“There is only one way to deal with the gangster mentality. You must show that you are not afraid...The element of beast in man whether it comes from an unhappy and impoverished background, or from his own undisciplined lustful appetites, will respond exactly as a wild beast of the jungle responds – to nothing but greater force and greater firmness of purpose.” Sir Percy SillitoeSillitoe used trials to demonstrate strength. He took his officers to court to show prosecutors that they should no longer be afraid of handing out penal sentences.When the 6ft 2in police officer Loxley appeared in court next to a much smaller gang member covered in blood and bandages, it was intended to send a message. It was obvious the criminal had been assaulted, either during his arrest or in custody. But the police wanted to show the courts that the prosecutors should be emboldened to hand out more than just fines. In the Loxley case, the defendant was so badly beaten that his solicitor argued his client shouldn’t be charged with police assault, but attempted suicide.STEEL TO ROPE The Sam Garvin gang accused of William Plommer’s murder slept on wooden benches with wooden pillows as they waited for trial. None were given blankets. In all, ten men stood trial accused of murdering or aiding in the murder. They included the Fowler brothers and gang leader, Sam Garvin.The trial began on Tuesday 28 July 1925. As it unfolded, it exposed a criminal network that effectively ran the Sheffield underworld.The murder weapon, the bayonet, had never been found but a handful of witnesses said it was wielded by Wilfred Fowler. His brother Lawrence was said to have used a truncheon. There had been 50 witnesses at the scene. A further 30 experts were called.At the end, Mr Justice Finley sentenced three men George Wills, Amos Stewart and Stanley Harker to 27 years prison for manslaughter. The gang leader Garvin received 20 months for the assault he’d committed in the hope of having an alibi.The judge sent the two brothers to the gallows. Wilfred’s daughter visited him in his death cell at Armley Prison, Leeds, the day before he was due to die. On Friday 4 Sept 1925, Wilfred was hanged.Due to new evidence his brother Lawrence appealed. The Home Secretary rejected the appeal. Lawrence joined his brother at the end of a rope.

“That’s him! That’s the man who did it to me!” Surviving victim Julia Taylor shouting about Raymond Morris at this trial (Alan Hayhurst, Staffordshire Murders)

In February 1969, Raymond Morris, once considered to be a respectable husband and father, is in court standing trial for the murder of a child. He pleads not guilty to the murder of Christine Darby and the attempted abduction of ten-year-old Margaret Aulton. He pleads guilty to indecent assault against his wife’s five-year-old niece.

After the national press coverage and horrors of the recent Moors Murders, there is huge public interest in the case. Hours before the trial begins there is a large queue of people trying to get into the public gallery of the court at Staffordshire Assizes. As the trial begins Judge Ashworth is quoted as telling the jury,“It was a hateful crime of lust and you will shortly have to look at some unpleasant photographs but you are here to judge calmly, dispassionately now whether it can be proved that it is the accused man, Raymond Leslie Morris, who is guilty.”

Many come forward to speak against Morris, including expert witnesses and members of the public. The pathologist from the Home Office, Dr Alan Usher, confirms Christine was killed by suffocation. Joseph Wilson, technical manager at Pirelli Ltd, states the tyre tracks left at Cannock Chase were from a family-sized saloon car, similar to the vehicle Morris drove. Many members of the public testify to having seen a man matching Morris’s description in the area and driving a grey car the day Christine was taken. In particular, prosecuting QC Brian Gibbens, provides two witnesses, Victor Whitehouse and Jean Rawlings, who give detailed accounts of Morris driving his grey Austin A55 through Cannock Chase.

Carol Morris did not originally contradict her husband’s claim that they were shopping together when Christine went missing around 2pm. But after she has seen the pornographic pictures that her husband took of her young niece, she retracts the statement she gave which provided him with an alibi. Instead she states that Morris didn’t come home until 4.30pm, explaining that she had previously provided an alibi because Morris had acted completely normally that day and it seemed impossible he was guilty of such a terrible crime.

