0:00:02 > 0:00:05This programme contains some scenes which some viewers may find upsetting.
0:00:05 > 0:00:07In 1982, a man called Andrea McCallum
0:00:07 > 0:00:09took his own life in a room that looked like this.
0:00:10 > 0:00:15He was 37 years old and had battled with depression since the loss
0:00:15 > 0:00:17of his mother in 1955.
0:00:25 > 0:00:28Ruth Ellis was the last woman hanged in Britain,
0:00:28 > 0:00:31after shooting dead her lover, David Blakely.
0:00:31 > 0:00:33GUNSHOTS
0:00:33 > 0:00:36Her case is one of the most controversial in British history.
0:00:38 > 0:00:42The shockwaves created by her execution helped change the law.
0:00:44 > 0:00:48After Ruth, murder would never be tried the same way again.
0:01:05 > 0:01:09My name is Gillian Pachter. As a documentary film-maker,
0:01:09 > 0:01:12I've told stories about killers in America,
0:01:12 > 0:01:15where gun violence and state executions
0:01:15 > 0:01:16are part of the landscape...
0:01:19 > 0:01:22..so I'm fascinated by Ruth and her legacy.
0:01:23 > 0:01:26I've spent a year reinvestigating her crime,
0:01:26 > 0:01:31looking not only at the law, but at the complex post-war society
0:01:31 > 0:01:33that made and destroyed Ruth Ellis.
0:01:36 > 0:01:39I've already uncovered flaws in the police investigation.
0:01:39 > 0:01:44Three or fewer pages to confess to a murder is certainly,
0:01:44 > 0:01:47in this day and age, would be unheard of.
0:01:47 > 0:01:50They didn't fully investigate Ruth's motive,
0:01:50 > 0:01:52or where she got the murder weapon.
0:01:52 > 0:01:55And they never interviewed her son, Andrea,
0:01:55 > 0:01:58who could have provided key information.
0:01:58 > 0:02:01It just appears there was no direction at all.
0:02:01 > 0:02:05Just an acceptance of what was put in front of them on the desk.
0:02:05 > 0:02:08"Well, that's it then."
0:02:08 > 0:02:12Now, with the help of legal experts, I'm going to examine the trial.
0:02:12 > 0:02:15I want to find out whether corruption or negligence
0:02:15 > 0:02:17played a part in the outcome.
0:02:17 > 0:02:21The flaw in this case was there was a lot of information,
0:02:21 > 0:02:23which wasn't put before the jury.
0:02:23 > 0:02:26And whether Ruth was even fit to stand trial.
0:02:26 > 0:02:29This was not a woman committing a cold-blooded murder.
0:02:29 > 0:02:34This was a woman who'd just had a baby punched out of her stomach.
0:02:34 > 0:02:36Was the verdict an inevitable
0:02:36 > 0:02:39consequence of her murderous actions?
0:02:39 > 0:02:40The jury actually have no choice.
0:02:41 > 0:02:44Or did Lady Justice get it wrong?
0:02:50 > 0:02:53'Here, the most famous judges of modern times have sat,
0:02:53 > 0:02:54'and the greatest human dramas
0:02:54 > 0:02:56'of the half-century have reached their climax.
0:02:56 > 0:02:59'The guilty and innocent alike have stood in this place,
0:02:59 > 0:03:02'knowing that their fate has rested not in counsel's hands,
0:03:02 > 0:03:04'but in the precept. let justice be done.'
0:03:05 > 0:03:08On the 20th of June 1955,
0:03:08 > 0:03:13the trial of Ruth Ellis opened in Courtroom One at the Old Bailey.
0:03:13 > 0:03:16By mid-morning the next day, it had already finished.
0:03:18 > 0:03:22I want to take a forensic look at what happened during the brief trial
0:03:22 > 0:03:25and find out how Ruth's fate was sealed so quickly.
0:03:27 > 0:03:31The man tasked with proving beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty
0:03:31 > 0:03:33was barrister Christmas Humphreys.
0:03:35 > 0:03:37His office was at the Inner Temple,
0:03:37 > 0:03:40part of the centuries-old legal village,
0:03:40 > 0:03:42where many of England's barristers worked.
0:03:43 > 0:03:46In 1981, Ruth Ellis's son, Andrea,
0:03:46 > 0:03:49tracked him down and recorded their conversation.
0:04:24 > 0:04:27The bare facts of Ruth's crime made the case seem simple.
0:04:28 > 0:04:33On the 10th of April, 1955, Ruth Ellis approached her lover,
0:04:33 > 0:04:36David Blakely, outside a pub in Hampstead,
0:04:36 > 0:04:40North London, and fired six bullets at him.
0:04:41 > 0:04:44As these shocking pictures show, four hit their target.
0:04:48 > 0:04:49When the police arrived,
0:04:49 > 0:04:53she told them she was guilty and handed over the murder weapon,
0:04:53 > 0:04:54a .38 Smith & Wesson.
0:04:56 > 0:04:58After a brief police investigation,
0:04:58 > 0:05:02she was charged at Magistrates Court and sent to Holloway Prison.
0:05:04 > 0:05:08Eight weeks later, she would face Christmas Humphreys and the might
0:05:08 > 0:05:10of the English justice system.
0:05:11 > 0:05:13So, who was fighting Ruth's corner at the trial?
0:05:15 > 0:05:19Although only qualified barristers could represent clients
0:05:19 > 0:05:21at Crown Court in the 1950s,
0:05:21 > 0:05:25behind the scenes, the case is primarily prepared by a solicitor.
0:05:31 > 0:05:34Ruth's was someone called John Bickford.
0:05:35 > 0:05:39I can't discover much about his career online and have managed
0:05:39 > 0:05:41to find just one photo.
0:05:44 > 0:05:48So I go to see Michael Mansfield QC.
0:05:48 > 0:05:53He represented Ruth's family when they launched an appeal in 2003.
0:05:55 > 0:06:01The question is, how did this man, John Bickford, a solicitor,
0:06:01 > 0:06:04how did he become involved with Ruth Ellis?
0:06:05 > 0:06:08Because, apparently, he didn't know her before.
0:06:08 > 0:06:11And apparently she didn't ask for him.
0:06:11 > 0:06:16Bickford wasn't appointed by the court, or sent by Ruth's family.
0:06:16 > 0:06:19He just appears one day, out of nowhere.
