Ipswich Murders - DNA could have come from Gloves

Crimes of Present and Past Centuries and Heros of Crime Detection, Fingerprints to DNA, all information will be found here. Also a forum to discuss the ongoing investigation into the Childrens Home findings in Jersey

Ipswich Murders - DNA could have come from Gloves

Postby bjr » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:21 pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 203865.ece


DNA that could have come from two murdered prostitutes was found on gloves belonging to a former pub landlord accused of their murders, a court heard today.

Steve Wright, 49, had been in "close contact" with the women shortly before their deaths, jurors at Ipswich Crown Court were told.

Peter Wright QC, for the prosecution, told the court that the semen-stained gloves were seized from Mr Wright's car, that also contained DNA samples that could have come from Annette Nicholls and Anneli Alderton, two of five prostitutes killed in Suffolk between October to December 2006.

Mr Wright of Ipswich, Suffolk, is accused of murdering Ms Nicholls, 29, and Ms Alderton 24, and Gemma Adams, 25, Tania Nicol, 19, Paula Clennell, 24. He denies all the charges.

A forensic scientist concluded there was "very strong support" for the theory that Mr Wright was wearing the gloves when he was in contact with Miss Alderton and Miss Nicholls, the court heard.

The QC said that it would be "highly unusual, to say the least" for Mr Wright to have been wearing the gloves when he came into contact with the women if he was only engaging in consensual sexual activity with them as prostitutes.

He went on: "Unless, of course, he was wearing the gloves having murdered the women and was about to dispose of their bodies.

"It is the prosecution case that this contact cannot have occurred through entirely random, coincidental and casual use of prostitutes - each of whom then met their deaths shortly after."

Jurors were also told that there was a "one in a billion" chance that DNA found on the bodies of Miss Clennell, Miss Alderton and Miss Nicol's did not match the defendant's.

Mr Wright, QC, alleged that it was likely the DNA would have been washed off the women after the contact had they been alive.

He told the jury: "These findings point not to an unfortunate coincidence but rather to the defendant as being engaged in an active campaign of murder during the period from October to December 2006. A campaign that only came to an end with his arrest.

"A campaign in which he had deliberately targeted working prostitutes in the Ipswich area as his victims and succeeded in murdering no fewer than five in a very short space of time."

Mr Wright's neighbour described hearing "banging noises" and the washing machine being put on in the defendant's house between midnight and 2am, the court heard.

The barrister said these could have been "routine but nocturnal activities" by Mr Wright or his partner. But he added: "On the other hand, such conduct, we say, is equally consistent - if not more so - with the defendant having been involved in the murder of each of these women."
To my critics
When I'm in a sober mood, I worry, work and think,
When I'm in a drunken mood, I gamble, play and drink,
But when my moods are over and my time has come to pass,
I hope I'm buried upside down, so the world may kiss my ar*e
User avatar
bjr
Moderator
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: 3rd Cesspit from left of Rothley Towers

Re: Ipswich Murders - DNA could have come from Gloves

Postby Ricado » Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:04 pm

Hello bjr.
Due to the enormous amount of time the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has taken up in our lives, we aren't all spending as much time as we might, looking into other cases for anomalies and potential miscarriages of justice. In the past these have been so numerous and varied that it makes one doubt the efficacy of the British judicial system... I'm speaking on behalf of myself, as far as all the foregoing is concerned, of course, but I wonder how many people would agree with me? If one looks at the dodgy convictions in high profile cases, one has to ask: "What about all the unpublicised cases of apparently un-newsworthy crimes (though many are kidnap, murder, rape, etc.); are the majority of these convictions equally unsound?"

Recent high profile cases have included the conviction of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando (now at appeal, of course), and... Ian Huntley! I only had minor doubts about his conviction until I read some stuff on line somewhere which really made me reassess my position. Huntley could fall into the also-common category of 'rightly convicted, but on contrived evidence'. The police thought they'd fitted up bank robber George Davis like that, but they were rumbled, and had to wait until they could catch him 'red handed'.

So, I've only been taking a passing interest in the Suffolk murders, and the alleged evidence against Steve Wright of Ipswich. However it has crossed my mind that he could be the victim of a deliberate, or accidental stitch-up.

To quote a snippet from the Times on line article...

"Steve Wright, 49, had been in "close contact" with the women shortly before their deaths, jurors at Ipswich Crown Court were told.

