Episode 3 Murder, Mystery and My Family

The British justice system is the envy of the world.

But in the past, mistakes have been made.

Between the year 1900 and the year 1964,

approximately 800 people were hanged in the United Kingdom.

Many of those desperately protested their innocence.

Some of these long-standing convictions could be a miscarriage of justice.

She's received most of the blows in this position,

once she's already bleeding.

In this series, a living relative will attempt to clear their family name.

Deep in my heart, I truly believe that he wasn't guilty.

Searching for new evidence...

I can make the .32 fire both calibres.

..with help from two of the UK's leading barristers,

one for the defence...

This is a very worrying case.

I think the evidence is very suspect.

..and one for the prosecution.

I'm still of the view that this was a cogent case of murder,

committed during the course of a robbery.

They are on a mission to solve the mystery,

submitting their findings to a Crown Court judge.

There is a real risk that there has been a miscarriage of justice here.

I will look again at the evidence in the light of the arguments that you

both have put before me.

Can this modern investigation

rewrite history?

On the 15th July, 1951,

a team of ten officers from the Huddersfield police

formed a cordon around a farm in Kirkheaton, West Yorkshire.

They suspected the owner, Alfred Moore,

for a spate of burglaries in the area,

and hoped a stakeout would catch him red-handed returning from a job.

At 2am, two officers did attempt to apprehend a man crossing the farm.

When confronted, the man shot the two policeman.

And fled into the night.

DI Fraser died instantly at the scene.

The second officer, PC Arthur Jagger,

was fatally wounded and died the next day in hospital.

Three hours after the shooting, the owner of the farm,

36-year-old Alfred Moore,

was arrested at his farmhouse and charged with murder.

At the subsequent trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to death.

On 6th February, 1952, Alfred Moore was hanged at Leeds Armley Prison.

He protested his innocence to the last.

"I'm not guilty of the crime of which I have been convicted,

"and I beg you to show mercy and grant me a reprieve.

"I am convinced that one day my innocence will be established."

65 years on, Alfred's daughter Bronwyn

is still desperate to clear her father's name.

It's heartbreaking.

When you read it, you know that this is the last thing that he ever did in his life.

And it's pleading for his innocence.

And the last sentence in particular...

..is very moving.

When he says he is "convinced that one day my innocence will be established".

And I hope, sincerely...

..that that can happen.

In 1939, at the outbreak of war, Alfred married Alice Cox.

And together, they had four daughters.

Bronwyn was the youngest, just two when their father was hanged.

It had been hidden from me.

I like to think I was protected a little because I was so young when the incident happened.

By the time I got old enough to be able to understand what had happened,

nobody spoke about it.

So it was just forgotten about.

Through her own research into the case, and her family past,

Bronwyn believes she has unearthed the truth about her father.

I did have an insight into his character.

I think my father was quite a weak man.

I would definitely say that he was dominated by my mother.

He was a clever man.

He schooled himself.

And it was his dream to, one day, run a poultry farm.

Moore achieved that dream, buying Whinney Close Farm in 1951.

But just a few months later,

the idyllic life he had planned was shattered in tragic circumstances

when the two police officers were shot dead at the farm.

I'd like to learn more about the incident from different aspects.

I have the view of my own research,

but I would like to hear what other people have to say -

professionals who have looked into the case.

I hope to discover that there's something somewhere in this evidence

that can prove that my father was innocent.

Helping Bronwyn to investigate the case are two of the country's leading legal minds.

Jeremy Dean QC is a top defence barrister

with over 30 years' experience, specialising in serious crime.

Analysing the case for the prosecution is Sasha Wass QC,

who has successfully convicted some of the country's most notorious

offenders. Together, they will scrutinise the facts,

focusing on the areas that could produce the new evidence they'll need to take the case forward.

-Bronwyn.

-Hi.

-Hello. I'm Sasha.

-Nice to meet you.

-Nice to meet you.

-Jeremy.

-Jeremy.

-Nice to meet you, too.

First, they want to get Bronwyn's view on the case.

It would help us if you were to give us a brief overview of why it is

you're so confident that your father was victim of a miscarriage of

-justice.

-Lack of evidence.

The fact that the gun was never found.

His alibi was so simple, but often simple things,

you know, are the truth.

In some cases which are historic, such as this,

modern techniques can actually prove that a particular defendant did the act.

