Episode 3

Download Subtitles

Transcript

0:00:02 > 0:00:05The British justice system is the envy of the world.

0:00:05 > 0:00:08But in the past, mistakes have been made.

0:00:08 > 0:00:11Between the year 1900 and the year 1964,

0:00:11 > 0:00:15approximately 800 people were hanged in the United Kingdom.

0:00:15 > 0:00:19Many of those desperately protested their innocence.

0:00:19 > 0:00:24Some of these long-standing convictions could be a miscarriage of justice.

0:00:24 > 0:00:27She's received most of the blows in this position,

0:00:27 > 0:00:29once she's already bleeding.

0:00:29 > 0:00:32In this series, a living relative will attempt to clear their family name.

0:00:32 > 0:00:36Deep in my heart, I truly believe that he wasn't guilty.

0:00:36 > 0:00:38Searching for new evidence...

0:00:38 > 0:00:42I can make the .32 fire both calibres.

0:00:45 > 0:00:48..with help from two of the UK's leading barristers,

0:00:48 > 0:00:50one for the defence...

0:00:50 > 0:00:52This is a very worrying case.

0:00:52 > 0:00:54I think the evidence is very suspect.

0:00:54 > 0:00:56..and one for the prosecution.

0:00:56 > 0:01:00I'm still of the view that this was a cogent case of murder,

0:01:00 > 0:01:03committed during the course of a robbery.

0:01:03 > 0:01:07They are on a mission to solve the mystery,

0:01:07 > 0:01:10submitting their findings to a Crown Court judge.

0:01:10 > 0:01:15There is a real risk that there has been a miscarriage of justice here.

0:01:15 > 0:01:19I will look again at the evidence in the light of the arguments that you

0:01:19 > 0:01:20both have put before me.

0:01:20 > 0:01:23Can this modern investigation

0:01:23 > 0:01:24rewrite history?

0:01:33 > 0:01:35On the 15th July, 1951,

0:01:35 > 0:01:38a team of ten officers from the Huddersfield police

0:01:38 > 0:01:42formed a cordon around a farm in Kirkheaton, West Yorkshire.

0:01:43 > 0:01:46They suspected the owner, Alfred Moore,

0:01:46 > 0:01:48for a spate of burglaries in the area,

0:01:48 > 0:01:52and hoped a stakeout would catch him red-handed returning from a job.

0:01:54 > 0:01:59At 2am, two officers did attempt to apprehend a man crossing the farm.

0:01:59 > 0:02:03When confronted, the man shot the two policeman.

0:02:03 > 0:02:07And fled into the night.

0:02:10 > 0:02:13DI Fraser died instantly at the scene.

0:02:13 > 0:02:15The second officer, PC Arthur Jagger,

0:02:15 > 0:02:18was fatally wounded and died the next day in hospital.

0:02:20 > 0:02:23Three hours after the shooting, the owner of the farm,

0:02:23 > 0:02:2536-year-old Alfred Moore,

0:02:25 > 0:02:29was arrested at his farmhouse and charged with murder.

0:02:29 > 0:02:33At the subsequent trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to death.

0:02:33 > 0:02:39On 6th February, 1952, Alfred Moore was hanged at Leeds Armley Prison.

0:02:39 > 0:02:41He protested his innocence to the last.

0:02:43 > 0:02:47"I'm not guilty of the crime of which I have been convicted,

0:02:47 > 0:02:51"and I beg you to show mercy and grant me a reprieve.

0:02:51 > 0:02:55"I am convinced that one day my innocence will be established."

0:02:57 > 0:02:5965 years on, Alfred's daughter Bronwyn

0:02:59 > 0:03:02is still desperate to clear her father's name.

0:03:04 > 0:03:06It's heartbreaking.

0:03:06 > 0:03:11When you read it, you know that this is the last thing that he ever did in his life.

0:03:11 > 0:03:14And it's pleading for his innocence.

0:03:14 > 0:03:16And the last sentence in particular...

0:03:17 > 0:03:19..is very moving.

0:03:19 > 0:03:26When he says he is "convinced that one day my innocence will be established".

0:03:26 > 0:03:28And I hope, sincerely...

0:03:30 > 0:03:31..that that can happen.

0:03:34 > 0:03:39In 1939, at the outbreak of war, Alfred married Alice Cox.

0:03:40 > 0:03:43And together, they had four daughters.

0:03:43 > 0:03:46Bronwyn was the youngest, just two when their father was hanged.

0:03:48 > 0:03:50It had been hidden from me.

0:03:50 > 0:03:55I like to think I was protected a little because I was so young when the incident happened.

0:03:55 > 0:03:59By the time I got old enough to be able to understand what had happened,

0:03:59 > 0:04:01nobody spoke about it.

0:04:01 > 0:04:03So it was just forgotten about.

0:04:03 > 0:04:07Through her own research into the case, and her family past,

0:04:07 > 0:04:10Bronwyn believes she has unearthed the truth about her father.

0:04:10 > 0:04:14I did have an insight into his character.

0:04:14 > 0:04:18I think my father was quite a weak man.

0:04:18 > 0:04:22I would definitely say that he was dominated by my mother.

0:04:23 > 0:04:24He was a clever man.

0:04:24 > 0:04:28He schooled himself.

0:04:28 > 0:04:32And it was his dream to, one day, run a poultry farm.

0:04:32 > 0:04:36Moore achieved that dream, buying Whinney Close Farm in 1951.

0:04:37 > 0:04:39But just a few months later,

0:04:39 > 0:04:43the idyllic life he had planned was shattered in tragic circumstances

0:04:43 > 0:04:46when the two police officers were shot dead at the farm.

0:04:46 > 0:04:52I'd like to learn more about the incident from different aspects.

0:04:52 > 0:04:55I have the view of my own research,

0:04:55 > 0:04:59but I would like to hear what other people have to say -

0:04:59 > 0:05:02professionals who have looked into the case.

0:05:03 > 0:05:08I hope to discover that there's something somewhere in this evidence

0:05:08 > 0:05:12that can prove that my father was innocent.

0:05:14 > 0:05:19Helping Bronwyn to investigate the case are two of the country's leading legal minds.

0:05:19 > 0:05:22Jeremy Dean QC is a top defence barrister

0:05:22 > 0:05:27with over 30 years' experience, specialising in serious crime.

0:05:27 > 0:05:31Analysing the case for the prosecution is Sasha Wass QC,

0:05:31 > 0:05:34who has successfully convicted some of the country's most notorious

0:05:34 > 0:05:37offenders. Together, they will scrutinise the facts,

0:05:37 > 0:05:42focusing on the areas that could produce the new evidence they'll need to take the case forward.

