Five Women Killed In Or Around Ipswhich

[Captain VXR]

This really is sick, even if they were call girls. I hope the police find the sicko who did it and torture him to death. WHOEVER DID THIS IS A !@#?ing ******. :down: TO HIM THAT THING (worse than a maneating tiger because they only do it to survive and are not violent idiotic perverts who should be in a rubber room since last century). I HOPE THE COPS KILL WHOEVER DID IT.

[Dave B]

One bit at a time. "Only" call girls? This is why I don't agree when the call goes up for tougher sentences for those who kill police officers. Why make the disctinction. A life's a life.

And your call for cops to kill whoever did it. I assume you're calling for the death penalty to be applied by a court? Well, to attain a conviction the jury must be "beyond reasonable doubt" that the crime took place. Let's say that once this case comes to court that it's 99% certain that the police have the right person. But 1% uncertain - because very little in this life is black and white. A jury faced with putting someone to death would probably find the accused innocent purely on that 1% of doubt.

Your sentiment is understandable, but you really need to take a breath and think what you're saying before you post.

[Hazell B]

Do you know the bit that bothers me most?

Men just won't get this (sorry, but you can't really) but there is a one in six million chance of any woman in this country beingt killed by this/these murdering barstewards. That's twice the chance of lottery winning.

Yet still it's a Suffolk police issue with no specialists being brought in.

Do they think the loon doing this doesn't have a road map out of the area? :mark:

If it was just normal, random men being killed, not working girls, there would be more police involved by order of the Home Secretary. If it was rich City men being killed, they'd have had me, pensioners and one legged blind hobbos in uniform patrolling the streets two days ago :mark:

[LotusElise]

Sadly true.
I am in no way an apologist for the "sex industry" but these women deserved protection as citizens, just as everyone else deserves protection from this madman on the loose. He needs to be caught and quickly.

[suzy m]

Yet still it's a Suffolk police issue with no specialists being brought in.


They have just been saying on the BBC news that police from other forces across the country are being brought in to help. :)

One thing that's bugging me - how did the TV cameras get so quickly to the area where the latest bodies were found? From the ITV news just now, it looks like they nearly beat the police to the scene! :s

[jim mcglinchey]

Sure the TV crews were in the area waiting with baited breath and engines running for such a development.

What bugs me is the knee jerk pulling from the TV schedules of a serious documentary on the realities of the whole prostitution business. It wasn't that silly brothel-set sit com that was on a few months back, but a serious insight from a respected commentator.

[Daniel]

What about a fair trial to actually find out if the person's guilty or not? :erm:

I agree that it seems that the media and the police seem to be less worried about this as it's "only" prostitutes who are at risk which I find a little wrong shall we say. Everyone is equal and the fact that they're prostitutes matters little. They're people and they deserve to have their case treated no differently to you or I :)

[oily oaf]

I have to say my oily blood was at boiling point yesterday as I listened to some of the denegrating remarks levelled at these working girls (not call girls mate. They're something entirely different) by callers to a London phone in programme.

Gawd alone knows what privations and abuse some of these kids went through to force them into this most base of lifestyles.
After all I've never yet heard a little girl announce proudly to her parents when asked about her future ambition "Well mummy I'd like to roam dangerous ill lit streets at the dead of night and in all weathers before selling my arse to a bunch of 2 bob losers who are either too ugly or too socially inept to get a girlfriend" (with the probable exception of Jodie Marsh that is ;) ).

Job for Inspector Morse this one. FACT.

[Mark]

I imagine specialist investigation crews / profilers / you name it, are being brought in from all over the country. After all, every force is going to want to get in on this one! Besides, it's speculated that the killer may well not live locally, he/she may commute along the A14 to commit their crimes :s

Having said that Suffolk police are the best people to head it up, as it is their patch and nobody knows it better than them.

[Ian McC]

Horrible, worse when it is closer to home.

I hope they catch the people/person responsible quick before anyone else dies

[pino]

Sadly true.
I am in no way an apologist for the "sex industry" but these women deserved protection as citizens, just as everyone else deserves protection from this madman on the loose. He needs to be caught and quickly.

:up:

[Sirius]

I hope the person/persons responsible for these crimes are caught and given the harshest of punishments.

When I first read this thread I couldn't help but think of a similar situation in my own backyard. I'm sure most of you haven't heard of the case here in Vancouver, B.C. involving a local pig farmer named Robert Pickton. He is Canada's worst known serial killer and is currently being held in custody on charges of killing at least 27 young women from the eastside of Vancouver.

The story is long and winding, but basically the remains of these women were found on his pig farm a few years ago. When the story first appeared over the news many people were having gruesome images as to how these women came to rest on the farm. The police conducted a massive excavation of the property and brought in forensic and DNA experts to help with the investigation.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2005/05/25/ca-pickton-feliks20050525.html

They have just finished jury selection as of yesterday I believe, and now we are all waiting to see what comes of the trial.

Sirius

[viper_man]

They are going to have to catch him/her soon before this escalates into another Ripper and media frenzy.

[Daniel]

Yes. They also need to hope that the killer doesn't move either......

[Robinho]

this is a fascinating and very scary case, i hope the murderer (i notice everyone assumes it is a man? it probably is, but still...) is found swiftly and brought to justice, however i fear that may not happen, the perpetrator is obviously picking on protitutes, who are relatively defenceless and find themselves in more dangerous positions than most people, coupled with that there aren't a lot of willing witnesses due to the nature of the people using prostitutes and it seems that the police have very little to go on if the press are to be believed - a few sketchy reports and very little physical evidence.

i hope this can be ended soon and without further loss of life, and moreso hope that the police are closer to a resolution than they seem

[Knock-on]

Just watching Tania's father on the TV. The man is obviously devastated but made a very brave statement.

Tania's story is a recurring one. Once, she was a happy and loving daughter until drugs took her. From there, it escalated to prostitution and ultimately her death.

My best wishes go out to there poor girls families.

[Captain VXR]

RIP to the five girls and I hope that the killer rests in pieces (Whiskas Oh So Get Revenge On The Sicko Meat made from the murderer's body. I would buy it for my cat too)

[oily oaf]

RIP to the five girls and I hope that the killer rests in pieces (Whiskas Oh So Get Revenge On The Sicko Meat made from the murderer's body. I would buy it for my cat too)

I cant help but notice that in your profile you fail to mention your year of birth.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a guesstimate that you are 9 and three quarters.

[Hazell B]

I imagine specialist investigation crews / profilers / you name it, are being brought in from all over the country.

Eventually. It took five bodies to turn up before an order was made to send in help and not worry about finance. That's about a week after they started to report three girls certainly missing and another one unaccounted for, and the first body turned up, isn't it?