0:06:21 > 0:06:27He says he rolls up at Holloway Prison, unknown to Ruth Ellis,
0:06:27 > 0:06:30because Ruth Ellis's housekeeper,
0:06:30 > 0:06:35at Egerton Gardens asks him to visit Ruth Ellis.
0:06:35 > 0:06:38Getting into a prison, even then, is extremely difficult.
0:06:38 > 0:06:41You can't roll up at the front door and just knock, and say,
0:06:41 > 0:06:46can I come and see? Normally you would have to have been instructed,
0:06:46 > 0:06:48and they would get confirmation of that from Ruth Ellis,
0:06:48 > 0:06:52and then he might be allowed in. Not, has the housekeeper sent you?
0:06:52 > 0:06:54No. It doesn't work like that.
0:06:54 > 0:06:57So I don't actually believe that for a moment.
0:06:57 > 0:07:00One has to say, well, who's paying him to go?
0:07:01 > 0:07:03I wasn't expecting this -
0:07:03 > 0:07:07for the appointment of Ruth's solicitor to be complex and shadowy.
0:07:09 > 0:07:12Were Ruth and her housekeeper very good friends?
0:07:12 > 0:07:16Close enough for her to make legal arrangements on Ruth's behalf?
0:07:17 > 0:07:20Not according to her statement to the police.
0:07:20 > 0:07:23She thought that Ruth was married to David and says,
0:07:23 > 0:07:26"I didn't know much about their private lives."
0:07:30 > 0:07:33I want to find a solicitor who can clarify how Bickford
0:07:33 > 0:07:38came to represent Ruth. I make contact with Mark Stephens CBE.
0:07:41 > 0:07:46His modern office reminds me of America,
0:07:46 > 0:07:50where we don't have ancient legal villages and the lawyer
0:07:50 > 0:07:53who prepares the case argues it in court.
0:07:56 > 0:07:58What have you found out about Bickford?
0:07:58 > 0:08:00He's got quite a shadowy career?
0:08:00 > 0:08:02Yeah, Bickford is a bit of a sketchy figure.
0:08:02 > 0:08:05I mean, he wasn't a high profile lawyer.
0:08:05 > 0:08:09He seems to have done a fair bit of work for The Mirror,
0:08:09 > 0:08:11but it was very much behind-the-scenes.
0:08:12 > 0:08:16That interesting, because the now-defunct Women's Sunday Mirror
0:08:16 > 0:08:19was the paper that bought and published Ruth's story,
0:08:19 > 0:08:21entitled My Love And Hate.
0:08:23 > 0:08:29The story ran in four instalments, from the 26th of June 1955,
0:08:29 > 0:08:32five days after the trial.
0:08:32 > 0:08:36It is a story with a lesson for every young girl from a respectable
0:08:36 > 0:08:40home who is attracted to the champagne and chandeliers
0:08:40 > 0:08:41of London after dark.
0:08:41 > 0:08:43Jenny Jones was a thoroughly bad girl.
0:08:43 > 0:08:45That's a lie!
0:08:45 > 0:08:48Ruth is painted as a feckless girl about town.
0:08:48 > 0:08:52It doesn't reveal the truth about her background,
0:08:52 > 0:08:54that she had a sexually abusive father,
0:08:54 > 0:08:56who drove the family into poverty.
0:08:58 > 0:09:02The article portrays the drinking clubs of post-war London
0:09:02 > 0:09:05as a viceland, where classes freely mixed.
0:09:05 > 0:09:08Ruth, as a sexually active working-class single mother,
0:09:08 > 0:09:11was a perfect example of what not to be.
0:09:13 > 0:09:17If Ruth's solicitor, John Bickford, had worked for the paper in the
0:09:17 > 0:09:20past, was there still a connection between the man who was supposed to
0:09:20 > 0:09:24defend her and a publication with a vested interest in her story?
0:09:27 > 0:09:29I asked Duncan Campbell,
0:09:29 > 0:09:32who has worked as a crime journalist for many years and has written about
0:09:32 > 0:09:36crime reporters in the 1950s.
0:09:36 > 0:09:39Traditionally, if you go to some of the pubs around the Old Bailey,
0:09:39 > 0:09:44you would often see, after a big case, barristers, crime reporters,
0:09:44 > 0:09:46detectives, sometimes witnesses,
0:09:46 > 0:09:48sometimes criminals who had been acquitted,
0:09:48 > 0:09:53all drinking together and having a kind of joke about things.
0:09:53 > 0:10:01So, the links between the legal profession and crime reporters
0:10:01 > 0:10:05and criminals, are not so stretched, really.
0:10:05 > 0:10:08It's perfectly possible for lawyers
0:10:08 > 0:10:14to have social relations with both crime reporters and criminals.
0:10:15 > 0:10:21In those days, newspapers would sometimes pay for the legal team,
0:10:21 > 0:10:24the defence team, of somebody accused of a murder.
0:10:26 > 0:10:30Did the Sunday Mirror put Bickford on Ruth's case?
0:10:31 > 0:10:33If the Women's Sunday Mirror did it, of course,
0:10:33 > 0:10:36there is a question about his loyalties.
0:10:38 > 0:10:40And that is a problem, too.
0:10:40 > 0:10:45You know, where you effectively have two masters or mistresses,
0:10:45 > 0:10:50you've got the newspaper and their interest in getting the story, and,
0:10:50 > 0:10:53effectively, value for money, if they're going to pay for Bickford.
0:10:55 > 0:10:59Perhaps Bickford said the housekeeper recommended him because
0:10:59 > 0:11:02he didn't want to acknowledge a link to the Sunday Mirror.
0:11:05 > 0:11:08There is no proof that he was hired by them.
0:11:08 > 0:11:12But I am concerned by any association between Ruth's legal
0:11:12 > 0:11:13team and a tabloid paper.
0:11:16 > 0:11:19I want to speak to someone who really knew Bickford,
0:11:19 > 0:11:22so I trace him on a genealogy website
0:11:22 > 0:11:24and discover that he has a nephew,
0:11:24 > 0:11:27David Bickford, who is a retired lawyer.
0:11:31 > 0:11:33Do you know how he came to be her lawyer?
0:11:33 > 0:11:40Yes, his career had been followed by a Mirror crime journalist,
0:11:42 > 0:11:44as a criminal lawyer in London.
0:11:45 > 0:11:52And the journalist had recommended Ruth Ellis to him.
0:11:54 > 0:11:56Was that Dougie Howell?
