0:00:00 > 0:00:00Mystery and My Family.
0:00:03 > 0:00:05The British justice system is the envy of the world.
0:00:06 > 0:00:09But in the past, mistakes have been made.
0:00:09 > 0:00:12Between the 1900 and the year 1964,
0:00:12 > 0:00:15approximately 800 people were hanged in the United Kingdom.
0:00:17 > 0:00:20Many of those desperately protested their innocence.
0:00:20 > 0:00:23Some of these long-standing convictions
0:00:23 > 0:00:25could be a miscarriage of justice.
0:00:25 > 0:00:28She has received most of the blows in this position
0:00:28 > 0:00:30once she's already bleeding.
0:00:30 > 0:00:31In this series, a living relative
0:00:31 > 0:00:34will attempt to clear their family name.
0:00:34 > 0:00:37My father died thinking that his father was a murderer.
0:00:37 > 0:00:38That must have been terrible.
0:00:38 > 0:00:40Searching for new evidence...
0:00:40 > 0:00:43The findings on it are really quite instructive.
0:00:43 > 0:00:45There was no blood inside the hammer.
0:00:46 > 0:00:50..with help from two of the UK's leading barristers,
0:00:50 > 0:00:51one for the defence...
0:00:51 > 0:00:54This is a very worrying case.
0:00:54 > 0:00:56I think the evidence is very suspect.
0:00:56 > 0:00:58..and one for the prosecution.
0:00:58 > 0:01:02I am still of the view that this was a cogent case of murder
0:01:02 > 0:01:04committed during the course of a robbery.
0:01:04 > 0:01:08They are on a mission to solve the mystery,
0:01:08 > 0:01:11submitting their findings to a Crown Court judge.
0:01:11 > 0:01:16There is a real risk that there has been a miscarriage of justice here.
0:01:16 > 0:01:19I will look again at the evidence in the light of the arguments
0:01:19 > 0:01:22that you both have put before me.
0:01:22 > 0:01:23Can this modern investigation...
0:01:24 > 0:01:26..rewrite history?
0:01:34 > 0:01:37Oxford, 1931.
0:01:37 > 0:01:40This idyllic university city is shaken
0:01:40 > 0:01:42when it's revealed there has been a brutal murder.
0:01:46 > 0:01:49Mrs Annie Louisa Kempson had been killed in her own home.
0:01:50 > 0:01:53In what appeared to be a violent burglary,
0:01:53 > 0:01:56the 54-year-old widow was attacked with a blunt instrument...
0:01:57 > 0:01:59..and stabbed in the neck.
0:02:01 > 0:02:03A desperate manhunt for the killer began.
0:02:05 > 0:02:07Under the scrutiny of press and public,
0:02:07 > 0:02:10the police initially had no suspects.
0:02:10 > 0:02:13Interviewing hundreds of locals,
0:02:13 > 0:02:17investigators eventually learn of a door-to-door salesman by the name of
0:02:17 > 0:02:19Henry Seymour.
0:02:19 > 0:02:22Seymour was in Oxford at the time of the murder
0:02:22 > 0:02:27and he knew the victim - Mrs Kempson had been one of his customers.
0:02:27 > 0:02:30A criminal records check proved a major breakthrough.
0:02:31 > 0:02:34Henry Seymour was a career criminal.
0:02:35 > 0:02:37He was arrested and charged with murder.
0:02:41 > 0:02:4387 years later,
0:02:43 > 0:02:45Henry's grandson Tony has discovered
0:02:45 > 0:02:48this dark chapter in his family's past.
0:02:48 > 0:02:51Henry Seymour was my paternal grandfather.
0:02:51 > 0:02:54My father had always been told by his mother
0:02:54 > 0:02:58that his father had died in a car crash
0:02:58 > 0:03:01when my father was about ten years old.
0:03:01 > 0:03:07After my grandmother died, my father went and researched his family tree
0:03:07 > 0:03:11and found out then that his father had been hung.
0:03:11 > 0:03:15My grandmother had hidden it completely from my father.
0:03:15 > 0:03:17These are the few photos I have got
0:03:17 > 0:03:20of my father as a child and his mother.
0:03:20 > 0:03:24There are no photographs of Henry anywhere. Nothing.
0:03:24 > 0:03:29After the court case, my grandmother just hid it all.
0:03:29 > 0:03:31It was just a blank.
0:03:31 > 0:03:33She destroyed all evidence.
0:03:35 > 0:03:38The conviction had a devastating impact on the family.
0:03:38 > 0:03:41After the hanging, she sent my father to an orphanage...
0:03:43 > 0:03:46..and I think that, in six years, she saw him twice.
0:03:47 > 0:03:51My father died thinking that his father was a murderer.
0:03:51 > 0:03:52That must have been terrible.
0:03:54 > 0:03:57The police investigation drew national and international attention.
0:03:58 > 0:04:01With the public demanding swift justice,
0:04:01 > 0:04:04Henry Seymour was tried in October 1931
0:04:04 > 0:04:06and found guilty of murder.
0:04:08 > 0:04:11In the last few years, I have investigated a little more.
0:04:11 > 0:04:16The evidence that I have seen so far points to him being innocent.
0:04:16 > 0:04:19I think the evidence is very circumstantial.
0:04:19 > 0:04:22Tony wants to learn who Henry Seymour was...
0:04:23 > 0:04:26..and why he so passionately protested his innocence.
0:04:26 > 0:04:27"I am convinced that sooner or later,
0:04:27 > 0:04:30"the real truth will be revealed to you all.
0:04:30 > 0:04:34"And when that time comes, you will remember my last words to you -
0:04:34 > 0:04:35"before God and my fellow men,
0:04:35 > 0:04:39"I swear that I did not kill or hurt Mrs Kempson.
0:04:39 > 0:04:40"I could not have done it.
0:04:40 > 0:04:42"I cannot say anything more."
0:04:45 > 0:04:51At Oxford Castle prison, at 8am on the 10th of December 1931,
0:04:51 > 0:04:52Henry Seymour was hanged.
0:05:01 > 0:05:03Desperate to uncover the truth,
0:05:03 > 0:05:06Tony has travelled to London to meet the barristers
0:05:06 > 0:05:09who will be reinvestigating his grandfather's case.
0:05:11 > 0:05:13Jeremy Dein QC is a top defence barrister
0:05:13 > 0:05:17with over 30 years' experience in serious criminal cases.
0:05:18 > 0:05:21Sasha Wass QC, who has successfully convicted
0:05:21 > 0:05:24some of the country's most notorious offenders,
0:05:24 > 0:05:27will analyse the prosecution case against Henry Seymour.
0:05:28 > 0:05:31Together, they will re-examine the facts,
0:05:31 > 0:05:32searching for any new evidence
0:05:32 > 0:05:36that might cast Henry Seymour's conviction into doubt.