Yet when a rich woman who's dad was mates with some high ranking police officer was killed down south, along with her toddler, last year it took less than six hours for the same level of effort :mark:

[Funks]

Why are you getting in a tizz about support from other forces? Mutual aid is available at the drop of a hat. There is a database that contains a list of specially trained staff and experts available for Police to call upon whenever they need. There is also mutual aid available in the form of regular officers who can be called to assist with regular duties whilst the local officers are seconded on a major investigation. Suffolk would have taken the steps to ask for assistance as and when they felt it necessary.

Finance can be an issue sometimes - such as the crazy amount of money it cost to police the G8 talks at Gleneagles last year - but money isn't an issue when something like this is concerned. Forces can ask for financial assistance from the government retrospectively. I heard that my own employer is seeking some extra pennies to cover the cost of investigating the worlds biggest cash robbery this year - which is an ongoing major investigation.

[Hazell B]

So why wasn't outside help brought in faster?

The version I heard (on TV news) was that it wasn't offered, either cash or physical aid from specialists, until just after my first post on the subject. All of a sudden they were reporting how help was now being made available. Up until that point, the Suffolk police were alone.

I don't care who's choice that was, just that it was happening.

[Funks]

Well if what you heard was on TV news- that must be true then.

If there is criticism of Suffolk for not asking for help sooner then it is not fair. They were not to know that they were about to deal with a multiple murder investigation. It is a fairly regular thing for prostitutes and drug addicts to go missing for days at a time. There have been a few instances this week (as recently as today) whereby there has been concern for other missing girls in Ipswich - so far they've all turned up. It would be very unusual to call for help before you actually have it confirmed that you require so many extra resources.

[tintin]

this is a fascinating and very scary case, i hope the murderer (i notice everyone assumes it is a man? it probably is, but still...)

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this could be a woman.

[Sarah]

This story has been on our local news since late October when the first girl went missing. Only when the first two girls bodies were found have the national news become interested.

There have been similar cases to this in Norfolk/Sufffolk about 10 years ago some bodies were found some not so it was impossible to link them. Suffolk Police have been liasing with Norfolk Police on this but they want to catch whoever did it first and then they can see if there are any links.

There has been plenty of help how can a force deal with five killings in such quick succession on their own.

[Sarah]

I live an hour away and this story has been on my local news since the end of October when the first girl went missing and I can assure you right from the start it was being treated with great concern. The national news have only been reporting on it since the first two bodies were found. Right at the start there was a meeting and it was agreed any help or money would be available. No force would be able to deal with five separate major investigation crimes in one go like this in such a short period of time and they didn't even realise the third girl was missing.

Suffolk have been liaising with Norfolk as about 10 years ago several prostitutes were killed or went missing but they have said the priority is to catch the killer and then see if there are any links. There have even been Officers from Merseyside in Suffolk today reading numberplates so help is here.

[Sarah]

Also right from the start there was a local meeting and it was agreed the Police could have all the help and money they required.

As Funks says it is not unusual for someone like this to go missing but when the first girl went missing it was being treated with great concern.

[Knock-on]

Why are you getting in a tizz about support from other forces? Mutual aid is available at the drop of a hat. There is a database that contains a list of specially trained staff and experts available for Police to call upon whenever they need. There is also mutual aid available in the form of regular officers who can be called to assist with regular duties whilst the local officers are seconded on a major investigation. Suffolk would have taken the steps to ask for assistance as and when they felt it necessary.



Actually, the day after it kicked off, the top chap from Scotland Yard was already running the case.

There is no case to accuse the police of not doing everything possible as soon as practical in this case. It is and has been taken very seriously from the first instant.

I think some people are just expecting the police to treat this case differently because the girls are prostitutes instead of some rich person :rolleyes: It's a good thing the police aren't as prejudiced as some others ;)

[Hazell B]

There's a shock - Knock on adding rolling eyes to his post, along with digs at me. :dozey:

Yes, I know people go missing on a regular basis and that help is now available and being used. However, the second a well conected person or pretty girl is killed help does appear faster and the press fuss is vastly scaled up. This story got minimal attention for quite some time after the girls started to go missing. Their friends and the local police were (and I quote from teletext here) "seriously worried" about the first two reported. It simply wasn't normal for them.

Jeez, all I said was that it took a few days too long to make things start rolling. I've never said the police are doing a bad job once all the teams got going, have I? In fact, I'm 100% sure they're throwing all they can at it. Remember, I was messed about something chronic by a police search only last year, which itself was an utter farce, so I've started to notice just how fast things get moving on some cases rather than others.

[Sarah]

What else could have been done ? This was dominating our local news and the Police were doing all they could. We knew the girls' backgrounds good and bad right from the start. The third girl was not even reported missing. And there is also the theory that the fourth and fifth may not have been taken from the streets.

[Daniel]

There's a shock - Knock on adding rolling eyes to his post, along with digs at me. :dozey:

Perhaps when people are being murdered it's not the best time for personal vendetta's to be aired......

[Nick The Flick]

As a Suffolk born-and-bred and more importanly, a current St Edmundsbury Council Tax payer, I hope that the cost of these extra police won't be passed onto the tax payer as it was last time there was a national outcry (Holly & Jessica's bodies were found in Suffolk woodland, so we stumped up half the cost and my council tax rose the next year by 32%)!

I think more money needs to be put nationally into policing at grass-roots levels and not spent on community bi-sexual logistics and organic velocity monitering managers (or whatever they call themselves). I live in a town of 25,000 and the police station closes at 6pm.

I sincerely hope they catch the person doing this soon as it won't be long before he find hookers too much of an easy target and starts on something which is "more of a challenge", such as a non-hooker.

On a different note though, it's nice to see Portman Road featured on the news without the voiceover starting with the words, "Ipswich Town threw away a..."

[speedy king]

You think it closing at 6pm is bad.....Wymondham Police station which is also Norfolk Police Headquaters isn't even open on a saturday :s

[Nick The Flick]

But the biggest crime that goes on in Wymondham is incest, and considering that the entire population of the town use horse and cart to get around, even if there is a crime committed on Saturday morning, the culprit can be picked up no further than Spooner Row on the monday morning.

[speedy king]

Ermm.....where exactly has that comment come from :s You even been to the place...... Back on topic

[Nick The Flick]

Well, considering that my Aunt and cousins (before flying the nest etc.) have lived on Norwich Road for the past 25 years, I've been there one or two times. I even used to watch Wymondham play home games with my Uncle.

Back on topic though... If the three police forces had merged, as they wanted them to earlier in the year, it would have probably helped in this case.

[Funks]

If my memory serves correctly, at one point Norfolk and Suffolk were quite keen on a merger but when the government started suggesting that Essex and Cambs should be part of it they lost interest. Anyway, fortunately the Home Secretary ballsed the entire merging thing up and so nothing happened.
Flick.. if it all gets too costly, Suffolk will get a rebate I'm sure. Your council tax is safe(ish).

Fingers crossed all this information that has come in over the last week is getting them somewhere.

[Les]

well Nick I am about 10 miles to the east of you and I was born in Ipswich and know the place well. It's sickening to think that some person is going around doing this but hopefully the police are closing in on him as I write.

