The Yorkshire Ripper

BRADFORD lorry-driver Peter Sutcliffe had a handwritten notice displayed in the cab of his vehicle. It read: ‘In this truck is a man whose latent genius if unleashed would rock the nation, whose dynamic energy would overpower those around him. Better let him sleep?'

This is an odd note from anyone, but this man turned out to be the infamous ‘Yorkshire Ripper'; a maniac who murdered and horribly mutilated thirteen women and grievously injured seven others in his five-year reign of terror in the county of Yorkshire in northern England. The seven survivors who had been left for dead were told how lucky they were, but with physical, emotional and psychological scars that will never completely heal, they surely do not feel very lucky. Some would even believe that they would have been better off if their attacker had succeeded in killing them.

Peter William Sutcliffe was the first-born son of John and Kathleen Sutcliffe. He first saw daylight in Bingley on 2 June 1946 weighing only 5 lbs. His father was a burly extrovert who loved sport and drinking with his mates in his local pub. But his son would not grow to be a ‘man's man' like his father. He was a quiet, shy boy who much preferred to stay indoors with his mother than join in the rough games of his younger brothers and sisters, choosing to read rather than play sport. Greatly intimidated by his father's aggressive masculinity, he found a safe haven with his mother, a gentle loving woman who adored all six of her children.

When he was at Secondary school Peter became the subject of severe bullying from other students, culminating in his truancy from school for two weeks before his parents were informed of his absence. He had spent the fortnight in the upstairs loft at home, reading comics and books by torchlight. Although the bullying stopped after the school authorities took action, young Peter Sutcliffe, who never fought with other boys or chased after girls, was seen as different, set apart from his classmates.

He left school at the age of fifteen without a clear focus on his life. Over the next two years, Sutcliffe changed jobs often. He started in a mill where his father worked, but within a few months left to begin an engineering apprenticeship, but quit there also after a short time. He then worked in a factory, but left that job to work as a gravedigger at the Bingley Cemetery for some time before becoming a lorry driver for Clark Transport in Bradford making regular deliveries in Leeds, Bradford, Bingley and Sheffield. In 1966, at the age of twenty, Peter met his future wife, Sonia Szurma, a daughter of Maria and Bodhan Szurma, immigrants from Czechoslovakia. They married eight years later on 10 August 1974, Sonia's 24th birthday. By June 1977 they had saved enough money together to put down a mortgage on their own home at Garden Lane, Heaton in Bradford.

As a seemingly happily married man, Sutcliffe created a public image that was exemplary: a caring and loving husband with no outward signs of violence or depravity hidden deep within. But though Sonia and Peter were well liked locally, they were also known to have many rows. It was Sonia, (who had a family history of mental illness), who did all the shouting, however. Peter would meekly implore her to keep her voice down so as not to disturb the neighbours. There were indeed tensions in the Sutcliffe household; tensions which do not explain the grisly and murderous acts of the Yorkshire Ripper, but may help to fill in some of his background.

There were a few who had seen the dark side of Peter Sutcliffe. Gary Jackson, who had worked with Peter at the Bingley Cemetery, was disturbed by his morbid pranks with the skeletons of the dead bodies in their care. And his brother-in-law Robin Holland would often go out drinking with Sutcliffe in Yorkshire red-light districts where Peter would brag about his exploits with local prostitutes. Sutcliffe seemed to have a fascination with female sex workers, mixed with a strange anger. Another friend, Trevor Birdsall, recalls vividly a night in 1969 at Bradford when Peter had left him in his car for a few minutes. When he returned, Peter told him that he had tried to bludgeon a local whore with a brick inside a sock, but the attack had failed when the sock fell apart and the brick dropped out. Years later, Birdsall reported to Bradford police his suspicions that his old drinking pal was in fact the infamous ‘Yorkshire Ripper'. The report was duly filed away and remained unread for years.

