Vest pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and received an eight-year prison sentence. Part of his plea bargain was that he would testify against Johnson.Johnson was indicted for murder before a McLennan County grand jury on 29 November 1996.Vest testified that at the service station, he had exited the car from the passenger’s side and begun filling the car with petrol. Wetterman had come out to assist and had begun talking to Vest. Johnson had then exited the car from the driver’s side and had walked to the back of the vehicle. Vest had asked him if he had the gun on him, to which Johnson had responded by lifting his shirt to display the pistol tucked into his trousers. As Vest had replaced the petrol pump, he heard a shot and had looked around to see Wetterman falling to the ground. Vest and Johnson had hurried into the car and sped away.Another friend testified that Johnson had bragged about the incident in the following days. He said Johnson had admitted to the shooting, saying he shot Wetterman in the face after he thought he heard Vest say “Shoot’’. Other friends testified that Johnson made fun of Vest for crying after the incident.Johnson initially tried to say that he had an alibi and was at home on the day of the murder but after his arrest he admitted to a psychologist that he had been present at the time of the killing. Physical evidence also placed him at the scene, in the form of DNA collected from hairs and cigarette ends found in the Cadillac.At trial, Johnson did not testify in his own defence but later told reporters that Vest had murdered Wetterman. Johnson maintained that he had been driving but had remained in the car while Vest got out to fill the car with petrol. Johnson said he did not even see Wetterman. He claimed that Vest shot the attendant and then yelling, “Go, go, go!” jumped back into the car.Whilst Johnson had no previous convictions, several witnesses described violent incidents in his past. His former girlfriend said he that he had beaten her after accusing her of ‘sleeping around’. Other friends testified that Johnson had attacked a man with a knife; aimed a gun at a neighbour during a confrontation; attempted to run a man over and had once run over a cat and then reversed over it to ensure that it was dead. A man testified that Johnson had responded, “So what?” when told the victim in his murder trial was married.On 6 May 1997, Johnson was found guilty of murder. Two days later he was sentenced to death by lethal injection. As the verdict was read out, he turned and screamed obscenities at the Wetterman family.

Throughout a litany of anomalies committed during the trial, the most glaring was the Army’s alleged holding back of evidence and not allowing the defence to test vital evidence in the laboratory. Defence lawyer Bernie Segal made an accusatory statement saying that in any court the examination of evidence would be a right for the defence.But in this particular case it was left entirely up to the discretion of Judge Dupree, a man who, in hindsight, should have retired from the case due to his lack of impartiality. Furthermore, the Army’s compete mishandling of the investigation along with positive testimonies of MacDonald’s character were to be kept from the jury.Years after the trial the defence were able to scrutinise lab notes through the Freedom of Information Act that disclosed important findings that were never presented to the jury.Vital pieces of evidence that were held back involved several strands of long blond hair that were found in the hand of Colette, the murdered wife. These fibres were traced to that of Helena Stoeckley’s blonde wig, which she admitted she wore and disposed of shortly after the murders.Similar hairs were also discovered on the deceased’s hairbrush and Stoeckley later also admitted that she had used the hairbrush on her wig.The prosecution also claimed that the club, used to beat Colette revealed two dark fibres from MacDonald’s pyjamas, as being sound evidence incriminating the key suspect. Years later this was found to be false.In fact, the fibres were discovered to have come from Colette’s own mouth, most likely when she was hit by the club. The fibres themselves did not match any clothes found in the house or worn by Colette or MacDonald. Furthermore three wax droppings were discovered in the house, but they did not come from any candles the MacDonald’s owned. Helen Stoeckley was known to use candles for her rituals and the evidence supported MacDonald’s claim that he saw a woman holding a lit candle.Other pieces of evidence that were held back from being reported to the jury at the time included evidence of a burnt match in one of the children’s bedroom and a number of bloody gloves and a syringe that was lost by the CID lab before they could be tested.More disturbing was the amount of evidence that cleared MacDonald of suspicion that was simply not presented to the defence team. In other cases, uncorroborated evidence against MacDonald was held back and only presented during the trial, therefore preventing the defence from being able to address the issues.What the jury also never heard was that no hairs from any of the victims were found entwined with fibres from MacDonald’s pyjamas.Various pieces of evidence against MacDonald proved highly damaging, but the greatest was perhaps the ‘character assessment’ of the suspect presented by Dr James Brussel. Brussel was selected by Government officials and was known as a celebrity psychiatrist who used ‘psychic’ abilities, often without even seeing the prisoners or suspects in custody. Brussel claimed that MacDonald was a psychopath.Despite various psychiatric reports on MacDonald’s personality, including one by the respected forensic psychiatrist Dr Seymour Halleck stating that the suspect was stable and a non-pathological personality, none of these testimonies were presented in court. Brussel’s however was admitted for the jury to hear.The jury delivered its verdict on one of the most protracted court cases in American legal history. MacDonald was convicted of first-degree and two counts of second-degree murder. He was given three life sentences.He was imprisoned at a Federal prison in Maryland. In 2005, the parole board recommended another fifteen years to be served before another parole hearing.

Thomas Dewey brought forward many witnesses who convinced judge and jury that Luciano had been running a network of brothels that were often managed like slave labour camps. Women had been known to end up in hospital after beatings meted out by Luciano’s henchmen. The mobster denied all charges and didn’t worry too much about the situation, believing he would get off lightly. But Dewey gave a masterful performance and summation, which resulted in the jury finding the defendant guilty on all charges. Instead of receiving a ‘light’ sentence, the 37-year-old Luciano faced a staggering forty-years behind bars.On 2 July 1936, Luciano was sent to Clinton State Prison at Dannemora in upstate New York. It was known as the ‘Siberia’ of all American penitentiaries due to its isolation and the way it treated its prisoners, which was far from compassionate. He was confined to his cell for most of the day and often separated from other prisoners. If that wasn’t humiliating enough he was also put to work in the laundry.Despite this rigid alienation Luciano still miraculously able ran his empire from prison. He also appeared to be getting his ‘lucky’ streak back when Naval Intelligence decided that Luciano may be able to help the war effort through his Mafia connections. On 12 May 1942 he was moved to Great Meadow Prison, a far more agreeable jail in order that he try and influence the Mafia in Sicily to help the US military get the Axis forces off the island. According to reports, he did just that.This contribution to the war effort earned Luciano an early release, ironically presided over by Thomas Dewey - now Governor of New York - who had originally put him away. Luciano was granted commutation on the grounds that he returned to Italy.

The trial took place at The Old Bailey, London on 20 June 1955. The only question put to Ellis on the stand by Christmas Humphreys for the Prosecution was, “When you fired the gun, did you mean to kill?’. Her reply was simply, “It is obvious that when I shot him, I intended to kill him”. The jury took a mere 14 minutes to reach the conclusion of guilty as charged, for the murder of David Blakely. Ellis was held at the all-female Holloway Prison in Islington, London, to await her sentence of death by hanging, less than a month away.The fact that Ellis had obtained a gun to commit the murder was not explored in the trial and it was not until the day before she was hanged, that any mention was made of it. In a statement, Ellis claimed that her other lover, Desmond Cussen, had provided the gun and had in fact also driven her to the scene of the crime. In a strange twist, the authorities chose to ignore this statement and never followed it up.