From the public gallery, there is a cry from the now teenaged Julia Taylor, the 1964 abducted rape victim who only just survived: “That’s him! That’s the man who did it to me!” She is removed from court but none present can forget what she has said.Morris continues to maintain his innocence but the pressure on him is mounting. He has an emotional breakdown in the dock, as he recounts how Scotland Yard’s Ian Forbes told him “You are on your own now son. Your wife has left you.”

His defence barrister, QC Kenneth Mynett, tells the jury that his client is disgusted with himself about the photographs he took and that if they believe his alibi to be correct he cannot be the man witnessed at 4.15pm on Cannock Chase.

On 18 February 1969 the jury reaches a unanimous guilty verdict. The 300 people crowded in anticipation outside the court hear that Morris is sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum term of 30 years because of the nature his crimes.

Morris shows no emotion as Judge Ashworth says,“There must be many mothers whose hearts will beat more lightly as a result of this verdict.”

The judge praises both the public and press for their help in bringing Morris to justice. While Morris is also widely considered to be guilty of the murders of Diane and Margaret in 1965, as well the attack on Julia Taylor, there is not enough evidence to charge him.

“Our dreams as a parent and grandparent have been shattered by the shameful, selfish act of one person, Neil Entwistle.” Victim-impact statement from Rachel’s family read to Middlesex Superior Court at Neil Entwistle’s sentencing. BBC News Online, 25 June 2008

Neil Entwistle’s trial begins in courtroom 430 at the Middlesex Superior Court on 2 June 2008. He is on trial for his life: the charges are first degree murder of his wife Rachel and 9-month-old daughter, Lillian Rose. He denies all charges.

Michael Fabbri, Assistant District Attorney, leads the court through the case against Entwistle. During the course of the trial, the prosecutor brings over forty witnesses before the court, taking 12 days to set out their case.

The defence rests without putting any witnesses on the stand.Entwistle does not give evidence in his own defence; the only time the court hears his voice is in a recording the police conversation makes between Neil and Sgt. Manning. Entwistle’s reaction to the news that Rachel and Lillian’s deaths are being treated as foul play surprises the detective: “OK” says the newly bereaved husband and father.

The court hears compelling witness testimony. In a haunting day of evidence from Rachel’s step-father, Joe Matterazzo, he tells the jury how in conversation about funeral arrangements in the days after the murders, Entwistle asks that Rachel and Lillian Rose be buried together, “Because that’s the way I left them...”Rachel's stepfather reports another troubling thing to come up his conversation with the newly bereaved Neil: "I don't know how it got this way. I was only gone for a couple of hours. Someone shot them.”

The jury sees crime scene photos and is told that a post-mortem examination found Mrs Entwistle was shot in the forehead at close range and Lillian was killed with a bullet which passed through her abdomen and lodged above her mother's left breast as she cradled her on the bed.

The jury takes two days to find Entwistle guilty of the double murder. He is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. As with his demeanour throughout the trial, on hearing he will die in prison, Entwistle shows no emotion.

“Only you know for sure how your victims met their deaths but the unspeakable indignities to which you subjected the bodies of your last two victims in order to satisfy your depraved and perverted needs are in no doubt”. Mr Justice Keith BBC News Online 25 November 2003Anthony Hardy’s murder trial begins at the Old Bailey in London in November 2003. Having given no information to police while under arrest, Hardy makes a startling confession: he murdered Sally White. He also changes his plea to guilty to the murders of Elizabeth and Bridgette.The court hears from prosecutors and police that Hardy would lure the women to his flat for sex. He then engages in extreme sex with them before strangling them. Through days of harrowing evidence, Hardy is revealed to the jury as a man who is a pornography-obsessed necrophiliac who achieves sexual gratification by posing the nude bodies of his victims after death and taking explicit photos of their naked corpses.The jury delivers a verdict of guilty to all three counts. The judge passes a sentence of life imprisonment. In 2010, Mr Justice Keith rules that Hardy will join an elite group of the country’s most dangerous criminals for whom life means life. He will die in prison.After the trial, The Metropolitan Police confirms that Hardy was also a suspect in three rapes and one indecent assault. In a move that would leave Hardy free to kill repeatedly, it was decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge him at the time.