Back at home Sutcliffe played the part of the family saint, often making grand standing speeches about the immorality of men who two-timed their wives and those who paid for sex. This hypocrisy sickened Robin Holland so much that he refused to go out drinking and whoring with Sutcliffe any more.

The murders began in October 1975 with the killing of Wilma McCann, a 28-year-old night cruiser whose corpse, battered by hammer blows to the head and her eyes pierced by stab wounds made by a sharpened screwdriver, was discovered in a playing field in Leeds. The Ripper's next three victims all plied the same trade in the red light districts of Leeds and Bradford. As the bodies mounted up, the media seized on the name the ‘Yorkshire Ripper'; an echo of the unsolved murders of five (or six) prostitutes by a man dubbed ‘Jack the Ripper' in Whitechapel, East London between August and November 1888.

But the pattern of Sutcliffe's killings changed in June 1977 when a perfectly respectable 16-year-old girl (Jayne MacDonald) was brutally battered and stabbed to death and her body left on a rubbish dump. Other respectable women were killed later, and the case brought stark terror to the women of West Yorkshire. Indeed, females all over Britain feared for their lives, and went out in pairs at night, or escorted by fathers, brothers, boyfriends or husbands. The reign of motiveless killing unleashed by Sutcliffe struck fear into the nation; no doubt a situation that he enjoyed creating.

The Yorkshire Ripper case also prompted the biggest murder hunt of the century in England. In a family publication, it is best not to go into gruesome details of his savage work, so I will not list all the facts surrounding his killings as they took place. But on 2 January 1981, when the Ripper was finally arrested, it happened almost by chance. The bearded Sutcliffe was discovered by Sheffield police in his Rover V8 with a black prostitute named Ava Reivers. The car had false licence plates and contained the grim tools of his nighttime ‘trade': there was a hammer, a garrotte and a Philips screwdriver sharpened to a deadly point. Ms Reivers could count herself the luckiest woman in Britain that night, for she was surely scheduled to be the next victim.

The three week long trial took place at the Old Bailey in London in May 1981. Fascination with the case by now was international, and illegally taken photographs of Sutcliffe in the dock were published in magazines in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The trial also raised important questions about the way the investigation had been mishandled by Yorkshire police. Between 1975 and 1980, Sutcliffe had been pulled in no less than five times for questioning, and then let go by officers when he managed to convince them that he was an innocent party.

The massive police investigation, which cost British taxpayers over 4 million pounds sterling, had also been badly misled by hoax letters and an audio cassette tape sent to police by a man with a ‘Geordie' (north eastern) accent who had posed as the serial killer, and taunted all efforts to capture the Ripper. The accent had been traced by an expert in dialects to Castletown, an area of Sunderland in the north east of England, and this locality was duly flooded with police searching for any local men who had been in the Yorkshire area on the nights that the murders were committed.

The leader of the manhunt, Chief Inspector George Oldfield, became convinced that the man with the Castletown accent was the killer, because machine oil in one of the victim's wounds matched minute traces of oil on the tape and letters sent to police by the mysterious hoaxer. Oldfield was so consumed with the case that he suffered a nervous breakdown and three heart attacks brought on by work-related stress, and was hospitalised in July 1979. The case was then handled by DCI Jim Hobson.

But the over-riding issue, on which Sutcliffe's fate depended, was whether he was legally mad or not. This was not a trial to determine the Ripper's guilt or innocence, but his sanity. And that issue would take most of the legal debate during his trial.

Peter William Sutcliffe was charged with the murder of thirteen women, and attempts to kill another seven. He denied the murder charges, but his legal counsel admitted to manslaughter on the grounds of ‘diminished responsibility'. Under the 1957 Homicide Act, the accused may plead for a reduced charge of manslaughter on the grounds that he or she suffered some ‘abnormality of mind', which impaired his or her mental responsibility.

