Noel O'Gara
2007-11-29 12:17:05 UTC
CASE NUMBER 7MA90367
Mr C.A. Gregg v Mr N. O'Gara
Dear Sir,
In reply to your letter dated 31st October but received by me on 16th
November and your file of statements served on me on Friday 23rd
November, I wish to enter the following submission to the court.
Your Application for summary judgment by the claimant set down for
Friday, the 7th December at Liverpool District Registry of the High
court, 35 Vernon Street , Liverpool is a most blatant abuse of the
process of law and I ask that it be struck out or dismissed. The
Claimant says he 'waives his right to a jury trial', indicating that
he and his representatives are well aware that it SHOULD come before a
jury.
He may waive HIS right, but he cannot waive MY right to a jury
trial, and I respectfully insist that if they decide to continue, it
must be heard by a jury.
I also ask that costs to date be awarded to me.
I have a valid defense to the claim because the words complained of
are statements of facts and reasonable assumptions based on certain
facts and it is a matter for a jury to decide if that is contested.
Lewis Hymanson and Small have stated that I have failed to provide
particulars to support my defence. This is misleading. My defence is
contained in the web page which is part of a larger web site that
proves that Peter Sutcliffe is not the Yorkshire Ripper but rather a
copycat killer who was offered ten years in a mental home in exchange
for his confessions for the Ripper's murders in addition to his own
killings.
They refer to the Civil Evidence Act 1968 which asserted that a court
conviction was sufficient evidence to prove that a person convicted
did commit the offence. That Act has been repealed by the 1995 Act.
The exoneration and release of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the
Maguire 7, Stefan Kiszko, Anthony Steel, Winston Silcott, the
Bridgewater three, Dereck Bentley, the Cardiff three, Judith Ward,
Robert Brown, Barry George to name but a few of the innocent people
who were framed by corrupt police statements and convicted for
murders and were subsequently freed by appeal judges is telling
evidence that a conviction in a court of law is not proof that a
person committed the crime.
In particular the stitch up of innocent Stefan Kiszko stands out and
that was orchestrated by Detective Superintendant Dick Holland of the
West Yorkshire police who was subsequently charged with perverting the
course of justice but not proceeded with.
In view of all these miscarriages of justice but which would more
correctly be described as police stitch-ups; the assertion by the
claimant Mr Gregg that because John Humble was convicted by a court
and therefore he is guilty is not by any means absolute proof of his
guilt. He did not have a jury trial.
Humble was a vulnerable alcoholic who had a past criminal record and
when he was arrested and charged with being the Ripper hoaxer he
cooperated with the police and had no trial before a jury because he
had been coerced into confessing to the crime and he had no way out of
his predicament. This man was a vulnerable chronic drunk who couldn't
remember his movements or actions and was easily convinced that if he
didn't cooperate with the police he would get a longer sentence for
attempted murder. Fabricated DNA alleged to have linked him to the
letters was never authenticated or independently tested and all one
has to do is look at his handwriting to see that he was not the man
who sent the Ripper's letters to George Oldfield.
The Birmingham 6 and all the other innocent victims of police frame
ups referred to above were protesting their innocence from the time
they were arrested and their convictions in court didn't alter the
facts that they were innocent. Meanwhile the real killers and bombers
remained free and safe from investigation.
A similar scenario exists in this case and the real Yorkshire Ripper
who sent the letters and a taped message to the police is still a free
man and living in the UK today safe in the knowledge that the police
will not wish to reinvestigate his crimes because a court has
convicted Sutcliffe of them.
These are facts that will be put to the jury if this action continues
and I wish to make it clear that only a jury can decide on such
serious allegations and counter allegations.
Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Gregg who is head of the Homicide
and Major Enquiries team in the West Yorkshire police force and who
was responsible for the conviction of John Humble as the Ripper Hoaxer
in 2005 has served me with papers saying that I have libeled him in my
web site and he is seeking 50,000 pounds damages and seeking an
injunction to prevent me publishing my claims.
His lawyers, Messrs Lewis Hymanson and Small solicitors of Manchester
are now seeking summary judgment from a judge alone by intimating that
he is such a senior policeman and my defence to my allegations have no
real prospect of success. Just as Detective Gregg denied John Humble
a jury trial he is now resorting to similar tactics in his defamation
action.