0:05:42 > 0:05:45- Bronwyn.- Hi.- Hello. I'm Sasha.

0:05:45 > 0:05:49- Nice to meet you. - Nice to meet you.- Jeremy. - Jeremy.- Nice to meet you, too.

0:05:49 > 0:05:52First, they want to get Bronwyn's view on the case.

0:05:52 > 0:05:58It would help us if you were to give us a brief overview of why it is

0:05:58 > 0:06:02you're so confident that your father was victim of a miscarriage of

0:06:02 > 0:06:04- justice.- Lack of evidence.

0:06:04 > 0:06:07The fact that the gun was never found.

0:06:07 > 0:06:12His alibi was so simple, but often simple things,

0:06:12 > 0:06:15you know, are the truth.

0:06:15 > 0:06:18In some cases which are historic, such as this,

0:06:18 > 0:06:24modern techniques can actually prove that a particular defendant did the act.

0:06:24 > 0:06:29Now, are you prepared that that might be the result in this case?

0:06:29 > 0:06:31- Yes, I am. - Yes, you've braced yourself?

0:06:31 > 0:06:36Yes, but deep in my heart, I truly believe that he wasn't guilty.

0:06:36 > 0:06:38I can't make any promises.

0:06:38 > 0:06:43What I can say is that I'll be exploring every angle in order

0:06:43 > 0:06:48to see whether there are grounds for reopening your father's case.

0:06:48 > 0:06:52If anything comes to my attention which causes me concern about the case,

0:06:52 > 0:06:57I won't hesitate to support your perspective.

0:06:57 > 0:07:01I was a little nervous when I arrived, but after meeting them,

0:07:01 > 0:07:04I'm really looking forward to them looking into my father's case.

0:07:05 > 0:07:10The first task for the barristers is to identify the key facts of the murder.

0:07:11 > 0:07:15Can I tell you what my first impressions are?

0:07:15 > 0:07:19The police staked out Alfred's farm,

0:07:19 > 0:07:24because he was suspected of being a well-known local burglar.

0:07:24 > 0:07:28And on the night in question, a cordon was set around the farm.

0:07:28 > 0:07:32And in fact, the shooting took place on Alfred's own property.

0:07:32 > 0:07:34So number one,

0:07:34 > 0:07:39Alfred was on his own property when the guns were discharged.

0:07:39 > 0:07:44Secondly, Alfred was actually identified by the police.

0:07:44 > 0:07:48Mr Jagger saw the shooting take place.

0:07:48 > 0:07:51He was one of the victims, and he identified the culprit.

0:07:51 > 0:07:56One of the key points in the prosecution case, as you've identified,

0:07:56 > 0:07:58is the so-called identification parade.

0:07:58 > 0:08:04But PC Jagger identifies the suspect at a hospital when he's about to die.

0:08:04 > 0:08:06For me, it was a farce.

0:08:06 > 0:08:07And then, the murder weapon.

0:08:07 > 0:08:09The murder weapon was never found.

0:08:09 > 0:08:11So far as the police cordon is concerned,

0:08:11 > 0:08:17there's reasons to be concerned about the evidence that police officers gave.

0:08:17 > 0:08:19So this is a very worrying case.

0:08:19 > 0:08:23And I'm much closer to Bronwyn's standpoint than you are.

0:08:24 > 0:08:27With the barristers already at odds,

0:08:27 > 0:08:30Bronwyn is returning to West Yorkshire,

0:08:30 > 0:08:32and the family farm where the double murder took place.

0:08:36 > 0:08:39We're here at Whinney Close Farm.

0:08:39 > 0:08:43It was the achievement of my father's dream to be able to build

0:08:43 > 0:08:49his poultry business, breed chickens and sell eggs, raise pigs and ducks.

0:08:50 > 0:08:56Coming back all these years later to see the farm where I should have been brought up,

0:08:56 > 0:09:00it brings home to me the different path my life took.

0:09:00 > 0:09:04I would've grown up on a beautiful farm like that in the fresh air.

0:09:04 > 0:09:07It does affect me, standing here, thinking what might have been.

0:09:09 > 0:09:13Alfred Moore returned from service in the merchant Navy to a Britain ravished by war.

0:09:13 > 0:09:18Austerity and rationing prevented many families from getting back on their feet.

0:09:18 > 0:09:22For some like Alfred, the desire for a better family life

0:09:22 > 0:09:24led to the trading of goods on the black market,

0:09:24 > 0:09:28and other illegal activities to supplement income.

0:09:28 > 0:09:33When my father came back from the merchant Navy, and they needed money,

0:09:33 > 0:09:36it was coming up to Christmas, there was no food in the house,

0:09:36 > 0:09:38and he did his first burglary.

0:09:39 > 0:09:44I think my father felt pressure because, knowing my mother,

0:09:44 > 0:09:49I can well believe that she was the driving force behind his activities.

0:09:49 > 0:09:51Alfred was an accomplished burglar.

0:09:52 > 0:09:55But his prosperity didn't go unnoticed by the local constabulary.

0:09:57 > 0:10:02By July, 1951, despite Moore's decision to quit his life of crime,

0:10:02 > 0:10:05a plan to catch him was already underway.

0:10:08 > 0:10:10On the night of the 14th of July,

0:10:10 > 0:10:15ten police officers on a stakeout had formed a cordon around his farm.

0:10:15 > 0:10:19Let me talk you through what the prosecution at trial called

0:10:19 > 0:10:21the cordon evidence.

0:10:21 > 0:10:23In the earlier part of the evening,

0:10:23 > 0:10:27Alfred was at home with his wife and family.

0:10:27 > 0:10:30His brother Charles came to visit.

0:10:30 > 0:10:34The evidence of Alfred, and indeed his brother Charles,

0:10:34 > 0:10:38was that Alfred walked Charles part of the way home.

0:10:39 > 0:10:43According to Alfred, he left his brother at 11:25,

0:10:43 > 0:10:48walking back via the cemetery, up a footpath leading to the farm,

0:10:48 > 0:10:51arriving home between 11:45 and midnight.

0:10:53 > 0:10:57The police evidence is that the officers

0:10:57 > 0:11:01all convened at the ash tip, here, by 11:37.

0:11:01 > 0:11:05And thereafter they separated to their posts.

0:11:05 > 0:11:12The timing of the police was something very much relied on by the prosecution.

0:11:12 > 0:11:15The prosecution alleged that Alfred couldn't have arrived home

0:11:15 > 0:11:19after 11:45 because the police cordon was in place,

0:11:19 > 0:11:21and he would have been stopped.

0:11:21 > 0:11:25The prosecution case was that Alfred Moore didn't return home until

0:11:25 > 0:11:27just before two o'clock.

