Suffolk Strangler judge warns jury not to sympathise for victims or their families

Jurors in the Suffolk Strangler murder trial were warned not to be swayed by sympathy for the five victims and their families.

Mr Justice Gross directed the jury of nine men and three women to only consider evidence heard at Ipswich Crown Court over the last four weeks.

He said: "In coming to your verdicts you must follow the evidence and put aside an assortment of possible emotions.

"The loss of these young lives is an enormous tragedy. You are likely to have sympathy for the deceased and their relatives.

"But your sympathy must not sway you. Such feelings cannot assist in finding the issues of the case."

Forklift driver Steve Wright, 49, denies murdering Tania Nicol, 19, Gemma Adams, 25, Anneli Alderton, 24, Paula Clennell, 24 and Annette Nicholls, 29.

All the women were drug addict prostitutes whose naked bodies were found dumped in countryside near Ipswich over ten days in December 2006.

The judge began summing up on Monday by saying that jurors had "come across a bleak landscape - in brutal terms the funding of drug addiction by way of prostitution."

He added: "You may view with some distaste the lifestyle of those involved - but if you do that is irrelevant.

"Whatever the drugs they took, whatever the work they did, nobody was entitled to do these women any harm left alone kill them."

The judge added that the prosecution did not have to prove that Wright had a motive for killing the women.

He added: "A case of murder can be and is often made without any clear motive emerging - but the prosecution does have to make sure of the defendant's guilt to the requisite standard."

Scroll down for more ...

The judge also reminded jurors not to carry out their own research on the internet or rely on intense media reporting of the case.

He also told them that Tom Stephens - the supermarket worker first arrested over the murders, but never charged - was "not on trial"

The judge said it was the defence case that he could not be ruled out as the killer while the prosecution stated that even if he was it was part of "a joint enterprise" with Wright.

He added that the jurors were entitled to consider circumstantial evidence in the case, but warned them against speculating about the killings.

The judge listed evidence which he said the prosecution stated would lead to the "sure conclusion" that Wright was guilty.

The evidence was:

• Wright picked up the prostitutes at times consistent with their disappearance,

• He had the opportunity to commit the murders because of he where he lived and the fact that his partner was at work on the nights in question,

• His car was sighted by CCTV cameras and also an automatic number plate recognition camera,

•His DNA was on three of the bodies and fibres linked to him found on all of them,

• Women started disappearing shortly after he began using street prostitutes,

•The blood of two victims was on his jacket and blood from one possibly in his Ford Mondeo, and

• The locations where bodies were found were familiar to Wright.

But Mr Justice Gross said the defence insisted only that there was "a close association" between Wright and the women a few hours before their deaths which "fell well short" of proving his guilt

The judge said the jury must consider each count of murder separately. He added:

"The evidence is different and your verdicts need not be the same."

He said murder was defined as one person unlawfully killing another with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. He said there was no question of self defence in this case.

The judge added: "If you are sure the defendant caused the death of the women when you are considering them you must be sure that when he pressed their neck he intended to kill her or cause her grievous bodily harm."

The trial continues.