Now, are you prepared that that might be the result in this case?

-Yes, I am.

-Yes, you've braced yourself?

Yes, but deep in my heart, I truly believe that he wasn't guilty.

I can't make any promises.

What I can say is that I'll be exploring every angle in order

to see whether there are grounds for reopening your father's case.

If anything comes to my attention which causes me concern about the case,

I won't hesitate to support your perspective.

I was a little nervous when I arrived, but after meeting them,

I'm really looking forward to them looking into my father's case.

The first task for the barristers is to identify the key facts of the murder.

Can I tell you what my first impressions are?

The police staked out Alfred's farm,

because he was suspected of being a well-known local burglar.

And on the night in question, a cordon was set around the farm.

And in fact, the shooting took place on Alfred's own property.

So number one,

Alfred was on his own property when the guns were discharged.

Secondly, Alfred was actually identified by the police.

Mr Jagger saw the shooting take place.

He was one of the victims, and he identified the culprit.

One of the key points in the prosecution case, as you've identified,

is the so-called identification parade.

But PC Jagger identifies the suspect at a hospital when he's about to die.

For me, it was a farce.

And then, the murder weapon.

The murder weapon was never found.

So far as the police cordon is concerned,

there's reasons to be concerned about the evidence that police officers gave.

So this is a very worrying case.

And I'm much closer to Bronwyn's standpoint than you are.

With the barristers already at odds,

Bronwyn is returning to West Yorkshire,

and the family farm where the double murder took place.

We're here at Whinney Close Farm.

It was the achievement of my father's dream to be able to build

his poultry business, breed chickens and sell eggs, raise pigs and ducks.

Coming back all these years later to see the farm where I should have been brought up,

it brings home to me the different path my life took.

I would've grown up on a beautiful farm like that in the fresh air.

It does affect me, standing here, thinking what might have been.

Alfred Moore returned from service in the merchant Navy to a Britain ravished by war.

Austerity and rationing prevented many families from getting back on their feet.

For some like Alfred, the desire for a better family life

led to the trading of goods on the black market,

and other illegal activities to supplement income.

When my father came back from the merchant Navy, and they needed money,

it was coming up to Christmas, there was no food in the house,

and he did his first burglary.

I think my father felt pressure because, knowing my mother,

I can well believe that she was the driving force behind his activities.

Alfred was an accomplished burglar.

But his prosperity didn't go unnoticed by the local constabulary.

By July, 1951, despite Moore's decision to quit his life of crime,

a plan to catch him was already underway.

On the night of the 14th of July,

ten police officers on a stakeout had formed a cordon around his farm.

Let me talk you through what the prosecution at trial called

the cordon evidence.

In the earlier part of the evening,

Alfred was at home with his wife and family.

His brother Charles came to visit.

The evidence of Alfred, and indeed his brother Charles,

was that Alfred walked Charles part of the way home.

According to Alfred, he left his brother at 11:25,

walking back via the cemetery, up a footpath leading to the farm,

arriving home between 11:45 and midnight.

The police evidence is that the officers

all convened at the ash tip, here, by 11:37.

And thereafter they separated to their posts.

The timing of the police was something very much relied on by the prosecution.

The prosecution alleged that Alfred couldn't have arrived home

after 11:45 because the police cordon was in place,

and he would have been stopped.

The prosecution case was that Alfred Moore didn't return home until

just before two o'clock.

When he walked up this footpath to his home,

the police evidence is that he would have passed this spot

just before two o'clock in the morning.

-And that happens to be where those two officers were shot.

-Yes.

Bronwyn is meeting Steve Lawson,

a former local detective with an in-depth knowledge of the case.

Hi, Steve. How are you?

They're on the footpath at the bottom of the cordon,

near the spot where the policemen were shot.

This was where Constable Jagger was allegedly posted on the night in question.

When your dad came home,

he said he came up this footpath from the cemetery,

crossed over the stile, went up the footpath,

over the other two stiles and back to the farm.

They say, no.

Your dad came home at a later time, and your dad was the shooter.

And the thing happened at about two o'clock in the morning, right?

The problem with that is, whoever it was who was up that footpath

at two o'clock in the morning

-had got past this position here...

-Yes.

..where Constable Jagger was supposed to have been positioned.

And he'd been there since 11:45.

So where do you think he was positioned, then?