0:11:56 > 0:11:58I think it was Dougie Howell, yes.
0:11:58 > 0:12:00Dougie Howell was the journalist
0:12:00 > 0:12:02who wrote Ruth's story for the Sunday Mirror.
0:12:02 > 0:12:07So, had he worked with Dougie Howell before?
0:12:09 > 0:12:12As I understand it, Dougie Howell used to report his...
0:12:13 > 0:12:15..cases, yes.
0:12:16 > 0:12:19Was Dougie Howell paying for the defence?
0:12:20 > 0:12:21I've no idea.
0:12:23 > 0:12:26Because I wonder how Ruth afforded your uncle.
0:12:26 > 0:12:28I have no idea.
0:12:28 > 0:12:30I knew him, a very astute lawyer.
0:12:31 > 0:12:36Very clever lawyer. And a very sympathetic lawyer.
0:12:36 > 0:12:41I think that was really moulded by his upbringing,
0:12:41 > 0:12:48and by his involvement in the war crimes trials after the war.
0:12:49 > 0:12:52I still don't know who was paying him,
0:12:52 > 0:12:55but clearly Bickford did have some experience in criminal law,
0:12:55 > 0:12:57and in complex cases.
0:13:01 > 0:13:05I want to know what kind of defence he prepared for Ruth,
0:13:05 > 0:13:08and whether he filled the gaps left by the police investigation.
0:13:10 > 0:13:12On the 14th of April,
0:13:12 > 0:13:15his firm requests copies of both Ruth Ellis and Desmond Cussen's
0:13:15 > 0:13:19statements from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
0:13:21 > 0:13:25This indicates he's interested in Cussen, Ruth's other lover.
0:13:26 > 0:13:28The police overlooked his possible involvement,
0:13:28 > 0:13:33but my own investigation suggests that he provided the murder weapon
0:13:33 > 0:13:35and drove Ruth to the scene of the crime.
0:13:36 > 0:13:39Bickford may have had suspicions,
0:13:39 > 0:13:43but his request to view Cussen's statement is rejected.
0:13:43 > 0:13:47As Mr Desmond Cussen will be called as a witness for the prosecution,
0:13:47 > 0:13:52I regret that I am unable to furnish you with a copy of his statement.
0:13:52 > 0:13:55Why would the prosecution want Cussen as a witness?
0:13:56 > 0:13:58He is a close confidant of Ruth's,
0:13:58 > 0:14:02and saw first-hand the injuries David inflicted on her.
0:14:03 > 0:14:05And in his statement to the police,
0:14:05 > 0:14:09he claims to know nothing about the murder itself.
0:14:09 > 0:14:12Why is the prosecution calling Cussen as a witness?
0:14:12 > 0:14:15It beggars belief. He hasn't got anything on the
0:14:15 > 0:14:19prosecution case, which is that, you know,
0:14:19 > 0:14:24Ruth Ellis went and pulled the trigger and shot a man dead
0:14:24 > 0:14:27and intended to kill him.
0:14:28 > 0:14:33His evidence is supremely irrelevant to that very narrow interpretation
0:14:33 > 0:14:34of the case.
0:14:34 > 0:14:38Bickford's firm promises not to approach Cussen without
0:14:38 > 0:14:42permission. It feels like they've missed a valuable opportunity to
0:14:42 > 0:14:44establish whether Cussen was involved.
0:14:44 > 0:14:47- Where were you yesterday afternoon, Mr Warner?- Well, let's see.
0:14:47 > 0:14:49In my job, I get around a bit, you know.
0:14:51 > 0:14:55I move on to the heart of Bickford's brief, which is the proof
0:14:55 > 0:14:58of Ruth Ellis, what Ruth could say in court.
0:15:06 > 0:15:09What I find, finally, is a detailed account of the violence
0:15:09 > 0:15:14which was so notably absent from the police investigation.
0:15:15 > 0:15:18She says, "I felt there was no alternative.
0:15:18 > 0:15:21"On two locations David had nearly strangled me.
0:15:21 > 0:15:23"He had his hands around my throat,
0:15:23 > 0:15:27"and squeezed even to the point of everything beginning to go black.
0:15:27 > 0:15:30"I really thought he was going to kill me.
0:15:30 > 0:15:34"I remember one of those occasions, while he was squeezing my throat,
0:15:34 > 0:15:37"he was saying, 'Oh, Lord, don't let me do it.'"
0:15:38 > 0:15:41She talks about humiliation and rejection,
0:15:41 > 0:15:45her abortions and the miscarriage Ruth suffered after David punched
0:15:45 > 0:15:51her in the stomach. It seems Bickford has made a compelling case that Ruth had been in fear of
0:15:51 > 0:15:56her own life, a far cry from the Met Police conclusion that the murder
0:15:56 > 0:15:58was coldly premeditated.
0:16:01 > 0:16:05I wonder how Bickford escaped the prejudice that the police
0:16:05 > 0:16:08investigation and the Sunday Mirror showed towards Ruth.
0:16:09 > 0:16:11His father was a First World War hero,
0:16:13 > 0:16:16and abandoned his family after the war.
0:16:16 > 0:16:19So, he understood hardship.
0:16:20 > 0:16:22John had done a lot of murder trials,
0:16:22 > 0:16:26particularly in the war crimes trials,
0:16:26 > 0:16:29where a lot of the persons being prosecuted
0:16:30 > 0:16:32had been abused themselves.
0:16:32 > 0:16:35They had committed some atrocities,
0:16:35 > 0:16:38perhaps because of the earlier abuse they themselves have suffered.
0:16:38 > 0:16:43And he understood where abuse could lead.
0:16:43 > 0:16:48So, when he came to Ruth Ellis, all those attributes were really...
0:16:48 > 0:16:52They'd all come together. He understood her.
0:16:52 > 0:16:54He knew what sort of life she'd lived.
0:16:54 > 0:16:59So, he was probably the best sort of defence lawyer she could have hard.
0:17:01 > 0:17:05In England in 1955, there was no defence of diminished
0:17:05 > 0:17:09responsibility, which would not come into law until 1957.
0:17:09 > 0:17:14I wonder what kind of defence Bickford was preparing for Ruth.
0:17:14 > 0:17:19If he could present Ruth Ellis to the jury as a woman who had been
0:17:19 > 0:17:23abused pretty much throughout her life, her father,
0:17:23 > 0:17:27her first husband, Blakely in particular...