The statements he complains of are contained in this web page which is
an update of my book and web site entitled the Real Yorkshire Ripper.
My web site address is www.yorkshireripper.com
http://yorkshireripper.com/johnhumble.htm
Truth is an absolute defense to an allegation of libel and I am only
saying what I know to be true.
My web site and book is the basis of my evidence and it must be taken
in its entirety.
I informed the claimants that I live in Ireland and I work in Ireland
and I published my book and web site in Ireland and therefore if he
wished to take legal action against me he should do so in Ireland and
I would be happy to defend myself before a judge and a jury because I
stand over everything I wrote.
The real Ripper is still a free man and the murders have not stopped.
The john Humble case must be looked at in the context of the Yorkshire
Ripper investigation.
Chris Gregg has claimed to have solved a mystery that eluded the
police for the five years of the Ripper investigation and was the
subject of massive national and international publicity to unmask the
author of the letters and the tape recorded voice message.
That was to compare the hand writing and listen to the voice.
Without doubt John Humble was not regarded as the author of that tape
at that time when it was being played at every news broadcast in his
home town over the two years prior to the arrest of Peter Sutcliffe.
All his family and acquaintances who knew his voice intimately failed
to point a finger at him at this time and yet he now says he did send
the tape when confronted with a police fait accompli that his DNA was
found on one of the letters. This was found notwithstanding the fact
that the tapes and letters were reported to have been lost or
destroyed after the trial of Sutcliffe just as the clothes and
belongings of Sutcliffe were ordered to be brought to an incinerator
by the chief constable Ronald Gregory after his trial.
see the Sun article on this web page for evidence of this.
http://yorkshireripper.com/bilton.htm
Humble actually wrote to the author from his prison cell and his hand
writing is totally different to the letters sent by the Ripper to
Oldfield.
I will attend court and request a jury trial and I will have evidence
of the stitch up of Sutcliffe and a murder weapon belonging to the
real Ripper that the police dont wish to investigate as well as some
witnesses who read my book and support me fully including the fact
that Chris Gregg consciously framed the vulnerable John Humble knowing
him to be innocent.
Humble was just another patsy to close off that embarrassing gap in
the Ripper case but the evidence remains on the record that there were
two killers involved in the Ripper hunt and there was evidence that
the same person who sent the letters and tape to George Oldfield was
also the killer of Joan Harrison in Preston in 1975, a murder still
unsolved but no doubt Gregg has the way to solve any crime with
fabricated DNA used against defenceless ex criminals who have no
support and have learned to accept the best deal going when they are
faced with a stitch up.
Gregg is desperately trying to shore up the cracks that are opening up
in the conviction of Sutcliffe but the evidence is now too strong to
hold that together.
David Bruce the chief crime correspondent of the Yorkshire Evening
Post is Gregg's only independent witness that he has been libeled.
Bruce who is 30 years a crime reporter with that paper has a record of
covering up police crime and helping to keep people like Stefan
Kiszko, Anthony Steel and Judith Ward locked away knowing they had
been framed by bent cops. He made a living getting tip offs from these
policemen who used him. Having the inside track on criminal cases
always got him the headlines. If anything other than official police
statements came to his attention such as Stefan Kiszko's alibi or
Judith Ward's claims of innocence, Bruce would dismiss them and so he
has been complicit in the crimes of these corrupt policemen in a very
sinister way for many years by misleading the general public and
concealing their cries of innocence. It is telling that he is the one
witness Chris Gregg can now call upon for help and his statement that
he didn't believe my allegations for one moment is reminiscent of his
statements about Stefan Kiszko, Judith Ward and Anthony Steel who were
all framed by corrupt policemen and their crimes written up by him
without reservation.
Noel O'Gara
Copy my book enclosed as part of my defense evidence.
Address of my web site the full contents of which is part of my
defense evidence.
These are for the attention of the jury and will have to be read by
them in the libel trial.
Copy of a selection of reviews and articles published by British
newspapers at the time of the Ripper hunt and prior to the trial of
Peter Sutcliffe indexed 1 to 31 and dated.
Peter Sutcliffe will be sub poenaed to testify about his book writing
in which he now claims that he is not the Ripper.