0:05:37 > 0:05:41Can I ask you, Henry Seymour was your grandfather?
0:05:41 > 0:05:46My grandfather.When did you first become aware of this part of your
0:05:46 > 0:05:50family background? Um, in my early 20s.
0:05:50 > 0:05:53Do you have a view about whether your grandfather committed the murder?
0:05:53 > 0:05:56Based on what I have read, I think it is unlikely.
0:05:56 > 0:05:59It seems very circumstantial, the evidence.
0:05:59 > 0:06:02There is very little, if any, physical evidence.
0:06:02 > 0:06:05Tony, what I ought to warn you about is this -
0:06:05 > 0:06:09rather than exonerating the defendant in the case,
0:06:09 > 0:06:15sometimes the evidence comes back and proves almost conclusively
0:06:15 > 0:06:18that the conviction is indeed safe.
0:06:18 > 0:06:20Right. If he was guilty, he was guilty.
0:06:20 > 0:06:25I hope you understand that we need something new.
0:06:25 > 0:06:30Some new evidence or some new legal argument to convince the judge that
0:06:31 > 0:06:33the case should be looked at afresh.
0:06:33 > 0:06:34Right, yeah.Good.
0:06:34 > 0:06:37Well, we will go and do some investigating.
0:06:37 > 0:06:40Thank you.And hopefully we will have some news for you very soon.
0:06:40 > 0:06:41Great.
0:06:42 > 0:06:45This was a challenging case for the police at the time,
0:06:45 > 0:06:48who initially had no suspects for the violent crime.
0:06:50 > 0:06:53The barristers must first identify the key evidence
0:06:53 > 0:06:56that put Henry Seymour in the frame.
0:06:56 > 0:06:59Well, Jeremy, this is a case where time of death
0:06:59 > 0:07:03is going to be critical to our investigations.
0:07:03 > 0:07:07Annie Kempson was found murdered in her own home
0:07:07 > 0:07:11on the evening of the 3rd of August, 1931.
0:07:11 > 0:07:15She was last seen by a lodger the Saturday beforehand,
0:07:15 > 0:07:19which was the 1st of August, sometime after nine o'clock.
0:07:19 > 0:07:22And she was not seen by anybody inside the house
0:07:22 > 0:07:25after the Saturday morning.
0:07:25 > 0:07:30The position is that one of the clues that the police found
0:07:30 > 0:07:35was a visiting card from a vacuum cleaner salesman.
0:07:35 > 0:07:39He was traced as being Henry Seymour and, indeed,
0:07:39 > 0:07:43he was seen in Oxford on the Saturday morning at about 11 o'clock
0:07:43 > 0:07:45at a bus stop.
0:07:45 > 0:07:46So there's a very narrow window
0:07:46 > 0:07:50in which he would have committed the murder,
0:07:50 > 0:07:52if indeed he is the murderer in this case.
0:07:52 > 0:07:56For me, the key point here has to be time of death.
0:07:56 > 0:08:00I agree.Because a large number of witnesses were called at the trial
0:08:00 > 0:08:04to say that they saw Annie Kempson after about 11 o'clock,
0:08:04 > 0:08:08when the prosecution said the murder had been committed.
0:08:08 > 0:08:13The other important feature in this case was the cause of death
0:08:13 > 0:08:14and the murder weapon,
0:08:14 > 0:08:18because the pathologist at the time suggested that Mrs Kempson
0:08:18 > 0:08:21had been bludgeoned over the head with a blunt instrument
0:08:21 > 0:08:23considered to be a hammer
0:08:23 > 0:08:26and she was then stabbed through the throat
0:08:26 > 0:08:29with something similar to a chisel.
0:08:29 > 0:08:32And when Henry Seymour's lodgings were searched by the police,
0:08:32 > 0:08:37they found a hammer which had been cleaned, again, looking suspicious.
0:08:37 > 0:08:40So he has the opportunity to kill her,
0:08:40 > 0:08:44he has the weapons to kill her and we know that they have had contact
0:08:44 > 0:08:49because he had sold her a vacuum cleaner 18 months beforehand.
0:08:49 > 0:08:53So, yes, a case for Henry Seymour to answer,
0:08:53 > 0:08:56but by no means a compelling case.
0:08:56 > 0:09:00And we have to look at the fine detail in order to assess
0:09:00 > 0:09:03whether this was a proper conviction.
0:09:03 > 0:09:05Yes.
0:09:05 > 0:09:09Henry's early life is shrouded in mystery.
0:09:09 > 0:09:13By 1931, he was married and living in Oxford.
0:09:13 > 0:09:15Working as a travelling salesman,
0:09:15 > 0:09:18he was struggling to make ends meet and had fallen into debt.
0:09:21 > 0:09:22For the first time,
0:09:22 > 0:09:25Tony is visiting the home that Henry Seymour shared
0:09:25 > 0:09:27with his wife and child.
0:09:29 > 0:09:32It's nice seeing the location where my father was hopefully very happy
0:09:32 > 0:09:34before he went into the orphanage.
0:09:34 > 0:09:37He would have known a real kind of family environment.
0:09:38 > 0:09:43At the time of the murder, however, Henry was estranged from his family.
0:09:43 > 0:09:44He was down in Brighton.
0:09:46 > 0:09:48Why he was there, again, I don't know.
0:09:48 > 0:09:50I think he was just doing the rounds,
0:09:50 > 0:09:53trying to collect money for various...
0:09:53 > 0:09:57or borrow money from various people and contacts.
0:09:57 > 0:10:00Either to pay his debts off, which seemed to be quite large,
0:10:00 > 0:10:02or just to make ends meet.
0:10:02 > 0:10:04Just the fact that he was moving around
0:10:04 > 0:10:07looks very suspicious, doesn't it? I mean, he's a strange character.
0:10:07 > 0:10:10You can't...can't pin him down, can you?
0:10:10 > 0:10:15Henry's suspicious behaviour on a fleeting visit to Oxford included
0:10:15 > 0:10:20staying with a former customer, Mrs Andrews, who lived at Gipsy Lane.
0:10:24 > 0:10:27This is where Henry stayed the night before the murder.
0:10:27 > 0:10:30It's strange that he should choose to stay the night here.
0:10:30 > 0:10:34Still in Oxford. He is not that far away from where he was living with
0:10:34 > 0:10:36my grandmother and my father.
0:10:36 > 0:10:39Now, why he would do that, I have no idea.
0:10:39 > 0:10:40If they'd had a falling out,
0:10:40 > 0:10:43or maybe he was on the run from the police for some reason,
0:10:43 > 0:10:47I really don't know. But, you know, just another puzzle.
0:10:47 > 0:10:51But Mrs Andrews was to provide the police with a vital clue
0:10:51 > 0:10:52in their investigation.
0:10:54 > 0:10:59The landlady saw in his possessions in his bag,
0:10:59 > 0:11:02she saw a hammer wrapped in brown paper.
