Steve Wright, Ipswich Killer

[Jane]

I watched a very moving programme last night. It featured the elderly father of Steve Wright who has been shattered by what his son did. Excerpts of SW's interviews were shown and I was interested by his response to questions. It's been said that JB's answers of "no comment" were because he was innocent and didn't want the police to use what he said to wrongly incriminate him. SW answered "no comment" to every question put to him. SW is currently serving out a full life sentence for numerous murders. He will die in prison.

[Lucy522]

I watched a very moving programme last night. It featured the elderly father of Steve Wright who has been shattered by what his son did. Excerpts of SW's interviews were shown and I was interested by his response to questions. It's been said that JB's answers of "no comment" were because he was innocent and didn't want the police to use what he said to wrongly incriminate him. SW answered "no comment" to every question put to him. SW is currently serving out a full life sentence for numerous murders. He will die in prison.

I'm sure I've watched this, is the man that murdered the sex workers?
Solicitors will often tell you to go "no comment" as you can incriminate yourself by answering when the police have little or no evidence against you, by talking it can be twisted and you can implicate yourself without even realising.

[Jane]

I'm sure I've watched this, is the man that murdered the sex workers?
Solicitors will often tell you to go "no comment" as you can incriminate yourself by answering when the police have little or no evidence against you, by talking it can be twisted and you can implicate yourself without even realising.

So "no comment" is neither a sign of guilt nor innocence? Rather, "I'm not going to answer"?

[sandra L]

Once upon a time I would have urged every innocent person to go, and stay, "No comment," given the way police interrogators are trained to turn even the most innocuous things into "suspicious" responses. The innocent are the ones least likely to understand how their responses can be twisted and, in their belief that their innocence is apparent to all, will often say things that end up being used against them.

It's everyone's right to say nothing, but ever since it became common to question silence as suspicious, even that has been used against innocent people, most especially by people who have never been involved with police investigators in a serious crime and still believe that if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide and therefore should have no reason to remain silent.

I know of one case where the accused, on the advice of the duty solicitor, answered police questions during the first phase of questioning then, again on the advice of his solicitor, went "no comment" later. He had no idea why his solicitor gave him both pieces of advice, but assumed the solicitor "knew what he was doing." By the time it came to trial, a huge deal was made about him "suddenly refusing to answer any more questions," the implication being that the police had come across something during questioning that he was "trying to hide."

I've no idea if SW is guilty or innocent - I haven't really studied the case - all I can say is that, if he answered No Comment to every single question, he had a good lawyer.

[Lucy522]

So "no comment" is neither a sign of guilt nor innocence? Rather, "I'm not going to answer"?

No it's not

[nugnug]

the fact he said no coment doesn't mae him guilty but theres a mountain of other evidence that does saying no coment is not why the jury convicyed him I think it has more do with fact his dna was on all fve victems the blood found inhis car the fact his at was filmed leaving Ipswich on the night the bodys were dumped ans the fact he was no albi for any of the nights in question theres aslo the fibers from his high res jacket.

now on there own you migh be able to explain those bits of evidence away but together its pretty damming.

[Adam]

Similar to Bamber, Wright was a very poor witness at trial.

Often saying 'it would appear so' to prosecution questions.

[nugnug]

not only did he do it I belive hes guilty of several other murder.

3 Norwich and 1 in Felixstowe.

[Jane]

Similar to Bamber, Wright was a very poor witness at trial.

Often saying 'it would appear so' to prosecution questions.

Which has the same sort of arrogance about it as Jeremy's "That is for you to prove"

[Jane]

Once upon a time I would have urged every innocent person to go, and stay, "No comment," given the way police interrogators are trained to turn even the most innocuous things into "suspicious" responses. The innocent are the ones least likely to understand how their responses can be twisted and, in their belief that their innocence is apparent to all, will often say things that end up being used against them.

It's everyone's right to say nothing, but ever since it became common to question silence as suspicious, even that has been used against innocent people, most especially by people who have never been involved with police investigators in a serious crime and still believe that if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide and therefore should have no reason to remain silent.

