.

Dave.

PS. The QC for the defence at the trial was none other than David Waddington ( went on to be Home Secretary ) and the prosecuting QC was Peter Taylor, there's your Freemason link.

Post script by Noel O'Gara.

I would suggest that the reason the evidence was destroyed in this case was because the semen matched that of Peter Sutcliffe. If this was ever found out it would open the whole Ripper case up to renewed scrutiny and Holland et al would definitely be facing serious criminal charges. The Ripper case is what they were all afraid would be uncovered. They have much to lose.Kiszko didnt have a white car while Sutcliffe did, with red upholstry to boot. Secondly all this new evidence was only looked at in 1997 when Kiszko was dead. Where were all these do gooders for the previous 20 odd years? Why should Dolans recollections of Hewlitt and his van and movements 20 years earlier be so credible and yet the case against Holland and Outteridge was dismissed because of the lapse of time? The most important thing to bear in mind about Kiszko is that the forensic evidence of the semen was not brought up at his trial and he was convicted because of his confession and a woefully inadequate legal defence team. After Kiszko's pardon they were busy hatching up an alternative solution just to cover themselves and to deflect serious investigation of this murder. None of these people gave the slightest help to Kiszko while he was detained. Their allegations might have had some credit had they been on record for years before 1992 trying to highlight a miscarriage of justice that they were aware of. Publication of their book after Kiszko's release was a dance on his grave and can only have been done to protect high up law officers and the judiciary from further scrutiny. It was meant to close the case forever to save all these peoples faces.This was an exercise in PR to end calls for a new investigation. It certainly was not written to exonerate Kiszko. I personally would have no faith in anything the police said about this case now or any new evidence they produce, because they are only concerned about covering themselves. How could anybody believe anything they produce now? With all the murders happening every year in the UK isnt it strange that they wrote a book to deliver a solution to this particular murder at this time when I began to focus attention on to Sutcliffe's involvement. The book is a dossier of speculation and hearsay, written by people who could have helped Kiszko when he was inside but only needed to do so after he was pardoned. Stever Panter, the Manchester Evening News reporter who lent his name to the book was conspicuously silent for the 16 years Kiszko was locked up.Trevor Wilkinson was a senior police officer for all that time also. Where was he then if he knew so much ? Isnt that his job ? to apprehend criminals he knows about, instead of writing a book about what might have been after Kiszko's death. David Waddington, Kiszko's defence council, who later was a Home Secretary with a vested interest in keeping Kiszko locked up was made a life peer in November 1990 and was elevated to Governor of Bermuda in August 1992, six months after Kiszko was pardoned. Rose's book certainly helped to shield him from further scrutiny of his totally incompetant defence of Kiszko. Peter Taylor , the prosecuting QC was only concerned with winning a conviction.The Judiciary put blind faith in the police then and men like Holland were looked on as heroes whose every word was believable. They were doing the dangerous job of protecting citizens from murderers and for this they got total credibility. That is why they were so incredibly cock sure and arrogant.

Finally, I want to say that Jane Hayward, stipendiary magistrate at Rochdale who threw out Holland and Outteridge's case has condemned herself, and not only is she unfit to serve as a judge but she is a disgrace to the word justice. She had an ulterior motive in dismissing this case but cited the obvious cop out.

An independant and concise account of the crime against Stefan Kiszko can be accessed on this web page.

Also the gloomy comments of legal practicioners such as Cambell Malone and Michael Mansfield on the present state of the judiciary and its propensity to fabricate convictions are borne out in the trial of Ronald Castree.

Convicted paedophile Raymond Hewlett

Moving forward to recent events

There is a sudden urgency to solve all the loose ends of the Ripper case principally the alleged hoaxer, the Preston murder and the Molseed murder. These loose ends have the potential to cast doubt on Sutcliffe's conviction and needed to be shored up by solving them. They have already framed the vulnerable alcoholic John Humble for the hoax letters and tape and there was newspaper talk about him being responsible for the murder of Joan Harrison in Preston in 1975. That is a frame up that the Lancashire police have baulked at. So far. I have put them on notice. Obviously the Northumbria police have given up their local citizen and colluded with the West Yorkshire police by keeping silent and allowing them to frame Humble. Now the Manchester police have turned in one of their own to the desperate West Yorkshire police and they are watching this debacle being played out and have chosen to remain silent in solidarity with their police colleagues.

The Molseed murder is an embarrassment to the police because of all the attention that I have drawn to it in my efforts to expose the Ripper cover up ever since Sutcliffe was arrested and convicted. The links to Sutcliffe are clear and it was not difficult to conclude that Kiszko was framed when I saw how Dick Holland had allowed the Real Ripper to get away and took the confessions of the copycat killer to close the case. This was in the light that Kiszko made his confessions under interrogation and without a solicitor. Since the exhoneration of Kiszko the police are under pressure to solve it and several years ago they said that they would reopen the investigation and they made the usual threatening sounds. Now having successfully convicted Humble with fabricated DNA evidence a charade orchestrated by the now deceased chief constable, the same police team of rogue officers now felt that they can do a similar stunt with another patsy to solve the outstanding Molseed murder. They targetted an Oldham resident, 53 year old Ronald Castree and what man could claim to be innocent if he was arrested and charged with a child sex murder in a blaze of publicity and the police were telling the media that they had found his DNA on the victim?

The frame up began with the media briefing that brought headlines in the Sun the next day effectively sealing Castree's fate before he was able to enter a plea. Headlines such as these sealed the fate of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire 7 and many other high profile cases that needed to be solved by desperate police who need to draw a line under crimes that they are unable to solve or need to solve to satisfy the public need.

DNA traps girl's 'killer' 31yrs on was the headline

The Manchester Evening News joined the herd with Comic shop owner held in hunt for killer of schoolgirl 30 years ago

Castree was born in Littleborough, where Lesley's family still lives, and went to school in neighbouring Rochdale. In 1973 he married his first wife, Beverley, and their first son, Jason, was born a fortnight before Lesley was killed proof that Ronald Castree was a normal male as far as his ability to produce semen was concerned and consequently he could not have been the man with a low sperm count who masturbated over the victim.

At the time, Mr Castree was working as a taxi driver, according to sources in the investigation, and living in Oldham, although he later worked as an administration manager before opening a market stall selling secondhand books in the 1980s.

Subsequently he specialised in selling collectible comics, opening shops trading as Arcadia Comics in Ashton-under-Lyne and Rochdale in the 1990s and making around £50,000-a-year.

Interviewed by the Daily Mail in 1994, he posed in a Batman baseball cap surrounded by hundreds of his comics and said he had been a fan of the genre since childhood.

He added: "The timeless appeal of the comic is escapism. As people increasingly need a break from real life it can only mean greater popularity for comics of all kinds."

He had two more sons by his first wife, Nicholas, now 27, and Daniel, 22, but the couple split up in the mid-1990s and Mr Castree remarried, to divorcee Karen Curtin.

She has five children by two previous relationships and the youngest, aged seven, nine and 11, are believed to have lived with her and Mr Castree.

Ronald Castree above and being taken into court

The fact that there are strong reasons to show that Peter Sutcliffe was responsible for the Lesley Molseed murder is reason enough to bury this potentially embarrassing sore spot on the police record. Any investigation in that area would shine a spotlight on Sutcliffe that they dread because it would expose his real motive for sex crimes on children and reveal to the public that he was not the Yorkshire Ripper but rather an inadequate mentally disturbed sexual predator who hated women and he became involved in the Ripper murders by police error.

I travelled to Manchester with a number of supporters and had several thousand leaflets with the following text and distributed them in the home area, the town of Shaw,Oldham and Manchester city centre and I sent a copy to Castree in jail with this letter.

Noel O’Gara,
Ballinahowen Court,
Athlone,
County Westmeath,
Ireland.
November 26th, 2006
00353906430107

THE RONALD CASTREE STITCH-UP IN PROGRESS

To Mr Ronald Castree
Remand prisoner in Armley Prison.