0:17:29 > 0:17:35..and leave it to the jury to see
0:17:35 > 0:17:38this woman for what she was,
0:17:38 > 0:17:43he felt that he could secure from them a recommendation to mercy.
0:17:43 > 0:17:47If Ruth got a recommendation of mercy, it might spare her life.
0:17:48 > 0:17:51Now I want to see how this played out at the trial.
0:17:52 > 0:17:56I head to the National Archives in Kew, London,
0:17:56 > 0:17:58where the court transcript is held.
0:18:01 > 0:18:06The trial starts on Monday the 20th of June, 1955.
0:18:06 > 0:18:10The jury retires the following day, at 11.52am,
0:18:10 > 0:18:15and then comes back 14 minutes later to deliver a verdict of murder.
0:18:15 > 0:18:17Are you agreed upon your verdict?
0:18:17 > 0:18:18We are, sir.
0:18:18 > 0:18:20What is your verdict?
0:18:20 > 0:18:22Guilty, sir.
0:18:22 > 0:18:2414 minutes, that's it?
0:18:24 > 0:18:26And no recommendation of mercy.
0:18:29 > 0:18:32Where did it all go off course for Ruth and her defence?
0:18:32 > 0:18:35To find out, I want to see the courtroom
0:18:35 > 0:18:37where the trial took place.
0:18:40 > 0:18:43You can't just waltz in to the Old Bailey,
0:18:43 > 0:18:46but I get an invitation from Richard Whittam QC,
0:18:46 > 0:18:49who held the same post as Christmas Humphreys -
0:18:49 > 0:18:53First Senior Treasury Counsel, the Crown's most senior prosecutor.
0:18:54 > 0:18:56- Shall we go and look?- Yes, please.
0:18:59 > 0:19:03- Thank you.- Some of the fittings will have changed.
0:19:03 > 0:19:05If you come in.
0:19:08 > 0:19:11- Do you want to go into the dock? - Yes, please.- After you.
0:19:14 > 0:19:16I just want to stand where she stood.
0:19:16 > 0:19:19It would be, what, here? Just in the middle?
0:19:19 > 0:19:22- Yes.- God, what a feeling...
0:19:22 > 0:19:25She must have felt so extraordinarily alone.
0:19:25 > 0:19:29The dock is the same as it was in 1955,
0:19:29 > 0:19:31apart from the addition of safety glass.
0:19:33 > 0:19:36Straight across from Ruth sits the judge,
0:19:36 > 0:19:41Sir Cecil Robert Havers, who became a High Court judge in 1951.
0:19:42 > 0:19:46Justice Havers was a First World War veteran, and a Cambridge graduate.
0:19:48 > 0:19:50Below the bench are her legal counsel,
0:19:50 > 0:19:53the barristers hired to argue Ruth's case,
0:19:53 > 0:19:56based on the brief prepared by her solicitor, Bickford.
0:19:58 > 0:20:00They are led by Melford Stevenson.
0:20:00 > 0:20:03He had served at the war crimes trials in Hamburg.
0:20:05 > 0:20:08And then there is the prosecutor, Christmas Humphreys,
0:20:08 > 0:20:12a wealthy Cambridge graduate and the Crown's top barrister.
0:20:13 > 0:20:17The trial begins with the case for the Crown against Ruth Ellis.
0:20:17 > 0:20:19Opening statement, opening argument - what is the term?
0:20:19 > 0:20:23Probably just referred to as an opening. Opening speech, isn't it?
0:20:26 > 0:20:28In his opening,
0:20:28 > 0:20:33Christmas Humphreys referred to the statement that Ruth Ellis had made
0:20:33 > 0:20:38about how David had behaved and how she got the firearm,
0:20:38 > 0:20:41how she had shot him, and she surrendered the firearm to the
0:20:41 > 0:20:47police officers at the scene and invited him to arrest her.
0:20:47 > 0:20:49And Christmas Humphreys said,
0:20:49 > 0:20:52"The only comment I would make upon that statement,
0:20:52 > 0:20:55"apart from its obvious importance in this issue,
0:20:55 > 0:20:58"is that she never mentions Cussen from start to end."
0:20:58 > 0:21:03And I think I'm right that Christmas Humphreys' first witness that he
0:21:03 > 0:21:05called was Desmond Cussen.
0:21:06 > 0:21:09Why is Humphreys saying you'll notice that she never mentions
0:21:09 > 0:21:12- Cussen?- We just don't know.
0:21:12 > 0:21:14I don't know what he knew at the time.
0:21:18 > 0:21:22I find it strange that Humphreys is directing the jury to take notice
0:21:22 > 0:21:23of Cussen's absence.
0:21:28 > 0:21:31Then I look at Humphreys' file.
0:21:31 > 0:21:33At the end of Ruth's witness statement,
0:21:33 > 0:21:36he has scribbled "never mentions Cussen".
0:21:38 > 0:21:42It seems like the jury are being led to think that Cussen had no
0:21:42 > 0:21:44connection with the murder.
0:21:44 > 0:21:47But my findings suggest he provided the gun,
0:21:47 > 0:21:50and drove Ruth to the scene of the crime.
0:21:52 > 0:21:55Then Humphreys lays out the prosecution's case.
0:21:55 > 0:21:59He says that background is of little importance if the jury finds that
0:21:59 > 0:22:04this woman takes a loaded revolver and points it at an undefended man
0:22:04 > 0:22:06and shoots him dead.
0:22:08 > 0:22:13Yet, he does mention that Ruth was having simultaneous love affairs.
0:22:13 > 0:22:16He instructs the jury, "You are not here in the least
0:22:16 > 0:22:20"concerned with adultery or any sexual misconduct.
0:22:20 > 0:22:24"You are not trying this one for immorality, but for murder."
0:22:24 > 0:22:26Perhaps a well-meaning statement,
0:22:26 > 0:22:29but one which could colour the jury's perception of Ruth.
0:22:29 > 0:22:31Humphreys calls Cussen to the stand.
0:22:31 > 0:22:34Hold the book in the right hand and say after me...
0:22:34 > 0:22:37Just as he did during the police investigation,
0:22:37 > 0:22:41he provides no information about the day before the murder.
0:22:42 > 0:22:48On Easter Sunday, the day of the murder, he gives no detail until
0:22:48 > 0:22:507:30pm, when he says that he dropped Ruth and her son off
0:22:50 > 0:22:53at Egerton Gardens and didn't see them again.
