Post by ScotKaren on Jun 22, 2006 6:01:32 GMT -5
The blood that wasn’t
By Ken Norman (posted here in 1998)
Mrs Susan May was convicted in May 1993 of the murder of her aunt Hilda Marchbank 14 months previously, and her appeal, although well argued, was refused in February 1997. She is now in H Wing at Durham’s Old Elvet jail, using writing paper printed “Inside and innocent still fighting for justice” (although aware that by denying guilt she makes it impossible to receive parole). It is an attitude which takes guts, and a certainty that justice has not been done. Two business people have offered a reward of £12,000 to anyone who can help prove her innocence.
Susan had given up her job to care for her mother and for Hilda, who was 89 years old and living alone; power of attorney over her money had been given jointly to Susan and her sister. The financial affairs were thoroughly investigated by the police and there was no sign of fraud or irregularity. Susan’s original solicitor had never represented anyone on a murder charge before and she was not defended well. He was proud of having “a good working relationship” with the police, who assured him that the issue of financial motive would not be raised at the trial. In fact, over two days were spent on this issue. Eventually the judge instructed the jury to disregard these matters as they were irrelevant to the murder charge.
This did not stop the Press sensationalising the discarded argument that the aunt had been murdered to inherit her money and (according to the Daily Mirror) to support a “secret toy-boy.” (She was in relationship with a younger man but not supporting him.) “Cast it from your minds for it must have no bearing upon your considerations,” is the formal wording used by judges. But surely any attempt to cast away information must have the reverse effect of making it more memorable and more significant. Prosecutors are aware of this and probably make it a deliberate ploy when a case is weak. Susan is convinced that this “disregardable” evidence influenced the jury more than anything else that was put forward.
Only one defence witness was called, as against more than 60 listed for the prosecution, surely a major error. A pathologist would have argued that death took place later than 10.15 p.m. (when she could not have been present) but he was not called. A forensic blood expert could have clarified the scientific evidence, but was not called. No alibi or character witnesses were produced, although dozens of people had written to the solicitor offering good character references. Susan was convicted on the grounds that her fingerprint was found in blood on the wall near the body and that she had spoken of scratches on her aunt’s face “that only the murderer would have known about.” These, said the trial judge, were the two main planks of the case against her.
Tests by Professor Brinkman, a German expert, were said to be devastating to Susan’s appeal. In fact the sample of “blood” carrying her fingerprint proved negative. Professor Brinkman was unable to establish that it was blood (and earlier tests by prosecution scientists had also reported negative results.) The professor had been given a plastic bag labelled “blood sample, living room wall.” It contained a sheet of lined paper with many beige-coloured paint flakes up to a centimetre long. By visual inspection no staining could be seen, but microscopic examination showed weak brown stains in the form of smears. They did not show a positive result when tested for blood, and therefore no further DNA analyses were carried out to prove whose blood it might have been. This contradicts evidence given at the trial when it was said that the sample was blood but had not been proven to be human. Susan, who was a frequent visitor, could have left her fingerprint there days or weeks earlier, for she called almost every day.
The defence were fully aware of the significance of this. A report they commissioned from the UK Forensic Science Services advised: “It will be alleged that the fingerprint on the bedroom wall was in blood and inferred it was the deceased’s blood.” In court the claim was: “The prosecution’s case is that the marks were made by the defendant shortly after she killed the deceased.” Advice to the defence counsel dated November 19, 1992, was: “Mrs May’s defence can only be conducted properly if those who represent her are able to evaluate properly the significance of the expert evidence.” But no defence forensic reports were prepared prior to the trial. There is a most peculiar twist to this. One of the grounds for appeal was that the blood forming the fingerprint was Susan’s own; but because the evidence contradicted this, denying that the stain was blood, it could not be put forward to the court. The appeal judge remarked that “if it turned out to be the blood of someone other than the victim, that might give rise to a lurking doubt as to the safety of the conviction.” He added: “The tests showed that it was not the blood of Mrs May and there was a very considerable probability that it was the blood of Mrs Marchbank.” And so, because it did not prove to be blood at all, it becomes confirmation of guilt! There’s one law for all (but a different one for judges). They are always very loath to overturn a conviction because it shows how fallible the law can be: far better that an innocent woman should stay in jail for life.