Dear Ronald,
I wrote a book about the Yorkshire Ripper and the Molseed murder features in it.
I am writing to you directly because I know you have no friends where you are now and please write back to say if you got my letter.
Under article 6 (1) of the European convention on human rights your human rights would be breached if the prison authorities prevented you writing to anybody or receiving letters. Keep that firmly in mind as they may try to keep you isolated in order to work on you.
I know you are innocent of the charges against you for reasons I will explain.
I’m sure you heard of the Birmingham six?
The Guildford four?
Stefan Kiszko?
Judith Ward?
Anthony Steel?
And many other innocent people who have been forced to confess to crimes.
Some corrupt police have ways of making you confess by breaking your will.
I understand you were questioned about another matter and that was probably used against you. They pick on vulnerable people and try to get confessions to crimes they really need to solve in any way possible. McLean has already been to the victim’s family and your own family and been brainwashing them that you are the killer to turn them all against you in order to leave you with no support.
Let’s face it Ronald, if they had the hard evidence that you were the killer of Lesley Molseed why would they interrogate you for 48 hours and why even ask for a confession? They have no hard evidence. All that talk about DNA is total fabrication designed to convince you that you will be convicted and then they will offer you a deal with leniency and promise you a short sentence and no trial but only if you confess. They haven’t an ounce of real evidence against you and you are vulnerable simply because you have no alibi since it happened 31 years ago.
Kiszko actually had a sound alibi but she was on holiday in Italy during his sham trial and his useless lawyers never even protested this fact. The poor fellow was clearly set up and you are in line for the same treatment now.

They tried to convince Mr Terry Hawkshaw that he was the Yorkshire Ripper and told him he may not even be aware of his Jeckyl and Hyde personality when he was in his normal mind.
So relax Ronald I can help you to prove your innocence. I know you are not responsible for that murder simply because there is a strong case that Peter Sutcliffe is the killer of Lesley Molseed and the police are desperate to conceal that line of enquiry, because they have fooled everyone into thinking that he is the Ripper rather than a lunatic copycat killer who was framed by them and they let the real Ripper get away. They need to convict a fall guy to get that murder off the books. Perhaps that explains why there has been such a lot of interest in this particular 31 year old murder when there are hundreds of unsolved murders in Britain every year. This one is special because of the Ripper.
Sutcliffe actually assaulted a 14 year old girl in Silsden near Bradford about two months before the Molseed murder. He masturbated over her also. His semen was put under the microscope and he is reported to be nearly sterile. He was unable to have children.
Would you think that there was more than one lunatic who masturbated on young girls, in that area and at that time?
You are in danger of becoming a second Kiszko now because there are a few corrupt cops who are desperate to close this case for good, just to protect themselves for letting the real Ripper get away.
The Real Yorkshire Ripper, Billy Tracey, a man who used to work for me is still at large and living freely in London.
They are capable of framing you by saying they have DNA evidence that is so infinitely minute that nobody could verify it, but remember that the evidence if they have any, has been so contaminated with chemicals etc by so many experts and handlers over many years that it is impossible to prove, but they will not tell you that. All the evidence was destroyed about 15 years ago probably by Dick Holland who was going to trial himself for framing Kiszko and now they are saying that this evidence has reappeared. They will lie like hell to convince you that you did it and that they can prove it, even if they haven’t a scrap of proof. Don’t fall into their trap.
They framed Sutcliffe as the Ripper.
They framed Richard Webb as the killer of Josephine Gross Nicklaus.
They framed Anthony Steel as the killer of Carole Wilkinson.
They framed Stefan Kiszko as the killer of Lesley Molseed.
They framed Judith Ward as the bus bomber.
They framed John Humble as the hoaxer.
They would love to frame Humble as the killer of Joan Harrison in
Preston.
Now they are trying to frame you as the killer of Lesley
Molseed because that unsolved murder appears to have Sutcliffe's prints all over it. It’s not an impressive record for the West Yorkshire police, so bear it in mind.

Now the main points that proved you are innocent are as follows and you should study them carefully.

1. Alleged evidence of new techniques of getting a DNA profile is a blatant lie to fool suspects into confessing. Particularly as in this case the evidence, ie clothes of the victim was destroyed.
2. After 31 years anyway the sample if indeed we were to believe that there was some still in existence, would be unidentifiable because of the time lapse and natural erosion, obsolescence and decomposition of everything over time in this natural world we inhabit. They will tell you otherwise and they won’t tell you about how vulnerable any evidence is to contamination by police handlers, laboratory technicians or store keepers who organize the boxes of evidence.
3. Records of the semen that was used to convict Kiszko could be used by you to prove that it doesn’t match your semen type because as I recall that semen was almost sterile while Kiszko was completely sterile. Your semen is most likely very prolific and the proof is that you have several children. Kiszko was incapable of producing children by his semen. That evidence alone would eliminate you for this murder and this is something McLean overlooked in his rush to frame you.
4. 48 hours of interrogation. They said ‘questioning’ but you know that is not the correct word for it. If they had the evidence to prove you were the killer why question you at all?
5. The team of police and scientists who are involved in your arrest are the same team who framed John Humble with fake DNA as the Ripper hoaxer. Humble was a drunk and he attempted to murder his own brother and that’s how they forced him to cooperate and confess to being the hoaxer but he did not write the letters.
6. The rogue cop, Max McLean, most likely planted your DNA on something they claim is belonging to the victim, so watch out for him. There are a lot of decent cops out there trying to do their best but a few bent ass holes like him screw them all up and does them all a grave disservice. He is controlling your case, just as Chris Gregg controlled Humble’s case.
7. Can you remember the car you had if any at the time of the murder? They were looking for a Morris?, a white car with red markings of some kind?. The killer had to be a motorist to get to that outlying area. Perhaps you didn’t even have a car or a drivers license then?
8. I read that your lawyer is Jonathan Rose. If that is true you need a different lawyer. He co-wrote a book with a policeman in 1997, after Kiszko died, blaming Raymond Hewlett as the killer of Lesley Molseed. He was wrong with that too but it was done at the time to take suspicion away from Sutcliffe. Be careful Ronald, you are surrounded by poisonous snakes. The only reason they couldn’t charge Hewlett at that time was because all the evidence was destroyed but now it seems McLean has personally resurrected it and I tell you he is a blatant liar. He is used to this all through his career so its easy for him to lie because he has gotten away with so many stitch ups in the courts and lying to the press.

9. The sub microscopic DNA they claim to have is a fabrication. How could they get that if they don’t have the original semen samples that were used in the Kiszko case to convict him? This new alleged DNA is supposed to be an infallible print but it has to come from the semen left on the victims clothing and that shows a sperm count different to yours. It’s a lie and they don’t have any such thing so you let them prove it to a jury and their bluff will be called. However they will drop the charges before that happens. If there was enough honest police in the force they would arrest the rogue McLean for attempting to frame you before it goes any further not to mention the way he has misled them.

10. It was reported that you were arrested twelve months before this latest arrest on another matter and DNA was then taken from you. If their DNA evidence was half as good as they pretend it is, why did it take them nine months to identify you as the killer? For the past three years they have been saying that they can eliminate a suspect very quickly with a simple swab test.
Ronald, you are in serious trouble with a gang of liars who will lie and cheat just to get a conviction and get that murder off their unsolved list. Will you please write to me when you get this letter and I would be willing to travel to Leeds and meet you but you must give consent first. Finally, be careful who you talk to there as McLean is liable to plant a snitch in with you to testify against you and he will lie that you confessed the Molseed murder to him if he is promised early release.

Noel O’Gara

PS.
I have sent a copy of this letter to your MP’s, the judge, the local newspapers and other media and also to the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Colin Cramphorn.

