I enjoyed your article in the Murder Files series about the cannibal Peter Bryan, (Guardian, January 16) but was confused by the reference to the dates and age of the murderer.
According to the article, Peter Bryan was 35 when arrested on February 17 2004. However, later in the article, it states that "in 1993, Bryan, now 44".
Obviously, it is impossible for 11 years to elapse and Bryan to be nine years younger, but I couldn't determine where the mistake was made. Could you please clarify what the article was meant to say?
Ray Brown, Chigwell
- Editor: Peter Bryan was born in October 1969, so he is now 44-years-old. Apologies, the original sentence was poorly phrased.