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 > 0:00:22Some of these long-standing convictions
0:00:22 > 0:00:24could be a miscarriage of justice.
0:00:24 > 0:00:28She's received most of the blows in this position.
0:00:28 > 0:00:30In this series, a living relative will attempt
0:00:30 > 0:00:32to clear their family name.
0:00:32 > 0:00:36So sad, so sad that she never had a life...
0:00:36 > 0:00:38Searching for new evidence...
0:00:38 > 0:00:41I can make the .32 fire both calibres.
0:00:44 > 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 > 0:01:04committed during the course of a robbery.
0:01:04 > 0:01:06They're on a mission to solve the mystery,
0:01:06 > 0:01:10submitting their findings to a senior 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 > 0:01:18I will look again at the evidence in the light of the arguments
0:01:18 > 0:01:20that you both have put before me.
0:01:20 > 0:01:24Can this modern investigation rewrite history?
0:01:33 > 0:01:36On a summer's night in 1953,
0:01:36 > 0:01:39around the bandstand on Clapham Common in South London,
0:01:39 > 0:01:41groups of local youths were gathered.
0:01:43 > 0:01:46Some were dressed smartly in suits, with greased back hair.
0:01:48 > 0:01:52Now an iconic look, these teenagers were known as Teddy boys.
0:01:55 > 0:01:57An insult directed at one Teddy boy,
0:01:57 > 0:02:00a member of the so-called Plough Boys gang,
0:02:00 > 0:02:02named after the pub in which they drank,
0:02:02 > 0:02:04sparked a row and then a brawl.
0:02:05 > 0:02:07Three people were stabbed.
0:02:07 > 0:02:1117-year-old John Beckley died of his wounds.
0:02:12 > 0:02:16Six youths were charged in connection with the killing,
0:02:16 > 0:02:21but in the end, only one, Michael Davies, stood trial for murder.
0:02:22 > 0:02:27On October 22, 1953, he was found guilty and sentenced to hang.
0:02:29 > 0:02:31He was just 20 years old.
0:02:33 > 0:02:35Michael was my uncle.
0:02:35 > 0:02:36He was actually my mum's brother.
0:02:36 > 0:02:40He was a good, fun sort of man, played jokes with me all the time.
0:02:40 > 0:02:43I think it would be very difficult to think of him
0:02:43 > 0:02:44as actually stabbing someone.
0:02:46 > 0:02:49Michael Davies' niece, Sharon Sweeting,
0:02:49 > 0:02:51and family friend, Anne Biles,
0:02:51 > 0:02:53want to understand how Michael Davies
0:02:53 > 0:02:57was the only member of the gang who came to face the rope.
0:02:58 > 0:02:59That's a nice photograph, Sharon.
0:02:59 > 0:03:02- That's my mum and dad's wedding. - Right, yes.
0:03:02 > 0:03:05- There's Michael. - So he would have been 16 then.
0:03:05 > 0:03:06Yes, I was going to say, he looks young.
0:03:06 > 0:03:10There are a lot of unanswered questions.
0:03:10 > 0:03:14There was a sort of race or chase down to the bus stop,
0:03:14 > 0:03:16with one gang chasing the other.
0:03:16 > 0:03:19They were all the same height, same build,
0:03:19 > 0:03:21it could have been any of them,
0:03:21 > 0:03:25and that does bring doubt into your mind, a lot.
0:03:25 > 0:03:27Michael was never executed.
0:03:27 > 0:03:30His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
0:03:31 > 0:03:34He served only seven years before being released,
0:03:34 > 0:03:36but was never exonerated.
0:03:36 > 0:03:39It's left a cloud over the family.
0:03:41 > 0:03:44Well, I find it difficult to understand
0:03:44 > 0:03:46how he was sentenced to death,
0:03:46 > 0:03:50then it was changed to life imprisonment,
0:03:50 > 0:03:53and then the sentence was reduced to seven years.
0:03:53 > 0:03:55It doesn't tally at all.
0:03:55 > 0:03:58Michael Davies died in 1992,
0:03:58 > 0:04:01still protesting his innocence.
0:04:01 > 0:04:03It would be nice to have closure,
0:04:03 > 0:04:06and I just need to know whether he is guilty or not.
0:04:07 > 0:04:10I would certainly like him to be cleared,
0:04:10 > 0:04:14because it would be nice to know that,
0:04:14 > 0:04:17no, there wasn't a murderer in their family.
0:04:22 > 0:04:25To get to the bottom of Michael Davies' case,
0:04:25 > 0:04:29Sharon and Anne are relying on two of the country's best legal minds.
0:04:31 > 0:04:33Jeremy Dein QC is a top defence barrister,
0:04:33 > 0:04:35specialising in murder cases.
0:04:38 > 0:04:43Sasha Wass QC has prosecuted some of the UK's most notorious felons.
0:04:45 > 0:04:48Before they begin their investigation into Michael Davies' case,
0:04:48 > 0:04:51the barristers want to meet Sharon and Anne.
0:04:52 > 0:04:53Innocent or not,
0:04:53 > 0:04:56Michael Davies' case was a dark secret in the family,
0:04:56 > 0:04:58and never spoken of.
0:04:58 > 0:05:00Hello, there. Hello, Sharon. Sasha.
0:05:00 > 0:05:04Sharon didn't find out about it until the 1980s.
0:05:05 > 0:05:09Can you tell us, when did you first become aware of the case?
0:05:09 > 0:05:12- Um, quite a few years ago. - OK.- It was just by accident.
0:05:12 > 0:05:16My ex-husband was looking at a magazine on the Tube,
0:05:16 > 0:05:20- and opened it up, and there was this picture...- Yes.- ..and all about it.
0:05:20 > 0:05:22- How did that make you feel? - Shocked.
0:05:23 > 0:05:26Because nobody sort of mentioned it at all,
0:05:26 > 0:05:27it was just put under the carpet.
0:05:27 > 0:05:29And I can understand the reasons why,
0:05:29 > 0:05:32- but it was a shock to find out the way I did.- Mm.
0:05:32 > 0:05:35Are you hoping for a particular outcome,
0:05:35 > 0:05:37as far as this investigation is concerned?
0:05:37 > 0:05:39Well, I'm just hoping that the outcome will be a truthful one,
0:05:39 > 0:05:43- but it would just be nice to know someone else's opinion.- Of course.
0:05:43 > 0:05:47My target is to find something different to what's been argued
0:05:47 > 0:05:50in the past, so that we can show
0:05:50 > 0:05:53that Michael Davies' conviction was unsafe.
