Did Steve Wright get a fair trial in Ipswich?

[noel o'gara]

'Tom Stephens was arrested at 0720 GMT on Monday in the village, which is close to the A14 road between Ipswich and Felixstowe. '

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/6189409.stm

Stephens was arrested on suspicion of the 5 murders because police at that time believed that he was the maniac Ipswich prostitute serial killer.

As a friend of all five victims he had been giving media interviews for weeks prior to his arrest but now he refused to talk to police except to tell them the registration number of the car that picked up the victims. He alone, as the girls self appointed guardian, who sat in his car night after night watching over them, knew that Steve Wright, driving a dark blue Ford Mondeo car, had picked up all five shortly before they were killed. This information sent the police into a tailspin.

But they didnt just take Stephens word for it. They immediately started to study their camera footage on all the dates and times that the victims were last seen and sure enough his information was confirmed by sightings of the dark blue mondeo kerb crawling at each of the crucial times. Could it be coincidence? Five times? Now incredibly, with the number one suspect in custody, but not yet charged, the police had a second hot suspect to consider. They had to weigh the evidence very carefully.

This hot intelligence led to the arrest of Steve Wright less than 24 hours after the first arrest because police were able to corroborate and confirm it by street camera footage.

Wright denied that he knew the victims at first and his lawyer advised him to say 'no comment' to police questioning. However he later relented and admitted that he had been with all five victims on the nights they disappeared but insisted it was only for sex. Two days after his arrest the police and the CPS decided that it was just too much of a coincidence that he could have picked up all five murdered girls in turn on the last night of their lives, and his earlier denials cast him as a liar and the balance of suspicion moved from Stephens to Wright. From the moment of his arrest his DNA was taken and rushed to labs for comparison with evidence on the victims. It proved positive on 3 victims and this forensic evidence helped to convince the police that they had their killer.

But did the police get it right and was Wright the real killer?
He was held without bail, with no support, no phone, none of his clothes, none of his personal papers, phone numbers, etc. His friends family and everybody who knew him tended to believe the police, that he was the Suffolk strangler with a Jeckyll and Hyde personality and his common law wife couldnt even get into her own home for her personal belongings.
Her bank account was frozen and she couldnt visit him in jail.
How could this accused man prepare a defence if he was innocent?

[Dark Ali]

Noel, are you saying Wright didn't have proper access to his defence team while being held on remand, or that if he did, they didn't thoroughly prepare his defence as is their duty to do? If so, surely you should be petitioning the Home Secretary to look at this.

[Trevor Marriott]

Noel, are you saying Wright didn't have proper access to his defence team while being held on remand, or that if he did, they didn't thoroughly prepare his defence as is their duty to do? If so, surely you should be petitioning the Home Secretary to look at this.

It wouldnt have mattered if God had been defending him the forensic evidence was overwhelming.

On February 25th 2009 Wright made an application to The Court of Appeal for leave to challenge his conviction on the grounds that his trial was unfair and therefore the conviction unsafe. The appeal was heard by Lord Justice Hughes who sat with two other Judges. After careful deliberation the Judges rejected the appeal ruling that his trial was fair and the conviction safe. Lord Justice Hughes announcing the decision of the court said Wright had raised no “arguable” grounds of appeal.

[Ally]

'
But did the police get it right and was Wright the real killer?
He was held without bail, with no support, no phone, none of his clothes, none of his personal papers, phone numbers, etc.
....
How could this accused man prepare a defence if he was innocent?

Oh my gosh! This poor man! Suspected of multiple homicides and they didn't allow him access to his own clothes and his personal papers and phone numbers! The horror! How could he possibly have prepared a defense without his Ed Hardy t-shirts? Oh if only the criminal justice system had someone to prepare a case for you and argue your innocence on your behalf so that you weren't stuck, naked and defenseless, railroaded by the man in the county pokey.

[Natalie Severn]

Moreover, I think the police did absolutely brilliantly over the capture and conviction of Steven Wright.Credit where credits due.And thank God the swine has been put away.
Norma

[gallicrow]

Actually Noel O'Gara's page on this case is quite interesting:

http://www.yorkshireripper.com/ipswich.htm

I'm not saying I think his conclusion is correct, but it made me wonder if Tom Stephens really was as simple as he came across at the time.

[Tecs]

Dear all,

It's great to see Noel still fighting the good fight.

I've been aware of Noel for many years now. A friend of mine met him a few years ago and asked if he could deliver a copy of his book to the family of Emily Jackson, Peter Sutcliffe's second victim, so that they could know "the truth."

I've read his book and I do have to say, I don't believe a word of it I'm afraid. For me, what may have been left of the theory was blown completely out of he water when John Humble was found. (For some reason, the Humble page is missing from Noel's website?)

I do agree though that the police were very quick and happy to say Sutcliffe was a nutter, lock him up and forget about the whole thing.