Humble's handwriting, letters and voice will need to be compared and
examined by the jury.
Mr C.A. Gregg v Mr N. O'Gara
Dear Sir,
In reply to your letter dated 31st October but received by me on 16th
November and your file of statements served on me on Friday 23rd
November, I wish to enter the following submission to the court.
Your Application for summary judgment by the claimant set down for
Friday, the 7th December at Liverpool District Registry of the High
court, 35 Vernon Street , Liverpool is a most blatant abuse of the
process of law and I ask that it be struck out or dismissed. The
Claimant says he 'waives his right to a jury trial', indicating that
he and his representatives are well aware that it SHOULD come before a
jury.
He may waive HIS right, but he cannot waive MY right to a jury
trial, and I respectfully insist that if they decide to continue, it
must be heard by a jury.
I also ask that costs to date be awarded to me.
I have a valid defense to the claim because the words complained of
are statements of facts and reasonable assumptions based on certain
facts and it is a matter for a jury to decide if that is contested.
Lewis Hymanson and Small have stated that I have failed to provide
particulars to support my defence. This is misleading. My defence is
contained in the web page which is part of a larger web site that
proves that Peter Sutcliffe is not the Yorkshire Ripper but rather a
copycat killer who was offered ten years in a mental home in exchange
for his confessions for the Ripper's murders in addition to his own
killings.
They refer to the Civil Evidence Act 1968 which asserted that a court
conviction was sufficient evidence to prove that a person convicted
did commit the offence. That Act has been repealed by the 1995 Act.
The exoneration and release of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the
Maguire 7, Stefan Kiszko, Anthony Steel, Winston Silcott, the
Bridgewater three, Dereck Bentley, the Cardiff three, Judith Ward,
Robert Brown, Barry George to name but a few of the innocent people
who were framed by corrupt police statements and convicted for
murders and were subsequently freed by appeal judges is telling
evidence that a conviction in a court of law is not proof that a
person committed the crime.
In particular the stitch up of innocent Stefan Kiszko stands out and
that was orchestrated by Detective Superintendant Dick Holland of the
West Yorkshire police who was subsequently charged with perverting the
course of justice but not proceeded with.
In view of all these miscarriages of justice but which would more
correctly be described as police stitch-ups; the assertion by the
claimant Mr Gregg that because John Humble was convicted by a court
and therefore he is guilty is not by any means absolute proof of his
guilt. He did not have a jury trial.
Humble was a vulnerable alcoholic who had a past criminal record and
when he was arrested and charged with being the Ripper hoaxer he
cooperated with the police and had no trial before a jury because he
had been coerced into confessing to the crime and he had no way out of
his predicament. This man was a vulnerable chronic drunk who couldn't
remember his movements or actions and was easily convinced that if he
didn't cooperate with the police he would get a longer sentence for
attempted murder. Fabricated DNA alleged to have linked him to the
letters was never authenticated or independently tested and all one
has to do is look at his handwriting to see that he was not the man
who sent the Ripper's letters to George Oldfield.
The Birmingham 6 and all the other innocent victims of police frame
ups referred to above were protesting their innocence from the time
they were arrested and their convictions in court didn't alter the
facts that they were innocent. Meanwhile the real killers and bombers
remained free and safe from investigation.
A similar scenario exists in this case and the real Yorkshire Ripper
who sent the letters and a taped message to the police is still a free
man and living in the UK today safe in the knowledge that the police
will not wish to reinvestigate his crimes because a court has
convicted Sutcliffe of them.
These are facts that will be put to the jury if this action continues
and I wish to make it clear that only a jury can decide on such
serious allegations and counter allegations.
Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Gregg who is head of the Homicide
and Major Enquiries team in the West Yorkshire police force and who
was responsible for the conviction of John Humble as the Ripper Hoaxer
in 2005 has served me with papers saying that I have libeled him in my
web site and he is seeking 50,000 pounds damages and seeking an
injunction to prevent me publishing my claims.
His lawyers, Messrs Lewis Hymanson and Small solicitors of Manchester
are now seeking summary judgment from a judge alone by intimating that
he is such a senior policeman and my defence to my allegations have no
real prospect of success. Just as Detective Gregg denied John Humble
a jury trial he is now resorting to similar tactics in his defamation
action.