It came out at the trial that it rained that night.

Had they all taken shelter, the policemen?

Were they where they should have been?

And if they weren't, it makes a whole mockery of the whole situation.

Jeremy also has doubts whether the cordon was even in place at the time the police claim.

I think this is a very, very shaky area.

I haven't seen any documentation that their timings are accurate.

Alfred Moore said that he parted company with his brother

between 11:20 and 11:25.

If, in fact, he parted company with his brother a few minutes earlier,

he could have been back at home before the police cordon was in place.

So the cordon point collapses.

You're playing here with three, four, five minutes.

And this is really very primitive observations.

Absolutely. And I'm afraid I think we have to factor in

that these police officers were part of a team,

and they had lost two of their colleagues in a vicious murder.

And there was an interest in them giving evidence in a manner

which made it physically impossible for Alfred Moore to get home and breach the cordon.

So, overall, I just think this body of evidence is suspect.

If Alfred Moore was the culprit, as the police claim,

then what happened to the gun?

A two-week search of the farmhouse and the land had failed to unearth

any potential murder weapon.

The question of whether Alfred Moore can be linked to the murder weapon

is crucial. And the only connection the prosecution were able to raise

was the evidence of Joe Baxter.

Joe Baxter was a local removal man, who had served in the Navy,

and claimed to be knowledgeable about guns.

Jeremy is hoping firearms expert Innes Knight can shoot holes in the

evidence of Joe Baxter connecting Moore to a possible murder weapon.

What he alleged is that in Alfred Moore's tool box,

some considerable time before the murder of the two police officers,

he saw a Luger automatic revolver.

Yes. That statement is wrong on so many counts.

Luger only made a pistol.

-Yeah.

-The difference between a pistol and a revolver is quite large.

A pistol has a single barrel and a single chamber.

It is fed from a magazine

in the grip, and uses recoil to operate it.

Loading a round, firing and ejecting the spent case.

And this is a Webley revolver.

Has a single barrel,

and multiple chambers that rotate to line up with the barrel,

one at a time. It's a completely different operating system.

-And they look completely different.

-They look completely different.

Joe Baxter claimed that he knew the difference between the two.

But on the face of it, that's just rubbish, isn't it?

No-one would say a Luger automatic revolver.

It has never existed.

Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge would probably not...

So anyone that claims to have knowledge of the difference between the two is talking nonsense.

-It's nonsense. Absolutely.

-We know that Alfred Moore admitted

to having guns of this type, including an air pistol, such as this.

-Yes.

-Joe Baxter said that he saw what he described as an automatic pistol,

like a Luger, in Alfred Moore's tool box.

-In the tool box.

-Could we just put the Lugar and the air pistol in the tool box?

Let's put the Webley airgun.

Can we just put the Luger now side by side?

It would be easy for those two guns to be confused,

-would you agree with that?

-I would agree with that.

And especially because we can see, in a tool box,

you've got all the bits of ironmongery there,

which make it less clear as an object to identify.

-Yes. Yes, quite.

-So there's every possibility that what Joe Baxter in fact saw

was Alfred Moore's air pistol.

Exactly, I believe that is what happened.

The lack of any direct evidence against Alfred Moore didn't prevent

the press in 1952 from painting him as an irrefutable villain.

Bronwyn has come to Huddersfield library to dig out local reports about the case.

It's the story of Alfred Moore.

Murderer and self-confessed burglar.

He was being reported as being the guilty man right from the beginning.

There was only one man they concentrated on.

These papers just report the fact that Alfred Moore was guilty.

"It was Inspector Fraser's personal ambition to have Moore caught

"for the disconcerting series of burglaries which had clearly pointed to him

"but could not be proved."

And I do feel that they took the opportunity to make the crime fit.

Alfred Moore's alibi on the night of the murder was simple.

And one he consistently maintained to the end.

"How could it be me? I was in bed with my wife."

It's the simple truth.

You'd think if he was going to make up an alibi or something

it would have been a lot stronger.

It's such a simple alibi,

and the only people that could prove it are his wife and children.

There was no reason for the jury to doubt Moore's alibi.

Except for the testimony of Alfred's ten-year-old daughter Patricia,

who slept in the same bedroom.

In this particular bedroom it says about my sister being brought in as a witness.

"Patricia went into the witness box,

"and her head barely showing above the top of it.