In the Ripper case, the Attorney General Sir Michael Havers was prepared to accept such a plea. But Justice Boreham, the trial judge, was unhappy that the murder charges should be disposed of so easily. He insisted that the case should go before a jury. And so it was left to twelve ordinary citizens of England (six men and six women) to judge Sutcliffe's state of mind when he performed these horrific murders and mutilations.

From one point of view, anyone who did what Sutcliffe had done must be mad. But English law cannot accept such a proposition, as it would result in a legal absurdity. Every murder is an abnormal act, so anyone who has committed one might claim ‘abnormality of mind' in expectation of lenient treatment when brought to justice.

But Sutcliffe's defence was more specific: he alleged that he had heard voices ordering him to go out and kill female prostitutes. His had been a ‘divine mission', he said. In prison at Bradford, he had been examined by three psychiatrists who unanimously declared him to be a paranoid schizophrenic. Here was a meek, henpecked husband who set out at night to hunt down and murder women. Perhaps he was really seeking to kill his wife over and over again, as he was somehow unable to confront her directly? Was this a case of misdirected rage?

The accused stood impassively in the dock, giving no clues as to his mental condition. Against the expert testimony was the possibility that Sutcliffe had simply faked his symptoms. For example, he had not mentioned ‘hearing voices' until several interrogations after his capture and arrest in 1981. In custody he allegedly said that if he were found to be ‘loony' he would serve only ten years in gaol instead of thirty. From his wife's bouts of mental disturbance he could have recalled convincing symptoms such as ‘tactile hallucinations'. He claimed that he had experienced a hand tightening around his throat each night before he set out to kill.

But his defence was weakened by one damning flaw: some of his victims had not been prostitutes. There was the teenager Jayne Macdonald, clerk Josephine Whitaker, Leeds University students Barbara Leach and Jacqueline Hill and also Margo Walls, a 47-year-old civil servant.

On 22 May 1981, the jury retired after hearing the judge's summing up. The twelve citizens deliberated for 5 hours and 55 minutes. On return to the court, the foreman declared that they had found Peter William Sutcliffe guilty of multiple murders. He was duly sentenced to life imprisonment, the judge recommending that a minimum of thirty years be served. In the streets outside the Old Bailey large crowds cheered the jury and their verdict. It was reported that even in the psychiatric community there was immense relief by the majority that the experts' testimony had been rejected.

Mystery still surrounds the mind of Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper. In prison at Parkhurst he continued to claim hearing voices commanding him to kill, and in March 1984 the Home Secretary ordered that he be removed to Broadmoor. He disclosed that Sutcliffe was in a condition of grave mental illness. Doctors at Parkhurst and Broadmoor had diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia. Sutcliffe's state of mind had seriously deteriorated since admission to prison, and he could now be a threat to prison staff and other inmates.

After the verdict, cheque-book journalism reared its' ugly head. Sutcliffe's wife Sonia was soon hawking her life story to the tabloid press in what some saw as a cynical ploy to gain financially from her husband's conviction. Families of the Ripper's victims were deeply offended by her actions and attempted to bring out injunctions against publication of such newspaper disclosures as, ‘Sun Exclusive: My life with The Yorkshire Ripper by Sonia Sutcliffe'. After Mrs Sutcliffe received a substantial sum of money for her revelations in newsprint, she was pilloried for that by the British satirical magazine ‘Private Eye'. This led to a blizzard of solicitors' letters between her lawyers and the journal's legal department. (When her libel action against ‘Private Eye' failed, a tabloid headline screamed, ‘SONIA BIKE!')

But even now, almost 25 years after his trial in 1981, there still remains the question of Peter Sutcliffe's sanity. Was he mad all along? Or did he become mad by faking madness?