0:22:54 > 0:22:56I can't see what, if any,
0:22:56 > 0:23:00vital information he has provided to the jury in terms of the events
0:23:00 > 0:23:02leading to the murder.
0:23:02 > 0:23:04It's as if he's just there to say...
0:23:04 > 0:23:05I didn't do it.
0:23:07 > 0:23:11Now it's Melford Stevenson's chance to cross-examine.
0:23:13 > 0:23:17Does the defence team suspect that Desmond hasn't been entirely honest
0:23:17 > 0:23:18about the murder?
0:23:19 > 0:23:23Stevenson doesn't challenge Desmond's account at all.
0:23:25 > 0:23:29Then, when asking about Ruth's relationship with David, Stevenson
0:23:29 > 0:23:32says, "I do not want to press you for details,
0:23:32 > 0:23:35"but how often have you seen that sort of mark on her?"
0:23:35 > 0:23:38Answer, it must be on half a dozen occasions.
0:23:40 > 0:23:43Why doesn't he want to press for details?
0:23:45 > 0:23:48Surely that's exactly what he should be doing in order to follow
0:23:48 > 0:23:52Bickford's plan and lead the jury to show Ruth mercy?
0:23:54 > 0:23:57In his brief, Bickford requested that the prosecution witnesses
0:23:57 > 0:24:02be cross-examined in a way that garners sympathy for Ruth.
0:24:02 > 0:24:05But Stevenson appears to be doing the bare minimum.
0:24:08 > 0:24:11I need to speak to someone who can help me understand this confusingly
0:24:11 > 0:24:13mild cross-examination.
0:24:14 > 0:24:17I approach Helena Kennedy QC,
0:24:17 > 0:24:21one of the UK's foremost defenders of battered women who kill.
0:24:21 > 0:24:25Helena wrote about Ruth in her book, Eve Was Framed.
0:24:25 > 0:24:28I had only one experience of Melford Stevenson in my professional life.
0:24:28 > 0:24:31It was when I was a very, very young lawyer,
0:24:31 > 0:24:33and I was acting for Myra Hindley,
0:24:33 > 0:24:35when Myra Hindley tried to escape from prison.
0:24:35 > 0:24:38And Melford Stevenson was the trial judge.
0:24:38 > 0:24:42He was, by that time, a legend in his lifetime.
0:24:42 > 0:24:47Very tough judge, pretty ferocious, very heavy sentencer.
0:24:47 > 0:24:50I remember in a rape case,
0:24:50 > 0:24:54his describing a rape as a rather anaemic affair.
0:24:56 > 0:24:59Meaning that, you know, the woman hadn't been beaten up and so on,
0:24:59 > 0:25:03and therefore it justifying a much lesser sentence.
0:25:03 > 0:25:06I'm not sure he was a man who understood women,
0:25:06 > 0:25:10and they think he probably had very limited experience of women.
0:25:10 > 0:25:14Perhaps Melford Stevenson was just a product of his time,
0:25:14 > 0:25:17when domestic violence was considered a private matter,
0:25:17 > 0:25:19and it was legal to rape your wife.
0:25:21 > 0:25:24Christmas Humphreys called 16 witnesses,
0:25:24 > 0:25:27but Stevenson only cross-examines two of them.
0:25:28 > 0:25:32The other one is Anthony Findlater, David's close friend,
0:25:32 > 0:25:36whom Ruth felt humiliated her and treated her with cruelty.
0:25:37 > 0:25:40But Stevenson never pursued this.
0:25:40 > 0:25:43By late morning, the prosecution rests its case.
0:25:44 > 0:25:49So far, Stevenson has failed to set the sympathetic tone that Bickford
0:25:49 > 0:25:54had hoped for, as he discussed in a 1977 interview.
0:25:57 > 0:25:59But I was completely stunned,
0:26:02 > 0:26:03because my leader,
0:26:06 > 0:26:09whom I met in the Hall of the Old Bailey,
0:26:09 > 0:26:13with the court all sitting waiting for him and the judge,
0:26:16 > 0:26:19came up to me and said,
0:26:19 > 0:26:22"I'm not cross-examining the witnesses to the prosecution."
0:26:24 > 0:26:28Perhaps Stevenson didn't feel bound to follow Bickford's brief
0:26:29 > 0:26:31because of the dynamic between solicitors and barristers
0:26:31 > 0:26:33at the time.
0:26:34 > 0:26:35When I started my career,
0:26:35 > 0:26:42you would go to see the eminent QC in their chambers, in the temple.
0:26:42 > 0:26:45You would be shown to their room.
0:26:45 > 0:26:50They would sit behind a massive desk, surrounded by law books,
0:26:50 > 0:26:54and you would listen to what they have to say,
0:26:54 > 0:26:58as if they were words from an oracle.
0:26:58 > 0:27:01You might have been permitted to ask some questions,
0:27:01 > 0:27:07but the solicitor would not have been permitted to have ventured an
0:27:07 > 0:27:14opinion. The client is some amorphous person who's in custody,
0:27:14 > 0:27:16but who Melford Stevenson never goes to see.
0:27:19 > 0:27:21At this point in the trial,
0:27:21 > 0:27:26it feels to me that Ruth's barrister has missed two big chances.
0:27:26 > 0:27:29One, to really bring out the violence that Ruth suffered,
0:27:30 > 0:27:32and two, to get to the bottom
0:27:32 > 0:27:35of whether Cussen was involved in the murder.
0:27:37 > 0:27:42But I don't know what Bickford or Stevenson even knew about Cussen.
0:27:42 > 0:27:46All I've gleaned so far is that once Bickford was told he was a witness
0:27:46 > 0:27:50for the prosecution, he appears not to have contacted him.
0:27:50 > 0:27:54So, I'm surprised to find this in the index of Bickford's brief,
0:27:54 > 0:27:57Mr Bickford's notes of interview with Cussen.
0:27:59 > 0:28:02So, Bickford had sought out and interviewed him,
0:28:02 > 0:28:05but the notes are not included in the brief.
0:28:05 > 0:28:08When did the notes go missing from the files?
0:28:08 > 0:28:11Did Melford Stevenson see them?
0:28:11 > 0:28:13And, most importantly, what did they say?
0:28:15 > 0:28:19I have better luck finding a record of Bickford's interview
0:28:19 > 0:28:23with a witness who was never called to give evidence at the trial,
0:28:23 > 0:28:25Ruth's French tutor, Mrs Harris.