[Ian McC]

You have to wonder what drives a person like this, have they finished, or will they be more. If they have developed a taste for it then will they move onto somewhere else or will they go for anyone.

I think that the killings were not just random urges, they must have planned this very carefully. Everyone is waiting to see what happens next.

[Captain VXR]

I wouldn't be surprised if the person who did it had a criminal record for GBH, rape, manslaughter, attempted murder, animal cruelty and assaulting a cop etc

[Dave B]

I'm guessing - hoping - that with so much police activity in the area the murderer finds it impossible to continue their work.

Incidentally, did anybody notice the extremely bad taste remark from Oliver Stone on the British Comedy Awards about it being like the days of Jack the Ripper? :s

[Drew]

Oh Brockman, the jokes are already streaming and believe me, they are much stronger then Oliver Stone's remark.

[Dave B]

I'm sure you've already heard this, but police have arrested a man and are holding him in an un-named police station.

Let's hope they've got their man.

[Mark]

Doesn't necessarily mean that they have. I'm sure they will arrest people even if they think they have information which they are withholding.

I hope this doesn't turn into a tabloid frenzy demanding he be immediately executed without trial.

[Daniel]

Hope all you want Mark........

Hope it is the man. But something tells me this murder case isn't going to be an easy one to crack.

[slinkster]

I was wondering what the latest was on this... I didn't catch the news yesterday.

It must be truly awful for all involved, and I also mean the police who have this mammoth task of trying to solve this before any one else is found dead. If they do manage to trace down this man ( I assume it is a man anyway) then I'll be amazed... It just seems like such a massive thing with very little leads. I mean some of the girls were sadly not even reported missing for weeks. Just really sad I think.

[speedy king]

Well they've named the bloke and said what job he has....bad move in my opinion incase he turns out to be innocent :down:

[Knock-on]

Well they've named the bloke and said what job he has....bad move in my opinion incase he turns out to be innocent :down:


I was shocked that they named the man. The defense is probably warming up for a prejudiced case as we speak :rolleyes:

[speedy king]

What a surpirse...the Police HAVEN't named him....the media have...... not that it was made difficult for them in all fairness though..

[BeansBeansBeans]

Like Huntley before him, this chap has spoken to the media about the case before his arrest. I believe he was the subject of an interview in one of the red tops yesterday.

[Dave B]

My uneasy feeling is that that Stephens was getting his side of the story in first, which would - on the surface - appear strange.

However, trial by media isn't something which the UK excells at, so let's wait for the police to do their job before we jump to too many conclusions.

[oily oaf]

For my money the bloke is guilty beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. I base my damning but irrefutable conclusion on 2 undeniable facts:

1) He's got a beard

2) I bet he hasn't got a belt in his casual slacks.

It's my considered opinion that we should burn him face down before he gets away. (picks up pitchfork and flaming torch)

Yours faithfully
Reg Rancidnob
Millwall

[Drew]

I don't think the media should be legally allowed to publish the indentity of people who are held over crimes, but are still considered innoncent.

If this man turns out to be innocent, his life is going to be extremely hard to live.

[DonnieDarco]

Presumably the police know more than we do, but I'm not convinced he is the killer yet.

A prostitute interviewed about him said he would help them out whenever he could, they could phone him up and if he could, he would drive them to where they wanted to be.

She also said if it was cold he would turn up, and drive them around until they were warm.

She said he did this for many of the women, and that he looked after them.

Something needs to be done about the media releasing information too soon.

[Robinho]

it seems from the news report i've just watched that the police had this man as their main suspect since the beginning - he was first interviewed 2 days after the first girl went missing and has been spoken to 4 times since, at least once under caution and the forensics searched his house a couple of months ago.

i feel that they have known it was him for a long time but have only just managed to get enough evidence to confidently arrest him and hopefully charge him.

if not then they have made a massive mistake as it was inevitable the man would be named given that the media knew who he was and everything about him before, so would have known it was his address.

i hope they have done the right thing and got their man, but i feel there is much more to come of this case yet, it seems to becoming more odd

[oily oaf]

I must say it's so reassuring in today's chaotic and oft violent British society to observe that even the most depraved and murderous of our serial killers still has time to enjoy a nice bowl of piping hot custard. :)

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to relate that only last Tuesday I myself fell victim to a deranged serial killer :(

I got my first inkling of the fact when I came down to the kitchen only to be greeted by the grisly sight of 2 Oatabix lying in a pool of their own milk and a Shredded Wheat biscuit with gunshot wounds to the back.

A chilling message was left daubed in milk on my Bob The Builder breakfast bowl stating:
Dear Boss
I've got a down on wheat and bran based comestibles and I wont stop ripping them until I'm caught.
Regards Jack.

Still mustn't grumble :mad:

[Caroline]

Something needs to be done about the media releasing information too soon.

I agree. It amazes me just how much is shown on TV. It is endlessly discussed, facts are regurgitated....and the desire to know everything right now is overwhelming. Just seems wrong to me.

[tintin]

I don't think the media should be legally allowed to publish the indentity of people who are held over crimes, but are still considered innoncent.


Once someone is charged then his/her identity or any details which could be used to identify them, can't be published.

[DonnieDarco]

But until then, nothing should be released anyway. This man hasn't been charged, but we know a lot about him already, which kind of negates the rule about not releasing information once they have.

[oily oaf]

Perhaps if people had listened to Mr Rancidnob and burned him face down immediately after his arrest we wouldn't be having this conversation. :mad:

Yours Insanely
Agnes Putridpuss (Miss)
25 Mellow Birds Custard Mews
Cockamouth

[lumikello]

I must say it's so reassuring in today's chaotic and oft violent British society to observe that even the most depraved and murderous of our serial killers still has time to enjoy a nice bowl of piping hot custard. :)

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to relate that only last Tuesday I myself fell victim to a deranged serial killer :(

I got my first inkling of the fact when I came down to the kitchen only to be greeted by the grisly sight of 2 Oatabix lying in a pool of their own milk and a Shredded Wheat biscuit with gunshot wounds to the back.

A chilling message was left daubed in milk on my Bob The Builder breakfast bowl stating:
Dear Boss
I've got a down on wheat and bran based comestibles and I wont stop ripping them until I'm caught.
Regards Jack.

Still mustn't grumble :mad:

Aah, you might have had a visit by the Bishop of Southwark, on his way home from a very entertaining drinks reception at an embassy. Oily Towers anywhere near Streatham, the good Bishops last known residence?

[DonnieDarco]

A second suspect has been arrested this morning, at 5am. He's 48, and lives in Ispwich, close to the red light district. The first one is still being questioned, they've got permission to question him for a further 12 hours.

[LotusElise]

There ought to be a media blackout on this if there is to be any hope of a fair trial, from the point of view of protecting a possibly innocent person and also making sure that the guilty party doesn't get let off on an "unfair trial" defence.

[Mark]

Well they've arrested a second person, so it continues.