Colin Cramphorn, a fit man of 50 dropped dead on the 30th November after he read this letter because he knew at that moment that the coordinated stitch up that he had been instrumental in supervising of John Humble and Ronald Castree was about to fall apart. Nobody drops dead from prostate cancer and especially not a fit policeman who would be getting the best of medical attention and who would have left his job if it was advanced. Cramphorn died of shock and horror with a seizure after a blazing row with Det Chief Superintendant Max McLean who was blaming him. He was still serving in office eventhough they were looking for a replacement for him. Had he been so ill as to be unfit for office from prostate cancer then he would not have been at work. The established media put it about that he died from prostate cancer but we all know that people dont just drop dead from that. Mr Cramphorn would have had access to the finest medical treatment in the UK and if he had been deemed unfit for work it is obvious that he would have stepped down regardless of his replacement not being found.

Hopefully Castree's lawyers will not engage in a plea bargain for his confessions as Humble's lawyers did. The lawyer is only interested in a deal because he will believe the DNA evidence and refuse to believe that the police have planted it. Under those circumstances Castree will be told that if he fights the charges he will risk losing before a jury who will believe the police evidence and he could be locked up for the rest of his life. The alternative is to plead guilty with diminished responsibility and the police will help him get a lenient sentence for cooperating therby not putting the family of the victim to the pain and trauma of reliving the murder and for that he will not have a trial. Such is the anatomy of a frame up for murder and it is a tried and tested science that is known only to the corrupt policeman who will secure a conviction at any cost because he feels that the man is a criminal anyway and he deserves no better. Such twisted logic has led to many hundreds of frame ups in Britain over the years but it has also been a green light for the real killer who knows how the authorities solve their crimes.

It must be a very trying time for any person accused in the wrong and most especially when they are being deliberately framed up with fabricated evidence.

It is almost a repeat of the Kiszko frame up except that this time there are more players in the police and they are relying on DNA science which is almost impossible to refute because of the cost of hiring expert witnesses and the esteem that DNA is held in by the general public who have not been informed about its vulnerability to contamination and to being simply planted within the crime scene evidence by a rogue cop who miracoulously is able to direct an unwitting scientist to rediscover it. That is what happened in the Humble case and short of having the financial resources of O J Simpson, he couldnt counter that level of evidence.

Mr Castree spoke in court only to confirm his name at the 30-minute court hearing.

Lesley's parents and other family members sat in the packed public gallery along with police officers who are using them as PR pawns in their game of fooling the general public.

Jonathan Rose, the lawyer who helped write the book about the Molseed murder and Kiszko referred to above is defending him and he made an application for bail but The Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen Gullick, postponed his decision until Monday.

Bail was refused later and Mr Castree was remanded in custody and is expected to stand trial on 22 October.

Imagine having a lawyer like Jonathan Rose defending your life and liberty, a man whose record is tarnished in this very case and who has a vested interest in having the case solved at any price just to clear his own name.

This frame up attempt on Ronald Castree must be viewed in the overall context of the aftermath of the Yorkshire Ripper case.
The conviction of Sutcliffe is so fatally flawed and it is well known today by most informed people within the UK media, the police and the authorities that Sutcliffe is not responsible for all the murders that he confessed to, the obvious corollary being that the real Ripper remains free and at liberty with their knowledge.
The police like to draw a line under these high profile murder cases and a conviction in court is that guarantee of closure for them regardless of the veracity or safety of that conviction. They can always say that a court found them guilty. That ends the matter as far as they are concerned and perhaps explains why I was sidelined for so long.
As the years went by and my book exposing this serious police crime became more widely known and with the advent of the internet on which there is a comprehensive web site that explains this amazing story in great depth, and as men and women convicted of murders were released from prisons under the misnomer ‘miscarriage of justice’ it became imperative for the police to close off some obvious loopholes in the Ripper case in order to bolster the case against Sutcliffe and basically to ensure the credibility and safety of the police which has been eroded so much by the revelation of so many false convictions or ‘frame ups by corrupt police’ as they should be called.

These loose ends to the Ripper case created a pressing need to find the man responsible for sending the letters and a tape recording to George Oldfield, later branded as a hoaxer because Sutcliffe obviously didn’t fit the bill due to his handwriting, accent and denials of that.
Until Sutcliffe’s arrest in 1981 and confessions without a trial, the Preston murder was firmly in the Ripper frame as was the certainty that it was the Ripper who sent the letters and tape to Oldfield.

John Humble fitted this pressing need because he was a down and out alcoholic Geordie about the correct age and with no family support who had a criminal record and because he was vulnerable to facing charges of attempted murder of his own brother, so he was selected as a mark for that and he was blackmailed into doing a deal with the police in exchange for his confessions without a trial and the murder rap was dropped by the police.
The next obvious loose end was the unsolved murder of Joan Harrison in Preston in 1975 and it is my belief that Humble was targetted to be framed for that murder also but my emails to the Lancashire police departments and public notice boards mainly with the help of the internet along with my supporters help have prevented that from coming to fruition.
The pardoning of Anthony Steel for the murder of Carole Wilkinson in Bradford means that this murder is an unsolved case again and that is a major worry for the police because the evidence shows that Peter Sutcliffe was responsible for this murder and he has never been questioned about it for obvious reasons. It would undermine his conviction as the Ripper and focus attention on him as a copycat killer.
Another loose end emerged with the release and exhoneration of Stefan Kiszko in February 1992 for the murder of Lesley Molseed in 1975. Following on from the release of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven, the judiciary were obliged to recognize that the public no longer trusted the police as in the past and it was inevitable that Stefan Kiszko would be pardoned much to the dismay of the police. He had been framed for that murder by corrupt policemen and with the full complicity of many others involved both in the judiciary, the CPS, the forensic scientists and the police force. His framing was blatant, perverse, deliberate and his alibi was discarded by his own lawyer David Waddington QC and later leader of the House of Lords. Waddington destroyed him in court by accepting a plea of diminished responsibility which effectively amounted to an admission even though Kiszko always denied involvement in the crime.
An article in the Manchester Evening News dated the day Ronald Castree was arrested explains the background to the Kiszko case and the clear evidence known at the time but suppressed by all parties including his own defence.

In an article published the same day the newspaper reported about the arrest of Castree and misleadingly suggested that it was DNA that caused Kiszko to be released and pardoned and the implication is that it was police who instigated his release which couldnt be further from the truth.

One must bear in mind that Steve Panter who wrote for that newspaper was the main author of the book ‘Innocents’ in conjunction with Detective Superintendant Trevor Wilkinson and Lawyer Jonathan Rose and he worked in concert with the police who use him or abuse him if you prefer, because of his position in that important artery of information, to massage public opinion in the direction they want and he of course feeds off the back of these tit bits of confidential police information which most crime journalists crave.

The police were desperate to solve that newly unsolved murder because of its connection to Peter Sutcliffe the man that the whole world believed was the Yorkshire Ripper and any link with him could shine a spotlight on his real role as a copycat killer who was framed by that same policeman for the Ripper’s murders as well as his own crimes one of which most likely was the Molseed murder.
In 1993 the police focused their attention on known child molester Raymond Hewlett and in January 1993 tried to frame him for the Molseed murder but didn’t succeed.
Following this failure they tried to convince the public that Hewlett had escaped justice because the vital evidence they needed to secure the conviction had been inadvertently lost or destroyed. To achieve this they conspired together to write a book entitled ‘Innocents’ published in 1997 which sought to blame Hewlett for the Molseed murder.

