Did Steve Wright get a fair trial in Ipswich?

[jsi2010]

If there really has been a miscarriage of justice and there is sufficient evidence to indicate this - the verdict can be overturned. It would not be the first time a jury has reached a guity verdict which has been followed by a new trial or the release of the prisoner due to new evidence. Such cases have been discussed on this site.

I am unsure about the strength of evidence against Steve Wright that has been presented here so far and I do not really wish to become too involved in this case without doing further research. However - I admire your fighting spirit.

Thank you limehouse, it is not only the fighting spirit of the old school it is the moral duty of any person who saw what I saw that day to bring it out in the open and ensure a man who is involved in these truely horrific crimes is behind bars where he belongs so he can not hurt anyone else ! Untill this is so the women of suffolk and who knows where else are in mortal DANGER and I must continue even if this takes the rest of my days on this earth. regards jsi

[dannymc]

Did Steve Wright get a fair trial

I have been following this thread with great relish i always thought T Stephens had alot more to do with these crimes. I dont know if he was an accomplice of Wright or the sole perpratrator. I dont know if Wright is innocent but it certainly provides food for thought.I will do some research of my own before i draw any conclusions but Mr Ogara does provide some tantalising evidence.

[caz]

There was as much evidence against Stephens regarding DNA and a whole lot more, not least the picture in his flat which directly linked him to the posed bodies of two victims and now we have a real witness who actually saw him beside one body deposition site and another naked female body lying just a bit up the road. In addition there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence enough to convince any jury.

If that were the case, what possible advantage would there have been for the authorities in prosecuting Wright (if they knew he was the wrong man), or only Wright (if they knew Stephens must also have been involved)?

They would surely have prosecuted Stephens in his own right, or in addition to Wright, if he were the extremely dangerous man he is made out to be and they were absolutely aware of it. Clearing up the case and deliberately putting Stephens back into society, despite an apparent mountain of evidence against him and the apparent ease at which they were able to get a jury to convict Wright, would have been a completely pointless and idiotic recipe for disaster, preceded by sleepless nights all round, spent waiting for the inevitable call to say he had started again, followed by "You're fired!"

It's all very laudable, advising potential future victims to be wary and keep themselves out of harm's way; it's another thing entirely to whip up fear by insisting that the spectre of Ipswich 2006 has not been laid to rest.

I do hope lips are not being licked, in eager readiness to say "I told you so". Better, surely, by a million miles if the police had it right and you have it all wrong, and people really can sleep well and not have nightmares.

Or don't you agree?

Love,

Caz
X

[jsi2010]

If that were the case, what possible advantage would there have been for the authorities in prosecuting Wright (if they knew he was the wrong man), or only Wright (if they knew Stephens must also have been involved)?

They would surely have prosecuted Stephens in his own right, or in addition to Wright, if he were the extremely dangerous man he is made out to be and they were absolutely aware of it. Clearing up the case and deliberately putting Stephens back into society, despite an apparent mountain of evidence against him and the apparent ease at which they were able to get a jury to convict Wright, would have been a completely pointless and idiotic recipe for disaster, preceded by sleepless nights all round, spent waiting for the inevitable call to say he had started again, followed by "You're fired!"

It's all very laudable, advising potential future victims to be wary and keep themselves out of harm's way; it's another thing entirely to whip up fear by insisting that the spectre of Ipswich 2006 has not been laid to rest.

I do hope lips are not being licked, in eager readiness to say "I told you so". Better, surely, by a million miles if the police had it right and you have it all wrong, and people really can sleep well and not have nightmares.

Or don't you agree?

Love,

Caz
X

Like it or not caz I saw what I saw,God only knows I truely wish I had not,I could then carry on with my life as it was but I do not have that luxury and have no choice in the matter so will keep repeating it untill my dying day.
Yes you are absolutely correct ! What a recipe fo disaster.
Why this has turned out this way I do not know, you will have to ask messers:crimp/sadd and gull on that score, I am sure there will be some very honest good policemen and women out there who feel something doesn't sit right with this case and as for whipping up fear, thats enevitable giving what I am saying happened and make no mistake it did happen and you know what yes I do have many a sleepless night knowing that if I had stopped that day there would be no denial as Tom Stephens would be behind bars now where he belongs.
You and others who may doubt, pour scorn upon and just critisize with bias carry on, there are others that are open minded enough to take a non prejudicial open minded look at what is being presented for judgement here regards jsi

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi all....

