Peter Sutcliffe was born in the summer of 1946 in West Yorkshire, England. He was brought up in a Catholic family by his father, John Sutcliffe, a mill owner, and by his mother, Kathleen Sutcliffe.
Peter had five other siblings and came from a generally poor family. His younger siblings looked up to him as a father figure, as John was not around much. Regular arguments occurred in the household, as John would question Kathleen about sleeping with men but it was, in fact, John who has having affairs. (3) Peter left school at the age of fifteen and enjoyed spending time at a local wax museum, as he was intrigued by the effect venereal disease had on the body. He later went on to be a municipal gravedigger and mortuary assistant. Whilst burying the bodies, he would steal items from the deceased. Whilst working with these bodies, he began to pursue necrophilia, and enjoyed placing the corpses in horrible poses and using them as dummies. (1)
“While not specifically conductive to their criminal pursuits, some jobs held by serial killers are consistent with their morbid psychologies. Peter Sutcliffe … for example, found employment in a mortuary. During his time at the mortuary, he admitted to hearing the voice of God from the grave.” (4)
Peter was named the Yorkshire Ripper after being convicted of thirteen murders and seven attempted murders in 1981. (5)
It was also believed that the Ripper took at least twenty-three more lives and left seven others with significant injuries. This information was discovered by former Police Intelligence Officer Chris Clark and investigative journalist Tim Tate. They also revealed a police cover-up due to incompetence and also discovered that he didn’t only attack women but also men. His murders were not only based in Yorkshire and Lancaster but spread all across England. (2)
At the age of twenty, Peter met his wife-to-be, daughter of a Czech immigrant, Sonia Szurma. Sonia believed their money problems came from his erratic employment, when, in fact, he was spending money on prostitutes with a friend, Trevor Birdsall. (3)
Different theories exist as to when Peter began his hatred towards impure women – one was he had had a bad experience with a prostitute and the other was because he believed he could “reconcile the loving mother he had idealised with the sluttish adulteress his father had portrayed her as, Peter followed the same sexist stereotyping evidenced in many male dominated cultures”. Peter Sutcliffe was sentenced to life imprisonment on 22 May 1981.
Murders and attempted murders
Peter Sutcliffe’s first attempt at murder was on 4 July 1975. Anna Patricia Rogulskyj managed to survive a brutal attack after being found by her neighbour. Peter had a specific style of attacking – he would inflict multiple blows to the back of the head with a ball-peen hammer and would follow with a slashing attack to the genital and stomach regions with a sharp object.
The second attack on Olive Smelt occurred only a month later, using the same style of attack. Olive too managed to survive her attack due to the arrival of another car.
An attack on Tracy Brown, a sixteen year old from Silsden, was what gave him the nickname of the Yorkshire Ripper. Peter was labelled with this name, as he was similar to Jack the Ripper.
He used the same method again on another prostitute. (6)
Only three attacks have been alluded to above but there are potentially another 48 more which he undertook.
What Forensic Specialists were involved with the case and were there any forensic experts that should not have been involved?
The victims that survived the attacks would need a forensic medical examination to discover any evidence that could point them towards the attacker. Forensic evidence would also be taken from the scene of the crime by Crime Scene Investigators. Photographs would have been taken by Police in that era but this would be done by a Scene of Crime Officer or forensic photographer today.
Victims that didn’t survive the attack would be sent for a post-mortem examination. Pathologist, David Gee, carried out the examinations on the Yorkshire Ripper victims. David was Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at Leeds University. A Forensic Entomologist would be used to estimate how long the body had been in an area after death by the type of flies surrounding the body.
Throughout the trial process, many Forensic Psychologists where involved. Four Psychiatrists deemed Peter Sutcliffe a paranoid schizophrenic. He claimed this in Court in order to plea for diminished responsibility. The Judge stated that “the matter that troubles me is not the medical opinions because there is a consensus. It seems to me that all of these opinions − and I say this without criticism − all these opinions are based simply on what this defendant has told the doctors, nothing more.” (7)
After carrying out interviews with Sutcliffe, Forensic Psychologist, Dr Hugo Milne, explained that his killings were down to being on a mission sent to him by God and, if he left prison, the ‘feelings’ would come back and he would carry on killing. Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr Terrance Kay, also believed that Peter had an illness of paranoid schizophrenia.
Before the trial took place, he was visited by his wife in Hospital when he confessed to all charges. He subsequently stated that, if he convinced people he was mentally ill, he would only be imprisoned in an institute for 10 years instead of 30 years at a prison. During the time between his arrest and his trial, many different stories were made up and none coincided with each other. (7)
The majority of the forensics experts involved with the case were required. Each expert has their own different skill set, which may allow one to see something another may not see. However, the Forensic Entomologist may not have been required, as the Pathologist would have been able to estimate the time of death by looking at the body temperature, rigor mortis and lividity. Different techniques would be used back in the time that these killings took place.
What forensic techniques were used with the identification of the victims?
To identify the victims, different methods could be used. When the Police arrive at the crime scene, the victim could have identification on them. If the victim had been left for a long period of time and decomposition had set in, then the victim’s teeth could be used, although this would only be successful if they had undergone previous dental records and x-rays. If the victim had any long-lasting injuries, such as fractures that required metal supports, these could be compared to pre-existing medical records for women in the area who had undergone similar surgical procedures where such supports would have been required. These methods would be used by a Forensic Anthropologist.
What forensic techniques were used to apprehend the killer?
Different forensic techniques were used to apprehend Peter Sutcliffe. Maureen Long survived her Ripper attack, yet suffered amnesia so couldn’t identify him. However, Police did discover a bloody hand print that they were certain was from the attacker. This would involve forensic fingerprinting and DNA analysis. A number of crime scenes included a size 7 boot print, which matched Peter’s shoes. Footwear analysis would be done by taking a cast of the original footprint and comparing them to shoes from suspects. Wheel prints were also found at many crime scenes – this too would be compared to tyres on suspect’s cars. It was also possible to discover what car type the wheels belonged to and, if they were a specific style of tyre, whether they were sold from a dealer in the area.
Could the killer have been apprehended sooner? If so, why? If not, why not?
Peter Sutcliffe would not have been apprehended sooner as he never had any previous encounters with the police. Peters young past was only brought up during his interviews after he was arrested. His arrest happened as a general occurrence after two patrol officer spotted a car in a prostitution area of the city, after running the number plate through the system they realised the car was stolen. Before entering the car Sutcliffe managed to hide the hammer and knife behind an oil drum whilst urinating. At the prison, officers realised that he had similarities to a photo-fit and matching size 7 boots. Police returned to the scene of the crime to find the weapons which would contain Peters prints. Before this encounter police wouldn’t of suspected Peter as he didn’t leave any strong evidence leading towards himself. His attacks would either result in death or amnesia, stopping the victims from giving a strong identification or photo-fit.