0:05:53 > 0:05:56My role is really to try and step back a little bit
0:05:56 > 0:05:58and look at the evidence, but be quite critical.
0:05:58 > 0:06:02But I will keep a completely open mind, and I'm not frightened,
0:06:02 > 0:06:04having looked at all the evidence,
0:06:04 > 0:06:07to stand up and say, these verdicts are not safe, all right.
0:06:07 > 0:06:10- That's all we can ask for, really. - Yes, that's right.
0:06:10 > 0:06:13Sometimes, in these investigations, the case gets stronger.
0:06:13 > 0:06:16If it was a negative conclusion, you'd accept that?
0:06:16 > 0:06:19Yes, yes, whatever it is, we would accept, obviously.
0:06:19 > 0:06:22Well, that's what we'll be working towards.
0:06:22 > 0:06:24- That sounds lovely, yes. - Very nice to meet you both.
0:06:24 > 0:06:27- And you. Thank you. - Thank you, Jeremy.
0:06:29 > 0:06:31The barristers' curiosity has been piqued
0:06:31 > 0:06:33by this case's strange history.
0:06:35 > 0:06:38How does a man sentenced to hang,
0:06:38 > 0:06:40and who remains a murderer in the eyes of the law,
0:06:40 > 0:06:44get released by the Home Secretary after just seven years?
0:06:47 > 0:06:50Plainly, the Home Secretary knew something.
0:06:50 > 0:06:51But what?
0:06:51 > 0:06:54Sasha and Jeremy want to find out.
0:06:56 > 0:06:59They will take any evidence they uncover to a judge,
0:06:59 > 0:07:01who could recommend the case for review,
0:07:01 > 0:07:04or confirm the original guilty verdict.
0:07:07 > 0:07:11But first, the barristers need to get to grips with the key facts
0:07:11 > 0:07:13of an intriguing case.
0:07:15 > 0:07:18So, Jeremy, this was a killing that took place during an attack...
0:07:20 > 0:07:24..by a group of Teddy boys in 1953,
0:07:24 > 0:07:29after one of their members had been insulted by four other youths.
0:07:29 > 0:07:32And when those youths walked away from him,
0:07:32 > 0:07:35they reached nearer here, which was where the water fountain
0:07:35 > 0:07:40in Clapham Common was, and those four youths were then attacked
0:07:40 > 0:07:44by the other members of the Plough Boys gang.
0:07:44 > 0:07:47And the fight progressed up there
0:07:47 > 0:07:50and it reached the area of the main road here,
0:07:50 > 0:07:54and at the same time a bus was going across here
0:07:54 > 0:07:59and several of the eyewitnesses saw the fight take place.
0:07:59 > 0:08:02Three of them received injuries
0:08:02 > 0:08:08and 17-year-old John Beckley collapsed and died, about here,
0:08:08 > 0:08:12of his knife injuries.
0:08:12 > 0:08:15Well, Sasha, this case has all the hallmarks
0:08:15 > 0:08:18of a gang-related incident, doesn't it.
0:08:18 > 0:08:22And you and I know just how difficult and complex this type
0:08:22 > 0:08:26of situation is for the criminal justice process.
0:08:28 > 0:08:32Originally, all six of the attackers were accused of murder.
0:08:34 > 0:08:38But in the end, only Michael Davies stood trial for his life.
0:08:39 > 0:08:43He had been the first to admit he had been involved in the fight,
0:08:43 > 0:08:46though he insisted he had never used a knife.
0:08:46 > 0:08:48The big question here is,
0:08:48 > 0:08:53did Michael Davies just take the can because someone had to,
0:08:53 > 0:08:55or was he the right person?
0:08:55 > 0:08:58And that's what we need to look at very, very carefully.
0:08:59 > 0:09:04Britain the 1950s was still a place of rationing and post-war austerity.
0:09:06 > 0:09:10But those dark days were starting to give way to optimism
0:09:10 > 0:09:11and greater affluence.
0:09:13 > 0:09:16Teenage boys wanted styles of dress that distinguished them
0:09:16 > 0:09:18from their fathers.
0:09:20 > 0:09:24The so-called Teddy boy fashion was probably the first of these.
0:09:28 > 0:09:31Sharon and Anne have come to Clapham Common
0:09:31 > 0:09:35to meet veteran Teddy boy, John van Rheede Toas.
0:09:35 > 0:09:38They want to find out more about this colourful group,
0:09:38 > 0:09:40the attractions it held for Michael and many like him.
0:09:42 > 0:09:43Good afternoon, ladies.
0:09:43 > 0:09:48And how one summer's evening, six decades ago, it turned to murder.
0:09:48 > 0:09:51- You look very smart.- Yeah.
0:09:51 > 0:09:54- I'm trying to reach the original look.- Oh, it's nice, yes.
0:09:54 > 0:09:58- I didn't really know what it actually entailed at the time. - No, no.
0:09:58 > 0:10:01Well, I replicate it and I copy it.
0:10:01 > 0:10:04So how different would it have been when he was one?
0:10:04 > 0:10:08Well, the style wouldn't have been a lot different to what I'm wearing.
0:10:08 > 0:10:11The Teddy boy was a fashion to start off with.
0:10:11 > 0:10:14And it started off in about 1948 with the Savile Row tailors
0:10:14 > 0:10:18wanting to bring the Edwardian style back, to try and get away from where
0:10:18 > 0:10:20- everything was grey and boring. - Yeah.
0:10:20 > 0:10:22And it was all about impressing the girls,
0:10:22 > 0:10:26- strutting their stuff and showing off.- Yeah.- Mm.
0:10:26 > 0:10:29How do you think all this violence occurred...
0:10:29 > 0:10:32- Right, well, I think... - ..with the Teddy boys?
0:10:32 > 0:10:34I think the thing is, it was all about the image
0:10:34 > 0:10:37and looking tough and wanting to be tough.
0:10:37 > 0:10:41But this was the first time that Teddy boys had actually
0:10:41 > 0:10:42been convicted for murder
0:10:42 > 0:10:46and using, openly using weapons and killing somebody.
0:10:46 > 0:10:49So do you think it made a difference to the rest of them afterwards?
0:10:49 > 0:10:54This one incident, I would say, gave the Teddy boys
0:10:54 > 0:10:58- this bad name from there on in. - Right.
0:10:58 > 0:11:01And it got this badge, if you like, of violence,
0:11:01 > 0:11:06that people shunned Teddy boys and they saw them as a social menace.
0:11:06 > 0:11:07- Yeah.- Right.
0:11:13 > 0:11:17Among the many peculiarities of this case is that there were two trials.
