On Trial

His trial at the Old Bailey commenced on 22 June 1953, on the charge of murdering his wife.  Christie’s defence counsel decided to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, and all the murders were brought in to support the insanity plea. The prosecution countered that his concealment of the crimes after the fact showed an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his acts, and the judge commanded the jury to consider only whether he was insane at the time at which he had killed his wife, which was the charge under consideration. The trial lasted just four days, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty, after deliberating for only an hour and twenty minutes. Christie was sentenced to death and hanged, just over two weeks later, at Pentonville Prison in London, on 15 July 1953.

standing trial

Duffy went on trial in February 1988 and was convicted of two murders and four rapes, although he was acquitted of raping and killing Anne Locke. He was given a minimum tariff of 30 years by the judge, later extended to a whole life tariff by the Home Secretary. This however was to be rescinded by a European Court of Human Rights ruling, that later removed the right of politicians to reset sentence tariffs.Duffy kept silent about having an accomplice until he decided he wanted to clear his conscience while undertaking a counselling session. He chose not to reveal any more information about his partner-in-crime until nearly 15 years later, in 1997, when he implicated Mulcahy. The police had suspected Mulcahy for years but had no evidence on which to convict him until Duffy’s confession.Duffy also admitted his involvement in the attack on Anne Locke, although he could not be re-tried under the double jeopardy rule.However, Mulcahy, a married father of four, had been tracked for several months by police prior to his arrest. DNA-tests, which were not yet in use during the original investigation, finally proved his involvement conclusively.

On 18 July 1949 four thousand people crowded into the small town of Lewes hoping to get a seat in the court. Mr Justice Humphries presided.Haigh had no money to pay for his defence so 'The News of the World' newspaper did a deal with him and offered to pay for his counsel if he would provide them with an exclusive. The 'Daily Mirror' newspaper was also found in contempt of court for emphasising Haigh being a vampire. The editor, Silvester Bolam, was sentenced to three months in prison. The paper also had to pay £10,000 in court costs.Haigh pleaded not guilty. The prosecution rested its case of deliberate premeditated murder for gain. Haigh’s defence counsel tried to rely on the issue of the defendant’s insanity, describing for the court how his ‘mental illness’ would have affected his ability to appreciate the morality of his acts.It was clear that Haigh was aware that what he was doing was wrong in the eyes of the law, as evidenced by his attempt to cover up his crimes. With that admission the defence collapsed.

There was only one issue to be decided, the question of the prisoner's sanity. The defence's psychiatrist failed to prove that Haigh’s judgment was impaired. Also, because Haigh had initially enquired about getting released from Broadmoor, it appeared as if he was thinking of using ‘insanity’ to get him off the hook.The prosecution declared that Haigh was simply a man who believed he had discovered the perfect crime, committed murder for gain and then pretended he was insane when he was caught.The jury were left to decide whether paranoia could be considered a mental disease or defect. It took them only fifteen minutes to come to a conclusion. Haigh was found guilty.The judge asked Haigh if he had anything to say for himself. Haigh cocked his head and said, "Nothing at all". Donning a black cap, the judge sentenced him to be hung until dead.

JUSTICE

"These were terrible, wicked crimes…The mutilation of the bodies is a serious aggravating feature of the murders. This defendant is controlling in his relationships with women and, chillingly, that control extends to deciding whether they should live or die."Mr Justice Saunders, sentencing Sweeney for the murders of Melissa Halstead and Paula Fields, 26 April 2011After his arrest in 2001, Sweeney is tried and found guilty at the Old Bailey for firearms offences and for the attempted murder of former girlfriend, Delia Balmer. He shows no emotion as he is led from the court after he is handed four life sentences.The journey back to the Old Bailey to stand trial for the murders of his girlfriends Melissa Halstead and Paula Fields would take another ten years. He is described by police as “one of the most dangerous men in Britain”.Sweeney denies two counts of murder and disposing of the body of Paula Fields.At the trial, the prosecutor Brian Altman QC, says the evidence reveals Sweeney’s obsessive and violent hatred of women and a pre-occupation with dismemberment.

The jury hear directly from those who knew Sweeney. When asked about her sister, Melissa Halstead, Chance O'Hara tells them via video link from California,“She told me if she ever went missing, that John Sweeney would have killed her.”Chillingly, Melissa also predicted Sweeney would dispose of her body and it would never be found.During the trial, Sweeney claims the police had ‘sexed up’ the evidence.The killer described his artwork in court as ‘nonsense’ and said he had spent the 1980s and 1990s taking drugs including LSD and cannabis.Sweeney’s defence did not convince the jury who find him guilty of both murders. The judge sentences him to a whole life tariff.

On 22 February 1993, the two boys appear at South Sefton Magistrates’ Court in Bootle to face their charges. They plead ‘not guilty’. A crowd of 300 people gather outside and as the vans leave a riot breaks out. This time the vans are decoys, but it raises questions. What would have happened if the crowd had got hold of one of the defendants?

Mob justice: 5 Serial killers who got a taste of their own medicine

Image: Shutterstock

The authorities having underestimated the public’s anger, relocates the trial to Preston. The trial begins on 1 November, at Preston Crown Court. A special platform is built to allow the defendants to see above the railings. Denise and Ralph Bulger announce they are expecting another baby, but Denise refuses to come to court. She’s vehement she won’t sit in the same vicinity as James’ killers. To this day there are still certain details of the case that she’s unaware of. Crucially the boys have now reached the age of 11 and are old enough to be convicted of murder. However, the jury needs to believe that both boys understand the seriousness of their crimes. To hide the identity of both boys they are referred to during the trial as Child A and Child B.

A special platform is built to allow the defendants to see above the railings

An injunction prevents the press from releasing any details about them. It emerges that on 12 February 1993, at around 12.30pm the boys had tried to abduct another little boy from the same shopping precinct. The mother spotted her son and daughter playing with two boys. While paying for her shopping she realised her son was missing. As she ran outside she saw the same two boys beckoning her son to follow them. Screaming his name, her son returned. During the trial she remembers overhearing Thompson and Venables say 'We’ll take one of those.' Venables mentioned in his police interview it was their intention to find a child and throw them into the path of an oncoming bus or taxi in the road outside the shopping centre. They wanted the death to look like an accident. This is a horrifying revelation and a coup for the prosecution. During the abduction of James Bulger the pair took him on a 2.5 mile walk of the city. It would take just over 1 hour and 15 minutes to complete. Thirty-eight witnesses are called to the stand to reveal what they saw at the various stages of James’ final journey.

What is a super injunction?

A super injunction prevents the publication of private information but also means media outlets cannot even publicise the existence of the super injunction itself

The prosecution wants to make it clear to the jury that they don’t need to rely on Thompson and Venables’ version of events. One witness, Malcolm Walton, says he’d seen a child matching James description near the Leeds and Liverpool Canal that looked to be in a distressed state. Another, Irene Hitman, who was taking her dog for a walk close to her home in Breeze Hill, also saw the same boy at about 4.40pm. She said the boy looked to be frightened with large lumps on his head. She told Thompson and Venables to take the boy home, but that wasn’t their intention. The witnesses all blame themselves for not interfering, but they weren’t to know the terrible crime that would unfold. The forensic evidence submitted to the jury is vital. Graham Jackson, a Home Office forensic scientist, matched blood samples from James to the blood found on Child B’s shoe. There was a one in a billion chance of it being an error.

Do child abductions happen more in summer?

From Sarah Payne to the Soham murders, kids seem to have been targeted in the period stretching from the end of spring to the end of summer.

Philip Rydeard, another forensic scientist, was able to match the pattern of bruising on James’ right cheek with features of the upper part of a shoe worn by Child A. They were black brogues that had distinctive stitching and an unusual arrangement of lacing rings. Light-blue paint-marks had been discovered on James’ anorak, hair, shoes and underpants. The same light-blue paint-marks were also found on Child A and Child B’s clothing including their jackets, trousers and shoes. Andy Mulley, a forensic scientist, pointed out to the jury that a paint mark on Child B’s sleeve might well have been James’ small hand-print. Despite their strong evidence the police are concerned that the jury will only return a verdict of manslaughter. The fact that the jury needs to be sure the boys know the severity of their crimes, is troubling the police, especially Detective Superintendent Albert Kirby.