[Daniel]

Unless they are both linked to each other I somehow think these people are just being taken in for a talking to. The media have portrayed this first guy as a bit of a loner, hence his need to use the services of the prostitutes. Perhaps he's extremely smart and knows how to pass himself off but he doesn't seem the type to hunt in a pack with another person. But of course this is just an opinion and the Police are the ones who know what's going on.

[ArrowsFA1]

But until then, nothing should be released anyway.
I agree :up: Suspects are just that, suspects, and the old addage of innocent until proven guilty applies.

The media's role in these situations should be questioned.

[BDunnell]

The trouble is that there is an almost unique aspect to this case, namely the way in which the first suspect made himself available to the media and said things about his involvement with the dead women on his web site. That's harder to regulate.

Also, I'm sure that many would argue that a news blackout in such cases could be counterproductive, in that a lack of information being released could mean that fewer people get in touch with potentially useful information.

However, this is not to say that I'm not uncomfortable with some aspects of the media's treatment of this case.

[oily oaf]

Well they've arrested a second person, so it continues.

Drown him in a bucket then burn him face down just to be on the safe side :tweetie:

Go With God
Pope Benny
Exorcisms R Us
Cleethorpes

[Sarah]

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED20%20Dec%202006%2010%3A30%3A40%3A617

[Daniel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6194351.stm

Stephen Wright has been charged with the murders. Doesn't mention the other guy who is seemingly innocent yet whose life is now ****ed up beyond belief (by the media and not the police I should add). Nonetheless it's good that they seem to be certain it's this guy.

[Gannex]

What an interesting way for the police to carry on. They question aggressively first, Tom Stephens, holding him in custody, a man who seems quite willing to talk and naively confident that, because he is innocent, he has nothing to fear from talking.

The police told us after Stephens's arrest that Mr. Stephens was 40 to 50 percent likely to have done it, which made me wonder about the search and arrest warrants for this hapless gentleman. Don't the English police have to show probable cause to a magistrate? Don't they have to convince this jurist that the victim of the search or arrest is probably guilty?

They don't, apparently, in England, so they take in Mr. Stephens (who is apparently enjoying the celebrity) for information. And here is the brilliance of the investigation so far: the police concentrate most on a single theory, which is obvious once you are told it, but is nonetheless a clever insight; the murderer, they assume, must be one of the few very regular, most trusted, most long-standing customers of the Ipswich Red Light District. He cannot be an occasional visitor, because if he were, then the fourth and fifth victims would never have gotten into the car with him. So investigators should concentrate on the most trusted regulars, engage them in gossip, and they wil be led quickly to the culprit.

And so, apparently, it has proved. Now the curtain goes down, and the news blackout begins. Damn! Just when things were getting interesting . . .

[oily oaf]

Good Interminably long and boring bit before we can all steam into the strong grog and Quality Street.

I'm an 87 year old pensioner and I can remember when it was all fields round 'ere and I should like to express my relief that that nice man with the beard and no belt has been released by the policemen.
I could feel it in my water that he was a good boy...................I SAY FEEL IT IN ME WATER I COULD.......Good boy yes.................

Thank Gawd we never listened to Mr Rancidnob who wanted to burn 'im face down. I mean to say where would we all be if we all burned each other face down ....................face down yes. I think I'll just put me woolie on dear it's gettin a bit parky round me kidneys..........I SAY A BIT PARKY DEAR.

Anyway I'm glad 'es out bless 'im but I do think that the police should 'ave stuck 'is 'ead in a bucket for a few minutes while 'itting it wiv their truncheons and then made 'im eat the smouldering contents of the desk sargent's pipe for wasting police time.

TIDDLES!......TIDDLES! ..........Where's that bleedin' cat got to now :mad:


Yours Forgetfully

Ada Popshot-Climax
Coffin Dodger's Old Folks Home
Piddleton

[Dave B]

The police statement yesterday evening left the media in no doubt as to their responsibilities. I haven't seen this morning's headlines yet, though...

[Robinho]

whilst they have charged the second man, and released Mr Stephens on bail (a man who the majority of the media hype was self made), i realise that people will be pointing out that he is innocent yet is infamous for his connection to the murder enquiry.

However his connection is there because he was involved illegally with all 5 of the girls in paying them for their services, its not like he is a random guy who had nothing to do with it and has done nothing wrong - he is still a criminal and if caught kerb crawling would be prosecuted.

[BeansBeansBeans]

However his connection is there because he was involved illegally with all 5 of the girls in paying them for their services, its not like he is a random guy who had nothing to do with it and has done nothing wrong - he is still a criminal and if caught kerb crawling would be prosecuted.

Firstly, if he has used prostitues, it doesn't mean he had a part to play in their murder. Secondly, he is innocent until proven guilty, and therefore does not deserve to have every tiny detail of his life exposed to the nation.

[Robinho]

Firstly, if he has used prostitues, it doesn't mean he had a part to play in their murder. Secondly, he is innocent until proven guilty, and therefore does not deserve to have every tiny detail of his life exposed to the nation.

true, but he has been engaged in criminal activity with all the murdered girls, and then went public with that information himself, before he was arrested, and that information suddenly became far more newsworthy after his arrest.

i agree that perhaps the media went overboard with their reaction, however its not like he was an entirely unassociated and innocent name that was dragged into the case, he put himself there both through his actions with the girls and with the media.

also, all i was saying that is he admitted to using prostitutes, and as such is perhaps lucky to not have been prosecuted, seeing as that act is illegal, if he weren't engaging in that act then he would have had no connection and would not have been dragged into the enquiry.

[BeansBeansBeans]

its not like he was an entirely unassociated and innocent name that was dragged into the case, he put himself there both through his actions with the girls and with the media.

As Gannex has pointed out, the Police were sensible in questioning Stephens, due to his connection with the girls. However, he was effectively hung, drawn and quartered by the press for the murders, before he had even been charged (he still hasn't been charged now).

The argument that it's okay to reveal every detail of his life because he volunteered some information to the press is also flawed, as Mr Wright is receiving similar treatment, and he didn't go to the press. As far as I'm concerned, neither of these men are guilty until a court finds them so.

[BDunnell]

The argument that it's okay to reveal every detail of his life because he volunteered some information to the press is also flawed, as Mr Wright is receiving similar treatment, and he didn't go to the press. As far as I'm concerned, neither of these men are guilty until a court finds them so.

Absolutely. However, it was still a strange situation because of what Stephens wrote on his website, something you couldn't expect the press (even the respectable papers) not to pick up on.

[slinkster]

also, all i was saying that is he admitted to using prostitutes, and as such is perhaps lucky to not have been prosecuted, seeing as that act is illegal, if he weren't engaging in that act then he would have had no connection and would not have been dragged into the enquiry.

I see your point. I don't have a *great* deal of sympathy either... but at the end of the day, as others have said it's up to the courts and police to decide who is guilty and NOT the media. And as for him being a criminal, the police HAD to say that any information given from people wouldn't lead to a prosecution for using prostitutes... other wise they wouldn't have had so many people coming forward to help.