"Moore called to her, "Hello, Pat."

"In a hesitant voice and amid occasional tears,

"Patricia said that her father and her uncle Charles

"left the house on July 14th after supper.

"She heard her father come through the French window.

"And he was cross because she wasn't asleep."

Using Pat as a witness I do think was distasteful.

A ten-year-old girl, it was something that she never got over.

Patricia's statement suggested Moore arrived home much later than he claimed in his own account.

His own daughter contradicted his alibi.

You're placing emphasis on the testimony of a ten-year-old girl?

Well, we've both looked very carefully at Patricia's evidence.

There's not much to look at, her statement's about three lines long.

She uses as a pinpoint the sounding of a whistle.

-Yeah.

-She doesn't know what that whistle is,

but piecing the evidence together it would appear that it must have been

a police whistle once the shooting had been discovered.

-Why? Why?

-Let me finish about her evidence.

She doesn't say it was 12.30 or 2.30 or whatever.

-She says her father arrived home after the sounding of a police whistle.

-Yeah. Yeah.

That is consistent with the shooting.

You're saying a little girl,

who might well have been under malign police influence,

was relied on by the prosecution to pinpoint Alfred Moore's

arrival home being approximately 2.30

because she said in a statement which was about five lines long -

the authenticity of which we know nothing -

he arrived home after the police whistle.

I think the evidence is, arguably, very suspect.

So, did the police target Alfred Moore,

discounting any evidence

that could have pointed towards other possible suspects?

I would like to see evidence, if there is any,

about whether there were any other suspects in this case.

Can modern forensic experts find anything that indicates someone else

shot the police officers?

The only evidence that remains today are crime-scene photographs

and scientific reports, making it a difficult task.

The barristers have called upon pathologist Mark Mastaglio

to examine the postmortem for clues about the killer's identity.

Two victims in this case.

Can I start with Detective Inspector Fraser?

Well, DI Fraser received four gunshot injuries.

They were as follows.

On his right arm and left arm.

Then we had a non-perforating wound to just above the navel area.

The fatal wound occurred to the upper left side of the chest.

There was tearing and blackening to the garment.

And there was charring of fibres inside the wound.

The gun was very close when it was fired.

You can say it was an attack

which must have been extremely close range.

Well, indeed, because three of the injuries are with the gun

mostly in contact with DI Fraser.

Thank you very much. Now, PC Jagger.

-Yes.

-Only one injury.

Singular fatal injury in his lower abdomen.

-So again, really close.

-Yes.

That scenario tends to suggest that whoever fired those shots

was determined to kill their victims.

Anybody who discharges a firearm numerous times at the upper torso

of an individual from close range must have an idea

that they will cause serious injury or, indeed, fatal injury.

That's helpful, thank you.

So the postmortem evidence from 1951 indicates that this was

a brutal shooting, carried out by an individual determined to kill.

But what can the latest investigative techniques tell us

about the murderer?

Bronwyn has come to Huddersfield University

to meet criminal psychologist Donna Young.

-You must be Donna.

-Hello.

-Hello.

-Thanks for coming in.

-Thank you.

She's analysed both case files and personal documents

to build a profile of Alfred Moore.

Is it a match for the killer?

What we do is we model the details of different types of offences

to see what they will tell us about the individual

who might have carried out those crimes.

So I'm used to trying to dissect the way somebody was thinking

when they carried out a crime.

It is remarkable how much you can say about somebody,

just from a few personal documents, and a few reports about them.

Certainly, my reading of all the documents is that your father

didn't have a serious professional criminal mind,

and he didn't have an aggressive criminal mind.

The reports all talk about a very obedient,

accommodating, pleasant man.

I'm struggling very much to match what we know about the shooting,

from what I can glean about your father.

He had what we call a victim life narrative.

Now, that's somebody who, from a very early age,

learned that they were essentially powerless.

Would this be the result of a rather dominant bully-type father?

Very much so, yeah, yeah.

And that stays with you. It guides and shapes all the decisions

that you make in your life.

Including choice of wife?

Um, yes, yep.

So you'd probably choose somebody

who's a bit more dominant than you are.

Dominant. Yes!

My mother was an extremely dominant lady.

I believe that, when my father got into burglary,

that it was at the behest of my mother.

That'd make sense - psychologically speaking, that would make sense.