0:11:19 > 0:11:22The first one started with six defendants
0:11:22 > 0:11:25but quickly, four of the gang pleaded guilty to minor offences.
0:11:27 > 0:11:30Only two men, Ron Coleman and Michael Davies,
0:11:30 > 0:11:33stood trial for murder.
0:11:33 > 0:11:35But when the jury failed to reach a verdict,
0:11:35 > 0:11:38the Crown dropped the charges against Coleman.
0:11:39 > 0:11:41And when the second trial began,
0:11:41 > 0:11:43Michael Davies was alone in the dock.
0:11:45 > 0:11:49The jury couldn't agree on a verdict, which is notable.
0:11:49 > 0:11:53At that stage, at the end of the first trial, before the second trial,
0:11:53 > 0:11:58the decision was made to proceed against Michael Davies alone, for murder.
0:11:58 > 0:12:02But the question arises, well, how is it that the prosecution
0:12:02 > 0:12:05were determined to proceed against Michael Davies
0:12:05 > 0:12:08to the point eventually of a death sentence,
0:12:08 > 0:12:12whereas the others all pleaded guilty to a much lesser offences
0:12:12 > 0:12:15and got much, much lesser sentences?
0:12:15 > 0:12:19On the face of it, they had every reason to shift the blame
0:12:19 > 0:12:22- from themselves and put the spotlight on Michael Davies.- Yes.
0:12:22 > 0:12:25So we need to look at this and see whether we can find out
0:12:25 > 0:12:27what actually took place.
0:12:30 > 0:12:33As well as the barristers,
0:12:33 > 0:12:36this is a journey of discovery for Sharon and Anne,
0:12:36 > 0:12:39and one that begins at the bandstand on Clapham Common.
0:12:41 > 0:12:45On the night of the incident, the band would have been playing here
0:12:45 > 0:12:48and the incident started by some benches.
0:12:48 > 0:12:52Four particular individuals, one of which was the deceased,
0:12:52 > 0:12:55they were sitting on a bench opposite each other
0:12:55 > 0:12:58and one of the Plough Boys, Ron Coleman,
0:12:58 > 0:13:01who was a defendant in this case, tried to walk through.
0:13:01 > 0:13:05The boys stuck their legs out, were being obstructive
0:13:05 > 0:13:08and started making rather offensive remarks
0:13:08 > 0:13:10about Ron Coleman's clothing.
0:13:10 > 0:13:13He walked through and eventually teamed up
0:13:13 > 0:13:17with other members of his gang, the Plough Boys,
0:13:17 > 0:13:19one of which was Michael Davies.
0:13:21 > 0:13:25The four guys sat on the benches decided it was time to go,
0:13:25 > 0:13:29otherwise they were going to get beaten up.
0:13:29 > 0:13:31So they started walking towards the north side.
0:13:33 > 0:13:35The four made it as far as a water fountain
0:13:35 > 0:13:38before the Plough Boys ran them down.
0:13:39 > 0:13:41All that's been taken away now,
0:13:41 > 0:13:43this was the original location of the fountain, right.
0:13:43 > 0:13:47So the boys would have run all the way, obviously from the bandstand,
0:13:47 > 0:13:51up to this point where, if you like, they bomb burst every way
0:13:51 > 0:13:55in different directions, trying to get away from the Plough Boys.
0:13:57 > 0:13:59Two of them managed to get on to the Underground.
0:14:01 > 0:14:06Beckley and Chandler got on to a 137 bus...
0:14:09 > 0:14:13..and the bus slowly moved towards the next stop.
0:14:17 > 0:14:21OK, we get to the point now in the story where the bus
0:14:21 > 0:14:24obviously slowed down completely in traffic.
0:14:24 > 0:14:28The Plough Boys have now caught up and literally this is the point
0:14:28 > 0:14:30where they were dragged off the bus.
0:14:30 > 0:14:32There was a big scuffle and there was a big fight at this point.
0:14:35 > 0:14:39- So this is when the incident started to unfold...- Exactly.
0:14:39 > 0:14:42- ..and tensions were heightened... - Exactly.
0:14:42 > 0:14:44- And matters became serious.- Yeah.
0:14:44 > 0:14:48Because it would appear that it was at that stage
0:14:48 > 0:14:50that the stabbing took place.
0:14:55 > 0:14:57We finally arrive at Okeover Manor
0:14:57 > 0:15:02and this was the point where John Beckley couldn't cope any longer.
0:15:03 > 0:15:06He'd run out of energy, he run about another 100 yards
0:15:06 > 0:15:09and he just literally slumped against the wall,
0:15:09 > 0:15:11due to his stab wounds.
0:15:14 > 0:15:16Obviously, he dies, does John Beckley.
0:15:17 > 0:15:19It was a chaotic situation.
0:15:21 > 0:15:25But one key eyewitness identified Michael Davies as the knifeman.
0:15:27 > 0:15:31She'd had a grandstand view from the top deck of the very bus
0:15:31 > 0:15:33from which John Beckley had been dragged.
0:15:35 > 0:15:38She was on top of that bus, it was 20 to ten at night,
0:15:38 > 0:15:42it was not the best light at all.
0:15:42 > 0:15:46In the context of this quick, scary incident,
0:15:46 > 0:15:50this begs the question of whether this person was Michael Davies.
0:15:50 > 0:15:55This is one eyewitness in highly unsatisfactory circumstances.
0:15:55 > 0:15:57Don't you agree?
0:15:57 > 0:16:01Well, I do agree but...that is the nature of eyewitness testimony
0:16:01 > 0:16:03wherever there is a fault.
0:16:03 > 0:16:07- Fallibility, it's also the fallibility of eyewitness... - Exactly, I agree.
0:16:07 > 0:16:10John Beckley had been stabbed to death
0:16:10 > 0:16:12but no murder weapon had been recovered.
0:16:12 > 0:16:14- Hello, John.- Hello.
0:16:14 > 0:16:16Even descriptions of it were confused.
0:16:18 > 0:16:20- Now, you're an armourer...- I am.
0:16:20 > 0:16:24..and you've come to help us with the case of Michael Davies,
0:16:24 > 0:16:27where a knife was used to cause death,
0:16:27 > 0:16:30but the knife in question was never found by the police.
0:16:30 > 0:16:32That's right.
0:16:32 > 0:16:37What we do have is a description given by one of the main prosecution
0:16:37 > 0:16:40witnesses, a woman called Mary Frayling,
0:16:40 > 0:16:43who said she saw what happened from the top of a bus
0:16:43 > 0:16:47and she said that she saw what she thought
0:16:47 > 0:16:51was either a razor or a penknife being used.
