Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Kattrup 7 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - by Mayerling 17 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 40 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Fisherman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (22 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (11 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - (3 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Casebook Outage May Occur - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Shades of Whitechapel

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-28-2010, 02:34 AM
noel o'gara noel o'gara is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Athlone Ireland
Posts: 43
Default Did Steve Wright get a fair trial in Ipswich?

'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/e...lk/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?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-28-2010, 12:14 PM
Dark Ali Dark Ali is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 41
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-28-2010, 12:29 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Ali View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-28-2010, 02:39 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noel o'gara View Post
'
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.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-28-2010, 03:38 PM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,863
Default

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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-28-2010, 04:08 PM
gallicrow gallicrow is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oxford
Posts: 41
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-28-2010, 07:52 PM
Tecs Tecs is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 253
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-29-2010, 02:01 AM
noel o'gara noel o'gara is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Athlone Ireland
Posts: 43
Default

[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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-29-2010, 12:14 PM
Bob Hinton Bob Hinton is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 654
Default Very interesting,

Is Mr O'Gara bringing out a book in the near future about this case?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-29-2010, 02:56 PM
noel o'gara noel o'gara is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Athlone Ireland
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tecs View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.