The following are extracts from the book INNOCENTS
“Detective Superintendent Wilkinson was acting in frustration; the frustration of a detective who knows he has got his man, but cannot quite seal the case.”
When Hewlett realised that the five slides obtained from Lesley Molseed had been mislaid, his confidence grew, and he actually remonstrated with the officers that he could have been eliminated from the enquiries had those samples not been lost”
“From the underwear, what appears to be semen stains. He (Ronald Outteridge) makes up microscopic slides from these stains and looks further: his initial belief is confirmed. He can see sperm heads. He applies the test then in use to record the amount of heads: +H is the lowest, ++++H the highest. He writes ‘+H’ in his notes. There is a low sperm count given the large area of seminal staining.”
“He (Raymond Hewlett) married Susan Ginley in 1963. Over the next five years she was to give him four children whilst he was to give her increasingly long breaks from his attentions, as he spent more and more time in prison, for offences ranging from dishonesty to possession of a firearm.”
Clearly the ‘+H’ semen could not be Ronald Castree’s or Raymond Hewlett’s when they both have fathered many children. Sutcliffe on the other hand never fathered any children and failed to get an erection even after ten minutes of fondling by the prostitute he was with the night of his arrest. His behaviour masturbating on Marcella Claxton and with the 14 year old Tracy Browne indicates that he couldn’t achieve an erect penis and penetrate a female in the normal sense.
“The file was given intense consideration (by the Crown Prosecution Service special case unit in London) but at a conference held in January1993,Detective Superintendent Trevor Wilkinson and his trusted lieutenant Detective Chief Inspector Bernard Browse were informed that, in view of the absence of an admission from the suspect, the evidence was not sufficient to guarantee that Hewlett would be convicted of Lesley’s murder”
“All the witnesses amassed by Detective Superintendent Trevor Wilkinson’s team, including the prison inmates, signed statements to support the prosecution of Raymond Hewlett.”
“Dick Holland in an interview with the Manchester Evening News’ said, ‘I did an honest and professional job. I didn’t stitch up Stefan Kiszko.’
In July 1994 Detective Superintendent, Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge were acquitted of framing-up Stefan Kiszko. The following is an extract from INNOCENTS “In July 1994 Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge, the leading forensic scientist in the Kiszko case were formally charged with suppressing evidence in the case against Kiszko, namely the results of scientific tests on semen taken from Lesley’s clothing and on the semen samples given by Kiszko. The case against the two men progressed slowly through the Magistrates’ Court at Rochdale, moving inexorably towards a committal and an undoubtedly high profile trial in the Crown Court. But on May Day 1995 the case was challenged in the Magistrates’ Court, barristers for both defendants arguing before the Stipendiary Magistrate. Jane Hayward, that the case was an abuse of process. Jayne Hayward was a professional magistrate, a lawyer with the knowledge and experience to consider with care the arguments placed before her. The argument was that the case should not be allowed to progress any further, but should be stayed, because the passage of time since the events alleged made a fair trial impossible. Jayne Hayward listened with care to the arguments on both sides before ruling that proceedings should be stayed against both Holland and Outteridge, on the basis that they could not receive a fair trial.”
13 years farther on Ronald is now being managed for a stitch-up and they are using the most modern scientific evidence of DNA a science which is absolutely dependant on honest handling.
As in the case of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4 and the Maguire 7 the scientific evidence is very suspect but because of the nature of that it is often beyond the capacity of an accused person to challenge it and people believe that it is solid evidence.
But the slides containing the vital semen samples of the killer have gone missing and it is my belief that they were destroyed to break the link to Peter Sutcliffe.
Had they been available at the trial of Raymond Hewlett they would have exonerated him and indeed would have been capable of aiding the prosecution of Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge.
The new alleged DNA must come from some part of the killer’s anatomy, what else only that lost seminal fluid preserved on slides.
How Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean has managed to resurrect this magical DNA from the lost slides is a mystery that he will have to explain in court. His poking around forensic science laboratories looking for lost evidence is something that is far from reassuring in the fight against crime and the finding of this lost evidence will take some convincing particularly after it was lost for the trial of Hewlett in 1993 and the others in 1994, particularly after the way the scientists were exposed as being complicit in concealing evidence in the cases referred to above.

It is imperative for Ronald to start protesting his innocence right now, rather than waiting to do that from a prison cell after a guilty verdict and over many years because he is not just fighting corrupt and lying policemen but an uncaring and vindictive prosecution team whose only goal is to win a conviction even if it means hiding vital evidence that would acquit him, not to mention putting his trust in a judge who may be living in the clouds.
Remember that all the victims of miscarriages of justice in the past believed that they would be cleared or found to be not guilty by the courts because while they didn’t trust the police anymore, they trusted the system and the judges, a system that worked against them.
At all times Ronald should proclaim that he is being framed by corrupt police for a crime he didn’t commit, because silence on this matter plays into the hands of those police. That is what they want. Ever since he was arrested the general public can only assume that he is guilty because of his failure to protest.
If Ronald says repeatedly and loudly and at every opportunity that he is innocent and being framed, the general public will take more interest and be more questioning as to whether he is guilty because the media will report those claims.
Protests of innocence are much stronger than a not guilty plea on its own.
Protests of being framed are unheard of because lawyers would never allow a client to say that, but this case will be ground breaking because of the wealth of evidence that is available to prove that claim.

The police case rests with alleged DNA alone and no other evidence, so let them put their case to the jury with what we know is fabricated DNA and being spun by a lot of liars, some knowingly and some innocently or recklessly perhaps, ie by scientists who have unflinching faith in the honesty of policemen and don’t realize that they are being used by liars whom they trust.
In the defense we can show how fragile and flimsy the whole process is by going into great detail on how that evidence was found, where it remained in storage for 31 years, how secure it was, and all the steps that were taken to the point where a match came on Ronald.

The fact that Ronald amongst many other suspects was swabbed 9 months prior to a match will weigh heavily in his defense and this stark fact alone is capable of undermining the authenticity and reliability of that alleged DNA.
Everyone knows that a DNA match can be done in a matter of a few weeks and once that is matched an arrest is inevitable. Why wait for nearly a year if you have the hard evidence?
Ronald should also tell how the police tried to damn him with his own family and friends as they swamped him with blame without any reason.
His defence will lie in undermining the credibility of the police who are accusing him and he must forcibly contend that the alleged DNA evidence has to be fabricated by liars.
There could be no other reason because he is innocent. They will not be able to prove that it is reliable because of the number of hands it has passed through, the passage of time and the risk of contamination. These three areas are ones in which a potentially honest mistake can be made but overshadowing that is the deliberate contamination by corrupt policemen who are bent on trying to frame him for the murder. That is his defence and the evidence supports that claim.

Great play will have to be made about the Kiszko case and how it was always clear that an innocent man was framed by corrupt police, the CPS officials and defence lawyers were all complicit in their negligence, as of course was the judge who oversaw the trial.
The book Innocents by Steve Panter of the Manchester Evening News and Jonathan Rose and Trevor Wilkinson a senior policeman will have to be read by the jury. That is an imperative, because of the evidence of the failed police attempt to frame Raymond Hewlett for that same murder.

Anthony Steel’s case can be used as evidence of police frame ups so that there is no denying that deliberate frame-ups happen. It would be great if we could locate him.
We must show that these are not mistakes of the judiciary but deliberate crimes against innocent people who are seen as vulnerable by corrupt policemen. The term ‘miscarriage of justice’ must be replaced by the term ‘police crime’ and demands for fresh independent police to oversee the corrupt police should be made.

Great play has been made about the semen and the low count of sperm heads in the sample taken from the victim only after Kiszko had spent fifteen years in jail but one has to wonder whether this semen or seminal fluid also yielded the blood group of the killer and whether in fact that was the real reason that the evidence was kept from the jury in the trial of Kiszko. We may never know this as the evidence has been destroyed for obvious reasons but my belief is that it matched the disturbed copycat killer Peter Sutcliffe who had similarly assaulted a fourteen year old girl in Silsden Bradford only a few months prior to the Molseed murder. This dangerous killer had committed this crime just across the border within the Yorkshire police area while the investigation was centred on the Rochdale area in Greater Manchester. That investigation was under the control of the Yorkshire police who were unfamiliar with the area but the location of a body determines the police responsibility for the subsequent investigation. Sutcliffe was known to be very critical of the police and their methods and was deeply involved in trying to hijack the Ripper investigation as he engaged in a battle of wits with both the police and the real Ripper, a battle he lost when he admitted that after the Leach murder he had lost the battle. His poem titled CLUELESS and signed "The Streetcleaner" sent to the Sheffield Star shortly before his arrest sums up his frustration with the police.