After hearing three weeks of evidence the jury are asked to deliver their verdict. On 24 November 1993, taking just six hours, the jury find both Thompson and Venables guilty. Mr Justice Morland sentences them to be detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure for a minimum of eight years. 'Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, the killing of James Bulger was an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity.' Mr Justice Morland, before passing sentence November 1993.

Lengthy Trial

The trial of James Hanratty at Bedford Assizes was to last 21 days. At the time, this would make it the longest in British legal history.Hanratty is put on trial for the murder of Michael Gregsten. The procedure at the time is to prosecute someone for the most serious of his or her offences. So he doesn’t stand trial for the rape and attempted murder of Valerie Storie. But Valerie is the key witness of the prosecution and upon whom the entire prosecution depends.Among the prosecution team is Geoffrey Lane who would go onto to become Lord Chief Justice.The defence for Hanratty initially appears sound as they claim their client was 200 miles away in Liverpool on the day of the murder.But for some unknown reason, on the third day, Hanratty then claims he was in a bed and breakfast in Rhyl, North Wales:“He remembered staying in the attic room. He gave an exact layout of the hotel, and he remembers that the bathroom had...a green bathroom suite. The hotel was traced. The landlady recalled a man fitting Hanratty’s description coming on the night of the murder. The hotel plan that Hanratty had constructed matched exactly. There was even a green bathroom suite. But, of course, by this time, he’d cut his own throat – he’d changed his alibi mid-stream.”John Eddleston

“He was not a man whose first thought was to tell the truth.”Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Hanratty family lawyer and campaigner of 40 yearsThis change of alibi and Valerie’s positive identification doubly damns Hanratty.Valerie is the key witness against him, Valerie Storie, is brought into court on a stretcher. She gives her evidence from a wheelchair. The jury are sympathetic to everything she says. But the facts are that she picked out the wrong man on the first identity parade and could only have seen the killer for the briefest of moments in the worst of all conditions.And Hanratty is a convicted criminal - a petty criminal with a baby face demeanour admittedly - but still a criminal.And on top of Valerie’s identification, James Trower and John Skillet swear on oath they’d seen Hanratty driving Michael Gregsten’s car.“The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you’re not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they’re lying because they’re not lying. They’re telling the truth as they see it.”Michael Sherrard, Defence, interviewed in 2002

There was no forensic evidence against Hanratty save that of his blood group being the same as the murderer. But it was a common blood group shared by millions. Nothing linked Hanratty to the scene of the crime. He didn’t know the two victims and had no logical motive for abducting them.MEAT, SALAD, PEACHES AND CREAMAt 11:22am on 17 February 1962, the jury file out to consider their verdict.The judge refuses their request for a transcript of the proceedings. But he does give them a list of the witnesses and the 136 exhibits in the case.The jury eat cold meat and salad and peaches and cream for their lunch as they chewed over whether Hanratty should live or die.After six hours the jury return to ask the judge for a definition of ‘reasonable doubt’.At ten past nine that evening, Hanratty watches anxiously as the jury comes back into the main courtroom.They pronounce James Hanratty guilty of murder.They have taken just ten hours to reach that verdict.The judge asks Hanratty if he has anything to say:“I’m innocent my Lord. I will appeal.”With that the judge dons the black cloth and condemns Hanratty to death.“Sherrard come down, and he was as white as a sheet, and he said to me mother, ‘Sorry – he’s been found guilty.’ So Mother collapsed, father was...It’s just like, if something’s blew up...you’d been in a, in a room with a bomb in it...for about 15, 20 minutes, you didn’t know where you were.”Michael Hanratty, James’ brotherThe defence puts forward an appeal and a petition gathers more than 90,000 signatures.The appeal is dismissed on 9 March.“Honestly, dad – I had nothing to do with it...They set me up.”Hanratty to his father“Mick, I want you to carry on with this...the truth will come out one day.”Hanratty to his brotherJames’ youngest brother Richard is only 15 and so had been considered too young to attend the trial. He is now not even allowed to say goodbye before James goes to the gallows.END LEGAL MURDERPlacard of protestor outside Bedford PrisonJust six weeks after being sentenced, at 8am on 4 April 1962, 25-year-old James Hanratty is hanged.“...it was dreadful – like a nightmare. I mean, it’s bad enough, if you believed he’d done it, but when you believe he didn’t do it, that makes it twice as hard.”Michael HanrattyJames is one of the last people to be executed by the state before the abolition of capital punishment.The decision by MPs to abolish the death penalty in 1965 is said to have been influenced by concerns over whether Hanratty should have died.

Not suceide but Murder

The trial commenced at Chelmsford crown court on 14 October 1986. Bamber’s girlfriend Julie Mugford was the star witness.

She alleged that Bamber had made murderous threats against his father. She told the court that Bamber had made the reference that his "old" father, "mad" mother and sister had "nothing to live for". It was then that he spoke of arson and later a desire to hire a hitman.

There were two explanations for the killings. The first was the prosecution case that Bamber entered the Essex farmhouse owned by his mother and father at night and shot the five members of his family with a legally held rifle.

Sheila’s blood was in the silencer of the murder weapon, proving that she could not have shot herself then put it in a cupboard downstairs.

The second explanation, put forward by the defence, was that Sheila, who had a history of psychiatric illness, had shot the four members of her family with the rifle and then committed suicide.

In the initial stages the police thought it likely that the second explanation was correct. Some officers, however, thought that some of the findings were inconsistent with this explanation and members of the Bambers’ extended family did not believe that it was consistent with their knowledge of Sheila.

Despite mounting evidence, Bamber remained confident that he would leave court a free man. However, the jury at Chelmsford crown court delivered a guilty verdict by ten to two.

Bamber was handed five life sentences, with a recommendation that he stay in prison for at least 25 years without parole. After the sentencing, Mr Justice Drake said: "I find it difficult to foresee whether it will ever be safe to release someone who can shoot two little boys as they lie asleep in their beds.”

He also noted the problems that had taken place during initial enquiries and throughout the main police investigations.

The first major error in this case was the police allowing the house be cleared shortly after the killings. The house itself had been cleaned and the carpets and bedclothes burned on instruction of Bamber.Bamber’s fingerprints were eventually discovered on the bible and gun left on Sheila’s body, but were missed during the initial inquiries.

It was also revealed that while Bamber had said that he received a panic-stricken phone call from his father, Neville had actually been shot in the throat in the upstairs of the house and couldn’t have made such a call.This catalogue of blunders led the trial judge Mr Justice Drake to comment “The perfunctory examination is only explicable because the police thought there was nothing to solve.”

Ridgway finally stands trial

On 15 August 1982, a fisherman in his rubber dingy on the Green River thinks he sees a submerged female mannequin. He tries to fish it out but instead, falls into the water. In a cold, sharp instant, he realises his mistake as not one, but two dead women float past him.He swims back to the safety of the riverbank and rings the police. They cordon off the area, and discover a third murdered woman in nearby grassland. A pair of blue trousers is knotted round her neck. Her name is Opal Mills and she was just 16. She has been murdered less than 24 hours ago.The other two bodies have also been strangled. Both also have pyramid shaped rocks lodged in their vaginal cavities. (The ‘reason’ this was done is still unknown)These killings were linked to another female strangle victim recently found in the Green River.Within just six months, six killings are linked together as the work of one killer.A massive taskforce is formed and specialists such as FBI profiler John Douglas are called in. But these are the early days of serial killer hunting and the vast information they process is so overwhelming that civilian volunteers have to help out. Inevitably, the results are haphazard.The police focus on prostitutes, the main profession of the victims so far.Two separate prostitutes claim a man in a blue and white truck abducted and raped them and tried to kill them. A suspect is picked up who confesses, but to these two attacks, not to the Green River killings. Then a taxi driver is investigated because he fits the profile suggested by FBI man, John Douglas.Then, on 26 September, less than two months after the first victims were found, the decomposing remains of a 17 year old prostitute named Gisele A. Lovvorn are discovered. She’s been strangled with a pair of men’s black socks. And her blonde hair has been dyed black.

