Читать книгу Murder in the Graveyard - Don Hale - Страница 16

The scientific evidence had certainly given me plenty to consider, and the witness statements, as presented in the judge’s summing up, only posed more questions.

Mr Justice Nield described how several prosecution witnesses had claimed to have seen Wendy Sewell during the last walk of her life.

This grim story begins thus, does it not? Wendy Sewell, a young married woman, worked for the Forestry Commission at Bakewell. The Commission had an office in Catcliff House in Church Street, and the District Officer was Mr Osmaston.

At about 20 past noon Mr Osmaston was speaking on the telephone, and in came Mrs Sewell and handed him a note to say she was going out for a breath of fresh air.

Now that woman’s movements are followed meticulously, until she reaches the cemetery – you may say, perhaps, it is a tribute to the thoroughness of the investigations.

We learn from Mr Read of the Department of Employment in the same building that he saw this woman leave at about 12.40. It is clear that she made her way along Butts Road. Two joiners, Mr Lomas and Mr Bradwell, who were working in that road and were having lunch at that time, saw her … three, four or five minutes after she left the building … and they exchanged greetings.

At about 12.45 Mrs Hill, in a Land Rover, came up to the cemetery gates where she always turned her vehicle, and saw Mrs Sewell walking into the cemetery, and there was no one else about. At about 12.50 Mr Orange saw Mrs Sewell walking on Butts Road towards the cemetery, and they exchanged greetings.

And about the same time Mr Carman, who was near the telephone kiosk just outside the cemetery gates, said he saw Mrs Sewell through the fence walking along the back path in the cemetery, the path along Burton Edge.

At this point the judge stressed that the timings given by witnesses had to be viewed as approximate. He then turned to the movements of Stephen Downing.

About 1.08 Mr Wilfred Walker, who was the cemetery attendant and lived in the lodge by the main gates, saw the accused who walked out of the main gates with a pop bottle under his arm. He appeared to be perfectly normal – this young man was not hurrying. Mr Walker did not notice anything about his clothing.

The judge pointed out that the jury had heard from Stephen Downing saying that he had greeted Mr Walker and his wife, who were at the door of the lodge. Mr Walker denied any such exchange had taken place. He continued:

At about 1.15 Mr Walker saw the accused again. This time he was coming back to the main gates and there was no pop bottle with him.

Just before that time Mr Fox and Mr Hawksworth, workmen employed by the Urban District Council, had come into the cemetery in order to go to the store.

At 1.20, or thereabouts, the accused came to Mr Walker’s lodge. He seemed very calm. Mr Walker said, ‘He asked if I was on the telephone. I said, “No, what is the matter?” He said there was a woman who had been attacked in the cemetery. I asked where she was. I went with him and he kept pointing down there.’

At this point the judge drew the jury’s attention to a further discrepancy in the accounts given by Wilf Walker and Stephen Downing. According to Mr Walker, as they approached the injured woman, Stephen told him, ‘I don’t want to lose my job. I like it.’ When questioned, Stephen denied saying this.

The judge told the jury, ‘Make up your minds, having seen Mr Walker, whether it is true.’ He continued with his summary:

And so, these two reached the spot where this woman was lying. Mr Walker said the accused told him, ‘There was a pick shaft handle covered with blood, and then I saw a van parked by the store.’ Mr Walker told you, ‘I noticed this unfortunate woman trying to get up. She fell back on the gravestone, and never moved after that.’

Well, after some minutes Mr Walker and the defendant called over the two workmen, Mr Fox and Mr Hawksworth, to come and see what there was to be seen.

You were told by Mr Hawksworth, who arrived at the scene, that they saw this body half-naked, naked up to the thighs, and Mr Hawksworth went to telephone for the police. Now at some time about this point two other people arrived, also employed by the Urban District Council, Mr Dawson and Mr Watts, and you have important evidence from them.

Mr Dawson told you, ‘I went across and saw a person lying on the graves. The person was trying to wipe blood from the eyes with the back of his or her hand.’

Here the judge noted that Herbert Dawson had been unable to say if the victim was a man or a woman. He told how the witness had said he shouted for someone to fetch an ambulance, and that nothing struck him about Stephen’s manner as he stood there with the rest of the group.

The judge then repeated the rest of Dawson’s evidence, in which he had told the court:

‘I [Dawson] said, “What the hell is going on?” I turned to the accused and I said, “Where are you working?” He said, “Just across here.” I said, “Was it here this morning?” meaning the body, and he said, “No!” And then I saw that the woman moved again and was trying to stand up.’

The judge continued:

Mr Dawson went forward to try to save her from falling but was too late. Then the police arrived and the officer, Police Constable Ball, obviously rightly said to those assembled, ‘Don’t anybody touch anything,’ and that the accused said, ‘I did turn her over, but I had my gloves on.’

Mr Watts, one of the Urban District Council plumbers, told you he ran for the ambulance, having seen this body, and then ‘I went back,’ he said, and ‘I saw the defendant.’ He heard the defendant say to Mr Dawson that he touched the body, but he had his gloves on. ‘Then I saw,’ said Mr Watts, ‘blood on the defendant’s knees as if he had been kneeling down, and I saw a pick handle on the path.’ He said when he first saw this woman there was blood on her face and body.