0:16:51 > 0:16:55And she used the colour green to describe the penknife.
0:16:55 > 0:16:57So can you talk us through some of the weapons
0:16:57 > 0:17:01- that you've got before you today?- OK.
0:17:01 > 0:17:03Well, you mentioned the cut-throat razor.
0:17:03 > 0:17:05This here is a cut-throat razor.
0:17:05 > 0:17:08As you can see, it's quite a large weapon
0:17:08 > 0:17:11and under the evidence that was given, it was folding away.
0:17:11 > 0:17:14The problem with this weapon, if it was used in a stabbing motion,
0:17:14 > 0:17:17it's completely blunt at the end, so you couldn't stab anybody with it.
0:17:17 > 0:17:19So one of the two types of weapon she described
0:17:19 > 0:17:22- is simply not applicable. - Not applicable.- Right.
0:17:22 > 0:17:24So cut-throat razor no, not for stabbing.
0:17:24 > 0:17:27OK, this is a period flick knife.
0:17:28 > 0:17:31This is the sort of weapon that could be used
0:17:31 > 0:17:32to inflict a stab-type wound.
0:17:32 > 0:17:35Again, I believe the wound was over three inches, was it?
0:17:35 > 0:17:37Just over three inches, yes.
0:17:37 > 0:17:39OK, so again that's approximately three inches,
0:17:39 > 0:17:42- so a quick stabbing motion with that.- Yes.- That's a possibility.
0:17:42 > 0:17:44- Right.- But back in the '50s, this was easily obtained
0:17:44 > 0:17:46- and wasn't illegal back then.- Right.
0:17:47 > 0:17:49In the absence of a murder weapon,
0:17:49 > 0:17:54the police actually bought a knife and began to treat it as an exhibit,
0:17:54 > 0:17:56even introducing it in court.
0:17:56 > 0:18:00A knife similar to this was in fact bought by one of the officers
0:18:00 > 0:18:04in the case, on the basis that it matched a description given
0:18:04 > 0:18:06by one of the witnesses.
0:18:06 > 0:18:09This is a typical period blade that could be easily purchased
0:18:09 > 0:18:13in any of the shops, you know, that would sell these sort of things.
0:18:13 > 0:18:16The folding one has a very sharp point and it's over three inches.
0:18:16 > 0:18:20What this officer, DC Drury, did was to buy a knife like that,
0:18:20 > 0:18:24even though no murder weapon had been found,
0:18:24 > 0:18:28and it certainly featured in evidence and was shown to witnesses
0:18:28 > 0:18:30at various times.
0:18:30 > 0:18:33So that's a matter we're going to have to look in to.
0:18:35 > 0:18:38It's worth remembering that officer's name - Kenneth Drury.
0:18:38 > 0:18:42Back then, he was just a detective constable,
0:18:42 > 0:18:44helpfully filling a gap in the evidence.
0:18:46 > 0:18:49But he was to become one of the most notorious policemen
0:18:49 > 0:18:51in the history of Scotland Yard.
0:18:55 > 0:18:57Sharon and Anne have come to Lambeth Archives
0:18:57 > 0:19:00to try and find out a bit more about Michael's case.
0:19:03 > 0:19:06Michael grew up in Clapham, the youngest of three children.
0:19:06 > 0:19:10He had served in the Merchant Navy and the RAF.
0:19:10 > 0:19:14He had a record of minor offences, but nothing violent.
0:19:16 > 0:19:21She said, " 'There were about six boys, they held him by the arms,
0:19:21 > 0:19:23" 'I thought that they were helping him.
0:19:23 > 0:19:25" 'The boys ran off and Beckley staggered to the wall
0:19:25 > 0:19:27" 'and was left to die.'
0:19:27 > 0:19:32"The prosecution allege also that he wounded two other youths
0:19:32 > 0:19:33"with the same knife.
0:19:33 > 0:19:37"Davies said he had to get rid of the knife.
0:19:37 > 0:19:40"He said there was no claret blood on it."
0:19:40 > 0:19:43- But is that true?- Mm, yeah.
0:19:43 > 0:19:45The newspapers of the day paint an unflattering picture
0:19:45 > 0:19:48of Sharon's Uncle Mick.
0:19:48 > 0:19:52I mean, deep down, I hope and think he was innocent, but it puts doubts,
0:19:52 > 0:19:54when you read all these things.
0:19:54 > 0:19:57Are they actually telling the truth, are they lying?
0:19:57 > 0:20:01This was from the Daily Mirror, and there's a picture of Michael,
0:20:01 > 0:20:04"The thug who impressed teenage girls
0:20:04 > 0:20:07"with his flash clothes and his big talk."
0:20:07 > 0:20:11- I do remember him sort of talking flashily sometimes.- Do you?
0:20:11 > 0:20:14Yeah. But not harmfully, just jokingly, but...
0:20:14 > 0:20:18There's photographs of Michael Davies,
0:20:18 > 0:20:21"Alleged to be the youth who stabbed Beckley to death."
0:20:21 > 0:20:23It's him, but it doesn't look like him.
0:20:23 > 0:20:27I mean, even I would know that was him, yeah.
0:20:27 > 0:20:31"Michael Davies, whose highest ambition
0:20:31 > 0:20:35"is to be leader of the teenage gangsters,
0:20:35 > 0:20:38"was last night sentenced to death
0:20:38 > 0:20:40"for the murder on Clapham Common."
0:20:40 > 0:20:44I mean, the more I'm hearing about it, if he is innocent,
0:20:44 > 0:20:47- the more I'm feeling really sad for him...- Yes.
0:20:47 > 0:20:49- Yeah, of course. - What he went through.
0:20:49 > 0:20:51It's all just repeating itself,
0:20:51 > 0:20:54but what we want is the truth out of that.
0:20:56 > 0:20:59Sasha and Jeremy want to know more about the evidence
0:20:59 > 0:21:01given by the prosecution witnesses.
0:21:04 > 0:21:07Cold-case expert Cheryl Allsop is here to help.
0:21:08 > 0:21:11They start with two key witnesses -
0:21:11 > 0:21:14the women on the top deck of the 137 bus.
0:21:16 > 0:21:19The thing that really struck me about this
0:21:19 > 0:21:22was how very specific they were about one person.
0:21:22 > 0:21:26And how very specific they were that they both had the same description,
0:21:26 > 0:21:30in terms of sallow complexion, thin features, dark hair,
0:21:30 > 0:21:33brightly coloured tie, dark suit.
