In the presence of the victims’ families the jury heard how both Charles Ng and his older accomplice Leonard Lake had abducted, raped, tortured and eventually murdered up to 25 people including two babies. Ironically Lake’s own diary confessional was rendered inadmissible by the judge, but other items such as the incriminating videos showing victims tied up and taunted played their part in finding Ng guilty of murdering six men, three women and two babies.All along Ng's attorneys insisted that he had been an ‘unwilling’ accomplice who had not taken part in any killings, but had participated in some of the sexual assaults. This ploy did not wash with the jury which also took into account the fact that while in custody Ng had drawn cartoons depicting various murders with incriminating detail. He had also written a motto on his cell wall which read: ‘No kill, no thrill – no gun, no fun’.Ng was sentenced to life imprisonment and is currently on death row at San Quentin prison, California, but even this has not stopped his attorneys for presenting appeals against the ‘harshness of the sentence’.The court proceedings had taken a grand total of thirteen years and cost taxpayers twenty million dollars to convict one man who had an incredible amount of incriminating evidence stacked against him, including video tape footage showing him as a cruel, sadistic gaoler of several murdered victims.

In November 1990, Shawcross went on trial for the ten murders that had occurred in Monroe County, which included all victims except for Elizabeth Gibson, who had been killed in neighbouring Wayne County. The trial was a national media event, extensively televised and widely viewed.Shawcross’ defence team tried to build a case based on an insanity plea, citing various mitigating factors, such as his upbringing, post-traumatic stress as a result of military service, a cyst on the brain, and a rare genetic defect: an extra Y chromosome in his genes that inclines those with this condition to violence.The prosecution were quick to dispute the claims about his childhood and military service, casting doubts on Shawcross’ testimony. The physiological evidence about brain science and genetic factors was, at best, spurious and beyond the understanding of the jury. It was also hindered by poor presentation on the part of the expert witnesses called to testify.Shawcross was found sane and guilty of 10 instances of second-degree murder. The judge sentenced him to 25 years for each count, a total of 250 years imprisonment. A few months later, Shawcross was taken to Wayne County to be tried for Elizabeth Gibson's murder. Rather than claim insanity this time, he pleaded guilty and received a further life sentence.Shawcross was sent to serve his time at the Sullivan Correctional Facility in New York State.

In June 1994, in Graz, Austria, the trial began. Unterweger as an Austrian citizen was to be tried of all murders in Los Angeles, Prague and Austria. The man himself played to the gallery and utilised his well-honed skills of manipulation by appealing to the jury and the public’s sense of fair play. When he admitted he was ‘a rat’ and an ‘inveterate liar’ who ‘consumed women rather than love them’ how could they fail to dismiss such self-deprecating honesty?What the defence did not count on was the response to such questioning from the prosecution based on psychiatric reports and the FBI investigative analysis that pointed out that a man such as Unterweger was not rational. As someone who suffered from uncontrolled compulsions and fetishes, it really didn’t matter what status he held in life. He’d still kill, as it was an addiction.Further evidence such as the crime lab reports on the ligature knots; Blanka Bockova’s hair strand recovered in the BMW and red fibres found on Brunhilde Massar’s body from Unterweger’s scarf, finally added up to a compelling case against the defendant.But Unterweger was still unrepentant, "I'm counting on your acquittal," he said, "because I am not the culprit. Your decision will affect not only me but the real killer, who is laughing up his sleeve".Two and a half months later even the most supportive press of Unterweger began to change their views. The devious sociopath also began to lose support from the literary establishment and his girlfriend, Bianca Mrak.Jack Unterweger was found guilty of nine counts of murder; the Prague victim, all three Los Angeles victims and five in Austria. The court sentenced him to life in prison.The final twist in this macabre and dark tale is that Unterweger, being a man who like many serial killers had a preoccupation with control, could not handle not being in the driver’s seat. He took the opportunity while guards were out of sight to hang himself using the string from his prison jumpsuit. Ironically he used the same knot he had so cruelly practised on his victims.

In December 1995, Nicholas Leeson was charged by the authorities in Singapore with fraud in the deception of his superiors as to the riskiness of his activities and the scale of his losses. They did however acknowledge that he had been given authorisation for the 16 January 'short straddle'.Leeson pleaded guilty to forging documents and misleading SIMEX and was sentenced to six and a half years in a Singapore prison, rife with vicious gangs. The sentence was back-dated to his arrest on 2 March 1995.Devastated with this turn of events, Leeson’s wife Lisa found work as an airhostess so that she could visit him regularly. Unfortunately it wasn’t long before their marriage began to show signs of strain. The last straw was Leeson’s brazen infidelity with geisha girls and Lisa divorced him immediately.

In 1967, Frankie Fraser went to the Old Bailey for what became known as the ‘Torture Trials’. They were to become some of the most infamous criminal trials of the last half century. The court detailed how Charlie Richardson used iron bars, pliers and electrodes on opponents. He was accused of fraud, extortion, assault and GBH.The trial judge was Sir Frederick Lawton, QC. His father was the famously strict governor of Wandsworth prison and Fraser had been one of his inmates.One of the chief informers was an ex-gang member Johnny Bradbury. Bradbury was under a death sentence for the killing of a Richardson business partner. Bradbury hoped that his testimony might mean he’d escape the gallows.Fraser was sentenced to 10 years for his role as the ‘dentist’ in the so-called Richardson Torture Gang. Gang leader Charlie Richardson received 25 years. Fraser later denied the claims of the prosecution that he electrocuted genitals, nailed feet to the floor and removed teeth. The prosecution had even alleged they’d used bolt cutters to remove fingers and toes. All of the convicted insisted that the torture allegations were made up to enforce their convictions.Said to have used pliers to extract teeth, Fraser argued that no one, toothless or otherwise, has ever come forward to testify that this happened. Many believe the pliers Fraser carried were a warning, not a tool, for the potentially loose lipped.Fraser was about to embark on a long period of prison. And because he would never admit his guilt or show remorse, there would be no remission.

Hearst was charged with armed robbery, and remanded in custody to await trial. Hearst’s parents engaged celebrated defence attorney, F Lee Bailey, to argue her case, which commenced in Los Angeles on 15th January 1976. Bailey had represented a number of high profile defendants, including Albert de Salvo (The Boston Strangler) but Hearst claimed later that Bailey proved a bad choice, and he often appeared poorly prepared during the trial and was suspected of being intoxicated on a number of occasions.The trial lasted more than two months. Despite Bailey hiring some of the best psychological experts to argue the case for the ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, as described by Hearst, the jury appeared unconvinced as a number of his experts appeared to contradict one another.Bailey’s half-hearted, and intoxicated, summation of the defence case as the trial de to a close only added to the doubt sewn by the poor defence effort. The jury returned a guilty verdict, on 20th March 1976, and Hearst received the maximum sentence; 25 years for the robbery, and an additional 10 years for the use of a firearm in the commission of the robbery.She was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Pleasanton, California.A judicial review of the trial resulted in the reduction of Hearst’s jail sentence to seven years.On 29th September 1976, Bill and Emily Harris pleaded guilty to the kidnapping of Patty Hearst. They served eight years in prison.On 1st February 1979, less than two years into her jail sentence, President Jimmy Carter commuted Hearst’s jail sentence, and she was released under strict parole conditions.After her release from prison, Hearst married her former bodyguard, Bernard Shaw, and they have two children, Gillian and Lydia, together. She became an actress for a time, with cameo roles in a number of John Waters’ films.She wrote a memoir in 1982, entitled ‘Every Single Thing’, in which she describes her ordeal in detail. This was made into a film called ‘Patty Hearst’ in 1988. The book was then re-released under the title ‘Patty Hearst: Her Own Story’.Using her family’s political connections, Hearst continued to try to have her name cleared through presidential intercession. Finally, thanks to former president Jimmy Carter’s direct involvement, President Bill Clinton granted her a full pardon on 20th January 2001, on the final day of his presidency.It is likely that the American public will forever remain divided on whether Patty Hearst was a victim, or willing participant, in the crimes of which she was convicted.

