Teen jailed for 'Ripper' attacks in Dorchester and Langdon Hill

Stefan Fry Stefan Fry

A TEENAGER inspired by the Yorkshire Rip-per has been jailed for four years for attacks on two women.

Stefan Fry, 18, admitted going out with a hammer and assaulted two lone women in separate incidents in Dorchester and at Langdon Hill car park near Bridport.

He appeared at Dorches-ter Crown Court to be sentenced after pleading guilty to two charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two offences of possessing an offensive weapon.

Prosecutor Carolyn Bran-ford-Wood said on Decem-ber 15 last year 32-year-old Maria Clark was walking along an alleyway near Balmoral Crescent in Dor-chester when she heard someone coming up behind her.

She said she turned round and Fry struck her with his fist to the left side of her head, knocking her to the ground before running off.

Police searched the area and found a hammer hanging on a fence near the scene of the attack.

Miss Branford-Wood said on February 22 this year Fry’s second victim, 37-year-old Gemma Thomp-son, had been walking her friend’s dogs in woods near Langdon Hill car park and returned to find just one other vehicle in the car park.

She got into the car and was just about to drive off when Fry attacked, striking her with the hammer.

Miss Branford-Wood said: “She hear footsteps behind her on the gravel and felt two sudden blows to the back of her head.”

She turned to face her attacker but he was already running back towards the other car and drove off immediately.

Miss Thompson was able to identify the number plate on the man’s car, which led to Fry, of Fox Close, Bridport, being arrested two days later.

Miss Branford-Wood said when he was interview by police he admitted going to the car park on several occasions armed with the hammer in the hope of attacking a lone woman.

He also admitted the attack in Dorchester, claiming he had carried out the assaults in order to get attention.

Miss Branford-Wood added: “Asked about the use of the hammer on the two occasions he said he obtained that idea from reading books and also research on the internet about the Yorkshire Ripper.

“He thought it was a large blunt instrument that would have a visual impact on his victims.”

Charles Gabb, mitigating, said his client had carried out the ‘disturbing’ attacks which were a desperate cry for attention for someone who felt he had underachieved throughout his life.

He added: “The aim was to frighten and scare, not to do anything else.”

Judge 'deeply disturbed' by defendant's actions

A JUDGE said he found it ‘deeply disturbing’ that Fry appearing to be ‘acting out’ the actions of the Yorkshire Ripper as he sentenced him to four years in prison.

Judge Roger Jarvis said: “I view these offences as deeply disturbing.

“There is plainly a secretive part of your character where you keep some part of your personality hidden from those who think they know you well.”

He added: “You were plainly influenced by your fascination with serious crime, your searching on the internet for the Yorkshire Ripper and having a book on him.

“Everybody who looks at this must reach the view that you were experimenting at acting out that man’s acts.”

Judge Jarvis also ordered that Fry spend an additional year on licence once his term had expired as he expressed fears over the risk the defendant posed to society.

He said: “I’m quite satisfied that you present a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm.

“It seems to me you need to spend a significant amount of time in custody so there is a clear understanding of your motivation and you receive all the help that is available in erasing those dangerous impulses.”

Police praise for victims

Police have also praised the victims in the case and the role they played in bringing Fry to justice.

DCI Paul Powley, of Dorset Police, said: “Fry’s most recent victim was able to make a mental note of part of his registration number, as a consequence we were able to trace his vehicle and whereabouts very quickly.

“Further investigation of our databases led us to believe that a male matching Fry’s description and pattern of offending was responsible for another attack on a lone female in Dorchester in 2011 and the fact he had been stopped and checked in 2010 close to where another female had reported to police that a male had been following her.

“This served to heighten our suspicion and confirm to us that we were dealing with a very dangerous offender.

“Detectives were able to work with victims and collate evidence so as to enable them to work with the Crown Prosecution Service in order to ensure Fry was convicted and would serve a term of imprisonment for his crimes.

“The female victims were attacked by Fry whilst going about their business in isolated parts of West Dorset.

“It is thanks to their courage as witnesses and the tenacity of the investigative team that Fry is now serving a prison sentence.”

Inspector Les Fry, above, of Dorchester Police, said: “These were two very serious crimes and we are pleased the offender has been brought to justice.

“It sends out a very strong message to victims of crime and also those intent on committing crime that Dorset Police and the judicial system will take these sorts of offences very seriously.

“We welcome this result as it goes to show the severity of the attacks on the victims and how lucky they were not to be more seriously injuured.”

Why Sutcliffe will never be released

Peter Sutcliffe, right, the Yorkshire Ripper, was convicted in 1981 of murdering 13 women and attacking seven others.

He carried out the attacks between 1969 and 1980, including the murder of 16-year-old Jane MacDonald in 1977.

Police were diverted from the true identity of the killer when John Samuel Humble sent two letters and a tape claiming responsibility in 1978.

He was sentenced to eight years in prison in 2006.

Sutcliffe was caught in 1980 after being stopped by the police with prostitute Olivia Reivers.

He matched many of the characteristics of the Ripper and was tried in 1981.

Although he was sent to HMP Parkhurst, Sutcliffe was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was moved to Broadmoor Hospital in 1984, where he remains today.

In 2010, an application for a minimum term of sentence to be set was rejected by the High Court of Justice.

It was decided that Peter Sutcliffe would never be released and subsequent appeals against this ruling were rejected.

Comments(7)

Bailey25 says...
12:53pm Sat 18 Aug 12

4 years is nothing. He knew what he was doing and could of easily killed either woman. He is obviously very sick in the head, just looking at him gives me the creeps. I walk along that alleyway near Balmoral Crescent all the time, I wouldn't have done if I'd known about this. Those 2 poor women must have been terrified and I imagine that incident will affect them for far longer than 4 years.

sagalout says...
3:05pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Not in touch with reality is he.

kildare43 says...
8:58am Sun 19 Aug 12

Who ? the criminal or the Judge?

wessex-andy says...
7:50am Mon 20 Aug 12

Only 4 years?

Wykeite says...
8:38am Mon 20 Aug 12

What a joke, four years!

iampuzzled says...
11:29am Mon 20 Aug 12

Why is this published under 'letters'?

Micke12 says...
10:53pm Mon 20 Aug 12

Four years, eligible for parole at 16 months, may or may not get it, but released on good behaviour having served just 32 months, with 1 year on supervison.

What a joke this sentence is, and what more of a joke is this judge, totally out of contact with reality.

I would think t would be right for this case to be taken to the appeal court by he Wessex Area Crown Prosecution Service, but I doubt they will as they are not interested in Justice, just numbers of convictions versus crimes committed and detected by the police.

Each and every one of us hasthe right to apply to the Attorney General Office for the sentence to be reviewed if considered by any 'reasonable' person, to be a sentnce that is too low in view of the crime or crimes. I certainly intend to forward my view to the Attorney general that this is by far a too lenient sentence and that it should e referred to the court of appeal for reconsideration on the basis that the penalty does not reflect society's view of the seriousness of the offence. If you want to put in a complaint about this sentence to he Attorney General, this website address is http://www.attorneyg
eneral.gov.uk/ABOUTU
S/ULS/Pages/default.
aspx.

It seems to me that today, judges are so out of touch. If you get caught stealing, you get a much greater sentence than you do if you batter someone, and this case just goes o prove that point.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree