info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Suffolk Strangler / NOT Steve Wright
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Special Care
Mar 25, 2014, 9:37:15 AM3/25/14
to
Channel Five UK / 8 pm Wednesday 26 March 2014
SUFFOLK STRANGLER
--------------------------------------------
Steve Wright is not the Suffolk Strangler.
This new documentary will be painful to those who know the reality.
There is NO evidence to suggest Steve Wright killed those five women.
None.
Apart from that simple FACT, the behaviour of the police and prosecution in such cases reveals the bankruptcy of the prosecution case, as they talk about ANYTHING BUT the relevant facts.
### Watch out for the grainy images of distant cars declared to be Steve Wright's car when from that distance no one can even tell what make of car it was.
### Watch out for the 'crucial evidence' of an image of a driver caught by a roadside camera. The driver's face is blurred and unrecognisable on the image we are shown, yet it is said to be Steve Wright. And the car's registration number is not shown - we see the car only above the bonnet. And that 'proved' Steve Wright is the Suffolk Strangler?
WHAT MIGHT BE THE PURPOSE OF ROADSIDE CAMERAS - INSTALLED AT VAST EXPENSE - IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO GIVE US THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF PASSING CARS, AND UNABLE TO GIVE US A CLEAR IMAGE OF THE DRIVER?
### And then watch out too for the cop who declares - with a straight face - the amazing revelation that Steve Wright was nervous and agitated while being questioned.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE IN THE WORLD WHO WOULD NOT BE NERVOUS AND AGITATED IF ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF MURDERING FIVE WOMEN?
When the prosecution concentrates only on irrelevancies and innuendoes, you know what's going on - although the morons in the jury box don't.
Imagine how the cops and barristers are laughing and giggling in the pub afterwards at these mentally retarded jurors who dance on their strings.
--------------------------------------------
There are echoes of the Sion Jenkins case, which was also built solely on irrelevancies and innuendoes.
However, there is a difference between the cases of Sion Jenkins and Steve Wright.
In the Sion Jenkins case, the facts showed - with 100% certainty and beyond any possibility of even the slightest doubt - that SION JENKINS WAS INNOCENT. And yet he was convicted for a murder he could not possibly have committed.
In the Steve Wright case, what we can say is that there was NO EVIDENCE against him. ZERO. Nothing at all to suggest he ever killed anyone. And yet he was convicted.
--------------------------------------------
This should make every resident of England ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of trial by jury.
The Sion Jenkins case is the most terrifying of all.
There were two appeals. At both appeals, the juries could not agree on a verdict, EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS PROVED WITH 100% CERTAINTY AND WITHOUT THE REMOTEST POSSIBILITY OF ANY DOUBT THAT SION JENKINS WAS INNOCENT.
This should make every resident of England ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of trial by jury.
Give me a Diplock Court and the half chance that the judge is honest and has a good wife.
Or else just toss a coin to decide the verdict.
THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE DIGNIFIED THAN A JURY OF TWELVE BRAIN-DEAD SHITES, WHICH IS WHAT STEVE WRIGHT AND SION JENKINS GOT, AND MANY OTHERS........
May the Lord save us from trial by jury.
--------------------------------------------
Channel Five UK / 8 pm Wednesday 26 March 2014.
---------------------------------------------
IT'S SO TERRIFYING THAT IT BEARS REPEATING:
### Watch out for the grainy images of distant cars declared to be Steve Wright's car when from that distance no one can even tell what make of car it was.
### Watch out for the 'crucial evidence' of an image of a driver taken by a roadside camera. The driver's face is blurred and unrecognisable on the image we are shown, yet it is said to be Steve Wright. But the car's registration number is not shown - we only see the car above the bonnet. And that 'proved' Steve Wright is the Suffolk Strangler?
WHAT MIGHT BE THE PURPOSE OF ROADSIDE CAMERAS IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO GIVE US THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF PASSING CARS, AND UNABLE TO GIVE US A CLEAR IMAGE OF THE DRIVER?
### And then watch out too for the cop who declares - with a straight face - the amazing revelation that Steve Wright was nervous and agitated while being questioned.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE IN THE WORLD WHO WOULD NOT BE NERVOUS AND AGITATED IF ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF MURDERING FIVE WOMEN?
When the prosecution concentrates only on irrelevancies and innuendoes, you know what's going on - although the morons in the jury box don't.
Imagine how the cops and barristers are laughing and giggling in the pub afterwards at these mentally retarded jurors who dance on their strings.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
REPRODUCED FROM ARCHIVE:
===
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Wright was convicted on zero evidence, the jury being a bunch of
country bumpkins who were easily manipulated.
The Suffolk Constabulary, a sleepy rural police force - accustomed to
chasing poachers and petty burglars [think of the British TV series
'Heartbeat'] - these sleepy rural cops had been suddenly catapulted
into the glare of the entire world's media by the unprecedented nature
of the killings in quick succession of beautiful and vulnerable young
women, and so the Suffolk Constabulary simply wanted to convict some
innocent fall guy, just to make the TV cameras disappear so that the
Suffolk Constabulary would no longer be displaying their bumbling,
inarticulate, unsophisticated 'country bumpkin' attributes and funny
accents to the entire population of the world.
Steve Wright, against whom there is zero evidence, was the soft
target, the fall guy...... and the jury of twelve 'country bumpkins' were
easily led.
-----------------------------------------------------
It's a minor point, and doesn't prove anything in itself, but it's
worth mentioning - the magic number of five prostitutes murdered by
Jack the Ripper 1888. Perhaps that is why the Ipswich killings
stopped, after he had 'out-Rippered the Ripper' of 1888 by doing the
same in a much shorter time span.