[Robinho]

As Gannex has pointed out, the Police were sensible in questioning Stephens, due to his connection with the girls. However, he was effectively hung, drawn and quartered by the press for the murders, before he had even been charged (he still hasn't been charged now).

The argument that it's okay to reveal every detail of his life because he volunteered some information to the press is also flawed, as Mr Wright is receiving similar treatment, and he didn't go to the press. As far as I'm concerned, neither of these men are guilty until a court finds them so.


i agree the media have gone overboard in the information they have provided, although i haven't seen them being "hung, drawn and quartered" for either suspect, although i have not read too much of the tabloid news on the subject.

you are right to point out that Mr Wright is getting similar treatment, but i have not seen anything like the coverage given to the first man, who himself put into the public arena pretty much all the information reported, including his criminal activity with the victims, and the information on Wright has only been found from the public arena, not from police sources etc

Stephens had his Myspace site, had an interview with the BBC and went to the Sunday Mirror all prior to being brought in, telling the Mirror that he expected to be arrested but was innocent. i assume he wanted his story out there in advance and possibly even wanted to cash in on the fame he could see coming.

the news are now reporting he has been released on bail and have charged the other man, no-where have i seen any news saying that either men were guilty.

i also agee that no-one should be considered guilty until found guilty by trial, and i hope that the press attention given to the case does not jeopardise anyones chances of a fair trial, but also it should be noted that the media have not reported anything that what not available to the general public and that the Police have kept very quiet with any details of the suspects.

[Hazell B]

i also agee that no-one should be considered guilty until found guilty by trial, and i hope that the press attention given to the case does not jeopardise anyones chances of a fair trial, but also it should be noted that the media have not reported anything that what not available to the general public and that the Police have kept very quiet with any details of the suspects.

Good points, but they don't all work in the real world sadly.

Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, to name just two who are strongly considered to have beaten the justice system. Not that anyone like Stephens would face a similar thing (he can't afford the lawyers of course) but he'll still have the average Sun reader bawling at him in the street for a few months.

I've little sympathy - he begged attention on himself as much as he could from what I've seen. Wouldn't be at all shocked if he's signing a book and TV deal right now :mark:

[jim mcglinchey]

It is the generally held belief that plod has the guilty man safely ensconced, so normal service has this Friday night, been safely resumed in the red light district of old Ipswich town.....to the great relief of the tarts and their paying customers alike.

[Dazz9908]

I Hope they have caught the right BAstaaaaaaaard,
And Hope HE Rots in hell with all it's never ending Torments.

the World doesn't need scum like Him.!!

[oily oaf]

I Hope they have caught the right BAstaaaaaaaard,
And Hope HE Rots in hell with all it's never ending Torments.

the World doesn't need scum like Him.!!

Yes. Quite.
Now then you seem to be a level headed, well balanced sort of cove. Certainly not drunk or bordering on the criminally insane, so I wonder if you would do me the honour of giving me your opinion on the following 2 statements.
Do you firmly believe that Mr Wright should be:

a) Burned face down in his cell before he gets away?

or

b) Made to undergo the rigours of the British judicial system and spend an interminable amount of time living it up in chokey, guzzling pies and watching transvestite based porn on his satellite telly at great expense to the taxpayer before getting away.

A crisp £5.00 note and a year long free course of electro-convulsive therapy is yours if you answer correctly :bonce:

[Dazz9908]

Yes. Quite.
Now then you seem to be a level headed, well balanced sort of cove. Certainly not drunk or bordering on the criminally insane, so I wonder if you would do me the honour of giving me your opinion on the following 2 statements.
Do you firmly believe that Mr Wright should be:

a) Burned face down in his cell before he gets away?

or

b) Made to undergo the rigours of the British judicial system and spend an interminable amount of time living it up in chokey, guzzling pies and watching transvestite based porn on his satellite telly at great expense to the taxpayer before getting away.

A crisp £5.00 note and a year long free course of electro-convulsive therapy is yours if you answer correctly :bonce:
As I stated IF, they have the Right guy.

I'll go for answer B. Justice must prevail.

but I'll you Partake in prise all buy yourself.

[oily oaf]

As I stated IF, they have the Right guy.

I'll go for answer B. Justice must prevail.

but I'll you Partake in prise all buy yourself.


Is the INCORRECT answer :(
Please send me my £5.00 by return of post.
Failure to do so will give me adequate reason to believe that you intend to renege on our deal which will of course result in my tying your Aussie winkle to a kangaroo's tale before jabbing it in the ar$e with a cattle prod.
You decide :vader:

Happy New Year :mad:

[Dazz9908]

Is the INCORRECT answer :(
Please send me my £5.00 by return of post.
Failure to do so will give me adequate reason to believe that you intend to renege on our deal which will of course result in my tying your Aussie winkle to a kangaroo's tale before jabbing it in the ar$e with a cattle prod.
You decide :vader:

Happy New Year :mad:

Justice will be served in prison.
He will get whats coming to him.
As to a deal. what deal?
I make no deals with the dark side.!!!
But if you insist: You go first!
I'll decide weather to comply while you demonstrate.

[Captain VXR]

I hope a lynch mob tie each of his limbs to a orse and then get the horses to go in opposite directions. :vader:

[Daniel]

I hope a lynch mob tie each of his limbs to a orse and then get the horses to go in opposite directions. :vader:
I hope you're never accused of a crime and then found to be innocent........ :rolleyes:

[Hazell B]

I hope they never find an orse that can go in opposite directions :s

[Daniel]

I hope they never find an orse that can go in opposite directions :s
What's an orse? Is it a Brit thing which my antipodean like me just doesn't get?

[Hazell B]

An orse is a typing error. See post 86 :p :

[Captain VXR]

D'oh typo - I normally notice them and edit the post. :uhoh:

[Ian McC]

I don't know how the first guy arrested can be expected to go back to his life after that, if he had any secrets before this he hasn't now.

[Eki]

What's an orse? Is it a Brit thing which my antipodean like me just doesn't get?
What's an antipodean? Is it someone without legs like a centipede is someone with hundred or so legs?

[Gannex]

I don't know how the first guy arrested can be expected to go back to his life after that, if he had any secrets before this he hasn't now.
The first guy, Tom Stephens, was arrested and taken away to prison for interrogation. Meanwhile, his house was searched in excruciating detail, his computers, phone, and private papers were all seized, and during the three days that he was held prisoner by the Crown, any last vestige of privacy that the man had ever had was completely destroyed.

You may find this acceptable, given that Mr. Stephens was suspected of a very serious crime, but do you still find it acceptable when you realise that at the time of his arrest and subsequent public humiliation, the police did not even believe that Tom Stephens was probably their man. They thought he might be, that there was a chance that he was in fact the murderer, and that, for them, and for the British legal system, was enough to deprive Tom Stephens of all his civil rights.

