Of course he did it, from all we've read.

But if you were (un)fortunate enough to experience Police Activity yourself, you might have doubts.

That DNA evidence in the wet, silt soaked hair? Sounds suspect to me.

It is incredibly hard to believe he might not have done it - but that can be the combination of Police, CPS and Media - the unholy trinity of this century.

Likewise the man being tried at the moment for the Sally Bowman murder - all that "sex with a dead body" rubbish... surely he did it, didn't he?

But I've learned that often these very convincing tales (a good story) can be very inaccurate.

Barry George?
Michael Stone?
Sally Clark?

And the hundreds of others (literally hundreds if not thousands) whose solid convictions have been totally demolished on appeal with miniscule publicity - let along those who are innocent yet still languish in jails around the world, unable to prove their innocence.

I think the line was crossed many years ago.

Why did they actually find him guilty?

From what I've heard it was because he was linked to all 5 women which seems a bit wobbly to me. So what? Surely anyone who regularly uses prostitutes around the area would have had a connection with all of them.

It has really come to the stage where I doubt every single conviction.
Of course a good many of them will be accurate...but...
..well back in my Bradford days of living on a council estate,amongst criminals...I did discover some interesting facts..
...went like this...a guy is say a burglar...often police would fit him up for any old crime...then he'd be forced/bribed to confess to whichever ones they wanted solved,and off the books.
Meant a guilty guy was punished...but not for the actual crimes he committed...weird?
How many guys did you meet like this inside JK?
People obviously guilty of crimes,but fitted up for other ones than there own....and does this apply to more serious crimes?

It is difficult to make informed comment as I have only condensed media reports and don't have the full evidence and details of the trail.

It seems the two salient pieces of evidence are a fibre from the carpet in his car and traces of blood from two of the women on his jacket.

Traces of blood from two people murdered on one jacket would seem unusual.

I cannot use stronger language to say I am fully convinced because I am not privy to all the evidence.

Is there good reason to believe he has been wrongfully convicted?

I would say there is no reason on earth to feel he was wrongly convicted EXCEPT my personal experience during the past 8 years which make me very, very suspicious of police, CPS and judicial performances.

zooloo wrote:

Traces of blood from two people murdered on one jacket would seem unusual.


UNLESS they kept all the forensic exhibits in one room (which is most likely where the Barry George firearm "particle" was picked up from).

Yes and you see I would never have considered this in the last century but if someone were to tell me that a police officer smeared blood on the relevant pieces of clothing I would not be surprised.

Nobody has dared to suggest the "particle" was planted in Barry George's pocket but these days I would find that not only possible but likely.

Gene Hunt may not be alive and well but the ethos is thriving and has been adapted to get convictions AND - A GOOD STORY!

I remember when the West Midlands serious crime squad was disbanded because of deep rooted corruption. So, dodgy policing is nothing new. I've no idea whether Steven Wright is guilty or not. It seems likely but if I'd been on the jury I think would have had reasonable doubt. I wonder if the police bothered to look into all the other clients of these girls and whether any of them had DNA connections.

Regarding evidence being kept in the same room and open to contamination, I do recall that Roy Whiting was convicted mainly on a single strand of his alleged victim's hair, and that his jumper and her hair brush were kept side by side in unsealed bags in the evidence room. Sloppy, at the very least. But who would dare to question his conviction, despite the girl's brother's eye witness description not matching either Whiting or his van, and the tyre marks and oil being a different type from his at the place where the body was found. But he'd lied about his whereabouts and had a previous conviction, and had been remarkably named by the judge prior to the trial, so he had to be guilty.

There are several high profile cases which do raise serious questions. I doubt than many will be challenged, however, because people want to believe that the system is reliable, and it's assumed that the sacrifice of a few innocent people is worth maintaining that belief.

Al wrote:
...dodgy policing is nothing new.

"Two men broke into Edglingham Vicarage. The vicar, the Reverend Matthew Buckle and his daughter Georgina were shot and wounded. Police arrested two local poachers, Peter Murphy and Michael Brannagan. They were jailed for life, although it was later proven that the crime was carried out by two other men

Good post, Al

There will always be instances where, with the police under pressure to produce a "result", the temptation to tamper with the evidence (which only they hold at this point in time) will be strong.