The Suffolk 'Ripper' - Page 9

etccarmageddon · 24-12-2006, 19:40

I agree.

25-12-2006, 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I agree with you but whether the names are released (or not) there should be reporting restrictions backed by law which prevent people's privacy being invaded like this.

It's likely that at least 1 of these 2 men has had their private life opened for public scrutiny despite being completely innocent. Unless it turns out both men are charged and convicted.

Agree totally.
Yes we have to have the person(s) caught and put through the system.
But we also have to preserve the innocent until guilty we have always had in this country.
Slightly off topic I know, but in the cases of rape, or rather alleged rape, the male is always named in the press during the trial, even though that trial may eventually clear him of any wrong doing, the woman escapes in part with her identity protected, can this be right? surely if the identity of the woman is so important to be kept secret, why is it not the case for the accused?

peanut · 01-05-2007, 18:04

Steve Wright Pleaded NOT GUILTY in Ipswich court today, the trial will go ahead in Ipswich on the 14th of January 08.

TheNorm · 01-05-2007, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

...Slightly off topic I know, but in the cases of rape, or rather alleged rape, the male is always named in the press during the trial, even though that trial may eventually clear him of any wrong doing, the woman escapes in part with her identity protected, can this be right? surely if the identity of the woman is so important to be kept secret, why is it not the case for the accused?

I think the idea is that other women who have been attacked might come forward and give evidence against the accused.

Derek · 08-02-2008, 20:14

Poor guy, he must be the unluckiest person in the world.

I mean just because he's connected to all the victims, was the last person to be seen with them in a few cases, managed to leave DNA evidence all over the shop, some of their blood was on his jacket, was seen driving towards a site where the victim was found just after he picked her up and the killings stopped when his partner wasn't working night shift (and after the Police arrested him) doesn't mean he is guilty.

Yep I'll have whatever his defence team were on when they came up with that story.

Russ · 08-02-2008, 20:23

Derek you Ripperist.

I am disgusted.

Derek · 08-02-2008, 20:26

Sorry I keep forgetting about this whole 'Innocent until proven guilty' business.
He may just be unlucky, hey with a run of luck that bad it's bound to change soon. I wonder if he's got a ticket for the Euromillions draw tonight?

Woolly One · 08-02-2008, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Poor guy, he must be the unluckiest person in the world.

I mean just because he's connected to all the victims, was the last person to be seen with them in a few cases, managed to leave DNA evidence all over the shop, some of their blood was on his jacket, was seen driving towards a site where the victim was found just after he picked her up and the killings stopped when his partner wasn't working night shift (and after the Police arrested him) doesn't mean he is guilty.

Yep I'll have whatever his defence team were on when they came up with that story.

To be honest, I hoped that the prosecution would by now, have had some more conclusive evidence. Unfortunately, from reading what has come out in court, is very much circumspect. The police obviously have not found the murder scene(s), as it has been shown that the girls were not killed on the sites they were found.

**Maggy** · 08-02-2008, 21:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woolly One

To be honest, I hoped that the prosecution would by now, have had some more conclusive evidence. Unfortunately, from reading what has come out in court, is very much circumspect. The police obviously have not found the murder scene(s), as it has been shown that the girls were not killed on the sites they were found.

So the blood on his jacket from two of the women is not conclusive enough?

Hmm!going by that thinking even if they found the murder site you would have an element of doubt it would seem.Short of finding him axe or knife in hand over the body just what would convince you?

c_r · 08-02-2008, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Yep I'll have whatever his defence team were on when they came up with that story.

To be fair to his defence team, they've got to come up with something haven't they? I don't imagine they believe he's innocent any more than you or I but they've got to put in some sort of effort.

tweetypie/8 · 09-02-2008, 00:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Total speculation but it looks like he's struck again...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6167411.stm

no time or sympathy for any of these so called men,if their guilty rip their b.... off and shove them down their throats.

ntluser · 10-02-2008, 08:12

If the evidence reported is correct, I suppose the accused will regard it as a coincidence if he is found guilty.

Intriguing that there does not appear to be any detailed reporting of his movements up to and around the estimated times of death of the victims.

It would be something if he had some concrete evidence that placed him elsewhere for at least one of the murders.

If he isn't the murderer I wonder if police have turned up any other possible candidates, because as we know only too well it is possible to frame someone.

Woolly One · 20-02-2008, 12:32

The jurys out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7254770.stm

Quote:

The jury in the trial of Steve Wright, who is accused of murdering five women in 2006, has retired to consider its verdict.

Now we wait

Derek · 20-02-2008, 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woolly One

Now we wait

To find out if the most gullible people in UK have been gathered together in one place.
Anything other than a guilty verdict would be miraculous.

r1ch · 20-02-2008, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

To find out if the most gullible people in UK have been gathered together in one place.
Anything other than a guilty verdict would be miraculous.

I wouldn't be so sure. The jury have been told that they must reach a unanimous verdict, but despite the huge amounts of circumstantial evidence, as the defence points out there is no 'smoking gun' to prove that he is the killer.

There are certainly a lot of inconsistencies in the case too - like if he was careful enough to clean his car after each murder and dispose of the blankets and victims clothes without trace then why would he wear a fluorescent jacket to get rid of the bodies and not get rid of it and the gloves that he wore too?

I'm fairly sure that he did it but I'm not sure that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt as required for a conviction.