Over the following nine months, 14 more females disappear, many of them prostitutes. The last of these, Marie Malvar, is last seen on 30 April 1983. Her boyfriend sees her arguing with a potential customer.It’s the last time he will ever see her.But he later identifies the truck they drove off in and follows it to a house. The police interview the owner, one Gary Ridgway. Ridgway denies ever seeing her, and the police believe him.They never connect this to reports of a pockmarked face man in a pick-up truck seen driving off a prostitute called Kimi Kai Pitsor, another victim of the Green River killer.As more women disappear, the police even engage the local Boy Scouts to help search for more bodies.One scout finds a skeleton covered with rubbish.More police are assigned to the case but this seems to only increase the discovery of more bodies. The first of 1984 is the skeletal remains of Denise Louise Plager. As a girl, Denise had been adopted and spent time in various institutions. She later attempted suicide, became a mother, and addicted to drugs, finally entering prostitution to pay for her habit. She was tragically easy prey.Nine more bodies are discovered over the next two months.But where the victims were picked up and dumped showed the police the killer’s hunting ground.The serial killer Ted Bundy offers to further profile the killer but even his insights can’t stop the death toll rising.A decade after forming, an investigation that’s accumulated four thousand pieces of physical evidence, winds up at a cost of $15m, and with no result.

One way ticket to Panama

The trial began on 20 January 1964 at Aylesbury courthouse before Justice Edmund Davies.During proceedings Jack Mills, the train driver, took the stand. Still recovering from the effects of his head injury, he recounted the episode in detail, giving attention to the injuries he had sustained at the hands of the robbers.Due to the fact that Biggs had previously been in prison, his presence in court was deemed as breaching impartiality and he was sent back to prison. John Daly craftily had his lawyer make a submission to the court that the Monopoly set, which belonged to him, could have had his fingerprints on it before it was taken to the farm. The jury agreed and Daly was acquitted.On 23 March 1964, the jury retired for two days to consider their verdicts. Tom Wisbey, Roy James, Charlie Wilson, Bob Welch, Jim Hussey and Gordon Goody were all found guilty of robbery. Sentencing was delayed until after Biggs' retrial, which was set for 8 April 1964.Finally sentencing was passed. All the men, including Biggs, each received between 24 and 30 years in prison. 

Most of the gang were sent to Brixton prison. Biggs went to Wandsworth in south London. On 12 August 1964, while Biggs was thinking of escape, Charlie Wilson absconded from Winson Green prison in Birmingham, with the assistance of three strangers. After the escape, security surrounding Biggs and the others was increased.On Thursday 8 July 1965 Biggs and fellow prisoner, Eric Flower, exploited the lax security around their exercise period and escaped over the perimeter wall when rope ladders were thrown over. The plan had been arranged for some time on the outside.Biggs and Flower were hidden in various parts of the country for several months before being smuggled across the English Channel to Antwerp in Belgium. There Biggs underwent painful plastic surgery to hide his identity, as well as being given money, new passports and clothes.Travelling to Australia under the alias Terrence Furminger, he was reunited with his family and Eric Flower. He spent several years hiding out in various places in the country.In 1968 Bruce Reynolds, Charlie Wilson and Jimmy White were all arrested and each given long terms in jail. ‘Buster’ Edwards eventually gave himself up to the police. Biggs was the only member of the gang who remained free.Biggs, realising the net was closing in, scraped some money together, borrowed a passport and booked a passage to Panama. Once there he took a flight to Rio de Janeiro via Caracas, Venezuela.On 11 March 1970, Biggs landed in Rio as ‘Michael Haynes’ and he gradually settled into life in Rio. He still kept in constant touch with his wife and family and led a colourful eventful life, with many girlfriends. Whilst in exile he also received tragic news that his eldest son, Nicky, had been killed in a car accident.In May 2001, after 31 years in Brazil, Biggs, aged 71, returned to England. He was a very ill man, having suffered several strokes, but wanted to return even if it meant being re-imprisoned for his crimes. If he was expecting pity on the part of the law, he was sadly mistaken when he was arrested and later imprisoned despite a media campaign by family and friends calling for the Government to offer clemency.However, on 6 August 2009, with his health in decline, Biggs was released from prison on compassionate grounds.

The Doctor has his day

Shipman’s trial commenced in Preston Crown Court on 5 October 1999. Attempts by his defence council to have Shipman tried in three separate phases, that is, cases with physical evidence, cases without and the Grundy case (where the forgery differentiated it from other cases), as well as to have damning evidence relating to Shipman’s fraudulent accumulation of morphine and other drugs, were thrown out, and the trial proceeded on the sixteen charges included in the indictment.The prosecution asserted that Shipman had killed the fifteen patients because he enjoyed exercising control over life and death, and dismissed any claims that he had been acting compassionately, as none of his victims were suffering a terminal illness.Angela Woodruff, Kathleen Grundy’s daughter, appeared as first witness. Her forthright manner, and account of her unremitting determination to get to the truth impressed the jury, and attempts by Shipman’s defence to undermine her were largely unsuccessful.Next up, the government pathologist led the court through the gruesome post mortem findings, where morphine toxicity was the cause of death in most instances.Thereafter, fingerprint analysis of the forged will showed that Kathleen Grundy had never handled the will, and her signature was dismissed by a handwriting expert as a crude forgery.

A police computer analyst then testified how Shipman had altered his computer records to create symptoms that his dead patients never had, in most cases within hours of their deaths.As the trial progressed on to other victims and the accounts of their relatives, the pattern of Shipman’s behaviour became much clearer. A lack of compassion, disregard for the wishes of attending relatives, and reluctance to attempt to revive patients were bad enough, but another fraud also came to light. Shipman would pretend to call the emergency services in the presence of relatives, then cancel the call out when the patient was discovered to be dead. Telephone records showed that no actual calls were made.Finally, evidence of his drug hoarding was introduced, with false prescribing to patients who did not require morphine, over-prescribing to others who did, as well as proof of his visits to the homes of the recently deceased to collect up unused drug supplies for “disposal”.Shipman’s haughty demeanour throughout the trial did nothing to assist his defence in painting a picture of a dedicated healthcare professional of the old fashioned variety, always putting the needs of others above his own. Despite their attempts, his arrogance and constantly changing stories, when caught out in obvious lies, did nothing to endear him to the jury.Following a meticulous summation by the judge, and a caution to the jury that no one had actually witnessed Shipman kill any of his patients, the jury were sufficiently convinced by the testimony and evidence presented, and unanimously found Shipman guilty on all charges; 15 counts of murder and one of forgery, on the afternoon of 31 January 2000.The judge passed fifteen life sentences, as well as a four-year sentence for forgery, which he commuted to a 'whole life' sentence, effectively removing any possibility of parole. Shipman was incarcerated at Durham Prison.

Even arrest and custody didn’t separate the couple. Given the same solicitor, the couple met together and were able to exchange notes.

In these they would detail sick fantasies. In one, they encouraged the throwing of acid onto the face of a grieving relative of one of their victims’. Brady was so deluded by this point that he looked forward to his moment in the public eye.

“Brady regarded the courtroom as something that he could almost preside over. His over confidence and narcissism actually made him think that everyone would believe what he said.”

-Dr David Holmes, Criminal Psychologist

Hindley and Brady were brought to trial at Chester Assizes on 27 April 1966 where they pleaded "not guilty" to all charges. Their tactic was to blame David Smith for everything.When the 13 minute tape of Lesley Downey’s torture and pointless cries for mercy were played in the court, even hardened policemen broke down in tears.When asked his reaction to the anguished cries tape recorded Brady described them as ‘unusual.’

Asked afterwards what happened when they’d finished taking pornographic photos of Lesley, Brady said ‘we’ got dressed. This one slip fatally implicated Hindley.The trial lasted 15 days.

WICKED BEYOND BELIEF

On 6 May 1966, Brady was found guilty of the murders of Lesley Ann Downey, John Kilbride and Edward Evans.Judge Fenton Atkinson imposed three concurrent life sentences on the 28-year-old Brady and described him as ‘wicked beyond belief’. Brady only escaped the death sentence by a few months as the death penalty had only been abolished four weeks before their arrest.

The killer couple were both jailed for life, with a minimum recommended tariff of 30 years. Brady would not be seen in public again for another 46 years.

His and Hindley’s crimes would become the benchmark by which other acts of evil would be judged.

The trials of Huntley and Carr opened to worldwide media interest at the Old Bailey on 5th November 2003. Huntley was faced with two murder charges, while Carr was charged with perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender. The prosecution entered exhaustive evidence linking Huntley to the girls and three weeks into the trial, despite previously having denied any knowledge of their murders, Huntley suddenly changed his story, admitting that the girls had died in his house, but he claimed that both deaths were accidental.