But it's the personal letters written by Alfred Moore

from his prison cell that are most revealing.

I see here a number of different clues

as to somebody who may not be guilty.

Can you remember the pieces about the pigs?

Mix four parts of cereal to one part of fish meal

and don't give the pigs too much fish meal.

One bucket of swill upwards a day.

I mean...

It's quite charming, in a way.

And to think that this is written by somebody sitting in a prison cell.

It's somebody still in life.

When somebody knows that they are going to die,

we see a withdrawal from life,

and all the details of their previous life.

Absolute opposite is what we're seeing here.

He assumes that, somehow, his innocence is going to win through.

It's the last line,

where he expects that one day someone will prove his innocence.

-Maybe that's what you're doing.

-Someone will know.

With the investigation rapidly progressing...

..Bronwyn has returned to London for a catch up with the barristers.

We've looked, in a great deal of detail,

at the police cordon evidence.

My view is that all of the timings are wholly unreliable,

and that that body of evidence is unsustainable.

What we really need, in order to challenge this conviction,

is something new that wasn't heard either at the trial,

or at the Court of Appeal.

OK.

The identification of the killer by PC Jagger before he died

was central to the prosecution's case.

But Jagger made another statement

that was never submitted into evidence.

-His first statement did include a man wearing a white scarf.

-Yes.

I think the white silk scarf is quite significant

because many years later, I met Steve Lawson,

who had started investigating my father's case,

and I also got in touch with my sister, Pat, and we met.

One of the points Steve brought up was about this statement.

A man wearing a silk scarf.

My sister Pat immediately said, "Oh, you mean the tin man."

When she was younger, we had this man visit the farm

who was bringing black-market goods, basically.

My mother and father were storing the goods, you know, to be sold on.

And the way she described him,

he always wore a mac with this white silk scarf.

So we have a possible alternative suspect.

We have a possible alternative suspect.

That is something that Jeremy and I would very much like to investigate.

Could information of a possible alternative suspect

provide the barristers with the breakthrough they need?

Steve Lawson has come to London to discuss the information he holds.

Tell us how you came across the case of Alfred Moore.

I got involved in 1971.

I was in the CID, and we had two very nasty armed robberies.

A family known as the Meade family, they came under suspicion.

John Meade was one of a gang who was arrested.

Clifford Meade, his father, was also under suspicion,

but at the time there was no evidence against Clifford

and nobody would give him up.

Following the convictions and imprisonment,

I was working one day in the office when the phone rang.

It was a lady on the phone - it turned out she was the wife

of one of these gang members.

And the essence of the conversation was that a couple of nights before,

she'd been at the White Cottage,

which is the house owned by Clifford Meade.

Suddenly, without any indication,

Clifford Meade stood up, left the room,

came back and introduced this gun as some sort of trophy.

And just said, "This is the gun that killed two coppers

"in Kirkheaton in 1951."

That was it. I said to this lady,

"Well, would you make a statement on these lines?"

She said no.

She said, "You don't know what that man's capable of."

Many years later,

Steve began investigating the Alfred Moore case and published a book

questioning the verdict.

In 2007, I met Alfred's daughters,

and we were chatting, and I just said, out of the blue,

did your dad ever wear a white silk scarf?

Pat, the eldest, said, "No, my dad never wore a scarf.

"But the tin man did."

The description she gave of tall, dark hair, swarthy-looking,

thin, pencil moustache, long coat and a white scarf or a cravat,

definitely would have fitted Clifford Meade.

If Clifford Meade and the tin man are the same person,

Clifford Meade then, in 1971, connects himself to this crime

by saying, "This is the gun that shot them."

To me, he remains a suspect.

Have you got any information

as to where Clifford Meade was on that night?

Only through John Meade.

His recollection of what his mother told him.

She did say to John something on the lines of,

"That night, your father came home in a right state.

"He was shaking, he was incoherent, he was pale,

"he just wasn't himself."

-And then...

-So John Meade has said

his mother said his father was shaken

the night of the killing itself.

Mr Lawson, I see you've got a statement there from John Meade.

Do you mind if I have a look at it?

Thank you.

It says, "I'm the son of Clifford Meade,

"but although it's not easy for me to publicly say this,

"I now believe that my father, Clifford Meade,

"was responsible for those killings.