0:11:02 > 0:11:05Which would become important later on in the case.
0:11:05 > 0:11:07I think the police were very interested in that.
0:11:09 > 0:11:12The police had already found Henry Seymour's business card
0:11:12 > 0:11:13in the victim's home.
0:11:14 > 0:11:19And now they had a witness linking him with the suspected murder weapon.
0:11:19 > 0:11:21They were certain they had their man.
0:11:21 > 0:11:24Seymour was arrested and charged with murder.
0:11:28 > 0:11:31The police were building their case against Seymour,
0:11:31 > 0:11:34but the barristers want to know if all the evidence places him
0:11:34 > 0:11:36at the scene of the crime.
0:11:36 > 0:11:39So, Jeremy, what I think would be quite useful in this case
0:11:39 > 0:11:44is to consider what Henry Seymour said his movements were
0:11:44 > 0:11:46on the 1st of August
0:11:46 > 0:11:50and how that dovetails with the prosecution witnesses.
0:11:51 > 0:11:55Although Mrs Kempson's body was not discovered until the evening of
0:11:55 > 0:11:57Monday the 3rd of August,
0:11:57 > 0:12:00police were certain that she had been killed on the Saturday morning
0:12:00 > 0:12:04between 9:20am, when her lodger left, and 11am,
0:12:04 > 0:12:07when a friend called at the house but received no answer.
0:12:09 > 0:12:12On the night before the 1st of August,
0:12:12 > 0:12:17Henry Seymour said he had stayed at Mrs Andrews' house as a lodger
0:12:18 > 0:12:22and told police that he left Mrs Andrews' house
0:12:22 > 0:12:24at about 9:30 in the morning.
0:12:24 > 0:12:28And the distance between Mrs Andrews' house and the murder location
0:12:28 > 0:12:31is about a 20-minute walk.
0:12:31 > 0:12:33What we know from prosecution witnesses
0:12:33 > 0:12:35was that at about ten o'clock,
0:12:35 > 0:12:38Mrs Kempson answered the door to someone
0:12:38 > 0:12:41whom she let in straight away, as if she knew him.
0:12:41 > 0:12:45And, indeed, Henry Seymour said to the police
0:12:45 > 0:12:48that he knew Mrs Kempson.
0:12:49 > 0:12:53So, could this 10am caller have been Henry Seymour?
0:12:53 > 0:12:57He claimed that he'd set off from Mrs Andrews' house to the home of
0:12:57 > 0:13:00another customer nearby, before changing his mind.
0:13:00 > 0:13:04Without witnesses to corroborate his movements during this crucial period
0:13:04 > 0:13:09between 9:30 and 11am, he had no alibi.
0:13:09 > 0:13:14The next significant event is at a bus stop on the London Road.
0:13:14 > 0:13:16And at the bus stop,
0:13:16 > 0:13:19a woman called Florence Collins said
0:13:19 > 0:13:23she saw Henry Seymour just after 11 o'clock.
0:13:23 > 0:13:26She said that he was in a bit of a state and he appeared agitated.
0:13:27 > 0:13:32So, on the timing, all this would fit.
0:13:32 > 0:13:35It would give Henry Seymour an opportunity
0:13:35 > 0:13:37to attend Mrs Kempson's house.
0:13:37 > 0:13:40Whether they had an argument straight away or not,
0:13:40 > 0:13:42we obviously don't know.
0:13:42 > 0:13:47The attack takes place, the ransacking of the house takes place.
0:13:47 > 0:13:50Money is taken and a fast....
0:13:50 > 0:13:53A fast-moving escape up to the bus stop
0:13:53 > 0:13:58which would explain why Mrs Collins saw him agitated.
0:13:58 > 0:13:59So, what do you think?
0:13:59 > 0:14:05Well, what I think is that your analysis fundamentally presupposes
0:14:05 > 0:14:08that the prosecution were correct to time the murder
0:14:08 > 0:14:11at around 10am on the 1st of August.
0:14:11 > 0:14:14But there was an abundance of evidence available
0:14:14 > 0:14:16that that simply wasn't correct.
0:14:16 > 0:14:19Nine quite separate, independent witnesses
0:14:19 > 0:14:24place Mrs Kempson in and around her home well after 11 o'clock
0:14:24 > 0:14:26on the morning of the 1st of August.
0:14:26 > 0:14:27So, Sasha, ultimately,
0:14:27 > 0:14:30there is an issue as to whether the prosecution were correct.
0:14:30 > 0:14:33And if they were wrong about that,
0:14:33 > 0:14:36then the case against Henry Seymour begins to fall apart.
0:14:36 > 0:14:38I agree.
0:14:38 > 0:14:42If Jeremy can prove Mrs Kempson was killed after 11am,
0:14:42 > 0:14:44then Henry Seymour could not be the culprit,
0:14:44 > 0:14:46as, by that time, he had left Oxford.
0:14:48 > 0:14:52Walking from Gipsy Lane to the site of Mrs Kempson's house,
0:14:52 > 0:14:56Tony is not convinced there is enough evidence to link Henry
0:14:56 > 0:14:57to the scene of the murder.
0:15:00 > 0:15:02I do know that the prosecution wanted to believe
0:15:02 > 0:15:06that she was killed on the Saturday morning.
0:15:06 > 0:15:10Their reasoning behind this was that she was a fairly fastidious woman
0:15:10 > 0:15:15with regular habits and that when they found the body,
0:15:15 > 0:15:17she still had her curlers in her hair
0:15:17 > 0:15:19and the washing up hadn't been done
0:15:19 > 0:15:21and all these sorts of things.
0:15:21 > 0:15:25So it was obvious that she had been murdered before she had had time to
0:15:25 > 0:15:27get ready and go out of the house.
0:15:29 > 0:15:31There was a man who was seen visiting the house
0:15:31 > 0:15:33at around about ten o'clock.
0:15:33 > 0:15:37And I think the prosecution tried to infer that this was Henry Seymour,
0:15:37 > 0:15:40but he was never positively identified.
0:15:40 > 0:15:44It may well have been the murderer, but was it Henry?
0:15:44 > 0:15:46We just don't know.
0:15:47 > 0:15:52Tony travels to the bus stop where Henry was seen shortly after 11am
0:15:52 > 0:15:53by Florence Collins.
0:15:56 > 0:15:58That's a good...
0:15:58 > 0:16:0040-minute walk, I should think.
0:16:00 > 0:16:01If he was there at all,
0:16:01 > 0:16:05he must have left Boundary House at about 20 past ten.
0:16:05 > 0:16:09Mrs Collins said that when she met him, he was agitated,
0:16:09 > 0:16:13but he wasn't out of breath, he was, uh, he was fine.
0:16:14 > 0:16:15To do that walk in, uh...