0:21:33 > 0:21:37Firstly, this was not a fleeting glimpse, was it,
0:21:37 > 0:21:40because they were at the front of the bus, glass window,
0:21:40 > 0:21:43what they were seeing was an uninterrupted view.
0:21:43 > 0:21:47- Yes.- You're concerned about the similarity of their evidence,
0:21:47 > 0:21:51but wouldn't it be the most natural thing in the world for two people
0:21:51 > 0:21:54together on a bus saying, in effect, did you see that,
0:21:54 > 0:21:57did you see the other, before they came to make their police statements?
0:21:57 > 0:22:00Yes, certainly. I guess what I'm thinking as well is,
0:22:00 > 0:22:03they didn't describe anybody else or see anything else, yet, as you said,
0:22:03 > 0:22:06it was a commotion, a kerfuffle going on.
0:22:06 > 0:22:09It's interesting it's the same detective who took both their statements.
0:22:09 > 0:22:12I'd just be interested to see his notes from this.
0:22:12 > 0:22:16It just makes me question, if you like, the credibility of it all.
0:22:16 > 0:22:20Could they have seen what they are describing, and remembered all this?
0:22:21 > 0:22:25The other distinctive feature of this murder is its gang character,
0:22:25 > 0:22:28and the shifting accounts of Michael Davies' accomplices.
0:22:30 > 0:22:31I think it's really interesting.
0:22:31 > 0:22:34The fact that, first of all, you have the co-accused,
0:22:34 > 0:22:37so five people that were accused with Davies at the time,
0:22:37 > 0:22:40who continually change their statements.
0:22:40 > 0:22:42So, you start off having a description of the fight,
0:22:42 > 0:22:45how they came to be in the area at the time.
0:22:45 > 0:22:48And then, suddenly they start to mention Davies and a knife,
0:22:48 > 0:22:51not seeing the knife, but then suddenly he's talking about a knife,
0:22:51 > 0:22:53he's talking about how to get rid of a knife.
0:22:53 > 0:22:56So you wonder, why would you not mention that immediately
0:22:56 > 0:22:58because that's very significant in something like this.
0:22:58 > 0:23:00So why have they changed their story?
0:23:00 > 0:23:03You're talking about a group of individuals involved
0:23:03 > 0:23:05in a violent attack and someone dying.
0:23:05 > 0:23:09- The incentive for lying is high, isn't it?- Yes.
0:23:09 > 0:23:12They've all, you know, by their own admission, been involved in a fight,
0:23:12 > 0:23:15so they're already in trouble, if you like.
0:23:15 > 0:23:18So, it wouldn't take a wild leap in the dark for them to think, well,
0:23:18 > 0:23:20"I've been identified in this fight."
0:23:20 > 0:23:23You start to think, well, you can see why they'd want to
0:23:23 > 0:23:25cover their own...back, wouldn't you, really,
0:23:25 > 0:23:28because it could've ended up being them that were accused,
0:23:28 > 0:23:30- so I couldn't say... - Convicted?- Convicted.
0:23:30 > 0:23:32Convicted of murder, and hanged.
0:23:32 > 0:23:34And given the death penalty.
0:23:34 > 0:23:38So the incentive for saying, "I didn't have the knife, but he did..."
0:23:39 > 0:23:41..cries out, does it not?
0:23:41 > 0:23:44No, that is a matter that has caused both of us concern,
0:23:44 > 0:23:47we just don't know. It is unsatisfactory.
0:23:47 > 0:23:51All of the points that were made by Cheryl were valid points,
0:23:51 > 0:23:54and they were all points that were made during the course of the trial.
0:23:54 > 0:23:57All of the witnesses that she spoke about,
0:23:57 > 0:24:00and whose witness statements she analysed,
0:24:00 > 0:24:04they were witnesses who were cross-examined forcefully at trial.
0:24:04 > 0:24:06And the jury heard the challenges,
0:24:06 > 0:24:09and must have rejected them in order to find the case proved
0:24:09 > 0:24:11against Michael Davies.
0:24:12 > 0:24:15There are two aspects of the case that concern me most.
0:24:15 > 0:24:18The first is Miss Frayling's evidence,
0:24:18 > 0:24:21and how she came to be so clear
0:24:21 > 0:24:25in her identification of Michael Davies,
0:24:25 > 0:24:28combined with the involvement of DC Drury,
0:24:28 > 0:24:31who took a number of witness statements.
0:24:31 > 0:24:34I want to look much more closely at Drury.
0:24:34 > 0:24:38The other aspect of the case concerns this quagmire
0:24:38 > 0:24:44of information coming from the other boys, men, thugs,
0:24:44 > 0:24:48whatever you like to call them, involved in the attack on the night.
0:24:48 > 0:24:51Their accounts change materially.
0:24:51 > 0:24:55They're arrested for murder, they're questioned for murder,
0:24:55 > 0:24:59they end up pleading guilty to common assault.
0:24:59 > 0:25:01They're given six nine-month sentences,
0:25:01 > 0:25:04Michael Davies is sentenced to hang.
0:25:04 > 0:25:09The whole case is one that gives rise to fundamental concern.
0:25:13 > 0:25:17Upon sentence, Michael's sister, Joyce, Sharon's mum,
0:25:17 > 0:25:21began a campaign to prove his innocence and save his life.
0:25:22 > 0:25:24But it was all done quietly.
0:25:24 > 0:25:28This is the first time that Sharon and Anne have seen these letters...
0:25:29 > 0:25:32..including one sent to the then-Home Secretary.
0:25:33 > 0:25:39This is the letter that Joyce wrote to Sir Maxwell Fife
0:25:39 > 0:25:42on the 10th of November, 1953.
0:25:42 > 0:25:45- "I would like to bring to your notice..."- Oh, that's right.
0:25:45 > 0:25:49"..certain parts of the evidence, which sincerely hope you will give
0:25:49 > 0:25:51"your fullest consideration.
0:25:51 > 0:25:54"My mother is distraught with grief.
0:25:54 > 0:25:57"Michael, having always been to her a splendid son."
0:26:00 > 0:26:03I can't understand how your mother...
0:26:04 > 0:26:08- I mean, I understand...- How she, you know, had this all on her mind,
0:26:08 > 0:26:10and didn't tell anybody about it.
0:26:10 > 0:26:13I can understand not telling just friends or acquaintances,
0:26:13 > 0:26:16but sort of close family, I think that's
0:26:16 > 0:26:20a bit strange, not to have shared any of that at all.
0:26:22 > 0:26:25After Michael Davies' appeal was turned down,
0:26:25 > 0:26:29he wrote to his brother, David, from the condemned cell.
