Wright guilty of Ipswich murders

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#1
Steve Wright has been found guilty of murdering five women in Suffolk.

The bodies of Gemma Adams, Tania Nicol, Anneli Alderton, Paula Clennell and Annette Nicholls were found in Ipswich over a 10-day period in December 2006.

Wright, 49, of Ipswich, said during his trial that he had sex with four of the five women, who were working as prostitutes, but denied killing them.

The jury at Ipswich Crown Court found him guilty of all five murders and he will be sentenced on Friday.

'Crucifix pose'

The trial heard the bodies of Miss Alderton and Miss Nicholls were found arranged with their arms outstretched in a crucifix pose.

The prosecution said Wright "systematically selected and murdered" all five women over a six-and-a-half-week period.

Suffolk police began an inquiry after Miss Nicol, 19, vanished in late October 2006.

Two weeks later, Miss Adams, 25, vanished and detectives began a "major inquiry", saying there were "obvious similarities".


The victims, clockwise from top, Annette Nicholls, Anneli Alderton, Paula Clennell, Gemma Adams and Tania Nicol

This was followed by the disappearance of Miss Alderton, 24, Miss Clennell, 24, and 29-year-old Miss Nicholls.

Their bodies were eventually found in isolated locations around Ipswich.

In 2001, Wright worked as a barman at the Brook Hotel in Felixstowe before being sacked for stealing hundreds of pounds from the till, for which he was ordered to carry out 100 hours community service.

It was a DNA sample taken at the time of that conviction which led to police matching samples taken from the dead women.

He was put under surveillance by police before being arrested on 19 December and charged two days later.

Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said the decision by the women to turn to prostitution "was ultimately to prove fatal".

He called on the judge to impose a "whole life term".

Wright's brother Keith said after the verdict: "I'm surprised the verdict has been so quick.

"I would have thought there is enough things for them to have some doubt.

"Whatever the sentence, it's all over now."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7256402.stm
 
#2
Excellent news..

Hope he returns my car.
 
#3
Well, at least he put up a better pack of bo11ox...er sorry, defence, than 'I fcuked her as she was dying but I didn't kill her m'lard...'

Rot in jail before rotting in hell scumbag! Rule 42 can be very lonely, good!
 
#4
No way - must be a miscarriage of justice shurely!!

I assume a publicly funded appeal will be starting asap
 
#5
Quelle Surprise. What with his watertight "I just happened to nob them all on the nights they died, in the same order, thats why my DNA and fibres are all over them yerroner" defence, I am amazed he hasn't been acquitted and made a Knight Commander of the Garter or some such.

How did his defence team stifle the howls of laughter?
 
#7
He's just misunderstood. I blame his mother.
 
#8
Perhaps there could be some compassion shown in sentencing. At least he only killed ugly whores, not anyone that contributes..... or matters
 
#9
Precisely mate, we need to get things into perspective. Ok, he offed a few whoerrs, but on the plus side, he always drove hands-free.
Nobodys perfect.
 
#13
Fire4effect said:
Can't quite see what his brother is on about regarding the doubt issue. Wasn't his defence based on it all being a coincidence?
Basically, yes ... except he claims he didn't sh@g the 5th one because of her acne. Presumably he just strangled her for being spotty ... as one does, of course.
Or not, perhaps it was actually a coincidence ... he was trying to pop some of her zits when he accidentally applied too much pressure to that really juicy one on her neck when ... ooops.

Being spotty can be fatal, girls.
Rush out and get those creams now ... it could save your life [possibly].
Or not.

[=edit] Oh, yes, and shame the death penalty is less popular than it was ... [/edit]
 
#14
One of the victims' relatives made a very telling point that he'd violated the girls human rights, but the, "state would safeguard his at great expense to the taxpayer."

Rope wouldn't be as expensive if more of it was used. Economies of scale.
 
#15
blue_sophist said:
[

[=edit] Oh, yes, and shame the death penalty is less popular than it was ... [/edit]
But it seems the death penalty for hookers is OK as far as some are concerned.
 
#16
RudolfHucker said:
blue_sophist said:
[=edit] Oh, yes, and shame the death penalty is less popular than it was ... [/edit]
But it seems the death penalty for hookers is OK as far as some are concerned.
Don't know who you're talking about. Who said that?

I think it's a shame the cnut can't be strung up instead of being "detained at the taxpayers' expense"

Clear enough?
 
#18
RudolfHucker said:
But it seems the death penalty for hookers is OK
Not fit ones
 
#19
blue_sophist said:
RudolfHucker said:
blue_sophist said:
[=edit] Oh, yes, and shame the death penalty is less popular than it was ... [/edit]
But it seems the death penalty for hookers is OK as far as some are concerned.
Don't know who you're talking about. Who said that?
Perhaps there could be some compassion shown in sentencing. At least he only killed ugly whores, not anyo
I think it's a shame the cnut can't be strung up instead of being "detained at the taxpayers' expense"

Clear enough?
minister_doh_nut said
Perhaps there could be some compassion shown in sentencing. At least he only killed ugly whores, not anyone that contributes..... or matters
sandmanfez said
Precisely mate, we need to get things into perspective. Ok, he offed a few whoerrs, but on the plus side, he always drove hands-free.
Nobodys perfect.
Don't be so defensive.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top