The trial finally commenced on 7th January 1969 in the Hall of Justice in Los Angeles, but was almost a non-starter, when the defence offered to plead Sirhan guilty in exchange for life imprisonment, rather than risk him facing the death penalty. Given the complications and uncertainties surrounding the case, the prosecution were inclined to accept the plea bargain, but the presiding Judge was mindful of the political ramifications, and accusations of conspiracy, and insisted that the trial proceed as planned. The case lasted fifteen weeks, and prosecutors presented the physical evidence found at Sirhan’s home, and a mountain of forensic evidence, while the defence offered evidence about his abuse at the hands of his father, and his generally unstable life, as mitigating factors in the crime.“Sirhan was incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison in California to await his execution.”When Sirhan took the stand in his own defence, he claimed to remember nothing at all about the night of the assassination, but admitted that he might have been temporarily insane. There was discussion of his motivations for killing Kennedy, namely his pro-Israeli political stance, but the chronology of public statement was at odds with the evidence in his notebook. Sirhan appeared to have recorded anti-Kennedy statements prior to the dates of Kennedy’s public speeches, which Sirhan claimed were the motivation behind the assassination.Despite these inconsistencies, the jury returned a guilty verdict on 17th April 1969. Sentencing was postponed until 21st May 1969, when Sirhan was sentenced to death in the gas chamber.Sirhan was incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison in California to await his execution. Along with all other death row prisoners, Sirhan’s death sentence was commuted to a life sentence in 1972, when the United States abolished capital punishment.Sirhan was denied parole in 1997. In 1998, on the 30th anniversary of Kennedy’s death, Sirhan sought a new trial on the basis that he had been acting under hypnosis at the time of the killing. He was not successful. A further parole appeal was denied in 2000, and it is likely that, despite being a model prisoner, Sirhan will spend the rest of his life in jail.Conspiracy TheoriesDespite the best efforts of the SUS task force, their attempts to quell rumours of conspiracy were unsuccessful from the outset. While it was clear that Sirhan had indeed been present at the scene, and had certainly fired shots, the possibility of a second gunman emerged as eyewitness accounts diverged from the official line taken by the enquiry.The second gunman scenario first came to light when it became clear that four shots had been fired at Kennedy, and that a further five individuals had been wounded, totalling nine separate incidents, from an eight-shot weapon. The authorities countered these concerns by releasing a detailed analysis of the trajectory of each of the eight bullets that had been fired, which showed that some bullets had caused more than one wound. The Los Angeles Coroner, Dr Thomas Noguchi, a respected forensic expert, later refuted this analysis, claiming that it was impossible to compile an accurate trajectory analysis with any degree of certainty.Interestingly, this trajectory analysis, which emphasized the identification of all shots fired, was again called into question some time after Sirhan’s trial, when it was discovered that a doorframe, which eyewitnesses recalled had contained bullet holes, was removed from the scene by investigators, yet was never pursued as a valid line of investigation. These bullet holes, if proven to be linked to the crime, would have increased the total number of shots fired beyond the eight in the trajectory analysis, and the eight maximum possible shots of Sirhan’s weapon, proving conclusively the presence of a second gunman.When the missing doorframe came to light, authorities claimed that the marks on the doorframe had been X-rayed, and discounted as irrelevant, despite the beliefs of those at the crime scene, including coroner Noguchi, that they were definitely bullet marks. When pressed to provide the doorframe, the authorities claimed that it had been destroyed. When asked about the X-rays taken, it appeared that these too had been destroyed. The district attorney’s office refused to pursue an investigation, claiming that it would only serve to confuse the public, especially as Sirhan had already been successfully prosecuted.When official records were released 20 years after the crime, in April 1988, there were no references to either the doorframe or the X-rays. All records relating to the testimony of the forensic experts who had attended the crime scene had similarly disappeared.The most difficult forensic anomaly of all to assimilate was the site of the fatal wound on Kennedy’s head. It was located behind his right ear, yet all eyewitnesses claimed that Kennedy had faced Sirhan at all times during the ordeal. In addition, the trace evidence around the wound appeared to indicate that he had been shot from very close range, a few inches at most, whilst Sirhan had never been within three feet of Kennedy. Noguchi also added to the speculation in this regard, making it clear that he would never be able to state, certainly, on the basis of the evidence available to him, that Sirhan had fired the shot that killed Kennedy. Despite these uncertainties, the authorities claimed that none of the eyewitnesses were in a position to know exactly what had transpired during the chaos that followed the shots, and that Kennedy must have turned, unseen, taking the bullet to the back of his head.The alternative scenario for the rear-entry head wound was that someone situated very close to Kennedy, but behind him at the time, could have fired the shot that killed him. Cesar, the private security guard, was the only person who fit the bill. He was discovered to have anti-Democrat political sentiments, and there were claims from an eyewitness that Cesar’s gun, a .38 calibre, had been smoking during the attack, although Cesar denied having fired any shots. Under interrogation, he also admitted once owning a .22 handgun, but claimed to have sold it prior to the Kennedy incident. This later turned out not to be true; he sold it three months after the killing. At the time he was questioned he impressed the investigators with his honesty, and successfully passed a lie-detector test, so was never pursued as a viable suspect.Theories also exist in respect of other possible co-conspirators. There were three individual, and independent, eyewitness accounts, including one from a police officer named Paul Sharaga, of a girl in a white polka-dot dress having been seen talking to Sirhan immediately before the shooting, and then leaving the crime scene laughing, along with an unknown male, but these were never pursued as credible lines of enquiry. Two of these witnesses stated that they had later been coerced, by investigators, into withdrawing the claims. Officer Sharaga, meanwhile, claimed that his superiors withdrew his statement without his knowledge. The investigating team chose to stick with the accepted, single-assailant theory.Less credible theories point to the participation of the mafia in the assassination of both Kennedy brothers. Speculation has always existed about a deal between Joseph Kennedy and the mafia, specifically Sam Giancana, to provide union votes to secure the Presidency for John F Kennedy. Giancana had expected political consideration for his assistance, and was enraged when Robert Kennedy launched a high profile attack on organised crime from within JFK’s administration, organising the assassination of both Kennedy brothers in retaliation. Yet others believe that Jimmy Hoffa might have ordered Robert Kennedy’s assassination, as he had been responsible for Hoffa’s prosecution during the same campaign against organised crime, and Hoffa made threats against Kennedy whilst in prison.The investigation of Sirhan revealed an unhappy childhood, erratic employment history and changing religious allegiances, but no discernible political conviction beyond the anti-Kennedy sentiments found in his personal notebooks. This led to some speculation about the possibility of Sirhan having been hypnotised or brainwashed, which was given further credence by his eerie calm during the commission of the clam, described by several eyewitnesses, and his confused demeanour after his arrest. This possibility was never explored by the investigation, but was raised by Sirhan at his trial, and later in prison. Sirhan made the same claim again in 1998, on the 30th anniversary of Kennedy’s death.

The trial commenced on 24 May 2011. The lead prosecutor was assistant state attorney Linda Burdick and the defense was led by Jose Baez. Judge Belvin Perry presided. The prosecution called for a death sentence.

The police produced around of four hundred pieces of evidence. The prosecution claimed that Anthony had dosed her daughter with chloroform, covered her mouth with duct tape to suffocate her, kept the body in the trunk of her car for a few days and then disposed of it. The car was found abandoned with the bag of rubbish in the boot, near a dumpster. The prosecution attempted to introduce a new test for the first time which was supposed to prove that the odor was consistent with that of a decomposing human body.

Other evidence included computer searches relating to chloroform and neck breaking. Traces of chloroform were found in Anthony’s car. The prosecution claimed that the motive for the murder was that Caylee had become a burden to Anthony’s lifestyle. Anthony’s reputation came under severe attack, both inside the court and out. She was crucified by the media.

The defense retaliated by disputing all the forensic evidence as fantasy and referred to the chequebook prosecution. One of their witnesses, Dr Werner Spitz testified that the duct tape could have been placed on the skull after the body had decomposed and that the crime scene photos had been staged. No evidence of human decomposition could be established in the trunk of the car. Under cross-examination it was put to Roy Kronk that he may have moved the body of Caylee and that he had allegedly claimed that finding the body would make him rich and famous. It was even alleged that Kronk could have killed Caylee.

The defence offered an alternative explanation for Caylee’s death: that she had accidently drowned and that Anthony and her father had covered up the accident. Medical examiner Dr Garavaglia ruled out drowning as the cause of death.

On 5 July 2011, the jury found Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She was found guilty on four counts of providing false information to a police officer. These referred to her lying about her employment, lying about the fictitious babysitter, lying about informing two employees at Universal Studios of Caylee’s disappearance and lying that she had received a call from Caylee on 15 July. Judge Perry sentenced her to one year in jail and a one thousand dollar fine for each of the four counts. Because of time served and credit for good behaviour Casey Anthony was released on 17 July 2011.

The trial began on 14 November 2007. It lasted six weeks. It was held at Chester Crown Court where Myra Hindley and Ian Brady were tried. Its large, grand courtroom and its history added to the feeling that this was a seminal trial.A PACK OF ANIMALS The court was told that at one point more than fifteen youths surrounded Garry egging each other on. One neighbour told the jury the gang attacked like ‘a pack of animals’. But five teenagers stood trial for murder. Unemployed Swellings was portrayed as the ringleader of the gang that killed Garry. As well as Sorton and Cunliffe, there were two others, one aged 15, the other 17. These two cannot be identified for legal reasons.The Police and Crown Prosecution Service were confident. When Adam Swellings tried to plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter, the prosecution rejected his plea. The evidence against the defendants included eyewitnesses and PCSO statements, CCTV footage, forensic and physical evidence.KICKED LIKE A FOOTBALL But the prosecution had also to call Garry’s daughters to give evidence in the murder trial of their father. Zoe was called first. They placed screens around her so she wouldn’t have to look at her father’s killers in the dock. She described seeing her father ‘kicked like a football.’Amy, just 13-years-old, was also expected to give evidence.“The family are asked not to show any emotion so as not to prejudice the jury. So that was a very difficult one for Helen and the family whereas the defendants were laughing and joking. One of the defendants was in the box and allowed to have his mum with him cause he was upset. Yet when the girls were giving their evidence they weren’t afforded that luxury.” Christine Stubbs, Police Family Liaison OfficerThere was a noticeable contrast between the dignity of the daughters and the disrespect of the defendants. With hindsight, it can be noted that three of the defendants didn’t need to make a grieving family go through the trial. They did not have to make teenage girls relive the moment they saw their father beaten to death.But the defendants weren’t respectful to the family, to the other witnesses, indeed, to anything.“...the youths involved in the case didn’t seem to have any respect for the proceedings, no real sense of the magnitude of the case and of what they’d done and (that) the eyes of the country were on them...They were laughing and joking and making a mockery...of the proceedings...Jordan Cunliffe...laughed and joked his way from beginning to end.” Neil Docking, Crime ReporterOne detective believed he saw one of the defendants drop off to sleep. They fidgeted, shuffled, grinned and sniggered their way through the rest of the trial.When the defendants gave their evidence, they often tried to excuse themselves by blaming others. They also tried to suggest that it was Garry who had been aggressive and they were acting in self-defence. Swellings at one point tried to suggest he was acting to protect the younger members of the gang.The jury retired to consider their verdict on 2 January 2008. They would deliberate for 55 hours. The length of time worried the police. They were worried it indicated the jury weren’t sure of the defendant’s guilt.After ten days anxious days of waiting Helen and her family heard their verdict.Three teenagers were found guilty of murder.On hearing the verdict 19-year-old Swellings was said to be ‘emotionless’; 17-year-old Stephen Sorton ‘just gazed straight ahead’; and 16-year-old Jordan Cunliffe, the joker in the court, suddenly burst into tears and wailed.Two other teenagers, 15 and 17, were cleared by the jury of murder and manslaughter. Helen was relieved that three of her husband’s murderers had been found guilty but was angry at the acquittals.“...victims are not at the heart of the justice. We’re at the bottom of the ladder.”