The defence called Huntley as their first witness, and he described how he had accidentally knocked Holly Wells into the bath, whilst helping her control a nosebleed, and had accidentally suffocated Chapman when she started to scream, and he had tried to silence her. On cross-examination the prosecution described the latest version of his story as “rubbish”.

Carr's testimony began three days later, when it was claimed that she had no control over the events on the day of the murder, and that had she known of Huntley’s murderous intent, she would never have lied to protect him. Following her testimony, the prosecution presented their closing statements, claiming that both Carr and Huntley were convincing liars, and also that Huntley’s motive for murdering the girls was sexual, although physical evidence of assault was impossible to prove.

After five days of deliberation, the jury rejected Huntley’s claims that the girls had died accidentally and on 17th December 2003, returned a majority verdict of guilty on both charges. Huntley was sentenced to life imprisonment, but there was a delay on the setting of his tariff, as the 2003 Criminal Justice Act came into force one day after his conviction.

This new act passed the decision on how long a prisoner given a life sentence would serve from the Home Secretary to judges. At a hearing on 29th September 2005, a judge ruled that the Soham killings did not meet the criteria for a whole-life tariff, which was now reserved for sexual, sadistic or abduction cases only under the new act, and imposed a 40 year prison sentence, which offers Huntley very little hope for release.

On 14th September 2005, Huntley had been attacked by another inmate at Belmarsh Prison, and scalded with boiling water, which prevented him from attending this sentencing hearing. Carr was cleared of assisting an offender, but found guilty of perverting the course of justice, and jailed for three-and-a-half years, but she was freed under police protection in May 2004, as she had already spent 16 months on remand, pending the trial. Carr was given a new identity upon her release and on 24th February 2005, was granted an indefinite order protecting her new identity by the High Court, on the basis that her life would be in danger were her new identity to be revealed.

April Jones: UK's largest missing person search

In October of 2012, a little girl from Machynlleth, Powys, Wales, vanished after being sighted willingly climbing into a car near her home

Going back to santa cruz

On Easter Sunday, 1973, Edmund Kemper flees. He makes it to Colorado but realises that with the killing of his mother, it is over. On just a practical level, there’s little chance that this murder won’t be linked to him. So, he puts in a call to the police back in Santa Cruz and confesses. At first, no one believes him. Like many serial killers, Kemper’s fascination with authority means he’s on friendly terms with many of his local police and they think it a prank by their friend, ‘Big Ed’.The FBI profiler John Douglas later observed that Kemper liked to ‘frequent bars and restaurants known to be police hangouts and strike up conversations. This made him feel like an insider, gave him the vicarious thrill of a policeman’s power. But also, once the Co-Ed Killer was on the rampage, he had a direct line into the progress of the investigation, allowing him to anticipate their next move’.

Kemper sits patiently by the phone until one of them decides to come out and arrest him.His confession convinces them.Kemper pleads insanity but at his trial, like at his last psychiatrists’ interview, he’s considered legally sane. After three weeks, he’s convicted of eight counts of murder. The judge asks what Kemper thinks would be the appropriate punishment for his crimes. Kemper replies...‘Death by torture’Instead, he receives a sentence of life in prison and is sent to the California Medical Facility State Prison, for observation.

'Big Ed': Edmund Kemper, the 6ft 8in serial killer

He killed both his grandparents, his own mother and 7 other women in a variety of sick and depraved ways

case never closed

Suspects testified before the 1949 Grand Jury hearings. This Jury also investigated the possibility of police corruption in the case and requested the 1950 Grand Jury to continue the investigation. Under the advice of District Attorney Fred Henderson, it was agreed that the case would never be assumed by the District Attorney’s office. All evidence and files would remain with the LAPD Homicide Division and they would be issued with progress reports. The 1950 Grand Jury seemed to have lost interest in the case and by October 1950, had stopped issuing progress reports. Chief H. Leo Stanley advised closing the investigation but the unsolved case has remained an open file to this day.

Insanity is finally over

Rose West went on trial on 3 October 1995 in the glare of media frenzy. Witnesses including her daughter Anne Marie and Caroline Owens, one of their first victims, testified to her participation in sexual assaults on young women. Her defence counsel tried to argue that evidence of assault was not evidence of murder but, when Rose testified on her own behalf, her violent nature and dishonesty became clear to the jury, and they unanimously found her guilty on ten separate counts of murder on 22 November 1995. She was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in jail.

A long sentence

In the end it didn’t matter about proving Berkowitz’s state of mind and whether he was responsible for his actions, as he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 365 years in prison.In 1979, Berkowitz was interviewed by FBI veteran Robert Ressler in Attica Prison. Ressler was sceptical about the ‘demon’ claims made by Berkowitz and, after several visits, the prisoner admitted that the real reason why he went out and killed was because of his deep-rooted resentment against women caused by the mother who rejected him. This psychological hang-up was compounded by the fact that he was unable to develop successful relationships with women in general.Considering that his biological mother showed no indication of rejecting him when he found her again as a teenager, the claim appears to be unsubstantiated. But on further probing Berkowitz did admit to deriving sexual pleasure from the killings, experiencing a form of erotic stimulation during and after shooting a victim, which often resulted post-killing masturbation.Most disturbingly of all he even admitted wanting to attend the funerals of his victims but was afraid he would be caught by the police. Now middle-aged and serving his life sentence in Sullivan Correctional Facility in Fallsburg, N.Y., Berkowitz like many other prisoners guilty of inhuman crimes, demonstrates remorse at irregular parole boards for his cruel actions that destroyed so many lives.

Planned or Spontaneous

“...this was supposedly carried out in a drunken rage. You’d expect the method to be the same for each of them. But the fact that he used different methods suggests that he had time in between each of the killings to consider what he was going to do next. And that implies some kind of pre-meditation in this case.”Dr Elizabeth Yardley, CriminologistOn Monday 16 April 1973, David McGreavy made a 10 minute appearance at Worcester Magistrates Court. He was charged with the murders of the three Ralph children.The public gallery was packed with people, many of them women. This was most unusual for a court hearing at that time:“...there were women with prams outside the court, and I think if they could have got at him, they would have lynched him.”Tony Bishop, Court Reporter 

McGreavy appeared in court ten times for remand hearings. He was granted legal aid.On Thursday June 28 1973, nine weeks after the killings, he appeared at Worcester Magistrates court.“He looked very down...He looked at the public gallery occasionally...I think he was obviously resigned to his fate...there was a definite atmosphere there. The police were pretty anxious that he wasn’t in court for too long. They shepherded him out quickly – they didn’t bring him in till the last minute, till the magistrates were ready, and they took him out straight away.”Tony BishopSome of the injuries McGreavy inflicted were so horrific, the prosecution didn’t detail them. But with no defence plea, no motive and with not even a plea of diminished responsibility, the hearing lasted just eight minutes:“In some ways, it was quite surreal, because...a murder of this horrific nature was one where you might have expected a lengthy hearing. You might have expected a lot of material to come out in the cross-examination of the accused. But, of course, because he pleaded guilty, it was over pretty quickly. And it was a slightly anti-climatic hearing in one respect. You didn’t have the high drama of denials that you’d come across, for example, in the Moors Murder case – it’s not edged on the national psyche in the way that Brady and Hindley are.”Paul Connew, Ex-Editor Sunday MirrorOn Monday 30 July 1973, David McGreavy was sentenced for the murders of Paul, Dawn and Samantha Ralph.In the same year that McGreavy killed, he was tried, sentenced and sent down.Mr Justice Simon, the High Court judge said they were ‘exceptionally horrific crimes.’ He said McGreavy should serve at least twenty years before release was even considered.The only reason McGreavy offered for the killing was that Samantha was crying for her bottle.So sickeningly sadistic and senseless were the crimes that many expected him to die behind bars.But McGreavy was determined not to let that happen...

justice at last

His trial commenced on 24 October 1983. Nilsen was charged with six counts of murder and two charges of attempted murder. He pleaded “Not Guilty” to all charges, citing diminished responsibility due to mental defect.The prosecution relied primarily on the extensive interview notes that resulted from his arrest, which took over four hours to read verbatim to the jury, as well as the testimony of the three victims, Paul Nobbs, Douglas Stewart, and Carl Stotter, who had managed to escape, all of whom he had attempted to strangle.Despite attempts by Nilsen’s defence to undermine the testimony of these victims, by introducing evidence of their sexual encounters with Nilsen, their harrowing accounts inflicted serious damage on the defence case.