But, although the police kept an open mind about there being two killers at work, this is normal police procedure in an investigation. They will do so until they have reason to rule out the possibility.

Many people have been nasty and offensive to Noel over the years. For me, anybody who shows the level of determination that he has, however wrong and misguided he may or may not be, deserves some sort of respect at least.

Ps, Noel, I tried to contact you a while ago through your website, can't remember why now, but it wouldn't work?

Maybe we'll have a chat here at some point?

Thanks,

Tecs.

[noel o'gara]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;
On February 25th 2009 Wright made an application to The Court of Appeal for leave to challenge his conviction on the grounds that his trial was unfair and therefore the conviction unsafe. The appeal was heard by Lord Justice Hughes who sat with two other Judges. After careful deliberation the Judges rejected the appeal ruling that his trial was fair and the conviction safe. Lord Justice Hughes announcing the decision of the court said Wright had raised no “arguable” grounds of appeal.[/QUOTE]

Careful deliberation, Indeed.

There was no hearing of an appeal at the scheduled 'appeal hearing '.
Patrick Cullinane, an Irishman who is a case worker in London had been requested by Steve Wright to represent him. He had phoned him from his prison a few times in the days prior to his expected appeal.
Steve Wright was looking forward to meeting Mr Cullinane in court but when the time came the court was filled with media people who wrote down a prepared statement read out by the judges. Steve Wright was nowhere to be seen in court and Mr Cullinane who protested was silenced by the judges.
The newspapers slavishly reported the judges statement that no new evidence was presented and the British public were sold the lie that he had no credible evidence to support an appeal hearing.
Patrick Cullinane was in possession of a sheaf of evidence that would support Steve Wright's innocence but they obstructed him and perverted Wright's right of appeal by denying him access to his legal adviser and to the public court of appeal.
Wright has been held incommunicado ever since.

[Bob Hinton]

Very interesting,

Is Mr O'Gara bringing out a book in the near future about this case?

[noel o'gara]

I've read his book and I do have to say, I don't believe a word of it I'm afraid. For me, what may have been left of the theory was blown completely out of he water when John Humble was found. (For some reason, the Humble page is missing from Noel's website?)

I do agree though that the police were very quick and happy to say Sutcliffe was a nutter, lock him up and forget about the whole thing.

But, although the police kept an open mind about there being two killers at work, this is normal police procedure in an investigation. They will do so until they have reason to rule out the possibility.

Tecs.

hi Tec, you dont believe a word of my book and yet my book is just setting the police evidence before you, but this time in a meaningful context.
The police are on record as saying that there were two killers in the ripper case.
They eliminated Sutcliffe a dozen times.
They offered him the mental home and no trial in exchange for his confessions.
These tecs eliminated him because his blood group didnt match the Ripper's, not once but twelve times. They covered that by saying he was eliminated because he didnt have a Geordie accent. If you believe that?
Yet you believe that they got the Ripper.

You must be a very soft touch tec when you believe that they just made honest mistakes in all those police actions. How about the stitch up of Stefan Kiszko and Judith Ward? to mention only two. More honest mistakes for you.

Anyway I dont wish to discuss the Ripper here but it is because of my experience with 25 years of living in the shadow of the Real ripper that I took an interest in the Ipswich murders and I saw parallels, particularly as the real ripper is living in London now. The evidence against Wright didnt add up. The media loudly backed the verdict of the court but the jury didnt get all the evidence.
Like Stefan Kiszko's jury they only got what painted him as a killer while evidence that would have eliminated him was withheld or played down.

By the way, the John Humble page had to be taken down because my web host was sent a court order by ex detective Chris Gregg who won a libel order against me in a case that denied me a jury and due process but thats another story.
This libel case was heard by judge Timothy King in London and coincidentally he was one of the 3 judges hearing the Steve Wright appeal.
Now you lads are the jury and you have a real live case to decide on. Hopefully your own server wont shut down the right to debate in public and I was told that Casebook was a top rated site for serious crime debate so there must be a lot of crime experts reading it as well as a very very few real criminals.
Jack the Ripper is long gone but these killers, ie the Ipswich and Yorkshire ones are at liberty today and you are the jury and the policemen. They are both real men and they would try every trick in the book to deny guilt.
Tec you will never advance beyond a cadet. You are too trusting and unable to grapple with facts.

I have already had to rewrite this post and delete parts of it because my earlier reply was deleted by our good friend the moderator of just debate.
In the era of the internet and free speech, debate is still an elusive commodity.

[Derrick]

Noel
Have you considered that the death of Dawn Walker in early February 2005, for wich Kevin Nunn is serving a 22 stretch for, could also be a victim of the Ipswich 5 killer?

Ms Walkers body was found just outside Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in startlingly similar circumstances to several of the Ipswich cases.

It may also be coincedence but all of them, including Ms Walker and a murder victim from 1999, a Ms Hall, were found close to or within a mile or so of golf courses.