Noel asks the jury to consider the various claims and counter claims....well....

Were I in the jury I'd be thinking that the DNA doesn't prove him to be the killer....although I'd certainly want to dig deeper..and then the blood would make me more suspicious still.....

As for Stephens....I would want to know how you know that the picture was in his flat...and can you prove it....and I'd want to know exactly what form the arms outstretched and hair to a point took....interpretation can easily mislead.....

And the witness.....I'm scratching my head here and thinking.....if you saw what you thought was a dummy in the road.....and a man not far away looking agitated.......and I've walked this earth for 37 years and not one day have I seen a dummy in the road so that's a strange conclusion to draw.....then why didn't you check it out? I'd be cross examining that.

As a member of the jury...at this point...and maybe it's just me.....I have a really uneasy feeling about the defence and the witness posting on this board......there's something not right here........

[jsi2010]

Hi all....

Noel asks the jury to consider the various claims and counter claims....well....

Were I in the jury I'd be thinking that the DNA doesn't prove him to be the killer....although I'd certainly want to dig deeper..and then the blood would make me more suspicious still.....

As for Stephens....I would want to know how you know that the picture was in his flat...and can you prove it....and I'd want to know exactly what form the arms outstretched and hair to a point took....interpretation can easily mislead.....

And the witness.....I'm scratching my head here and thinking.....if you saw what you thought was a dummy in the road.....and a man not far away looking agitated.......and I've walked this earth for 37 years and not one day have I seen a dummy in the road so that's a strange conclusion to draw.....then why didn't you check it out? I'd be cross examining that.

As a member of the jury...at this point...and maybe it's just me.....I have a really uneasy feeling about the defence and the witness posting on this board......there's something not right here........

I was on my way to an appointment with a nurse practitioner and was on a short time limit is the main reason why I did not stop. The police had a road block no more than 1/4 mile from that point at Nacton Crossroads due to body number three Annelli Alderton,so a man disposing of two bodies just around the corner at 1.50 pm is not something one would expect to see really !
By the way I was 46 years of age at that time and neither had I up untill that momment !
Regarding the art work and poses, you will have ask Noel about that, the microscopic blood specs on the jackets were explained by Steve Wright and to be fair, who really would wear a reflective jacket to dispose of bodies then leave them in the house to be found considering all the efforts made to hide and destroy dna ? just does not make sense plus no dna from the other 3 girls at all on the jackets and gloves which he was meant of of worn while dumping the girls !
I personally have never said that Steve Wright is innocent though I believe he may be, what I do know is that Stephens is as guilty as the devil himself
May I suggest you read all the posts thoroughly then you will know what I saw or most of it, as reading your post you dont seem to have a correct interpretation of what I have posted on here....Regards jsi

[caz]

Hi jsi,

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't add up. You can't go from not realising that what you are seeing could be a murderer in the process of disposing of two of his victims to being absolutely sure at a later date that this was precisely what you saw. It would be laughed out of court by any half decent defence lawyer.

This isn't your fault, it's a very common human trait to work backwards with the benefit of hindsight and imagine that you saw something that you didn't. I know from personal experience. I was with a good friend of mine when we witnessed the aftermath of an assault. All we really saw was the man we presumed was guilty leaving the scene and the victim on his mobile phone, rubbing his cheek where he had been hit. He was calling the police, and two officers turned up while we were talking to him. He told the four of us what had happened and described his attacker and later on my friend and I spotted the man again and were able to point him out to the same two officers and he admitted it when questioned. But I was stunned to hear my friend telling one of the cops how vicious the assault had been, and how the victim had blood pouring from his mouth! Yet neither of us had seen the actual assault and I had spent the next few minutes looking straight at the victim's face, as did the two officers when they arrived. There was not a speck of blood to be seen anywhere at any time. His cheek was swelling up a bit, but that was it. There was no way I could have missed anything worse.