(Research, ‘Judgement on the Ripper' by Tim Healey, Hamlyn Publishing 1990, and crimelibary.com/Yorkshire Ripper)

(Update: In February 2006, a man from Sunderland named John Humble admitted to being the infamous hoaxer in the Yorkshire Ripper Case, and has been charged with this offence)

IF YOU need a check on my True Crime series of stories, published in the Hua Hin Observer, here is a complete list to date:
April 2002 -The Green Bicycle case, 1921. May 2002 - The Craig/Bentley Case, 1952. June 2002 - The A6 Murder Case, 1961. July 2002 - Murder of the Earl of Errol, 1941. August 2002 - The O J Simpson murder trial, 1995. September 2002 - The Aileen Wuornos case, 1989. October 2002 - The Ronald Opus case, 1993. November 2002 - Madame X, 1929. December 2002 - The Spree Killer, 1984. January 2003 - Shootout at Smiths' Club, 1966. February 2003 - The Christine Dryland case, 1991. March 2003 - Poisoned Pie in Essex, 1982. April 2003 - The Heydrich assassination, 1943. May 2003 - The Diana Davidson Murder case, 1969. June 2003 - The death of Alkibiades, 404 BC. July 2003 - The headsman of Colmar, 1780. August 2003 - The Ruth Ellis case, 1955. September 2003 - The Mel Jones Murder case, 1975. October 2003 - The Bluebeard of the bath, 1915. November 2003 - Murder in a combat zone, 1966. December 2003 - The Barn Restaurant murder case, 1972. January 2004 - The assassination of JFK, 1963. February 2004 - Judge Falcone and the Mafia, 1992. March 2004 - Gilles de Rais/Bluebeard, 1404-1440. April 2004 - The hand in the sand case, 1885. May 2004 - The body in the bag, 1979

All Eyes on the Queer Guys

A groundbreaking conference held in Bangkok promoted recognition and respect for sexual and gender diversity in Asia .

By Karen Drodge

The perception among many Westerners is that Thailand is a model of unbiased acceptance of sexuality in all its forms, from mainstream sex to more unconventional sexual behaviour and lifestyles. This view has been criticized as over simplistic by many academics who have studied this, and claim that like many other aspects of Thai society, attitudes in this area are both complex and ambiguous at best. They also point out the important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. While Thailand has a high level of tolerance for alternative lifestyles in comparison to other Asian countries, it has a long road ahead in terms of promoting respect and recognition for sexual and gender diversity. Thailand travelled further along this road when Bangkok played host to the world's largest interdisciplinary gathering of experts involved in researching and documenting gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual cultures throughout Asia . One of the issues on the conference agenda was the situation for transgendered persons in Thailand , and topics discussed included the persecution of and discrimination against them, transgender citizenship and rights, and the legal recognition of sex change.

Roots of Transgenderism in Thailand

Various Thai historical writings document the existence of a hermaphrodite figure or 'third sex' and according to Dr. Peter Jackson of Australia National University, Buddhism's "Vinayapitaka, the monastic code of conduct, identifies not two but four gender types, proscribing monks from having sexual relations with any of these four. The four gender types are male, female, ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka...broadly it can be said that ubhatobyanjanaka refers to hermaphrodites, while pandaka refers to male transvestites and homosexuals." Most scholars agree that Buddhism does not explicitly condemn transgenderism or homosexuality. Interpretations of the Buddhist concept of incarnation suggest that persons may return in another life as either male or female, or a 'third sex' (often referred to as 'kathoey'). Anne Beaumont-Vernon, a researcher studying at the University of Essex explains, "Basically it comes down to Buddhist attitudes and belief in reincarnation and karmic law. Kathoey are believed to be born kathoey to 'suffer' and repay karmic debt, due to some kind of sexual transgression in a previous life. Therefore, in the main, kathoey are to be 'pitied' rather than 'blamed' or stigmatized." This perspective may partially explain the relative tolerance of transgendered persons in contemporary Thai society.