K Lintern may be available to show how the police refused to investigate her evidence about the unsolved murder of Carole Wilkinson now that Steel has been exonerated and it has been recognized that he was framed.

The jury will have to read my book The Real Yorkshire Ripper and related articles about John Humble.
We will produce Humble’s letter to the jury and compare it to the Ripper’s letters and discuss the Humble frame up.

The Ripper's handwriting

Humble's handwriting

Judith Ward will be asked to give evidence against the police and show how George Oldfield framed her for multiple murders.
Marcella Claxton will be in court to give her account of her treatment. She no longer believes that she is a Ripper victim after reading my book.

Michael Bilton’s article stating how a perplexed but honest policeman Detective Alan Foster refused to burn all the evidence that he was ordered to do by the chief Constable will be sub poenaed to give that evidence in court. This honest cop was ordered to burn all the evidence gathered against Peter Sutcliffe. Does that not tell a story that they were covering their tracks in case of any appeal or reinvestigation of the case. The Molseed evidence was similarly destroyed deliberately to conceal the truth.

Basically the defence of Ronald will lie in undermining the credibility of the West Yorkshire police who prosecute this case.

Their evidence will be seen as worthless fabricated evidence and they will be effectively on trial.
There are a lot of decent and good cops out there and they need to see the light. We will be calling for the arrest of Max McLean and his assistant and they should face charges of conspiring to pervert the course of justice just like Dick Holland was.
Ronald does not need to talk about his own background but confine his defence to attacking their credibility which is threadbare and totally exposed and the vast majority of the British public now have little trust in them in any case.

Sutcliffe was seen loitering on the Ravenscliffe Estate in Bradford on numerous occasions, and visited Kay Lintern’s house, which is located just opposite Carol Wilkinson's home. This was reported to detective Danny Bolton in Bradford police station but he failed to act on the information.

For this full Report By Mark Metcalf. go to articles and click on the Sutcliffe article.
‘Was Peter Sutcliffe responsible for the murder of Carol Wilkinson in Bradford in 1977’?

In 2005 news leaked from Broadmoor mental hospital that Sutcliffe has sensationally claimed that he wrote a book about his crimes and he is adamant that he is not the Ripper and says that he didnt do all the murders but his book will never see the light of day for obvious reasons. Meanwhile the real Ripper remains free while the police are still engaged in shoring up their greatest blunder in criminal history.

This web page has been created by Noel O'Gara the author of the book the Real Yorkshire Ripper to help Mr Castree and to inform the public of the serious corruption of the justice system that he has encountered.

My colleague Patrick Cullinane arranged a visit to Ronald Castree so that we may convey these details to him.

Patrick Cullinane

Ronald told us that a bail application was due to be heard shortly and was hoping that it would succeed so that he could prepare his defence in freedom.

As a result of our meeting Mr Castree signed an authorisation giving Patrick Cullinane authority to legally represent him and said that if the current bail application is rejected that Patrick should then take over immediately his legal affairs.

Authority signed by Ronald Castree during a prison visit making P Cullinane his legal advocate. This was witnessed by the author Noel O'Gara. It was an authorisation that alarmed the judges who took steps to frustrate Castree's wishes.

Patrick Cullinane, George Westcott and the writer Noel O'Gara waited in the hall of the court to hear this second bail application on behalf of Ronald Castree. There were two policemen waiting outside the court which had a sign hanging on the door with the word COURTROOM SEALED. When the court usher opened the door about five minutes before the appointed time, the policemen entered and we followed them in. There were two young female journalists already sitting just opposite the area of 12 seats reserved for the public. The courtroom is a main hall with an elevated podium on which the judge sits and under his gaze lies the well of the court which is not visible from the public gallery so that the lawyers cannot be observed by the public. The defendant is brought in by a back door in chains and sits directly in front of the judge about twenty five feet away and with the lawyers in the middle and he cannot be seen unless one stood up and leaned in over the partition. The public and press gallery is a small room on one side of that main hall. It is designed so that the public have a very limited view of proceedings.

We sat in the front row of seats and immediately one of the policemen asked us to vacate them as he said he was reserving them for the family of the victim. We refused to move as it would be impossible to observe anything from the back seats and Patrick would have no chance to make his application from that position. As it was we were unable to see the judge unless we stood up, so we told the policeman that we would not move and we had a right to come and sit where we chose as we were interested in this case. I asked him for his name and he refused to give it just saying that he was a detective in the West Yoorkshire force. Then I asked him if he would be interested in knowing the wherabouts of the Real Yorkshire Ripper Billy Tracey and he wouldnt answer me. Shortly after that the family members came in with more policemen including Max McLean who sat with them at the back of the small public gallery and then the judge entered and the case commenced and it became obvious that the lawyers had already been in the well of the court as were the journalists while it was supposedly sealed.

Mr Stephen Couch barrister for Mr Castree who replaced Jonathan Rose submitted his bail application in quiet tones before justice McKinnon and such a weak and half hearted argument one would be hard pressed to replicate. Couch's application had already been lodged in court and no doubt the judge had read it before he entered and had his replying judgement already written down for a later delivery, but the show was put on for the consumption of the press, the family members of Lesely Molseed and the wider public.

Judge McKinnon then read out a long harangue about the seriousness of the charges and actually blamed Ronald Castree for contributing to Stefan Kiszko's long sentence in prison without a word of blame for the judge, the scientists, the CPS lawyers who prepared the case and police who framed him and denied him his basic human rights. Then he rejected the application and Castree was taken immediately from the court without another word.

If ever there was a prejudiced judge hearing a bail application this surely was evidence of it and judge McKinnon will forever have it on his record.

Patrick stood up immediately he had finished and asked the judge if he had read his application and he retorted that he saw it and he stated "you have no standing in this court" and he got up and left the room. If McKinnon had been an honest judge he would have recalled Castree immediately and asked him what was the status of Patrick Cullinane but he didnt want to do that because he is engaged in the conspiracy to frameCastree.

Max McLean and another six foot six plain clothes colleague stood up when the Molseeds left the room and I said to him "Max You should be arrested" and Patrick repeated it. Max didnt respond and left the room.

Outside the courtroom we went to the court office and Patrick asked the lady if he could put in an emergency application for bail for his client and she said it was not possible as it would have to be one month more before another application could be lodged.

Then we returned to the court and I took out my mobile phone to take a photo of the group of policemen who had been in court as they were still standing near the courtroom. I held it up and took one picture from a distance of about thirty feet and looked at it and it was impossible to identify anyone on that small picture. That was the only photo I took and later when we were down in the office again that policeman who now identified himself as Detective Steven Ridge asked us to come into the office and when there he said we had been taking photos and that was contempt of court.

We all denied it and then when I saw he was serious I told him that I took one picture and he was looking at me as I took it. He later stated in court in evidence that he saw me take a picture. Another policeman came to his assistance and they searched us and found a dictaphone in Patrick's pocket. I again told them both that I wrote a book entitled the Real Yorkshire Ripper and gave them a brief summary of the allegations in it and asked them if they would like to know where the real Ripper is right now. They didnt want to know anything about it. Three of us were arrested for contempt of court and brought upstairs where we were handcuffed and taken to a cell to await our fate. Myself, Patrick Cullinane who is the authorised legal caseworker for Ronald Castree and George Westcott, a man from Somerset who read my book and is concerned that the real Ripper be apprehended and for that reason he accompanied us to the bail application in Bradford.