Having been declared sane and fit to stand trial, Chikatilo went to court on 14 April 1992, and throughout the trial he was held in an iron cage designed to keep him apart from the relatives of his many victims. Referred to in the media as “The Maniac”, his behaviour in court ranged from bored to manic, singing and talking gibberish; at one point he was even reported to have dropped his trousers, waving his genitals at the assembled crowd.The judge appeared less than impartial, often overruling Chikatilo’s defence lawyer, and it was clear that Chikatilo’s guilt was a foregone conclusion. The trial lasted until August and, surprisingly, given the judge’s bias, the verdict was not announced until two months later, on 15 October 1990, when Chikatilo was found guilty on 52 of the 53 murder charges, and sentenced to death for each of the murders.

Godse, who had made no attempt to flee following the assassination, and his co-conspirator, Narayan Apte, were both imprisoned until their trial on 8th November 1949. They were convicted of Ghandi’s killing, and both were executed, a week later, at Ambala Jail, on 15th November 1949. The supposed architect of the plot, a Hindu extremist named Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, was acquitted due to lack of evidence.Ghandi was cremated as per Hindu custom, and his ashes are interred at the Aga Khan’s palace in Pune, the site of his incarceration in 1942, and the place his wife had also died.Gandhi's memorial bears the epigraph “Hé Rām” (“Oh God”) although there is no conclusive proof that he uttered these words before death.Although Gandhi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times, he never received it. In the year of his death, 1948, the Prize was not awarded, the stated reason being that “there was no suitable living candidate” that year.Gandhi's life and teachings have inspired many liberationists of the 20th Century, including Dr. Martin Luther King in the United States, Nelson Mandela and Steve Biko in South Africa, and Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar.His birthday, 2nd October, is celebrated as a National Holiday in India every year.

Given that the majority of Dahmer’s victims were African-American, there were considerable racial tensions, and his trial began on 13 January 1992 under the strictest of security, which included an eight-foot barrier of bullet-proof glass, that separated him from the gallery. The inclusion of only one African-American on the jury provoked further unrest, but fortunately this was contained and short-lived. His father Lionel and his second wife attended the trial throughout.Despite having confessed to the killings during police interrogation, Dahmer initially pleaded not guilty to all charges. However, against the advice of his legal counsel, he changed his plea to guilty by virtue of insanity. His defence then offered every gruesome detail of his behaviour, as proof that only someone insane could commit such terrible acts. But the jury chose to believe the prosecutor’s assertion that Dahmer was fully aware that his acts were evil and that he chose to commit them anyway. They returned after only five hours deliberation to find him guilty, but sane, on all counts, on 17 February 1992.Dahmer was sentenced to fifteen consecutive life terms, a total of 957 years in prison.

Gein was finally declared mentally competent to stand trial in November 1968, and tried for the murder of Bernice Worden. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and sent back to Central State hospital in Waupun.

Gaskins is tried for eight murders on 24 May 1976 and four days later, he’s found guilty and sentenced to death.One small improvement to Gaskins lot is that he’s no longer subject to sexual or physical assault. His fearsome reputation means no one will take on ‘Pee Wee’. Inside, Gaskins kills again. On 2 September 1982, he finally succeeds in fulfilling his contract to Tony Cimo. Tony was the son of Myrtle Moon and Myrtle and Bill Moon had been killed by Rudolph Tyner during his bungled armed robbery of their store. As Rudolph Tyner is in the same prison as Gaskins, Tony hires Gaskins to exact vengeance.Gaskins tries poison but then he rigs a radio with explosives telling Tyner that it will allow them to communicate between cells. When Tyner tunes in, Gaskins detonates. Gaskins is again sentenced to death.On death row, Gaskins spends 15 months confessing his life of serial killing to a journalist. These memoirs form his autobiography, ‘Final Truth’ in which he explains he has a ‘special mind’ that gives him ‘permission to kill’. Gaskins claims to have killed over a 100 people including the 12 year old daughter of a state senator. Many of his claims cannot, however, be verified.He never once expresses remorse for his actions.Regarding his own end he says‘I truly don’t mind dying. I’ve lived a damn full and good life.’A few hours before his execution, Gaskins tries to delay his execution by slashing his wrists. With stitched wounds, he’s placed in the electric chair. At 1.05 a.m. on 6 September 1991, Donald ‘Pee Wee’ Gaskins dies.‘When they put me to death, I’ll die remembering the freedom and pleasure of my life. I’ll die knowing that there are others coming along to take my place, and that most of them will never get caught.’ (Donald Gaskins)

Garrison called Perry Russo, an insurance salesman, as his main witness to testify against Clay Shaw. Despite the huge media attention, Shaw’s popularity, particularly in New Orleans proved galling to Garrison who some critics believed targeted Shaw due to a homophobic agenda.One aspect that Garrison focused on about Shaw was the fact that he had set up the International Trade Mart where, coincidentally, Oswald had stood and handed out leaflets.Eventually Shaw's attorneys discredited Perry Russo's story, particularly as his testimonies appeared inconsistent. Shaw was acquitted much to the annoyance of Garrison, who later wrote a book ‘On The Trail of the Assassins’ which film director Oliver Stone used as his template for his controversial 1991 movie.Clay Shaw himself later spoke on the subject of conspiracy.“I only know I had no part in any plot. But I do feel many people believe in a conspiracy, because when death comes to the figure of a prince, as it did to Kennedy, struck down in his prime, it should come under a panoply of great tragedy with all the resulting high court intrigue - almost something out of Shakespeare - not from some poor little psychotic loser crouched with a mail-order rifle behind a stack of cardboard boxes in a warehouse."The Second Shooter Theory One contentious theory was there were at least one or two shooters behind a picket fence atop a small sloping hill looking towards Dealey Plaza. A number of witnesses reported seeing a flash of light or a puff of smoke from behind the fence along with hearing shots from that direction. The theory has not been proved conclusively.The Single Bullet TheoryThis theory purported that the same bullet that hit Kennedy also caused all of Governor Connally's wounds. This single bullet then backed out of Connally's left thigh and was found on a stretcher in the hospital. Known as the ‘Single Bullet Theory’ or the ‘Magic Bullet Theory’, some ballistic evidence has suggested that such a bullet trajectory was possible, but this point is a source of much debate.The Double Agent TheoryIn October 1981 Oswald's body was exhumed with the co-operation of his former wife Marina. She and British writer Michael Eddowes sought to prove a thesis explored in his book, ‘Khrushchev Killed Kennedy’ published in 1975 both in the United Kingdom and America. The premise of the book rested on the theory that during Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union, he was swapped with a Soviet double named Alek, who was a member of a KGB assassination squad.Eddowes claimed that this Soviet double killed Kennedy and that the corpse buried in 1963 in the Shannon Rose Hill Memorial Park cemetery did not have a scar that resulted from surgery conducted on Oswald years before. Unfortunately Oswald's body was in too advanced a state of decomposition for forensic examination to take place.The assassination of JFK brought about a slew of conspiracy theories, ranging from the plausible to fantasy ridden speculations. Some have even suggested that Kennedy’s brain was substituted for another in order to prevent the truth of how he was killed on that fateful day from ever being revealed.In late September 1964, after a 10-month investigation, The Warren Commission reported that it could not find any persuasive evidence of a domestic or foreign conspiracy involving any other person(s), group(s), or country(ies) and that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the murder of Kennedy. The commission also concluded that only three bullets were fired during the assassination, and that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three bullets from the Texas School Book Depository behind the motorcade.The Commission also criticised weaknesses in security, which has resulted in greatly increased security whenever the president travels. The supporting documents for the Warren Commission Report are not due to be released until 2017.

Escobar was never put on trial.