0:11:27 > 0:11:30When he walked up this footpath to his home,

0:11:30 > 0:11:33the police evidence is that he would have passed this spot

0:11:33 > 0:11:35just before two o'clock in the morning.

0:11:35 > 0:11:39- And that happens to be where those two officers were shot.- Yes.

0:11:45 > 0:11:47Bronwyn is meeting Steve Lawson,

0:11:47 > 0:11:51a former local detective with an in-depth knowledge of the case.

0:11:51 > 0:11:52Hi, Steve. How are you?

0:11:53 > 0:11:55They're on the footpath at the bottom of the cordon,

0:11:55 > 0:11:57near the spot where the policemen were shot.

0:11:58 > 0:12:03This was where Constable Jagger was allegedly posted on the night in question.

0:12:03 > 0:12:05When your dad came home,

0:12:05 > 0:12:08he said he came up this footpath from the cemetery,

0:12:08 > 0:12:11crossed over the stile, went up the footpath,

0:12:11 > 0:12:13over the other two stiles and back to the farm.

0:12:14 > 0:12:16They say, no.

0:12:16 > 0:12:19Your dad came home at a later time, and your dad was the shooter.

0:12:19 > 0:12:22And the thing happened at about two o'clock in the morning, right?

0:12:22 > 0:12:26The problem with that is, whoever it was who was up that footpath

0:12:26 > 0:12:28at two o'clock in the morning

0:12:28 > 0:12:30- had got past this position here... - Yes.

0:12:30 > 0:12:33..where Constable Jagger was supposed to have been positioned.

0:12:33 > 0:12:36And he'd been there since 11:45.

0:12:36 > 0:12:40So where do you think he was positioned, then?

0:12:40 > 0:12:43It came out at the trial that it rained that night.

0:12:43 > 0:12:45Had they all taken shelter, the policemen?

0:12:45 > 0:12:47Were they where they should have been?

0:12:47 > 0:12:51And if they weren't, it makes a whole mockery of the whole situation.

0:12:51 > 0:12:57Jeremy also has doubts whether the cordon was even in place at the time the police claim.

0:12:57 > 0:13:00I think this is a very, very shaky area.

0:13:00 > 0:13:04I haven't seen any documentation that their timings are accurate.

0:13:04 > 0:13:09Alfred Moore said that he parted company with his brother

0:13:09 > 0:13:11between 11:20 and 11:25.

0:13:11 > 0:13:15If, in fact, he parted company with his brother a few minutes earlier,

0:13:15 > 0:13:20he could have been back at home before the police cordon was in place.

0:13:20 > 0:13:23So the cordon point collapses.

0:13:23 > 0:13:25You're playing here with three, four, five minutes.

0:13:25 > 0:13:27And this is really very primitive observations.

0:13:27 > 0:13:32Absolutely. And I'm afraid I think we have to factor in

0:13:32 > 0:13:36that these police officers were part of a team,

0:13:36 > 0:13:40and they had lost two of their colleagues in a vicious murder.

0:13:40 > 0:13:43And there was an interest in them giving evidence in a manner

0:13:43 > 0:13:48which made it physically impossible for Alfred Moore to get home and breach the cordon.

0:13:48 > 0:13:52So, overall, I just think this body of evidence is suspect.

0:13:54 > 0:13:58If Alfred Moore was the culprit, as the police claim,

0:13:58 > 0:14:00then what happened to the gun?

0:14:00 > 0:14:04A two-week search of the farmhouse and the land had failed to unearth

0:14:04 > 0:14:06any potential murder weapon.

0:14:06 > 0:14:10The question of whether Alfred Moore can be linked to the murder weapon

0:14:10 > 0:14:15is crucial. And the only connection the prosecution were able to raise

0:14:15 > 0:14:17was the evidence of Joe Baxter.

0:14:17 > 0:14:21Joe Baxter was a local removal man, who had served in the Navy,

0:14:21 > 0:14:24and claimed to be knowledgeable about guns.

0:14:24 > 0:14:28Jeremy is hoping firearms expert Innes Knight can shoot holes in the

0:14:28 > 0:14:31evidence of Joe Baxter connecting Moore to a possible murder weapon.

0:14:32 > 0:14:36What he alleged is that in Alfred Moore's tool box,

0:14:36 > 0:14:41some considerable time before the murder of the two police officers,

0:14:41 > 0:14:45he saw a Luger automatic revolver.

0:14:45 > 0:14:50Yes. That statement is wrong on so many counts.

0:14:50 > 0:14:52Luger only made a pistol.

0:14:52 > 0:14:57- Yeah.- The difference between a pistol and a revolver is quite large.

0:14:57 > 0:15:00A pistol has a single barrel and a single chamber.

0:15:00 > 0:15:02It is fed from a magazine

0:15:02 > 0:15:06in the grip, and uses recoil to operate it.

0:15:06 > 0:15:10Loading a round, firing and ejecting the spent case.

0:15:13 > 0:15:16And this is a Webley revolver.

0:15:16 > 0:15:18Has a single barrel,

0:15:18 > 0:15:23and multiple chambers that rotate to line up with the barrel,

0:15:23 > 0:15:25one at a time. It's a completely different operating system.

0:15:25 > 0:15:28- And they look completely different. - They look completely different.

0:15:28 > 0:15:32Joe Baxter claimed that he knew the difference between the two.

0:15:32 > 0:15:35But on the face of it, that's just rubbish, isn't it?

0:15:35 > 0:15:38No-one would say a Luger automatic revolver.

0:15:38 > 0:15:40It has never existed.

0:15:40 > 0:15:43Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge would probably not...

0:15:43 > 0:15:47So anyone that claims to have knowledge of the difference between the two is talking nonsense.

0:15:47 > 0:15:51- It's nonsense. Absolutely. - We know that Alfred Moore admitted

0:15:51 > 0:15:55to having guns of this type, including an air pistol, such as this.

0:15:55 > 0:16:01- Yes.- Joe Baxter said that he saw what he described as an automatic pistol,

0:16:01 > 0:16:03like a Luger, in Alfred Moore's tool box.

0:16:03 > 0:16:08- In the tool box.- Could we just put the Lugar and the air pistol in the tool box?

0:16:08 > 0:16:11Let's put the Webley airgun.

0:16:11 > 0:16:14Can we just put the Luger now side by side?

0:16:16 > 0:16:20It would be easy for those two guns to be confused,

0:16:20 > 0:16:22- would you agree with that? - I would agree with that.

0:16:22 > 0:16:24And especially because we can see, in a tool box,

0:16:24 > 0:16:27you've got all the bits of ironmongery there,

0:16:27 > 0:16:30which make it less clear as an object to identify.