We were held for most of the day in a cell over the court and all our possessions were taken from us immediately including our phones pens papers etc. We were taken in handcuffs to the court at about 4.0pm that afternoon and judge Gullick the Recorder for Bradford sat facing us about twenty five feet away. We were behind a bulletproof glass screen and he stated that 'we had been found to be recording and taking photographs in court and that is a very serious crime punishable by up to two years inprisonment.' Patrick said that he should stand down as he had a conflict of interest and he rejected that. I stated that we had done nothing wrong and he rejected that also. George Westcott had done nothing other than that he happened to be with us and judge Gullick trampled on his rights also. He ordered that we be remanded in custody and should appear in his court next morning and he would deal with the case next afternoon when his case load was finished. He advised us to agree to accept legal aid and we said that we felt it unnecessary. He was very threatening in his tone and manner and it was obvious that he knew our involvement in the Castree case and he knew all about me and my book the Real Yorkshire Ripper because I had written to him telling him and I had also sent him a copy of the letter I sent to Ronald Castree which is reproduced earlier in this web page. Patrick had sent him a submission two weeks earlier which included this web page so there is no doubt that he was well briefed on us and our involvement in helping Ronald Castree to prevent him from turning into another Stefan Kiszko. Gullick had been the judge who remanded Castree in court back in November and he had also rejected his bail application put by Jonathan Rose in April, so clearly he knew all about us and our allegations about the framing of Castree and for those reasons he should have stood down in this case.

judge Gullick

Next day we were brought to court after a night in Keighley police station where we had to lay on a concrete floor on a tiny plastic mattress with food that a dog would not eat.. Enough said about that. We were taken in a horse box style wagon to Bradford court and held in a smaller cell from where we were taken in handcuffs to see Gullick and inform him that we would accept his lawyers. Then he handed us a charge sheet unsigned and which he had made up and a copy was passed back to each of us. We had to wait in that cell all day without food until Gullick was ready and about an hour before that we were taken to meet the lawyers who were surprised that such a big deal was being made of such a trivial matter. They all assured us that we would be released that afternoon and at least we would get bail so that we could prepare a defence if they wanted to take it further. They could see that our human rights had been violated by Gullick but they were too much afraid of him to broach that in court. After all they have a career in those court rooms and falling foul of a senior judge would not help that one bit.

Then they went to meet the policemen and judge Gullick and when they met us a second time the story was very different. They were told that one photo was taken by me with my mobile phone outside the court room and I insisted that this did not amount to any contempt of the court. Patrick Cullinane told his legal team that Gullick had a conflict of interest and another judge should be enlisted. They returned to the court without us and then we were taken to them a third time for further consultaiton. Then we were taken to the court room and the case got underway with Gullick directing the proceedings. The barristers were in awe of the judge and mine never mentioned that I was the author of the book 'The Real Yorkshire Ripper' despite my instructing her to say that. Detective Ridge perjured himself by stating on oath twice that we had been seen filming in court. Our lawyers never challenged him on that and we were not asked to speak and were kept outside the proceedings in reality.

The second policeman detective constable Sherwood from the North Yorkshire force came to the stand to give evidence and the judge told him not to bother swearing in and read out his notes of sergeant Ridge's evidence and then asked him if that was correct. Sherwood said that was it and he was dismissed. Both policemen had been waiting in the court room together and that is a breach of process that Gullick oversaw. The barristers made a few observations saying that we had been punished enough. The judge retired and when he returned he read out a long judgement emphasising the seriousness of the crime and how sinister it was that a tape recording could be used for many other purposes. Then he accepted that George Westcott should be freed as there was no evidence of crime against him. He sentenced me to fourteen days in jail. Then he launched into a rant about how he wanted to take Patrick Cullinane out ot the way of interfering with Ronald Castree's trial and to achieve that he sentenced him to four months imprisonment. Castree's trial is scheduled to start on 22nd October before judge Openshaw and it was reported that it will take 9 weeks. This is more evidence that they will just muddy the waters talking about matters that are only designed to confuse the jury when we all know that if they had real solid DNA that could not be assailed as contaminated or fabricated then they would be able to produce that to a juey in hours rather than days or months as they have planned.

Such summary justice was a shock to us all but it vividly showed us how the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire 7, Stefan Kiszko and many others could be framed up by a judge who was clearly prejudiced against them. This was a criminal judge in action who abused his position of authority and perverted the process of justice to satisfy his own prejudices. He accepted the lies of the police and treated us as criminals when we were trying to prevent a miscarriage of justice from taking place.

Stephen Gullick is a corrupt judge of the worst kind who is a disgrace to the bench and by his actions he has brought shame on the whole British judiciary. The recording of the record is simply a record of the true words spoken in the court and one can only wonder why he would regard that as a crime. What crime is he trying to hide? The crime of framing Ronald Castree! Gullick has demonstrated that he is engaged in that conspiracy between judge McKinnon, the West Yorkshire police and the Crown prosecution service who are bent on framing Castree for that murder to conceal the many other cover ups that the Ripper case threatens to expose. A judge who facilitates corrupt policemen who lie on oath in court and who suppresses true facts and prevents the defendant from talking is a corrupt man and stands exposed for his corruption here. A judge who is not a barrier to prevent corrupt and lying policmen from making false charges against a person is worse than those liars. Such a man is judge Stephen Gullick of Bradford crown court. the O J Simpson case for example demonstrates how the cameras and recorders are allowed in the American courts. At least the USA are not actively trying to cover up the goings on in court. In Britain there is much to hide as the convictions of those miscarriages already referred to shows. The courts never apologised to the innocent people wrongly convicted but referred to them as unsafe when they were in fact deliberate frame ups and the judges failed miserably to do their job.

The experience of our own miscarriage of justice has shown us vividly how corrupt judges and policemen can pervert justice and do grave damage to the whole system. They turned a simple matter of recording the goings on in their court into a crime and deprived us of our basic human rights and they committed crimes against us by perverting that system while they were busy trying to frame an innocent man, Ronald Castree, for a murder that they desperately need to have solved.

Judge Gullick has a record of misguided judgements such as the John Roberts murder where he gave a killer less than two years for murder and he sentenced Patrick Cullinane to four months for recording his own corrupt practices in court.

All this and the real Ripper still walking the streets of London and the real bombers still at large but nobody in authority wants to know because of the way the system works. They are too busy trying to deal with cases that need to be solved and the Molseed murder is one pressing need. Thats why the police had chaperoned the family into court and use them to convince the general public that the killer has been found. These people had only some years earlier threatened to sue Raymond Hewlett because the police baulked at charging him with the murder. The police knew he was innocent but they had already convinced them that they knew he was the guilty party but didnt have enough evidence to charge him and the DNA was lost. Now in 2007 they clapped hands and sighed with relief behind us when they heard judge McKinnon refuse bail to Ronald Castree.

Lets hope that judge Openshaw is not as corrupt as his colleagues judges Gullick and McKinnon who clearly are conspiring together to ensure Castree's conviction for the police by denying him bail and thereby giving him a fair chance to prepare a defence.

The internet is the weapon that will ensure that they cannot hide their crimes. It is the new court of public opinion that scares the evil doers who need to hide their crimes by preventing photography and recording in their courts where they manipulate events to get their planned conviction. I sincerely hope judge Openshaw had acquainted himself with it so that he can study this web site and look at the real evidence although he has admitted to being a dummy when it comes to computers. click on his name.

judge Openshaw

I received a letter on the 18th October from Adrian Marshall, the manager of Bradford crown court informing me that judge Openshaw, the judge assigned to preside over the Castree case, has made an order that I am barred from entering Bradford crown court until 31st December 2007.
I wonder what the judge is trying to hide from the public and what crime I committed to get such an order?
Why would he do this to a citizen of the Irish republic?

Castree's trial is due to commence next Monday and now I cant attend. What a shame as I am a witness who could clear Castree's name and now the judge wont have it.
By stopping me attending the trial of Ronald Castree, judge Openshaw is perverting the course of justice and it is proof that he is engaged in a conspiracy with his colleagues judges Gullick and McKinnon to enable the rogue cop Max McLean to stitch up an innocent man with fake DNA.
If Openshaw were an honest man why would he be afraid of someone's evidence?
Surely a judge has the job of encouraging evidence to come forward rather than stifle it?
These are trying times and while the judges control and manage their victims in their courts, they themselves to be on trial out here in the great court of public opinion where all evidence can be put forward.