Einhorn enlisted the services of Ted Simon, an expert in international law and a brilliant attorney, to fight the extradition process. Simon did so by citing established rules of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), to which France is a party and an active defender. The rules deny the legitimacy of trials in absentia, especially when the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. In French and European jurisprudence, trials in absentia deny the suspect the right to defend themself in a court of law and make a mockery of the presumption of innocence, the cornerstones of any just legal system.In addition, under the ECHR, France is prevented from deporting or extraditing anyone within its borders to a country where they are not guaranteed a fair trial. Under the existing Pennsylvanian law, Einhorn would have had no recourse to a new trial and he would have been imprisoned immediately under the terms of the 1993 sentence upon his arrival back on American soil. Simon demonstrated that Einhorn would not have been granted a new trial and, at that time, enjoyed little to no appellate rights. The extradition application failed in the French courts and on 4th December 1997, Einhorn was released.In January 1998, the Pennsylvanian legislature passed a new law that granted a previously tried and condemned man a new trial. Einhorn was rearrested and placed on bail to await a new extradition hearing. At the hearing, Simon countered using established American constitutional principles of the doctrine of separation of powers, essentially arguing that it went against all notions of good governance and the rule of law for a legislature to interfere with a final judgment of the judiciary. In other words, a law-making body can never direct a court to change its judgment, nor can it direct a retrial after the initial trial has been finalised.A second point of contention that was brought up by Simon was that the new Pennsylvanian law, the so-called ‘Einhorn law’, appeared to have been enacted to firstly, retrospectively apply in Einhorn’s case, and secondly, appeared to have little general application outside of Einhorn’s case, both of which offended principles of the rule of law; a law cannot retrospectively apply to someone, nor should a law target a specific person or specific case.The second extradition hearing ended with the French court declaring itself incompetent to hear arguments relating to the constitutionality of foreign laws. The decision therefore went to French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, since an extradition must be ordered by the executive after being approved by the courts. On 21st July 2000, Jospin eventually agreed to the extradition and was roundly criticised for having succumbed to political pressure from America, including American President Bill Clinton who had personally intervened. Meanwhile, Einhorn’s lawyers appealed to the Conseil d’Etat, the highest French court of law, and Annika Einhorn, his wife, canvassed the support of a wide spectrum of human rights organisations, including heavyweights like Helsinki Watch and S.O.S. Racisme.The appeal to the Conseil d’Etat failed, as did the final appeals to both courts of the European Court of Human Rights on 18th July 2001. Einhorn publicly slit his throat in front of television cameras after the Conseil d’Etat decision, although he suffered little damage as he had only used a butter knife. On 21st July 2001, Einhorn returned to the United States via Philadelphia International Airport to stand trial for the murder of Holly Maddux.The murder trial itself was relatively straightforward after the years of legal wrangling that had preceded it. The prosecution amassed a body of circumstantial evidence against Einhorn, including the corpse found in his apartment. They also led him in cross-examination to read large portions of his diaries, which gave insight to his violent and misogynist character. The defence tried the ploy of having the trial dismissed as the ‘Einhorn law’ was unconstitutional, arguing that the law violated the protection against ‘double jeopardy’, that is, being tried twice for the same crime, but the judge refused to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the trial. The defence also tried to introduce reasonable doubt that Einhorn had committed the murder, claiming that he had been out of the apartment for several months in 1978 and that it was possible for the body to have been sneaked in to frame their client. Einhorn, when asked to enter his defence, claimed that he had been framed by the CIA or KGB.After only four weeks, on 17th October 2002, a racially mixed jury of six men and six women found Ira Einhorn guilty of the murder of Holly Maddux in 1977. Judge William Mazzola sentenced Einhorn to life in prison without parole. He is currently incarcerated at Houtzdale State Prison in Pennsylvania.

During the trial in Edinburgh in May 1978 Fontaine was described as a psychopath. Fontaine made a full confession to the five murders and British and Scottish courts sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was given four life sentences for four of the murders. The fifth case remains open.

During the 1976 trial in New Delhi, Sobhraj was chiefly represented by criminal lawyer VK Ohri, who had seen him through previous court cases. However, Sobhraj also rather imperiously hired and fired lawyers and eventually brought in his recently paroled brother, André, to help.

He went on a hunger strike but to no avail. Sobhraj was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. He was spared India’s death penalty, even although the prosecution fought for it and some sources believed Sobhraj bribed court officials to avoid it. He was sentenced a further five years on other criminal charges, making a total of twelve years imprisonment.

During his trial at the District Court in Hamburg, Fritz Honka was represented by star of Munich’s legal scene, Rolf Bossi. Referring to the psychiatric evaluation, Bossi had Honka classified as having a “severe mental illness with a value of deviation.” Honka’s lawyer’s defense was based around the premise that only the killing of Anna Beuschel could be classified as murder. Because of the alleged vision of Jack the Ripper, the court granted the lawyer’s application that Honka should not be found guilty of the three other deaths. The final, shocking verdict of the court was, instead of a life sentence, Honka should be imprisoned for 15 years in a psychiatric hospital.

Dale Cregan’s 19-week trial at Preston Crown Court began with him pleading 'not guilty'. He changed his plea to 'guilty' in the second week of the trial, and was eventually given a whole life sentence for the four murders of Mark and David Short, PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone. This means he will remain incarcerated until the day he dies.

Five others, including Anthony Wilkinson (who’d also gone on the run with Cregan) were found guilty for their involvement in the Short murders. Dale Cregan is currently being held at psychiatric unit Ashworth Hospital in Merseyside, the same facility as Moors Murderer, Ian Brady.

How the Moors Murderers were caught

Few serial killer couples evoke as much repulsion and horror as Ian Brady and Myra Hindley

Crippen and Ethel were tried separately, in October 1910, at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey in London.Crippen’s trial for murder commenced on 18 October 1910, and he hampered any hope of building a decent defence, by refusing to allow Ethel to stand as a defence witness. His only concern seemed to be the protection of her reputation. He might have avoided execution had he chosen to plead guilty, introducing testimony of Belle’s serial adultery, but he pleaded not guilty, and was mercilessly bullied by the prosecutor, Mr R.C. Muir K.C., who emphasised the lies told to the Ladies’ Guild and the police, and the concealment of the crime.On 22 October 1910 the jury returned a verdict of guilty, after only 27 minutes of consideration. The presiding judge, Lord Alverstone, sentenced Crippen to death by hanging.On 26 October the trial of Ethel Le Neve began at the Old Bailey, on charges of being an accessory to murder, after the fact, and a fugitive from justice. Lasting only one day, her defence successfully painted a picture of an innocent young woman merely following the instructions of her lover, and she was found not guilty, after only 12 minutes of deliberation by the jury.

Chessman didn’t do himself any favours by representing himself in court. His demeanour was interpreted as arrogant and matters weren’t helped by the fact that the court stenographer died early on in the trial.The transcription was now undertaken by a relative of the prosecutor, without Chessman's approval. That relative, a chronic alcoholic, made indiscriminate changes and couldn't even interpret his own handiwork in a court of law. But despite such judicial bungling even Chessman’s own defence lawyer George T. Davis thought the defendant difficult. However, Davis became fond of Chessman over the years and even though he believed him to be arrogant he also thought of him as a ‘decent and sensitive guy’."California was determined never to give him a retrial," said Davis years later. "Our only hope was to get the case into a federal court."During the trial Chessman repeatedly refuted claims that he was the Red Light Bandit, but could not provide evidence corroborating his innocence.Eventually the jury determined that one of the kidnapping counts included bodily harm of the victim. The jury did not recommend mercy, so the death sentence was automatically applied. Chessman was convicted as the ‘Red Light Bandit’ for the kidnap and rape of one Mary Alice Meza.

