The Ipswich Murders Trial - Day 21
It's time for the closing arguments, and the defence has the advantage of going last. So it was over to Peter Wright to try and summarise the huge amount of the evidence the prosecution has gathered.
It's a tough job, and he does it well. He also reminds us of some facts that are so obvious it's possible to overlook them;
All the victims were young, slim, and had shoulder length hair. All were found relatively uninjured, and all had been striped naked. All had been asphyxiated. All had met Steve Wright the night they died.
Already we've got a lot of coincidence to set aside there.
What about Tom Stephens? Peter Wright is subtle enough to accept that Stephens' did make 'unusual and disturbing remarks' and that he has no alibi for the nights the girls disappeared. But he also points out that the DNA evidence shows a zero, and that in any case, the issue here isn't about Tom Stephens; it's about Steve Wright.
Peter Wright then goes on to list a whole series of 'coincidences' that link Wright to the murders.
For instance:
The fact that the victims only went missing when Steve Wright's partner was out at work. Nobody went missing when she was at home.
And at the end of each 'coincidence' he asks the jury:
"Singular misfortune or significant fact?
It's a simple rhetorical trick, but the cumulative power is impressive.
Peter Wright finishes a little before 4:00pm. Steve Wright might be finished too.
It's a tough job, and he does it well. He also reminds us of some facts that are so obvious it's possible to overlook them;
All the victims were young, slim, and had shoulder length hair. All were found relatively uninjured, and all had been striped naked. All had been asphyxiated. All had met Steve Wright the night they died.
Already we've got a lot of coincidence to set aside there.
What about Tom Stephens? Peter Wright is subtle enough to accept that Stephens' did make 'unusual and disturbing remarks' and that he has no alibi for the nights the girls disappeared. But he also points out that the DNA evidence shows a zero, and that in any case, the issue here isn't about Tom Stephens; it's about Steve Wright.
Peter Wright then goes on to list a whole series of 'coincidences' that link Wright to the murders.
For instance:
The fact that the victims only went missing when Steve Wright's partner was out at work. Nobody went missing when she was at home.
And at the end of each 'coincidence' he asks the jury:
"Singular misfortune or significant fact?
It's a simple rhetorical trick, but the cumulative power is impressive.
Peter Wright finishes a little before 4:00pm. Steve Wright might be finished too.
Labels: Ipswich Murders
posted by roGER at 8:33 pm
2 Comments:
Has anyone raised the 'If it's not you, how come the killings stopped when you were arrested?' argument?
Yes, but in a slightly oblique way.
One of Peter Wright Q.C's many "singular misfortune or significant fact" questions pointed out that started to disappear once Steve Wright began using prostitutes in Ipswich and they stopped going missing in mid-December.
Wright was of course arrested then.
Post a Comment
<< Home