0:26:29 > 0:26:32"Dear Dave, just a few lines to let you know
0:26:32 > 0:26:34"I'm still keeping well and fit.
0:26:34 > 0:26:38"As you know by now, my appeal has been dismissed.
0:26:38 > 0:26:41"I was very shocked at the outcome.
0:26:41 > 0:26:44"I really expected to get the same as the rest of the boys got,
0:26:44 > 0:26:48"because I'm not guilty of this terrible charge they have brought against me.
0:26:48 > 0:26:52"This whole affair has been a great strain on Mum,
0:26:52 > 0:26:55"and I don't think that I will ever be able to make amends
0:26:55 > 0:26:59"for all the worry and heartache I have caused her."
0:26:59 > 0:27:03Still facing the rope, Michael wrote to the Home Secretary.
0:27:05 > 0:27:10"I, Michael John Davies, take leave to petition for a reprieve
0:27:10 > 0:27:12"on the following grounds,
0:27:12 > 0:27:15"that I am not guilty of the offence I am charged with.
0:27:15 > 0:27:20"That at no time did I come into physical contact with the dead boy.
0:27:20 > 0:27:23"I have never owned a knife of any sort,
0:27:23 > 0:27:27"and most certainly never used one to attack anybody with.
0:27:27 > 0:27:30"My home life is of a normal, average family,
0:27:30 > 0:27:33"with a perfectly happy environment.
0:27:33 > 0:27:38"I am a keen swimmer, follow professional boxing regularly,
0:27:38 > 0:27:40"also football.
0:27:40 > 0:27:43"I have very good references from my places of employment,
0:27:43 > 0:27:45"including the Merchant Navy.
0:27:45 > 0:27:48"Sir, I remain your obedient servant."
0:27:50 > 0:27:52- I'm thinking... - Again, he sounds desperate.
0:27:52 > 0:27:54Oh, of course, absolutely desperate.
0:27:57 > 0:28:00The Home Secretary did commute Michael Davies' death sentence
0:28:00 > 0:28:02to one of life imprisonment.
0:28:04 > 0:28:08But the impression of something strange at the heart of the case lingered.
0:28:08 > 0:28:10The fight went on.
0:28:11 > 0:28:15The noted campaigner, Lord Longford, had become involved,
0:28:15 > 0:28:19and in 1958, he and Joyce submitted a pile of new evidence
0:28:19 > 0:28:22in the hope of overturning the guilty verdict.
0:28:24 > 0:28:27Cold-case expert Cheryl Allsop has examined the paperwork
0:28:27 > 0:28:30thrown up by the case.
0:28:30 > 0:28:33I've got a few statements that the people originally involved in the
0:28:33 > 0:28:36fight have made. A couple of ones I want to draw your attention to.
0:28:36 > 0:28:39So, Coleman who, in the first investigation,
0:28:39 > 0:28:41gave two or three statements about Davies having a knife.
0:28:41 > 0:28:45He gives another statement to the police in 1956,
0:28:45 > 0:28:47where he says Davies had the knife.
0:28:47 > 0:28:50- This is three years after the conviction?- Yes.
0:28:50 > 0:28:55Then in 1958, he speaks to Lord Longford, and in that he says,
0:28:55 > 0:28:58"I am convinced Davies is innocent."
0:28:58 > 0:29:01He's saying what Lord Longford wants to hear, isn't he?
0:29:01 > 0:29:04Potentially, yeah. Potentially, could be.
0:29:04 > 0:29:09And then we come to further statements to the police by Wood.
0:29:09 > 0:29:12So, you recall, Wood was one of the people involved originally.
0:29:12 > 0:29:16And he is really quite explicit about, you know,
0:29:16 > 0:29:18the way he was questioned by the police.
0:29:18 > 0:29:21So he says, when he was first questioned,
0:29:21 > 0:29:23"One of you is going to hang for this."
0:29:23 > 0:29:25"We know one of you had a knife."
0:29:25 > 0:29:28Can I just ask you, did he name the officer who made those threats?
0:29:28 > 0:29:30He hasn't said. He hasn't said.
0:29:30 > 0:29:32He just said, when he was interviewed.
0:29:32 > 0:29:35And he makes it clear, he said,
0:29:35 > 0:29:37"I did not see Davies with a knife in his hand
0:29:37 > 0:29:40"during the fight or after the fight."
0:29:40 > 0:29:44What he clearly does in this statement, by mentioning
0:29:44 > 0:29:47that the police said to him pretty early on,
0:29:47 > 0:29:49one of you can hang for this...
0:29:49 > 0:29:52- Yes.- ..is he's reinforcing the suggestion
0:29:52 > 0:29:55that the pressure was being put on these guys
0:29:55 > 0:29:58to pin the murder on one of them,
0:29:58 > 0:30:00and the obvious candidate was Michael Davies,
0:30:00 > 0:30:03because he was the only one that had admitted being present.
0:30:03 > 0:30:05Don't you think that's a realistic scenario?
0:30:05 > 0:30:07I have to say,
0:30:07 > 0:30:12I'm concerned about the picture that was being generated publicly.
0:30:12 > 0:30:16Lord Longford, a very powerful, influential figure.
0:30:16 > 0:30:18A lot of publicity generated.
0:30:18 > 0:30:21People are coming forward to change their story for Lord Longford.
0:30:21 > 0:30:25- Again...- It is a classic situation of people wanting to be important,
0:30:25 > 0:30:27wanting to be in the public eye,
0:30:27 > 0:30:30- and one can't take that out of the equation.- Yes.
0:30:30 > 0:30:32In June 1958, Michael Davies was told
0:30:32 > 0:30:37that although there was no grounds for overturning his guilty verdict,
0:30:37 > 0:30:42he was to be released once he had completed seven years of his sentence.
0:30:44 > 0:30:48Michael Davies left Wandsworth Prison in October 1960.
0:30:50 > 0:30:52If Michael Davies was guilty of murder,
0:30:52 > 0:30:57which in the eyes of the law he still was, what possible reason
0:30:57 > 0:31:00could there be for releasing him after such a short time?
0:31:00 > 0:31:03It didn't smell right.
0:31:03 > 0:31:05And the smell has not improved since then.
0:31:07 > 0:31:09The source of it is a detective
0:31:09 > 0:31:12who was central to the case from day one.
0:31:15 > 0:31:21Detective Constable Kenneth Drury went on to become
0:31:21 > 0:31:22superintendent in the murder squad,
0:31:22 > 0:31:25and then commander of the Flying Squad.