0:16:30 > 0:16:36- Yes. Yes, quite.- So there's every possibility that what Joe Baxter in fact saw

0:16:36 > 0:16:38was Alfred Moore's air pistol.

0:16:38 > 0:16:40Exactly, I believe that is what happened.

0:16:42 > 0:16:46The lack of any direct evidence against Alfred Moore didn't prevent

0:16:46 > 0:16:50the press in 1952 from painting him as an irrefutable villain.

0:16:52 > 0:16:58Bronwyn has come to Huddersfield library to dig out local reports about the case.

0:16:58 > 0:17:01It's the story of Alfred Moore.

0:17:01 > 0:17:04Murderer and self-confessed burglar.

0:17:04 > 0:17:09He was being reported as being the guilty man right from the beginning.

0:17:09 > 0:17:12There was only one man they concentrated on.

0:17:12 > 0:17:17These papers just report the fact that Alfred Moore was guilty.

0:17:17 > 0:17:21"It was Inspector Fraser's personal ambition to have Moore caught

0:17:21 > 0:17:26"for the disconcerting series of burglaries which had clearly pointed to him

0:17:26 > 0:17:28"but could not be proved."

0:17:28 > 0:17:33And I do feel that they took the opportunity to make the crime fit.

0:17:36 > 0:17:39Alfred Moore's alibi on the night of the murder was simple.

0:17:40 > 0:17:43And one he consistently maintained to the end.

0:17:43 > 0:17:48"How could it be me? I was in bed with my wife."

0:17:48 > 0:17:49It's the simple truth.

0:17:49 > 0:17:52You'd think if he was going to make up an alibi or something

0:17:52 > 0:17:54it would have been a lot stronger.

0:17:54 > 0:17:57It's such a simple alibi,

0:17:57 > 0:18:00and the only people that could prove it are his wife and children.

0:18:02 > 0:18:05There was no reason for the jury to doubt Moore's alibi.

0:18:05 > 0:18:09Except for the testimony of Alfred's ten-year-old daughter Patricia,

0:18:09 > 0:18:11who slept in the same bedroom.

0:18:11 > 0:18:17In this particular bedroom it says about my sister being brought in as a witness.

0:18:19 > 0:18:21"Patricia went into the witness box,

0:18:21 > 0:18:24"and her head barely showing above the top of it.

0:18:24 > 0:18:27"Moore called to her, "Hello, Pat."

0:18:27 > 0:18:30"In a hesitant voice and amid occasional tears,

0:18:30 > 0:18:33"Patricia said that her father and her uncle Charles

0:18:33 > 0:18:35"left the house on July 14th after supper.

0:18:36 > 0:18:38"She heard her father come through the French window.

0:18:40 > 0:18:43"And he was cross because she wasn't asleep."

0:18:43 > 0:18:48Using Pat as a witness I do think was distasteful.

0:18:48 > 0:18:52A ten-year-old girl, it was something that she never got over.

0:18:52 > 0:18:58Patricia's statement suggested Moore arrived home much later than he claimed in his own account.

0:18:58 > 0:19:01His own daughter contradicted his alibi.

0:19:01 > 0:19:05You're placing emphasis on the testimony of a ten-year-old girl?

0:19:05 > 0:19:09Well, we've both looked very carefully at Patricia's evidence.

0:19:09 > 0:19:12There's not much to look at, her statement's about three lines long.

0:19:12 > 0:19:15She uses as a pinpoint the sounding of a whistle.

0:19:15 > 0:19:18- Yeah.- She doesn't know what that whistle is,

0:19:18 > 0:19:21but piecing the evidence together it would appear that it must have been

0:19:21 > 0:19:24a police whistle once the shooting had been discovered.

0:19:24 > 0:19:27- Why? Why?- Let me finish about her evidence.

0:19:27 > 0:19:30She doesn't say it was 12.30 or 2.30 or whatever.

0:19:30 > 0:19:37- She says her father arrived home after the sounding of a police whistle.- Yeah. Yeah.

0:19:37 > 0:19:39That is consistent with the shooting.

0:19:39 > 0:19:41You're saying a little girl,

0:19:41 > 0:19:45who might well have been under malign police influence,

0:19:45 > 0:19:49was relied on by the prosecution to pinpoint Alfred Moore's

0:19:49 > 0:19:52arrival home being approximately 2.30

0:19:52 > 0:19:56because she said in a statement which was about five lines long -

0:19:56 > 0:19:59the authenticity of which we know nothing -

0:19:59 > 0:20:01he arrived home after the police whistle.

0:20:01 > 0:20:04I think the evidence is, arguably, very suspect.

0:20:05 > 0:20:08So, did the police target Alfred Moore,

0:20:08 > 0:20:09discounting any evidence

0:20:09 > 0:20:12that could have pointed towards other possible suspects?

0:20:13 > 0:20:16I would like to see evidence, if there is any,

0:20:16 > 0:20:19about whether there were any other suspects in this case.

0:20:19 > 0:20:23Can modern forensic experts find anything that indicates someone else

0:20:23 > 0:20:25shot the police officers?

0:20:26 > 0:20:30The only evidence that remains today are crime-scene photographs

0:20:30 > 0:20:34and scientific reports, making it a difficult task.

0:20:35 > 0:20:39The barristers have called upon pathologist Mark Mastaglio

0:20:39 > 0:20:42to examine the postmortem for clues about the killer's identity.

0:20:43 > 0:20:45Two victims in this case.

0:20:45 > 0:20:47Can I start with Detective Inspector Fraser?

0:20:47 > 0:20:52Well, DI Fraser received four gunshot injuries.

0:20:52 > 0:20:53They were as follows.

0:20:53 > 0:20:56On his right arm and left arm.

0:20:56 > 0:21:02Then we had a non-perforating wound to just above the navel area.

0:21:02 > 0:21:08The fatal wound occurred to the upper left side of the chest.

0:21:08 > 0:21:11There was tearing and blackening to the garment.

0:21:11 > 0:21:14And there was charring of fibres inside the wound.

0:21:14 > 0:21:17The gun was very close when it was fired.

0:21:17 > 0:21:19You can say it was an attack

0:21:19 > 0:21:21which must have been extremely close range.

0:21:21 > 0:21:25Well, indeed, because three of the injuries are with the gun

0:21:25 > 0:21:26mostly in contact with DI Fraser.

0:21:26 > 0:21:28Thank you very much. Now, PC Jagger.

0:21:28 > 0:21:30- Yes.- Only one injury.

0:21:30 > 0:21:34Singular fatal injury in his lower abdomen.

0:21:34 > 0:21:37- So again, really close.- Yes.

0:21:37 > 0:21:41That scenario tends to suggest that whoever fired those shots

0:21:41 > 0:21:44was determined to kill their victims.