Patrick Cullinane had a similar letter on 19th October just three days before Castree's trial is due to commence. He will now be confined to the court appointed lawyer who will walk him into jail just as Stefan Kiszko's lawyer and others did. The judges will say he is legaly represented and that ensures he will get a fair trial.

This is the letter and it is clear evidence of judge Openshaw's involvement in that conspiracy of perversion of the system of justice which is orchestrated to criminally frame Ronald Castree for murder in order to cover up the crimes of other senior policemen who framed Peter Sutcliffe as the Yorkshire Ripper and allowed the Real Ripper to remain free to kill again.

Judge Openshaw, judge Gullick and judge McKinnon have the blood of innocent victims of the real Ripper Billy Tracey on their hands because of this abuse of their positions and they will be held to account for that in due course.

Ronald Castree's trial opened on Monday morning 22nd October. One man who read this web site attended the court to see for himself and was refused admission to the court building. He phoned to me tell me so that day.

The BBC reported events on their web site that afternoon with the quote "The judge urged the jury not to look at press reports and particularly the internet about the case. He said there was good reason to believe someone was putting "disinformation on the internet about this case".

Openshaw calls the true facts "disinformation" but he has deliberately ordered Castree's chosen legal adviser not to attend at Bradford court until the trial is over or face imprisonment thereby ensuring that the facts exposed here on the internet dont get to the jury. Surely if the contents of this web page were lies or even actionable, Openshaw would have named the author and he could have allowed the jury of intelligent people to make up their minds about the credibility of that information. He cant face the truth and he has perverted the course of justice to help those policemen to frame an innocent man. The liar calls the truth "disinformation" because it doesnt suit his concept of the outcome.

At the outset of the trial of Castree the CPS brought before the jury an allegation that if it were made in any court room anywhere in the world it would have resulted in a mistrial. They accused him of a seperate sexual assault on a 9 year old girl which is alleged to have taken place 9 months after the Molseed murder. Castree told the writer that that "assault" which was not a violent attack nor a serious one and he was taken to the magistrates court and he was not imprisoned for it. The CPS make it look as if it were a violent rape that took place when it was no more than a feeble attempt to touch the girl in his car and she ran away and told her parents who reported the matter to the police. Now in Bradford court it has taken on the semblance of a Ripper attack gone wrong. The Rochdale Observer reported it as follows.

Only in Britain could such misinformation called evidence be produced in a trial for murder and it further proves the bad faith of judge Openshaw and how they are determined to break all the rules to frame this man. If that happened in Ireland or the USA or most European courts it would result in an immediate mistrial application and indeed no judge would entertain that sort of innuendo in a murder trial which should be tried on the evidence relating to that crime if they indeed have any real evidence other than smears and associated or similar but much less serious crimes that the accesed was involved in. They put the strongest possible connotations of criminal intent on these allegations to blacken the accused before the trial gets really underway.

RONALD CASTREE'S ALIBI

The greatest and best defence and proof of any accused person's innocence is his/her alibi. Everybody other than the killer of Lesley Molseed had an alibi that would prove their innocence. Clearly Ronald Castree was somewhere and if he could establish where exactly he was at the specific time of Lesley Molseed's abduction he would most likely have witnesses to vouch for his presence with them and that would free him from any suspicion whatever. He may have been driving a fare to Manchester airport in his taxi at that time or playing pool in his local bar feeling dejected because his wife was having an affair and had just given birth to his first born child Jason and he was unsure if he was the father. Wherever he happened to be he would have had witnesses to vouch for his presence there, but after 32 years how could any accused man produce an alibi? Most people can barely remember where they were one week past at any precise time so for a man to be accused of a crime so long ago and because he cannot be expected to have an alibi for where he actually was at the crucial time that is all the more reason to have overwhelming evidence proving beyond any doubt that he committed the crime.

CASTREE'S WIFE'S EVIDENCE

His ex wife Beverly was invited by the police to give evidence against her ex husband and the main feature of that evidence was that he was an unfaithful husband and she remembered him visiting her in hospital between 6.0 p.m. and 8.0 p.m. It is just not credible that she could remember the times he visited her in that hospital 32 years ago but because she clearly hates him now, that would explain her amazing recollection of times in her burning desire to hurt him. If she had the assistance of a diary, her recollections may have been more credible but she didnt have that and the defence failure to raise these caveats to the jury shows their lack of awareness of the lies being said in court.

Her evidence is very suspect being that she is an ex wife who clearly now hates her ex husband but her assertion that Ronald was not the father of that baby demonstrates that she was also an unfaithful party in the marriage. Not alone that but the son should be DNA tested by Castree's lawyers to verify that claim because of the strong resemblance between Jason and Ronald.

Ronald and Beverley Castree

If indeed Ronald Castree proved to be the father of Jason by means of a DNA test, that would exhonerate him also because the evidence produced at the Kiszko trial showed that the semen was at the lowest end of the scale in a sperm count. Kiszko was infertile and could produce no sperm. Yet he was stitched up by the police, the CPS, the scientists, the lawyers and the judge who all knew there were sperm heads in the semen. Now they are claiming that these sperm heads were left by the killer and they have identified DNA from them, yet Kiszko could never produce sperm heads and they knew that all along while he was in prison protesting his innocence. Their credibility in accusing Ronald Castree is shattered by their own evidence of their crime against Kiszko.

Julian Goose QC for the CPS revealed that Lesley's clothing was destroyed in 1985. That raises the question as to why the clothes were destroyed and the tapes which would have been all stored together were retained. Stefan Kiszko was proclaiming his innocence from jail through his mother and aunt and they were being listened to increasingly by 1985. Somebody in the forensic laboratory made a conscious decision to destroy crime scene evidence and they appeared to have been selective in what they destroyed if we are to believe them. That in itself is highly irregular and raises a question over the motive behind the decision to destroy it. Presumably there are records showing the order and the person who carried out that order to destroy the clothes and keep the tapes. This action raises many doubts over the credibility of those keepers of the evidence and their motivation for its destruction and the possibility that the tapes may in fact have been fabricated to frame Ronald Castree. When, after Kiszko's release and death, Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge were charged with fabricating the evidence in Kiszko's trial, the fact that it was destroyed played a large part in having the charges dismissed. How could any jury have faith in what these people say they have done, now with Mr Castree pleading innocence and the only evidence they can produce against him is these suspect tapes. With those tapes as their principal evidence supported by allegations made by a scorned wife who hates him and evidence of a sexual attempt on a girl of a similar age to the victim where there was no violence whatever involved and the girl ran away from him and told her parents who in turn told the police, that amounts to a very flimsy case for the prosecution and the proven acts of framing Kiszko in the past shows their bad faith and propensity to fabricate and embellish facts. No jury of ordinary people would believe that they have solid evidence that proves that Ronald Castree abducted, masturbated over and then brutally stabbed Lesley Molseed based on their weasel words and groundless accusations.

One simple example of the way they embellish facts is their description of the sex attack on the young girl with which he was charged. Castree was not jailed for that assault so clearly the magistrate recognised that it was a relatively low sexual assault in the scale of such things on a young girl and the proof is that she ran away from him before anything happened. If one reads the reports by Julian Goose one could be forgiven for thinking that Castree had stalked this girl, abducted her and violently just stopped short of murdering the child. Goose talks of the propensity of Castree to be sexually attracted to young girls as if it were similar to the crime of masturbating over a girl and then violently stabbing her to death twelve times. The Molseed murder was the work of a psychopathic lunatic who had serious sexual problems. The crimes are worlds apart.

After the first week of Ronald Castree's trial much information has come to hand and now the site will be updated as the information unfolds.