By the time Sithole’s trial began on 21 October 1996, mounting evidence saw the total charges against him increase to 38 counts of murder, 40 counts of rape and 6 counts of robbery. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.Building a chronological picture of his crimes, the prosecution introduced harrowing testimony, from his earliest rape victims, detailing their ordeals at the hands of Sithole before his first conviction for rape.There followed a detailed examination of his connection with each of the murdered victims, with testimony about the alleged job offers, and the specific techniques used to lure his victims to their deaths. Sithole appeared cool and collected throughout.On 3 December 1996, the prosecution introduced a video that had been shot during Sithole’s initial incarceration, in which Sithole candidly admitted to 29 murders. He describes his technique in some detail, although he claims that he began killing only in July 1995, selecting his victims for their resemblance to the rape victim, Buyiswa Doris Swakamisa, whom he regarded as responsible for his first jail sentence. The legality of the admissibility of this tape, recorded illegally in a jail cell, caused the trial to be delayed until 29 January 1997, and the technical issues relating to it, as well as Sithole’s original confession, caused the trial to drag on until 29 July 1997, when the judge finally ruled that the evidence was admissible.The prosecution rested its case on 15 August 1997. The defence case depended largely on Sithole’s denial of any involvement in the killings, when he took the witness box, but his testimony was often rambling and incoherent.On 4 December 1997, more than a year after the case had commenced, Moses Sithole was found guilty on all charges. It took three hours to read the verdict, with the consequence that sentencing had to be postponed until the next day.Next morning, the judge made a statement stating that, in view of the abhorrent nature of the crimes, he would have had no hesitation in pronouncing a death sentence on Sithole. However, since the death penalty in South Africa had been declared unconstitutional in 1995, Sithole was sentenced to 2,410 years in prison, with no possibility of parole for at least 930 years. Clearly, the sentence meant to keep Sithole behind bars for the rest of his life.

Between the detonation of the first Soviet atomic device, in 1949, and the trial of the Rosenbergs, which began on 6 March 1951, there was a pervading fear of communist domination in the United States. This fear was escalated further by the anti-Communist witch-hunt of Senator Joseph McCarthy, which was launched in February 1950, and steadily gained momentum prior to the Rosenberg trial. By the start of the Rosenberg trial the Korean War had raged for 10 months, and the threat of spies saturated the media.Unsurprisingly, the case enjoyed a high media profile from the outset. The case against the Rosenbergs was based principally on the testimony of Ethel’s brother, David Greenglass, who claimed that Julius had induced him to join the Communist Party. Greenglass also claimed that Rosenberg had urged his wife, Ruth, to encourage him to steal atomic bomb secrets. Greenglass implicated his sister Ethel as well, stating that she had typed documents from his notes, containing the atomic bomb information, which were then transferred up the spy chain to Moscow. Ruth Greenglass affirmed his testimony; both had agreed to co-operate with the prosecution in exchange for leniency. Nevertheless, Greenglass appeared to take particular pleasure in implicating his sister and brother-in-law.When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg took the stand in their own defence, they did little to endear themselves to the jury, choosing to invoke the Fifth Amendment, against the advice of their defence team, rather than implicate any of their comrades. Cross examination by the prosecution seemed to focus on making them invoke this right as many times as possible, to reinforce the certainty, in the jury’s minds, that both of the Rosenbergs were hardened Communist spies.On 29 March 1951, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of conspiracy to commit espionage and, a week later, on 5 April 1951 the judge sentenced both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to death by electrocution.

Because of public sentiment running high against him, Volz elected for trial before a judge instead of a jury. Volz was held in a number of prisons and was repeatedly threatened and had to spend a week in a medical ward. The trial was set down for 26 January 2007 and a pre-trial judge, at a special hearing, ordered Volz released to house arrest until the date, which was eventually delayed until 14 February 2007.The trial was heard before a specialised trial judge, Dr Ivette Turuno Blanco. Volz’s family were plainly struggling to understand the Nicaraguan justice system and comments they made were seized upon by the partisan local press. Jimenez’s mother, Mercedes Alvarado, spurred public sentiment by claiming she had been offered $1,000,000 to testify to Volz’s innocence, an offer the Volz family were in no position to make and that they emphatically denied. The Volz family had mobilised public support in the United States in favour of their son and the trial was followed by thousands of well-wishers, through internet blogs written by Volz’s parents who had nearly bankrupted themselves to pay for his defence.Court files show the original charges of murder were against Volz and Llanes, Jimenez’s boyfriend at the time of the murder. The charges were based on Lopez’s ‘confession’ but were later amended to include all four men, Volz, Llanes, Lopez and Dangla. They were further amended to charge only Lopez and Volz after Llanes produced his alibi and Dangla turned state’s witness.Dangla was the prosecution’s star witness. He testified that he had seen Volz on the morning of the murder in San Juan and that Volz had told Dangla to meet him at Sol Fashion at 1pm. Dangla said Volz came out of the store at 1pm, handed him two bags full of what felt like clothes and told him to put them in the car. Volz then allegedly paid Dangla 50 cordobas before driving off in the direction of Managua. Jimenez’s mother testified to Volz’s jealousy but the only witness to put Volz at the scene was Dangla, whose testimony was so poorly presented it was laughed at by all present, including the judge.The defence case attempted to detail Volz’s alibi, including the ten or so people who had seen him in Managua up to, during and after the murder, but the judge threw out all but three witnesses. A hairdresser testified she had cut Volz’s hair on the afternoon in question and the other two witnesses, the American business contact and the journalist Ricardo Castillo, testified to being in a meeting with him the whole time. The defence showed that none of the physical evidence at the crime scene had come from Volz. Both Lopez and Dangla had fingernail scratches on their arms and Dangla had multiple scratches to various parts of his body. Volz testified in his own defence. When asked how he had got the scratch found on his shoulder he answered, “I got it carrying Doris's casket at the funeral”.Lopez, Volz’s co-accused, had one witness called in his defence and did not take the stand himself. Outside the court, tempers were running high and a mob of hundreds of Nicaraguans was being held back by national police. During the defence summation, shooting began as riot police battled enraged protestors.The judge returned her verdict after two hours deliberation. On 15 February 2007 she rejected all Volz’s witnesses to his alibi, told him it was impossible to get scratches from carrying a coffin and that it was impossible to get to San Juan del Sur as quickly as he did from the capital. She found both defendants guilty and sentenced them to the maximum term of 30 years. The mob outside the court celebrated wildly, shouting “Justice!” and whistling.

Attorney General Janet Reno immediately recognised the catastrophic failure of the FBI operation, and offered her resignation to President Bill Clinton. However, President Clinton refused to accept it just “because some religious fanatics murdered themselves".

Over the next six months, a number of official investigations were conducted into the events surrounding the siege at Waco, with most concluding that the ATF, the FBI and other agencies had acted within the bounds of their authority. It appeared that the evidence about arms manufacture upon which the initial warrants had been sought was sound, and there was no clear understanding why Koresh, who had offered access to ATF officials readily in July 1992, had reacted so violently to the attempt to search the premises in February 1993.

These investigations were played out endlessly in the media, and the public were largely divided about which side had precipitated the chain of catastrophic events. During the criminal trials of 11 surviving Davidians, on charges of conspiring to commit the murder of the ATF agents, which commenced on 10th January 1994, their defence team argued successfully that the Davidians were acting in self-defence. When returning their verdict on 26th February 1994, the jury acquitted four of the eleven completely, finding the others guilty of far less serious charges.

The Waco Siege: a timeline of tragedy

What happened in the build-up to the awful events of the Waco siege

The media hailed this as a public indictment of the government’s mishandling of the affair, whilst Reno maintained that it vindicated the official version of events. However, there is little doubt that the failure to make the charges stick was an embarrassment to both the Justice Department and the ATF. On 21st March 1994, the surviving Davidians, and relatives of the deceased, launched a $100 million wrongful death suit against the federal government. On 17th June 1994, the Branch Davidians who had been found guilty in February were given 40-year prison sentences by U.S. District Court Judge, Walter Smith, despite the jury’s inclination towards leniency.

By the time of a public enquiry by The House of Representatives during July and August 1995, Janet Reno’s testimony held Koresh entirely responsible for the deadly events of 19th April. This is despite her previous admission that the attack by the authorities had been a mistake, accompanied by her offer to resign. The investigating committee found her decision to approve the tank assault was “premature, wrong and highly irresponsible”. She continued to serve as Attorney General.

Heaven's Gate UFO Cult: The largest mass suicide in US history

39 members of Heaven's Gate took their lives in 1997 believing it would help them survive an oncoming apocalypse.