0:21:44 > 0:21:48Anybody who discharges a firearm numerous times at the upper torso

0:21:48 > 0:21:51of an individual from close range must have an idea

0:21:51 > 0:21:54that they will cause serious injury or, indeed, fatal injury.

0:21:54 > 0:21:55That's helpful, thank you.

0:21:55 > 0:22:00So the postmortem evidence from 1951 indicates that this was

0:22:00 > 0:22:04a brutal shooting, carried out by an individual determined to kill.

0:22:04 > 0:22:07But what can the latest investigative techniques tell us

0:22:07 > 0:22:08about the murderer?

0:22:12 > 0:22:15Bronwyn has come to Huddersfield University

0:22:15 > 0:22:17to meet criminal psychologist Donna Young.

0:22:17 > 0:22:20- You must be Donna.- Hello.- Hello. - Thanks for coming in.- Thank you.

0:22:20 > 0:22:23She's analysed both case files and personal documents

0:22:23 > 0:22:25to build a profile of Alfred Moore.

0:22:25 > 0:22:27Is it a match for the killer?

0:22:28 > 0:22:33What we do is we model the details of different types of offences

0:22:33 > 0:22:37to see what they will tell us about the individual

0:22:37 > 0:22:40who might have carried out those crimes.

0:22:40 > 0:22:43So I'm used to trying to dissect the way somebody was thinking

0:22:43 > 0:22:45when they carried out a crime.

0:22:45 > 0:22:49It is remarkable how much you can say about somebody,

0:22:49 > 0:22:53just from a few personal documents, and a few reports about them.

0:22:53 > 0:22:57Certainly, my reading of all the documents is that your father

0:22:57 > 0:22:59didn't have a serious professional criminal mind,

0:22:59 > 0:23:04and he didn't have an aggressive criminal mind.

0:23:04 > 0:23:06The reports all talk about a very obedient,

0:23:06 > 0:23:09accommodating, pleasant man.

0:23:09 > 0:23:16I'm struggling very much to match what we know about the shooting,

0:23:16 > 0:23:20from what I can glean about your father.

0:23:20 > 0:23:24He had what we call a victim life narrative.

0:23:24 > 0:23:28Now, that's somebody who, from a very early age,

0:23:28 > 0:23:31learned that they were essentially powerless.

0:23:31 > 0:23:36Would this be the result of a rather dominant bully-type father?

0:23:36 > 0:23:38Very much so, yeah, yeah.

0:23:38 > 0:23:42And that stays with you. It guides and shapes all the decisions

0:23:42 > 0:23:43that you make in your life.

0:23:43 > 0:23:45Including choice of wife?

0:23:45 > 0:23:48Um, yes, yep.

0:23:48 > 0:23:50So you'd probably choose somebody

0:23:50 > 0:23:52who's a bit more dominant than you are.

0:23:52 > 0:23:54Dominant. Yes!

0:23:54 > 0:23:58My mother was an extremely dominant lady.

0:23:58 > 0:24:02I believe that, when my father got into burglary,

0:24:02 > 0:24:04that it was at the behest of my mother.

0:24:04 > 0:24:08That'd make sense - psychologically speaking, that would make sense.

0:24:08 > 0:24:11But it's the personal letters written by Alfred Moore

0:24:11 > 0:24:14from his prison cell that are most revealing.

0:24:14 > 0:24:18I see here a number of different clues

0:24:18 > 0:24:21as to somebody who may not be guilty.

0:24:21 > 0:24:23Can you remember the pieces about the pigs?

0:24:23 > 0:24:25Mix four parts of cereal to one part of fish meal

0:24:25 > 0:24:28and don't give the pigs too much fish meal.

0:24:28 > 0:24:30One bucket of swill upwards a day.

0:24:30 > 0:24:32I mean...

0:24:32 > 0:24:33It's quite charming, in a way.

0:24:33 > 0:24:37And to think that this is written by somebody sitting in a prison cell.

0:24:37 > 0:24:39It's somebody still in life.

0:24:39 > 0:24:42When somebody knows that they are going to die,

0:24:42 > 0:24:44we see a withdrawal from life,

0:24:44 > 0:24:46and all the details of their previous life.

0:24:46 > 0:24:49Absolute opposite is what we're seeing here.

0:24:49 > 0:24:53He assumes that, somehow, his innocence is going to win through.

0:24:53 > 0:24:54It's the last line,

0:24:54 > 0:24:59where he expects that one day someone will prove his innocence.

0:24:59 > 0:25:02- Maybe that's what you're doing. - Someone will know.

0:25:06 > 0:25:09With the investigation rapidly progressing...

0:25:10 > 0:25:13..Bronwyn has returned to London for a catch up with the barristers.

0:25:15 > 0:25:17We've looked, in a great deal of detail,

0:25:17 > 0:25:19at the police cordon evidence.

0:25:19 > 0:25:22My view is that all of the timings are wholly unreliable,

0:25:22 > 0:25:27and that that body of evidence is unsustainable.

0:25:27 > 0:25:32What we really need, in order to challenge this conviction,

0:25:32 > 0:25:36is something new that wasn't heard either at the trial,

0:25:36 > 0:25:38or at the Court of Appeal.

0:25:38 > 0:25:39OK.

0:25:39 > 0:25:44The identification of the killer by PC Jagger before he died

0:25:44 > 0:25:46was central to the prosecution's case.

0:25:46 > 0:25:48But Jagger made another statement

0:25:48 > 0:25:51that was never submitted into evidence.

0:25:51 > 0:25:58- His first statement did include a man wearing a white scarf.- Yes.

0:25:58 > 0:26:01I think the white silk scarf is quite significant

0:26:01 > 0:26:05because many years later, I met Steve Lawson,

0:26:05 > 0:26:08who had started investigating my father's case,

0:26:08 > 0:26:11and I also got in touch with my sister, Pat, and we met.

0:26:11 > 0:26:16One of the points Steve brought up was about this statement.

0:26:16 > 0:26:19A man wearing a silk scarf.

0:26:19 > 0:26:23My sister Pat immediately said, "Oh, you mean the tin man."

0:26:23 > 0:26:28When she was younger, we had this man visit the farm

0:26:28 > 0:26:31who was bringing black-market goods, basically.

0:26:31 > 0:26:35My mother and father were storing the goods, you know, to be sold on.

0:26:35 > 0:26:38And the way she described him,

0:26:38 > 0:26:42he always wore a mac with this white silk scarf.

0:26:43 > 0:26:46So we have a possible alternative suspect.

0:26:46 > 0:26:48We have a possible alternative suspect.

0:26:48 > 0:26:51That is something that Jeremy and I would very much like to investigate.

0:26:53 > 0:26:56Could information of a possible alternative suspect

0:26:56 > 0:26:59provide the barristers with the breakthrough they need?

