"Noel O'Gara" wrote in message
news:940ffd49-36f5-4609-9b75-a518265109ca@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Low copy number DNA was exposed as fraudulent and fabricated in the
> recent Omagh bomb trial of Sean Hoey.
> The Ipswich police told the lie after the conviction that Wright was
> identified because the DNA found on the victims was matched with his
> DNA profile on the national DNA database.
>
> I emphasise that was highlighted by police after the verdict and it
> was a lie because Wright was a suspect from early on in the
> investigation and was interviewed twice and his details taken then
> which were checked up on the criminal records office and revealed that
> they had his DNA profile because of a previous crime of theft of
> money.
>
> It was a lie to say that the DNA was the vital break that put him in
> the spotlight.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Is it any wonder that Wright is looking for a new lawyer?
>
>
>
Wright has been found guilty....Get over it.
Dave.
|