Physical evidence included photographs of the murder scenes, as well as the chopping board used to dissect the victims, and the cooking pot used to boil the skulls, feet and hands (which is now on display at the Black Museum at Scotland Yard).The defence case relied primarily on the testimony of two psychiatrists, Dr. James MacKeith and Dr. Patrick Gallwey. MacKeith described Nilsen’s troubled childhood, inability to express feelings, and the resulting separation of mental function from physical behaviour, which affected his own sense of identity, and implied an impaired responsibility on the part of Nilsen. Under intense cross-examination by the prosecution, however, MacKeith was forced to retract his judgement about diminished responsibility.The second psychiatrist, Gallwey, diagnosed Nilsen as suffering from a “False Self Syndrome”, characterised by outbreaks of schizoid disturbances which made him incapable of premeditation, but most of his testimony was extremely technical, even giving the judge cause to question Gallwey’s complex diagnosis.The prosecution called Dr Paul Bowden as rebuttal psychiatrist who had spent considerable time with Nilsen, finding no evidence for much of the testimony put forth by the defence psychiatrists. He stated that Nilsen was manipulative, with some signs of mental abnormality, but nevertheless still cognisant of, and responsible for, his actions.During the summing up, the judge dispensed with the majority of the psychiatric jargon that had perplexed the jury, by instructing them that a mind can be evil, without being abnormal.The jury retired on 3 November 1983, but were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The following day, the judge agreed to accept a majority verdict and, at 4.25 p.m., they delivered a verdict of “Guilty” on all six counts of murder.The judge sentenced Dennis Nilsen to life in prison, without eligibility for parole for at least 25 years.

Fittingly for the media savvy Rader, he makes his first court appearance via a video link from his cell on 1st March 2005. He pleads not guilty to the ten murder charges. Rader says that he will represent himself in these actions, much like Ted Bundy had done.

The killer who defended himself: The unique and very public trial of Ted Bundy

Ted Bundy's reign of terror ended in a very public trial when he was found guilty of first-degree murder

Two of the BTK killer’s victims filed civil lawsuits seeking damages from Rader. Their motive isn’t monetary but is intended to ensure that he can never profit from any media interviews. In June, Rader changes his plea to guilty. Superficially, he appeared unusual amongst serial killer psychopaths in that in pleading guilty and expressing remorse, he showed a degree of empathy and sympathy, which is almost, by definition, missing in such mass murderers.

“I have a lot of remorse. I’m very sorry for them. It is something I wouldn’t want to happen to my family.”

Of course, whatever he says he feels, his cold, clinical, calculating killing of "projects" shows his true character. It’s probable that his apparent remorse is no less of an act than when he dressed as a repair man or told his victim’s stories. All lies intended to achieve the result he wants. And in reality, Rader doesn’t accept responsibility for his crimes. He blames his split personality, a monster in his mind, or a demonic presence forcing his hand.

On 26th July 2005, Rader’s wife of more than thirty years ends the marriage and the judge, understandably, waves the usual waiting period to grant an immediate divorce. She can take some small consolation from the fact that if Rader had not been married, he would have been free to stalk and kill much, much, more.

His sentencing in August was the first time for relatives of his victims to confront him, but it also revealed more gruesome details. Rader threw his last victim’s body under a bridge only to return later. Despite decomposition occurring, Rader placed a feminine mask over her dead face and photographed the body. He later wore the mask himself with a blonde wig and then took self portraits of himself tied to a chair.

How to talk about serial killers like Peter Sutcliffe?

The wider question of how we should shape the discourse over such crimes remains a thorny one

On 12th August 2005, he does an interview with NBC in which he says, "I had what they called torture chambers. And to relieve your sexual fantasies you have to go to the kill...I don’t think it was actually the person that I was after, I think it was the dream. I know that’s not really nice to say about a person, but they were basically an object. They were just an object. That’s all they were.”

Half way through the month he gives testimony about his first murders and an insight into his belief system. He says he believes the Otero family will serve him in the afterlife as slaves. He believes the same will happen to Shirley Relford. He also adds that he would have killed her daughter and the other children if the phone hadn’t rung and hastened his exit.

Wichita Police Lieutenant Ken Landwehr said that the only thing that made Rader different from other serial killers was the long periods of time between some of the killings. Apart from that, there was nothing special about him. When family members of his victims call him a coward, Rader appears upset.

When Rader delivered a 20 minute statement, it was later likened to an Oscar acceptance speech. He tearfully admitted his faults, thanked his supporters, and sickeningly compared his position with that of his victims. Thankfully, many of the relatives of those victims had only come to have their say to the judge and left before having to endure any more of Rader.The judge sentenced Rader to endure 175 years.He is currently in El Dorado Correctional Facility.

Why Do Serial Killers Have Fans?

Looking at the reasons behind why serial killers and rapists amass legions of fans and female followers

The French Connection

Hume’s trial took place on the 18 January 1950 at the Old Bailey. Hume stuck to his story that he had not seen Setty on the day of his murder. He also maintained that the bloodstains had come about because of the parcels having been in his flat. It was left to the jury to make up its own mind on this and the story Hume stuck to that he had carried out an errand for three smugglers.

The defence managed to find a witness who admitted that had worked in Paris with a gang of car smugglers. His description of the men and some of the names seemed to correlate to Hume’s story. The jury were left to ponder whether the gang really existed and that Hume had been an unwilling accomplice.

The Judge, Mr Justice Sellers addressed the jury and laid out the various facts and assumptions they had to make. Could Hume’s story about the three men delivering parcels containing Setty’s body parts be true, especially when the men had no idea when Hume’s wife and child would be at home? Hume also claimed that one of the men pointed a gun at him, but why asked the judge would these men trust someone they had only met a few days before? Finally, he reminded the jury that if there was any doubt in the jurors’ minds about what happened then they were compelled to return a verdict of not guilty.

On the 20 January, 1950, the jury retired at noon after the judge’s last words. It took less than three hours for an astonishing verdict to be announced; that they all failed to agree. Hume himself was baffled and elated that he had not heard the word ‘guilty’ for he knew he was now not to hang.

After twelve more jury members were sworn in, the one indictment of which Hume was found guilty was of being an accessory after the fact to murder. When Hume was asked if pleaded ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ to this charge the canny murderer replied in the affirmative.

Hume was sentenced to just twelve years in prison.

The Horrid Truth

'I, er, killed him with a plastic bag. I put that over his head and killed him with that.' Colin Ireland.

With a full confession on 19 August 1993, no trial was needed.

'He was calm relaxed, you know he didn’t raise his voice.' Albert Patrick.

'He barely come to, it was quite quick, I throttled him with a noose and he hardly struggled. Some for instance Walker, took longer.' Colin Ireland.

'He was very factual about his acts, as if he was describing someone else’s activities. Absolutely no compassion at all... I didn’t detect much hatred...it was just matter of fact, like, "I went down the shops and bought this. Went into the flat and killed him." It was just very matter of fact.' Martin Finnegan.

In Ireland’s full and frank confession to all his crimes, he emphasised four particular points.

Firstly, that he had not been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the murders.

Secondly, that he was not gay or bisexual.

Thirdly, that he had not undressed or engaged in any sexual activity with his victims and had gained no sexual thrill from the murders.

Fourthly, that he held no grudge against the gay community and that he had chosen gay men as his victims simply because they were easy targets.'It might as well have been women.'

He claimed it was extreme male deviancy that triggered his anger, which had begun with his brushes with paedophiles in his youth. He saw himself as ridding society of vermin and craved recognition as a superior person. Psychologists saw the strategic placing of items related to childhood on the victim’s body – the teddy bears, the doll and the cat – as symbolic of Ireland’s abhorrence at the loss of innocence.

On 20 August 1993, at the Old Bailey, London, Ireland was charged with the murders of Walker, Dunn, Bradley, Collier and Spiteri. Ireland was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the five killings.

'To take one life is an outrage. To take five is carnage. You expressed the desire to be regarded as a serial killer. That must be matched by your detention for life...' Old Bailey judge sentencing in December 1993.

COLIN WHO?

But ironically, in confessing and pleading guilty to all his murders, he avoided the publicity that accompanied the trials of Peter Sutcliffe, Fred West and Ian Brady and which helped ensure their infamy.