There were other stains, all of them very faint, and it was agreed by all parties at the appeal that one large drop of blood could have created them all; they were so faint as to need chemical enhancement before testing. (There were no “hands dripping with blood,” as was alleged at the trial.) One stain, a thin smear, was taken from the wall after six days then sent for laboratory testing seven days after Susan had been arrested. The stain carrying her fingerprint was taken from the wall 42 days after the murder. She claims to be the victim of police targeting, evidence being tailored to suit the suspicion. What was not stated at the trial was that further along the same wall was another mark. As this was above a similar mark which had been covered by a towel, both were accepted by the police as having been there before the murder, yet both were identical to the mark which was regarded as being incriminating evidence against Susan.
WPC Roberts claimed that Susan had admitted to having argued with her aunt on the phone then slamming it down, on the evening before the murder. This statement was not recorded in the policewoman’s notes and only came to light after Susan’s arrest. She strongly denies having said it. Twelve months after the event, a prosecution witness “remembered” that Susan had told her of this argument. This witness had given a truthful account of what happened on the morning that Susan discovered her aunt’s body, but then went back into the witness box later to say that she had recalled the argument being mentioned, after she had read the previous night’s Oldham evening newspaper in which the defence team had criticised the police. She had been sitting in court while the issue was argued, which should have made any evidence she gave inadmissible. Why did the judge allow it? Her evidence was also seriously undermined by the fact that she worked with and was a friend of the mother of Det. Sergt Rimmer, whose conduct was under attack. Susan has made a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority alleging that Det. Sergt. Rimmer lied and committed perjury.
There are a whole raft of arguments which lead to the conclusion that Susan did not kill her aunt; some were available for use during the trial, but were not put forward. This caused much frustration for Michael Schwarz, of Bindman’s, and Michael Mansfield QC, the defence team for the appeal; the original legal team did not discover much of the evidence and therefore did not introduce it at the trial; the law declares this to be “evidence available pre-trial,” and therefore inadmissible for appeal. Unknown to Susan at the trial, 11 other suspects had been interviewed concerning the murder, but because the original defence team had failed to investigate or make use of this, it couldn’t be mentioned at the appeal. This is grossly unfair to anyone badly defended and a denial of justice.
Susan left the house at 9 p.m., knowing her aunt was alive. She found the body on returning the following morning at 9.45. The police pathologist, Dr Lawler, arrived five hours later and estimated that death had occurred over 17 hours previously at 9.45 p.m. or earlier. Another pathologist, preparing a report for the defence, preferred to say that Hilda had died at 10.15 p.m. or later; he was not asked to testify at the trial, the defence team deciding that the evidence was not necessary! These estimates of time taken for the body to cool were complicated because police and others called to the scene had been passing to and fro by the body for five hours, and reports as to whether or not it was covered are conflicting.
Hilda had been brutally beaten, punched, manually strangulated and suffocated with a pillow, in the downstairs room where she slept. There were three random marks on her face, but only the pathologist, Dr Lawler, perceived them as “scratches.” They were not discernible on photographs. Susan denied ever seeing these marks, and despite police allegations, their notebooks carried no reference to her alleged mention of them. A grey hair taken from the victim’s hand was listed as an exhibit. Four fibres, three colourless, one red, were also in the hand and do not match any of Susan’s clothing. These were not listed.