0:16:17 > 0:16:21..in 40 minutes, you'd have had to have been going some.
0:16:21 > 0:16:25Could these timings be the key to solving this mystery?
0:16:26 > 0:16:31The window of opportunity when Henry could have committed the crime
0:16:31 > 0:16:36just seems to be getting smaller and smaller and just leads me to think
0:16:36 > 0:16:37more and more that...
0:16:38 > 0:16:40..the evidence is so questionable.
0:16:45 > 0:16:48Sasha believes the prosecution case is strong,
0:16:48 > 0:16:50but Jeremy is searching for evidence
0:16:50 > 0:16:53that will cast doubt on the time of death.
0:16:53 > 0:16:57A really interesting feature of Henry Seymour's case is that nine
0:16:57 > 0:17:00witnesses were called by the defence.
0:17:00 > 0:17:02And if their evidence was correct,
0:17:02 > 0:17:07then Mrs Kempson was alive and apparently well throughout the day
0:17:07 > 0:17:10on Saturday the 1st of August.
0:17:10 > 0:17:15William Lowe said he saw her post a letter in the pillar box close to
0:17:15 > 0:17:18where she lived at about 11am.
0:17:18 > 0:17:23I don't think there's any evidence of a letter being received after her
0:17:23 > 0:17:24death by anybody, is there?
0:17:24 > 0:17:27But the thing is, Sasha, that he is only the first of nine witnesses.
0:17:27 > 0:17:30Sarah King and, um...
0:17:30 > 0:17:33Evelyn Barrett, the next two witnesses, their evidence,
0:17:33 > 0:17:35they're completely independent of each other...
0:17:35 > 0:17:37They go together, though, don't they?
0:17:37 > 0:17:41They go together in that both said that they saw Mrs Kempson
0:17:41 > 0:17:42buying a loaf of bread.
0:17:42 > 0:17:47I think one of the difficulties in relation to all of these witnesses
0:17:47 > 0:17:53is they are describing events which were commonplace and routine.
0:17:53 > 0:17:56There was nothing really to pinpoint the Saturday.
0:17:56 > 0:18:02There is, because Evelyn Barrett was clear that Mrs Kempson said she did
0:18:03 > 0:18:07not need more bread because she was going away tomorrow.
0:18:07 > 0:18:09Tomorrow was the Sunday.
0:18:09 > 0:18:11And she was going away on the Sunday.
0:18:11 > 0:18:15So I am afraid there is something very specific to fix her visit
0:18:15 > 0:18:18to the bread shop at Saturday the 1st of August.
0:18:18 > 0:18:25What troubles me is when one goes back to Mrs Kempson's home address,
0:18:25 > 0:18:29which is where her lodger returned several days later,
0:18:29 > 0:18:33there was no new loaf of bread, there was no extra pound of butter,
0:18:33 > 0:18:36which these people said had been bought by her on the Saturday.
0:18:36 > 0:18:40There are an escalating number of witnesses who all pinpoint seeing
0:18:40 > 0:18:41Mrs Kempson on that Saturday.
0:18:41 > 0:18:44Jeremy, I agree, on the face of it,
0:18:44 > 0:18:46these look like witnesses who ought
0:18:46 > 0:18:51to have shaken the prosecution case at trial,
0:18:51 > 0:18:55but let me just deal with Mr Taylor as an example, because it was he
0:18:55 > 0:18:59who went to the newspapers and said that he had seen Mrs Kempson
0:18:59 > 0:19:02after the police said she had been murdered.
0:19:02 > 0:19:06So he became a bit of a celebrity as far as that was concerned.
0:19:06 > 0:19:11And then it was only after Mr Taylor that all of the other witnesses came
0:19:11 > 0:19:15to make their statements, saying that they, too, had seen her.
0:19:15 > 0:19:20And I am of the view that the jury were in the best possible position
0:19:20 > 0:19:24to evaluate whether these witnesses were credible
0:19:24 > 0:19:26and whether they were reliable.
0:19:26 > 0:19:29And obviously, if the jury believed those witnesses,
0:19:29 > 0:19:33they would have acquitted Henry Seymour, wouldn't they?
0:19:33 > 0:19:37Sasha is unpersuaded by the defence witnesses,
0:19:37 > 0:19:41so Jeremy still needs fresh evidence to undermine the prosecution's case.
0:19:43 > 0:19:47Can forensic pathologist Dr Basil Purdue provide any new insight
0:19:47 > 0:19:49regarding the time of death?
0:19:49 > 0:19:52There was a lot of evidence given at trial about
0:19:52 > 0:19:55stomach content and time of death.
0:19:55 > 0:19:58Because, for example, in this case,
0:19:58 > 0:20:03there was a suggestion that, 12 hours prior to death,
0:20:03 > 0:20:03Annie Kempson had eaten tomatoes because tomato skin remains in the
0:20:03 > 0:20:08Annie Kempson had eaten tomatoes because tomato skin remains in the
0:20:08 > 0:20:10intestines for quite a long time.
0:20:10 > 0:20:11Do you agree with that much?
0:20:11 > 0:20:13Yes. It's fair enough.
0:20:13 > 0:20:15You can look at the separation of them
0:20:15 > 0:20:20and you can look at the normal rate of transit of food through the gut,
0:20:20 > 0:20:24but it makes the assumption that the person is digesting normally
0:20:24 > 0:20:25the whole time
0:20:25 > 0:20:31and that they are broadly within the normal parameters for an average person.
0:20:31 > 0:20:36I think what you're saying is that it's dangerous to try
0:20:36 > 0:20:40to pinpoint time of death by reference to
0:20:40 > 0:20:43evidence of when food has last been digested.Yes.
0:20:43 > 0:20:48It's dangerously easy to jump to conclusions of that sort and for that reason,
0:20:48 > 0:20:53timing by gastric transit and the rest of it is just not done.
0:20:53 > 0:20:58So, just to encapsulate your take on this evidence,
0:20:58 > 0:21:02from the pathological evidence given at trial,
0:21:02 > 0:21:06is it possible to say whether Annie Kempson met her death
0:21:06 > 0:21:08on the Saturday or the Sunday?
0:21:08 > 0:21:10Even nowadays,
0:21:10 > 0:21:15a bracket of timing is plus or minus more than 2.5 hours.
0:21:15 > 0:21:17So a bracket that is 5.5 hours long.
0:21:17 > 0:21:22Making any sort of firm determination that it was the morning of the Saturday
0:21:22 > 0:21:24or the evening of the Friday or something of the sort
0:21:24 > 0:21:27I think is far beyond what is fair or reasonable.
0:21:27 > 0:21:30Thank you very much. I think that's cleared that up, has it not?
0:21:30 > 0:21:32Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
0:21:32 > 0:21:36With all avenues for disproving the prosecution's time of death now
0:21:36 > 0:21:39closed, Jeremy will need to find a new argument.