0:27:02 > 0:27:06Steve Lawson has come to London to discuss the information he holds.

0:27:06 > 0:27:10Tell us how you came across the case of Alfred Moore.

0:27:10 > 0:27:12I got involved in 1971.

0:27:12 > 0:27:17I was in the CID, and we had two very nasty armed robberies.

0:27:17 > 0:27:20A family known as the Meade family, they came under suspicion.

0:27:20 > 0:27:24John Meade was one of a gang who was arrested.

0:27:24 > 0:27:27Clifford Meade, his father, was also under suspicion,

0:27:27 > 0:27:30but at the time there was no evidence against Clifford

0:27:30 > 0:27:32and nobody would give him up.

0:27:32 > 0:27:34Following the convictions and imprisonment,

0:27:34 > 0:27:37I was working one day in the office when the phone rang.

0:27:37 > 0:27:40It was a lady on the phone - it turned out she was the wife

0:27:40 > 0:27:42of one of these gang members.

0:27:42 > 0:27:44And the essence of the conversation was that a couple of nights before,

0:27:44 > 0:27:46she'd been at the White Cottage,

0:27:46 > 0:27:49which is the house owned by Clifford Meade.

0:27:49 > 0:27:51Suddenly, without any indication,

0:27:51 > 0:27:54Clifford Meade stood up, left the room,

0:27:54 > 0:27:58came back and introduced this gun as some sort of trophy.

0:27:58 > 0:28:01And just said, "This is the gun that killed two coppers

0:28:01 > 0:28:04"in Kirkheaton in 1951."

0:28:04 > 0:28:06That was it. I said to this lady,

0:28:06 > 0:28:08"Well, would you make a statement on these lines?"

0:28:08 > 0:28:10She said no.

0:28:10 > 0:28:13She said, "You don't know what that man's capable of."

0:28:13 > 0:28:14Many years later,

0:28:14 > 0:28:18Steve began investigating the Alfred Moore case and published a book

0:28:18 > 0:28:20questioning the verdict.

0:28:20 > 0:28:23In 2007, I met Alfred's daughters,

0:28:23 > 0:28:26and we were chatting, and I just said, out of the blue,

0:28:26 > 0:28:29did your dad ever wear a white silk scarf?

0:28:29 > 0:28:32Pat, the eldest, said, "No, my dad never wore a scarf.

0:28:32 > 0:28:34"But the tin man did."

0:28:34 > 0:28:39The description she gave of tall, dark hair, swarthy-looking,

0:28:39 > 0:28:42thin, pencil moustache, long coat and a white scarf or a cravat,

0:28:42 > 0:28:45definitely would have fitted Clifford Meade.

0:28:45 > 0:28:48If Clifford Meade and the tin man are the same person,

0:28:48 > 0:28:52Clifford Meade then, in 1971, connects himself to this crime

0:28:52 > 0:28:54by saying, "This is the gun that shot them."

0:28:54 > 0:28:56To me, he remains a suspect.

0:28:56 > 0:28:59Have you got any information

0:28:59 > 0:29:03as to where Clifford Meade was on that night?

0:29:03 > 0:29:05Only through John Meade.

0:29:05 > 0:29:07His recollection of what his mother told him.

0:29:07 > 0:29:10She did say to John something on the lines of,

0:29:10 > 0:29:14"That night, your father came home in a right state.

0:29:14 > 0:29:17"He was shaking, he was incoherent, he was pale,

0:29:17 > 0:29:19"he just wasn't himself."

0:29:19 > 0:29:21- And then...- So John Meade has said

0:29:21 > 0:29:24his mother said his father was shaken

0:29:24 > 0:29:26the night of the killing itself.

0:29:26 > 0:29:30Mr Lawson, I see you've got a statement there from John Meade.

0:29:30 > 0:29:32Do you mind if I have a look at it?

0:29:32 > 0:29:33Thank you.

0:29:35 > 0:29:37It says, "I'm the son of Clifford Meade,

0:29:37 > 0:29:40"but although it's not easy for me to publicly say this,

0:29:40 > 0:29:44"I now believe that my father, Clifford Meade,

0:29:44 > 0:29:46"was responsible for those killings.

0:29:46 > 0:29:50"An innocent man was hung for a crime he did not commit,

0:29:50 > 0:29:54"and it's about time that an injustice was put right."

0:29:56 > 0:29:58The information you've given is extremely important.

0:29:58 > 0:30:02We need to ask ourselves whether this realistically amounts to

0:30:02 > 0:30:04evidence of an alternative suspect.

0:30:04 > 0:30:05- Do you agree?- I do, yes.

0:30:07 > 0:30:11At Leeds Armley Prison on 6th February, 1952,

0:30:11 > 0:30:13Alfred Moore was hanged until dead.

0:30:16 > 0:30:20His body was buried in an unmarked grave within the prison walls.

0:30:21 > 0:30:25I'm so surprised to arrive at Armley jail

0:30:25 > 0:30:27and see such an austere building.

0:30:27 > 0:30:30The last thing my father saw before his death.

0:30:32 > 0:30:34I'm just lost for words, really.

0:30:40 > 0:30:43I believe I came to visit my father the day before he died.

0:30:43 > 0:30:46I was only two years old and, thankfully,

0:30:46 > 0:30:48I remember nothing about it.

0:30:50 > 0:30:52Bronwyn wants to see where her father is laid to rest...

0:30:54 > 0:30:58..and has been permitted by the prison to read the record of his execution.

0:31:00 > 0:31:04This is the first time that I've seen such a record.

0:31:04 > 0:31:07It gives details of his age and his height.

0:31:07 > 0:31:10His build was "stout and strong".

0:31:10 > 0:31:13And it gives the particulars of the execution.

0:31:13 > 0:31:18The length and drop, and the cause of death - his neck was broken.

0:31:21 > 0:31:25It... It's the basic facts of my father's death and,

0:31:25 > 0:31:29you know, just to see them in black and white, it's...

0:31:30 > 0:31:32..you know, it's...

0:31:32 > 0:31:34It's hard, it's very hard.

0:31:37 > 0:31:41In 1989, Alfred Moore's remains were exhumed,

0:31:41 > 0:31:43along with other executed prisoners,

0:31:43 > 0:31:47and reburied at a cemetery just a short walk from the prison.

0:31:52 > 0:31:56It may be odd to say, but I'm quite relieved to find

0:31:56 > 0:31:59that my father is in such a peaceful place.

0:32:02 > 0:32:04Hi, Dad.

0:32:05 > 0:32:06I hope this is a surprise.

0:32:08 > 0:32:1066 years later.

0:32:13 > 0:32:15I'm here with respect.

