Did Steve Wright get a fair trial in Ipswich?

[Tecs]

I just learned something from this thread and it isn't an insult, but more of an observation. The British use could of rather than could have erroneously at times, just like some Americans do.

I never knew that before. Carry on.

Mike

Hi Mike,

No, we do actually use Could/would have

It's just that many people speak so quickly that they think they are saying could of and then write it as such. There is of course the shorter version could've, which I think is perfectly acceptable and is easy to confuse with could of.

Possibly the most boring and pointless reply ever?

Regards

[jsi2010]

Hi Mike,

No, we do actually use Could/would have

It's just that many people speak so quickly that they think they are saying could of and then write it as such. There is of course the shorter version could've, which I think is perfectly acceptable and is easy to confuse with could of.

Possibly the most boring and pointless reply ever?

Regards

On the contrary I found it very so tecs.
I could have stopped, I would have stopped, I should have stopped but I didn't, I could leave it, I would leave it but i can't leave it so I won't, wish me luck !

[jsi2010]

On the contrary I found it very so tecs.
I could have stopped, I would have stopped, I should have stopped but I didn't, I could leave it, I would leave it but i can't leave it so I won't, wish me luck !

I know the man and the family of the man who spotted and reported finding Paula Clenelle and to be honest although I regret not stopping that day for obvious reasons eg; the accomplice would have been arrested, charged and locked away. In a sense I am glad I did not ! Reason ? Ivan was treated like rubbish, had his car and clothes confiscated and still has not some of them returned, WHY ?
Plus he has this awful image of Paula laying there lifeless and it has devasted his life as it has mine, though in a different way and only a fraction of how it must affect her loved ones.
Today is the anniversary of my incident and sunday 12th December is when Anette and Paula were discovered god rest the souls, amen !
So anyone reading here, please just take a moment to give thanks that you do not have to deal with anything like this in a lifetime and spare athought for all those involved whoever they may be with a little respect. thank you

[jsi2010]

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.

Yes that may appear so ! Though did they know about my sighting and the significance of the posed Anelli and Anette ?
The blood on Anette is drawn into question due to my sighting of another person and this obviously raises other important questions.
Also it possibly supports some of the earlier posts pointing to a different outcome !

[jsi2010]

Yes that may appear so ! Though did they know about my sighting and the significance of the posed Anelli and Anette ?
The blood on Anette is drawn into question due to my sighting of another person and this obviously raises other important questions.
Also it possibly supports some of the earlier posts pointing to a different outcome !

correction !! The microscopic spec blood of Anette found on Steve Wright's flourecent yellow jacket---- NOT as I previously incorrectly posted 'blood on Anette' applogies.

[Victor]

correction !! The microscopic spec blood of Anette found on Steve Wright's flourecent yellow jacket---- NOT as I previously incorrectly posted 'blood on Anette' applogies.

So just how does your sighting "draw into question" the forensic identification of Anette's blood on the jacket?

[jsi2010]

So just how does your sighting "draw into question" the forensic identification of Anette's blood on the jacket?

The police claim Steve Wright was wearing the jacket when he disposed of the girls and that Anette got scratched by a bush or such like as he disposed of her and a spec of blood got on the jacket that way.
Bearing in mind the vegetation at that location that would not be liable to cause a scratch anyway, its soft all grass and fern types.
If for one second you imagine my sighting of a different person at the location and in between the act of a double disposal were to be true, it would mean the police theory of how the blood got there is incorrect would it not ?
Which in turn would throw other matters into question also !

[Victor]

The police claim Steve Wright was wearing the jacket when he disposed of the girls and that Anette got scratched by a bush or such like as he disposed of her and a spec of blood got on the jacket that way.

I think you'll find they suggested that could have happened.

Bearing in mind the vegetation at that location that would not be liable to cause a scratch anyway, its soft all grass and fern types.

Fair enough, maybe she was scratched on the car door frame, or something else.

If for one second you imagine my sighting of a different person at the location and in between the act of a double disposal were to be true, it would mean the police theory of how the blood got there is incorrect would it not ?
Which in turn would throw other matters into question also !

I don't doubt you saw something resembling what you have described, I just doubt that you actually saw a specific person actually dumping two bodies.

The police have offered a possibility for how the blood got there, Steve Wright offered a different possibility, it might be a different thing entirely - the presence of blood still needs to be accounted for.

[jsi2010]

I think you'll find they suggested that could have happened.


Fair enough, maybe she was scratched on the car door frame, or something else.


I don't doubt you saw something resembling what you have described, I just doubt that you actually saw a specific person actually dumping two bodies.

The police have offered a possibility for how the blood got there, Steve Wright offered a different possibility, it might be a different thing entirely - the presence of blood still needs to be accounted for.

Yes of course, no one, apart from the perpetrator could say for sure !
I doubt if it could have been the car door though as it's a safety and health dream area.
Yes you are correct in that I indeed did see something and I can certainly say that I am no doubt of what I claim to have seen and if it were me who was being told such a thing, I too would probe and question everything from all angles as I am the hardest of all people to convince.