The trial began at the Palais de Justice in Paris on 12th December 1997. Carlos’ claim, that he had been arrested illegally, was ignored, and the prosecution proceeded to present incontrovertible evidence linking Carlos to the crimes committed. Halfway through the proceedings, Carlos dismissed his legal counsel, and took up his own defence, claiming his acts had been crimes of war, with himself a revolutionary.On 23rd December 1997, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts, sentencing him to life imprisonment.  Carlos was returned to La Sante prison, where he remains incarcerated.

The trial at the Westchester County Court in New York lasted three months and became a national melodrama. Harris pleaded temporary insanity and accidental death insisting that she had only wanted to kill herself.The question of intent was the main issue. Defence and prosecution lawyers produced witnesses who argued fiercely over forensics, where Tarnower was when he was shot and the trajectory of the bullets. George Bolen, the prosecution lawyer, argued that Harris descended upon Tarnower in his sleep and shot him. He awoke and put his hand up in a futile attempt to ward off a bullet and then Harris pumped the gun twice more and ran into the bathroom where she threw Tryforos’ things around.Harris’ defence lawyer, Joel Aurnou, was heavily criticised for not sufficiently preparing his client for the trial. The jury wasn’t offered the option of first-degree manslaughter – the mercy option – and the mental health professionals who tested and treated Harris were not called to testify.The most damning piece of evidence against Harris was the 10-page letter she had written to Tarnower. In it she repeatedly called Tryforos vulgar names and it included passages that showed her complete lack of self-worth. Bolen read the letter to the jury who were shocked by its contents and after deliberating for eight days found Harris guilty of second-degree murder. She was sentenced to 15 years to life at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in New York.

The three-week trial began on Monday 19 March 2001. The 50 witnesses included four women previously attacked and raped by Georges. Amongst those giving evidence were 15 experts; members of the families of some of Georges’ victims; and Georges’ 71-year-old foster mother.Despite prosecutor Evelyne Lesieur presenting the DNA evidence as well as the confession given after his arrest, Georges pleaded not guilty to all charges at trial. He retracted his confession, claiming the police had tortured and beaten him to obtain it.Eight days into the proceedings, a defeated Georges broke down in tears and confessed. He admitted to the original four murders, as well as to the rape and murder of Helena Frinking in 1995, Magalie Sirotti in 1997 and Estelle Magd in 1997, asking for forgiveness from the victims’ families.On Thursday, 5 April 2001 Guy Georges, 38, was sentenced to life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole for 22 years, for the rape and murder of seven women between 1991 and 1997.

The original intention of the authorities was to try Joyce for treason immediately, but when his complicated nationality issues came to light, the court case was forced back until September.

It was not clear that an individual, born in the United States, raised in Ireland, who obtained British citizenship via deception for a relatively short period, and who then obtained naturalised German citizenship, could legally be tried for treason against the British Crown, by broadcasting propaganda in an area outside of the Crown’s legal jurisdiction. Clearly, if Joyce owed no allegiance to the Crown, he could not be tried for committing treason against it.

When the case went to trial, on 17 September 1945, Joyce was charged on three counts of high treason, namely that:

1. William Joyce, on 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 29 May 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.

2. William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.

3. William Joyce, on 18 September 1939 and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.

The case took three days to hear. In order to overcome the confusion surrounding his citizenship, the prosecution argued that the British passport, which Joyce had renewed immediately prior to his escape from Britain, and which was valid until 2 July 1940, entitled him to the protection afforded to all British passport holders, and that he therefore owed allegiance in return. Had he kept his US citizenship during his time in Britain, he could never have been prosecuted on treason charges in the UK.

The judge, Mr. Justice Tucker, accepted the point of law presented, but instructed the jury to find him not guilty on the first two counts, which extended to periods beyond the validity dates of his British passport, when he was recognised in law to have been a US citizen.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the single remaining count of high treason. Carrying a mandatory capital sentence, Mr. Justice Tucker had no choice but to sentence William Joyce to death by hanging.

Despite general public satisfaction that Joyce had been brought to justice, there was widespread unease that his death penalty was as severe a sentence as those meted out to major war criminals, like those responsible for the massacres carried out in concentration camps. He had never directly claimed a single life, regardless of how reprehensible his political views might be.

On 27 September 1945, Joyce's lawyers gave notice of appeal, on the grounds that the Judge had ruled incorrectly that he could be expected to owe allegiance to the Crown during his time in Germany. The appeal was heard on 30 October and dismissed on 7 November.

Due to the important questions of law involved in the case, the Attorney General granted permission for the Joyce case to be heard before the House of Lords; the highest British court, which occurred between 10 and 13 December. The Lords also dismissed the appeal, on a vote of 3 to 1, on 18 December 1945.

All routes of appeal now exhausted, Joyce went to his death unrepentant and defiant saying: “In death as in life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war, and I defy the powers of darkness which they represent” according to the BBC.

He was hanged at Wandsworth Prison at 9am on 3 January 1946, the last person in British history to be hanged for treason. Like all executed prisoners, he was buried in unconsecrated ground within the prison grounds.

The Onoprienko trial was delayed by the fact that, according to Ukrainian law, the defendant is obliged to read all the evidence against them before the trial may begin. In Onoprienko’s case, there were over 99 volumes of photographic evidence of his crimes, which he perused at leisure, in no rush to go to trial.Another factor delaying trial was the fact that Ukrainian law also requires the court to pay all travel and accommodation costs for the witnesses it calls. In the Onoprienko case, there were four hundred witnesses and the court could simply not afford these costs. Following a televised appeal, the Ukrainian government agreed to allocate funds for this purpose.Onoprienko’s lawyer, Ruslan Moshkovsky, initially pleaded the insanity defence but this was over-ruled when Onoprienko was examined by psychiatrists and it was announced on 23 November 1998 that he had been deemed fit to stand trial.Moshkovsky then asked that Onoprienko’s childhood spent in an orphanage be taken into account as extenuating circumstances. However, the prosecutor, Yury Ignatenko, argued that this was inadmissible, as Onoprienko had already been deemed fit to stand trial and that his violent nature was his motive for murder.The four-month trial eventually began, two years after the arrest, in November 1998 in the City of Zhytomyr, presided over by Judge Dmitro Lypsky.Onoprienko appeared in court in an iron cage like an animal. His killings had affected a great many people and the Ukrainian nation was outraged. The irate crowds spat at him, taunted him and shouted that he should suffer a slow and agonising death. It seemed as if Onoprienko’s crimes were about to start a riot. Police were needed to calm the crowds and ensure the courtroom was safe for the trial to continue.In stark contrast to the mayhem and vehemence he incited in onlookers, Onoprienko remained silent in court. When asked if he would like to make a statement, he merely shrugged and replied quietly, “No, nothing”.Serhiy Rogozin, 36, appeared in court as Onoprienko’s co-defendant, accused of being an accomplice in the first nine murders. He proclaimed his innocence but was found guilty and sentenced to 13 years in prison.In their closing statements, prosecutor Ignatenko called for the death sentence whilst Moshkovsky called for a softening of the punishment due to Onoprienko’s deprived childhood.Following three hours of deliberation, on 31 March 1999, Judge Lypsky called the court back to session to read out the details of the murders as well as his verdict. Onoprienko was found guilty of murder and, according to Ukrainian criminal code, sentenced to death by shooting. He admitted guilt to all 52 charges of murder, including 10 children, but claimed he felt no remorse for what he had done.In a strange twist of fate, due to the Ukraine’s intention of joining the Council of Europe, a moratorium had been put in place to abolish capital punishment. Politicians and the public argued however that the Onoprienko case should be seen as an exception and that he should be shot. This was not to be and Onoprienko’s death sentence was commuted to life in prison.

The number of possible killers grew and grew, as investigators probed their underworld connections and bargained with convicts who were willing to dish the dirt in exchange for a reduction in their sentences.Between January 1976 and February 1977 the United States government issued internal reports which were based on interviews with an informer who claimed to know the entire story of Hoffa's disappearance. The informer, Ralph Picardo was serving a sentence for murder at Trenton State Prison in New Jersey. In 1975 Picardo was a driver for 'Tony Pro' Provenzano and he revealed that Hoffa had been invited to the restaurant meeting by renowned Detoriot mobster, Anthony Giacalone for a 'sit down' with Provenzano to make amends over their differences.O'Brien, who claimed to have been on a fish-carving expedition that day, had, according to Picardo, picked up Hoffa at the restaurant and driven him to a nearby house where Teamster business agent Thomas Andretta, Salvatore Briguglio and his brother Gabriel waited to ambush Hoffa. Frank Sheeran was also present.Picardo claimed that the hit had been ordered by Pennsylvania mob boss Russell Bufalino, because his cousin, William, had a big falling out with Hoffa in 1967, and Bufalino had passed the actual deed of murder onto Provenzano.Bufalino's exact whereabouts on the day Hoffa was murdered were never confirmed but the FBI believed there was little doubt that Hoffa was murdered, as Picardo had confessed.In 1985 the FBI released a memo summarising citing, Briguglio along with brother Gabriel, Andretta, O'Brien, Provenzano, Giacalone and Bufalino as their prime suspect for Hoffa's murder. Without a body or circumstantial evidence that will hold up in court, there will probably never be a conviction in the case of Hoffa's disappearance. While the so-called conspirators could not be charged, over the years the United States government ensured the men were prosecuted to the full extent of the law on countless other charges.Provenzano's pocket local, Local 560, eventually came under government oversight, putting a major crimp in his illegal operations. In 1978 he was prosecuted and found guilty of the 1961 murder of Anthony Castellito. A full 17 years after Castellito's body was allegedly put through a tree shredder, he was sent to prison where he died 10 years later at the age of 81.Giacalone was tried and convicted on tax evasion charges in 1976 and spent 10 years in prison. He was also charged with racketeering, or operating an illegal business for profit, violations in 1996, but died before the case could be tried.Despite numerous holes in O'Brien's alibi, he was never charged with Hoffa's disappearance. O'Brien moved to Florida where he was given a job by Teamster president Frank Fitzsimmons but was banished from the union in 1990 for his mob connections. Plagued with ill-health, O'Brien has survived cancer and four heart bypass operations and now lives in Florida where he maintains that the government, not the mob, killed Hoffa.Briguglio was murdered in New York in 1978. At the time, he had been talking with prosecutors and was about to make a deal in exchange for his testimony against Provenzano in the Castellito murder case.