The statements he complains of are contained in this web page which is
an update of my book and web site entitled the Real Yorkshire Ripper.
My web site address is www.yorkshireripper.com
http://yorkshireripper.com/johnhumble.htm
Truth is an absolute defense to an allegation of libel and I am only
saying what I know to be true.
My web site and book is the basis of my evidence and it must be taken
in its entirety.
I informed the claimants that I live in Ireland and I work in Ireland
and I published my book and web site in Ireland and therefore if he
wished to take legal action against me he should do so in Ireland and
I would be happy to defend myself before a judge and a jury because I
stand over everything I wrote.
The real Ripper is still a free man and the murders have not stopped.
The john Humble case must be looked at in the context of the Yorkshire
Ripper investigation.
Chris Gregg has claimed to have solved a mystery that eluded the
police for the five years of the Ripper investigation and was the
subject of massive national and international publicity to unmask the
author of the letters and the tape recorded voice message.
That was to compare the hand writing and listen to the voice.
Without doubt John Humble was not regarded as the author of that tape
at that time when it was being played at every news broadcast in his
home town over the two years prior to the arrest of Peter Sutcliffe.
All his family and acquaintances who knew his voice intimately failed
to point a finger at him at this time and yet he now says he did send
the tape when confronted with a police fait accompli that his DNA was
found on one of the letters. This was found notwithstanding the fact
that the tapes and letters were reported to have been lost or
destroyed after the trial of Sutcliffe just as the clothes and
belongings of Sutcliffe were ordered to be brought to an incinerator
by the chief constable Ronald Gregory after his trial.
see the Sun article on this web page for evidence of this.
http://yorkshireripper.com/bilton.htm
Humble actually wrote to the author from his prison cell and his hand
writing is totally different to the letters sent by the Ripper to
Oldfield.
I will attend court and request a jury trial and I will have evidence
of the stitch up of Sutcliffe and a murder weapon belonging to the
real Ripper that the police dont wish to investigate as well as some
witnesses who read my book and support me fully including the fact
that Chris Gregg consciously framed the vulnerable John Humble knowing
him to be innocent.
Humble was just another patsy to close off that embarrassing gap in
the Ripper case but the evidence remains on the record that there were
two killers involved in the Ripper hunt and there was evidence that
the same person who sent the letters and tape to George Oldfield was
also the killer of Joan Harrison in Preston in 1975, a murder still
unsolved but no doubt Gregg has the way to solve any crime with
fabricated DNA used against defenceless ex criminals who have no
support and have learned to accept the best deal going when they are
faced with a stitch up.
Gregg is desperately trying to shore up the cracks that are opening up
in the conviction of Sutcliffe but the evidence is now too strong to
hold that together.
David Bruce the chief crime correspondent of the Yorkshire Evening
Post is Gregg's only independent witness that he has been libeled.
Bruce who is 30 years a crime reporter with that paper has a record of
covering up police crime and helping to keep people like Stefan
Kiszko, Anthony Steel and Judith Ward locked away knowing they had
been framed by bent cops. He made a living getting tip offs from these
policemen who used him. Having the inside track on criminal cases
always got him the headlines. If anything other than official police
statements came to his attention such as Stefan Kiszko's alibi or
Judith Ward's claims of innocence, Bruce would dismiss them and so he
has been complicit in the crimes of these corrupt policemen in a very
sinister way for many years by misleading the general public and
concealing their cries of innocence. It is telling that he is the one
witness Chris Gregg can now call upon for help and his statement that
he didn't believe my allegations for one moment is reminiscent of his
statements about Stefan Kiszko, Judith Ward and Anthony Steel who were
all framed by corrupt policemen and their crimes written up by him
without reservation.
Noel O'Gara
Copy my book enclosed as part of my defense evidence.
Address of my web site the full contents of which is part of my
defense evidence.
These are for the attention of the jury and will have to be read by
them in the libel trial.
Copy of a selection of reviews and articles published by British
newspapers at the time of the Ripper hunt and prior to the trial of
Peter Sutcliffe indexed 1 to 31 and dated.
Peter Sutcliffe will be sub poenaed to testify about his book writing
in which he now claims that he is not the Ripper.
Humble's handwriting, letters and voice will need to be compared and
examined by the jury.