“I could see he was in a frame of mind, he had those killer eyes again…” Ken Tappenden, Former Detective Inspector, Kent PoliceMackay is considered by police to be a suspect in at least a dozen other killings over the previous two years, most victims are elderly women who have been stabbed or strangled during robberies.Eventually Mackay is charged with five murders and on 21 November 1975, he faces judge and jury at the Old Bailey. If he is found to be clinically insane he could be sent to Broadmoor, but only if has a treatable condition. But it is decided that Mackay is suffering from psychopathy, for which there is no treatment. He is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Police believe he may have killed up to 11 people.The newspapers who covered the trial highlighted aspects of Mackay’s crimes in their headlines: ‘The Man Who Enjoyed Killing’, ‘Bloodlust of the Beast in Black’ and in a reference to things to come ‘Life for the Mad Killer Law Let Go’.He is still imprisoned more than 37 years later, and he is reported to be among the 50 or so prisoners in the United Kingdom who have been issued with a whole life tariff and are unlikely ever to be released.

“Drugs and prostitution meant they were at risk. But neither drugs nor prostitution killed them. You did.” Mr Justice Gross BBC news OnlineThe date is 14 January 2008. The place is Ipswich Crown Court. It had been two years since the murders. The weight of expectation at the trial could not be underestimated.As the case unfolds, it becomes apparent that there is no single piece of overwhelming evidence. Prosecutor Peter Wright QC leads the court through the series of coincidences that taken all together lead them to only one logical conclusion: Wright is the killer.The court is shown CCTV footage of Wright cruising the red light district, his DNA found on some of the bodies along with fibres from his car and home, neighbours who heard "banging noises" late at night.At trial, Wright goes into the witness box and ends his silence about the five women. He argues that he had had sex with the women but had not killed them, saying it was merely coincidental that forensic evidence linked him to all five.The trial lasts for six weeks. The court hears testimony and evidence from police, forensic experts and the dead women’s relatives. The jurors make visits to key locations: Wright’s Ipswich home and the places where the women’s bodies were found.For the victims’ families, the court case holds challenges; Wright’s physical proximity in court was met with horror. A few people leaned away. Two women grasped each other. For a moment, it seemed as though someone would shout out or scream. Paula Clennelll's sister Alice came close to tears.On 21 February 2008, after eight hours of deliberation, the jury of nine men and three women returns a unanimous guilty verdict against Steve Wright on all five counts of murder. The judge Mr Justice Gross, recommends Steve Wright never be released from prison.With Wright facing life behind bars, the issue of motive remains. In the words of the prosecutor: "As to what drives a man to embark upon a campaign such as this we may never know.”.

"This was a vicious, evil, unprovoked murder of a defenceless man.” Lord Hardie, SKY News, 17 Oct 2008

In May 2008, the family of Shamsuddin Mahmood finally get to see a man on trial for his murder.

After six weeks of evidence the jury of five men and ten women find Ross guilty of murder by majority. He sits emotionless as the verdict is passed. He is also found guilty by majority of trying to defeat justice by dumping the murder weapon.

Detective Inspector Iain Smith, who led the team that apprehended Ross, said he had been convicted of "a shocking and sickening crime".

To his comrades in the Black Watch, Sgt Michael Ross is nothing other than a hero. In actual fact he is a cold blooded, racist murderer.After the hearing, Abul Shafiuddin, Mr Mahmood's brother, says,"The family feel happy with the verdict and happy with the performance of the Police. Justice has been done. We are grateful to all who worked to bring the accused to trial."T

heir barrister adds: "We lost all of our hope and felt this mystery would never be solved."

It is not the end of the drama, however.