It was here that the judge highlighted a major difference between the prosecution and defence accounts. Stephen Downing, he said, had denied saying he made the remark about his gloves. ‘Make up your minds about that,’ instructed the judge, before turning to the evidence of the next witness.

There came then Mr Fox, another of these workmen. He went to the scene, and saw the body lying there partly clothed. The accused told him he thought someone must have been in the chapel and taken the pick shaft out. The accused added that he had gone home at dinner time, and also that the woman had moved. The accused then said, ‘There looks like being an identification parade.’

The judge pointed out a further ‘sharp conflict’ between the Crown and defence cases. Stephen Downing denied making any remark about an identity parade. He continued:

One turns to consider the weapon, the pick shaft handle.

Mr Hawksworth, the council workman who’d telephoned the police, told you about this. He said, ‘I had been in the cemetery about 11 o’clock that morning, and I saw the accused coming away from the store with a pair of shears which he would want for his work. I went into the store to check some asbestos sheets and found something else we wanted, which was a chimney cowl placed on top of the lectern. I noticed a pick shaft nearby. I picked it up to have a look at it, then I put it back.’

At this point the judge reminded the jury that Fred Hawksworth had identified the pickaxe handle he had seen in the chapel store as ‘Exhibit 1’, the handle shown to him in court, which the Crown claimed was the murder weapon. Hawksworth had agreed, ‘This is it.’ He had then gone on to say, ‘Later on I saw the pick shaft on the pathway.’

After summarising the evidence given by the lodge keeper, the workmen and the ambulanceman, who were all present in the cemetery at some point, the judge told the jury, ‘I think I am right in saying that, within the cemetery at the relevant time, no one else was seen,’ although he reminded them, ‘There are holes in the hedge, and another gate, where anybody could come in or out.’

He also drew their attention to the evidence given by two defence witnesses, both of whom had claimed to see ‘a person, or two persons, coming away from the direction of the cemetery’.

However, the judge placed emphasis on only one of these witnesses, Mrs Louisa Hadfield, whose evidence, he said, ‘was greatly relied on by the defence’. He reminded the jury:

She told you she was walking in Upper Yeld Road with her dog at about 1.15 and saw a man running ever so fast towards her … that means away from the direction in which the cemetery lay. She described his dress. She was very frightened. The dog snarled at him. She was so concerned that she had reported the matter to the police.

The judge then described the evidence of Mr Paling, which had been read out in court.

Mr Paling, upon whom reliance is not so strongly placed, was a long way down on the left of the plan. He was in Upper Yeld Road and saw a chap coming up on the other side. He was dressed respectably and was in a terrific hurry. This is all about 350 yards off the plan. He was asked if he noticed any blood on the man. He did not notice any. You may wonder if that witness really helps you.

He then spoke of the evidence given by Stephen’s next-door neighbour, Peter Moran.

He saw Stephen coming from the direction of the cemetery towards the shop at around 1.15. Mr Moran had left his house and was on his way back to work in Bakewell at this time. Stephen had told the court he saw Mr Moran outside the cemetery gates.

The judge then spoke about the police version of events, including Stephen’s ‘interrogation and confession’, and the case presented by the defence. I also wanted to examine the alleged movements of key people in and around the cemetery that day, and to check the timings given. Some of the accounts completely contradicted each other.

Wendy Sewell’s workplace was just a few minutes from the entrance to Butts Road, which then became the public footpath leading to the Butts. But where was Wendy between 12.20 p.m. – the time she passed Mr Osmaston a note saying she was going out – and 12.40 p.m., when she was actually seen leaving the building?

And could Stephen really have only been away from the cemetery between 1.08 and 1.15 p.m., the times given for his departure and return by the gatekeeper? He seemed to have done a fair amount in seven minutes – walked to the shop, then on to his house, where he stayed chatting to his mother for a brief time, and then back to the cemetery.

In addition to this, one of his neighbours, Peter Moran, claimed to have seen him at 1.15 p.m., walking towards the shop, the same time the gatekeeper said he saw him coming the other way, re-entering the cemetery.

There were many similar things that didn’t make any sense and seemingly hadn’t been challenged at trial by Stephen’s defence. Why were only the police called in a first instance and then a second workman had to call an ambulance? It all sounded dubious. Many of the timings conflicted and were completely inaccurate.

I also noticed the fact that within this trial summary the judge also failed to mention a vitally important fact – that Wendy had moved from where she was first attacked, to another spot across some gravestones, where she was seen by the workmen. This fact was mentioned by Stephen Downing at trial. And it was also mentioned casually in at least one witness statement by a workman, but for some reason it was not challenged by the defence – even though it was part of Downing’s revised statement made a few days after the ‘confession’. I was determined to get to the bottom of all these inconsistencies.

Doing this with the assistance of Derbyshire police seemed unlikely, however, as around this time I received a reply from Derbyshire police HQ saying that all the paperwork and exhibits relating to the case had been burnt, lost or destroyed, including the murder weapon. I was furious. How dare they destroy evidence before the man had served his time.