On Mar 30, 2:10=A0pm, "Noel O'Gara" wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:41=A0pm, "Noel O'Gara" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 1:21=A0am, "Noel O'Gara" wrote:
>
> > >http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/09/suffolk-strangler-..=
.
>
> > > coincidences or a targetted patsy who was being shadowed by the
> > > protector and friend of all the victims and when Wright dropped them
> > > back the picked them up one at a time and strangled them.
> > > If one reads all the newspaper reports there is a cumulative amount of=
> > > circumstantial evidence that leads one to conclude that Wright was the=
> > > innocent target of a much more sinister killer who was cunning, fit
> > > and strong.
> > > The friend knew all the girls customers. Prostitutes freely talk about=
> > > them and their habits.
>
> > >http://yorkshireripper.com/index.htm-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> "You often see him driving round in his blue Mondeo looking for girls
> even if he had picked you the night before. He didn't strike me as
> weird and never gave me any reason to believe I was in danger."
>
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=3Dhooked-on-hookers&method=3Dful.=
..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/6194351.stm
The obvious uncertainty of the police and the cps official Michael
Crimp in trying to figure out which of the two arrested parties they
should charge with the murders is evident back in 2006.
Events have since shown that Wright was set up and targetted by
Stephens but what do the authorities do?
Releasing Wright after charging him and releasing the real killer and
saying they made a mistake would be unthinkable.
So they suggested that he had an accomplice.
That evidence was not pursued by Wright's lawyer and if the reasons
for that assertion were sought then it would provide evidence that
Wright was not the murderer and at the very least have left more than
a reasonable doubt that he was the killer.
That avenue might be Wright's best route of appeal.
|