0:21:44 > 0:21:48Back in Oxford, Tony has certainly not been swayed by the evidence that
0:21:48 > 0:21:50was used to charge his grandfather.
0:21:50 > 0:21:53At the Oxford History Centre,
0:21:53 > 0:21:57genealogist Jenny Montague Jones has uncovered some information that
0:21:57 > 0:22:02might explain why Henry Seymour was such a convenient culprit.
0:22:02 > 0:22:06I've picked up from reading books about the case that there's
0:22:06 > 0:22:09some South African connection.
0:22:09 > 0:22:12And you know that he went out with his parents to South Africa?
0:22:12 > 0:22:14No.Right.
0:22:14 > 0:22:15OK.No, I don't know anything...OK.
0:22:17 > 0:22:19A teenage Henry and his parents
0:22:19 > 0:22:22travelled from England to South Africa in November 1901.
0:22:25 > 0:22:26Due to the Boer War,
0:22:26 > 0:22:29there were job opportunities for skilled tradespeople.
0:22:30 > 0:22:34But Henry, it appears, put his skills to other uses.
0:22:35 > 0:22:38We've had a look at the Oxford prison...
0:22:38 > 0:22:42Right...calendar and I can show you this.
0:22:43 > 0:22:46You see his first offence is 1906.
0:22:46 > 0:22:49But you might want to note where it is.
0:22:49 > 0:22:50Johannesburg, yeah.
0:22:50 > 0:22:57This indicates that from basically 1904 to 1917...
0:22:57 > 0:23:01OK...he's involved in various criminal activities.
0:23:01 > 0:23:04And then we've got something back in this country.
0:23:04 > 0:23:071920.1920.
0:23:07 > 0:23:11But he's actually using a different name.
0:23:11 > 0:23:13I note above that he's got another name.
0:23:13 > 0:23:15Yes.
0:23:15 > 0:23:17Henry Daniel Seymour.
0:23:17 > 0:23:21Aliases Henry Daniel Goodfellow and Harry Johnson.
0:23:22 > 0:23:24It seems that on returning to the UK,
0:23:24 > 0:23:29Henry used new names to distance himself from his criminal past.
0:23:29 > 0:23:31But he was unable to change his ways.
0:23:31 > 0:23:33I'd like to show you this,
0:23:33 > 0:23:35which is a police supplement.
0:23:35 > 0:23:37And I don't know if you...
0:23:37 > 0:23:39My word!..recognise him at all.
0:23:39 > 0:23:41I've seen that photo, one photo of him.
0:23:41 > 0:23:43Yeah.And that's certainly the man.
0:23:43 > 0:23:45That's definitely him?Yeah.OK.
0:23:45 > 0:23:48Yeah.There's also a description of him.
0:23:48 > 0:23:51Expert house, shop and safe breaker,
0:23:51 > 0:23:53who came to this country from South Africa,
0:23:53 > 0:23:55where he was convicted for various offences.
0:23:57 > 0:23:59On each occasion he's been convicted in this country,
0:23:59 > 0:24:02he has denied the South African convictions,
0:24:02 > 0:24:06although they have been verified by fingerprints.
0:24:06 > 0:24:08This lists all the items.
0:24:09 > 0:24:11Six suits in suitcase.
0:24:11 > 0:24:15Good grief, he'd need a lorry to get rid of the...
0:24:15 > 0:24:20Also a one-inch jemmy, 14-inch-long clawhead point hammer,
0:24:20 > 0:24:22brace and bits, screwdriver,
0:24:22 > 0:24:25six skeleton keys and four small files.
0:24:25 > 0:24:27Wow!
0:24:27 > 0:24:29In some of the, uh,
0:24:29 > 0:24:31documentation I've read about the case,
0:24:31 > 0:24:33he describes himself as a cabinet-maker.
0:24:33 > 0:24:36And that's why he had the tools that he had.
0:24:36 > 0:24:39Yeah, don't seem to have found any evidence of him making any cabinets.
0:24:39 > 0:24:41No.More like breaking into cabinets.
0:24:41 > 0:24:44Yeah, I think so. Yes. Housebreaking.
0:24:44 > 0:24:46Stealing.He's a career criminal, isn't he?
0:24:46 > 0:24:48He is a bit, yeah.
0:24:48 > 0:24:50I've just seen something.
0:24:51 > 0:24:55Look. Unlawful wounding, reduced from attempted murder.
0:24:56 > 0:25:00Now that's interesting. That's the first time I've seen any violence involved.
0:25:00 > 0:25:02Because that's the impression I got,
0:25:02 > 0:25:06that he was a criminal but he wasn't violent at all.
0:25:06 > 0:25:09But that is the first instance I've seen of that,
0:25:09 > 0:25:11which is quite interesting.
0:25:11 > 0:25:14With this revelation about Henry's violent past,
0:25:14 > 0:25:17has Tony's confidence in his grandfather's innocence been shaken?
0:25:19 > 0:25:22Now I know that not only was he a criminal,
0:25:22 > 0:25:24but there is evidence he was a violent criminal,
0:25:24 > 0:25:26it kind of changes my perspective on it a bit.
0:25:26 > 0:25:32I can kind of understand why the authorities were so keen to prosecute him.
0:25:32 > 0:25:34But does it make him a murderer?
0:25:34 > 0:25:35I don't know.
0:25:38 > 0:25:43Evidence concerning the murder weapon was central to the prosecution case.
0:25:43 > 0:25:47Mrs Kempson suffered three blows to the head with a blunt instrument
0:25:47 > 0:25:50and a fatal stab wound to the neck.
0:25:50 > 0:25:53A hammer found in Seymour's belongings
0:25:53 > 0:25:55seemed to indicate his guilt.
0:25:55 > 0:25:58But when tested by the leading forensic scientist of the time,
0:25:58 > 0:26:03Sir Bernard Spilsbury, the police received unexpected results.
0:26:04 > 0:26:07The findings on it are really quite instructive.
0:26:07 > 0:26:09And it shows he's done a proper job on it.
0:26:09 > 0:26:10Yeah.
0:26:10 > 0:26:14Dr Basil Perdue has reviewed Spilsbury's reports.
0:26:14 > 0:26:17Several areas on the head he applied a chemical test for blood.
0:26:17 > 0:26:19It was negative.
0:26:19 > 0:26:21And he took the head of the hammer
0:26:21 > 0:26:23and he took it off, because even if you
0:26:23 > 0:26:27clean a hammer, you won't be able to clean the bit
0:26:27 > 0:26:28that's inside the head.
0:26:28 > 0:26:33Right.And he actually applied his blood tests to that inside bit.
0:26:33 > 0:26:36And there was no blood inside the hammer.
0:26:36 > 0:26:39But he had another and more important objection to it all.
0:26:39 > 0:26:43He said the flat surface at one end of the head was measured.