31st October update.

If Ronald Castree was such a depraved and mentally disturbed killer as the man who violently stabbed Lesley Molseed twelve times in the front back and neck after masturbating over her tiny body how could such a lunatic not come to the attention of the police in the 30 years since and how could he rear a family, hold down a job, get a divorce and take care of a second family and never show a violent streak ever since that alleged show of madness?
Peter Sutcliffe on the other hand went on to murder and assault many more innocent women and became the mentally disturbed copycat killer of the Ripper and ultimately confessed to being responsible for all the Ripper killings as well as his own, in a deal with a corrupt policeman, superintendent Dick Holland, that same cop who framed Stefan Kiszko for the Molseed murder in 1976. Holland died earlier this year.

Castree told myself and Patrick Cullinane, and his counsel repeated it in court that he claimed that the police told him they would stitch him up for the Molseed murder as far back as 1979/1980. There were several references in court to his concerns about this fear.

When Kiszko was exhonerated of the Molseed murder in 1992 then it became an unsolved murder.
Lets look at the police options. Round up the usual suspects is their methodology. They only have the guys they know about to work on. A criminal who hasn’t come to the attention of the police or is unknown to them, can never be a suspect for any crime.
They knew Raymond Hewlett and Robert Black, both convicted paedophiles and that was the kind of profile they were looking for with this unsolved murder.
They also knew Peter Sutcliffe and they knew that I had been campaigning by writing to and phoning the media about the now unsolved murder of Lesley Molseed and that I was alleging that Peter Sutcliffe was her killer.
It became necessary to protect their prized prisoner Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper from such intense scrutiny by leaving this glaring murder unsolved, a murder which had so many connecting links to him. Something had to be done to solve it.

Who could they blame? Who could they pin it on? Who could they stitch up for it?
Ronald Castree had a conviction for a sexual assault against a 9 year old girl who like Molseed was also a bit retarded and she lived half a mile from the Molseed home. Castree lived a mile away. She had been taken by him to a disused building and he started to touch her up when she bolted and told her parents before any actual sexual assault happened. But it was to be the start of something big.
Just as Stefan Kiszko was reported for flashing at a few young girls who told that lie and as a result of that Kiszko came to the attention of the police and was arrested, now Ronald Castree stood out from the rest of the residents of Rochdale as a likely mark who would fit the bill as the killer of Lesley Molseed if only they had some forensic to link him to the crime. This form marked him out as a vulnerable patsy but they had no evidence to link him to the Molseed murder and so that would have to be engineered.
The police had fingered him since 1979 and that whiff of suspicion stayed with Castree now when in the year 1999 Detective Max McLean was the head of the Halifax division of the West Yorkshire police.

‘Lesley's clothing was destroyed in 1985, but scientists examining the adhesive tapes in 1999 were able to extract a number of sperm heads from which a clear DNA profile could be obtained’
This quote is taken from the above report in the Yorkshire Post on the second day of Castree’s trial.
Two glaring questions spring to mind. Who authorized and why was the clothing which contained vital evidence in the case of an unsolved murder destroyed in 1985 and how can we now be sure that the adhesive tapes allegedly retained were in fact authentic and should they have any credibility? Surely the clothes were the main evidence worth preserving.
Secondly, the admission that sperm heads or tadpoles as they appear under the microscope were still retained on the tapes is solid proof that the police and the scientists knew for all those years that Kiszko was innocent because he was incapable of producing any such material and they accept that.

It became necessary to solve this murder which took place just on the Yorkshire side of the border with Greater Manchester and Max McLean was the man to do it. He would frame up their candidate, Ronald Castree, with the aid of the new science of DNA combined with Castree’s past record of the assault on the other girl and that would convince any jury and guarantee a conviction.
McLean needed a sample of Castree’s DNA. It was an easy matter to get a sample of his DNA or even his semen if we are to believe his wife that he was a philanderer. Max got it by some underhanded method and he was later to ask Castree how could his semen get on to the clothes of Lesley Molseed.

Once the decision was made to frame Castree it was an easy matter for McLean to plant his DNA on one of the tapes of evidence and then ask the forensic scientists to look again at the possibility of finding DNA on those tapes with the benefit of their new technology.
The trap was set.
But it wasn’t to be sprung until absolutely necessary.
It is also easy to see how Goose could be so confidant that the DNA found matched with Castree’s and spoke of a billion to one chance of a mistake.
The scientists who would discover the new DNA would believe that they found a profile of the killer. In time Max would be able to grab Castree knowing that he had him this time. But the scam had many flaws and opened many possibilities that we can now examine.
Had Noel O’Gara not known that Billy Tracey was the real Yorkshire Ripper and that insight gave him the certainty that Peter Sutcliffe was not the Ripper, everyone would have believed that Sutcliffe was the Ripper and that the police had simply made mistakes in not arresting him sooner. Equally the links between Sutcliffe and the Molseed murder were so compelling that I could easily conclude that Stefan Kiszko was innocent when his claims of his innocence first came to my attention. The logical flow of things was that Kiszko had been stitched up and as we can all see now, that was the case even though the police have never admitted that.
Someone within the authorities was responsible for making the decision to charge Dick Holland and Ronald Outteridge and that gives me hope that there are some honest people there and that hope springs eternally. They are not all corrupt but one rogue can bring a lot of people with him because people are so fearful to contradict or expose him even if they know he is a rogue.
Max could now reopen the investigation knowing that he would get him man in time. In 2001 he arranged with the BBC for a documentary to be made highlighting the fact that they now have a DNA profile of the killer using new technology and it is an easy matter to eliminate any suspect so he invited people to phone in with any suspicions to that end.

Max’s words need to be highlighted

The worst thing that anyone could do is not report their suspicions to us when the elimination process is so simple and so final

Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean

Empty words indeed because when they did take a saliva swab from Ronald Castree in October 2005 and some three years later it was to be yet another full year before they arrested him on 6th November 2006.
So what happened to the frame up plan during that year? Did Max get cold feet? Or did Colin Cramphorn the new chief constable of West Yorkshire police get to know of his plan and hold him off?
Max always knew that Castree was in their trap and he could spring it anytime he chose. Castree was aware that they had targeted him but he didn’t know how they had trapped him.
Giving McLean the benefit of the doubt that he might be an honest cop, I had written to this police superintendent personally when his name was first mentioned in the media, but he never even acknowledged my letters.

In this report the BBC were told that the evidence was destroyed in the 1970’s while at Castree’s trial they say that it was destroyed in 1985.
More lies from the conspirators. Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
They also for the first time used the media to report that Peter Sutcliffe was eliminated and that was the main reason for arranging this elaborate stitch up in the first place. Max could now say that with confidence knowing that Castree’s DNA which he had planted under the nose of the scientists was yet to be identified publicly, and he could bide his time on that one.
The really important matter had been fixed that Sutcliffe was not Molseed’s killer. Stiching up Castree could wait.

But I wouldn’t wear the assurances about Sutcliffe being eliminated and I was telling the media that it was untrue and putting the facts on the internet and in newsgroups and I was stating that McLean was lying.

Meanwhile I was making a lot of progress with the help of some new found friends who had read my book and who could see the full picture of the conspiracy of deception and cover up. These were Patrick Cullinane, George Westcott and several others who actively helped me to expose the cover up. I also got more active with friends on the internet and in newsgroups to explain this unbelievable and bizarre story.
On 23rd October 2006 at 1.0 a m I spoke to Mike Mendoza on Talk Sport, UK national radio. Mike had an audience of hundreds of thousands of listeners. This was the first time that any national medium in the UK published my allegations and Mike gave me enough time to explain the story and he was supportive because he had studied my web site. He believed me that Sutcliffe was not responsible for all the murders at least.
One week later on 30th October and the anniversary of the murder of Wilma McCann, my colleagues and I organized a press conference in the Merrion hotel in Leeds city centre and that was attende