The initial court response to the scuttlers had been to fine them. But this neither worked nor deterred them. Most families were too poor to pay the fines. So the judges started sentencing them to jail. The city jail at Belle Vue was soon swamped. But the ranks of the scuttlers seemed undiminished, despite prison then being a brutal place. Scuttlers could expect the hard labour of breaking rocks, time on the Prison treadmill (a giant wheel powered by prisoners), or solitary confinement.The local council became worried by the sheer number of 12 and 13 year old boys languishing in prison. In the 1890s, there were more young people in Strangeways for scuttling than for any other offence. Many scuttlers served repeated sentences, and even long termers, returned to the gangs. Despite this, lengthier and more severe sentences were considered the answer. But even sentences of 15-20 years didn’t seem to frighten the scuttlers into changing their ways.“Their conduct in the dock of the police court is most flippant and callous. On one side stood the witnesses, bearing marks of severe stab wounds, and in the dock, the youths laughed and turned round to wink at friends in the gallery. Even down in the cells they whistled and sang and said ‘Oh, oh it’ll only be 12 months for me.’" Contemporary account of scuttler trialsBut William Willan wasn’t in court for scuttling. He was on trial for murder.IN LOVING REMEMBRANCE OF WILLIAM WILLAN With three morning papers, two evening and several weeklies, the Manchester press jumped on the murder story. The term 'scuttler' had been created by the gangs themselves but it became known to magistrates at their early trials of gang members. So this 1892 trial had the sensational mix of a new unknown youth group and their dangerous pastime that had now ended in murder.The trial was also unusual because members of Willan’s own gang had actually testified against him. Normally, scuttler’s wouldn’t even give evidence against a rival.The case against Willan and two others hinged on the testimony of their own gang. Along with two others, he was accused of murder. Before then, William Willan had never been in court. Now, aged sixteen, he faced the death penalty. The boy broke down and cried. Throughout the trial, he was said to literally tremble.The jury returned a guilty verdict. When the judge donned the black cap to pass the death sentence, Willan had to be held down by two police officers. He was lead barefoot from the court screaming.A week later, Willan’s girlfriend was in court herself for scuttling. It was part of a suspected revenge attack for William’s arrest. As the police gave an account of her arrest, a police inspector demanded that she pull up a sleeve of her blouse to show the court. She did. It revealed a tattoo saying: ‘In loving remembrance of William Willan’.As Willan waited for the gallows in prison, his mother mobilised a huge campaign to gain him a reprieve. Thousands signed a petition. The police actually testified to his previous good character. Finally, the Home Secretary commuted his sentence to penal servitude for life. And finally, his sentence was reduced to just eight years imprisonment.

The case of the murder of JonBenet Patricia Ramsey, 6, never went to trial, as the man arreseted, John Mark Karr, confessed to everything.

The 1994 trial of Pacciani made international headlines helped by the fact that it was televised. It attracted the attention of author Thomas Harris, who sat through much of the trial. But despite the grisly criminal past of Pacciani fitting perfectly, little of the evidence did. It was mainly circumstantial. He protested his innocence but was convicted of seven double murders and was given 16 life sentences. Two years later, his conviction was overturned on appeal. But the police were now convinced he was part of a ritualistic slaying gang and just before his release, Mario Vanni and Giancarlo Lotti, were arrested.Pacciani’s reprieve was, however, quite literally, short lived. In December 1996, his retrial was ordered but he died two years later, aged 73. Despite his old age, many suspected he was silenced before he could name names. The combination of drugs found in his system supported this theory.His conspirators, Vanni and Lotti were convicted of participating in five of the double slayings and remain in jail to this day.  

Ten people have been arrested, three have been charged in connection with the robbery but no-one has yet been charged with physically carrying out the raid on Northern Bank. The investigation continues.

Stuart Hazell’s trial for the murder of the girl who called him ‘granddad’ is set for 7 May 2013 at the Old Bailey in London. Hazell, now 37, protests his innocence. Many of his family and friends stick by him as most of the country turns against him. Hazell writes to his dad. He lies to him as well saying the death was accidental. But his main concern is that his father doesn’t think his son is a ‘nonce’: “...this is something that we see again and again in sex offenders. They will admit to the violent act, but they won’t admit to the sexual act.” Dr. Keri Nixon, Forensic PsychologistBut the emotionless man that stands in court starts to make even those closest to him doubt his innocence:“It wasn’t the person that I thought I’d known for ten years, the nice person that wouldn’t hurt anybody. That person standing in the dock was cold, horrible, black, dark, and stood there like he had done nothing wrong. Didn’t even look at me...He was just empty” Natalie Sharp, Tia’s motherNatalie is in court when the sexually posed photo of a girl, allegedly her dead daughter, is displayed:“None of them strangers needed to see, they didn’t need to hear that...I think...of that image...the last thing...every night before I go to sleep.”And then, after four gruelling days during which Tia’s family have been subjected to graphic and gruelling details that no one should have to hear about their loved one, Hazell changes his plea. He accepts his guilt. Some suspect that even this change of heart was from the basest of motives: “...he had already put (the family) through all the medical and forensic evidence. I believe he changed his plea because he was a coward. It was the stage of the trial where he would have to go to the witness stand and give his account of what happened and, more importantly, be cross examined. He never had the courage to stand up and face those questions.” Nick Scola, Det Ch InspAfter Hazell changed his plea, his own defence counsel described their client thus:“This is a man who has an extraordinary capacity for living through lies.”“BEAST”When sentencing Hazell the Judge stated Hazell had betrayed the trust of Tia’s family in the “most grievous way possible.” Hazell ‘trembled’ as the judge told him: “She was a sparky girl who was full of life. You took that life from her...All that lay ahead of her – a career, loves and family of her own – will now never be.”Hazell is sentenced to a 38-year minimum prison sentence. He avoids a whole-life sentence because it wasn’t definite that the murder was sexually motivated; “Shame and fear of what might happen if Tia talked are just two of the alternative possible motives behind her killing.”One relative cries ‘beast’ as Hazell is led down to the cells.  

STICKING TO THE STORY In December 1978 Philpott had been tried, sentenced and jailed for GBH and attempted murder. But this previous conviction can’t be revealed to the court and it’s decided to reduce the charge against Philpott from murder to manslaughter. In March 2013, at Nottingham Crown Court, he is charged with six counts of manslaughter. He pleads ‘Not Guilty.’ Unbeknownst to him, the police have maintained their bugging operation. The van that takes him and Mairead to their first court appearance records them repeating the phrase of ‘sticking to the story’.In court, Philpott is once again the centre of attention:“It was the Philpott show. His description of his sexual behaviour, references to his dogging, to his threesomes, to his sexual desires. The fact that that even featured at the trial, following the death of his six children is shocking.” Dr Keri Nixon, Forensic PsychologistAs deplorable as the spectacle is, there is the consolation that he is sealing his own fate with the jurors. Both they and the judge come to see that here is a man without a ‘moral compass’.He is so delusional that he writes to his friend Mick Russell of the rape fantasies he wants to put into practise as soon as the trial is over. The letter has echoes of the equally misjudged letter he sent to his first victim Kim Hill. In that, he asked a woman he’d nearly killed to consider marriage. In this letter, he describes to his friend how they’ll visit the kids’ graves and force Mairead to have sex with them.Brothers Jamie and Darren Butler give evidence. Their descriptions of Philpott and Mairead on the night of the fire are damning. Darren tries to catch the attention of either of the accused. Neither will look at him. The court hears how petrol additives are on the parent’s clothing, and on the jeans, jumper and one of the shoes of Philpott’s friend, Paul Mosley. Witnesses report that Paul had said they’d all practised starting the fire six weeks prior to the crime. The image of the children being at least well cared for also starts to crack. It emerges that all but one of them went to sleep in their clothes that night. The parents were too intent on getting drunk, stoned and having a threesome to even dress their children in their pyjamas.On 3 April, Mick Philpott, 56, Mairead Philpott, 31 and their friend Paul Mosley, 46 are found guilty of manslaughter.“...this is a unique sentencing exercise. You have each been convicted of 6 counts of manslaughter. Each count represents the death of a child.” Mrs Justice Thirwall, Sentencing JudgeMick Philpott is given a life sentence with a minimum of 15 years inside.Mairead and Mosley are jailed for 17 years.DIE MICK DIE As Philpott was lead away the court echoes with cries of ‘Die, Mick, die’. He responds true to form. He sticks two fingers up.Mairead and Mosley will likely serve only half their sentence. But Mick will not be released if the Parole Board considers him still a threat. Even then, he’ll be on a ‘life license’ meaning he could be recalled to jail at any time.