As Ross is being led down to the cells after the verdict, he attempts to escape by jumping over the dock and running from the court. Ross is seconds away from escaping into the street when a court official manages to grab him and pin him to the ground.

Subsequently police discover a car parked in a Tesco car park near the court that Ross has hired to aid his escape. Frighteningly, in it are a cache of arms including a machine gun, rifle, grenades, knives, camouflage clothing, bullets and binoculars.

Witnesses at the time said it was like something you would expect from a Rambo movie. There is a possibility that he had a plan to make an escape and live on the survival skills he learned in the Army.

Police evacuate more than 1,000 shoppers and staff from the Tesco store and cordon off the area. Army bomb disposal experts then spend hours searching the vehicle for booby traps before it is removed.

"This result has been a long time coming and it's an absolute relief to know that this man will now be off the streets." Retired Detective Superintendent Phil James. The Guardian, 29 June 2011It had taken nearly a decade, but in June 2011, Heather Barnett’s family finally had what they had waited for: Danilo Restivo on trial for the horrendous murder of their devoted mother.Heather Barnett had been struck several times on the head with a hammer-type object and her body mutilated.Restivo denied all knowledge of Heather’s killing and pleaded not guilty to murder. Presenting the prosecution’s case, Michael Bowes QC told the court that Restivo had planned Heather’s murder, visiting her at her flat to enquire about curtains shortly before her death. Heather had been left so concerned that Restivo had stolen a spare set of her house keys during this visit that she even wrote to his fiancée, now wife, asking if he had found them.The prosecution case called expert witnesses who explained crucial evidence regarding blood and DNA analysis, as well as presenting the findings of regular surveillance work.At the trial, the jury learnt of damning evidence from police surveillance: Restivo was seen watching women. A later search of his car uncovered a knife, a balaclava and other weapons. The officer leading the surveillance described this as a "murder bag". Making legal history, the judge allowed evidence of the 1993 disappearance of 16-year-old schoolgirl Elisa Claps in the Southern Italian town of Potenza and the subsequent discovery of her remains in March 2010. The jury heard of the numerous similarities between the murder of Elisa Claps and Heather Barnett.In his defence, Restivo claimed that a host of medical reasons resulted in his memory of key events being poor – explaining, he said, why he had refused to answer critical questions from Dorset detectives, as well as why several of his statements appeared to differ.Prosecutor, Mr Bowes said the defendant had told "lie upon lie upon lie". His final words to the jury were: "There is a reason that all the evidence points to him. It is because it is him."The jury took less than five hours to find Danilo Restivo guilty of Heather’s murder. In November 2011 a court in Italy tried Restivo for the murder of Elisa Claps. He was locked up in a British prison at the time, was found guilty in his absence and sentenced to 30 years.

"I have no doubt that you are a very evil man capable of committing heinous crimes." Judge Peter Rook

On 3rd March 2011, Delroy Grant appeared at Woolwich Crown Court to face 29 charges, ranging from rape, indecent assault and burglary, from 1992 to 2009. He denied all counts, having previously pleaded not guilty at his hearing held at the Old Bailey.

The jury heard that during Grant’s initial arrest he suggested to the police they have the wrong man and should be arresting his eldest son, from his first marriage. It was clear that Grant had awareness of the number of breakthroughs in forensics and DNA. He was hoping that his son would share the same DNA and instead be convicted for his crimes. The jury were told that Grant’s DNA proves a perfect match to the DNA samples found at the crime scenes.

The hunt for the Night Stalker

In 1998, police would link a number of burglaries and sexual assaults in the area and would dub the unidentified attacker: ‘The Night Stalker.1

Grant’s first wife, Janet Watson, was put in the witness box to hear the shocking revelation that Grant believed he was being framed by her. He alleged that Janet stole semen and saliva from him in 1977 and that after the marriage ended his DNA was stored at a hospital by a male friend. He went on to say that fifteen years later his wife, out of malice, gave the DNA to someone else, to frame Grant for a string of burglaries across South-East London.