Again you are correct as in yes the blood does need to be accounted for, I agree whole heartedly ! I am merely saying that given my claims, if true ! ? This would dispute the police belief and suggested claim that the blood got on the jacket through being worn during disposal by Steve Wright would it not ?
Bearing in mind that this in itself is supporting circumstantial evidence of how something possibly occured and if true would tie in nicely with the prosecution claim of disposal by Wright.
If untrue it would leave the explanation Wright gives of this and would also tie in with my claim of an accomplice,. Bearing in mind the police have had for years to provide a different explanation
Wright has never been linked directly with any of the deposition sites any time except by this suggested claim of transference.
My claim does directly link a person to at least one site and the same man near another victim.

[jsi2010]

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.

If I do not hear from Simon Cartwright the govenor of HMP Longlartin or the police by the new year I shall be doing just that,
It seems to me that the legal team Wright had did indeed fail him, I base this opinion by looking at the actions or inactions of them before during and after the trial.
I have recently spoken with them and they are as yet doing nothing at all and will not without money and have no plans to either.
Wrights brother david is alledgedlly organising a appeal though again through investigation I find that although he is firmly in control of Wright himself, Pamela too, he is and has done very very little to help his brother and do not see this changing in the near future, tbc.

[caz]

Hi jsi,

Just some friendly advice here. Be careful about quoting any of Noel’s posts, now he has been banned and we have all been warned about making any further direct accusations without proof. Repeating someone else’s libel in any form (regardless of whether or not you support it) can get the site into trouble, even if you are not concerned about your own position.

There are still one or two fatal misconceptions here. Noel seemed to think that the truth is ‘always a perfect defence to lies, liars and alleged libel’.

Not so.

You wrote in post #205:

‘It is only slander if it is proved to be untrue is it not ?’

Not so.

The truth cannot be established in the absence of proof. And the onus in law is always on the person being sued for libel or slander to prove the truth of what they are alleging. If they can’t do that, their version of the truth won’t protect them - or the medium they used to publish their allegations.

You admitted in post #237:

‘I agree hard evidence would need to be found…’

And in post #238 you even admitted what the ‘truth’ is. You wrote:

‘The truth is without a full disclosure by the perpetrator we will neve fully know the circumstances.’

So in fact it doesn’t matter what your suspect may already have admitted, because you are telling us the hard evidence against him is lacking, and as far as I am aware he has not confessed, or incriminated himself to the point of no return. He would be perfectly within his rights to take action against anyone stating as a fact that he was knowingly involved in any way with these murders.

Finally, you asked:

‘Does anyone have any theories as to how and why 2 girls were found in a similar fashion as the art work shown here ?
If the art work had of hung on Steve Wrights wall then everyone would of said there you go its almost the same that's damming evidence would they not ! ?
So I ask, why is it that it hung on someone elses wall and even though it cant be totaly disregarded altogether, that a link is not being made here could someone please explain in a polite fashion ?’

There is a subtle difference here. As you keep saying, your suspect courted publicity. He admitted knowing the girls and having no alibi. Thus he had every reason to expect close scrutiny by the police, unlike Colin Stagg, for instance. Both were considered oddballs with stuff seen around their homes that could be viewed in a sinister light. But your man must have virtually invited them in to see this art work, when he could have hidden it or got rid of it if he feared it could incriminate him.

What’s all that about, if he was even aware that two of the bodies had been found in ‘a similar fashion’, never mind if it was in deliberate imitation? I can’t see much difference between stupidity like that and Wright wearing a high vis jacket and allowing it to become contaminated with a speck of his victim’s blood. Yet you cannot believe Wright would have done that. That’s how killers get caught. They make mistakes, some so elementary that the most flat-footed copper couldn’t have missed. But they don't tend to hand out clues deliberately unless they want to be caught.

Wright did not court publicity, remember? He was not intending to be in a position where the cops would be crawling all over his home. So if the same art work had hung on his wall, and inspired him to pose his victims likewise, it would have been because he had no time to do anything about it, or did not expect anyone to see it and make a connection.

Love,

Caz
X

[nugnug]

I think noel does understand that the libel laws require the person being sued for libel to prove what they are saying is true not the other way around.

[caz]

But he said that the truth is: ‘always a perfect defence to lies, liars and alleged libel’. He missed the vital bit about having to prove what the truth is first. That's why some of us had a problem with what he was alleging. He offered no proof. Indeed, if he had proof concerning this recent murder case, he would hardly have needed to fanny about on a jtr site in the first place!

Love,

Caz
X

[nugnug]

sorry i just realised i missed a word out there i meant to say does not understand.

i am not sure how can pove a theory like i dont think you can

[Donna]

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

To Derrick,
I would like to contact you re Kevin Nunn and your thoughts on this case.