0:28:26 > 0:28:29On the 16th of April, she had gone to the police.
0:28:31 > 0:28:33She described being shown guns
0:28:33 > 0:28:38in Desmond's flat by Ruth's ten-year-old son, Andrea.
0:28:38 > 0:28:40I chatted with the little boy
0:28:40 > 0:28:42and I mentioned we were troubled by pigeons.
0:28:42 > 0:28:45He said, "What you want is a gun."
0:28:46 > 0:28:48And with that, he opened a drawer
0:28:48 > 0:28:51under the table on which I was writing.
0:28:51 > 0:28:56In the drawer, I noticed, among other things, were two guns which,
0:28:56 > 0:28:58at first, I thought were just toys.
0:28:59 > 0:29:02He handled one, the larger one, then said, "It's all right,
0:29:02 > 0:29:04"it's not loaded."
0:29:06 > 0:29:09The notes from Bickford's own interview with Mrs Harris
0:29:09 > 0:29:11are somewhat different.
0:29:11 > 0:29:1420th of January, little boy let me in.
0:29:15 > 0:29:18That's it. Where are the guns?
0:29:18 > 0:29:22Surely this was the whole reason she contacted the police.
0:29:22 > 0:29:24Did she not mention them?
0:29:24 > 0:29:27Or did Bickford not take note?
0:29:27 > 0:29:31Now, as far as we can see from the notes that still exist of that
0:29:31 > 0:29:35interview, with Mrs Harris, the French teacher,
0:29:37 > 0:29:40there's no reference to guns at all.
0:29:40 > 0:29:42Question, why didn't Bickford,
0:29:42 > 0:29:47if he's got her statement to the police and they disclosed it,
0:29:47 > 0:29:49which they may have done by that time,
0:29:49 > 0:29:51why isn't he asking about the guns?
0:29:51 > 0:29:57So, one sees a cordon sanitaire is placed around Cussen.
0:29:58 > 0:30:00He doesn't reveal anything about Cussen.
0:30:01 > 0:30:05I'd been building up a picture in my mind that Bickford did everything
0:30:05 > 0:30:07possible to help Ruth's defence,
0:30:07 > 0:30:11arming Stevenson with all the information he needed.
0:30:11 > 0:30:13But perhaps that wasn't the case.
0:30:15 > 0:30:17Then I find this.
0:30:17 > 0:30:20It's a statement that John Bickford made to Scotland Yard
0:30:20 > 0:30:22on the 11th of June, 1972.
0:30:25 > 0:30:2917 years after Ruth was executed,
0:30:29 > 0:30:32Bickford writes that his conscience is bothering him.
0:30:34 > 0:30:37He says that he visited Desmond Cussen on the 13th of April,
0:30:37 > 0:30:39three days after the murder.
0:30:40 > 0:30:44That's the day before he sent the letter requesting Cussen's statement
0:30:44 > 0:30:47from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
0:30:49 > 0:30:52"He told me that he had supplied her with the revolver.
0:30:52 > 0:30:54"He said that he had cleaned and oiled it.
0:30:54 > 0:30:56"He wiped the bullets and loaded it.
0:30:58 > 0:31:01"I feel sure that he told me that it was on Easter Sunday morning,
0:31:01 > 0:31:04"at his flat, that he prepared and gave her the gun.
0:31:06 > 0:31:10"In the early afternoon, Mrs Ellis and Cussen, together with her young
0:31:10 > 0:31:13"son, Andrea, drove to Penn, Buckinghamshire,
0:31:13 > 0:31:14"in search of Blakely.
0:31:18 > 0:31:21"They did not find him, and started off on the return journey.
0:31:22 > 0:31:24"On the way back, they stopped by a wood.
0:31:29 > 0:31:31"And Ruth Ellis got out of the car and fired at a tree.
0:31:33 > 0:31:36"When going over one of the bridges over the Thames,
0:31:36 > 0:31:40"Cussen stopped the car and he threw the remaining spare bullets and the
0:31:40 > 0:31:44"cleaning materials which he had used into the Thames."
0:31:52 > 0:31:54This is a game changer.
0:31:54 > 0:31:58When I trace the gun, I discovered a likely link to Desmond.
0:31:58 > 0:32:00And from Andrea,
0:32:00 > 0:32:01I knew that he owned a taxi
0:32:01 > 0:32:04and may have taken her to the scene of the crime.
0:32:06 > 0:32:10But Cussen never admitted any of this to the police.
0:32:10 > 0:32:13And, if what Bickford recounts is true,
0:32:13 > 0:32:15Desmond had an even larger role
0:32:15 > 0:32:17in the day of the murder than I suspected.
0:32:17 > 0:32:21Because the notes are missing from the brief Bickford gave to
0:32:21 > 0:32:25Stevenson, I don't know at what point this confession was discarded.
0:32:25 > 0:32:28But the information certainly never made it to court.
0:32:30 > 0:32:32I want to corroborate this account,
0:32:32 > 0:32:34so I look for a member of Ruth's family.
0:32:34 > 0:32:37I'm invited to meet Marlene, Ruth's niece.
0:32:37 > 0:32:39She was five when her aunt was hanged.
0:32:39 > 0:32:42Hello, Gillian.
0:32:42 > 0:32:43Come on in.
0:32:44 > 0:32:48She agrees to tell me the family's version of events.
0:32:48 > 0:32:50Desmond Cussen was there.
0:32:51 > 0:32:53We know that from Andrea.
0:32:53 > 0:32:55We know, he told us.
0:32:55 > 0:32:59He didn't tell me personally, but I've heard from my brothers.
0:32:59 > 0:33:00They know.
0:33:02 > 0:33:07- What do you know?- They know that Andrea was there when Desmond
0:33:07 > 0:33:08was sorting out the guns.
0:33:10 > 0:33:14And showing Ruth how to use the gun. She'd never have known.
0:33:14 > 0:33:15So, what did Andrea say?
0:33:17 > 0:33:19That he was standing watching, as...
0:33:21 > 0:33:25..Ruth left with Desmond that night.
0:33:25 > 0:33:27They both had a gun each.
0:33:28 > 0:33:30And they went out of the house.
0:33:30 > 0:33:32Now, he saw all that.
0:33:33 > 0:33:36That young boy of ten saw that, and heard it.
0:33:39 > 0:33:41So, they each had a gun?
0:33:41 > 0:33:43Yes. That's what Andrea said.
