Did Steve Wright get a fair trial in Ipswich?

[caz]

In the Ipswich trial the police found microscopic particles of blood of two victims on Wright's yellow reflective jacket.
Both victims were in his house for sex and he thought one may have had a nosebleed or possibly menstrual blood particles when he had sex on the jacket. Blood of the murdered victims on his jacket sounds like a smoking gun but microscopic traces of it was more plausible by his sexual activity explanation.

You are joking, I trust. Although this is not remotely amusing.

They made much of a fibre found in Tania's hair that matched Wright's car mat. But that matched a million other motorist's car mats and it corroborated what Wright said that he had Tania in his car but didnt do business with her because he didnt fancy her on a closer look.

Great way with words there - and the worst impression I've ever seen of an innocent man who is sickened by the way these women were treated.

Patsy my arse. They got the Wright bloke.

Funny how the same old names tend to crop up whenever scum need people to fight their corner.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Anyone casually noticing this thread would think it's about football.

[caz]

Well it's a man's game, Robert. That's for sure.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Well it's a man's game, Robert. That's for sure.

Love,

Caz
X

Absolutely Caz and if you saw the programme that showed how devastated and traumatised the mothers of the girls were by their daughter"s murders,you would know it was no game for any of them,
Kind Regards
Norma

[jsi2010]

Absolutely Caz and if you saw the programme that showed how devastated and traumatised the mothers of the girls were by their daughter"s murders,you would know it was no game for any of them,
Kind Regards
Norma

If this were a site about football or general subjects one might understand the previous comments, have a laugh and a joke, though to my comprehension I assumed this was a site for serious discussion and debate about Jack The Ripper and other notorious crimes.
So far I have seen alot of derision towards a man and his thesis, whom I contacted recently after visiting Conrad Wright- Steve Wrights father and I must say, Noel's collation of material, a lot of it factual just confirms what I saw and opens the opinion that he did not have an accomplice as I first thought but has actually been set up and let me be very clear here ! there IS a different person involved ! How do I know this ? Answer ; I SAW HIM WITH MY OWN EYES

As a resident in Ipswich I can assure you that absoulutely no one here is making any jokes or demeaning remarks about this case and find it a little distastefull to see people who have no connection to the case doing so, please have some respect here !

I reluctantly am an eye witness in this horrific crime, I on the 11th December 2006 had the unfortunate experience of seeing a man (whom I can identify) parked in a dark coloured renault clio on the Old Felixstowe Road (as it is known locally) in the exact spot beside the verge where Paula Clenelle's body was discovered on 12th December 2006, the man was agitated and clearly uncomfortable within the vehicle which drew my attention. Further down the road I saw what at the time I thought was a mannequin at the exact spot where Annette Nicholls was found.
I have reported this to the police in Ipswich no less than four times and on one occassion to Steve Wrights legal team before the trial yet NO ONE has EVER contacted me to speak about this.
I have written to Steve Wright and I have a prepared witness statement which will be published soon.
All I ask the people here to do is ; forget (for now at least) all malice bias and prejudice against Noel Ogara and Steve Wright and just please take a objective neutral view of what Noel has laid out for all to judge and give your opinions/views in a constructive way, is that possible ? more to follow soon
god bless jsi2010

[Natalie Severn]

To jsi2010,
Thankyou for your post.My own remark arose having watched a television programme which focussed on the anguish experienced by the families of the murdered young women.
I watched the unfolding of the case at the time and was very relieved that the police were able to capture the perpetrator of these horrendous serial killings. I note that there were five women murdered in a spate of several weeks and there have been no similar such killings since.
With All Good Wishes,
Norma

[jsi2010]

To jsi2010,
Thankyou for your post.My own remark arose having watched a television programme which focussed on the anguish experienced by the families of the murdered young women.
I watched the unfolding of the case at the time and was very relieved that the police were able to capture the perpetrator of these horrendous serial killings. I note that there were five women murdered in a spate of several weeks and there have been no similar such killings since.
With All Good Wishes,
Norma

Is that it ? your reply to my post !....Yes there were five women murdered and no there so far to my knowledge have been no more...SO FAR.... considering the set up theory then WHY ?would there be any more for a long while ?.. some killers go years between crimes...Consider also the case of vicky hall seven years ago, abducted murdered and disposed of in a very similar fashion to tanya and gema and the suspect living in the same village as vicky... coincidence ?
I Think you must of misread my post--- I saw a man NOT Steve Wright in the exact same spots where two of the 5 girls were disposed of on the same day at the same time, he had something covered up on the rear seat of his car and I SAW A DEAD BODY so to say they captured the 'Wright' man is ludicrous or is this another case of SEE NO EVIL HEAR NO EVIL SPEAK NO EVIL ?
They say you can not graft a new idea on to a closed mind ! I was hoping for at least an open discussion, when this free man kills again one day and I am sure he will, its the nature of the beast, then no one can say they were not warned. Mean while the women of suffolk are still in mortal danger without a clue
god bless jsi2010

[Ally]

The idea that a serial killer would choose to frame poor pathetic Wright is beyond ludicrous. It's pathetically laughable. The idea that a serial killer is going to follow Wright around to see which women he has contact with so he will kill only them is the most idiotic idea that has ever been proposed in a long list of idiotic conspiracy nutball theories.