I know of one case where the accused, on the advice of the duty solicitor, answered police questions during the first phase of questioning then, again on the advice of his solicitor, went "no comment" later. He had no idea why his solicitor gave him both pieces of advice, but assumed the solicitor "knew what he was doing." By the time it came to trial, a huge deal was made about him "suddenly refusing to answer any more questions," the implication being that the police had come across something during questioning that he was "trying to hide."

I've no idea if SW is guilty or innocent - I haven't really studied the case - all I can say is that, if he answered No Comment to every single question, he had a good lawyer.

Thank-you for that, Sandra. Your opening sentence interests me. You say that you once urged all innocent people............... I would love to know, was this simply a generic piece of advice and/or are you able to tell who is innocent from who is guilty? Do you want to know and does it matter to you one way or the other? I ask because I believe one can choose whether to prosecute or defend and logic tells me that not all will be innocent who are defended, and not all will be guilty who are prosecuted.

[sandra L]

Thank-you for that, Sandra. Your opening sentence interests me. You say that you once urged all innocent people...............

What I said was I would have, not that I did - everyone I ever worked with came to me after conviction - it was from reading the transcripts of their police interviews that I discovered how the police can twist the most innocuous things and use them against the accused person.

I would love to know, was this simply a generic piece of advice and/or are you able to tell who is innocent from who is guilty?

It is  what I would say to anyone who knows themselves to be innocent - without knowing the details of the case, I couldn't possibly know who is innocent or not.

Do you want to know and does it matter to you one way or the other?

Yes and yes! I have never knowingly worked with anyone that I believed, even the tiniest bit, was guilty. Although I strongly believe the justice system should ensure all cases are tried on the basis of robust evidence and transparent processes, to lessen the risk of wrongful conviction, I have no time or patience for guilty people who try to wriggle off the hook. That said, we have to make sure the justice system properly convicts the guilty as well, or we leave open the possibility that they can wriggle off the hook using legal arguments that the CJS didn't obey its own rules.

I ask because I believe one can choose whether to prosecute or defend

I agree. However, I am not, and have never been, in a position to prosecute or defend anyone in an official capacity - I discuss cases here as just a member of the public, like anyone else.

and logic tells me that not all will be innocent who are defended, and not all will be guilty who are prosecuted.

Again, I agree. However, there's a difference between "being defended," for example, on a forum like this one, and being defended in the official legal capacity. Guilty and innocent alike are entitled to a legal defence, even if the guilty person confesses - it is the only way to ensure our system operates as fairly and justly as possible. Without the concept of a legal defence, the rock on which our justice system is built - that any accused person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty -  crumbles to dust.

[Steve_uk]

A tragedy really, and who knows whether his mother's desertion at the age of six triggered a hatred for women as a void engulfed him which was not successfully filled by anyone he met in subsequent years. What an indictment of a society which allows young vulnerable women to be exploited in this way, at the mercy of the most deviant individual, who himself never received the psychiatric help he needed to purge himself of these violent fantasies, someone who knew he was ill and tried to end it, but who now must pay for his crimes as the families of the victims are left behind to cope, but oh too late in the day as they themselves reflect on what they could have done to keep their loved ones close by and not descend into that dangerous dead end trade. https://youtu.be/0maHovwT-Ng

[Steve_uk]

Scandinavia has changed the law as regards buying sex: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/where-is-it-legal-to-buy-sex/

but it doesn't appear to have made a huge difference. https://www.thelocal.no/20160409/sex-trade-less-visible-but-alive-and-well-in-northern-europe

[nugnug]

im convinced killed vicki hall in felexstowe but of suffolk police dont want to chardge him with that becouse they tried unsucsefully to convict sombody else for it.

[Steve_uk]

im convinced killed vicki hall in felexstowe but of suffolk police dont want to chardge him with that becouse they tried unsucsefully to convict sombody else for it.

Yes they did. There's some information about that here: http://www.unsolved-murders.co.uk/murder-content.php?key=11&termRef=Victoria%20Hall

Steve Wright has been rearrested: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/29/suffolk-serial-killer-steve-wright-reportedly-arrested-1999-murder-teenager