New Ripper?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:13 am

Pinky;487884 wrote: Okay, coming from a fairly quiet part of the UK where nothing mind boggling tends to happen, I can honestly say it's shaken people up a fair bit.

Ok, the area I work in has had a few murders and gunpoint robberies in the last few years, but then I work in a pretty rough area.

Serial killers are pretty unexpected though...most are pretty worried by it.

I'm not, I mean, I've been threatened with big bits of wood, knives, stapleguns and far more than I care to mention...it tends to make you a bit more blase about the whole safety issue. I mean, if I can scare the crap out of a gang threatening to beat me to bits with baseball bats what more do I have to be worried about, right?:rolleyes:

If you live there I imagine people were somewhat shaken and mind boggled already dear.

I tried to resist pinkster, I really did. :wah:

Secret_Santa_2006 · Post by **Secret_Santa_2006** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:36 am

Spot, here are a brand new leather-bound set of Encyclopedia Brittanica, much better than Wikipedia!

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:36 am

SnoozeControl;494855 wrote: That's creepy! :-2It's imagery, Snooze. It's meant to invoke a picture of a domesticated cat after it's had a mild hissy fit for no good reason and been quietened by a tolerant member of the family.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:38 am

Secret_Santa_2006;494858 wrote: Spot, here are a brand new leather-bound set of Encyclopedia Brittanica, much better than Wikipedia!Is, not are. My set's cloth-bound from 1924 and I much prefer it to the current edition, it has a lot more depth to the articles.

Secret_Santa_2006 · Post by **Secret_Santa_2006** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:43 am

spot;494861 wrote: Is, not are. My set's cloth-bound from 1924 and I much prefer it to the current edition, it has a lot more depth to the articles.

Pardon my poor grammar Spot, it does tend to go downhill when all you get to read all year are letters from small children

Would you like a big bottle of sherry instead?

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:49 am

SnoozeControl;494864 wrote: The benevolent grandfather... what a charming role for you! :)spot lifts yet another wet furball from behind the sofa and fastidiously drops it into the kitchen bin

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:51 am

Secret_Santa_2006;494868 wrote: Pardon my poor grammar Spot, it does tend to go downhill when all you get to read all year are letters from small children

Would you like a big bottle of sherry instead?I'd be quite pleased with a year's subscription to the New Scientist, if that's an option. Sherry - or anything alcoholic - tends to evaporate whenever I entertain, I rarely get more than a glass.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:54 am

Pinky;494874 wrote: I woke up to to warm wet drips on my neck only to discover the cat was dribbling on me. EEEWW!!
Down, Snooze!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:06 am

koan;494052 wrote: Just so we're clear, Stephen Wright was the second bloke arrested, the one charged with the crimes and the one who is certainly not quiet and shy as shown by the Mirror article.

I cant say Im surprised.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:30 am

Nomad;494882 wrote: I cant say Im surprised.

I thought of that too.

Saw him live once.

For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier...I put them in the same room and let them fight it out...

There's a pizza place near where I live that sells only slices... in the back you can see a guy tossing a triangle in the air...

I recently moved into a new apartment, and there was this switch on the wall that didn't do anything...so anytime I had nothing to do, I'd just flick that switch up and down...up and down...up and down....Then one day I got a letter from a woman in Germany...it just said, "Cut it out."

I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time.

I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone. :wah: (sorry spot

)

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:49 am

SnoozeControl;494899 wrote: Your sex life has nothing to do with this forum, you pervert!From the author of "dip me in barbecue sauce and work me over like a rib" I take that as a compliment.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:54 am

The extent to which you've lied elsewhere on ForumGarden releases me from any assumption as far as your claims to be truthful in other matters go. An obsession as far as your now i'm a liar????

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:02 pm

lady cop;494918 wrote: now i'm a liar????Absolutely. My hesitation in digging out references to the fact is that if I present the thread with evidence I'm seemingly obsessive. Unless, of course, you insist that I go and get it. Neither you nor I have even a shadow of a doubt that I can build quite a list of your lies and post them here with very little effort if you insist. You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:04 pm

SnoozeControl;494949 wrote: That's quite a claim, by the way... can you back it up?Of course I can, you daft besom, several times over, why else do you think I posted it?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:16 pm

(I suppose it's too much to ask that THIS tirade be accomplished through private messages? Or are we all to be spattered with blood AGAIN? There's nothing in the least bit amusing or interesting about this, you know.)