Clearly my friend wasn't intentionally fabricating, she was just angry about what had happened and desperate to help. She could hardly have forgotten that the officers were there talking to the victim just as we were. But she was certain about the "pouring" blood, and presumably thought I was the least observant witness in the universe not to have seen it too. I just had to say, rather lamely, that I had not seen the blood.

By the way, do you know if any DNA from Stephens was found on any of the victims? If you are accusing him of taking over where Wright left off, you will need forensic evidence to back up this 'hindsight' eyewitness account of yours. As it stands, it doesn't stand at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[noel o'gara]

If that were the case, what possible advantage would there have been for the authorities in prosecuting Wright (if they knew he was the wrong man), or only Wright (if they knew Stephens must also have been involved)?

They would surely have prosecuted Stephens in his own right, or in addition to Wright, if he were the extremely dangerous man he is made out to be and they were absolutely aware of it. Clearing up the case and deliberately putting Stephens back into society, despite an apparent mountain of evidence against him and the apparent ease at which they were able to get a jury to convict Wright, would have been a completely pointless and idiotic recipe for disaster, preceded by sleepless nights all round, spent waiting for the inevitable call to say he had started again, followed by "You're fired!"

It's all very laudable, advising potential future victims to be wary and keep themselves out of harm's way; it's another thing entirely to whip up fear by insisting that the spectre of Ipswich 2006 has not been laid to rest.

I do hope lips are not being licked, in eager readiness to say "I told you so". Better, surely, by a million miles if the police had it right and you have it all wrong, and people really can sleep well and not have nightmares.

Or don't you agree?

Love,

Caz
X

I'm afraid you havent studied the full thread Caz. You have missed the crucial point on which this whole disaster swung off the tracks and up a dead end.
First came an unprecedented series of puzzling motiveless prostitute murders and then came a massive police mistake.

First there was a missing person in a small town. A prostitute named Tania. A young prostitute with movie star good looks that attracted nationwide publicity.
Two weeks later a second attractive prostitute went missing from the same place. The families and friends of these girls became alarmed and all prostitutes in the region were terrified they might be next.
This increased police concern that they had been harmed and magnified the publicity.
Steve Wright, a 48 year old serial sex addict was motivated by sex kicks behind his wife's back. He was a non violent well known kerb crawler.
He had taken Tania into his car that last fateful night but decided not to have sex with her and dropped her back on her beat. Tania's boyfriend had his nearest and dearest under observation and later that night he strangled her in a fit of rage for reasons known only to himself. He bacame the chief suspect for her disappearance.
While her dead body was rotting in the back of his car and beginning to smell, her killer became more and more desperate to devise a way to extricate himself from this terrible crime that he knew would see him serving the rest of his life in jail. Desperate measures were called for and as any hardened criminal will tell you, you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
This cunning and experienced killer toyed with the idea to kill again and divert the blame for his first killing on to a patsy by linking both dead bodies which he expected to be found together quickly and so both girls would be assumed to be victims of the same killer. He was careful to ensure they wouldnt be linked to him or his car by stripping them naked and dumping them in a stream to destroy any trace of fibres, DNA, fingerprints, blood, semen
or saliva.
But he needed a fall guy and awaited his chance. So on that mid November night, while parked up on Tania's pitch he observed Steve Wright as he dropped Gemma Adams out of his car, and an oppertunity presented itself
as his very good friend Gemma readily got into his car and asked him to take her for a drug fix.
He then took her for her fix or more likely supplied it to her and asked her for a sex session to which she readily agreed. Then he drove her to an isolated spot near the stream, parked up and asked her to strip. When he had her stretched out in a position that she couldnt extricated herself from, this psychopathic killer put her into a stranglehold and snuffed the life out of her.

Then he carried both Gemma and the decomposing body of Tania to the water's edge and pushed them in fully expecting that both bodies would be found the next day and Gemma's last customer who drove the dark Ford Mondeo would get the blame.
He probably burned all the clothing including his own and cleaned out his car thoroughly. In any case both Tania and Gemma would have had reason to be frequently in his car so any linking DNA etc could be explained by that friendship.