0:31:25 > 0:31:30Now, Drury took a number of important statements
0:31:30 > 0:31:32affecting Michael Davies' case.
0:31:32 > 0:31:37In particular, the witness statement of Miss Frayling,
0:31:37 > 0:31:40the key identification witness.
0:31:40 > 0:31:44He also took statements from other members of Michael Davies' group,
0:31:44 > 0:31:47gang, whatever you like to call them.
0:31:47 > 0:31:51As you know, on the 7th of July, 1977,
0:31:51 > 0:31:56Drury was convicted of five counts of corruption
0:31:56 > 0:31:58and imprisoned for eight years.
0:31:58 > 0:32:02And crucially, what emerged was a statement from one officer
0:32:02 > 0:32:07who worked with Drury as a, quote, "close friend and colleague",
0:32:07 > 0:32:11and said that Drury often received payoffs from criminals,
0:32:11 > 0:32:15and also that he was, quote, "a past master of the arts,
0:32:15 > 0:32:19"falsifying or manipulating alibi statements,
0:32:19 > 0:32:23"and the manipulation of identification procedures,
0:32:23 > 0:32:27"as well as the repeated harassment of witnesses
0:32:27 > 0:32:30"until he got what he wanted from them".
0:32:30 > 0:32:32Sasha, it's my view that
0:32:32 > 0:32:37what we have uncovered in relation to Drury,
0:32:37 > 0:32:42it founds the basis for an argument that Michael Davies'
0:32:42 > 0:32:47conviction should be looked at again.
0:32:47 > 0:32:52Well, Jeremy, I agree, this is absolutely explosive,
0:32:52 > 0:32:55because although he wasn't the senior investigating officer
0:32:55 > 0:32:59in the Davies case, he clearly had a close involvement
0:32:59 > 0:33:02with several pivotal witnesses.
0:33:02 > 0:33:05The issue is, we are talking about an officer
0:33:05 > 0:33:09who was convicted in 1977
0:33:09 > 0:33:14of deeply, deeply unattractive misconduct.
0:33:14 > 0:33:19Now, whether he was up to his tricks in this case, we simply don't know.
0:33:19 > 0:33:22I am seriously troubled by this,
0:33:22 > 0:33:26and this puts a different complexion on the case.
0:33:28 > 0:33:33What Sasha and I have uncovered is the involvement,
0:33:33 > 0:33:37if not the central involvement, of a truly corrupt police officer.
0:33:38 > 0:33:42And there are indications that the very types of evidence that
0:33:42 > 0:33:46Michael Davies was convicted on, identification evidence,
0:33:46 > 0:33:51accomplice-type evidence, is exactly the kind of testimony
0:33:51 > 0:33:55Drury got himself busy with, and will certainly form the platform
0:33:55 > 0:33:59for my arguments that Michael Davies could well and truly have been
0:33:59 > 0:34:01a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
0:34:03 > 0:34:06There is nothing more damaging to the integrity
0:34:06 > 0:34:10of the criminal justice system than a corrupt police officer.
0:34:10 > 0:34:15And as far as I am concerned, this is a potential game changer.
0:34:16 > 0:34:20Sasha and Jeremy prepare to meet Judge David Radford
0:34:20 > 0:34:22with their new evidence.
0:34:23 > 0:34:25It's not a straightforward case,
0:34:25 > 0:34:28and I really don't know how the judge is going to see the situation,
0:34:28 > 0:34:32but I genuinely feel that there are significant representations to make
0:34:32 > 0:34:35that this was a miscarriage of justice.
0:34:36 > 0:34:39The barristers are joined by Anne and Sharon.
0:34:40 > 0:34:44I just want to get my uncle's name proved that he didn't do what he was
0:34:44 > 0:34:46supposed to have done, that he'll be innocent.
0:34:46 > 0:34:49So, I'm convinced it's going to go that way.
0:34:50 > 0:34:53- Hello, Sharon. Hello, Anne. - Hi, there.- Hi.- How are you?
0:34:53 > 0:34:56- I'm fine.- How are you feeling, Sharon?- Confident.
0:34:58 > 0:35:01- Yes. Very, hopefully. Yes.- Yep.
0:35:01 > 0:35:04It was very confusing before, but after witnessing everything,
0:35:04 > 0:35:07I'm confident that you've both been able to find something...
0:35:07 > 0:35:10Yeah, something new is what we need to convince the judge that the case
0:35:10 > 0:35:12should be looked at again.
0:35:12 > 0:35:15But it is his decision in the end, obviously.
0:35:15 > 0:35:18Anne and Sharon know that Judge David Radford
0:35:18 > 0:35:22will treat the new evidence just as he would a submission in court.
0:35:26 > 0:35:29Miss Wass and Mr Dean,
0:35:29 > 0:35:34as you know, I'm here this afternoon to consider, with your assistance,
0:35:34 > 0:35:37the case of Michael John Davies.
0:35:37 > 0:35:39So, Mr Dein, can I turn to you first?
0:35:39 > 0:35:44As your honour knows, Michael Davies was convicted of the murder
0:35:44 > 0:35:49of John Beckley on the 22nd of October 1953.
0:35:49 > 0:35:51In the course of this enquiry,
0:35:51 > 0:35:57I believe that important new evidence has emerged
0:35:57 > 0:36:02which casts doubt upon Mr Davies' conviction.
0:36:02 > 0:36:07Now, the new material, it concerns the involvement,
0:36:07 > 0:36:12history and character of one of the investigating officers,
0:36:12 > 0:36:14DC Kenneth Drury.
0:36:14 > 0:36:19He has now been shown to have been a thoroughly and almost unbelievably
0:36:19 > 0:36:22corrupt police officer,
0:36:22 > 0:36:27whose outrageous misconduct casts a shadow over the whole
0:36:27 > 0:36:30of the investigation against Michael Davies.
0:36:30 > 0:36:34And it's my submission that there is a clear inference
0:36:34 > 0:36:37that the police investigation was tainted as a result.
0:36:37 > 0:36:42No-one can therefore say with confidence that the investigation
0:36:42 > 0:36:47into Michael Davies' case was not corrupted by Drury,
0:36:47 > 0:36:51and that Your Honour should conclude that there could well have been
0:36:51 > 0:36:53a miscarriage of justice.
0:36:53 > 0:36:56Yes, thank you, Mr Dein, and Miss Wass.
0:36:56 > 0:36:58Jeremy has made his case,
0:36:58 > 0:37:00but will Sasha side with him?
0:37:02 > 0:37:07Now, the prosecution relied very heavily on the eyewitness evidence
0:37:07 > 0:37:11of the two women at the top of the 137 bus.