This is what we have come to in Britain. In the US, which Brits like to claim is less civilised than Britain, Tom Stephens, being innocent, would have been protected against the dreaded knock on the door in the middle of the night, protected against being dragged away for interrogation. He would have been secure from having his home searched, and his possessions seized. He would have had rights. But not here. This, under Blair, has nearly become a police state.

[Gannex]

I don't agree with Arrows and others that we should all assume, when discussing the case, that Stephen Wright is innocent. Juries have to do that; forum members don't.

In most cases, if police and prosecutors are doing their job properly, the assumption of innocence is totally false; most people charged with murder are charged with it because they did it. There aren't that many completely bungled murder investigations, and even fewer where there are cameras and reporters and hordes of CPS lawyers watching the police's every move. This investigation is, in my opinion, an unlikely candidate for the 2006 Police Screw-Up Of The Year.

That is why, having seen no evidence to the contary, I presume for the time being that Stephen Wright is guilty. I certainly hope he is.

[oily oaf]

I don't agree with Arrows and others that we should all assume, when discussing the case, that Stephen Wright is innocent. Juries have to do that; forum members don't.

In most cases, if police and prosecutors are doing their job properly, the assumption of innocence is totally false; most people charged with murder are charged with it because they did it. There aren't that many completely bungled murder investigations, and even fewer where there are cameras and reporters and hordes of CPS lawyers watching the police's every move. This investigation is, in my opinion, an unlikely candidate for the 2006 Police Screw-Up Of The Year.

That is why, having seen no evidence to the contary, I presume for the time being that Stephen Wright is guilty. I certainly hope he is.

Now while I am fully in accordance with you on your presumption of innocence theory I am still rigid in my assertion that they should burn him face down in his cell just to be on the safe side and then if he is subsequenly found to be innocent The Queen can give him a Royal Pardon upon which his blackened remains can be transferred from the prison graveyard to consecrated ground at a location of his choice.
You can't say fairer than that can you?

Yours Leniantly
The Reverend Damien Cumblast
Church

[tintin]

I don't agree with Arrows and others that we should all assume, when discussing the case, that Stephen Wright is innocent. Juries have to do that; forum members don't.


Let's hope you're not called up for jury service on this case then...

[BeansBeansBeans]

I don't agree with Arrows and others that we should all assume, when discussing the case, that Stephen Wright is innocent. Juries have to do that; forum members don't.

Two words - Colin Stagg

[oily oaf]

Two words - Colin Stagg

I bought one of his red hot chilli con carnes from Tescos last week.
Christ it was a real ring stinger :(

[Hazell B]

This is what we have come to in Britain. In the US, which Brits like to claim is less civilised than Britain, Tom Stephens, being innocent, would have been protected against the dreaded knock on the door in the middle of the night, protected against being dragged away for interrogation. He would have been secure from having his home searched, and his possessions seized. He would have had rights. But not here. This, under Blair, has nearly become a police state.

Rubbish. Our system did it's job to perfection and without a nosey media Stephens would never have been named and his arrest known to anyone but his mother (who's home was also searched) and lawyer. The media is what caused a nation to assume guilt. His neighbours would only have known he wasn't home and the police were in his house, not that he'd been arrested. They probably would have thought him a victim without media bods wandering about asking while also saying the police were questioning a man of his age from his general area. The police gave out only that information, remember.

Before OJ Simpson was charged, his name was also bandied about by the media in the US - so I can only guess that the same laws apply.

At the end of all this, Stephens will probably get a handout from the police (not the media, who named him and caused the mess!) for his life being in tatters. As I've already said, he'll no doubt also have his story to sell to the still hungry media. He'll earn a good deal more than most of us next year, plus restore his name fully at the same time, I'd wager.

[Gannex]

I don't agree . . . that we should all assume, when discussing the case, that Stephen Wright is innocent. Juries have to do that; forum members don't.


Let's hope you're not called up for jury service on this case then...

If I were on the jury, tintin, I would presume the defendant's innocence, and judge the matter solely on the basis of the evidence presented in court.

But that's if I were called upon to decide the case as a juror. Which is very different from evaluating a case as a mere spectator, which is what we all are.

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be a fair juror.

[Hondo]

If I were on the jury, tintin, I would presume the defendant's innocence, and judge the matter solely on the basis of the evidence presented in court.

But that's if I were called upon to decide the case as a juror. Which is very different from evaluating a case as a mere spectator, which is what we all are.

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be a fair juror.

Outstanding! Well done Gannex!

[Daniel]

If I were on the jury, tintin, I would presume the defendant's innocence, and judge the matter solely on the basis of the evidence presented in court.

But that's if I were called upon to decide the case as a juror. Which is very different from evaluating a case as a mere spectator, which is what we all are.

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be a fair juror.
Very true Gannex :up: Tintin has a habit of knowing everything but evidently doesn't.....

[BeansBeansBeans]

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

Hmm...well I wouldn't want my sister going out with someone who is a suspected murderer, but it doesn't mean that I presume he is a murderer.

[Gannex]

I promise I will shut up about this presumption of innocence business after this, but I would like to make one more point. You can see most clearly that the presumption of innocence is reasonable and fair ONLY for jurors, rather than for the public at large, or the police, or anyone else, when you think about a bail hearing. The magistrate must decide whether the defendant applying for bail would be a risk to the public, if released pending trial. The magistrate, in making this determination, presumes that the defendant, having been charged, is guilty, and that is why Stephen Wright, presumably guilty as charged, has been held. Nor did the police presume him innocent when they decided to search his house, nor should anyone seeing Mr. Wright around the streets of Ipswich, chatting to prostitutes, presume him innocent. The only people who should, indeed must, presume him innocent, are the twelve men and women who will make the final determination as to whether Wright should be convicted of the murders -- the rest of us should use our common sense and common sense tells us, at this point, that the likelihood is that the police collared the right man when they arrested Stephen Wright.

[Hazell B]

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't.

Cannot believe nobody's pointed out theobvious flaw in this question :dozey:

Being well and truely in custody, Wright can't take tintin's sister out until after he's been found guilty or not. By then, tintin would know if he was a murderer or not, wouldn't he?

Doh!

[Gannex]

True, Hazell. Except that what happened was Peter Wright was surprisingly released, pending trial, on one million pound bond put up by none other than Max Clifford, who was keen to get Wright under contract. Wright was released, and the first thing he did was go over for dinner at tintin's, cause he knows tin's sister will be there. Does tintin now say to the happy, surprisingly free-on-bond Mr. Wright "Welcome to my home! I shall presume that you are innocent."

[Hazell B]

Hardly likely, but almost politician-like in your brilliant get out :up:

[Funks]

Cannot believe nobody's pointed out the obvious flaw in this question :dozey:



Doh!

Yeah, maybe tintin doesn't have a sister. :p :

(NOTE... I'm not prepared to trawl through the rest of the thread or his entire post history to establish whether the answer is here.)

[Gannex]

Hardly likely, but almost politician-like in your brilliant get out :up:

Thanks, er, I think.