Then the real Ipswich Strangler, like the real Yorkshire Ripper of the
1970s, decided to quit while he was ahead and let the fall guy take
the rap.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-5141.html
SUFFOLK STRANGLER
--------------------------------------------
Steve Wright is not the Suffolk Strangler.
This new documentary will be painful to those who know the reality.
There is NO evidence to suggest Steve Wright killed those five women.
None.
Apart from that simple FACT, the behaviour of the police and prosecution in such cases reveals the bankruptcy of the prosecution case, as they talk about ANYTHING BUT the relevant facts.
### Watch out for the grainy images of distant cars declared to be Steve Wright's car when from that distance no one can even tell what make of car it was.
### Watch out for the 'crucial evidence' of an image of a driver caught by a roadside camera. The driver's face is blurred and unrecognisable on the image we are shown, yet it is said to be Steve Wright. And the car's registration number is not shown - we see the car only above the bonnet. And that 'proved' Steve Wright is the Suffolk Strangler?
WHAT MIGHT BE THE PURPOSE OF ROADSIDE CAMERAS - INSTALLED AT VAST EXPENSE - IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO GIVE US THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF PASSING CARS, AND UNABLE TO GIVE US A CLEAR IMAGE OF THE DRIVER?
### And then watch out too for the cop who declares - with a straight face - the amazing revelation that Steve Wright was nervous and agitated while being questioned.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE IN THE WORLD WHO WOULD NOT BE NERVOUS AND AGITATED IF ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF MURDERING FIVE WOMEN?
When the prosecution concentrates only on irrelevancies and innuendoes, you know what's going on - although the morons in the jury box don't.
Imagine how the cops and barristers are laughing and giggling in the pub afterwards at these mentally retarded jurors who dance on their strings.
--------------------------------------------
There are echoes of the Sion Jenkins case, which was also built solely on irrelevancies and innuendoes.
However, there is a difference between the cases of Sion Jenkins and Steve Wright.
In the Sion Jenkins case, the facts showed - with 100% certainty and beyond any possibility of even the slightest doubt - that SION JENKINS WAS INNOCENT. And yet he was convicted for a murder he could not possibly have committed.
In the Steve Wright case, what we can say is that there was NO EVIDENCE against him. ZERO. Nothing at all to suggest he ever killed anyone. And yet he was convicted.
--------------------------------------------
This should make every resident of England ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of trial by jury.
The Sion Jenkins case is the most terrifying of all.
There were two appeals. At both appeals, the juries could not agree on a verdict, EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS PROVED WITH 100% CERTAINTY AND WITHOUT THE REMOTEST POSSIBILITY OF ANY DOUBT THAT SION JENKINS WAS INNOCENT.
This should make every resident of England ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of trial by jury.
Give me a Diplock Court and the half chance that the judge is honest and has a good wife.
Or else just toss a coin to decide the verdict.
THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE DIGNIFIED THAN A JURY OF TWELVE BRAIN-DEAD SHITES, WHICH IS WHAT STEVE WRIGHT AND SION JENKINS GOT, AND MANY OTHERS........
May the Lord save us from trial by jury.
--------------------------------------------
Channel Five UK / 8 pm Wednesday 26 March 2014.
---------------------------------------------
IT'S SO TERRIFYING THAT IT BEARS REPEATING:
### Watch out for the grainy images of distant cars declared to be Steve Wright's car when from that distance no one can even tell what make of car it was.
### Watch out for the 'crucial evidence' of an image of a driver taken by a roadside camera. The driver's face is blurred and unrecognisable on the image we are shown, yet it is said to be Steve Wright. But the car's registration number is not shown - we only see the car above the bonnet. And that 'proved' Steve Wright is the Suffolk Strangler?
WHAT MIGHT BE THE PURPOSE OF ROADSIDE CAMERAS IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO GIVE US THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF PASSING CARS, AND UNABLE TO GIVE US A CLEAR IMAGE OF THE DRIVER?
### And then watch out too for the cop who declares - with a straight face - the amazing revelation that Steve Wright was nervous and agitated while being questioned.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE IN THE WORLD WHO WOULD NOT BE NERVOUS AND AGITATED IF ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF MURDERING FIVE WOMEN?
When the prosecution concentrates only on irrelevancies and innuendoes, you know what's going on - although the morons in the jury box don't.
Imagine how the cops and barristers are laughing and giggling in the pub afterwards at these mentally retarded jurors who dance on their strings.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
REPRODUCED FROM ARCHIVE:
===
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Wright was convicted on zero evidence, the jury being a bunch of
country bumpkins who were easily manipulated.
The Suffolk Constabulary, a sleepy rural police force - accustomed to
chasing poachers and petty burglars [think of the British TV series
'Heartbeat'] - these sleepy rural cops had been suddenly catapulted
into the glare of the entire world's media by the unprecedented nature
of the killings in quick succession of beautiful and vulnerable young
women, and so the Suffolk Constabulary simply wanted to convict some
innocent fall guy, just to make the TV cameras disappear so that the
Suffolk Constabulary would no longer be displaying their bumbling,
inarticulate, unsophisticated 'country bumpkin' attributes and funny
accents to the entire population of the world.
Steve Wright, against whom there is zero evidence, was the soft
target, the fall guy...... and the jury of twelve 'country bumpkins' were
easily led.
-----------------------------------------------------
It's a minor point, and doesn't prove anything in itself, but it's
worth mentioning - the magic number of five prostitutes murdered by
Jack the Ripper 1888. Perhaps that is why the Ipswich killings
stopped, after he had 'out-Rippered the Ripper' of 1888 by doing the
same in a much shorter time span.
Then the real Ipswich Strangler, like the real Yorkshire Ripper of the
1970s, decided to quit while he was ahead and let the fall guy take
the rap.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-5141.html
0 new messages