On 18th January 1997 the documentary film ‘Waco: The Rules of Engagement’, was released at the Sundance Film Festival. A technical expert who was interviewed for the project claimed that an analysis of Infra Red images showed that numerous gunshots were fired at the complex, on the morning of 19th April. The FBI had previously asserted that only teargas was fired by the assembled agents. On 9th September 1999, amidst continuing ongoing public unease about whether the FBI, the ATF and the Department of Justice had deliberately suppressed evidence about the Waco Massacre, Attorney General Reno appointed a former Missouri senator, John C. Danforth, as a special prosecutor. He was tasked with investigating whether the federal government had engaged in misconduct and then tried to cover up its actions.

In the meantime, the wrongful death suit brought by the Davidian survivors in March 1994 was delayed at every turn, with the FBI and ATF delaying the release of information pertinent to the case. After a federal judge ruled that neither the FBI nor ATF had deliberately destroyed evidence, it finally came to court on 18th June 2000, but the jury were unconvinced by the claims of the defendants. They ruled, on 14th July 2000, that federal officials were not responsible for the deaths. The case was officially dismissed on 20th September 2000.

Shocking reveals from cult survivors

Five former cult members speak out about their experiences being part of extreme groups

Despite unearthing evidence that the FBI had definitely known about Koresh’s intention to start fires, which they had earlier denied, and evidence that showed conclusively that the FBI had fired gunshots on the day, also denied previously, and a host of procedural errors and cover-ups, Danforth’s February 2001 report essentially exonerated the federal government of any wrongdoing. The only person charged by Danforth’s enquiry was a federal prosecutor, Bill Johnson, who was charged with concealing information relating to the use of pyrotechnic devices on 19th April 1993.

Subsequent unofficial analyses indicate that the Danforth enquiry had been less than scrupulous in pursuing a full and frank enquiry, perhaps in the interests of maintaining the public’s faith in the federal government. The Danforth enquiry, which had been set up to quell public fears of a federal conspiracy, came to be viewed as part of the conspiracy, by sections of the media and a significant proportion of the American public.The debate was effectively silenced by the departure of the Democratic Party from power, in early 2001.

5 surprising facts about David Koresh and the Waco Siege

David Koresh was a self-proclaimed messiah who was seen as the second coming of Christ to his followers

At the time Ewell finally went to trial he had evaded police prosecution for five years.  During that time he had managed to keep one step ahead of the law. Now due to Ponce’s testimony both Ewell and Radovcich found themselves in the dock, the latter tried on three counts of first-degree murder.Superior Court Judge Frank J. Creede Jr. banned television cameras from the trial, but did allow a radio station to cover court proceedings. The court case was a sensational affair due to the nature of the crime, its wealthy suspects and the fact that it had taken so long to bring the criminals to justice.Deputy District Attorney Jim Oppliger for the prosecution stated to the jury that Dana Ewell hired former roommate Joel Radovcich to kill the Ewell family at their home while Ewell, the planner and operator, resided in Morgan with his girlfriend and her father in order to acquire an alibi. Oppliger said he would need about 2 hours to describe complex evidence gathered in the more than 5 years since the killings of Dale Ewell, his wife and their 24-year-old daughter, Tiffany.Star witness, Jack Ponce, 27, agreed to testify for the prosecution in exchange for immunity. He told the jury that he bought the murder weapon for Radovcich, who he thought was going to sell it for a profit. He also told the court that Radovcich told him he put on several layers of latex gloves and sat on plastic sheets while waiting for the Ewells to come home from a weekend trip.Radovcich used a silencer and first shot daughter Tiffany. Her mother Glee was then shot four times. Dale was shot just once from behind as he walked into the house from the garage thirty minutes later.Also called to testify during the trial were Dana's uncles (Dale's brothers) who recounted how their nephew had become upset when he learned his parents' will was structured to release half of the estate when he was 30 and the remainder when he turned 35.It took the jury ten days to convict Radovcich of first-degree murder, and Dana of conspiracy to commit murder. They received mandatory life sentences, but were spared the death penalty.

At his trial in 1979 it was revealed that White also planned to assassinate Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and fellow supervisor and attorney Carol Ruth Silver, but couldn’t find them.During a videotaped confession he came across as a pathetic man who was barely able to explain why he had assassinated his colleagues. His defence lawyer Douglas R. Schmidt claimed he had acted in the heat of passion and not out of malice. He made a plea of “diminished capacity”, due to extreme stress in White’s home life and depression. Whilst describing White’s emotional state, psychiatrist Martin Blinder, one of five defence therapists, explained that in the days leading up to the shootings White grew slovenly and abandoned his usual healthy diet and indulged in a diet of sugary junk food like Coke, doughnuts and Twinkies instead.Newspapers across the country picked up on a great headline and today the term “Twinkie defence” is a derogatory label implying that a criminal defence is artificial or absurd.The jury found White guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of first-degree murder, despite his obvious pre-meditation. White was sentenced to a maximum of seven years and eight months in prison and never expressed public remorse for the murders.

As was customary in the 19th century, the trial was very brief, and commenced on Christmas Eve 1828. Both Burke and McDougal pleaded not guilty. There was huge public interest, and people milled around in the streets outside the courtroom, awaiting news.Both Hare and his wife offered testimony against Burke, and the defence offered no witnesses. The case was wrapped up quickly, with Burke’s advocate arguing that he should be found not guilty, and McDougal’s asking the jury to return a verdict of “not proven” in her case, an option particular to Scottish Law.The jury took less than an hour to return with a verdict on Christmas Day: guilty in the case of Burke, and not proven for McDougal.The judge passed a sentence of death by hanging on Burke, after which, ironically, his body was to be given for dissection.

As revolting as the collapse of Sinclair’s trial appeared to relatives of his victims, there was yet still one more injustice to realise – that of double jeopardy.“...how could such a strong case against such a person who was so obviously guilty fail like that?  But of course under double jeopardy at that time, he could not be retried and that was the matter finished.”But, it was anything but.A legal principle that had remained the same for nearly eight centuries was about to be changed. “The thing about double jeopardy, it’s a very important principle...The principle of finality.  If you stand trial for a crime and you’re acquitted that is the end of proceedings against you.  But there was a view which was growing...that really that didn’t meet modern science and that was regarded as hugely unfair and unjust.” Frank Mulholland QC, Lord Advocate And in 2011 the Double Jeopardy Scotland Act was passed and it addressed that very injustice.It meant a new trial could happen if new and compelling evidence was found. In the case of Sinclair, it was a new forensic device called Crime Light. It showed Sinclair’s and Hamilton’s DNA on the folds of the ligatures indicating that far from the girls playing along – they had been tied up.And this, together with forensic soil analysis, proved Helen was still alive when she entered the field where her body was found. This disproved Sinclair’s version of having consensual sex with her in a different location. Sinclair’s second trial began on 13 October 2014 at the High Court in Livingstone, West Lothian. Sinclair’s was the first trial to be heard under the new Double Jeopardy law. Again, Sinclair decides to talk, but this time, his version of events doesn’t help him – they damn him.This time he says he and his brother-in-law took the girls to a nearby park and in the back of his van, they all had consensual sex.Frank Mulholland, QC then exposed the truth in this lie. “I asked him, ‘How did you know the girls were consenting?”...And he gave a most chilling answer, he said, “They didn’t say no.”...I said, “Well what kind of conversation did you have?”  “None whatsoever.”  It was quite clear to me that what he was describing in reality was a rape, a double rape, by him and his brother in law.”The deceased Gordon Hamilton could not stand trial.Angus Sinclair, however, was found guilty.The judge in his trial was damning in his sentencing of Sinclair and of his treatment of his Helen and Christine.“Whatever dreams they had they turned in to nightmares shortly after they left the World’s End pub...The girls were subjected to an ordeal beyond comprehension and then left carrion, exposed for all to see, with no dignity, even in death.” Angus Sinclair was sentenced to 37 years in prison, the longest sentence ever handed down in a Scottish Court. “When I heard the length of the sentence I do recall there was a flinch: thirty-seven years; a year for every year that Christine’s family, my family have waited for justice and for Helen and Christine. It was right.”Kevin Scott, Helen’s brother 

An inquest begins in December 1992, but it’s suspended when the family’s barrister says there’s ‘dramatic’ new evidence. In September 1994, lawyers representing the Lawrence’s persuade them there’s enough evidence to launch a private prosecution (rather than a police lead, state prosecuted one).