Ireland will probably not be forgotten because of his self-conscious methodology and victimology. But unlike the killers he hoped to emulate and equal, he will more likely be more of a footnote.

'He wanted to have his place in history as a serial killer. That is sadly what he achieved.' Martin Finnegan

Ireland’s name was on the last published list of whole life tariff prisoners, meaning that he would stay in prison for the rest of his natural life.

'There is an understandable human reluctance to imagine that anybody who can commit crimes of this gravity and this number cannot be normal by any cannon that you or I or any other person might understand. The awful truth I’m afraid is that there are people who are just plain bad and Colin Ireland was undoubtedly one of them.' John Nutting, Prosecutor.

JUSTICE

On 28 May 2010 Griffiths goes to Bradford magistrates for his first court appearance. The day before a tabloid had referred to him as the ‘crossbow cannibal’. So when the magistrate asks for his name, Griffiths replies, ‘the crossbow cannibal’. He’s fully aware that all the tabloids will splash this across their front pages. And they do.And when the court asks for his address, he says, ‘Em, here I guess.’On the morning of 21 December 2010 Griffiths, dressed in a grey tracksuit, stands in the dock, for his trial of Leeds Crown Court. He is surrounded by five security guards. The Judge, Mr Justice Openshaw tells the court that the defendant’s mental health has been carefully examined and there’s ‘no question that he was fit to plead.’Each of the families have heard from the police what they suspected had happened to their daughters. Now, they have to endure listening to what he did to the others.

Susan Rushworth’s body has still not been found, but her DNA, found in bloodstains on his bathroom wall and in his bedroom link her to Griffiths.It’s revealed that forensics found DNA on the cooker belonging to Shelley Armitage and Susan Rushworth. It is likely that he cooked them before consuming them. It’s reported he told officers that he ate the flesh of Suzanne Blamires raw, adding, ‘that’s part of the magic.’Griffiths shows contempt and utter disdain for the whole proceedings often folding his arms and scowling.The trial lasts just two hours and 20 minutes because he pleads guilty to all charges.The QC of Griffiths tries to argue the system is at fault as his client was diagnosed as psychopathic nearly 20 years before.This mitigating factor doesn’t stop Griffiths being given three life sentences. The judge says he will never be released.

"A Narcissist"

Nine months after his arrest, Blackwell’s trial began in June 2005 at the Liverpool Crown Court, presided over by judge Mr Justice Royce, with prosecutor David Steer QC.A team of five psychiatrists examined Blackwell and unanimously agreed that he had Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). People with this disorder typically fantasise about unlimited brilliance, power and success and often fly into an inappropriate rage if their fantasies are challenged or threatened. They are very selfish, with a strong sense of entitlement, needing constantly to be praised and treated like royalty by everyone. The reason NPD sufferers are so convincing to others is that part of them believes their inflated fantasies themselves.Steer described Blackwell as “a highly abnormal young man”, adding that an NPD diagnosis was unusual for someone of his age. He also stated that there was nothing to indicate that the murders were premeditated.

In a letter that was read out in court, Blackwell had written, “For every moment of every day I wish I could turn back the hands of time. I eternally long to be a little boy again at a time when everyone really loved each other, when we could have a happy time and be a family once more…I miss them more than anything in the world. The guilt will punish and haunt me for 24 hours a day for the rest of my life.”In an attempt to find a motive for the killings, Steer suggested Blackwell’s parents may have discovered his plans to holiday in America with his girlfriend and tried to stop him. This may have induced a rage that drove him to murder. However, there was only evidence to attest to the fact that Blackwell’s parents were loving and supportive of him.Due to Blackwell suffering from severe NPD, and despite the fact that, these days, cases of ‘diminished responsibility’ are extremely rare, Judge Royce accepted the plea to drop the charges of murder in favour of manslaughter.Blackwell admitted manslaughter with diminished responsibility and on 29 June 2005 was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Judge added that, in his opinion, Blackwell would never be fit for release.

The First Trunk Murder Trial

Robinson’s defence was that Bonati had died of a heart attack, but the prosecution argued that the injuries to her head were not enough to have killed her. On 11th July 1927 at the Old Bailey, Sir Spilsbury argued that Bonati was in good health and said that the bruises on her chest suggested someone had knelt on her while holding her down and possibly suffocating her. The jury believed him and Robinson was found guilty. He was hanged at Pentonville Prison on 12 August 1927. 

The Second Trunk Murder Trial

At Lewes Assizes on 10th December 1934 Mancini was represented by William Norman Birkett. Birkett was a liberal defence lawyer who had served as the alternate British Judge during the Nuremberg trials after World War II. He produced evidence that Kaye took morphine as well as being a heavy drinker and suggested this could have been the reason for her fall. Despite overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, the case against Mancini failed and on 14th December 1934, after 2 hours and 18 minutes deliberation, the jury found Mancini not guilty of her murder.

However in 1976, aged 68, Mancini publicly confessed to the murder in The News of the World, but the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled he could not be tried again. No evidence could be found to associate him with the second murder, and the woman, known only as the 'Girl with Pretty Feet', was never identified, her head was never found and her murderer was never brought to justice.

The funeral of Malcolm X took place at the Faith Temple Church of God in Christ, in Harlem, New York on 27 February 1965, and was attended by fifteen hundred mourners, many of whom assembled in the streets outside the church. At his graveside at the Ferncliff Cemetery in Hartsdale, in Westchester County, New York, friends took the shovels away from the waiting gravediggers and covered Malcolm’s coffin themselves.

In the murder investigation that followed, Hayer was the only certain suspect. Eyewitnesses claimed to have recognised two of the other assailants as Norman ‘3X’ Butler and Thomas ‘15X’ Johnson, both known agents of the Nation of Islam. This seemed unlikely, however, as both were well known to OAAU members, and they would certainly have been recognised as hostile members of the audience on that evening.

Hayer also denied that Butler and Johnson had been involved, instead identifying his co-conspirators as Leon David and Wilbur McKinley, in a sworn affidavit.

Despite this, the trials of Hayer, Butler and Johnson began on 12 January 1966, and they were all convicted of the murder of Malcolm X, in March 1966, and received life sentences.

As with other high profile assassinations, there were a number of conspiracy theories surrounding the case, the most popular involving a man named Gene Roberts, who was a Bureau of Secret Service agent, and a bodyguard of Malcolm’s at the time of his shooting. It is claimed that government agencies were uncomfortable with the international profile that Malcolm was building, and the potential racial tensions that were being fomented by his message, and that Roberts had been instructed by his superiors to engineer the assassination. Roberts was not called to testify at the trials of Hayer, Butler and Johnson.

A less plausible theory points to mob involvement: Malcolm’s philosophy of black empowerment, exhorting people to take direct control of their lives, had resulted in a marked reduction in crime, and drug taking, in black neighbourhoods. Malcolm was therefore the victim of a mob hit, in the interests of protecting the business of organised crime.

The release of the Spike Lee film, ‘Malcolm X’, in 1992, caused a huge resurgence of interest in the civil rights campaigner, and Denzel Washington earned an Oscar nomination for his portrayal.

Confessing

ROSEMARY’S TRIALIn 1974 at St Albans Crown Court, Mr Justice Kenneth Jones recommends Jebson serve at least 20 years.“The mind recoils from the horror and enmity of the offences committed.”Mr Justice JonesThe judge makes it clear that he can find no mitigating factors. There is nothing to either excuse or explain his actions. He is simply dangerous

BABES TRIALAlready serving a life sentence, the 61-year-old Jebson goes to Old Bailey. On Tuesday, Jebsen admits to the killings in the Old Bailey. His confession is watched by the still grieving mothers of his victims. Gary’s mother had never believed the explanation that her son’s death may have been accidental.Also present is Detective Chief Superintendent Leonard ‘Nipper’ Read involved in the murder inquiry. He kisses Gary’s mother on the cheek and says, ‘we were right wasn’t we Beryl.”In May 2000 Jebson is sentenced to two life sentences for their abduction and murders.“What they went through before they died does not bear thinking about...You are a truly wicked and perverted man.”Judge David StokesMr John Evison had to defend Jebson. He states that Jebson’s only explanation for his crimes is that Jebson was at the time ‘drinking a lot’ and ‘taking drugs, many drugs’.Three decades after their children’s deaths, their parents finally know how they died.“Jebson should never be allowed the opportunity of freedom again.”Norman Brennan, Victims of Crime Trust

standing trial after decades

Roberts went to trial in 2011 at Southwark Crown court, close to the suburbs he’d stalked.Despite the evidence against him, the 45 year old of ‘no fixed address’ denied all the charges. It was left to a jury to decide his fate.They heard from two women who had lived with Roberts, Julie Warner and Leanne Ward. He had been violent to both.Miss Ward stated he was a petty criminal who often returned home late. He would bring back stolen handbags. She said he scanned the news. She believed he was checking to see if they were linking him to burglaries, but not to rape. She also added he had a pale green tracksuit, similar to one described by his victims.It didn’t take the jury long to come back with unanimous guilty verdicts.Roberts was convicted of two counts of indecent assault and inflicting grievous bodily harm, three counts of rape and four counts of burglary.