0:26:43 > 0:26:45And he said it was found to have a diameter
0:26:45 > 0:26:47of one and one-sixteenth of an inch.
0:26:47 > 0:26:51This was applied to the two fractures of the skull
0:26:51 > 0:26:52to see if it fitted.
0:26:52 > 0:26:56It was found to be smaller than the curved segment of each of the
0:26:56 > 0:26:59fractures, so it didn't fit.
0:26:59 > 0:27:01Well, in fact, he goes on to say,
0:27:01 > 0:27:04I think right at the end of his report,
0:27:04 > 0:27:08quote, "In my opinion therefore, the injuries on the head of the deceased
0:27:08 > 0:27:10"woman were not produced by this hammer."
0:27:10 > 0:27:15So, the impact of this report was to exclude this hammer from having been
0:27:15 > 0:27:17the murder weapon.That's right.
0:27:17 > 0:27:21Seymour's hammer was initially ruled out as the murder weapon,
0:27:21 > 0:27:23so why was he convicted?
0:27:23 > 0:27:27It concerns the evidence that Bernard Spilsbury gave at trial.
0:27:28 > 0:27:32He said that he obtained a hammer, exact facsimile,
0:27:32 > 0:27:34if we take his word for it, of Seymour's hammer.
0:27:36 > 0:27:38And Spilsbury performed a number of experiments on it.
0:27:38 > 0:27:43Basically, he struck at a piece of wood to see what sort of indentation
0:27:43 > 0:27:47he could get and what I propose to do is to replicate that now.
0:27:47 > 0:27:48If you want to step back a moment...
0:27:49 > 0:27:54That... That is the sort of fracture that he produced.
0:27:54 > 0:27:58So the dents on the wood did not match
0:27:58 > 0:28:01the injuries to the deceased lady's skull.
0:28:01 > 0:28:04In other words, as you were in terms of his original findings.
0:28:04 > 0:28:06That's exactly right.
0:28:06 > 0:28:11Unable to reproduce the injuries, Spilsbury began to experiment.
0:28:11 > 0:28:15So, he said, let's get some material and wrap the head of the hammer.
0:28:15 > 0:28:17And he got a crash duster.
0:28:17 > 0:28:20Spilsbury, I think, tried two thicknesses.
0:28:20 > 0:28:24One thicknesses, four thicknesses, 16 thicknesses, he used brown paper,
0:28:24 > 0:28:26he used this crash duster material.
0:28:26 > 0:28:29And he eventually said 16 thicknesses will do it.
0:28:29 > 0:28:35So, not the most effective hitting implement you could have but we will
0:28:35 > 0:28:38try it. I will strike this piece of wood again,
0:28:38 > 0:28:40using this strange arrangement.
0:28:42 > 0:28:44Certainly marked the crash duster.
0:28:45 > 0:28:48On the basis of what you've seen,
0:28:48 > 0:28:52had the police established any link between Henry Seymour
0:28:52 > 0:28:54and this type of material?
0:28:54 > 0:28:58No. But it's the principle of it that really worries me.
0:28:58 > 0:29:02The idea of - can we make this hammer fit the injuries?
0:29:02 > 0:29:06But having covered the hammerhead in that material, he did get a match,
0:29:06 > 0:29:08according to him.Yes.
0:29:08 > 0:29:11Having tried many different thicknesses of brown paper and crash duster.
0:29:11 > 0:29:13What would you say about those tests?
0:29:13 > 0:29:16Do you regard the tests he conducted as safe and proper
0:29:16 > 0:29:18in all the circumstances?
0:29:18 > 0:29:21Basically, whether asked by the police or off his own initiative,
0:29:21 > 0:29:23he's gone too far.
0:29:23 > 0:29:25Well, that's given us a lot to think about.
0:29:25 > 0:29:27Thank you very much indeed.
0:29:27 > 0:29:31Sir Bernard Spilsbury's unorthodox experiment has proved to be
0:29:31 > 0:29:34a significant breakthrough for the barristers.
0:29:34 > 0:29:41What Spilsbury did was to fix the conclusion in his own mind
0:29:41 > 0:29:44that Henry Seymour was guilty of murder and work backwards.
0:29:44 > 0:29:51It appeared that he expressed a firm opinion excluding a hammer that was
0:29:51 > 0:29:56found on the defendant and then turned round,
0:29:56 > 0:29:57doing everything possible,
0:29:57 > 0:30:01trying to conduct experiments with a different hammer,
0:30:01 > 0:30:06saying that it might have been possible with 16 layers of cloth.
0:30:06 > 0:30:08That appears to me to be quite the wrong approach.
0:30:08 > 0:30:12I'm wholly unimpressed with the way Bernard Spilsbury dealt with this.
0:30:12 > 0:30:17As was, perhaps more importantly, Basil Perdue, our pathologist.
0:30:19 > 0:30:21At Oxford County Hall,
0:30:21 > 0:30:24Tony meets retired police officer Paul Khyber
0:30:24 > 0:30:28in the very courtroom where his grandfather was tried for murder.
0:30:30 > 0:30:33It's quite chilling, sitting here, because I...
0:30:33 > 0:30:35This is where my grandfather was sitting.
0:30:35 > 0:30:36Yeah.I think he must have...
0:30:37 > 0:30:39If he was innocent,
0:30:39 > 0:30:41how must he have felt?
0:30:41 > 0:30:46Henry's trial in October 1931 drew huge crowds.
0:30:46 > 0:30:49Over four days, more than 40 witnesses were called.
0:30:50 > 0:30:54The key defence witness, however, was Seymour himself.
0:30:54 > 0:30:59Your grandfather gave evidence in the witness box under oath.
0:30:59 > 0:31:00How do you think he performed?
0:31:02 > 0:31:05That's an interesting one. I mean, he was a compulsive liar.
0:31:05 > 0:31:07He was obviously very experienced at spinning a tale.
0:31:07 > 0:31:11But with the amount of stress and...
0:31:13 > 0:31:15..all the eyes looking at him, I think...That's right.
0:31:15 > 0:31:17..he may have not done such a good job.
0:31:17 > 0:31:20I don't know.Some words have been said to say look, he...
0:31:22 > 0:31:27The defence were doing a good job up until he went in the box.
0:31:27 > 0:31:28Oh, no.
0:31:28 > 0:31:32Under cross-examination, Seymour tied himself in knots
0:31:32 > 0:31:34trying to explain his peculiar behaviour
0:31:34 > 0:31:36around the time of the murder.
0:31:36 > 0:31:38He was there and they have to nit-pick at everything.
0:31:38 > 0:31:40Right.And I think that's what they did.
0:31:40 > 0:31:42I think he got broken down.
0:31:42 > 0:31:45Right.And, then, at the end of the day,
0:31:45 > 0:31:48the jury looked at each other and thought, "He's done it."
