March 5th 2004
A British born businessman living in Melbourne has reported comments made to him about the mass murderer Peter Sutcliffe, better known as ‘The Yorkshire Ripper’, by the senior partners from the solicitors company who represented him in May 1981.
Tony Holland alleges they told him that; “the Ripper wants to plead not guilty to 6 of the murders” because “he does not know about them.”
After Sutcliffe was charged with murder in January 1981 he was represented by the solicitors firm Lumb and Kenningham. Junior partner, Kerry Macgill, and John Lumb handled the case for the company. Macgill is now a circuit judge.
Kenningham, Lumb and Holland were friends when they all lived in Bradford in the 1970s. They were also business partners and joint shareholders in a property company called Vilindra. Land registry records show that along with Gene Fagan they purchased a property at 7 Russell Street, Little Horton in Bradford on June 26th 1978.
As a result of their business dealings Holland claims to have been a regular visitor to the Lumb and Kenningham offices between 1977 and May 1981 when Sutcliffe was convicted.
Holland has stated that “when Lumb and Macgill got to see Sutcliffe he was unable to give full details on all the murders” and “when I asked Derek Kenningham about this he told me, they had nothing on 6 murders” and this was “not because Sutcliffe did not want to talk about the murders” as “he was very talkative” about the other murders but “because he does not know about them”.
The comments attributed to Lumb and Kenningham give some weight to a number of stories that Peter Sutcliffe may not have murdered all of the women he was convicted of.
In 1980 a major Sunday Times ‘Insight’ piece claimed that Assistant Chief Constable George Oldfield, who took overall control of the chase for the Ripper after the murder of sixteen year old Jayne Macdonald in Leeds in June 1977 had said ‘Oldfield conceded to us – that there is not one Ripper, but – at least –two.’
Later in 1989 R.J.P. Warren, deputy chairman of the West Yorkshire Police Authority said “it was known in the top echelons of the police that two men were involved in the series of murders.” Brian Marriner, author of ‘A century of sex killers’ said “I don’t think now that Sutcliffe did all the killings he confessed to.”
Holland further alleges that a senior Detective told him he knew the man who became famous as ‘Wearside Jack’ after a tape was posted to the police taunting them for not catching the Ripper. The voice, which was distinctive and located as from the Sunderland area caused the police to concentrate their efforts on finding someone with a Wearside accent, this allowed Sutcliffe to escape arrest on the numerous occasions he was questioned.
On May 22nd 1981 Sutcliffe was found guilty of the murder of 13 women and seven attempted murders. He was jailed for life, with a recommendation that he should serve at least thirty years.
Holland has lived in Australia since 1982 and has courted controversy by his occasional willingness to talk about his work in the British security organisation, M16 in the 1970s.
Neither Lumb nor Kenningham have so far been willing to comment on Holland’s claims after letters were sent to them.
Watch out for the 'The Case of Tony Holland' out later this year from RPM Publications
[JP/DOJ.1/2000]
State of Victoria
AFFIDAVIT
I, John Anthony Holland, Of 31 Kidman street, Yarraville, Melbourne, 3013 Australia, Retired mechanical engineer, make oath and say that: That on Tuesday the 19 January 1981, two months after I had given my prepared statement to Superintendent Dick Holland I had heard nothing further from the police and I got a telephone call from Derek Kenningham asking if I would come around to their office in Ivegate.
I was aware by then that Police had caught a most infamous person nicknamed by the press as the “Yorkshire Ripper” and I was also aware that the firm of Lumb and Kenningham were representing him. I was impressed that my old partners were moving up in the world. I was surprised that Derek wanted to see me however, and I guessed it was about the taxation investigation, Derek said that nothing was amiss about that matter, and that he was trying to fix it up. I agreed to go along in the afternoon to sort the “little” problems Derek might be having. Derek indicated that those problems would only take a few minutes.
When I arrived Derek’s wife, the receptionist, asked me to go straight in. Derek came straight to the point, in view of the recent developments involving The Yorkshire Ripper, their new client Peter Sutcliffe perhaps we should present a united front to the taxation authorities to see if these matters could be dealt with as quietly as possible.
I was only too happy to
agree and I could see Derek was relived that I was on side to get these matters
settled without fuss.
I then asked about Sutcliffe. Was he mad, bad likeable or what and I admit to
being as curious as most people who had follow the hunt for this person, Derek
was only too happy to talk to me about his famous client.
I was told that Kerry McGill and Sutcliffe got on very well and that Sutcliffe was receiving daily invitations from very famous solicitors who wanted to represent him but he was refusing to budge and Jack and he were confident that they would take the matter all the way to trial. McGill was spending a lot of time at Armely prison he said.
Derek added that Jack and Kerry would shortly be traveling to London to talk to the DPP and he mentioned a man called David Kyle about the plea that Sutcliffe wanted to make admissions to murdering only 4 people and not all 13 as the press were claiming.