Until Susan was arrested the police acknowledged that there had been a burglary; later they said it did not appear to be a real burglary, on the grounds that no glove prints were found and nothing had been stolen. This could be regarded as exonerating Susan, for if she had tried to fake a burglary her claim would have been that money had been taken, whereas a burglar not intending murder would not choose to take away anything which might incriminate him. There was an unidentified fingerprint on the front porch door, unidentified footprints in the front porch, two unidentified footprints in the back porch, an unidentified footprint in an upstairs wardrobe, another unidentified fingerprint (remember this was the home of an 89-year-old woman who had few visitors). Also reported were unidentified people outside the house at about 1 a.m., and an unidentified red car outside the house at this same time.
A statement from a woman alleging that her brother had murdered Hilda was not filed with the evidence and therefore not available to the defence. It had been placed in another file relating to a burglary.
Scratching for evidence
A main plank in the case against Mrs Susan May (said the judge) was that she had spoken of scratches on her aunt’s face “that only the murderer would have known about.” The reference was in the notebook of Det. Sgt. Janet Rimmer, as produced at the trial. There is no other documentation of the conversation, which the sergeant claims took place on March 18, 1992, “out of earshot of anyone else.” It may not have been written up until September, and was not at any time entered in the police Holmes computer.
The day after conviction in May 1993 Mrs May lodged a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority saying that the evidence was untrue. She had never referred to scratches or even noticed them (they were so faint that to experts their existence was questionable). Some time before the appeal hearing, Mr Michael Mansfield QC requested that the notebook should be subjected to ESDA testing, to see whether the reference to scratches had been written in at a later date. The police were very evasive for months, and so the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs Barbara Mills, was contacted. Her eventual reply was that the notebook had been lost!
The PCA are still investigating the complaint. It was evidence written in at a later date which falsely convicted the Bridgwater Four.
PLEASE GET INVOLVED. If you wish to help Susan get justice, please contact the Friends of Susan May (c/o Dorothy Cooksey, 942 Oldham Road, Rochdale OL11 2BS ( 01706 644962) or Portia, The Croft, West Common, Bowness-on-Solway, Carlisle CA5 5AG (016973 51820).
Also see Alfie
For the latest information see www.susanmay.co.uk
By Ken Norman (posted here in 1998)
Mrs Susan May was convicted in May 1993 of the murder of her aunt Hilda Marchbank 14 months previously, and her appeal, although well argued, was refused in February 1997. She is now in H Wing at Durham’s Old Elvet jail, using writing paper printed “Inside and innocent still fighting for justice” (although aware that by denying guilt she makes it impossible to receive parole). It is an attitude which takes guts, and a certainty that justice has not been done. Two business people have offered a reward of £12,000 to anyone who can help prove her innocence.
Susan had given up her job to care for her mother and for Hilda, who was 89 years old and living alone; power of attorney over her money had been given jointly to Susan and her sister. The financial affairs were thoroughly investigated by the police and there was no sign of fraud or irregularity. Susan’s original solicitor had never represented anyone on a murder charge before and she was not defended well. He was proud of having “a good working relationship” with the police, who assured him that the issue of financial motive would not be raised at the trial. In fact, over two days were spent on this issue. Eventually the judge instructed the jury to disregard these matters as they were irrelevant to the murder charge.
This did not stop the Press sensationalising the discarded argument that the aunt had been murdered to inherit her money and (according to the Daily Mirror) to support a “secret toy-boy.” (She was in relationship with a younger man but not supporting him.) “Cast it from your minds for it must have no bearing upon your considerations,” is the formal wording used by judges. But surely any attempt to cast away information must have the reverse effect of making it more memorable and more significant. Prosecutors are aware of this and probably make it a deliberate ploy when a case is weak. Susan is convinced that this “disregardable” evidence influenced the jury more than anything else that was put forward.
Only one defence witness was called, as against more than 60 listed for the prosecution, surely a major error. A pathologist would have argued that death took place later than 10.15 p.m. (when she could not have been present) but he was not called. A forensic blood expert could have clarified the scientific evidence, but was not called. No alibi or character witnesses were produced, although dozens of people had written to the solicitor offering good character references. Susan was convicted on the grounds that her fingerprint was found in blood on the wall near the body and that she had spoken of scratches on her aunt’s face “that only the murderer would have known about.” These, said the trial judge, were the two main planks of the case against her.