State Attorney Phil O’Connell Sr. had no bodies, so he needed an eyewitness and offered Lincoln immunity if he would agree to testify against Holzapfel and Peel, which he did. Lincoln was already serving time on a 1958 moonshine-related conviction.Knowing this, Holzapfel agreed to plead guilty to the murders and Peel realising he would soon be caught twice plotted to have another inmate kill him.On 30th March 1961, jurors took five hours and 24 minutes to find Peel guilty of accessory to murder. The prosecutor wanted the death penalty, but the jury recommended mercy and Peel was sentenced to two life terms.He spent 18 years at Florida State Prison in Raiford and the state paroled him in 1979 so he could start serving an 18-year federal sentence for mail fraud related to a phony investment company. Three years later he was paroled for good after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. He planned to marry his ex-wife’s niece who had been the flower girl at his wedding, but nine days after his release he died.Despite his cooperation, Holzapfel was sent to Death Row. His sentence was eventually commuted to life and he died behind bars in 1996.Lincoln served out the rest of his federal sentence and in 1962 moved to Chicago. He converted to Islam and changed his name to David Karrim. In May 2004 he died aged 80.

Starkweather’s options were bleak: facing the death penalty in Wyoming, where Collison had been shot, entailed the gas chamber, while Nebraska used the electric chair for executions.Believing the latter to be the least bad option, he opted for extradition to Nebraska. This was a mistake for him; the single murder in Wyoming, which also had a State governor opposed to the death sentence, would probably have seen him serve a life sentence, whilst the multiple killings in Nebraska would definitely attract the death penalty.Starkweather’s trial began on 5 May 1958, with him trying to override his defence’s attempt to have him plead innocence by reason of insanity: he clearly felt that being insane carried a greater stigma than being a murderer. Initially, Starkweather had maintained that Fugate had been an unwitting participant in the crimes, but when he found out that Fugate was claiming to have been his hostage, he implicated her in a number of the murders, stating that she had inflicted all of the mutilations on Carol King.The jury were plainly convinced that Starkweather had been sane at the time of the murders, and took very little time in pronouncing him guilty, specifically asking for the death penalty.

Speck’s trial began on Monday, 3 April 1967, and his claim that he had no recollection of the eight murders committed placed Corazon Amurao in the spotlight as the star witness. Despite concerns about her ability to testify, after her harrowing ordeal, she gave a faultless performance, impressing the jury with every detail of that evening, identifying Speck unequivocally.The trial lasted just 12 days and on 15 April 1967 the jury found Speck guilty of all eight murders, after less than an hour’s deliberation. The judge sentenced Speck to death.

Sarah Northcott initially confessed to all four murders, probably to save her son. Her husband, Cyrus George Northcott, testified that she was completely devoted to her son and would do anything he asked. She was placed on trial for the murder of Walter Collins and was subsequently sentenced to life in prison in December 1928. Presumably she was spared the death penalty on account of her age and gender. She served less than 12 years of her sentence before being paroled. She apparently died in 1944.Initially, Gordon Northcott verbally confessed to the murder of nine boys in total, although he later confessed in writing only to the murder of Gonzales, the Mexican ranch hand. He was charged and stood trial in January 1929 for the kidnapping and murder of Gonzales and the Winslow boys. Northcott proved to be a frustrating subject. He frequently toyed with police investigations by constantly changing his story, by leading them on wild goose chases in search of more bodies, and by dropping broad hints as to the actual number of murders committed, ranging from none to as many as twenty.At his trial, Northcott was as flamboyant as he was a nuisance. With his constant grandstanding, the trial was, to him, an opportunity to obtain as many column inches as he could in the media. He filibustered by firing three defence attorneys in succession, finally choosing to defend himself, which he did with great vigour if not with any semblance of competence. He put himself on the stand, as a witness, as well as the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Earl Redwine, who he then proceeded to harangue with obscenities. With himself on the stand, he asked himself questions and then answered them. He also made fantastic accusations about the sheriff, the judge and the victims’ families.A recent interviewee, who attended the trial as a college student, said that Northcott “…was a very self-possessed guy, not overawed by the trial at all. During breaks, he kidded around with the prosecutors. He was as much at home in the courtroom as any attorney but didn’t know what he was doing [legally]. He was a conniving, smart guy, in a limited way”. Dr SM Marcus, a Los Angeles psychiatrist and somnotherapist who examined Northcott, declared that he possessed three of the nine classifications of the “constitutional psychopathic inferior”. He was “a pathological liar, a criminalistic individual and a sex deviate”.Northcott even brought his mother, by then incarcerated in Tehachapi State Prison, to testify on his behalf. In her testimony, she startlingly claimed that she was not his mother but in fact his grandmother, as her husband Cyrus had committed incest with their daughter Winifred, who gave birth to Gordon. This claim was never verified. Northcott’s father Cyrus testified that his son had bragged to him about killing many boys and also testified that he had seen evidence of the disposal of the bodies, using fire and quicklime. In fact, Cyrus had even provided a lorryload of quicklime to Northcott.After a 27-day trial and two hours’ deliberation, the jury found Northcott guilty of the murders of the Winslow boys and the Mexican teenager. He was sentenced to death on 19 February 1929.For his part in the murders, Clark spent a number of years at the Whittier State Industrial School for Boys. He was released and sent back to Canada and was never heard of again.Northcott retained his bravado until the final moments of his death. He had earlier requested that Christine Collins, mother of Walter Collins, visit him at San Quentin State Prison so that he could confess to her in person to the killing of her son. He later reneged and told her that he was innocent. He also left several notes. One was to the prison warden, in which he pinned the murder of Collins on his father and the murder of Nelson Winslow on Clark. He admitted to the murder of Gonzales and Lewis Winslow. He left two notes to his father, one to his mother, and one to his spiritual adviser and evangelist Larry Newgent. In the note to Newgent he claimed, “As God above is my judge, I am not guilty. The police worry me and make me say things but the truth is I am innocent. God pity me and save my life”. In his note to his father, he asked that he have white roses at his funeral.Northcott was hanged in San Quentin on 2nd October 1930. There are many conflicting accounts of his last words but the most reliable source is the Los Angeles Times, which reports that Northcott finally quailed in the face of his impending death, mumbling “Don’t hang me. Don’t hang me”. He was a pale and shivering wreck, his quivering body had to be carried up the scaffold and his eyes were covered at his own request so that he need not see the gibbet. Witnessing his execution were 140 people. Some accounts report that Northcott’s knees sagged as the trapdoor opened, his collapse took the slack out of the rope and thus the fall was too short to break his neck. He apparently took 11 minutes to strangle to death. This was not mentioned in the Los Angeles Times article.A boy thought to have been a Northcott victim was found alive and well, five years after his execution. This gave hope to Christine Collins, who never stopped searching for her missing son. Her remarkable and touching story has recently been dramatised by Clint Eastwood in his film ‘The Changeling’ (2008). The town of Wineville changed its name to Mira Loma in an attempt to escape the negative publicity associated with the macabre case.

One of the biggest problems regarding this case was the amount of people who believed that DeSalvo was innocent. Despite his own confessions there seemed to be no physical evidence linking him to the murders. DeSalvo also possessed a prominent beak-like nose, which no witnesses remembered.Two female witnesses, Marcella Lulka and Gertrude Gruer were called to identify DeSalvo. Lulka had lived in the same block as murder victim Sophie Clark and had been approached on the day of Clark’s murder by a man calling himself ‘Mr Thompson’ who said he had been sent to paint her apartment. The second witness Gruer was the only victim to escape from the Strangler.Both women couldn’t identify DeSalvo, but ironically they were disturbed when they caught sight of fellow prisoner George Nassar in the same building. Nassar’s posture, movements and physical features were familiar to the stunned women. Ironically this revelation did not go any further.Could it be that DeSalvo realised that he could win fame and money for his family by claiming to be the Strangler?It was discovered after several tests that DeSalvo had a photographic memory. It is possible that he could have read every detail of the murders and the circumstances in journals such as the Record American which printed a chart of such facts. DeSalvo may have also broken into the victim’s apartments after they had been killed. But the most contentious aspect was the fact that the murders appeared not be have been committed by the same person. Some of the victims had been old, while others were young. Some had been raped while others had been strangled and then left in degrading positions. Serial killers tend to stick to the same pattern and not deviate in their modus operandi.DeSalvo’s attorney was determined to try and protect his client from going to the electric chair.DeSalvo’s confession was inadmissible in court and Bailey felt there were enough indictments against his client in relation to his history of break-ins and assaults that would put him away in prison for life, rather than see him executed for being the Strangler.On 10 January 1967, Albert DeSalvo was tried. Bailey would try to get the jury to convict DeSalvo on his crimes related to what was known as the ‘Green Man’ attacks when he broke into apartments and molested women. His confession that he had committed thirteen murders would, Bailey hoped, confirm his insanity.Victims of DeSalvo’s ‘Green Man’ crimes were called. Evidence was heard that DeSalvo had broken into their homes, tied them up and sexually molested, but not raped them. He had then departed after the attacks.Bailey pressed for a verdict that would take into consideration DeSalvo’s sanity at the time of the assaults. An expert witness testified that DeSalvo was a schizophrenic and that he knew what he was doing in order to get into apartments, but could not control his sexual urges.The jury eventually found DeSalvo guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to life imprisonment but denied psychiatric help.Bailey was disappointed that DeSalvo would not receive treatment as he believed this was a unique opportunity to get inside the mind of a killer and discover the triggers or reasons which lead to murder.

On 23 January 1995, OJ Simpson finally went on trial on two counts of murder. He pleaded not guilty to both counts and soon assembled the ‘Dream Team’; his group of highly paid and ruthless lawyers that included legendary civil defence advocates like Alan Dershowitz, F Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro and specialist DNA evidence lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. Their first task was to filibuster the jury selection and ensure a favourable jury. The lawyers, Cochran in particular, decided from very early on that ethnicity and race would be a major factor in ensuring Simpson was not found guilty, and they got their favourable jury. The final composition was eight black females, two white females, one black male and one Hispanic male. The defence believed that black females would be more likely to be sympathetic to Simpson.

