Ipswich Murders?

Released, but still on police bail 'pending further inquiries', so not off the hook of investigation, possibly on lesser charges.

For all of the whinging about Suffolk Police being a tiny and (thankfully) inexperienced force re murder cases, they seem to have done a tremendously thorough and rapid job, with forensics assistance. Let's hope they have the right man or men, although I imagine there's already tremendous relief among the community and particularly the bereaved families.
 
Possibly Krizon but thank goodness for him that the jury did not comprise Kathy and Headstrong.
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Dec 18 2006, 05:51 PM
They have just played a tape of the interview The Sunday Mirror had with Tom Stephens. He really is weird. He seemed to break down and cry several times during the interview. He kept repeating how he was a sort of boyfriend of one of them, and how he liked to look after them and how he wasn't guilty and how the poloice had convisgated his mobile phones and his laptop. Assuming he is guilty, thank goodness he is now off the streets.
Click to expand...
Ardross, you call yourself a solicitor or is it a barrister or is it something else ??? Which bit of "he is weird" and "assuming he is guilty" don't you understand?

God, you are really impossible at times. Why don't you go and pick on someone else next year.

I am just so, so pleased that so many other people have the same opinion of you as I do! :lol:
 
but still on police bail 'pending further inquiries'
Click to expand...

or

"we arrested the wrong man for admittedly valid reasons, but are not yet ready to admit he had nothing to do with it so we'll be making further inquiries into the depth of his tyre threads and his TV licence payments"
 
An, the first bloke they arrested Tom Stephens was definitely weird. His interviews were absolutely bizarre - as if he was daring the police to arrest him. Luckily, being weird is not a crime in itself or a few on this forum could see themselves up in court. <_< :lol:

It was funny (strange) as they interviewed a prostitute soon after his arrest and she said she thought they definitely had the wrong man, even though he had no alibi and had become their "protector" and had been the "boyfriend" of one of girls for a while and had seen most of them close to the times of their disappearance.
You clearly can't judge anyone on their looks for a murder enquiry, but Stephen Wright looks like Mr. Normal and Tom Stephens, just looks and sounded just plain weird. :ph34r:

Right, I think I am ready for my first go at Jury service. Forget the evidence, let me have a look at the suspects face and I'll tell you if they are guilty or not. B)
 
I think AC might have this about right. It strikes me that there was something of the Colin Stagg about the first guy, and if pressurised he would probably have admitted to anything. I don't know yet, but wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he hasn't told them something or provided the lead that took them to the second guy.

Mind you Huntley was a bit keen to draw attention to himself, so it can cut both ways, and having said that I do vividly remember an interview Maxine Carr gave radio 5 shortly before the bodies of the two girls were discovered, that struck me as bizzarre. At the time it was a missing person enquiry, and she consistantly kept referring to them in the past tense, when everyone else was using the present.
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Dec 22 2006, 09:26 AM
Possibly Krizon but thank goodness for him that the jury did not comprise Kathy and Headstrong.
Click to expand...
Oh for God's sake.

I wrote: "IF Stevens is the killer, which looks likely," which it did at the time; and it seems he still hasn't been ruled out.

My family is full of lawyers, inc a top criminal QC, in whose house I am staying right now. I know all about that 'presumption of innocence' stuff. And I'd never proclaim anyone guilty without hearing all the facts at the trial. We had a forensic professor for dinner last night - he'd acted for the Maguire family in the big bombing case a few years ago. Very interesting too; not that I need direct reminders of how careful you need to be.
 
Originally posted by an capall@Dec 22 2006, 05:01 PM
but still on police bail 'pending further inquiries'
Click to expand...

or

"we arrested the wrong man for admittedly valid reasons, but are not yet ready to admit he had nothing to do with it so we'll be making further inquiries into the depth of his tyre threads and his TV licence payments"
Click to expand...
THEY MAY FIND A CHARGE THAT'S DRUG RELATED HE DID ADMIT TO TAKING THE GIRLS!!!! to collect the drugs.......

I'M sure they'll conjure up some charge or another????? if not drug related.......he wasted a lot of their time :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Dec 22 2006, 08:23 PM
- he'd acted for the Maguire family in the big bombing case a few years ago.
Click to expand...
You mean the seven innocent members of the Maguire family who were convicted of IRA terrorism in 1975 and finally had their convictions quashed in 1991, after they had served their sentences? (Except the one who died in prison.)

At which stage did he act for them?
 
The fact that toys are being thrown out of the pram on this thread says it all - Kathy " assumed he was guilty " on the basis of his weirdness and Headstrong said it was likely - on the basis of no evidence at all .
 
:lol:

Ardross, as I have said on this thread, if weirdness was a crime, there are people on this forum that would have been behind bars years ago. :lol:

Now run along and go and solve one of the many cases that no doubt litter your desk that need your expertise to resolve. There can't be many of them given the amount of time you spend on here. :)
 
My family is full of lawyers, inc a top criminal QC, in whose house I am staying right now. I know all about that 'presumption of innocence'
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a little bolshie, Headstrong, but how in the name of God does staying with a QC relation help your legal acumen become more acute than ours?

Its like me constesting that Beef or Salmon is a great chaser just because I share an island with him.
 
Originally posted by an capall@Dec 23 2006, 06:48 PM
My family is full of lawyers, inc a top criminal QC, in whose house I am staying right now. I know all about that 'presumption of innocence'
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a little bolshie, Headstrong, but how in the name of God does staying with a QC relation help your legal acumen become more acute than ours?

Its like me constesting that Beef or Salmon is a great chaser just because I share an island with him.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Kathy I see we are having an FBVT moment :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Dec 22 2006, 08:23 PM
We had a forensic professor for dinner last night
Click to expand...
How did you fit him in the oven?







Sorry, I couldn't resist that. No offence meant! :)

Two glasses of wine and suddenly things seem funnier ;)
 
Originally posted by Zozzy+Dec 23 2006, 06:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Zozzy @ Dec 23 2006, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Headstrong@Dec 22 2006, 08:23 PM
We had a forensic professor for dinner last night
Click to expand...
How did you fit him in the oven?







Sorry, I couldn't resist that. No offence meant! :)

Two glasses of wine and suddenly things seem funnier ;) [/b][/quote]
:lol:

I liked it !
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Dec 23 2006, 06:51 PM
Kathy I see we are having an FBVT moment :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ardross, at least mine may be just "moments". You seem to be able to make BACC a full time occupation. <_<
 
I have brought this back to the top in case anyone wanted to re read it bearing in mind what has gone on on this forum today.

My comments keep being deleted. I am clearly "not allowed" to reveal the content of the PM that Ardross has just sent me.
 
Must be something in the water.

What was it someone said the other day about trying to promote more harmony on here?
 
Deep, deep breaths, everyone, relaxxxx, and Ohmmmmm... ohmmmm.... ohmmmigod, they're not squabbling AGAIN, are they? :o
 
Back
Top