The judge sentenced him to four life terms. Roberts would spend the rest of his life behind bars.In so doing, Michael John Roberts became the first man to get a ‘life means life’ sentence for rape.“I do sentence you to imprisonment for the rest of your natural life...your utter depravity knows no bounds, these are very grave offences.”Judge RobbinsRoberts tried to protest his innocence. Prison guards took him away before he could finish his statement.The Detective Chief Inspector Brian Bowden-Brown broke down into ‘floods of tears’ after the verdict.None of Roberts’ victims lived to hear the result. None saw him face justice. Many of them died knowing their attacker was still at large. That he could strike at any time. One of the victim’s sons did attend. He was as happy as any son could be that a man who had destroyed his family wouldn’t be able to again.The killer of Irene Grainey remains to be charged. Due to the lack of forensic evidence, it is unlikely the person responsible will ever face justice for their crime.

"13 life sentences still not enough"

After numerous delays due to her "illnesses," (as a result of which she had lost 5 stone in weight) she went to trial at Nottingham Crown Court on 15 February 1993, where prosecutors demonstrated to the jury how she had been present at each suspicious episode, and the lack of episodes when she was taken off the ward. Evidence about high readings of insulin and potassium in each of the victims, as well as drug injection and puncture marks, were also linked to Allitt. She was further accused of cutting off her victim’s oxygen, either by smothering, or by tampering with machines.Her unusual behaviour in childhood was brought to light and the paediatrics expert, Professor Roy Meadow, explained Munchausen’s syndrome and Munchausen’s by Proxy syndrome to the jury, pointing out how Allitt demonstrated symptoms of both, as well as introducing evidence of her typical post-arrest behaviour, and high incidence of illness, which had delayed the start of her trial. It was Professor Meadows’ opinion that Beverley Allitt would never be cured, making her a clear danger to anyone with whom she might come in contact.

After a trial that lasted nearly two months (and at which Allitt attended only 16 days due to continued illness), Allitt was convicted on 23 May 1993, and given 13 life sentences for murder and attempted murder. It was the harshest sentence ever delivered to a female but, according to Mr Justice Latham, it was commensurate with the horrific suffering of the victims, their families, and the ignominy she had brought upon nursing as a profession. Indeed, the impact on the Grantham & Kesteven Hospital was so severe that the Maternity Unit was closed down altogether.

GBH

Twenty six of those arrested in the George and Dragon pub stood trial at the Guildford Assizes. They were so boisterous they had to be shackled, wrist and ankle and to each other as well. This didn’t stop them issuing threats to everybody in the court.Their threats didn’t stop 23 of the gang being convicted of grievous bodily harm.The trial Judge, Mr Justice Rowlatt, specially commended the plucky Sergeant Dawson as did his police commissioner. Sergeant Dawson was rewarded with an extra week’s wages.The Brummagems all received sentences of between nine months hard labour and three years imprisonment.

Prison wasn’t necessarily the end of the story for some of the racetrack gangs. Some thought themselves so above and beyond the law that they simply tried to bribe a prison warder to release them early. In one recorded case, however, the prisoner concerned ended up losing remission on his remaining sentence.And once their sentence had been served, they would soon be back to their old tricks. Race track violence would reach such a pitch that the authorities had no choice but to drive the gangs out of horse racing for good.

“The killing spree was a preventative attack against state traitors, who were guilty of ethnic cleansing because they supported a multicultural society.”Anders Behring Breivik, BBC News Online, 16 April 2012On Monday 16 April, Norway’s trial of the century begins in Oslo’s District Court. A newly constructed custom-made courtroom is specially created to hold everyone that will need to be involved. The trial’s main aim is to work out whether Breivik is criminally insane or mentally stable.Breivik pleads not guilty to the two terrorism charges. He acknowledges he committed the acts but he does not accept the criminal responsibility. He also tells the judge that he doesn’t recognise the Norwegian courts as they’re supported by a government that encourages multiculturalism.Breivik takes the stand and delivers a 13 page statement on his political views. He reveals that he belongs to the Knights Templar and acted to defend Norway against immigration and multiculturalism. The prosecution team led by Svein Holden reveals that investigators could find no evidence to support Breivik’s claims that a secret resistance movement called the Knights Templar existed. An initial psychiatric report finds Breivik criminally insane, which Breivik dismisses as a lie. A subsequent and later psychiatric report finds Breivik is mentally stable and accountable for his actions.

Details emerge that Breivik had initially wanted three car bombs, but plans had to be scaled back when he realised how difficult it would be to make them. He wanted to destroy the government and also behead the former Prime Minister who had been at Utoeya earlier on that July day. He offers an apology to the innocent people who just happened to be in the area when the Oslo bomb went off, but doesn’t apologise to the victims on Utoeya, who he claims are legitimate targets.For Breivik the most important outcome for the trial would be that he is found to be mentally stable. He believes that if he’s committed to a psychiatric ward it would be a fate worse than death.On 24 August 2012, the court declares Breivik to be sane and sentences him to 21 years in prison, the maximum sentence allowed for the crimes he committed. This may be extended at a later date if Breivik is still considered to be a danger to society.

Was it a crime?

On 30 January 2004, Meiwes was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight and a half years in prison.The case attracted considerable media attention and started a debate over whether Meiwes could be convicted at all, due to the fact that Brandes had voluntarily taken part in the cannibalism and had entered Meiwes' house fully aware of his intentions. It also proved problematic for German lawyers who discovered that cannibalism is in fact legal in Germany and subsequently charged Meiwes with murder for the purposes of sexual pleasure and with 'disturbing the peace of the dead'.At the trial, 19 minutes of the video showing key moments of the crime was shown to the court, after reporters and the public were removed.Only a year later, in April 2005, a German court ordered that there should be a retrial, after prosecutors appealed Meiwes' sentence as being too lenient. Their argument was that he should have been convicted of murder, not manslaughter, and been given a life sentence.

The retrial began on 12 January 2006, where prosecutors questioned the actual reasoning for Brandes’ killing as being a way to satisfy Meiwes' own sexual desires, rather than obliging Brandes his request. They also brought to light the fact that Brandes was not capable of making any decisions on the evening of 9 March, as he had consumed significant amounts of alcohol and drugs to numb the pain of his penis amputation.On 10 May 2006, a court in Frankfurt convicted Meiwes of murder and changed his initial eight and a half year sentence to life imprisonment.

Justice Catches up with Arthur

“...a deliberate and repetitive liar...He has no concept of the truth.”-Prosecuting CounselFor the first time ever in a British murder trial, the jury are shown a police video of the scene. The seven-minute tape replays the scenes of horror.The evidence against Hutchinson is formidable. Hutchinson had at first denied being at the house at all. Dr Geoffrey Craig testifies that the bite marks left in the cheese in the fridge exactly match Hutchinson’s.So Hutchinson, loving the attention the court gives him, changes his story. His defence might be considered laughable if it wasn’t trying to cover his brutally horrific crimes.