Tests by Professor Brinkman, a German expert, were said to be devastating to Susan’s appeal. In fact the sample of “blood” carrying her fingerprint proved negative. Professor Brinkman was unable to establish that it was blood (and earlier tests by prosecution scientists had also reported negative results.) The professor had been given a plastic bag labelled “blood sample, living room wall.” It contained a sheet of lined paper with many beige-coloured paint flakes up to a centimetre long. By visual inspection no staining could be seen, but microscopic examination showed weak brown stains in the form of smears. They did not show a positive result when tested for blood, and therefore no further DNA analyses were carried out to prove whose blood it might have been. This contradicts evidence given at the trial when it was said that the sample was blood but had not been proven to be human. Susan, who was a frequent visitor, could have left her fingerprint there days or weeks earlier, for she called almost every day.
The defence were fully aware of the significance of this. A report they commissioned from the UK Forensic Science Services advised: “It will be alleged that the fingerprint on the bedroom wall was in blood and inferred it was the deceased’s blood.” In court the claim was: “The prosecution’s case is that the marks were made by the defendant shortly after she killed the deceased.” Advice to the defence counsel dated November 19, 1992, was: “Mrs May’s defence can only be conducted properly if those who represent her are able to evaluate properly the significance of the expert evidence.” But no defence forensic reports were prepared prior to the trial. There is a most peculiar twist to this. One of the grounds for appeal was that the blood forming the fingerprint was Susan’s own; but because the evidence contradicted this, denying that the stain was blood, it could not be put forward to the court. The appeal judge remarked that “if it turned out to be the blood of someone other than the victim, that might give rise to a lurking doubt as to the safety of the conviction.” He added: “The tests showed that it was not the blood of Mrs May and there was a very considerable probability that it was the blood of Mrs Marchbank.” And so, because it did not prove to be blood at all, it becomes confirmation of guilt! There’s one law for all (but a different one for judges). They are always very loath to overturn a conviction because it shows how fallible the law can be: far better that an innocent woman should stay in jail for life.
There were other stains, all of them very faint, and it was agreed by all parties at the appeal that one large drop of blood could have created them all; they were so faint as to need chemical enhancement before testing. (There were no “hands dripping with blood,” as was alleged at the trial.) One stain, a thin smear, was taken from the wall after six days then sent for laboratory testing seven days after Susan had been arrested. The stain carrying her fingerprint was taken from the wall 42 days after the murder. She claims to be the victim of police targeting, evidence being tailored to suit the suspicion. What was not stated at the trial was that further along the same wall was another mark. As this was above a similar mark which had been covered by a towel, both were accepted by the police as having been there before the murder, yet both were identical to the mark which was regarded as being incriminating evidence against Susan.
WPC Roberts claimed that Susan had admitted to having argued with her aunt on the phone then slamming it down, on the evening before the murder. This statement was not recorded in the policewoman’s notes and only came to light after Susan’s arrest. She strongly denies having said it. Twelve months after the event, a prosecution witness “remembered” that Susan had told her of this argument. This witness had given a truthful account of what happened on the morning that Susan discovered her aunt’s body, but then went back into the witness box later to say that she had recalled the argument being mentioned, after she had read the previous night’s Oldham evening newspaper in which the defence team had criticised the police. She had been sitting in court while the issue was argued, which should have made any evidence she gave inadmissible. Why did the judge allow it? Her evidence was also seriously undermined by the fact that she worked with and was a friend of the mother of Det. Sergt Rimmer, whose conduct was under attack. Susan has made a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority alleging that Det. Sergt. Rimmer lied and committed perjury.