[tintin]

Gannex's point about the bail hearing is a good one.
But so is Hazell's.

Let's assume that he hadn't been named by the media, and had been allowed out on bail so that he could come to my house and have dinner with my sister.

I wouldn't know anything about him except for what I learnt while we were eating. It would be what he said, and the way he acted over dinner which would determine the degree to which I'd be happy for her to go out for a drive with him.

This is exactly how it should work in a criminal trial. As a juror, or member of the press, or someone sitting in the public gallery, I should judge his guilt solely on the evidence presented at a time when he is there to speak for himself and able respond to anything other people are saying about him.

I certainly wouldn't base my opinions of someone on third party information, rumour or speculation.

There are several flaws in this scenario.

Firstly, my sister lives nearly a hundred miles away from me, so it would be very unlikely she would be at my house for dinner. In fact she hasn't been to my house for over a year and when we have dinner together it is always in a pub or restaurant. She also has a boyfriend, who lives with her.

Secondly, my sister is a fully grown woman, and however uncomfortable I felt about a man she was with, I would never tell her not to do something if she wanted to do it.

Thirdly, she is a probation officer and spends her working life dealing with sex and drug offenders, including people who have done far worse things than the accused in the Ipswich case. I think I can trust her judgement.


For those who would like to learn more about the real world effects of losing the presumption of innocence, even in a high profile case, look no further than the latest John Grisham book "An Innocent Man". (Available now from all good book stores)

[BDunnell]

If I were on the jury, tintin, I would presume the defendant's innocence, and judge the matter solely on the basis of the evidence presented in court.

But that's if I were called upon to decide the case as a juror. Which is very different from evaluating a case as a mere spectator, which is what we all are.

So let me ask you this, tintin. If your sister came to your house for dinner, and brought along Stephen Wright as her new boyfriend, and they told you that they were going out for a drive after dinner, would you say to your sister, go, because you presumed this man innocent? Of course you wouldn't. You'd beg your sister to stay at your place and keep away from the man, because right now, from all you know, you can only reasonably assume he is a murderer.

That doesn't mean you couldn't be a fair juror.

What does constitute a fair juror in your opinion?

[Gannex]

A fair juror? Someone who takes her responsibility seriously, who has learned how to distinguish the plausible from the implausible, who intuitively sees what is likely to be in the real world, and sense what is not. She is intelligent and street-wise, and brings few prejudices to the court, and those she does bring, she is aware of, and, through conscious effort, can disregard.

A fair juror understands that the conviction of an innocent man is a greater injustice than the acquittal of a guilty one, and, most difficult of all, he understands that it is possible to believe a person probably guilty, but yet harbour doubts. The ability to live with uncertainty is an essential characteristic of a fair juror.

Fair jurors realise that few people lie baldly, but even fewer are able, even if they know it, to tell the whole truth. Though they are sceptical of everyone, police, clergymen, children, fair jurors never disbelieve a person solely because of his accent, job, or background. The juror is open-minded about every witness, open to every argument, and has the ability to weigh evidence in fine gradations, and avoid the mistake of sloppy thinking, assuming one fact or statement proves anything on its own. They have that humility which enables them to give due consideration to others' opinions, especially those which differ from their own.

Fair jurors do not resent their jury service, even though it is underpaid and inconvenient. They do not care how long it takes to deliver justice, just so long as it is delivered. They understand that their job is probably the most important that they will ever undertake, an almost sacred task, their opportunity to play God, and, in my experience, jurors almost always rise to the occasion, even the uneducated and the deprived; for fair jurors come from all walks of life and almost all men and women, once ensconced in the deliberation chamber, find themselves able and willing to be fair.

[Gannex]

An update for those forum members who are interested in the continuing saga of the Ipswich prostitute murders. . .

Stephen Wright appeared in Ipswich Crown Court yesterday and was remanded in custody until 1st May. No surprise there, considering no application for bail was made, but of greater interest was the identity of the barrister appointed to represent Mr. Wright: Karim Khalil, QC. Mr. Khalil is very highly respected among criminal lawyers. He specialises in not only crime, but also appears regularly on behalf of the police in civil cases. He is thus perfectly positioned to expertly attack the police investigation in this case. Also, Mr. Khalil prosecuted Ian Huntley in the Soham murders, so he is no stranger to high-profile cases.

Wright's defense team have suggested that they might seek to have the case moved from Ipswich. This makes good sense to me, since the application to move the case will probably be denied. If it is denied, and Wright is subsequently convicted by an Ipswich jury, he will be able to assert on appeal that Ipswich townsfolk were traumatised by the murders, and therefore incapable of rendering a fair, dispassionate verdict. It's not much of an argument, but you have to gather arrows to put in your quiver, even weak ones, wherever you can find them.

[Hazell B]

Quick question with regards your post Gannex.

Why will the request to move the trail be denied with full knowledge that it'll help (slightly) an appeal? Or would moving it also help?

[Gannex]

Quick question with regards your post Gannex.

Why will the request to move the trail be denied with full knowledge that it'll help (slightly) an appeal? Or would moving it also help?

Actually, Hazell, I talked to a friend who practices criminal law in England (which I never have) and he tells me that you are right and I am wrong; the application to remove the case from Ipswich will, in this country, probably be granted for the very reason you imply; the court will not want to risk giving the defense a good issue for appeal. All I can tell you is that in the States we made these applications for removal all the time, and they were almost never granted; we sometimes used the denial as a ground for appeal, and the appeals were never granted either!!

Another difference between criminal trials here and in the States is that here, once a charge has been brought, the news dries up. Printing juicy details is a contempt of court. Damn!! Spoils all the fun. All we have, since Wright was charged, is the fact, which came out yesterday, that Wright has written to his partner and told her in the letter that he "isn't capable" of such a crime.

Counsel will be very annoyed that Mr. Wright has written this letter. The first thing you tell your imprisoned client is not to talk about the case to anyone, and definitely do not write about it. This letter, for example, makes it much more difficult for Wright to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. So it closes off options. Much better to keep totally quiet.

[oily oaf]

Gannex
I wonder if your learned friend is familiar with the ancient Olde English incantation that was often chanted by a baying mob with pitchforks outside the prison walls during the mid 15th century whenever a suspected felon was incarcerated within.
I think it still carries great validity with regard to contemporary criminal suspects
Sung to the tune of the ancient London sea shanty "Knees Up Mother Brown" it goes thus:

Burn 'em in their cells
Burn 'em in their cells
Just on the off chance they must go
Ee aye ee aye ee aye o

If you've been offending
I'll burn your face right off
Burn 'em burn 'em
That outta learn 'em
Burn their mums as well Oi!

Next week:

Lulu sings "Maybe it's because I've a taser gun"

[Hazell B]

Actually, Hazell, I talked to a friend who practices criminal law in England (which I never have) and he tells me that you are right and I am wrong;


You're crediting me with too much there - I had no idea about the subject and was just wondering about it :p :

Interesting that a private letter after the charges are lodged can become part of the evidence, I wouldn't have thought of that. The partner making it public means she's either stupid or no longer supporting him. I hope it's the later :s

[Dave B]

We left this discussion a few weeks back talking about what would happen to Steven Wright, the man initally arrested then subsequently released without charge.