It was a startling web of lies, because in the 70s the technique to recover DNA from semen and saliva hadn’t been invented. It showed the jury what a desperate man would do to avoid punishment. Paul Laidlaw QC prosecuting told Grant that “we are already beginning to see that your account falls apart when it is subjected to the most gentle of examinations".

While his fingerprints were being taken in the police station it was revealed in court that he arrogantly remarked, “I don't know why you're bothering, I always wear gloves". He took such lengths to avoid detection during his 17-year crime spree, that not one of his fingerprints was ever detected.

The jury heard that on the night of his arrest the police found in his Vauxhall Zafira, a crowbar, blue cagoule, fleece, torch, and woolly hat. These were all items linked to crimes carried out by the Night Stalker. To add to this, the police explained that he was wearing a burglar’s kit of two pairs of jeans, two pairs of boxer shorts, three T-shirts and shoes but no socks. This would have allowed him to change appearances quickly, vital in helping him hide his tracks on CCTV footage.

The evidence was damning. On 24th March 2011, the jury found Grant guilty on all 29 charges. Police still believed he may have been responsible for another 600 attacks. Judge Peter Rook sentenced Grant to 27 years in jail and gave him four life sentences.

"...one gets the sense that ultimately his decision to annihilate his family came from his belief that somehow his wife had fallen short of the standards that he had expected.... He fits that classic picture of the family annihilator who’s seeking revenge on a partner who has let him down and then also attempting to take his own life so that the criminal justice system can’t judge him, he’ll be...his own judge as it were.” Professor David Wilson - CriminologistSome said Damian had killed in cold blood. But the frenzied nature of the attacks suggested otherwise. The Polish community feel embarrassed and concerned that one man’s actions will mean they’re all judged. But mainly people feel sympathy for the victims’ families. Scores of floral tributes are left at the crime scene. A charity appeal raises £15,000 to pay for the funerals.The funerals, involving children as they do, mean few people remain dry-eyed. And it’s not just the Polish community that attends the Catholic service. Everyone on the island is reeling from the slayings.Damian Rzeszowski, 31, stands trial at Jersey’s Royal Court almost a year after the killings. He’s since been transferred to Broadmoor, the UK’s maximum security prison hospital. His extensive psychiatric assessment proves the most controversial part of the complex ten day trial. Experts contradict each other as to whether the killer was sane at the time of the stabbings.At his early pre-trial hearings, he’d submitted a plea of manslaughter which indicated some acceptance of responsibility for his actions.Detective Superintendent Stewart Gull wants him to stand trial for murder.The judge and two Jurats (elected lay jurors) hear how Rzeszowski claimed to have heard voices in his head on the day he stabbed his wife. The weeks beforehand had been filled with rows with his wife. There had been periods of depression and heavy drinking. And of course, there was his suicide attempt.The court also hears that Rzeszowski’s already disintegrating marriage had been further strained when Izabela had admitted to a two-month affair. His subsequent drinking had resulted in a one night stand.The prosecution said he’d changed his story repeatedly casting doubt on his credibility. They characterise Rzeszowski as a ‘pressure cooker who lacks a safety valve.’ Rzeszowski spends most of the trial staring at the floor.Almost unbelievably, Damian Rzeszowski is controversially cleared of the murders. As he is found not guilty of murder, Rzeszowski shows no emotion. He pleads guilty to manslaughter instead. His defence had successfully argued that his depression had caused an onset of psychotic symptoms, diminishing his responsibility.The verdict is met with a mixture of disbelief and anger by the victims’ families.On 29 October 2012, Damian Rzeszowski was sentenced to 30 years in prison. It took the Jurats two hours to consider their verdict.“The horror and brutality of these killings is hard to believe.” Judge Sir Michael BirtRzeszowski was transferred back to the UK. He is currently serving his sentence in Her Majesty’s maximum security prison Full Sutton.His daughter’s classmates still grieve for the friend he took away. They have created a garden outside their classroom in Kinga’s memory. In it there is a blossom tree that blooms with what was her favourite colour - pink.