But by 1996, Duwayne Brooks, the key witness, is tired and nervous. He’s battered by both barristers. He contradicts some of his own statements. Because of doubts over his testimony, Gary Dobson, Neil Acourt and Luke Knight are acquitted before the trial even opens. The three have always denied the charges. The case collapses. And worse, because of ‘Double Jeopardy’ where no suspect can be tried for the same crime twice, they can never face trial again.

The inquest resumes, but the five suspects refuse to answer any questions citing their legal right to silence. In February 1997, the coroner’s jury takes just 30 minutes to unanimously decide Stephen was unlawfully killed in an unprovoked racist attack by white youths.

The next day, the Daily Mail names the five men it says killed Stephen and dares them to sue.On the 24 March 1998, the Macpherson inquiry begins and the five suspects are told to give evidence or face prosecution. In June, the five are pelted with eggs, bottles, bricks and stones. They spit and throw punches in retaliation. But apart from various trials by media, the five are free men.

“Some justice at last” Tweet by Duwayne Brooks, survivor of the attack, 2012

 

Very few expected to ever see Dobson and Norris stand trial, but they did, in November 2011, at the Old Bailey.

This time, both forensics and witnesses come together. Everything from the angle the knife was plunged into Stephen’s chest to the tiny bloodspot is presented clinically. And despite his father dying the night before, Duwayne Brooks enters the witness box to describe to the jury the night of the murder. He starts composed. But as he recounts the moment he noticed that Stephen was drenched in blood, he breaks down and cries for nearly a minute. The prosecuting QC attempted to help him but Mr Brooks slaps his hand down and insists he will bear witness.

The prosecution allege that the only way for the blood to have got that far into Dobson’s jacket, was that it soaked in as Stephen bled i.e. it could not have been the result of cross contamination by investigators, which the defence alleges.

The defence is further destroyed by surveillance videos of the men bragging about committing violence against ‘blacks’ and ‘Pakis’. Norris, now 35, says he’s ‘ashamed’ of his language and Dobson, now 36, says he too is ‘disgusted and embarrassed’.

The jury takes two and a half days to reach a unanimous verdict. Mrs Lawrence gives the ‘briefest of smiles’ as Mr Lawrence wipes a tear from his eye. As Dobson and Norris weren’t adults at the time of their crime, their minimum tariff is 12 rather than the adult one of 25-30 years. But the judge takes into account that they both knew a knife might be used, and their crime was racist.

Norris’s QC offers no mitigation, maintaining he was never there. His sentence is a minimum term of 14 years and Gary Dobson is 15 years. Applause starts up in the gallery. As Dobson is taken down, he says to the jury, ‘You have just condemned an innocent man.’ Some take this to mean he didn’t administer the killing strike and that another was responsible.Interviewed outside the court, Stephen’s mother, Doreen, says the verdict isn’t a cause for celebration.“How can I celebrate? How can I celebrate when my son lies buried, when I cannot see him or speak to him? When I will not see him grow up or go to university, or get married or have children. These verdicts will not bring my son back.”But others outside the court, reacted with chants of ‘Two Down. Three To Go.’The Metropolitan Police, however, believe there are still several more suspects remaining.It’s hoped that Dobson, the ‘weak link’, will provide the missing evidence in return for a reduced sentence.

After realising that the game was up, McAvoy hoped to use his considerable newly found wealth to negotiate a lighter sentence, so he placed his faith in the 'honour amongst thieves' maxim, and entrusted his share of the gold with a variety of friends for safekeeping, including one named Brian Perry.

In December 1984, following their trial, both McAvoy and Robinson were jailed for 25 years.Not surprisingly, when McAvoy sought to reclaim his property to negotiate a reduced sentence, neither gold nor money was forthcoming. McAvoy felt betrayed by Perry, who was subsequently arrested for handling the gold. Perry’s life was threatened during his trial, for failing to return the property and, after serving a nine-year sentence, he was gunned down on 16 November 2001 shortly after his release.

Despite the incarceration of Robinson and McAvoy, the police made scant headway in the search for the missing bullion, which still required conversion into cash. Perry recruited Kenneth Noye into the ever-growing circle of Brinks Mat associates. Noye appeared to have some expertise in the gold smelting trade, as well as connections with John Palmer, the owner of a Bristol-based gold dealership.

Noye's brilliant idea was to introduce copper into the gold during the smelting process, thereby altering its carat rating, making it virtually untraceable. What he had in technical expertise, however, he lacked in pure common sense, and he was caught when the gang withdrew £3 million in cash from a single bank branch in Bristol, a sum so large that the Treasury and police became involved.

In January 1985, during an undercover operation, Noye discovered DC John Fordham in his garden at his Kent home and, in the row that ensued, the officer was stabbed to death. Noye was arrested for murder but at his trial, the jury believed the defence case that he acted in self-defence, and he was acquitted by a majority decision.

Following the discovery of 11 bars of gold in his home, Noye was on trail again in 1986, along with one of the Adam’s family, Thomas Adams, which led to his conviction of conspiracy to handle the Brinks Mat gold, in addition to VAT evasion charges. He received a 14-year prison sentence and was also fined a total of £700,000.He was released in 1990, but ten years later was convicted of murdering Stephen Cameron, in a road-rage incident on the M25,.

Police estimate that 15 people were involved in the planning of the Brinks Mat robbery but only three of the gang members were ever convicted. Despite concerted efforts to bring the rest to justice and investigative work spanning two decades, the police have been forced to accept that the majority of the loot has been spirited away to foreign safety deposits or simply recycled into the wider London jewellery trade, providing for the comfortable old age of a number of criminals still at large.

Britain’s most lucrative robberies...

The jobs you’re about to read about here were no piffling shoplifting trips or low yield house break-ins. We’re talking about tens of millions of pounds worth of diamonds, gold bars, bearer bonds and bags stuffed with used bank notes being stolen

Adams’ trial took place in March 1957. Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence QC, who acted as Adams' defence, made a point that the charge was based mainly on testimonies from the nurses who had tended Mrs. Morrell.It transpired that Mrs Morell had been cared for on a 24-hour basis by a team of four nurses. The nurses testified that it had been Dr Bodkin Adams’s practice to inject his patients with grossly excessive doses of pain-killing drugs such as morphine and heroin. Despite been deeply shocked and suspicious of this behaviour they felt that as nurses there was little could they do.The situation looked bleak for Dr Adams until Lawrence cross-examined the first of the nurses who had given such damning evidence. Lawrence managed to procure from her the fact that all injections given to Mrs Morrell had been carefully recorded in a notebook, together with details of her condition at all stages during her illness. This procedure was standard practice for any terminally ill patient.When Lawrence produced not just one but eight notebooks, overlooked by police investigations, they proved to contain every detail of Mrs Morell’s treatment for several years before her death. The nurses themselves had also written in them and during examination of the notes it was discovered that their memories failed to correlate with their verbal evidence in court.Could it have been the case that these nurses had allowed themselves to be influenced by malicious gossip circulating in the town?Also in Adams’ favour was the fact that only one of the prosecution's two expert medical witnesses was prepared to say that murder had been committed. Lawrence was also able to demonstrate that he was not a reliable witness.Dr. Adams' defence had managed to prevent him being forced to appear in the witness stand and as a result no evidence from Gertrude Hullett's case, including the testimony of a nurse, was allowed to be produced in court. This particular nurse, who had worked with Adams while attending Hullett in July 1956, had allegedly remarked to him: 'You do realise, doctor, that you have killed her?'On 15 April 1957, it took the jury only 45 minutes to find Adams not guilty.