"An innocent man was hung for a crime he did not commit,

"and it's about time that an injustice was put right."

The information you've given is extremely important.

We need to ask ourselves whether this realistically amounts to

evidence of an alternative suspect.

-Do you agree?

-I do, yes.

At Leeds Armley Prison on 6th February, 1952,

Alfred Moore was hanged until dead.

His body was buried in an unmarked grave within the prison walls.

I'm so surprised to arrive at Armley jail

and see such an austere building.

The last thing my father saw before his death.

I'm just lost for words, really.

I believe I came to visit my father the day before he died.

I was only two years old and, thankfully,

I remember nothing about it.

Bronwyn wants to see where her father is laid to rest...

..and has been permitted by the prison to read the record of his execution.

This is the first time that I've seen such a record.

It gives details of his age and his height.

His build was "stout and strong".

And it gives the particulars of the execution.

The length and drop, and the cause of death - his neck was broken.

It... It's the basic facts of my father's death and,

you know, just to see them in black and white, it's...

..you know, it's...

It's hard, it's very hard.

In 1989, Alfred Moore's remains were exhumed,

along with other executed prisoners,

and reburied at a cemetery just a short walk from the prison.

It may be odd to say, but I'm quite relieved to find

that my father is in such a peaceful place.

Hi, Dad.

I hope this is a surprise.

66 years later.

I'm here with respect.

I'm so pleased that you're no longer inside Armley Jail.

I hope you can now rest in peace.

I know you're not guilty of murder,

and, hopefully, this will lead, one day...

..to clearing your name.

Bye, Dad.

SHE BLOWS A KISS

I will see you again.

I promise.

With the investigation drawing to a close,

Jeremy is still searching for new evidence that casts doubt

on Alfred Moore as the killer.

He knows PC Jagger's identification of Moore was a damning piece

of evidence that formed the core of the prosecution's case.

But it was made in an unorthodox fashion at his hospital bedside,

just hours before he died.

If we can obtain expert evidence to the effect

that PC Jagger was not in a fit state

to engage in that identification procedure,

it's possible to use that material

as the basis for reopening Alfred Moore's convictions.

Philip Hopkins is a professor of anaesthesia

at the University of Leeds.

He's studied PC Jagger's medical records in detail.

So, he was brought into hospital and underwent surgery

for the removal of the bullet.

He was given morphine,

and then, at 4.50, there was an identification procedure.

-Correct, yes, I agree.

-All right?

The surgeon described him as being "alert by midday".

"Alert", at its most basic, means he opens his eyes spontaneously.

What it doesn't infer at all is anything about

PC Jagger's mental function, whether his memory was intact,

whether he was aware of where he was, who he was, what year it was.

-It would be standard to write "alert and orientated".

-Yes, rather than...

-Alert.

-Doesn't suggest disorientated, does it?

It doesn't either suggest or not suggest that he's disorientated -

it makes no comment.

And by the time the identification procedure takes place,

he's described as, "mentally very bright",

and not under the influence of the morphine

given earlier that day at 12.55.

Well, he's incorrect about the under the influence of the morphine.

He's also discounting the effects of the general anaesthetic.

The agent was ether,

and one of the downsides of ether

was that it affected mental functioning

for a prolonged period of time.

Are you able to comment on what you feel PC Jagger's state of mind

is likely to have been at the time of that identification parade?

Most people have had flu.

And when we get a really bad dose of flu,

our mind often plays tricks with us.

And that's exactly what can happen with septicaemia,

it can happen with drugs, such as morphine and the anaesthetic drugs.

In your view,

is PC Jagger's identification of Alfred Moore as his killer reliable?

-No.

-And if you were on a jury, would you be prepared to rely on

-his identification of the man in the dock?

-No.

This is really a case about an identification.

That identification has been deemed unreliable by an eminent expert,

so my view is that there are grounds for reopening the case

of Alfred Moore, and I'll be working towards

compiling the necessary arguments over the forthcoming days.

I'll give it some more thought,

but I have to say, I don't immediately feel

that there's any cause to open up this conviction.

The legal arguments have been prepared,

and it now falls to His Honour Judge David Radford to deliberate.

Based on his expert opinion,

he will recommend if the case should be reviewed or not.

I've arrived here today to listen to the evidence being presented

before the judge.

I'm reasonably confident that Jeremy's investigation

will show some new legal arguments

that will help to prove my father's innocence.