On the other side of the courtroom were District Attorney and lead prosecutor Marcia Clark, and Christopher Darden, Assistant District Attorney. Clark had a reputation as a tough, determined and hard litigator, born out of her traumatic life (she was raped as a teenager while travelling in Europe and was a survivor of two abusive marriages) and her time in Special Trials Unit. Sitting in the chair was Judge Lance Ito, a Japanese-American whose parents had been interned during the Second World War. His appointment was seen as a wise political choice, particularly because of his race.

The prosecution’s case was simple; Simpson had an abusive relationship with Brown while they were together; he was jealous of her and her relationship with Goldman after they divorced; he had no alibi for the timeframe of the murders. He had left his footprints, his cap with his hairs attached to it and at least eight separate drops of his blood at Brown’s condominium. At his home, he had dropped a glove that matched the one he left near the bodies and this one contained Goldman's blood. In his bedroom, his socks were splattered with Nicole's blood. In his Ford Bronco, there were samples of both Nicole's and Goldman's blood.

The defence’s case was simple. Simpson was completely innocent; the crime of which he had been accused was a fabrication, framed by malicious police officers and incompetent lab technicians. Simpson was yet another black victim of the white judicial system, on trial because he was black. The 1991 beating of Rodney King, the trial and acquittal of the white police officers, and the subsequent riots were still fresh in everyone’s minds.

Thus, the second thing the defence did was to call into question the motives and personal convictions of the police officers involved, specifically Detective Mark Fuhrman, alleging that he held racist views and patterns of behaviour; Cochran even compared him to Adolf Hitler. They also alleged that he had planted the glove on Simpson’s property. They then challenged the legitimacy of the original search warrant; Judge Ito, although criticising the way the search warrant had been sought and compiled, upheld the warrant and admitted the challenged evidence.

Thirdly, the defence sought to ambush the prosecution by springing surprise witnesses on them. Under the rules of California's reciprocal discovery law, both prosecution and defence were bound to disclose all information relating to witnesses they intended to call. The defence ignored this, and Judge Ito was deaf to the pleas of the prosecution, who had to endure 26 unexpected unannounced witnesses.

Fourthly, the defence picked apart the physical evidence that the prosecution had amassed, including so-called ‘procedural deficiencies’ that introduced elements of doubt over the reliability of the evidence. For example, the blood sample that Simpson gave on his visit to the police after his return to Chicago had been carried around by the police for several hours rather than being taken immediately to a police lab. As a result, some of the samples was missing, ostensibly used to contaminate the crime scene and frame Simpson.

Finally, the defence sought to discredit the prosecution’s DNA evidence and their main attack came from Scheck and Neufeld. They were two very experienced civil rights lawyers and scientists, both were also founders of the pro-bono Innocence Project that uses DNA testing to help free people who were wrongfully convicted. They first accused the forensic team of malice in altering evidence, then they levelled the charge that the team was incompetent. One of their main thrusts was that the collection of blood samples was sloppy and was carried out by an unsupervised junior member of the team.

The esoteric technicalities of DNA collection and testing were beyond most of the laymen on the jury, and both Scheck and Neufeld took advantage of this fact. Even though experts for the prosecution insisted that the odds that the blood found near the bodies could have come from anyone other than Simpson were one in 170 million, Scheck and Neufeld laid out a series of complex hypothetical questions that confused even the experts, let alone the jury. The bottom line was that doubt was cast on the integrity of the DNA evidence and the prosecution experts lost the jury in the maze of science.

The final straw was when the prosecution asked Simpson to try on the glove. It did not fit and although the prosecution tried to argue that the glove had shrunk from being soaked in blood, frozen and unfrozen, and extensively tested, the damage had been done. On 3 October 1995, a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ was returned by the jury.

On 18th October 1943, the trial of Freddie de Marigny began at the Bahamas Supreme Court. It was a major newsworthy story that received more column inches than the war itself. Freddie had wanted revered barrister Sir Alfred Adderley to represent him in court, but he was quickly snatched by the prosecution side instead. Freddie finally chose Godfrey Higgs to lead the defence team. Chief witness was Harold Christie, good friend of the victim who had slept in the guestroom on the night of the murder. Christie revealed how a group of people, including his own niece and Oakes’ neighbours had visited the house for a soiree, but had all left by 11 pm. Apart from waking up due to the raging storm, Christie had heard nothing else during the night to arouse suspicion. Christie told the court that in the morning he had discovered the grisly scene of Oakes’ charred body when he knocked on the door enquiring about breakfast. Not realising that Oakes was dead he tried to give him some water and also wiped his bloody head with a towel. The court proceedings threw up a great deal of conflicting hearsay and speculation. The defence believed that Christie was holding back information and questioned why he parked his car some distance from Oakes’ house. It was also noted that Christie had been seen by a Bahamas police officer, riding in a station truck around midnight. Another witness, a night watchman who had mysteriously drowned before the trial, alleged that he had seen Christie and another man hanging around an unfamiliar boat docked in Nassau’s harbour the night before the murder. If this wasn’t intriguing enough, a member of the police force testified that prime suspect Freddie de Marigny walked into the police station on the morning of the murder at 7.30 am, looking distressed and asking if his vehicle could be inspected. Another witness claimed that they had overheard Freddie and victim Oakes having a conversation where Oakes had asked the suspect not to send letters to his wife and accusing Freddie of being a ‘sex maniac’. What did become clear during proceedings was how poorly the investigation had been carried out with vital evidence lost due to inexplicable actions committed soon after the murder was discovered. More contradictions surfaced when detective James Barker claimed that he had identified the fingerprint on the Chinese screen, as belonging to Freddie, on 9th July while his colleague, Edward Melchen, disclosed that he was unaware of this finding until around the 19th or 20th July. Coronary details revealed that Oakes had sustained blows to the head resulting in his skull having been cracked like a walnut. Blisters, unconnected with the fire were also discovered on his body and their cause unaccounted for. It was believed the murder took place between 2 am and 5 am. The fingerprint from the Chinese screen became a major piece of contention for it was discovered that Barker had used an inappropriate technique and as a consequence destroyed the print entirely. Higgs, for the defence, accused Barker of lifting the print from a glass that the suspect had been drinking from during interrogation. Barker vehemently denied this, but could not pinpoint where the print had been on the screen. Barker was found on the stand not only to be inept at his job but also a liar as he had originally claimed to have taken the fingerprints of all the people allowed into the room only later to admit to the court that this was a lie. Freddie himself took the witness stand and gave a personal account of how he had never truly been accepted by the Oakes since marrying their daughter. By his own admission he had a difficult relationship with his in-laws. He also revealed how he had been questioned by Barker and Melchen and found to have singed hairs on his hands, which he claimed he received from lighting cigars and cooking. On 12th November 1943, the jury went away to consider its verdict. It probably was not all that surprising that due to the incompetent procedures of the investigators, the admission of lies made by Barker himself and the lack of any sound forensic evidence, that a ‘not guilty’ outcome was delivered. THEORIES Several prominent people living on the island or connected to Sir Harry Oakes in some way all appeared to have motives of one kind or another for disposing of the man. Many of the theories are plausible, but improbable. More importantly they have never been proved. The prime suspects range from a German born millionaire with links to the Nazi party, to figures from America’s gangland to the British Royal family itself in the guise of the Duke of Windsor. The core of all the theories share one main common denominator, which was the potential lucrative business of casinos and hotels that were proposed to be built in Nassau prior to Oakes’ murder. FIRST SUSPECT: WENNER-GREN Oakes had become friendly with the rich Swedish born businessman Wenner-Gren who lived on the island with his American wife and had acquired the largest yacht in the world as part of his millionaire lifestyle. Gren was an astute and wily businessman who had made a fortune through selling light bulbs and household electrical equipment. More disturbingly he was known to be a close friend of key Nazi figure, Hermann Goering as well as many other infamous tyrants. One theory is that Gren killed or had Oakes murdered because the victim had unearthed several secrets about him including information that he may have been a spy for the Germans. SECOND SUSPECT: HAROLD CHRISTIE Oakes good friend also came under suspicion due to his association with mobster Frank Marshall who himself was linked with the notorious Mafia boss Charles ‘Lucky’ Luciano. Christie, who had become a wealthy man in his own rights by purchasing land in Nassau and becoming a real estate broker, had big plans for the island and the Bahamas. He envisaged a lucrative tourist trade that encompassed golf courses and hotels. Christie became involved with Frank Marshall who wanted to build casinos on the island despite the prohibitive laws preventing such developments. However, Marshall had reckoned with the influence of Christie’s prominent friends such as Oakes and the Duke of Windsor, they would be able to circumvent restrictions. But Oakes was said to be displeased with the idea and his refusal to co-operate angered Christie who saw his old friend as an obstacle to making millions. THIRD SUSPECT: FRANK MARSHALL AND THE MOB Marshall himself was known to have had a great deal of pressure put on him by his American business partners, who were more than likely Mafia figures. It was believed to be Mafia mobster Lucky Luciano’s idea to build casinos on the island and who realised that with Christie and the Duke of Windsor’s influence and help he had the means to do it. Therefore it may not be too difficult to imagine Luciano’s frustration and anger with Oakes who refused to take part in the scheme. Oakes violent and bloody death seems to fit the kind of grisly end metered out to victims by mobsters of the day. FOURTH SUSPECT: THE DUKE OF WINDSOR The former King of England himself did not escape suspicion when one theory arose that Oakes may have discovered possible evidence of the Duke’s dealings with the Nazi party and Wenner-Gren that threatened to expose the Duke as a traitor and spy. None of the above theories, no matter how convincing they may sound, have provided concrete evidence to back them up. To date the murder of Sir Harry Oakes remains a mystery that has yet to be solved.