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:53 pm

SnoozeControl;494972 wrote: I'd report that as an abusive remark if I knew what it meant.

daft, adjective, Now chiefly Scottish and northern. Thoughtless or giddy in one's mirth; madly gay or frolicsome:

1816 SCOTT Antiquities: ‘Ay, ay, they were daft days thae, but they were a' vanity and waur.’

besom, noun, Scottish and dialect. A jocular designation for a woman:

1816 SCOTT Old Mortimer: To set up to be sae muckle better than ither folk, the auld besom.

1930 JOHN BUCHAN Castle Gay: She's a determined besom.

1936 W. HOLTBY South Riding: Gosh! The little besom!

Lulu, if you look you'll see that I'm carefully not taking any initiative in this, I'm being pushed to react a step at a time. None of my posts are anything but a response to each deliberate provocation.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:16 pm

Pinky;495069 wrote: Nanny Ogg calls Granny Weatherwax a daft besom in Terry Pratchett's discworld books as a term of endearment. I wanna be Nanny Ogg when I'm older...drinking too much and getting to sing the hedgehog song, YEAH!And it'll suit you wonderfully, Pinkster. You almost got the endearment right, too..."You daft old besom!" she hissed. "What’ve you been doing?"

"I had to—"

"You’ve been up at the Stones, haven’t you! Trying to hold back the Gentry."

"Of course," said Granny. Her voice wasn’t faint. She wasn’t swaying. But her voice wasn't faint and she wasn't swaying, Nanny Ogg could see, because Granny Weatherwax's body was in the grip of Granny Weatherwax's mind.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:25 pm

SnoozeControl;495104 wrote: Well that's embarrassing! I've read all the Discworld books, but I didn't remember that expression.

So Spot's Nanny Ogg, huh? I would've pictured him more as Granny Weatherwax.

I'm the nearest thing you'll ever meet to Nanny Ogg, Snooze, and don't you ever forget it.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:34 pm

(Snoozie...I wasn't referring to YOU, m'dear!)

Secret_Santa_2006 · Post by **Secret_Santa_2006** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:55 pm

Leather - bound complete sets of Pratchett novels for EVERYONE !!

Ho ho HO

(there will be a test early in the New Year)

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:06 pm

Gee, Pinky, I wouldn't mind one of those sets. Reckon your'e Santa's little pet!! He's given you lots of stuff, and he hasn't given me anything. POO !!! Okay, I might just hafta do one of my favourite flounces, and bang a few doors. !!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:18 am

Uncle Kram;484101 wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6173633.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ich102.xml

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:42 am

This thread, by the way, is postponed until next year:Steve Wright, 49. of London Road is charged with the murder of all five women.

He denied the charges at his last court appearance in Ipswich on May 1.

Wright's trial is due to start on January 14 next year at Ipswich Crown Court.

http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/ev ... 3A56%3A583

crazygal · Post by **crazygal** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:21 pm

Uncle Kram;484101 wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6173633.stm

This is all happening in Pinkys neck of the woods

I'm a dirty ripper. :sneaky:

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:47 pm

almostfamous;627951 wrote: Surely they have enough to prove him guilty

What's the hold up?What makes you think they have enough to prove him guilty, AF?

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:17 pm

almostfamous;627985 wrote: His DNA was found at the scene. I don't think he did it without an accomplice but if the shoe fits..The Daily Mail discussed that in December and suggested that it's not sufficient for a conviction:Daily Mail December 21, 2006

The 48-year-old fork-lift truck driver became the prime suspect for the

murders of five prostitutes in Ipswich after the discovery of key DNA evidence

and CCTV footage allegedly linking him to some of the victims.

Wright is understood to have been arrested after DNA found at the sites where

three of the bodies were dumped was checked. There were also reports yesterday

that CCTV footage may link him to at least one of the prostitutes.

DNA evidence alone may not be enough to crack the case, as any suspect could

claim their DNA was discovered on a body because they were a regular client.

Officers are looking to establish whether he visited the locations where each

of the prostitutes were dumped. Although his DNA has been found on three of the

corpses, insiders say police will need more evidence to charge him over the

Suffolk murders.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:57 pm

spot;627912 wrote: Wright's trial is due to start on January 14 next year at Ipswich Crown Court.

and as if by clockwork:A jury has been sworn in to try the case of a 49-year-old man accused of murdering five women in Suffolk.

Steve Wright denies killing Gemma Adams, 25, Tania Nicol, 19, Anneli Alderton, 24, Paula Clennell, 24, and 29-year-old Annette Nicholls.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:22 am

And we have a verdict.The jury at Ipswich Crown Court found him guilty of all five murders and he will be sentenced on Friday [...] The prosecution said Wright "systematically selected and murdered" all five women over a six-and-a-half-week period.

Suffolk police began an inquiry after Miss Nicol, 19, vanished in late October 2006. Two weeks later, Miss Adams, 25, vanished and detectives began a "major inquiry", saying there were "obvious similarities". This was followed by the disappearance of Miss Alderton, 24, Miss Clennell, 24, and 29-year-old Miss Nicholls. Their bodies were eventually found in isolated locations around Ipswich.

In 2001, Wright worked as a barman at the Brook Hotel in Felixstowe before being sacked for stealing hundreds of pounds from the till, for which he was ordered to carry out 100 hours community service. It was a DNA sample taken at the time of that conviction which led to police matching samples taken from the dead women.