According to the prosecution case, Knox, Sollecito and Guede, go to Knox’s flat on the night of 1 November, probably stoned, and try to entice Meredith into a group sex game. When she refuses Sollecito allegedly holds her down from behind as Guede to sexually assaults her. It is also alleged that Knox then stabs her.The prosecution then claim that Knox and Sollecito go outside and throw a stone at Knox’s other flatmate Filomena’s window to break it and make the murder look like a burglary gone wrong. They also allegedly dispose of Meredith’s phone in a neighbour’s garden, which is later found and reported to the police.When the trial finally began in January 2009, the prosecutions’ biggest problems remained the apparent lack of motive and lack of Knox DNA in Kercher’s bedroom. They explained away the first problem by saying that Knox found Kercher prudish and was eager to humiliate her sexually in a drug fuelled sex game that turned deadly. And the damning DNA may not have been in the room, but Knox’s DNA was on the handle of a knife whose blade had Kercher’s DNA on it and which was found in Sollecito’s flat. Sollecito’s DNA is found on a bloodied bra though the length of time between the crime and the bra’s testing leaves the possibility that the evidential chain had been contaminated.Sollecito’s defence is that he was surfing the internet but his computer records don’t back him up. Both Knox and Sollecito say they were smoking marijuana which is why they cannot remember details properly. And both rely on an expert forensic witness to rebut the DNA evidence with an O.J Simpson like defence, i.e. there was a contamination of the evidential process.The relationship between the two accused was tense and when Sollecito gave a statement, Knox nervously bit at her nails. Her demeanour throughout was as analysed as her character before the murder. Photos of her beaming, even flirty smile at her lawyer was thought to be proof of her carefree innocence by defenders and damning proof of her psychopathic nature for others. When a hearing happened on Valentine’s Day, she wore the Beatles lyric, ‘All You Need is Love’ in massive red letters. Few thought it appropriate. Her drug-free, teetotal image had been exposed by her own admission of smoking marijuana on the night of the murder and by the fact that she had previously been fined for her role in a drunken party. She was labelled a ‘she-devil’ by Kercher’s family lawyer but Knox’s lawyer calls her ‘the Amelie of Seattle’, referring to the heroine of the eponymous French movie that Knox said she and her boyfriend watched on the night of the murder. (The film is about a woman who dedicates her life to doing good.)Much was made of her smiling and laughing but English speaking viewers could sympathise with some of these reactions. For example, she laughed when she gave her birth date, not because she had little respect for the proceedings but because of the inappropriate timings her rotund translator chose to start interpreting. At one point, Amanda Knox’s every sentence was so interrupted that the very sense of her answers was lost. Knox’s response was to become fluent in Italian.The 11 month trial was very Italian. Knox had to sit for five months without saying a word and her mother being a witness, wasn’t allowed to attend the first day of her daughter’s trial. And then during the summer, there was a two month break for the holidays. The trial system itself was and is different from the UK with two Italian judges joining six local residents as members of the jury, each of whom have a single vote.Before the verdict was read, Knox appealed to the jury, in fluent Italian, saying she ‘was confident my conscience is clean’ but that ‘I am afraid of having a mask of murderer forced on my skin’The 22 year old American student had spent two birthdays in jail. She was sentenced to spend a further 26 of them in prison. Her former boyfriend, Sollecito, now aged 25, was sentenced to 25 years in jail. Her lawyer comforted her as she and her family broke down.Sollecito remained impassive and ironically as calm and composed as the Kercher family.On top of the sentence, the court ordered Knox and Sollecito to pay two million Euros to Kercher’s parents, and with additional awards to her siblings, the total amounted to more than €4m. Knox was also ordered to pay €40,000 to Patrick Lumumba. It was her false testimony against him which gave her an extra year on the sentence given to Sollecito. She was sent to Capanne prison on the outskirts of Perugia to a nine metre square cell, with her family vowing to appeal.On 24 November 2010, Knox and Sollecito's appeals began amid a media furore. By now known as 'Foxy Knoxy' in newspapers and on television screens across the world, Knox made an emotional plea for mercy in court, reading in Italian from handwritten notes in which she described her conviction as 'an enormous mistake'.Meanwhile, back in the US, a controversial new film about the murder, entitled 'Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy', dramatised the harrowing last moments of Meredith Kercher's life. One particular scene, which shows the victim being held while she screams, caused particular uproar and Knox later tried to ban its wider release, calling it an 'invasion of my life'.In July 2011, the appeals court heard from experts who suggested that the DNA evidence used to convict Knox and Sollecito could have been contaminated, although Italian prosecutors deny the claims. It was also alleged that police failed to wear the correct protective clothing. With this in mind, the accused separately addressed the court for the first time in a bid to appeal their convictions ahead of the jury's verdict. Knox, who immediately began to cry, told the court that she was 'not who they say I am', while her former boyfriend and co-defendant Sollecito explained that the case had felt like a nightmare from which he could not wake. Later that evening, in a speech which elicits gasps from the courtroom, presiding judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann announced that the jury had acquitted the pair of Kercher's murder on the basis of doubts over procedures used to gather DNA evidence. Knox collapsed in tears and was escorted from the court.Although the judge upheld her conviction of slander after she accused bar owner Lumumba of the murder, the three year sentence passed down had already been served by Knox. She is now a free woman.The parents of Meredith Kercher have left her bedroom untouched, just as she left it to go to Italy in August 2007. Her mother said,“It's not a shrine to Meredith but it is a constant reminder of her. When I'm walking past with a pile of washing in my hand I get a feeling of sadness. It's almost as though she's just gone out and will be back in a while.”RetrialOn 26 March 2013 Italy’s highest court reversed the acquittals and ordered Knox and Sollecito to stand trial again in the Court of Assizes of Appeal in Florence. The retrial began on 30 September 2013.Italy had no power to summon Knox to the hearing and she remained in Seattle, where she is studying creative writing at the University of Washington. Sollecito, who remained in Italy was not required to return to jail during the retrial but did choose to attend court during the hearing.On 31 January 2014, after 12 hours of deliberation, Knox and Sollecito's guilty verdicts were reinstated and they were sentenced to 28 years and six months and 25 years respectively and ordered to pay damages to the Kercher family. Presiding judge Alessandro Nencini also ordered that Sollecito's passport be revoked.In a statement issued after the verdict was delivered, Knox said:"I am frightened and saddened by this unjust verdict."Both Knox, who was in Seattle at the time of the verdict, and Sollecito, who had left the court before the verdicts were delivered, will appeal to the supreme Court of Cassation. In Italy, the verdict will not be considered to be final until it is confirmed by the Court of Cassation. If the Court of Cassation upholds the guilty verdicts, it is likely that at this time Knox's extradition would be requested. 