The Complexity of Acceptance

Transgenderism is an established element of contemporary Thai society, and on the surface, transgendered persons appear to be an accepted part of the cultural landscape, going about their daily lives free from any manner of discrimination. However, like many other aspects of Thai society, the issue of acceptance is not as simple as it first appears. What lies beneath is far more complex. Thai citizens are culturally a heterogeneous group who come from a variety of ethnic and economic backgrounds. Attitudes towards kathoey are influenced by many different factors and the pendulum of acceptance swings from complete acceptance to ambivalence, and at the other end of the spectrum, explicit disapproval or even public prosecution. Although they are usually tolerated in Thai society, whether they have ever been or will ever be completely accepted is another matter. Tolerance, after all, does not equal acceptance. Buddhist dogma encourages followers to exercise self-composure and restraint at all times, and teaches compassion for others. Thais are discouraged from expressing negative, discriminatory or controversial emotions in public, and outbursts are seen as a sign of weakness of character. Thais are however, skilled in more implicit expressions of disapproval and discrimination, such as ostracization and exclusion from family and community circles. Often, these more subtle tactics are equally, if not more, malicious in their effect. Although transgendered persons are able to live public lives free from the explicit disapproval and physical violence that exists in many Western societies, implicit discrimination does exist. The media has played a major role in negative perceptions of kathoey, often portraying them as either light-hearted comic foils or at the other end of the spectrum, violent and unstable individuals. One case that received extensive coverage and had just such a negative impact involved a kathoey who murdered a woman at Chiang Mai University in 1996. American researcher Andrew Matzner points out that, "negative stereotypical images of kathoey were used in stories about this case, and transgendered men as a group were reported by the media to be violent and unstable." As a result, The Rajabhat Institute, an organization representing teachers colleges, banned homosexuals, including kathoey, from being employed as primary teachers. After much national and international press relating to the story, pressure from various human rights groups and public demonstrations, the ban was eventually rescinded. Within the workplace, kathoey have also frequently suffered discrimination, both by employers and other staff. Dr. Sam Winter of the University of Hong Kong explains that, "while few employers might admit to prejudice against kathoey, many find it hard to justify employing them in preference to other candidates who, they may feel, do not run the same risk of upsetting the sensibilities of customers or fellow employees." Although some are successful businesspeople, many kathoey find themselves in stereotypically female professions, and sometimes being forced into the most abhorrent sex trade jobs. They often become marginalized as a result of their limited employment options, and are often ostracized by others outside their immediate circle. On the positive side, regardless of their personal attitude towards kathoey, many Thais agree that kathoey are to be commended for their beauty and unique talents, including overall creativity, fashion expertise and make-up artistry. Many 'kathoey' beauty pageants are held through Thailand every year, particularly in northern rural areas around Chiang Mai and in beach resorts frequented by tourists, such as the Miss Tiffany contest held in Pattaya each year. Interestingly, pageants are also held in Buddhist temples in Thailand , a fact that confirms the assertion that attitudes towards kathoey in Thailand are indeed complex.

Legal Rights of Transgendered Persons

Transgendered persons generally perceive themselves to be female, regardless of the status of their physical appearance or whether or not they choose to undergo gender reassignment surgery. They are mostly attracted to men, and the majority enter into relationships with heterosexual men. Their own perceptions, however, do not match their status under current Thai law. Anne Beaumont-Vernon notes that "gender in Thailand is an immutable legal status that is assigned to a person at birth and cannot be changed. This leaves kathoey precariously placed when it comes to gender-specific laws, which do not cater for them." Although both pre and post-operative transgendered persons are living as 'female' in every sense, they are still legally classified as 'male' according to all official documentation, including their passports and ID cards. This dichotomy raises a series of issues for kathoey, and impacts their future lives on many fronts. Personal relationships are directly affected by the current legal situation with respect to gender. Because they themselves are still legally considered 'male', kathoey are unable to marry men, given that same sex marriage is not legal in Thailand. For post-operative transgendered persons, having a female appearance and male identification poses other serious problems. They are sometimes refused employment when they are asked to produce identification and are found to be male. When they are required to produce a passport or other official identification when travelling, their status as "male" causes a dilemma for both the individual and for immigration officials, and they are often denied entrance to other countries. As a result, many post-operative kathoey endure limited travel opportunities as a result of their situation.