When Stephens pushed them into arresting him, he had calculated that as the only way to inform the police that Wright was the last man with all the victims and he was able to convince them of that. They immediately got to work on camera sightings that put Wright's car in the disappearing zone at the crucial times on the word of their informant. Then there were police reports of sightings of Wright and his car reg no at crucial times. That led to his dawn arrest next day.
Then came the big mistake after arresting Wright, first they swabbed him and then they confirmed that his DNA was on the last three victims, coupled with his earlier denials which put him at a disadvantage. Like many a guilty man he wouldnt answer any questions. But could it be coincidence? Impossible that he had the last four victims and was the last man with them all. In addition he had the fifth victim Tania in his car and cameras put it about 11.0pm on the last night she was seen.
The CPS lawyers got all excited and they tipped the scales in the balance of suspicion being against Wright and charged him the next day and released Stephens.
Of course all this other vital circumstantial evidence only came to light after he was charged and it was already too late. thats why I can show it to you now. It was all available at the trial but the case was out of focus because the wrong man was in the dock.
Thats why John's witness evidence was not called for, because it didnt help to convict the man in the dock. It would have undermined the police case.



So there was no advantage for the authorities in stitching up Wright but when they make a mistake, did you ever see them admit that they charged the wrong man? When was the last senior serving cop fired? and by whom?
hope this helps Caz.

[caz]

Yes, I have read the whole thread thanks.

But it's hard to know where fantasy takes over from fact, as you state everything as if you have established beyond any possible doubt that it is the latter. There is no point, for example, in trying to claim that where there was no forensic evidence against your suspect, he had taken pains to destroy it. That kind of argument might work elsewhere, but it won't wash (excuse the pun) with the readers here, who actually do have more than two brain cells to rub together.

If the authorities were so adept at stitching up the wrong man in this case, what was stopping them building a case against either man, or both men, that a jury would find equally compelling? They had Stephens first and let him go, while the media were busy telling potential jurors that he was evil personified. Surely if a tenth of the evidence you claim to have against him was available at the time, it should have been as easy as falling off a log - even easier if he was actually guilty.

Love,

Caz
X

[jsi2010]

Hi jsi,

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't add up. You can't go from not realising that what you are seeing could be a murderer in the process of disposing of two of his victims to being absolutely sure at a later date that this was precisely what you saw. It would be laughed out of court by any half decent defence lawyer.

This isn't your fault, it's a very common human trait to work backwards with the benefit of hindsight and imagine that you saw something that you didn't. I know from personal experience. I was with a good friend of mine when we witnessed the aftermath of an assault. All we really saw was the man we presumed was guilty leaving the scene and the victim on his mobile phone, rubbing his cheek where he had been hit. He was calling the police, and two officers turned up while we were talking to him. He told the four of us what had happened and described his attacker and later on my friend and I spotted the man again and were able to point him out to the same two officers and he admitted it when questioned. But I was stunned to hear my friend telling one of the cops how vicious the assault had been, and how the victim had blood pouring from his mouth! Yet neither of us had seen the actual assault and I had spent the next few minutes looking straight at the victim's face, as did the two officers when they arrived. There was not a speck of blood to be seen anywhere at any time. His cheek was swelling up a bit, but that was it. There was no way I could have missed anything worse.

Clearly my friend wasn't intentionally fabricating, she was just angry about what had happened and desperate to help. She could hardly have forgotten that the officers were there talking to the victim just as we were. But she was certain about the "pouring" blood, and presumably thought I was the least observant witness in the universe not to have seen it too. I just had to say, rather lamely, that I had not seen the blood.