0:33:43 > 0:33:47Yes. I just think it changed Andrea completely.
0:33:50 > 0:33:53From a fun loving boy to...
0:33:55 > 0:33:59..very depressed, very sad...
0:33:59 > 0:34:01..boy.
0:34:01 > 0:34:05I'm startled by this possibility that both Desmond and Ruth took guns
0:34:05 > 0:34:07to the scene of the murder.
0:34:08 > 0:34:12There is no mention of this in any police or ballistics report.
0:34:12 > 0:34:14As evidence, it is lost to history.
0:34:17 > 0:34:21It makes me so sad to think of Andrea having to go on this tragic detour
0:34:21 > 0:34:25with his mother, to witness her shooting the gun.
0:34:25 > 0:34:28He must have felt so confused,
0:34:28 > 0:34:31with no sense that this was a prelude to never seeing her again.
0:34:33 > 0:34:37I want to try to understand what state of mind you need to be in
0:34:37 > 0:34:39to pull the trigger of a .38 Smith & Wesson.
0:34:42 > 0:34:45I enlist the help of a licensed armourer to find out.
0:34:47 > 0:34:50I'm an American and I've never fired a gun.
0:34:50 > 0:34:52- OK, so you have six shots in the gun.- Yeah.
0:34:53 > 0:34:56- The tree is going to be your aiming mark.- OK.
0:34:58 > 0:35:00- Squeeze the trigger for each individual shot.- OK.
0:35:00 > 0:35:03If, for any reason, the gun stops or you wish to stop,
0:35:03 > 0:35:04take your finger off the trigger,
0:35:04 > 0:35:07keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, tell me,
0:35:07 > 0:35:09and I'll step in and make the gun safe.
0:35:09 > 0:35:11The gun is yours. You have six shots.
0:35:13 > 0:35:15In your own time, go on.
0:35:17 > 0:35:19GUNSHOT
0:35:25 > 0:35:27GUNSHOT
0:35:32 > 0:35:34GUNSHOT
0:35:34 > 0:35:35GUNSHOT
0:35:35 > 0:35:38GUNSHOTS
0:35:38 > 0:35:40CLICKS
0:35:40 > 0:35:45This tale of target practice, if true, says two things to me.
0:35:45 > 0:35:48One, that Cussen was far more involved in the crime than the jury
0:35:48 > 0:35:52every knew, and, two, Ruth's actions suddenly start
0:35:52 > 0:35:56to feel more premeditated than I'd previously thought.
0:35:58 > 0:36:02I have no idea if Stevenson ever heard this story.
0:36:05 > 0:36:07But I wonder whose idea it was
0:36:07 > 0:36:11to keep this account of Cussen's involvement out of the courtroom.
0:36:11 > 0:36:14Repeat the words on the card, please.
0:36:14 > 0:36:17I swear by Almighty God the evidence I give to the court shall be
0:36:17 > 0:36:20the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
0:36:20 > 0:36:23Was it Bickford's decision not to bring Cussen into it?
0:36:23 > 0:36:25Ruth didn't want to bring him into it.
0:36:25 > 0:36:28And John certainly didn't want to bring him into it, because
0:36:28 > 0:36:31he knew that any defence would be completely out of the window if
0:36:31 > 0:36:33that had come up into court.
0:36:33 > 0:36:35It shows cold-bloodedness.
0:36:37 > 0:36:40So, Bickford was acting in line with his client's wishes.
0:36:40 > 0:36:43But was he acting properly?
0:36:43 > 0:36:47Bickford sits on all this, because he thinks he's got
0:36:47 > 0:36:52an obligation of confidentiality to his client.
0:36:52 > 0:36:54Well, up to a point, he does.
0:36:54 > 0:36:57But he's gone well beyond that point.
0:36:57 > 0:37:00And I think the interesting thing here is,
0:37:01 > 0:37:04and it's a question that hasn't been raised to date,
0:37:04 > 0:37:11he allowed Ruth Ellis to go in the witness box and tell lies about
0:37:11 > 0:37:13where she'd got the gun.
0:37:14 > 0:37:20Now, as a lawyer, that is beyond, as it were, the line in the sand.
0:37:20 > 0:37:25You have an obligation to the court to only put forward witnesses who
0:37:25 > 0:37:27you believe are telling the truth.
0:37:27 > 0:37:30Otherwise you're misleading the court, because
0:37:30 > 0:37:37they had an obligation to ensure that the true account was told,
0:37:37 > 0:37:41so that proper decisions could be made about her future.
0:37:41 > 0:37:45Not only by the judge and jury, but also the Home Secretary.
0:37:46 > 0:37:50It's impossible to know what impact it might have had on the court
0:37:50 > 0:37:53if Cussen had been more closely cross-examined.
0:37:54 > 0:37:56But from what David tells me,
0:37:56 > 0:38:00Bickford believed he was acting in the best interests of his client
0:38:00 > 0:38:03by excluding information about Cussen's involvement.
0:38:05 > 0:38:08It is late morning on Monday the 20th of June,
0:38:08 > 0:38:13when Melford Stevenson makes his opening address and lays out
0:38:13 > 0:38:16- the case for the defence. - "Now, members of the jury.
0:38:16 > 0:38:20"I say this to you with all the sincerity that I can command.
0:38:20 > 0:38:23"You know there is not in this country, any question of any
0:38:23 > 0:38:27"unwritten law, as it is called in some other countries,
0:38:27 > 0:38:29"and it would be most improper for me to seek,
0:38:29 > 0:38:31"even if I could hope to do so,
0:38:31 > 0:38:35"to seduce you from the duty which you are here for,
0:38:35 > 0:38:36"and which you have sworn to perform.
0:38:36 > 0:38:40"But, members of the jury, when you have heard her in the witness box
0:38:40 > 0:38:44"on oath, I will have much more to say to you."
0:38:44 > 0:38:48He was going to argue that she was provoked.
0:38:50 > 0:38:51In the law, as it was,
0:38:52 > 0:38:55that would have been her only conceivable defence?
0:38:55 > 0:38:57And it has to be, had then to be,
0:38:57 > 0:39:00a sudden and temporary loss of control.
0:39:02 > 0:39:05This is the first I've learned that Ruth's defence team had prepared
0:39:05 > 0:39:07a defence of provocation.
0:39:07 > 0:39:09Bickford expected a verdict of murder,
0:39:09 > 0:39:12but hoped for a recommendation of mercy.