I recall Derek saying clearly that Police had given them two different blood groupings, one for Sutcliffe and one for another man, and that police were indicating that Sutcliffe may only be a copy cat.
I was staggered by this and sat there as Derek kept on talking about fate and how strange it is that Kerry had at one time been stopped by police for cruising in a red light area, and questioned as a Ripper suspect apparently McGill lived somewhere in Manningham and was stopped on his way home and questioned.
After about fifteen minutes, Derek indicated he had another appointment soon and that I should telephone later on in the month to see how things were progressing regarding the taxation business.
I was happy to be leaving on such an up beat note.
I saw Derek four more times after that; one time Jack attended. Three of those times were with Derek alone and were no more than a casual hello in the street with me asking if things moving along satisfactorily to which Derek usually said yes but one day he stopped to arrange a lunch with himself and Jack for later that week Thursday 26th February.
Lunch was at a spot all three of us had previously eaten, the pub at the top of Ivegate. The pub offered discrete surroundings for a quite conversation about what Derek could achieve with the taxation department and how soon that matter could be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
Derek as usual was the talker, he confirmed that Peter Nixon, his firms accountants had been in touch with Sue Thompson to indicate a misunderstanding may have taken place, but he said Thompson had not been happy with Nixon’s position and wanted to continue the investigation.
Jack said he was going to try to head off any embarrassment either by going directly to Dick Holland who he knew well or through his new friend at the DPP, David Kyle.
As we were leaving the Pub and walking down the hill towards the office of Lumb and Kenningham, Jack pointed to the bottom of the hill, and said that he had just seen Dick Holland walking by. Jack hurried of to catch up saying this was as good a time as any to see Dick.
I do not know the outcome of that meeting and Derek was never in the office when I phoned to inquire about it during the following 4 or 5 weeks. My last phone call to ask Derek about the taxation matters was around the end of March 1981, his wife informed me he was with a client and could not be disturbed.
On the 7th April 1981,
I begun a remarkable series of problems it has taken me 23 years to unravel.
Mark Metcalf
c/o RPM Publications
BCM Box 3328
London WC1N 3XX
www.red-star-research.org.uk
revoperminute@ukonline.co.uk
0845 345 3958 or 07967 886257
Reference Tony Holland, ex-Bradford resident and Peter Sutcliffe
His Honour
Kerry Macgill
Combined Crown Court
The Courthouse
1 Oxford row
Leeds LS1 3BG
October 26th 2004
Dear Mr Macgill,
I am an independent publisher and freelance journalist, who has had articles published in a range of newspapers such as the Guardian, The Independent, The Big Issue and New Statesman as well as many places abroad.
I have been researching
the case of Mr Tony Holland, once of Bradford and now living in Melbourne in
Australia, where he is a successful businessman. Mr Holland was convicted of
handling stolen goods at Bradford Crown Court in 1981
[see attached article] and sent to prison for one year, reduced on appeal to
six months after the Law Lords agreed that the main witness against him was
‘’a young man lying on oath’’.
I have undertaken an extensive examination of Mr Holland’s claims, which has included thoroughly looking in to his claim to have worked for the security services, MI6. Mr Holland believes that his conviction may be related to his intimate knowledge of the case against Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper.
Mr Holland was in a business partnership with your employers at the time, John [Jack] Lumb and Derek Kenningham [both of whom I have written to on this matter, with no reply from either] and this partnership had turned sour. He regularly visited the offices and spoke to Mr Lumb and Mr Kenningham throughout 1981, I also understand that you were present on a number of these occasions, which if not true then I am sure you will deny.
Mr Holland alleges that both Mr Lumb and Mr Kenningham told him that Peter Sutcliffe could not possibly have committed all of the crimes has was charged with, and that whilst he was able and willing to recount events of some of the murders and attacks he had no knowledge of others. This would, of course, mean that if Sutcliffe didn’t do all the murders then someone else must have. And that person, unless they have been arrested for something else, would remain free.
At first I must admit that I viewed Mr Holland’s ideas and its implications as ridiculous, but after I started to examine the charges and prosecution of Mr Sutcliffe it became clear that on many occasions police officers at the time said there were two people involved, both working independently of each other. And recently I met Ron Warren, deputy chairman of West Yorkshire Police Authority who has recounted that George Oldfield told him there were two people involved. I have also now read a book by Noel O’Gara called ‘the Real Yorkshire Ripper’ and I have become more and more concerned.
Mr O’Gara has sent me a copy of a letter he was handing out in Leeds on October 21st, which if I may say so contains some extremely damaging allegations against you. I would like to request an opportunity to meet with you and discuss them, I am sure you will want to refute them.
I would also like to discuss whether you, as Peter Sutcliffe’s solicitor ever undertook an independent examination of his claims to have committed each of the crimes he confessed to? Did you for example, visit the scene of each crime to ascertain that his confession fitted the facts, did you try and obtain independent verification that what he was saying was true?
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. I can be contacted by post, e-mail or telephone as detailed above.
Yours faithfully
Mark Metcalf