Noel O'Gara explained on 22/03/2008 :
> First and foremost Wright, who always proclaimed his innocence put his
> trust in British justice and his legal advisors just as the Birmingham
> 6, Stefan Kiszko and so many other convicted persons did before him.
> The average English person has been brain washed over the years by
> their media that British justice is infallible and only the guilty get
> convicted. Wright was a victim of that syndrome.
> He foolishly believed that the judge would surely see that there was
> no case against him because he accepted that his DNA might be on all
> of the victims because he had had intimate .ual relations with all
> of them and he freely admitted that.
> But did that make him the killer of all these victims?
> Wright always believed that the police had made a terrible mistake and
> it would be realised at his trial and he would be exhonerated.
>
> Lets give Wright the benefit of the doubt and weigh up the evidence
> against him.
> It is clear that he had connections to all the victims either through
> his clothes, his flat or his car.
> But was there anything to connect him to the locations where he was
> alleged to have dumped the bodies. Surely a man carrying a dead body
> into a woods would leave footprints and car tracks on the side of the
> road which were clearly visible on tv when the last two bodies were
> found. There had been heavy rain at the time.
A man that knows exactly what he he doing can leave a body in the woods
without fear of his actions being traced back to him. I doubt very
much that Wright had any of this knowledge.
> The police suggested that he had an accomplice. Could that be because
> they found footprints but they didnt match his? Would they reveal or
> conceal that at the trial?
> Wright's fate was sealed from the start because he had an absolutely
> useless and inept lawyer defending him.
I would have said that the killer would have used 3 but not less than 2
cars to create a buffer between him and any pendinding investigation.
>
> Langdale said at the outset of the trial that he would not challenge
> the DNA evidence.
> That must have been music to the ears of the prosecution and the
> police who had DNA low copy number profiles found on some of the
> victims bodies.
I have never trusted this DNA business as people will always tend to
believe experts regardless of who the experts are working for. They
accept that DNA puts him there and it has to be right.
>
> Langdale, as soon as the verdict was returned, made a plea that Wright
> be given no more than 30 years in jail because he would not be a
> danger to the public then.
> He said that before even consulting his client who was in shock at the
> prospect of life in jail. His request to the judge showed that he
> always believed that Wright was guilty and still he pretended to
> defend him. Thats why I say that Wright had no chance from the start.
I don't really see how a man convicted of that number of murders could
expect any less bird and any chance of parole whatsoever.
>
>
> He had been a suspect from early on because he was one of a few dozen
> regular punters in the small town of Ipswich which had no more than a
> dozen or so prostitutes standing in groups of two or three at any time
> within sight of a single street corner at the football stadium.
> This was not the west end of London or Chapeltown Leeds or even Lumb
> Lane in Bradford, this was small town Ipswich where the hookers knew
> each other and most of the few dozen regular punters were known by all
> the girls and talked about amongst themselves. Wright was such a
> regular and known to most of them as a . case, just a guy who wanted
> straight . and paid for it like the vast majority of punters.
>
What did all the other prostitutes have to say about Wright ? I doubt
they would want to see any Tom, Dick or Harry sent down as it would
meen the killer would still be at large. In my experience I have found
many prostitutes to be more forthcoming with the truth than some of our
pillars of society.
> Another party, shop worker and ex cop Tom Stephens was known to them
> also and he had admitted that he was in love with Tania, the little
> dark one who was abducted and missing first.
She was a bit of a looker by her photo. Many of these type of guys
fall in love with prostitutes and start romancing in their heads after
a few beers.
>
> Is it any wonder that Wright is looking for a new lawyer?
If I were in Wright's position I would be doing whatever I thought
necessary to try and find a way out. But I must say *some* of those
men who work on those liners are a right bunch of oddballs and .ual
deviants. That of course has nothing to do with the law.
--
Count Baldoni
|