0:32:18 > 0:32:22I'm so pleased that you're no longer inside Armley Jail.

0:32:26 > 0:32:28I hope you can now rest in peace.

0:32:39 > 0:32:43I know you're not guilty of murder,

0:32:43 > 0:32:45and, hopefully, this will lead, one day...

0:32:46 > 0:32:48..to clearing your name.

0:32:51 > 0:32:53Bye, Dad.

0:32:53 > 0:32:54SHE BLOWS A KISS

0:32:54 > 0:32:56I will see you again.

0:32:56 > 0:32:57I promise.

0:33:12 > 0:33:15With the investigation drawing to a close,

0:33:15 > 0:33:18Jeremy is still searching for new evidence that casts doubt

0:33:18 > 0:33:19on Alfred Moore as the killer.

0:33:21 > 0:33:25He knows PC Jagger's identification of Moore was a damning piece

0:33:25 > 0:33:28of evidence that formed the core of the prosecution's case.

0:33:28 > 0:33:32But it was made in an unorthodox fashion at his hospital bedside,

0:33:32 > 0:33:34just hours before he died.

0:33:34 > 0:33:38If we can obtain expert evidence to the effect

0:33:38 > 0:33:41that PC Jagger was not in a fit state

0:33:41 > 0:33:44to engage in that identification procedure,

0:33:44 > 0:33:48it's possible to use that material

0:33:48 > 0:33:52as the basis for reopening Alfred Moore's convictions.

0:33:52 > 0:33:55Philip Hopkins is a professor of anaesthesia

0:33:55 > 0:33:57at the University of Leeds.

0:33:57 > 0:34:00He's studied PC Jagger's medical records in detail.

0:34:02 > 0:34:05So, he was brought into hospital and underwent surgery

0:34:05 > 0:34:06for the removal of the bullet.

0:34:06 > 0:34:08He was given morphine,

0:34:08 > 0:34:13and then, at 4.50, there was an identification procedure.

0:34:13 > 0:34:15- Correct, yes, I agree.- All right?

0:34:15 > 0:34:19The surgeon described him as being "alert by midday".

0:34:19 > 0:34:25"Alert", at its most basic, means he opens his eyes spontaneously.

0:34:25 > 0:34:29What it doesn't infer at all is anything about

0:34:29 > 0:34:33PC Jagger's mental function, whether his memory was intact,

0:34:33 > 0:34:38whether he was aware of where he was, who he was, what year it was.

0:34:38 > 0:34:42- It would be standard to write "alert and orientated".- Yes, rather than...

0:34:42 > 0:34:45- Alert.- Doesn't suggest disorientated, does it?

0:34:45 > 0:34:49It doesn't either suggest or not suggest that he's disorientated -

0:34:49 > 0:34:51it makes no comment.

0:34:51 > 0:34:54And by the time the identification procedure takes place,

0:34:54 > 0:34:58he's described as, "mentally very bright",

0:34:58 > 0:35:00and not under the influence of the morphine

0:35:00 > 0:35:03given earlier that day at 12.55.

0:35:03 > 0:35:07Well, he's incorrect about the under the influence of the morphine.

0:35:07 > 0:35:10He's also discounting the effects of the general anaesthetic.

0:35:10 > 0:35:13The agent was ether,

0:35:13 > 0:35:15and one of the downsides of ether

0:35:15 > 0:35:18was that it affected mental functioning

0:35:18 > 0:35:20for a prolonged period of time.

0:35:20 > 0:35:25Are you able to comment on what you feel PC Jagger's state of mind

0:35:25 > 0:35:29is likely to have been at the time of that identification parade?

0:35:29 > 0:35:31Most people have had flu.

0:35:31 > 0:35:34And when we get a really bad dose of flu,

0:35:34 > 0:35:36our mind often plays tricks with us.

0:35:36 > 0:35:39And that's exactly what can happen with septicaemia,

0:35:39 > 0:35:43it can happen with drugs, such as morphine and the anaesthetic drugs.

0:35:43 > 0:35:45In your view,

0:35:45 > 0:35:50is PC Jagger's identification of Alfred Moore as his killer reliable?

0:35:50 > 0:35:55- No.- And if you were on a jury, would you be prepared to rely on

0:35:55 > 0:35:59- his identification of the man in the dock?- No.

0:35:59 > 0:36:01This is really a case about an identification.

0:36:01 > 0:36:06That identification has been deemed unreliable by an eminent expert,

0:36:06 > 0:36:10so my view is that there are grounds for reopening the case

0:36:10 > 0:36:13of Alfred Moore, and I'll be working towards

0:36:13 > 0:36:17compiling the necessary arguments over the forthcoming days.

0:36:17 > 0:36:19I'll give it some more thought,

0:36:19 > 0:36:22but I have to say, I don't immediately feel

0:36:22 > 0:36:25that there's any cause to open up this conviction.

0:36:29 > 0:36:32The legal arguments have been prepared,

0:36:32 > 0:36:36and it now falls to His Honour Judge David Radford to deliberate.

0:36:37 > 0:36:39Based on his expert opinion,

0:36:39 > 0:36:42he will recommend if the case should be reviewed or not.

0:36:43 > 0:36:47I've arrived here today to listen to the evidence being presented

0:36:47 > 0:36:48before the judge.

0:36:50 > 0:36:53I'm reasonably confident that Jeremy's investigation

0:36:53 > 0:36:57will show some new legal arguments

0:36:57 > 0:36:59that will help to prove my father's innocence.

0:36:59 > 0:37:03Now I feel that this is the end of quite a long road,

0:37:03 > 0:37:05and it is the moment of truth.

0:37:05 > 0:37:08- Hello, Bronwyn, how are you? - Very well, thank you.- Good.

0:37:08 > 0:37:10How are you feeling?

0:37:10 > 0:37:15I'm feeling sort of a little nervous, but also quite excited.

0:37:15 > 0:37:19I hope the decision will be favourable, obviously.

0:37:19 > 0:37:22I've come to my own conclusion that my father was innocent.

0:37:22 > 0:37:26Let's just press on and find out what the judge's...

0:37:26 > 0:37:28- OK.- ..view is.- Yeah.

0:37:31 > 0:37:35Judge Radford has over 40 years of experience at the criminal bar,

0:37:35 > 0:37:36and sat at the Court of Appeal.

0:37:38 > 0:37:40For this programme,

0:37:40 > 0:37:43he'll be treating this matter as he would any other case.

0:37:43 > 0:37:48I'm here today to consider, with the help of learned counsel,

0:37:48 > 0:37:51the safety of the conviction of Alfred Moore.

0:37:51 > 0:37:53Mr Dean, on behalf of the defence,

0:37:53 > 0:37:56- do you wish to make your submissions?- Yes, please.

