2nd Man Arrested.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6192085.stm

[Miss Inquiry]

Arrested at 5am this morning and lives near the red light district.... Lets hope one of them is guilty and the people of Ipswich can regain some feeling of saftey after such a horrible few weeks.

[4getmenot]

well if either is not quilty then they wont be able to live a normal life anymore.

[Gromit]

Which newspaper did they find this one in?

[vehelpfulguy]

They MIGHT both be guilty.

It is strange for one person to commit so many murders in such a short space of time.

[whiffey]

What bothers me is that a number of men have been named, e.g. by the Sunday Mirror.

These are arrests, not charges. However shady these characters may be, their lives are surely now ruined.

[Miss Inquiry]

Tom Stephens seemed to want to tell the world all about himself and his involvment with these girls and the sex industry, otherwise why do the Sunday Mirror interview.
He even mentioned how humiliated his mother would be, which begs me to ask why on earth he sold his story!!

[kev100]

The reporting on this case has already made it a complete b***s up.

The murderer is probably throwing up from laughing at this nonsense

[noxlumos]

What's actually bothering me is that there's something wrong about the whole thing. When so many girls were killed in quick sucession I assumed we had a loony "mission from God" type who probably didn't even care about being caught but who, since he had been so initially prolific in his killings, would contuinue killing at an alraming rate of kots until he finally slipped up and was caught. But suddenly the killings stopped. That, for some reson, doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't match any sort of logical thinking ( no matter how squewed), so I'm debating whether he wasn't maybe after only one girl, and the others were to cover his motive. If so, what WAS his motive?
I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but there's something very odd about this whole case.

[redcrx]

nox, i had the same thoughts, why did the deaths suddenly stop before anyone was arrested. It may just be that they stopped after the first girl was found and all 5 had been murdered and dumped by that point. Or perhaps it was a migrant worker who is no longer in the area.

[galltin]

I know it's not at all relevant but has anyone else noticed the police guy in charge of the case is named Gull and that a Doctor Gull was a suspect in the original Jack the Ripper case. 5 women then too.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I'd noted the Gull thing too, though don't most Ripper-ologists now include Martha Tabrum in addition to the five 'canonical' victims?

I also agree (for once) with Wiffey's point; these people's lives will probably have been ruined by the press intrusion. If innocent, they mind find their lives are made impossible and even if guilty they still have the right to a fair trial and I worry that trial by press will make that almost impossible.

[Gromit]

These high profile cases where the police are under a lot of media scrutiny cause concern. The police are under great pressure to get someone, and in the past this has resulted in Miscarriages of Justice and the guilty people getting away with it. It is difficult to assess how well an investigation is going just from media sources and we shouldn't jump to conclusions without knowing the full facts.
Having said that, the last two victims were snatch from under the Police's and media's noses. That could be an added dimension to the crimes. The killer is taunting the Police (not bothering to conceal the bodies). This could be someone with a grudge from a criminal past, or someone who aspired to be a policeman and failed.

[Barmaid]

I know Tom Stephens is hardly helping his own case by what he said in the Sunday papers and courting publicity, but why on earth did the press name him when the police have refused to confirm or deny identities of those arrested?! Hopefully the press will keep schtum on the latest person to be arrested since these are only arrests and not charges (at which point the police will undoubtedly name them) and at the end of the day, an arrest under suspicion makes you guilty of nothing. It simply is not fair to have your life raked over if the public domain if you are completely innocent. The media is SO important in getting through to the public for information, but I just wish they would know when to back off. The police have got enough to do without looking at getting injunctions to prevent the press releasing details that they really shouldn't at this stage and thus possibly prejudicing any trial which may result.

[pingping]

well said barmaid

[matt66]

the police have now said 'daily mail internet edition' that Stephens is only 4-5 on their scale as possible murderer. That means all the villification by the media has been wrong. If he turns out to be an innocent idiot, who did not know when to keep his mouth shut, he would have a valid claim of his future being ruined.

[unruliejulie]

I think it is very wrong to name a suspect like this. Mud sticks and if he is innocent, he wont walk away from it without his name being remembered for the murders of 5 girls. I dont think the public need names until they are charged. It always annoys me, just in case they are innocent..

[jedimistress]

The whole thing is sick. It stinks of media led mob rule.

[sp1814]

Something else that I'm sure about...that interview he gave in the papers - won't that muck up the prosecution case?

One thing about naming suspects is that if someone has information about them which could strengthen the prosecution case (a family member, friend or colleague), by releasing the name of the arrested suspect, it gives those people opportunity to come to the police.

[unruliejulie]

How are the British media allowed to get away with this? It amazes me, i just hope to God, i am never wrongfully arrested because that would be it, hung drawn and quatered byt the press!

[Barmaid]

I think it could have an affect on any trial IF he is charged and tried since I suppose his defence could argue that getting a fair trial in front of an unbiased jury is impossible. What is really really annoying though that the interview he gave to the BBC was for background only and not for broadcast. So what did they do? Broadcast it. grrrrrr. Let trial by media commence. (And apparently up at Martlesham HQ, they are having to put 2 or 3 bobbies on guard at the door of the police station and have shut the blinds since the press are lip reading staff on the telephone and practically jemmying the door open to get in!)

[whiffey]

Yes, another arrest. No charge yet, note.

He'll be ok, he's only been 'locally named', which means that we as ever will discern the difference between innocent and guilty in the same way as we infallibly distuinguish between paediatricians and paedophiles. Trial by publicity, it's all wrong.