0:37:11 > 0:37:15Both said they saw a man with a knife...
0:37:16 > 0:37:22..and one of them identified Michael Davies as the man with the knife.
0:37:23 > 0:37:27As Mr Dein has said, it is now clear
0:37:27 > 0:37:32that the officer who had initial and direct contact
0:37:32 > 0:37:37with those two critical independent witnesses
0:37:37 > 0:37:42was Detective Constable Kenneth Drury, as he then was.
0:37:43 > 0:37:50What is known now about Kenneth Drury's conduct and his means
0:37:50 > 0:37:54of operating corruptly, undermine any confidence
0:37:54 > 0:38:00that the prosecution can have in the safety of this conviction.
0:38:00 > 0:38:05Well, I shall consider and reflect upon your submissions
0:38:05 > 0:38:08and in due course let you know what my conclusion is.
0:38:08 > 0:38:10Thank you very much.
0:38:11 > 0:38:13After you.
0:38:19 > 0:38:23Right, well, did you manage to follow all of that?
0:38:23 > 0:38:25- Yes.- Yes, absolutely. - What's your reaction to learning...?
0:38:25 > 0:38:28- Shocked.- Very. Yes.
0:38:28 > 0:38:31- Dreadful.- It is dreadful. It is dreadful.- Yes, absolutely.
0:38:31 > 0:38:34I think what the judge may be concerned about,
0:38:34 > 0:38:38and we don't know what he was thinking, is that we now know,
0:38:38 > 0:38:42because of what happened in the 1970s, how corrupt this officer was,
0:38:42 > 0:38:48but whether he is able to say that that would necessarily have affected
0:38:48 > 0:38:52the events of 1953, that's really the problem.
0:38:52 > 0:38:56Kenneth Drury's criminality is beyond doubt,
0:38:56 > 0:38:59but does it have any bearing on Michael Davies' conviction?
0:39:00 > 0:39:03The judge is ready to give his opinion.
0:39:07 > 0:39:11The sole basis upon which I'm invited to conclude
0:39:11 > 0:39:13that Mr Davies' conviction is unsafe
0:39:13 > 0:39:19is because one of the lower-ranked detectives who worked on the investigation,
0:39:19 > 0:39:22the then Detective Constable Kenneth Drury,
0:39:22 > 0:39:27was later convicted in 1977 of corruption,
0:39:27 > 0:39:30when a detective superintendent.
0:39:30 > 0:39:33Whilst I can understand the concerns
0:39:33 > 0:39:37that these revelations have occasioned,
0:39:37 > 0:39:43it is right to note that nothing has been uncovered as a consequence
0:39:43 > 0:39:48that reveals any actual evidence of corruption or misconduct.
0:39:48 > 0:39:53True it is that Detective Constable Drury took down some,
0:39:53 > 0:39:56but by no means all, of the witness statements.
0:39:56 > 0:40:01Those witnesses went on to make sworn statements
0:40:01 > 0:40:05before the magistrates, and then gave detailed evidence on oath
0:40:05 > 0:40:09in the original trial and then again in the retrial.
0:40:09 > 0:40:13The convicting jury were aware of those facts,
0:40:13 > 0:40:17and were therefore well placed to judge the reliability
0:40:17 > 0:40:20of the evidence those witnesses gave.
0:40:21 > 0:40:26Merely because Mr Drury behaved corruptly and mendaciously
0:40:26 > 0:40:31many years later in relation to wholly unrelated cases
0:40:31 > 0:40:35cannot without more, in my view, sensibly lead
0:40:35 > 0:40:38to a conclusion that he was the cause of untrue evidence.
0:40:38 > 0:40:43The conclusion I have reached is there is no fresh basis
0:40:43 > 0:40:46which enables me to conclude
0:40:46 > 0:40:50that there was an unsafe verdict in this case.
0:40:50 > 0:40:52I shall rise.
0:41:01 > 0:41:04- Are you very disappointed? - Yes.- Yes.
0:41:04 > 0:41:08One of the difficulties was trying to prove events backwards.
0:41:08 > 0:41:12- Yes.- What the judge has effectively said is, we don't have proof
0:41:12 > 0:41:14that he was corrupt.
0:41:14 > 0:41:19Well, there wasn't the sort of documentation in cases in those days
0:41:19 > 0:41:23of dealings that police officers had with witnesses
0:41:23 > 0:41:25- that we have nowadays.- Yes.
0:41:25 > 0:41:29So, although one can imagine what might have happened,
0:41:29 > 0:41:33and we've used our common sense and experience to imagine
0:41:33 > 0:41:38- what we think is a likely scenario, we can't prove it.- No.
0:41:38 > 0:41:43And that is very, very disappointing.
0:41:43 > 0:41:47- I can fully understand the judge's approach...- Yes, I can understand.
0:41:47 > 0:41:49..but I don't share his view.
0:41:49 > 0:41:51Thank you both for your understanding and your patience.
0:41:51 > 0:41:54Well, we know you've done your best, that's all we could have asked for.
0:41:54 > 0:41:57- Lovely to have met you both. - And you.- Thank you.
0:42:03 > 0:42:05Well, I know the judge obviously came to the decision,
0:42:05 > 0:42:07and I understand how,
0:42:07 > 0:42:11but at the same time, it is bitterly disappointing.
0:42:11 > 0:42:14I was obviously hoping for better news.
0:42:15 > 0:42:19It's so large an area. No wonder there were so many people here.
0:42:19 > 0:42:22It makes you feel you're part of it again.
0:42:22 > 0:42:25Sort of expecting him to turn up.
0:42:25 > 0:42:28Extremely disappointed but perhaps, you know,
0:42:28 > 0:42:31if there hadn't been this gap of so many years,
0:42:31 > 0:42:34it might have been totally different.
0:42:34 > 0:42:38I mean, when you think about it, this is the last place
0:42:38 > 0:42:41where he can remember when he had a really good time.
0:42:41 > 0:42:43- Yes, that's right.- Having fun.
0:42:43 > 0:42:46And then his life changed completely.
0:42:47 > 0:42:50I just think if the evidence had been against him,
0:42:50 > 0:42:52he would have got the death sentence.
0:42:52 > 0:42:56There would have been no question of life or seven years.
0:42:56 > 0:42:59So, with that in my mind, I haven't changed my view.
0:42:59 > 0:43:02I still insist to me that he was innocent.
0:43:04 > 0:43:08It just puts a different light on, I don't know, on lots of things,
0:43:08 > 0:43:11- doesn't it?- Yes. We've done what we thought was the best thing.- Exactly.