Peter Wright QC, for the prosecution, told the court that the semen-stained gloves were seized from Mr Wright's car, that also contained DNA samples that could have come from Annette Nicholls and Anneli Alderton, two of five prostitutes killed in Suffolk between October to December 2006.

Mr Wright of Ipswich, Suffolk, is accused of murdering Ms Nicholls, 29, and Ms Alderton 24, and Gemma Adams, 25, Tania Nicol, 19, Paula Clennell, 24. He denies all the charges.

A forensic scientist concluded there was "very strong support" for the theory that Mr Wright was wearing the gloves when he was in contact with Miss Alderton and Miss Nicholls, the court heard.

The QC said that it would be "highly unusual, to say the least" for Mr Wright to have been wearing the gloves when he came into contact with the women if he was only engaging in consensual sexual activity with them as prostitutes."

Let's take the points from this one passage from that evidence as far as the public are given it, in order to save time.

"Steve Wright, 49, had been in "close contact" with the women shortly before their deaths, jurors at Ipswich Crown Court were told." It is claimed there is DNA evidence that he had been in close contact with 4 of the 5 girls, and also a claim (from the police?) that he may not have been working alone. Putting these two things together... Suppose someone with the urge to kill a number of girls, had been following Wright, and targeting girls he had seen Wright dropping off back where he'd picked up the girls, after having sex with them? The real killer establishes a link between 4 of the girls that appears to incriminate Wright! It's odd, is it not, that Wright admits having sex with the 4 girls on whom his DNA was found, but not the fifth. Did the police let Wright in on this vital peice of evidence, or is it simply that he didn't have contact with the fifth? The killer could have assumed he was safe killing a fifth girl without establishing a link, and the other four could have been partly because he really wanted to work out his perverted desire on this specific (fifth) victim.

"...the semen-stained gloves were seized from Mr Wright's car, that also contained DNA samples that could have come from Annette Nicholls and Anneli Alderton, two of five prostitutes killed in Suffolk between October to December 2006." So Wright used gloves, but why not dispose of them when they were obviously so incriminating? We live in an age when most serious crime is solved (apparently?) by DNA evidence. Was Wright so stupid that he didn't know the gloves could be his down-fall, if he were the killer? Also, please note the phrase "could have come from".

"A forensic scientist concluded there was "very strong support" for the theory that Mr Wright was wearing the gloves when he was in contact with Miss Alderton and Miss Nicholls, the court heard." Why was the support strong? Was this because Wright's DNA was on the bodies, or because DNA from the girls was also on the gloves? Either way, the evidence shows nothing other than that Wright was in intimate contact with the four girls. And, please note the phrase "Very strong support" is used; not the word 'conclusive'.

"The QC said that it would be "highly unusual, to say the least" for Mr Wright to have been wearing the gloves when he came into contact with the women if he was only engaging in consensual sexual activity with them as prostitutes." Oh really! So why would Wright have been wearing the gloves when he came into contact with the women to kill them? If the prosecution is establishing that Wright used the gloves to avoid detection, then why -- if he knew that much -- did he not dispose of them after each murder? I feel the prosecution has demolished their own argument, but will the jury see that? ...and is the idea of wearing gloves for consensual sex that daft? I don't think so!

The last thing I personally would want to do when making love with a lady would be to wear rubber gloves (or any other rubber protective covering!), but I have an oddball acquaintance whose sexual encounters have been few, I believe, that claims he wears rubber gloves! He's one of a number of men I've heard over the years, expressing some sort of idea that sex is dirty or unhygienic. It could well be they've picked the wrong women for sex, but I'd rather not go further into that! Were the gloves in question actually rubber? It's unimportant what they were made of, I feel.

I read elsewhere that the victims had Wright's DNA on them, and that it was possibly from his semen. Is that really odd? Does it proved he murdered the girls? I think it could prove something very different. There could be other scenarios, but supposing any man to have a liking for a girl's face / breasts / tummy / other parts... could that man not just be showing his appreciation for those parts by ejaculating over them, and then smearing the semen over the area he likes. Not really kinky, and not a sign that the man is some kind of deviant, surely? Wright may have liked doing that, but wore gloves to protect himself from any disease that he felt he might pick up via contact with a promiscuous lady.

So far as the evidence has been placed in the public domain, and choosing the above quote pretty much at random, I must say I'm not very impressed with the evidence against Wright.
Ricado
Ricado
New In Town
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:18 am


Return to Crimes (New and Old), The Jersey Case and Heroes of Crime Detection

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron