Early appearance of "forensic phonetics". Not much more than a footnote
to the "Yorkshire Ripper" case, but --
In 1979 the police received a voice tape from someone purporting to be
the serial murderer they were looking for in Yorkshire.
Two dialectologists from the University of Leeds pinpointed the
speaker's accent to an area in Sunderland, maybe 100km to the north.
They considered the tape a hoax, though the police took it seriously.
Sutcliffe, the actual killer, turned out to be from Bradford, very near
Leeds. The hoaxer was not identified and prosecuted until 2005.

Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Early appearance of "forensic phonetics". Not much more than a footnote
> to the "Yorkshire Ripper" case, but --
> In 1979 the police received a voice tape from someone purporting to be
> the serial murderer they were looking for in Yorkshire.
> Two dialectologists from the University of Leeds pinpointed the
> speaker's accent to an area in Sunderland, maybe 100km to the north.
> They considered the tape a hoax, though the police took it seriously.
> Sutcliffe, the actual killer, turned out to be from Bradford, very near
> Leeds. The hoaxer was not identified and prosecuted until 2005.

Does the UK not have a statute of limitations, that a mere hoaxer could be
prosecuted 26 years after?

On 2024-01-02 00:32:35 +0000, Antonio Marques said:

> Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> Early appearance of "forensic phonetics". Not much more than a footnote
>> to the "Yorkshire Ripper" case, but --
>> In 1979 the police received a voice tape from someone purporting to be
>> the serial murderer they were looking for in Yorkshire.
>> Two dialectologists from the University of Leeds pinpointed the
>> speaker's accent to an area in Sunderland, maybe 100km to the north.
>> They considered the tape a hoax, though the police took it seriously.
>> Sutcliffe, the actual killer, turned out to be from Bradford, very near
>> Leeds. The hoaxer was not identified and prosecuted until 2005.
>
> Does the UK not have a statute of limitations, that a mere hoaxer could be
> prosecuted 26 years after?

It does, and one might think it would apply in this instance.
Presumably they found more recent activities for which he could be
charged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wearside_Jack

--
Athel cb

On 2/01/2024 1:32 p.m., Antonio Marques wrote:
> Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> Early appearance of "forensic phonetics". Not much more than a footnote
>> to the "Yorkshire Ripper" case, but --
>> In 1979 the police received a voice tape from someone purporting to be
>> the serial murderer they were looking for in Yorkshire.
>> Two dialectologists from the University of Leeds pinpointed the
>> speaker's accent to an area in Sunderland, maybe 100km to the north.
>> They considered the tape a hoax, though the police took it seriously.
>> Sutcliffe, the actual killer, turned out to be from Bradford, very near
>> Leeds. The hoaxer was not identified and prosecuted until 2005.
>
> Does the UK not have a statute of limitations, that a mere hoaxer could be
> prosecuted 26 years after?
>

I wondered about that too. My brief investigation suggests that there is
no single statute of limitations, and the various rules that do exist
are applied somewhat flexibly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_periods_in_the_United_Kingdom

The hoaxer who eventually confessed sounds like a rather pathetic
figure. He was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice
(in what was, after all, a rather important criminal case). He had given
a DNA sample in 2001 in connection with an unrelated minor offence; this
was matched with DNA from the envelopes he sent to police in 1979.
Perhaps the fact that this was "new evidence" might have been adduced to
support prosecuting him after such a long delay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutcliffe#cite_ref-WearsideJackIDeserve_55-0