By the way, do you know if any DNA from Stephens was found on any of the victims? If you are accusing him of taking over where Wright left off, you will need forensic evidence to back up this 'hindsight' eyewitness account of yours. As it stands, it doesn't stand at all.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz YOU WERE NOT THERE, I WAS.
I have had 4 years to deliberate about this with many sleepless nights and you can say what you like for as long as you like I really dont care to be honest.
I reported this 3 times at the time so hindsight ?
Do you really think that I would stand up and publicly accuse a man of this if I were not 100% sure ? The answer is obviously yes you do !
Many things in this case are not right and thats an under statement to say the very least.
Do not put me in the same bracket as your embelishing friend, you know nothing of me at all, being involved in this is NOT something any person would choose to be involved in given free choice and I have none.
I will keep repeating this and offering people the freely available information to anyone who cares to listen untill justice is served, but thank you for being judge and jury without fully investigating the facts the key words here are impartial,unbiased and non prejudicial, something I feel you have overlooked. May I ask you, have you done any research on the case or are you speculating purely from the three threads on casebook ?
Laugh at me all who will, bring it on it is water off a ducks back, lets pray that one day you dont have to eat those dismissive words of yours at the cost of another girls life.
Tom Stephens is now working delivering leaflets through doors in felixstowe and no doubt eyeing potential victims, I for one and I believe I am far from alone here am interested only in doing the right things for the right reasons !
Please tell me what you think my motives are for doggedly pursuing this for 4 years Caz I would be interested to read your comments.
As for hard evidence my reckoning is that there is still some trophies lurking about somewhere possibly in his garden ? As neighbours reported him digging holes in the back garden with a trowel at odd times and I would be interested to learn why Stephens was hoovering his car out the next morning 12th December in the rain (fact).
I have discussed this with many people and not one of them has turned and said "john your talking rubbish" and all have said they "thought something was not right with this case" apart from one policeman who said " The best thing you can do is go away and forget all about it, forget it ever happened", (I have two witnessess to this).
My answer ! "Never not in a million years"........ Regards jsi

[Admin]

Posters are reminded to follow the rules regarding posting of information protected by copyright. No more than a paragraph of the work and a link to the article in question is all that is allowed.

Thank you.

[noel o'gara]

Hi all....

As for Stephens....I would want to know how you know that the picture was in his flat...and can you prove it....and I'd want to know exactly what form the arms outstretched and hair to a point took....interpretation can easily mislead.....

there's something not right here........

you are dead right Fleetwood. There is something not right about the conviction of Steve Wright.

The following is an extract from an article by Ben Kendall in the Norfolk EDP24 newspaper.

'Police sources have told the EDP of a strange fact not revealed in court. Among artefacts gathered from Mr Stephens' home in Trimley St Martin, near Felixstowe, was a painting called The Equivocal Woman by German artist Max Ernst. '

Now I ask you, is it right that such evidence that links another suspect to at least two dead naked murdered bodies in that series of killings should be kept hidden by the police?

The jury can only go on the evidence put before them. They dont know what is concealed from them.
the evidence proved that Wright had sex with the four as he stated. There was no evidence that connected him with the scene of the dead bodies.
That picture connected the other suspect with two bodies.

Coincidence?
Each with their hair drawn to a point, and arms outstretched just like the picture.

[noel o'gara]

you are dead right Fleetwood. There is something not right about the conviction of Steve Wright.

The following is an extract from an article by Ben Kendall in the Norfolk EDP24 newspaper.

'Police sources have told the EDP of a strange fact not revealed in court. Among artefacts gathered from Mr Stephens' home in Trimley St Martin, near Felixstowe, was a painting called The Equivocal Woman by German artist Max Ernst. '

Now I ask you, is it right that such evidence that links another suspect to at least two dead naked murdered bodies in that series of killings should be kept hidden by the police?

The jury can only go on the evidence put before them. They dont know what is concealed from them.
the evidence proved that Wright had sex with the four as he stated. There was no evidence that connected him with the scene of the dead bodies.
That picture connected the other suspect with two bodies.

Coincidence?
Each with their hair drawn to a point, and arms outstretched just like the picture.

In court at the trial of Steve Wright a forensic pathologist gave this evidence.

’ He said her hair was posed straight up from her head. "Not a position that you would expect at all if the body is dumped on the ground," said Dr Cary.’


This is hard evidence that went right over the jury's head and made little sense because they didnt know about the Max Ernst picture in Tom Stephens apartment. What are the chances of sex addict Steve Wright doing that to dead bodies in the woods while there was a picture portraying that outlandish pose of a woman in Tom Stephens flat, a man he did not know.
Stephens of course knew all the regular punters and their habits from the girls who love to talk about their customers.

[Stephen Thomas]

Equivocal Woman

Here's the 1923 painting

[Tecs]

That picture connected the other suspect with two bodies.

Coincidence?
Each with their hair drawn to a point, and arms outstretched just like the picture.

Hi Noel,

If Stephens went to so much effort to set up Wright, why did he arrange the bodies in order to draw attention to himself and put himself in the frame?

Regards,