0:31:50 > 0:31:55The jury took just 38 minutes to find Henry Seymour guilty of murder.
0:31:55 > 0:31:58And all subsequent appeals for clemency failed.
0:31:58 > 0:32:01Did the judge's handling of the expert evidence at trial
0:32:01 > 0:32:03condemn a man to death?
0:32:03 > 0:32:06Well, Jeremy, I've looked through the summing up now,
0:32:06 > 0:32:09carefully, and it seems to me that
0:32:09 > 0:32:12the judge covered all the important issues.
0:32:12 > 0:32:18I would regard this summing up as legally correct, fair, balanced,
0:32:18 > 0:32:20and helpful to the jury.
0:32:20 > 0:32:25And he identified from the beginning that the real issue in this case was
0:32:25 > 0:32:28one of timing, which was what we have recognised.
0:32:28 > 0:32:32He went through all of the defence witnesses,
0:32:32 > 0:32:38he went through Sir Bernard Spilsbury's evidence about stomach content.
0:32:38 > 0:32:41And did, at the end, deal with the hammer evidence,
0:32:41 > 0:32:45which was so controversial when we saw our own pathologist.
0:32:45 > 0:32:47So, all in all,
0:32:47 > 0:32:50I cannot see that this summing up
0:32:50 > 0:32:54can form the foundation of any challenge
0:32:54 > 0:32:56to the safety of the conviction.
0:32:56 > 0:32:58Basil Perdue, our pathologist,
0:32:58 > 0:33:03was categoric that the evidence of Sir Bernard Spilsbury
0:33:03 > 0:33:07about the hammer was most unsatisfactory.
0:33:07 > 0:33:13The problem in this summing up is the judge compounded that unfairness.
0:33:13 > 0:33:16He said about Bernard Spilsbury's evidence,
0:33:16 > 0:33:20"You may think that a blow upon a skull with a hammer of that weight
0:33:20 > 0:33:23"might cause a bigger dent than merely the measurement
0:33:23 > 0:33:24"of the head of the hammer.
0:33:24 > 0:33:26"You might think so or you might not."
0:33:26 > 0:33:28So, my point is this,
0:33:28 > 0:33:32he's encouraging the jury to believe that hammer might have caused the injuries
0:33:32 > 0:33:35by saying, don't worry about Sir Bernard Spilsbury excluding it,
0:33:35 > 0:33:37you can judge for yourselves.
0:33:37 > 0:33:41I just think that that was an unfair direction at the time.
0:33:41 > 0:33:44So I'm going to argue that this was a serious defect
0:33:44 > 0:33:46in the judge's summing up.
0:33:49 > 0:33:53Henry Seymour spent seven weeks awaiting execution at Oxford Castle prison.
0:33:53 > 0:33:57He was hanged on the 10th of December 1931
0:33:57 > 0:33:59and buried in an unmarked grave.
0:34:04 > 0:34:06This is the old prison wall.
0:34:07 > 0:34:08And somewhere along here...
0:34:10 > 0:34:11..is my grandfather.
0:34:12 > 0:34:15Don't know the exact spot, but Henry is somewhere along here.
0:34:21 > 0:34:24Having visited Henry's final resting place,
0:34:24 > 0:34:27Tony is reflecting on his grandfather's last moments
0:34:27 > 0:34:31in what was once the execution chamber of Oxford Prison.
0:34:31 > 0:34:33I personally think he was innocent.
0:34:33 > 0:34:35He was no angel, but...
0:34:37 > 0:34:40..if you didn't murder somebody and you were hung for that...
0:34:40 > 0:34:43He must have just been feeling so desperate.
0:34:43 > 0:34:46And frustrated that nobody would listen to him.
0:34:46 > 0:34:47His pleas of innocence.
0:34:47 > 0:34:49If he knew he was innocent.
0:34:49 > 0:34:52And the injustice of it all was just...
0:34:52 > 0:34:53Just sickening, really.
0:35:00 > 0:35:02Yeah, just...
0:35:02 > 0:35:03Just nasty.
0:35:08 > 0:35:12I just keep thinking back to his speech in the dock and hope that,
0:35:12 > 0:35:14as he said, one day, the truth will be seen.
0:35:20 > 0:35:24As the barristers prepare their arguments for judgment day,
0:35:24 > 0:35:26the new expert evidence could be pivotal.
0:35:28 > 0:35:31Sir Bernard Spilsbury, the prosecution's pathologist at trial,
0:35:31 > 0:35:35should never have been permitted to conduct that bizarre test
0:35:35 > 0:35:37that clearly influenced the jury to convict.
0:35:37 > 0:35:40And I'll be arguing before the judge
0:35:40 > 0:35:44that the conviction is unsafe as a consequence.
0:35:44 > 0:35:49What is important is that the defence were aware of the experiments,
0:35:49 > 0:35:52they challenged the experiments
0:35:52 > 0:35:55and they criticised the veracity of the results.
0:35:55 > 0:35:58So the people who were in the best possible position to make
0:35:58 > 0:36:02a decision were the jury, and that is what they did.
0:36:07 > 0:36:09Judgment day has arrived
0:36:09 > 0:36:13and Tony has travelled to London to hear the barristers' submissions
0:36:13 > 0:36:15about his grandfather's case.
0:36:15 > 0:36:18I'm thinking of his closing statement at the trial,
0:36:18 > 0:36:22and the fact that he protested his innocence right until the end,
0:36:22 > 0:36:23I just think, you know,
0:36:23 > 0:36:27at least we can help in some way to prove that.
0:36:27 > 0:36:28Good to see you.
0:36:28 > 0:36:32Jeremy and Sasha will present new evidence they have discovered,
0:36:32 > 0:36:36or new legal arguments they have formed in the course of their investigation.
0:36:38 > 0:36:41Judge Radford has decades of experience at the criminal bar,
0:36:41 > 0:36:44presiding over serious criminal cases
0:36:44 > 0:36:46and sitting in the Court of Appeal.
0:36:46 > 0:36:47For this programme,
0:36:47 > 0:36:50he will be treating this matter as he would any other case.
0:36:51 > 0:36:55Good morning. We are here today
0:36:55 > 0:37:01for me to consider the safety of the conviction of Henry Daniel Seymour.
0:37:02 > 0:37:05Mr Dein, on behalf of the defence,
0:37:05 > 0:37:07I think you're going to make submissions to me.
0:37:07 > 0:37:08Yes. As Your Honour knows,
0:37:08 > 0:37:12an absolutely crucial feature of the prosecution case
0:37:12 > 0:37:17was that the hammer found at Mr Seymour's lodgings was the hammer...
0:37:19 > 0:37:24..that had been used as part of the murder of Mrs Kempson.