On 13 March 1931, a federal grand jury met secretly on the government's claim that in 1924 Al Capone had a tax liability of $32,488.81. The jury returned an indictment against Capone that was kept secret until the investigation was complete for the years 1925 to 1929.The grand jury later returned an indictment against Capone with twenty-two counts of tax evasion, totalling over $200,000. Capone and 68 members of his gang were charged with 5,000 separate violations of the Volstead Act. These income tax cases took precedence over the Prohibition violations.Fearing that witnesses would be tampered with, and having doubts that the six-year statute of limitations would be upheld by the Supreme Court, a deal was secretly truck between Capone’s lawyers and government prosecutors. Capone was to plead guilty to a lighter charge and would receive between two and five years. However, when word got out, the press were outraged and campaigned against what they saw as a blatant whitewash.The over-confident Capone, who believed he would receive less than five years in prison suddenly, became less cocky when he realised that his plea bargain was now null and void.On 6 October 1931, fourteen detectives escorted Capone to the Federal Court Building. He was dressed in a conservative blue serge suit and without his usual pinkie ring and gaudy jewellery. It was inevitable that Capone’s henchmen procured a list of jury members to bribe, but unbeknown to Capone, the authorities had been aware of the plot.When Judge Wilkinson entered the courtroom he suddenly demanded that the jury be exchanged with another in the same building. Capone and his lawyer were shocked. The fresh jury were even sequestered at night so that the Capone mob couldn't get to them.During the trial Attorney George E. Q. Johnson made a mockery of Capone’s claim to be a ‘Robin Hood’ type figure and man of the people. He stressed the hypocrisy of man who would spend thousands of dollars on meals and luxuries but give little to the poor and unemployed. How he asked could Capone possess so much property, vehicles and even diamond belt buckles when his defence lawyers profess that their client had no income?After nine hours of discussion on 17 October 1931, the jury found Capone guilty of several counts of tax evasion. Judge Wilkerson sentenced him to eleven years, $50,000 in fines and court costs of another $30,000. Bail was denied.In August 1934, Capone was moved from a prison in Atlanta to the infamous Alcatraz in San Francisco. His days of privileges in prison were gone and contact with the outside world, even through letters and newspapers was minimal.Capone’s health was exacerbated by tertiary syphilis and he became confused and disorientated. His sentence was finally reduced to six and a half years for good behaviour.After release, Capone slowly deteriorated at his Palm Island palace. Mae, his wife stuck by him until 25 January 1947 when he died of cardiac arrest at age 48.

On 10 October 1934, a New Jersey grand jury indicted Hauptmann on kidnapping and murder charges, and he was extradited to Flemington, New Jersey, where his trial commenced on 2 January 1935. As expected, media interest was intense.Given the high profile nature of the case, the prosecution was led by the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, David Wilentz, who outclassed Hauptmann’s defence team at all levels, led by a shambling alcoholic named Edward Reilly.Wilentz made the most of what was, essentially, circumstantial evidence: the ransom money, the ladder, and the handwriting analysis, and a dubious eyewitness statement that placed Hauptmann near the scene of the crime on the night of the kidnap. The prosecution also called Lindbergh to the stand, who identified Hauptmann’s voice as that which had shouted "Hey, Doctor!" at St Raymond’s Cemetery.Defence counsel countered all this evidence poorly; the ladder had a dubious chain of evidence providence, none of the crime scenes were ever secure, the eyewitness who placed Hauptmann at the crime scene was almost legally blind, and even Lindbergh would have had a hard time accurately identifying a voice which had spoken two words over a considerable distance. Reilly also allowed the identification of the corpse as that of baby Charles to stand uncontested, despite the irregularity of the identification process.When Hauptmann took the stand he was skilfully attacked by Wilentz, making a poor impression on the jury, with his inability to adequately explain the money and the handwriting expert testimony.On 14th February 1935, the jury found Richard Bruno Hauptmann guilty of kidnapping and murder, and he was sentenced to death in the electric chair.On 9th October 1935, Hauptmann’s first appeal was denied. A second appeal, this time to the US Supreme Court, was similarly denied.In December 1935, unable to stand the pressure of media scrutiny any longer, and following kidnap threats to their new baby son, Jon, Lindbergh and his wife sailed to England to escape the relentless publicity.Hauptmann’s wife, Anna, appealed to New Jersey Governor, Harold Hoffman for a stay of execution on 16th January 1936, which Hoffman granted but, following the final denial of clemency by the Board of Appeals, on 30th March 1936, Hauptmann’s execution date was finally set for 3rd April. Hauptmann was offered a last-minute opportunity to have his death sentence commuted to a life sentence, without parole, if he admitted his guilt but he refused to do so.He died in the electric chair on 3rd April 1936.Anna Hauptmann continued to maintain her husband’s innocence until her own death, in 1994.With the Lindbergh family’s ‘defection’ to England, and later Europe, US public sentiment soured towards the former American hero. His pro-fascist sympathies, prior to the Second World War, tarnished Lindbergh’s reputation further, and reinforced the doubt surrounding the circumstantial case built against Hauptmann, in the Lindbergh kidnapping.A number of authors have presented alternate scenarios to the disappearance of baby Charles, including that a member of the Lindbergh family had killed the child, with Lindbergh concocting the kidnap story as an elaborate ruse.There has always been doubt about the circumstances surrounding the identification of the corpse: one theory claims that the body was not baby Charles, but another procured and planted by bootleggers, who were tired of having their lucrative business, of supplying liquor during Prohibition, disrupted by constant police searches of the area, following the kidnapping.A television programme, made in 2005, maintains that while the circumstantial case against Hauptmann was largely credible, it does not conclusively prove that he committed the murder and kidnap, merely that he might have been part of the ‘Cemetery John’ hoax that managed to extract money after the kidnapping. There is still no explanation of how Hauptmann, living in the Bronx, with no connection to the family, knew of the exact location of the nursery, and the last minute change in the Lindbergh family travel itinerary.

NUALA VERSUS RONNIE Nuala O’Loan brings in her own experts to examine the intelligence computers and she finds, on top of Kevin Fulton’s claims, completely new information, unknown to the existing police investigation. She finds that eleven days before Omagh, on 4 August 1998, a police officer received a ten minute telephone call naming the date and the location of the intended bomb. The officer had passed the information to Special Branch. At the very least, the police could have put road blocks on the small number of roads coming into Omagh.But nothing happened. And there was a requirement that the District Commander be told of threats to area, and for these to be recorded in a ‘threat book’ in each police station. But this one went missing and was never found. In total, Nuala O’Loan looked at 300 pieces of intelligence and found that 78% had not been passed onto the investigating officers. The informal ad hoc arrangements where it was assumed that one part of the state apparatus would communicate with the other were found to be completely insufficient.“Kevin’s information on its own couldn’t have prevented the bombing. In combination with the other intelligence, there is a strong possibility.“Her released report in December 2001 is a devastating critique of both the RUC, and by inference, its head, Ronnie Flannagan.“I would not only resign, I would publicly commit suicide if I felt this…to be fair.” Ronnie Flannagan, before his early retirement in May 2002THE PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS In October 2001, Colm Murphy, is put on trial of conspiracy to commit the Omagh bombing as his mobile had been used by the bombers. He’s convicted in January 2002 and sentenced to 14 years in jail for conspiracy to cause an explosion. And in 2003, Michael McKevitt receives 20 years for organising terrorist activities in Ireland. He is the first person to be convicted of the offence which had been created in response to the Omagh bombing. But in January 2005, the conviction of Colm Murphy is overturned on appeal. He’s released after it’s revealed that Gardai forged interview notes used in the case. Some call it a technicality but his sentence is quashed altogether.Next in the dock is Murphy’s nephew, Sean Hoey. Sean Hoey is an unemployed electrician when in he’s arrested and charged with 58 offences. These include five other bombings, four bomb conspiracies and six murder conspiracies. It is one of the biggest trials in Northern Ireland’s history and will be before just a judge, and no jury. Hoey is said to be connected by DNA found on four timers of failed bombs. But as the Omagh bomb exploded, there is no DNA evidence connection to link Hoey. And at Belfast Crown Court, in December 2007, every single charge is dropped and Hoey is found not guilty.It has taken nine years; cost £16m, but in the end, the 38 year old electrician is cleared on all counts relating to Omagh and other terrorist attacks. The judge accuses the police of having a ‘slapdash approach’ to evidence gathering meaning DNA evidence couldn’t be relied on. Evidence was stored in open bags, with loose labels, in a ‘complete mess’ of a room, meaning contamination was possible. And two officers’ claims of wearing protective clothing when gathering evidence are proved false when photos show them otherwise.THE PRIVATE CIVIL CASE On 28 October 2000, families of four children killed in the bombing launch a civil action against the suspects named by BBC Panorama. Suing the suspects seems their only hope. On 15 March 2001, the families of all 29 people killed launch an appeal to raise money for their new civil action against RIRA suspects Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy and Seamus Daly.The relatives insist the action is not about the money. But to both deter future terrorist actions and perhaps uncover evidence for use in criminal proceedings. Their chances of success are higher, however, because the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is lower than that in a criminal one.“This is the first time anywhere in the world that victims’ families have sued terrorists.“ Michael Gallagher, who lost his only son, Aiden, at OmaghBut in 2001 The Daily Mail (and later the BBC) settle with Colm Murphy and both release statements saying Murphy has the right to be considered and maintain his innocent.In February 2002 Bob Geldof, the man behind Band Aid and Live Aid, says Omagh was like Britain’s 9/11 and publicly backs the victims campaign to bring the Real IRA suspects to justice. They require £2million to pursue their civil actions.On 8 June 2009, the civil case concludes. It took the judge three months to sift through the evidence. Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy and Seamus Daly are found to have been responsible for the bombing. They are ordered to pay £1.6m in damages. It sets a precedent and opens the way for other victims to sue terroristsOn 7 July 2011 the Court of appeal upholds the ruling that holds Michael McKevitt is responsible for Omagh, along with Real IRA figure, Liam Campbell. But the judge also directs a civil retrial of the claims against Colm Murphy, and Seamus Daly.On 20 March 2013 Colm Murphy and Seamus Daly are found liable for the Omagh bombing. The victims' families are awarded £1.6m in damages after Judge Mr Justice Gillen describes the evidence against the men as overwhelming."For evil to triumph, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing" Adopted motto of Omagh families