According to the prosecution case, Knox, Sollecito and Guede, go to Knox’s flat on the night of 1 November, probably stoned, and try to entice Meredith into a group sex game. When she refuses Sollecito allegedly holds her down from behind as Guede to sexually assaults her. It is also alleged that Knox then stabs her.The prosecution then claim that Knox and Sollecito go outside and throw a stone at Knox’s other flatmate Filomena’s window to break it and make the murder look like a burglary gone wrong. They also allegedly dispose of Meredith’s phone in a neighbour’s garden, which is later found and reported to the police.When the trial finally began in January 2009, the prosecutions’ biggest problems remained the apparent lack of motive and lack of Knox DNA in Kercher’s bedroom. They explained away the first problem by saying that Knox found Kercher prudish and was eager to humiliate her sexually in a drug fuelled sex game that turned deadly. And the damning DNA may not have been in the room, but Knox’s DNA was on the handle of a knife whose blade had Kercher’s DNA on it and which was found in Sollecito’s flat. Sollecito’s DNA is found on a bloodied bra though the length of time between the crime and the bra’s testing leaves the possibility that the evidential chain had been contaminated.Sollecito’s defence is that he was surfing the internet but his computer records don’t back him up. Both Knox and Sollecito say they were smoking marijuana which is why they cannot remember details properly. And both rely on an expert forensic witness to rebut the DNA evidence with an O.J Simpson like defence, i.e. there was a contamination of the evidential process.The relationship between the two accused was tense and when Sollecito gave a statement, Knox nervously bit at her nails. Her demeanour throughout was as analysed as her character before the murder. Photos of her beaming, even flirty smile at her lawyer was thought to be proof of her carefree innocence by defenders and damning proof of her psychopathic nature for others. When a hearing happened on Valentine’s Day, she wore the Beatles lyric, ‘All You Need is Love’ in massive red letters. Few thought it appropriate. Her drug-free, teetotal image had been exposed by her own admission of smoking marijuana on the night of the murder and by the fact that she had previously been fined for her role in a drunken party. She was labelled a ‘she-devil’ by Kercher’s family lawyer but Knox’s lawyer calls her ‘the Amelie of Seattle’, referring to the heroine of the eponymous French movie that Knox said she and her boyfriend watched on the night of the murder. (The film is about a woman who dedicates her life to doing good.)Much was made of her smiling and laughing but English speaking viewers could sympathise with some of these reactions. For example, she laughed when she gave her birth date, not because she had little respect for the proceedings but because of the inappropriate timings her rotund translator chose to start interpreting. At one point, Amanda Knox’s every sentence was so interrupted that the very sense of her answers was lost. Knox’s response was to become fluent in Italian.The 11 month trial was very Italian. Knox had to sit for five months without saying a word and her mother being a witness, wasn’t allowed to attend the first day of her daughter’s trial. And then during the summer, there was a two month break for the holidays. The trial system itself was and is different from the UK with two Italian judges joining six local residents as members of the jury, each of whom have a single vote.Before the verdict was read, Knox appealed to the jury, in fluent Italian, saying she ‘was confident my conscience is clean’ but that ‘I am afraid of having a mask of murderer forced on my skin’The 22 year old American student had spent two birthdays in jail. She was sentenced to spend a further 26 of them in prison. Her former boyfriend, Sollecito, now aged 25, was sentenced to 25 years in jail. Her lawyer comforted her as she and her family broke down.Sollecito remained impassive and ironically as calm and composed as the Kercher family.On top of the sentence, the court ordered Knox and Sollecito to pay two million Euros to Kercher’s parents, and with additional awards to her siblings, the total amounted to more than €4m. Knox was also ordered to pay €40,000 to Patrick Lumumba. It was her false testimony against him which gave her an extra year on the sentence given to Sollecito. She was sent to Capanne prison on the outskirts of Perugia to a nine metre square cell, with her family vowing to appeal.On 24 November 2010, Knox and Sollecito's appeals began amid a media furore. By now known as 'Foxy Knoxy' in newspapers and on television screens across the world, Knox made an emotional plea for mercy in court, reading in Italian from handwritten notes in which she described her conviction as 'an enormous mistake'.Meanwhile, back in the US, a controversial new film about the murder, entitled 'Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy', dramatised the harrowing last moments of Meredith Kercher's life. One particular scene, which shows the victim being held while she screams, caused particular uproar and Knox later tried to ban its wider release, calling it an 'invasion of my life'.In July 2011, the appeals court heard from experts who suggested that the DNA evidence used to convict Knox and Sollecito could have been contaminated, although Italian prosecutors deny the claims. It was also alleged that police failed to wear the correct protective clothing. With this in mind, the accused separately addressed the court for the first time in a bid to appeal their convictions ahead of the jury's verdict. Knox, who immediately began to cry, told the court that she was 'not who they say I am', while her former boyfriend and co-defendant Sollecito explained that the case had felt like a nightmare from which he could not wake. Later that evening, in a speech which elicits gasps from the courtroom, presiding judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann announced that the jury had acquitted the pair of Kercher's murder on the basis of doubts over procedures used to gather DNA evidence. Knox collapsed in tears and was escorted from the court.Although the judge upheld her conviction of slander after she accused bar owner Lumumba of the murder, the three year sentence passed down had already been served by Knox. She is now a free woman.The parents of Meredith Kercher have left her bedroom untouched, just as she left it to go to Italy in August 2007. Her mother said,“It's not a shrine to Meredith but it is a constant reminder of her. When I'm walking past with a pile of washing in my hand I get a feeling of sadness. It's almost as though she's just gone out and will be back in a while.”RetrialOn 26 March 2013 Italy’s highest court reversed the acquittals and ordered Knox and Sollecito to stand trial again in the Court of Assizes of Appeal in Florence. The retrial began on 30 September 2013.Italy had no power to summon Knox to the hearing and she remained in Seattle, where she is studying creative writing at the University of Washington. Sollecito, who remained in Italy was not required to return to jail during the retrial but did choose to attend court during the hearing.On 31 January 2014, after 12 hours of deliberation, Knox and Sollecito's guilty verdicts were reinstated and they were sentenced to 28 years and six months and 25 years respectively and ordered to pay damages to the Kercher family. Presiding judge Alessandro Nencini also ordered that Sollecito's passport be revoked.In a statement issued after the verdict was delivered, Knox said:"I am frightened and saddened by this unjust verdict."Both Knox, who was in Seattle at the time of the verdict, and Sollecito, who had left the court before the verdicts were delivered, will appeal to the supreme Court of Cassation. In Italy, the verdict will not be considered to be final until it is confirmed by the Court of Cassation. If the Court of Cassation upholds the guilty verdicts, it is likely that at this time Knox's extradition would be requested. 

A fantasist, Walker was able to pretend to be anything or anyone at any time, but the evidence against him was strong. A global positioning system later pinpointed Walker’s yacht to the area at the time when Ronald died. One of Ronald’s fingerprints was also found on a plastic bag on the boat and Sheena testified against her father, excusing her behaviour by claiming she had been hypnotised by him.Walker admitted during his murder trial that he stole from clients in Canada, but has never confessed to killing Ronald. At Exeter Crown Court in June 1998, the jury took just two hours to convict Walker of Ronald’s murder and embezzlement. Mr. Justice Butterfield said Walker had committed “a callous, premeditated killing”.

A "feeble-minded person" Home Secretary Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, on commuting Straffen’s death sentence to life in 1952Straffen is committed for trial for the murders of Brenda and Cicely at Taunton in October 1951 but is considered unfit to plead. The judge, Mr Justice Cassells tells the jury, "In this country we do not try people who are insane. You might as well try a baby in arms."Instead Straffen is found mentally unfit to plead and is sent to Broadmoor. After his escape from Broadmoor and the subsequent murder of 5-year-old Linda Bowyer, Straffen does stand trial. At Winchester Assizes, the prosecution wins the first battle, as it successfully argues that despite the findings of the previous court, he is fit to plead.It is still not a straightforward case. The first jury is discharged when the judge feels their opinion may have been unduly influenced by media coverage of Straffen’s first two murders. Then during the summing up the judge makes an odd comment about witness statements and their accuracy.The jury take less than half an hour to find Straffen guilty and he is sentenced to hang.

1 December 1964 Nine-year-old Julia Taylor is abducted, raped, strangled and left for dead but saved by a passer by

8 September 1965 Six-year-old Margaret Reynolds goes missing on her way to school

30 December 1965 Five-year-old Diane Tift goes missing on her way to her grandmother's house

12 January 1966 The bodies of Margaret Reynolds and Diane Tift are found at Cannock Chase

14 August 1966 Ten-year-old Jane Taylor disappears near Cannock Chase and is never seen again

19 August 1967 Seven-year-old Christine Darby is lured into a car by a man near with a local accent

22 August 1967 Christine Darby’s body is found on Cannock Chase4

November 1968 A failed attempt to abduct ten-year-old Margaret Aulton is witnessed and police are called

15 November 1968 Carol Morris is shown the pornographic pictures that her husband took of her five-year-old niece and retracts her statement giving him an alibi for the day Chistine Darby was murdered

16 November 1968 Raymond Leslie Morris is charged with the murder of Christine Darby and is remanded in custody

18 February 1969 The seven day trial ends with Morris found guilty of murder. He is sentenced to life imprisonment

August 2010 Morris begins an appeal

November 2010 Morris is granted a judicial review in the case of the murder of Christine Darby. The review is overturned

May 2011 Morris breaks a 40-year silence, claims his innocence and says he may go to the European court of human rights. He later says he will make no further appeal and will probably end his days in prison