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence available. It has been proven time and time again to be extraordinarily bad. You saw a man with something on his back seat. Wow. So a serial killer kills a woman, and then drives her out to dump her and puts her in the backseat where her arm might flop out and be seen rather than in say, oh I don't know, the TRUNK? For a machiavellian killer with the brains and the cunning and the planning to frame some nobody douchebag that seems awfully stupid.


If you want a discussion, quit screeching like a hysterical drama queen and have one. But just because you have convinced yourself there's some grand conspiracy doesn't mean rational people have to believe you. You have presented nothing in the way of evidence or proof, merely your belief and your opinion, which is not sufficient to override actual evidence.

[Nemo]

There was no mention of where some of the women were killed so they could actually have been walked to the scene of their discovery, albeit in a drugged state

I don't think it would be difficult to carry the women single handed anyway

I thought the premise was that all the murders were done to cover up the initial killing and frame Wright

With mission accomplished, why would there be any immediate danger to other women in Ipswich?

In framing Wright, why would the real killer arrange the two women in the same fashion as a painting on his wall, drawing possible suspicion upon himself?

Same deal with the "incriminating" note left in memory of one of the women

[noel o'gara]

[QUOTE=Ally; You have presented nothing in the way of evidence or proof, merely your belief and your opinion, which is not sufficient to override actual evidence.[/QUOTE]

Why then did the police arrest Stephens on suspicion of all five murders?
He knew all five. He had sex with them all. They were all at his house. He told the police that he could be the killer unknown to himself. He made inappropriate phone calls to Tania's mother shortly after she went missing. He took another prostitute to the police station the day after Gemma vanished and asked her to lie that he was with her at the time of Gemma's disappearance. He had that picture in his house that linked him to those two murders at least.
There is ample evidence that Wright was a sex addict and all the forensic evidence produced by police only corroborate that as a fact.
How's that for some evidence Ally?

Oh and now we have a witness who saw Stephens the day before the bodies were found by police, acting strangely, and a body only a few hundred yards down the road.
Needless to say this witness wouldnt have been needed by the police because his evidence would only serve to undermine the police case against Wright. Just as Kiszko's semen evidence was kept under wraps so they got a conviction by the court.
Once they get the conviction they blame the jury and the court couldnt possibly be wrong.

Obviously the real killer is laughing because he has succeeded in baiting the police and he is in the clear. Do you seriously think he would kill again soon in the same way?
My information is that he is under observation by the police.

[gallicrow]

Consider also the case of vicky hall seven years ago, abducted murdered and disposed of in a very similar fashion to tanya and gema and the suspect living in the same village as vicky... coincidence ?

Assuming that the suspect you're referring to is, in fact, Tom Stephens -

Vicky Hall was from Trimley St Mary and was murdered in 1999.

Tom Stephens lived in the neighbouring village of Trimley St. Martin and only moved there in 2006.

Several newspapers reported that Steve Wright lived in Trimley St Mary in 1999. Some others said that his father, Conrad, lived "nearby".

[Tecs]

Why then did the police arrest Stephens on suspicion of all five murders?

Because sadly the Police always arrest the local "oddball" first?

Kiszko, George, Stagg...Stephens?

Kosminski?

Regards,

[Natalie Severn]

Because sadly the Police always arrest the local "oddball" first?

Kiszko, George, Stagg...Stephens?

Kosminski?

Regards,

Tecs,

Thats how I see it,

but I happen to think they got it right in the end and that they did very well.

Best

[Tecs]

Tecs,

Thats how I see it,

but I happen to think they got it right in the end and that they did very well.

Best

Yup, I can't see it any other way either.

The really worrying thing is that of that list I put together:- Kiszko, George, Stagg, Stephens and Kosminski, all were, or appear to be, 100% innocent. Yet the Police sent two to prison for many years, very nearly sent one to prison and bent over backwards to set him up, and held strong suspicions about the other two.

If you look at the Barry George case, they don't appear to have moved on in the last 100 years since the days when Robert Anderson went around telling everyone that he knew exactly who the Ripper was but red tape and unhelpful witnesses stopped him from getting him.

Barry George is a bit odd, reads gun magazines... well it's obviously him! I'm surprised they didn't say he went around eating out of the gutter and involving himself in utterly unmentionable vices!

Regards,

[Tecs]

Because sadly the Police always arrest the local "oddball" first?

God help any of us if there is a murder near where any of us live.

"Sarge, have you seen this guy's bookshelf?"

"Jesus! Get him down the station."

Regards,