Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Wils

Suffolk Murders

By Wils, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

What is being said is that trial by media is wrong.

I'm not going to suggest whether he is guilty or not.

I know that is wrong, I have never said otherwise. My point is he put his identity out there before he got arrested, he has to take most of the blame for people making assumptions about him.

Once he got arrested the papers should not be able to name him or show where he lives etc. As many have said that is not right.

Suffolk_fox

Suffolk_fox

Posted
Posted

Who is making rash judgements? I haven't seen anyone on here saying he is definitely guilty.

Read the interview with him in the papers yesterday, seemed VERY iffy. First thing I said after reading it was that it was him!!

Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
Who is making rash judgements? I haven't seen anyone on here saying he is definitely guilty.

I wasn't pointing fingers at individuals...just the propensity of people on FT to leap in with views (such as a certain case in the press last week) - but, since you asked:

Read the interview with him in the papers yesterday, seemed VERY iffy. First thing I said after reading it was that it was him!!

:P:D

Suffolk_fox

Suffolk_fox

Posted
Posted
Yes thanks Suffolk but if you read my post I had already said that... I also said it doesn't make him guilty.

:rolleyes:

You have to admit though, it does imply the fact. Don't get me wrong, I am not attacking you. I am merely using this to highlight how the media can make people jump to conclusions, ie after reading that interview and no doubt seeing the awful photograph of him, you believed that it was him. To think, 12 people will be selected to decide where he will spend the rest of his life.

Matt

Matt

Posted
Posted
A second suspect, a 48-year-old man, has been arrested by detectives hunting the killer of five prostitutes in Suffolk, police said.

Members of the public reported police activity on Tuesday morning in the red light area of Ipswich. But police would not confirm whether any arrests had been made there.

Meanwhile, detectives investigating the murders are continuing to question a 37-year-old man.

Suffolk Police said a senior officer had carried out a review and given detectives a further 12 hours to interview the man - named by sources as Tom Stephens - who was arrested on Monday morning.

A spokesman for Suffolk Police said that a superintendent had reviewed the man's arrest and decided to allow detectives to continue to hold him until shortly before 7.30pm on Tuesday. They will have to apply to a magistrate if they wish to detain him after that time.

Stephens was arrested at his home in Trimley St Martin, Suffolk, shortly before 7.30am on Monday. Neighbours said police also took away a car from his home. Forensic specialists and search teams spent much of Monday at the address and police remained there on Tuesday.

Stephens is a supermarket worker who was a special constable in Norfolk in the 1990s. He is also reported to have worked as a taxi driver in Ipswich.

His ex-wife, Judith, who is a nurse, lives in Ipswich but was not at home on Monday. No other members of his family would comment on his arrest.

The naked bodies of five Ipswich prostitutes were found near villages south of the town over a 10-day period earlier this month. Police said the man was being questioned on suspicion of the murder of all five - Gemma Adams, 25, Tania Nicol, 19, Anneli Alderton, 24, Paula Clennell, 24, and Annette Nicholls, 29.

Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

I wasn't pointing fingers at individuals...just the propensity of people on FT to leap in with views (such as a certain case in the press last week) - but, since you asked:

:P:D

Again... that was my first thought. Doesn't mean I sit here certain it was him. Once again I said it doesn't make him guilty.

Yes people leap in with views. I could do the same thing with suffolk who said he didn't think it was him. How does he know that?

Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

12 people who can't possibly have escaped the media furore etc over the last weeks.

At the end of the day the police still need some hard evidence. I was on a jury not long ago, the defendant was a real dodgy geezer. But there was no evidence what so ever to convict so everyone found him not guilty.

Craig

Craig

Posted
Posted

But it doesn't mean he had to do an interview. Sometimes people think bringing attention to things would lead people to think exactly what you have just done. Oh he did an interview so he can't be the killer as he wouldn't draw attention to himself.

You ever used the phrase "Whoever smelt it, dealt it".

It's not that though is it. My point is, if he wanted the attention he would have told the BBC that they could use the interview that he did for them to broadcast, he didn't though, he was content with just helping them draw a general picture of the women, his 'friends'.

The newspaper stories are another matter altogether, they would have offered him good money for the interviews he did with them, simply for information about some girls he knew and was fond of.

It's becomming increasingly likely that this bloke didn't murder those women, he just wanted to make a quick buck and help the world understand who these women were, and that they were more than just prostitues; they had families, friends etc, which is what the media were struggling to grasp at first.

I reckon that the murderer is someone that's had problems with prostitutes in the past, maybe he's been caught with one by his wife and they've subsequently split up, so he's wanted to take revenge on prostitutes in general. That's just a wild, educated guess though.

Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

I reckon that the murderer is someone that's had problems with prostitutes in the past, maybe he's been caught with one by his wife and they've subsequently split up, so he's wanted to take revenge on prostitutes in general. That's just a wild, educated guess though.

lol You should be a police profiler.

Bloomer

Bloomer

Posted
Posted

This is a very sick person, he/she has killed several time apparently with his/her hands, undressed dead bodies then driven them elswhere where he/she leaves them to be found. He/she has killed regularly and frequently over a short sustained period. He/she may have something against prostitutes or these girls may just be easy prey. Even by the depraved standards of this country today, this is a disturbing peice of work.

Yes I know its probably a bloke.

gatesheadfox

gatesheadfox

Posted
Posted
But it doesn't mean he had to do an interview. Sometimes people think bringing attention to things would lead people to think exactly what you have just done. Oh he did an interview so he can't be the killer as he wouldn't draw attention to himself.

You ever used the phrase "Whoever smelt it, dealt it".

that phrase would never stand up against a lawyer who knew the phrase "whoever rhymed it crimed it"

cisono

cisono

Posted
Posted

48 year-old formally charged with all five murders.

LINK

Yes but is he actual the person responsible?

I always wonder about that... especially in these high-profile cases :whistle:

cisono

cisono

Posted
Posted

I find it funny that in days gone by you could always rely on the fact that the butler was culpable - now it always seem to be golfers... _42379229_wright2_203.jpg

They probably have got lots of time to kill :whistle:

  • 3 months later...
Wils

Wils

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What a complete moron. I'd lock him up for a bit longer than 3 months. Strange, sad little man.

For the time they were pissing around interviewing him they could have caught the real killer quicker and put a lot peoples minds at rest.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...