0:37:24 > 0:37:29The prosecution called Sir Bernard Spilsbury, but, crucially,
0:37:29 > 0:37:34in his first two reports, Spilsbury had unequivocally concluded
0:37:34 > 0:37:39that the three blunt force injuries on Mrs Kempson's skull
0:37:39 > 0:37:42could not have been caused by the hammer
0:37:42 > 0:37:45recovered from Henry Seymour's lodgings.
0:37:45 > 0:37:51And it's my submission that matters ought to have been left at that point
0:37:51 > 0:37:53but, in fact, what went on to happen
0:37:53 > 0:37:56was Sir Bernard Spilsbury took it upon himself to
0:37:56 > 0:38:01wrap another similar hammer in cloth a number of times
0:38:01 > 0:38:04and then said that, in his view,
0:38:04 > 0:38:07if Henry Seymour had done the same,
0:38:07 > 0:38:11Mr Seymour's hammer could indeed have inflicted the injuries found on Mrs Kempson.
0:38:11 > 0:38:14Now, Basil Perdue, modern-day pathologist
0:38:14 > 0:38:18with a great deal of experience in homicide cases,
0:38:18 > 0:38:23has said that what Sir Bernard Spilsbury did, quote,
0:38:23 > 0:38:25"Offends against science."
0:38:25 > 0:38:30So it's my submission that what occurred should never have happened
0:38:30 > 0:38:34and that it had the clear potential for misleading the jury
0:38:34 > 0:38:36on a critical feature of the case.
0:38:36 > 0:38:38Now, as if that wasn't bad enough,
0:38:38 > 0:38:42when it came to the learned trial judge's summing up,
0:38:42 > 0:38:47he then goes on to rehearse Sir Bernard Spilsbury's cloth-covered
0:38:47 > 0:38:50exercise, giving respectability to it.
0:38:50 > 0:38:52Rather than to say, which he should have done, well,
0:38:52 > 0:38:57you should ignore this frolic of Sir Bernard Spilsbury.
0:38:57 > 0:38:59So in my submission,
0:38:59 > 0:39:02this was a misdirection which could well have led the jury
0:39:02 > 0:39:07into rejecting Sir Bernard Spilsbury's exclusion
0:39:07 > 0:39:11of the original hammer and accepting this bizarre experiment.
0:39:11 > 0:39:13Those matters, in my submission,
0:39:13 > 0:39:15undermine the fabric and fairness of the trial.
0:39:15 > 0:39:18Miss Wass, what do you say?
0:39:18 > 0:39:22Your honour, as far as the new hammer evidence is concerned,
0:39:22 > 0:39:26which Mr Dein relies on, certainly by today's standards,
0:39:26 > 0:39:31that type of experiment would not have been conducted in this way.
0:39:31 > 0:39:34So for the purpose of this hearing,
0:39:34 > 0:39:40you can exclude Sir Bernard's evidence about the experimentation.
0:39:40 > 0:39:45The important evidence is that the defendant himself accepted having
0:39:45 > 0:39:50a hammer in the vicinity of the murder at the time of the murder,
0:39:50 > 0:39:55when there was no lawful reason for him to have a hammer in his possession at all.
0:39:55 > 0:39:55As far as the direction to the jury is concerned,
0:39:55 > 0:39:58As far as the direction to the jury is concerned,
0:39:58 > 0:40:03the judge made it abundantly clear, as any judge would today,
0:40:03 > 0:40:08that the jury were by no means bound to accept the opinion of the expert.
0:40:08 > 0:40:08And the submission that I make today
0:40:08 > 0:40:11And the submission that I make today
0:40:11 > 0:40:15is that in the absence of any such experimentation,
0:40:15 > 0:40:19there would have been a case to answer in respect of murder.
0:40:19 > 0:40:22The jury thereafter heard the defendant gives his account
0:40:22 > 0:40:27and they were sure that he was guilty of this murder.
0:40:27 > 0:40:29Yes, thank you, Miss Wass.
0:40:29 > 0:40:31I am grateful to you both for your submissions.
0:40:31 > 0:40:36If you would be kind enough to leave me for some time to reflect on them.
0:40:43 > 0:40:45How do you feel about what you heard?
0:40:45 > 0:40:47I think you both gave a fair and thorough...
0:40:49 > 0:40:51..summing up.Are you optimistic?
0:40:51 > 0:40:54I'm... Yeah, I'm... Kind of.
0:40:54 > 0:40:56It might be a while, because he's got a lot to consider.
0:40:56 > 0:40:58Sure.
0:40:58 > 0:41:01Should Henry Seymour's hammer have been excluded from evidence?
0:41:02 > 0:41:05Were the expert's experiments misleading?
0:41:07 > 0:41:09And did the judge misdirect the jury?
0:41:11 > 0:41:13Judge Radford is ready to give his verdict.
0:41:19 > 0:41:22I have considered the complaints
0:41:22 > 0:41:24adumbrated by Mr Dein
0:41:24 > 0:41:26and controverted by Miss Wass
0:41:26 > 0:41:31about the safety of the conviction
0:41:31 > 0:41:35and I've considered the evidence from the pathologist,
0:41:35 > 0:41:41Dr Perdue, strongly objecting to the way in which the pathology evidence
0:41:42 > 0:41:43was adduced at the trial.
0:41:43 > 0:41:48The admissibility of the experimentation that was conducted
0:41:48 > 0:41:52using a different hammer to that found on the defendant
0:41:52 > 0:41:55was objectionable and unfair.
0:41:55 > 0:41:59And that conclusion does not mean that I've formed a view that the
0:41:59 > 0:42:03defendant's innocence of the crime has been demonstrated.
0:42:03 > 0:42:08But it is a conclusion, in my view, there was a material irregularity,
0:42:08 > 0:42:12there was a crucial piece of evidence
0:42:12 > 0:42:16that was not properly presented or summed up by the judge,
0:42:16 > 0:42:22and may well have caused the jury to have gone beyond strong suspicion
0:42:22 > 0:42:24to sureness of guilt.
0:42:24 > 0:42:25For those reasons,
0:42:25 > 0:42:28I think there is indeed proper reason
0:42:28 > 0:42:32to doubt that a safe verdict was reached.
0:42:32 > 0:42:34I am grateful to learned counsel for their help.
0:42:34 > 0:42:36Thank you, Your Honour.
0:42:36 > 0:42:37I shall rise.
0:42:42 > 0:42:44Well done, Jeremy.Thank you.
0:42:44 > 0:42:45Congratulations.
0:42:47 > 0:42:49Obviously, that's a good, positive outcome.
0:42:49 > 0:42:50That's great, yeah.Yeah.
0:42:50 > 0:42:53Yeah, very pleased.Excellent.
0:42:53 > 0:42:56I think of his words in the dock protesting his innocence
0:42:56 > 0:42:58and he protested his innocence right to the end.
0:42:58 > 0:43:02And he said, one day the truth will be shown
0:43:02 > 0:43:06and this goes some way towards that. So it's really good.