Police and Home Office officials are reviewing claims that Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, may have been responsible for other attacks for which he was never charged.
Unpublished documents with details of other attacks, photofits and suspects that might be linked to Sutcliffe are being examined. West Yorkshire police said on Sunday that they would pursue any new lines of inquiry.
The Home Office has been considering a freedom of information (FoI) request to release a so-far censored section of a 1982 report into lessons that might be learned from the police handling of the Sutcliffe case.
Sir Lawrence Byford, a former chief inspector of constabulary, concluded that Sutcliffe – who was convicted in 1981 for murdering 13 women over five years – was probably responsible for “many attacks on unaccompanied women” which he had not admitted. between 1969 and 1980. These were “not only in the West Yorkshire and Manchester areas but also in other parts of the country”.
The Ministry of Justice is considering whether Sutcliffe, 69, who was convicted in 1981 of murdering 13 women, should be moved from the Broadmoor high-security psychiatric hospital in Berkshire, where he has been since 1984, to a specialist prison after doctors said he was no longer mentally ill. The decision will be made by the justice secretary, Michael Gove.
Some of the Byford report was published in 2006 after an FoI request, but now the Home Office has told the Sunday Times it is looking at releasing so-far unpublished material entitled Description of suspects, photofits and other assaults. The government was aiming to publish as much material as possible but it may also lead to new lines of inquiry.
“Should any new lines of inquiry be identified – whether they relate directly to the Ripper case or otherwise – they will be comprehensively pursued.”
West Yorkshire police said in a statement on Sunday: “We are continuing with an ongoing process to review ‘legacy’ [historical] documents including material relating to the Yorkshire Ripper in line with national guidance around the handling of information, and in conjunction with the Home Office under the requirements of the Public Records Act.
“In this review the interests of victims of crime and their families are of paramount importance, as is the requirement to ensure that no information is made public that could subsequently prejudice any future criminal investigation or judicial process. For this reason we cannot comment in more detail at this stage.
“Should any new lines of enquiry be identified, they will be comprehensively pursued and we will, of course, contact those affected.”