"There's your Killer"

On 11 September 1984, in Durham Crown Court, Hutchinson points to a reporter from the Sunday Mirror and accuses him of the murders. Hutchinson constructs a story where the young woman he raped had consented to have sex and the reporter ‘and others’ had murdered the family. Hutchinson explained that his prints were on the champagne bottles because he had picked them up to use as ‘weapons’ against the reporter.Hutchinson is asked why he had originally claimed to have been nowhere near the house and had now changed his story. Hutchinson claimed the reporter had been threatening his beloved mother:“That man there (pointing to the reporter in the gallery) has been going to my mother’s house every week for the past 10 months and I was frightened for her. I wanted to get the truth out...There’s your killer.”Someone who is truly frightened is Hutchinson’s surviving rape victim. She bravely testifies and withstands a cross examination that suggests sex was consensual. In the near four hours she is in the witness box, she never once looks at Hutchinson. Hutchinson is seen to occasionally smile as she gives evidence.On 14 September 1984, a jury of six women and six men find the 43-year-old Hutchinson guilty of the murder of three people and the rape of a teenage girl.The Judge rules that he should serve 18 years.After the conviction, his beloved mother realises her son is a liar, a rapist and a murderer. Press reports say she vows never to see him again.“He’s pitiable. But his actions make pity very difficult.”-Diane Simpson, Behavioural PsychologistThe then home secretary, Leon Brittan later rules Hutchinson should face the whole-life tariff and should never be released.“Many of the criminals that I’ve dealt with have had feelings of remorse and of regret to a large extent the actions they’ve committed...Arthur Hutchinson didn’t have… those sort of feelings.”-Mick Burdis, Detective Chief Inspector, South Yorkshire Police

On Trial

Wuornos’ defence team were keen for her to plead guilty on six of the murder charges (all but Peter Siems, whose body was never recovered and whose murder she continued to deny, despite the evidence which conclusively linked her with his stolen car) in exchange for six consecutive life sentences, but the prosecution were keen to seek the death penalty, and decided to try Wuornos, initially, for the murder of Richard Mallory, as they felt the case against her was strongest.Wuornos’ trial for the murder of Richard Mallory opened before Judge Uriel Blount on 14th January 1992. By virtue of the ‘Williams Rule’ in Florida Law, which enables the prosecution to introduce evidence from other cases if they demonstrate a criminal pattern, jurors were made aware of the other murders in which Wuornos was suspected. Unsurprisingly, they were not convinced by the self-defence motive she claimed, and Wuornos did herself no favours when she testified in her own defence, against the advice of her legal counsel, when she was forced to take the Fifth Amendment (which prevents self-incrimination) repeatedly.

On 27th January 1992 the jury took less than two hours to find her guilty of first-degree murder, and they unanimously recommended the death penalty, in spite of defence claims that she was mentally ill, and a victim of her tragic upbringing. On 31st January 1992 Judge Blount sentenced Aileen Wuornos to death by electrocution.Two months later, on 31st March 1992, Wuornos pleaded guilty to the murders of Troy Burress, Dick Humphreys and David Spears, and received three further death sentences on 15th May 1992.In June 1992, Wuornos also pleaded guilty to the murder of Charles Carskaddon, and added another death sentence to her total in November 1992.In February 1993 she admitted the murder of Walter Antonio and added her sixth, and final, death sentences. She was never tried for the murder of Peter Siems.

Young’s trial commenced on 19 June 1972, at St Albans Crown Court. He was charged with two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, and two counts of administering poison. Young pleaded not guilty, and seemed confident that he would be acquitted, as his previous conviction could not be entered into evidence, and he felt it would be impossible to identify him as the only person with the means to poison Egle and Biggs.He was delighted at the media hype that surrounded his trial, and did his best to appear sinister, in an attempt to unnerve the jury and assembled gallery, but was reportedly less than thrilled with the sobriquet ‘The Teacup Poisoner’, which he felt too parochial, belittling his skill and knowledge. He thought 'World Poisoner' more appropriate.He hadn’t reckoned with the advances made in forensic science in the decade since the death of his stepmother, however, and the effect that the reading of tracts of his diary, in which he cold-bloodedly lists the effects of his poisons, would have on the jury: he was found guilty on all charges on 29 June 1972, receiving four life sentences.

Whilst the three awaited their fate in a Brazilian prison, their high-profile arrest caused a legal battle. The Brazilian prosecutors wanted to charge the trio in Brazil, as that is where they had been arrested. However, the Mexican prosecutors laid claim to them, due to the fact that all the alleged crimes had begun in Mexico.In April 2000, a Brazilian federal court ruled that the evidence against Trevi, Andrade and Boquitas needed extensive investigation before they even considered Mexico’s extradition request. The three were moved to another Brazilian prison, due to overcrowding in the facility where they were being held. It was here that Trevi fell pregnant and she accused a prison guard of raping her. Under Brazilian law, pregnant women prisoners were allocated separate housing, where they could live with their children. Trevi was moved to such a facility but it wasn’t long before she was sent back to prison, due to pressure from Mexican authorities.“I have no interest in making people forget. But one thing needs to be clear: I don’t care. There are people who love me and people who believe all the manipulation against me.” – Gloria TreviTrevi gave birth to a son, Angel Gabriel, on 18th February 2002, in Brasilia, Brazil. The following day, authorities denied her request to keep the father’s identity a secret. Following DNA tests, Andrade was confirmed as the child’s father. Whilst Trevi and Andrade had been denied conjugal visits, it is believed that they bribed a prison guard to arrange for time alone together to have sex.Trevi wrote an autobiography whilst in prison, entitled ‘Gloria by Gloria Trevi’ (2002). In it she portrays herself as an entirely innocent victim and the other clan girls as greedy liars. She says she went along with over fifteen years of abuse because of Andrade’s powerful and unrelenting hold over her.The Brazilian and Mexican authorities finally came to an agreement and on 21st December 2002, after nearly three years in prison, Trevi and Boquitas were extradited to Mexico to face charges. They were sent to the Aquilas Serdan prison near Chihuahua and Trevi’s baby son was sent to live with his maternal grandmother.It was alleged that whilst on the run, Trevi had given birth to her and Andrade’s baby, a daughter, whom they had left to die, and authorities were investigating the possibility of also charging the couple with homicide. However, with no evidence and no body ever found, the homicide charges were dropped.In late 2002 and early 2003, Trevi awaited trial but to no avail. As time went by, it became apparent that the Mexican authorities were having trouble finding concrete evidence of the alleged crimes. Andrade was then also extradited to Mexico and sent to the same prison as Trevi on 27th November 2003. The couple were not allowed any contact.“Those who don’t love me don’t really know me. But I don’t care. They’ll love me tomorrow. There’s always tomorrow.” - Gloria TreviNew York Times magazine writer, Christopher McDougall, published ‘Girl Trouble: The True Saga of Superstar Gloria Trevi and the Secret Teenage Sex Cult that Stunned the World’ in 2004. The book was viewed by some as the most authoritative account of what actually happened. McDougall had personally interviewed both Trevi and Andrade whilst they were in prison, as well as many of the young girls involved, getting details of what happened whilst the group were fugitives.Trevi was led to believe that she would be released from prison on 24th February 2004 but the Mexican authorities denied her freedom. Infuriated, she went on hunger strike. Seven months later, on 21st September 2004, she was finally acquitted by a Mexican court, which cited lack of evidence in the case. Trevi was released after spending just over four years and eight months in prison, in both Brazil and Mexico.Determined to revive her career, she immediately went back to the studio to begin recording. She released her album Como Nace el Universo (How the Universe was Born) in 2004. In Los Angeles, on Valentine’s Day 2005, a day before her 37th birthday, she announced a 23-city tour of the United States, called ‘Trevolucion’. It seemed that a happy and confident Trevi had put her troubles behind her and was back to her old self. In 2006, she released her album ‘La Trayectoria’ (The Trajectory). Trevi is currently in a steady relationship with Miguel Armando, with whom she had a son in 2005.

While Pickton was waiting for the trial, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officer had gone undercover and pretended to be a cellmate. Pickton confessed to 49 murders. He expressed annoyance not to have rounded up to a 50 and regretted only that he become sloppy which had lead to his arrest.

During the trial, Pickton sat expressionless behind a bulletproof screen as relatives of more than 60 women looked to him for answers.

Fearing a mistrial due to contempt or prejudice, the judge had banned any reporting of the case details of Canada’s most prolific serial killer. The sheer volume of DNA evidence meant that the judge divided the trial into two. The first part would deal with just six of the charges with the remaining 20 to be heard at a later date.

After 130 witnesses and 10 months of trial, it took the jury of seven men and five women ten days to reach their verdict and on a Sunday, Pickton was convicted of second degree murder of the six women whose remains were found on his Vancouver farm. On the following Tuesday, Robert William Pickton was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years, the longest sentence possible under Canadian law. Justice James Williams said "Mr. Pickton there is really nothing that I can say to adequately express the revulsion the community feels about these killings".

As the verdict was read, two female jurors wiped away tears while Pickton finally showed some emotion. He smirked.