There are a whole raft of arguments which lead to the conclusion that Susan did not kill her aunt; some were available for use during the trial, but were not put forward. This caused much frustration for Michael Schwarz, of Bindman’s, and Michael Mansfield QC, the defence team for the appeal; the original legal team did not discover much of the evidence and therefore did not introduce it at the trial; the law declares this to be “evidence available pre-trial,” and therefore inadmissible for appeal. Unknown to Susan at the trial, 11 other suspects had been interviewed concerning the murder, but because the original defence team had failed to investigate or make use of this, it couldn’t be mentioned at the appeal. This is grossly unfair to anyone badly defended and a denial of justice.
Susan left the house at 9 p.m., knowing her aunt was alive. She found the body on returning the following morning at 9.45. The police pathologist, Dr Lawler, arrived five hours later and estimated that death had occurred over 17 hours previously at 9.45 p.m. or earlier. Another pathologist, preparing a report for the defence, preferred to say that Hilda had died at 10.15 p.m. or later; he was not asked to testify at the trial, the defence team deciding that the evidence was not necessary! These estimates of time taken for the body to cool were complicated because police and others called to the scene had been passing to and fro by the body for five hours, and reports as to whether or not it was covered are conflicting.
Hilda had been brutally beaten, punched, manually strangulated and suffocated with a pillow, in the downstairs room where she slept. There were three random marks on her face, but only the pathologist, Dr Lawler, perceived them as “scratches.” They were not discernible on photographs. Susan denied ever seeing these marks, and despite police allegations, their notebooks carried no reference to her alleged mention of them. A grey hair taken from the victim’s hand was listed as an exhibit. Four fibres, three colourless, one red, were also in the hand and do not match any of Susan’s clothing. These were not listed.
Until Susan was arrested the police acknowledged that there had been a burglary; later they said it did not appear to be a real burglary, on the grounds that no glove prints were found and nothing had been stolen. This could be regarded as exonerating Susan, for if she had tried to fake a burglary her claim would have been that money had been taken, whereas a burglar not intending murder would not choose to take away anything which might incriminate him. There was an unidentified fingerprint on the front porch door, unidentified footprints in the front porch, two unidentified footprints in the back porch, an unidentified footprint in an upstairs wardrobe, another unidentified fingerprint (remember this was the home of an 89-year-old woman who had few visitors). Also reported were unidentified people outside the house at about 1 a.m., and an unidentified red car outside the house at this same time.
A statement from a woman alleging that her brother had murdered Hilda was not filed with the evidence and therefore not available to the defence. It had been placed in another file relating to a burglary.
Scratching for evidence
A main plank in the case against Mrs Susan May (said the judge) was that she had spoken of scratches on her aunt’s face “that only the murderer would have known about.” The reference was in the notebook of Det. Sgt. Janet Rimmer, as produced at the trial. There is no other documentation of the conversation, which the sergeant claims took place on March 18, 1992, “out of earshot of anyone else.” It may not have been written up until September, and was not at any time entered in the police Holmes computer.
The day after conviction in May 1993 Mrs May lodged a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority saying that the evidence was untrue. She had never referred to scratches or even noticed them (they were so faint that to experts their existence was questionable). Some time before the appeal hearing, Mr Michael Mansfield QC requested that the notebook should be subjected to ESDA testing, to see whether the reference to scratches had been written in at a later date. The police were very evasive for months, and so the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs Barbara Mills, was contacted. Her eventual reply was that the notebook had been lost!
The PCA are still investigating the complaint. It was evidence written in at a later date which falsely convicted the Bridgwater Four.
PLEASE GET INVOLVED. If you wish to help Susan get justice, please contact the Friends of Susan May (c/o Dorothy Cooksey, 942 Oldham Road, Rochdale OL11 2BS ( 01706 644962) or Portia, The Croft, West Common, Bowness-on-Solway, Carlisle CA5 5AG (016973 51820).
Also see Alfie
For the latest information see www.susanmay.co.uk