No trial has ever taken place in the Natalee Holloway case, as no one has been charged with her disappearance and her body has never been found.“I would have liked to have seen a trial so that everything could be out in the open.” - Joran van der SlootIn the months following his release, Joran van der Sloot gave several interviews, expanding upon his version of events and in each, maintained his story that he had left Holloway on her own on the beach after saying that he had to go to school in the morning and her insisting she would be fine left alone by herself.The FBI and Aruban authorities started interviewing several of Holloway's fellow graduates back in the United States in January 2006 and also searched sand dunes on the northwest coast of Aruba for her body, as well as areas close by the Marriott beach but she was still not found.On 31 January 2008, Dutch crime reporter Peter R de Vries claimed that he had solved the Holloway case and revealed a supposed confession from Joran van der Sloot, which had been secretly filmed whilst he was under the influence of marijuana. In the tape, van der Sloot said that he was with Holloway when she became unresponsive after drinking too much and he had tried to revive her but with no success. He then claimed he called a friend who told him to go home and disposed of her body for him. The Aruban authorities tried to get an arrest warrant for van der Sloot following the airing of the filmed confession but their request was denied and van der Sloot has since denied that what he said was true.

No trial has been held as no suspect has been arrested. However, other related trials have sprung up since Madeleine McCann’s disappearance due to incorrect media reports and libellous claims.

In July 2008, Robert Murat, the Briton made an official suspect by Portuguese police, accepted a £600,000 damages settlement over allegations in British newspapers that he had been involved in Madeleine's disappearance. His suspect status was subsequently removed.

In March 2007, Madeleine's parents also won a libel settlement and an apology from Express Newspapers for suggesting that they had been responsible. On that occasion, the newspaper group paid £550,000 to the Find Madeleine campaign.

In October 2008, it was ruled that Express Newspapers would pay £375,000 in libel damages to the friends of Kate and Gerry McCann, who were on holiday with them when Madeleine McCann vanished. The money will be donated by the group, known as ‘The Tapas Seven’, to the Find Madeleine Fund. Articles published in British newspapers suggested that some of ‘The Tapas Seven’ had been identified as potential suspects by the Portuguese authorities.

In November 2008, Sky News apologised and agreed to pay substantial damages to Robert Murat over a libellous web story that likened him to a high profile child murderer.

Neilson's trial commenced at Oxford Crown Court on 14 June 1976, amidst a media circus. He was charged with four murders, as well as various other charges of attempted murder, GBH, robbery, kidnapping and firearms possession. Prosecutors were unable to charge him with the murder of security guard, Gerald Smith, as he had survived more than a year and a day beyond the brutal attack, and the law prevented a murder charge being brought, despite his eventual death being a direct result of this attack. The law in the UK has since been changed to prevent this anomaly from recurring.On 1 July 1976 Neilson was unanimously convicted on all charges, with the exception of two charges of attempted murder. He received five life sentences in total, with the judge insisting on a whole of life tariff, with no possibility of parole.

Milat’s trial was set for June 1995, but the case was delayed by wrangles over legal aid, and finally went ahead in the full glare of international publicity in March 1996. Milat was charged with the seven murders, as well as the attack on Paul Onions, and pleaded not guilty to all charges.Onions was the first prosecution witness, who was followed by testimony from the family members of the victims. Then followed detail of the hundreds of exhibits and scene of crime photos, as well as expert witness testimony. The prosecution case took 12 weeks to present.The defence called Milat to the stand; he denied any involvement in the killings, but performed poorly under cross-examination, making a bad impression on the jury. The defence tried to imply that other members of the Milat family had committed the crimes, and had then set Ivan Milat up, but the case presented was not credible.On 27 July 1996, following a 15-week trial, the jury returned after 3 days of consideration, finding Milat guilty on all charges.He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for the attack on Paul Onions, and seven consecutive life sentences for each of the murders. When asked if he had any comment, Milat continued to protest his innocence.

Leopold and Loeb did nothing to assist their defence; both gave extensive interviews to the press about their plans, following the publication of their confessions in the newspapers on 5 June 1924, and even assisted the police in amassing irrefutable evidence against them. Always protected by their family’s wealth, neither seemed to appreciate the gravity of their condition. Prior to the trial, whilst in jail, they enjoyed a comfortable existence, with food and drink brought in from restaurants, and news stories abounded of million dollar sums paid by the family to secure Darrow’s services.Given the evidence against them, Darrow took the decision to plead both defendants guilty to the charges, rather than the expected not guilty by reason of insanity, in order to avoid a jury trial that would almost certainly result in their execution. Darrow thereby engineered a trial before a single judge, Judge Caverly, which began on 21 July 1924.Darrow trounced the prosecution’s assertion that the crime was motivated by money, and shrewdly blocked their attempts to introduce any additional evidence: the defendants had, after all, pleaded guilty.Building the defence case, he made extensive use of the testimony of forensic psychiatrists, known in those days as ‘alienists’, to impress upon the judge the unique psychological natures of each defendant, and how the combination of the popular, dominant Loeb, and the submissive, but brilliant, Leopold, led almost inevitably to the creation of the monster that viewed murder as an academic exercise. Both defendants fascinated the psychiatrists with what they termed their ‘king/slave’ relationship, and Leopold, especially, seemed to enjoy the exploratory sessions, providing a large body of testimony that Darrow used skilfully, playing upon their youth in mitigation of the death penalty. Professional psychiatric opinion determined that Loeb, in all likelihood, was the instigator of both the murder plot and the fatal blow to Bobby Franks.The speeches made by Darrow during the case were considered the finest of his long and distinguished career, and his impassioned defence produced the best result that could be hoped for, given the circumstances: on 24 September 1924 Leopold and Loeb each received a life sentence from Judge Caverly for the murder, rather than the dreaded death penalty, and an additional 99 years each for the kidnapping. The judge further urged that parole should never be granted. Even the parents of Bobby Franks were persuaded from the pursuit of the death penalty, which they had initially advocated in the press.

Kot was accused of two murders, four attempted murders, six poisoning attempts and four counts of arson. The trial aroused great interest amongst the public, who demanded he receive the death penalty. During visits to the crime scenes, and during the court hearings, Kot smiled, and looked like good-natured boy and when weapons or detailed descriptions were presented to the court, he visibly cheered up. He was relaxed and seemed unaware of the possible sentence he would receive.Problems soon emerged when it came to assessing his mental state at the time of the offences. Two teams of experts were consulted, whose opinions of Kot’s sanity differed.Forensic experts from Krakow found Kot to be a psychopath with a ‘deviation from the norms of temperament, drive and character, coupled with a lack of higher emotionality’. They presented to the court that Kot was a limited sanity murderer who could not adapt to social norms.

In turn, psychiatrists believed that Kot was aware of the harmful effects of his actions and was even able to control them. Elements of the crimes such as his ability to refrain from attack in certain circumstances, helped to sustain their theory of Kot’s overall sanity.Consequently, the court upheld the opinion of the psychiatric experts and found Kot guilty, condemning him to the death penalty.As Kot was only sentenced for the murder of the 11-year-old boy, his lawyers filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, who then also took into consideration the testimony of the forensic experts along with Kot’s young age and overturned the death penalty ruling and instead sentenced Kot to life imprisonment.The General Prosecutor of the Polish People's Republic, however, had the right to revise the sentence and in March 1968, reconvened the Supreme Court. Once again Kot was sentenced to death by hanging. The judgment of the Supreme Court was based on the cruel murder of the 11-year-old boy and Kot’s attempt to kill the 7-year-old girl, stating: “Taking in to account, the defenseless beings, his cynicism and lack of remorse, the only right punishment is the death penalty” Kot was executed on 16 May 1968. An autopsy of Karol Kot showed that he had been suffering from a previously undiagnosed large brain tumour.  

It was decided that Gilmore would be tried for the murder of motel manager Bushnell, rather than Jensen, as the evidence for the former was far stronger. The prosecutor, Noall Wootton, sought the death penalty, on the grounds that Gilmore was a habitual criminal unlikely to benefit from any attempts at rehabilitation.Gilmore's trial started on 5th October 1976 and lasted only two days. After the prosecution presented their witnesses, and his confession, Gilmore made an attempt to plead his own case to the judge, but when his defence team pointed out that he had no chance of making an insanity plea, he withdrew his request and resigned himself to his fate. The jury took less than 80 minutes to return a verdict of First Degree Murder.He was offered a choice of delivery of the death penalty: firing squad or hanging. He chose the firing squad, and the sentence was due to be carried out on 15th November 1976.