Human Rights and Transgendered Persons

Although there are no explicit sanctions against transgendered persons within Thai law or religion, there are also currently few legal avenues of protection from human rights abuses. Although abuses are subtler than in many Western cultures, they do exist nonetheless. Several examples of this have been documented in Thai media and examined by Western scholars. In 1997, Thailand's current Constitution, known as "The People's Constitution", was ratified. It states that "all persons are equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection under the law", and further, that "unjust discrimination against a person...shall not be permitted." While in theory, it promises equality and protection from all types of discrimination, it does little to address individual cases in practical terms. With respect to sexual discrimination, there has been no legislation drafted since the Constitution was ratified. In fact, as far as Professor Douglas Sanders of Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Law is aware, there has been "no demand identified for anti-discrimination legislation at all in Thailand." Formed after the Constitution was ratified, Thailand's National Human Rights Commission has the mandate of addressing human rights complaints, including cases relating to sexual discrimination. Dr. Sanders was aware of only one case brought before the Commission in 2002 involving an effeminate, gay male student being expelled from a school in southern Thailand, although the final outcome was not known. The NHRC has not specifically addressed the issue of sexual discrimination, nor has any legislation been drafted to this effect. The Commission has a very broad mandate, and there is no indication that sexual discrimination legislation is a priority. As well, the NHRC has no enforcement power, so even if anti-discrimination legislation existed, the Commission could do little to resolve the complaint to the victim's satisfaction. Overall, there is currently little government support offered to transgendered persons and other victims of sexual discrimination. Although the current situation is quite grim, the ratification of the Constitution and the formation of the NHRC do offer an avenue for victims to pursue, and enable them to play an active role in changing the situation in Thailand, and to work towards eradicating discrimination.

Activism

From studies in Thailand, it seems clear that the government has done little to address current inequities with respect to legal and human rights for transgendered persons. Anne Beaumont-Vernon argues that "it has become increasingly apparent that kathoey need and indeed desire legal recognition in their 'true' gender status, that of female or even a 'third sex'." This lack of action puts Thailand behind other Asian countries with respect to addressing these issues. According to Professor Sanders, "In contrast, Singapore and Japan recognize post-operative gender and correct personal documentation. This has become the European position as a result of rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. The UK made the changes last year." The next logical question would be; why is Thailand so far behind on these issues? According to Dr. Jackson, "the international experience is that governments only respond in recognising homosexual and transgender rights when gay, lesbian and transgender people become organised and present a coherent voice to both the public and to government. Thailand is a country that tolerates homosexuality and transgenderism as "private" phenomena but in general being gay, tom, dee or kathoey is considered something that should not be raised in a public forum." Although the contradiction is frustrating and even incomprehensible to many Westerners, it is an inherent and ingrained part of Thai culture, and not easily changed. Dr. Jackson further explains, "I think the legal situation in Thailand will only change when significant numbers of Thai homosexual men and women and kathoey are prepared to speak publicly and openly and break the Thai culture of taboo that says you do what you like in private but just don't talk about in public." It seems that activism and education are vital to changing attitudes and legislation in Thailand, but there is little evidence that Thai sexual minorities are prepared to challenge existing cultural beliefs, nor are they prepared to take on government bodies.

Conclusion

The conference was a step in the right direction, moving towards promoting respect and recognition for sexual and gender diversity in Thailand and other Asian countries. Although attitudes have improved over the past few decades, there still exists a level of ambiguity and contradiction that needs to be addressed. At government level, new legislation is required to positively impact on the lives of transgendered persons in Thailand. Laws relating to gender status need to be revisited by government, and diversity groups need to work with the government to draft the appropriate human rights legislation. Until this happens, the 'third sex' will remain 'third' class citizens in their own country.

Features

this month

regulars

stories

free ads

sports

golf

funnies

info

back issues