The answer is: not much.

But a completely unconnected man, wrongly pictured by the Daily Mail, has been found dead.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,,2007654,00.html
(You may need to register)

Police are treating the death as "unexplained" but not suspicious at the moment.

[Gannex]

We left this discussion a few weeks back talking about what would happen to Steven Wright, the man initally arrested then subsequently released without charge.

The answer is: not much.
Actually, Dave, Stephen Wright is the man who was charged with the murders, and who is currently a guest of Her Majesty, pending trial. The man who was arrested but subsquently released was Tom Stephens, not Stephen Wright.

It was very sad to read the article you referred to. Poor old Gareth Huw Roberts. First he is wrongly identified by the Daily Mail as a suspected serial killer, and now he is found dead. But the most bizarre aspect of the whole story, I thought, was this: "Mr Roberts was found dead along with another man at his home in Pwllheli, north Wales. Both men are believed to be in their 40s." [Quoting from The Guardian article.] Two men found dead in the same house? What the. . . ?????

[Dave B]

Oopsie. Seems it's quite easy to get facts wrong :s

Obviously at the moment, it could just be a gas leak for all we know. But if it is anything more sinister, it could show the dangers of mixing sloppy tabloid journalism with a lynch-mob mentality. :(

[Hazell B]

I bet this gets a only tiny bit of media space because the swines won't want to let everyone know what their mistakes might possibly have led to.

[Gannex]

I agree with you, Hazell -- they ARE swines. (I presume you're referring to the Daily Mail.)

Your gas leak theory is a good one, Dave. It would explain two people dying in the same house at the same time. The police, at the moment, are saying only that the deaths are "unexplained". According to the article, they are not considered "suspicious" at this time, which virtually rules out, doesn't it, your other theory -- that Roberts was murdered by a person or persons incensed by his having murdered five prostitutes in Ipswich.

[Dave B]

I'm trying to get as much bad publicity as possible for gas leaks, after one closed the A2 yesterday and ruined my evening :p

[tintin]

Someone I went to school with was found dead in the same house as another man.

Both had multiple stab wounds, both were naked, and one was still holding the knife.

No gas leak involved there.

Although to be fair, the police did say they were treating those deaths as suspicious.

[Gannex]

In the Ipswich prostitute murder case, you will remember, two men were questioned at length, Tom Stephens and Stephen Wright. While Tom Stephens, the talkative one who gave interviews to the media, was released on police bail without charge, Stephen Wright fared far worse. He was charged with all five murders and is now in prison awaiting trial.

It looked like Tom Stephens was in the clear, but it now appears that he is still under suspicion. He was told by police yesterday that he may well be charged, and must wait three months before they tell him one way or the other. The police suspect a conspiracy between the two men.

The situation may become clearer on May 1, when Stephen Wright is to appear in court for a status hearing.

[oily oaf]

Yeah I saw an article in today's rag which reported that the decidely odd Mr Stephens had his police bail extended.

Of course I knew he was a wrong un as soon as I saw those smudges of him holding up a tin of bins.

Eyes too close together you see.

The game's afoot my dear Gannex. The game's afoot!
(crams a plug of pure opium into curly pipe, administers intravenous cocaine injection and picks up violin)

[Hazell B]

Oily, stop that infernal racket at once, you sound like a cat in a mangle :rolleyes:

Thanks Gannex.
Not buying the papers means I wouldn't have known any of the above without that post. :up:

[Eki]

Oily, stop that infernal racket at once, you sound like a cat in a mangle :rolleyes:

Don't give him any ideas. I worry about his cat as it is.

[Gannex]

Stephen Wright has now made his appearance in court, the arguments lasted three hours, and the upshot is that Wright denies all five charges, formally entering "Not Guilty" pleas to all of them.

The trial will not be removed from Ipswich, as most people expected. That was probably the subject which took up a good part of the three hours' argument, but we are not allowed to know due to reporting restrictions.

Wright and his defense team must feel that they have a chance of beating this case. By now, they should have been presented with virtually all that the Crown has, and the Crown must have substantially performed, otherwise the defense would have refused to enter a plea.

DNA will probably figure large. If the police found Wright's DNA on the bodies of the victims, the defense likely feel that they can explain it away by claiming that Wright was indeed a frequent customer of these five girls. Hence, his DNA. Hence, his car seen by CCTV leaving the area, with the unfortunate girls on board. That, I'm guessing, will be the crux of the case, but I'm only guessing because of these damned reporting restrictions!!!

Trial is to begin January 14, 2008, and expected to last six to eight weeks.

[oily oaf]

Stephen Wright has now made his appearance in court, the arguments lasted three hours, and the upshot is that Wright denies all five charges, formally entering "Not Guilty" pleas to all of them.

The trial will not be removed from Ipswich, as most people expected. That was probably the subject which took up a good part of the three hours' argument, but we are not allowed to know due to reporting restrictions.

Wright and his defense team must feel that they have a chance of beating this case. By now, they should have been presented with virtually all that the Crown has, and the Crown must have substantially performed, otherwise the defense would have refused to enter a plea.

DNA will probably figure large. If the police found Wright's DNA on the bodies of the victims, the defense likely feel that they can explain it away by claiming that Wright was indeed a frequent customer of these five girls. Hence, his DNA. Hence, his car seen by CCTV leaving the area, with the unfortunate girls on board. That, I'm guessing, will be the crux of the case, but I'm only guessing because of these damned reporting restrictions!!!

Trial is to begin January 14, 2008, and expected to last six to eight weeks.

JANUARY THE CHUFFIN' FOURTEENTH!!!!

I'll have your eyes for this you snivelling jackanapes! No offence squire :s mokin:

Surely in order to save time and taxpayers money a return to the tried and trusted mediaeval judicial practices of yore is called for.
By thunder I'll warrant a firm taste of The Ducking Stool would loosen the tongue of this wretch or what about Trial By Ordeal where he would have a bloody great sack of half bricks tied round his neck before being chucked in the village pond. Then hey presto! If he floats to the top he's guilty and can be taken to the village green to be burned face down in a ditch or conversely if his drowned, lifeless corpse has to be dragged out of the mud then he's an innocent man who can be let off and allowed to forge ahead with his life.
Christ! It's not too much to ask is it? :mad:

Yours faithfully
The Sheriff Of Nottingham
Nottingham (the nice bit where they don't go round shooting each other over drugs)

PS I had a nice shower this morning only to discover as I was towelling myself dry (steady girls) that I wanted to go to the toilet.
Having completed a refreshing and invigorating nipsey I then had to go through the whole cleansing palava again causing yet more strain on my hard pressed finances.
No wonder Planet Earth is dying on it's ar$e (seeth)