Derrick

[noel o'gara]

Noel
Have you considered that the death of Dawn Walker in early February 2005, for wich Kevin Nunn is serving a 22 stretch for, could also be a victim of the Ipswich 5 killer?

Ms Walkers body was found just outside Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in startlingly similar circumstances to several of the Ipswich cases.

It may also be coincedence but all of them, including Ms Walker and a murder victim from 1999, a Ms Hall, were found close to or within a mile or so of golf courses.

Derrick

No Derrick. I dont know anything about that but there are strong similarities in some of those killings with the Ipswich murders. But lets not get diverted and concentrate on the Ipswich case because the trial brought out most of the evidence relating to those five murders.
The police are always anxious to solve outstanding cases, especially high profile crimes.
The name of the game is to get a conviction and put the CASE SOLVED sticker over the file.
The media suggested Wright may be responsible for the Suzy Lamplugh crime because he knew her but the police discounted that link.

Curiously, the police suggested in court that Wright may have had an accomplice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/7247650.stm

Why do you suppose this was voiced?
I think that the police knew soon after they charged Wright that they had charged the wrong man. It would have been impossible for them to make such an admission in the full glare of the world's media because it was such a high profile case. He was held on remand for more than a year. Naturally the murders had stopped because the real killer had succeeded in setting up the patsy, Steve Wright, and the police who had been assisted and directed by two senior legal officials from the CPS couldnt possibly hold up their hands to a **** up. It would have been a disastrous loss of face for both the police and the CPS.
With the stoppage of the murders it was better to assume that they had the killer behind bars and hope for a successful trial and conviction. Wright said he was not guilty from his prison cell and like many an accused man before, he put his faith in a British judge and jury to clear his name.

[noel o'gara]

[QUOTE=noel o'gara;
I think that the police knew soon after they charged Wright that they had charged the wrong man.[/QUOTE]

Anneli Alderton and Annette Nicholls were carried naked some distance from the tarred road on to land that was well saturated with rain. They were both laid out in a cruciform position on their backs with their arms outstretched and their hair raised to a point and legs together, one slightly raised. This meticulous show, reminiscent of the Yorkshire Ripper, put on by the killer to ensure that the police would link the murders, would require the perpetrator to move around the body and in so doing he would leave many footprints in the mud. If any one of those prints matched Steve Wright's shoe size, the jury would have heard it loud and clearly. Conversely because they didnt match Wright they were not called into the evidence and the jury never got to see how the footprints vindicated his innocence.It reminds us of the way Stefan Kiszko's semen evidence was withheld from his jury because it would have proved he was innocent and the police needed a conviction at all costs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-517398/The-final-fear-Did-Suffolk-Strangler-Steve-Wright-helper.html

As I already said, a killer will deny guilt and tell all the lies under the sun. The last thing a killer will do is own up because he is a man dealing with death.

[Natalie Severn]

As I already said, a killer will deny guilt and tell all the lies under the sun. The last thing a killer will do is own up because he is a man dealing with death.

Presumably then,by the logic of your own statement above ,so would Steven Wright tell all the lies under the sun----presuming him to be the killer?
However the statement is not true for every convicted killer.Ruth Ellis ,to take one example,knowing she faced death by hanging, fully admitted she had killed her lover,never revealed from whom she had got the gun and admitted that she had fully intended to kill him.
But your reasoning about the footprints is intriguing.Were there footprints or had they been washed away do you know?

[Tecs]

Noel,

Relax my friend.

If you read my whole post I was actually trying to be overall complimentary, sorry if that didn't come across. It was because I know from experience that most people have been very negative, dismissive and nasty about you over the years that I thought I would pre-empt that by pointing out that we all have different views and everybody's must be respected. As I said, somebody who has dedicated so long and so much of their time to any subject deserves to be listened to and respected.

Regarding the cases you mention, you'll get no argument from me about the police stitching people up and geting the wrong man. Stefan Kiszko's was the most disgraceful episode in police history for a very long time in my opinion, because in his case the police prosecuting him knew that he was innocent but didn't care. (and I'm aware that the officer who set him up was our old friend Dick Holland.) This is different to, say, the Bridgewater four who were a gang of armed scumbags (by their own admission) or other people guilty of other offences. I don't lose too much sleep over Paddy Hill of the Birmingham six for example, who was a very violent man who said that he had "no scruples about violence." He had 17 convictions for violence and admitted to carrying " a blade or machete." Of course it is wrong that innocent people are convicted for crimes that they didn't commit, but I would put Kiszko's (and others like him) case in a different category than the others I've just mentioned. Dragging a completely innocent person into a police station and fitting them up knowing that they are innocent is one of the worst kind of evils I can think of.

The parallel with the Ipswich case that I worry about is that the police time after time (Stagg, George etc) always go straight to the local "Mr Strange" thinking that it must be a local weirdo that did it, despite seeing time after time that it isn't.

Oh and when I'm Chief Constable, Don't worry I'll still talk to cadets like you! (Joke)

Regards,