0:37:56 > 0:38:01This was a case characterised by circumstantial evidence,

0:38:01 > 0:38:06depending wholly on the identification evidence

0:38:06 > 0:38:08of PC Jagger.

0:38:08 > 0:38:12There is now the evidence of Professor Hopkins,

0:38:12 > 0:38:14consultant anaesthetist.

0:38:14 > 0:38:16In his view,

0:38:16 > 0:38:21PC Jagger would have been incapable of making a reliable identification

0:38:21 > 0:38:23of his killer.

0:38:23 > 0:38:25Professor Hopkins found the circumstances

0:38:25 > 0:38:29of the identification parade "extraordinary",

0:38:29 > 0:38:31and that, in his opinion,

0:38:31 > 0:38:34the evidence is fundamentally unreliable.

0:38:34 > 0:38:37Coming to the point, it is my submission

0:38:37 > 0:38:41that Mr Jagger's identification of Alfred Moore was so flawed

0:38:41 > 0:38:45that it ought never to have surfaced in evidence,

0:38:45 > 0:38:49and, without it, no sustainable case would have existed.

0:38:49 > 0:38:51Thank you very much, Mr Dean.

0:38:51 > 0:38:52Miss Wass, do you want to respond?

0:38:52 > 0:38:55First of all, I agree entirely with Mr Dean

0:38:55 > 0:38:58that this is a case that depended wholly

0:38:58 > 0:39:01on the identification of PC Jagger.

0:39:01 > 0:39:08I am not persuaded by Professor Hopkins's evidence.

0:39:08 > 0:39:12- It's perhaps for me to be persuaded, rather than you.- All right.

0:39:12 > 0:39:15One has to work on the basis that we are dealing with competent

0:39:15 > 0:39:17medical practitioners here.

0:39:17 > 0:39:22And there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest

0:39:22 > 0:39:26that the patient, PC Jagger, was either disorientated,

0:39:26 > 0:39:33confused, or in any way incapable of giving a coherent account.

0:39:33 > 0:39:37Professor Hopkins's evidence does, in reality,

0:39:37 > 0:39:42do nothing to undermine the evidence that was before this jury,

0:39:42 > 0:39:44and that remains the position.

0:39:44 > 0:39:45Yes. Thank you, both.

0:39:45 > 0:39:48I will now consider your helpful submissions,

0:39:48 > 0:39:52and I will look at the evidence in the light of the arguments

0:39:52 > 0:39:54that you both have put before me.

0:39:54 > 0:39:56Thank you very much.

0:39:56 > 0:39:58Jeremy has done all he can

0:39:58 > 0:40:01to convince the judge the case should be reviewed.

0:40:01 > 0:40:03But Bronwyn is not convinced.

0:40:05 > 0:40:08Bronwyn, are you OK?

0:40:08 > 0:40:10Yes, I feel fine.

0:40:10 > 0:40:12A little frustrated, actually,

0:40:12 > 0:40:15because obviously there were points there where I would have loved

0:40:15 > 0:40:16to have interrupted.

0:40:16 > 0:40:19Certainly from my perspective, I share your frustration because

0:40:19 > 0:40:22the framework is just so limited,

0:40:22 > 0:40:26in terms of identifying new material,

0:40:26 > 0:40:27and I know Sasha opposed,

0:40:27 > 0:40:30but I'm hoping that the judge will take a view

0:40:30 > 0:40:31that's sufficiently powerful

0:40:31 > 0:40:35to justify a reopening of the case.

0:40:35 > 0:40:37Exactly, exactly. So I think what we've got to do now,

0:40:37 > 0:40:39Bronwyn, is just wait.

0:40:39 > 0:40:42And the judge will come to his decision.

0:40:42 > 0:40:46And we have no idea what that decision is.

0:40:46 > 0:40:48No, it's now out of our hands.

0:40:48 > 0:40:52Jeremy has cast serious doubt on the police investigation.

0:40:52 > 0:40:56But with a lack of hard proof that the tin man is a genuine suspect,

0:40:56 > 0:41:01the only new evidence he can present concerns PC Jagger.

0:41:01 > 0:41:02Will it be enough?

0:41:04 > 0:41:06The judge has reached his verdict.

0:41:06 > 0:41:11There can be no doubt someone fatally shot two police officers

0:41:11 > 0:41:16not far from the farmhouse home of Mr Alfred Moore.

0:41:16 > 0:41:20One of those officers survived long enough to be able positively

0:41:20 > 0:41:26to identify Mr Moore as the man who had shot him and his colleague.

0:41:26 > 0:41:28The fact, in my view, remains,

0:41:28 > 0:41:33the available medical evidence, from fully and properly qualified

0:41:33 > 0:41:35medical practitioners, would have made clear

0:41:35 > 0:41:38if police constable Jagger was well capable

0:41:38 > 0:41:42of undertaking a proper identification.

0:41:42 > 0:41:47In my view, I see no proper basis suggesting that the jury's verdict

0:41:47 > 0:41:50should be exceptionally considered now

0:41:50 > 0:41:54to be referred again as to its safety.

0:41:54 > 0:41:55All rise.

0:42:04 > 0:42:06Well, I know, you'll be very disappointed.

0:42:06 > 0:42:10Extremely, yes. Extremely disappointed.

0:42:10 > 0:42:15I do understand it has to be considered on a legal point,

0:42:15 > 0:42:19but I have not changed my opinion one iota...

0:42:19 > 0:42:23..that my father's conviction was unsafe.

0:42:23 > 0:42:26In my view, the evidence was made to fit the crime.

0:42:26 > 0:42:28Well, this is not the end of the road,

0:42:28 > 0:42:31it's just the end of this chapter.

0:42:31 > 0:42:35We both admire your resilience and determination.

0:42:35 > 0:42:39I'm sorry that I haven't been able to come up with enough

0:42:39 > 0:42:41to swing it round.

0:42:41 > 0:42:43I can only wish you the best of luck in,

0:42:43 > 0:42:46you know, fighting to declare your father's innocence.

0:42:46 > 0:42:48And one day, I hope you'll succeed.

0:42:48 > 0:42:50Thank you very much.

0:42:50 > 0:42:52I'm not surprised.

0:42:52 > 0:42:55I'm... I'm also terribly disappointed.

0:42:55 > 0:42:58But I would like somebody in authority to come forward and say,

0:42:58 > 0:43:00"Yes, you're right."

0:43:00 > 0:43:03It's OK feeling he was innocent, but he was judged guilty.

0:43:04 > 0:43:08Once my father was executed, there was absolutely no hope,

0:43:08 > 0:43:10because you couldn't bring him back.

0:43:10 > 0:43:11Not ever.