Now I feel that this is the end of quite a long road,

and it is the moment of truth.

-Hello, Bronwyn, how are you?

-Very well, thank you.

-Good.

How are you feeling?

I'm feeling sort of a little nervous, but also quite excited.

I hope the decision will be favourable, obviously.

I've come to my own conclusion that my father was innocent.

Let's just press on and find out what the judge's...

-OK.

-..view is.

-Yeah.

Judge Radford has over 40 years of experience at the criminal bar,

and sat at the Court of Appeal.

For this programme,

he'll be treating this matter as he would any other case.

I'm here today to consider, with the help of learned counsel,

the safety of the conviction of Alfred Moore.

Mr Dean, on behalf of the defence,

-do you wish to make your submissions?

-Yes, please.

This was a case characterised by circumstantial evidence,

depending wholly on the identification evidence

of PC Jagger.

There is now the evidence of Professor Hopkins,

consultant anaesthetist.

In his view,

PC Jagger would have been incapable of making a reliable identification

of his killer.

Professor Hopkins found the circumstances

of the identification parade "extraordinary",

and that, in his opinion,

the evidence is fundamentally unreliable.

Coming to the point, it is my submission

that Mr Jagger's identification of Alfred Moore was so flawed

that it ought never to have surfaced in evidence,

and, without it, no sustainable case would have existed.

Thank you very much, Mr Dean.

Miss Wass, do you want to respond?

First of all, I agree entirely with Mr Dean

that this is a case that depended wholly

on the identification of PC Jagger.

I am not persuaded by Professor Hopkins's evidence.

-It's perhaps for me to be persuaded, rather than you.

-All right.

One has to work on the basis that we are dealing with competent

medical practitioners here.

And there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest

that the patient, PC Jagger, was either disorientated,

confused, or in any way incapable of giving a coherent account.

Professor Hopkins's evidence does, in reality,

do nothing to undermine the evidence that was before this jury,

and that remains the position.

Yes. Thank you, both.

I will now consider your helpful submissions,

and I will look at the evidence in the light of the arguments

that you both have put before me.

Thank you very much.

Jeremy has done all he can

to convince the judge the case should be reviewed.

But Bronwyn is not convinced.

Bronwyn, are you OK?

Yes, I feel fine.

A little frustrated, actually,

because obviously there were points there where I would have loved

to have interrupted.

Certainly from my perspective, I share your frustration because

the framework is just so limited,

in terms of identifying new material,

and I know Sasha opposed,

but I'm hoping that the judge will take a view

that's sufficiently powerful

to justify a reopening of the case.

Exactly, exactly. So I think what we've got to do now,

Bronwyn, is just wait.

And the judge will come to his decision.

And we have no idea what that decision is.

No, it's now out of our hands.

Jeremy has cast serious doubt on the police investigation.

But with a lack of hard proof that the tin man is a genuine suspect,

the only new evidence he can present concerns PC Jagger.

Will it be enough?

The judge has reached his verdict.

There can be no doubt someone fatally shot two police officers

not far from the farmhouse home of Mr Alfred Moore.

One of those officers survived long enough to be able positively

to identify Mr Moore as the man who had shot him and his colleague.

The fact, in my view, remains,

the available medical evidence, from fully and properly qualified

medical practitioners, would have made clear

if police constable Jagger was well capable

of undertaking a proper identification.

In my view, I see no proper basis suggesting that the jury's verdict

should be exceptionally considered now

to be referred again as to its safety.

All rise.

Well, I know, you'll be very disappointed.

Extremely, yes. Extremely disappointed.

I do understand it has to be considered on a legal point,

but I have not changed my opinion one iota...

..that my father's conviction was unsafe.

In my view, the evidence was made to fit the crime.

Well, this is not the end of the road,

it's just the end of this chapter.

We both admire your resilience and determination.

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to come up with enough

to swing it round.

I can only wish you the best of luck in,

you know, fighting to declare your father's innocence.

And one day, I hope you'll succeed.

Thank you very much.

I'm not surprised.

I'm... I'm also terribly disappointed.

But I would like somebody in authority to come forward and say,

"Yes, you're right."

It's OK feeling he was innocent, but he was judged guilty.

Once my father was executed, there was absolutely no hope,

because you couldn't bring him back.

Not ever.