0:39:13 > 0:39:16But Melford Stevenson was aiming for a manslaughter verdict,
0:39:16 > 0:39:19with a partial defence of provocation.
0:39:19 > 0:39:22The outcome would have been a custodial sentence,
0:39:22 > 0:39:24rather than execution.
0:39:24 > 0:39:31Provocation, in those days, meant that there had to be some action
0:39:32 > 0:39:36by the murdered person, or the person who'd been killed,
0:39:36 > 0:39:41that provoked such an immediate response that excused the killing.
0:39:43 > 0:39:45That wasn't the case in Ruth Ellis,
0:39:45 > 0:39:48because the only thing that could possibly have
0:39:49 > 0:39:54excused the murder, and reduced the charge to manslaughter,
0:39:54 > 0:39:57was when Blakely
0:39:58 > 0:40:02punched her in the stomach and she had an abortion, or lost the child.
0:40:02 > 0:40:04At that time,
0:40:04 > 0:40:08there may have been a sufficient provocation to put forward that
0:40:08 > 0:40:12defence. But that had been at least a fortnight or more before the
0:40:12 > 0:40:16actual murder. After that, Blakely had done nothing
0:40:16 > 0:40:19that could be considered provocation.
0:40:22 > 0:40:24Given what I've learned from David,
0:40:24 > 0:40:27this seems like a bold defence strategy.
0:40:29 > 0:40:34I look into provocation and find out this whole area of law was created
0:40:34 > 0:40:37to regulate duelling men in the 16th century.
0:40:39 > 0:40:43If you killed someone during a duel in the heat of the moment,
0:40:43 > 0:40:46that wasn't murder, because your blood was hot.
0:40:46 > 0:40:50But if you went and got another weapon and came back and killed him,
0:40:50 > 0:40:53then it was murder in cold blood.
0:40:56 > 0:40:58This takes me back to Andrea's conversation
0:40:58 > 0:41:00with Christmas Humphreys.
0:41:25 > 0:41:28Ruth was more a type than a three-dimensional person
0:41:28 > 0:41:31when she stepped into the dock.
0:41:31 > 0:41:34One of the papers reported somebody shouting from the gallery,
0:41:34 > 0:41:36"Blonde tart!"
0:41:36 > 0:41:40I find a record of her special request to have her hair bleached
0:41:40 > 0:41:41before the trial.
0:41:42 > 0:41:45"Bleaching of her hair appears satisfactory,
0:41:45 > 0:41:49"prisoner says quite good but colour rinsing has made hair
0:41:49 > 0:41:52"a little too blue."
0:41:52 > 0:41:56So when Ruth showed up at court she was every bit the brassy blonde she
0:41:56 > 0:41:58had been before the murder,
0:41:58 > 0:42:02an image the public was all too familiar with.
0:42:02 > 0:42:05Her case had been reported in the vein of hard-boiled fiction.
0:42:05 > 0:42:07From the Daily Mail:
0:42:07 > 0:42:11"Six revolver shot shattered the Easter Sunday calm of Hampstead and
0:42:11 > 0:42:15"a beautiful platinum blonde stood with her back to the wall.
0:42:15 > 0:42:18"In her hand was a revolver."
0:42:18 > 0:42:21I find the press applications for tickets to the trial.
0:42:22 > 0:42:25There's Dougie Howell who had brought the story for the women's
0:42:25 > 0:42:29Sunday Mirror, and Duncan Webb who would shortly be writing an expose
0:42:29 > 0:42:32on Ruth's criminal boss Maurice Connolly.
0:42:32 > 0:42:37This is him describing the trial and in those days a murder trial like
0:42:37 > 0:42:42this was an enormous... A thing of enormous importance.
0:42:42 > 0:42:44People used to queue outside
0:42:44 > 0:42:49the Old Bailey so that they could get into the public gallery,
0:42:49 > 0:42:51it was like Wimbledon.
0:42:51 > 0:42:54These were kind of major events and they would be on the front page of
0:42:54 > 0:43:01every newspaper and over many pages in the evening papers in London.
0:43:03 > 0:43:06And this is Webb's description of it because he was covering it.
0:43:06 > 0:43:09"It had been some time since the Old Bailey had witnessed
0:43:09 > 0:43:11"such a fashionable murder trial.
0:43:11 > 0:43:16"By that I mean a trial in which so much public interest was aroused.
0:43:16 > 0:43:19"Public seats were filled with the smart set from Mayfair,
0:43:19 > 0:43:23"the sophisticates of Chelsea and Knightsbridge,
0:43:23 > 0:43:27"the vulgarly inquisitive from the highways and byways.
0:43:27 > 0:43:31"A woman was on trial, a woman who had shot her lover."
0:43:32 > 0:43:36Finally, after months of speculation, and countless column
0:43:36 > 0:43:39inches, Ruth takes the stand.
0:43:39 > 0:43:41This is her chance to demonstrate to the jury
0:43:41 > 0:43:44that she was provoked into murder.
0:43:45 > 0:43:47"At the time were you very much in love with him?"
0:43:48 > 0:43:53Ruth, who had described in such painful detail her intensive and
0:43:53 > 0:43:57volatile relationship with David to Bickford responds like this:
0:43:57 > 0:43:59"Not really."
0:43:59 > 0:44:02She describes an abortion that she had early on in her relationship
0:44:02 > 0:44:04with David this way:
0:44:04 > 0:44:08"It was quite unnecessary to marry me.
0:44:08 > 0:44:11"I thought I could get out of the mess quite easily."
0:44:11 > 0:44:12"What mess?"
0:44:12 > 0:44:16"I decided I could get out of the trouble I was in by myself."
0:44:18 > 0:44:19And then Justice Havers:
0:44:19 > 0:44:21"You mean the child?"
0:44:22 > 0:44:27Ruth is unemotional about the abortion, which isn't how she came
0:44:27 > 0:44:31across in the brief. Then Stevenson tries to bring out the
0:44:31 > 0:44:35physical abuse Ruth suffered. "How did the violence manifest itself?"
0:44:35 > 0:44:37Ruth seems to dismiss this.
0:44:37 > 0:44:41"He only used to hit me with his fists and hands.
0:44:41 > 0:44:43"But I bruise very easily."
0:44:43 > 0:44:47She's almost evasive when describing the moment David's violence sent her
0:44:47 > 0:44:51to hospital. "Did you sustain any particular injury, do you remember?"
0:44:51 > 0:44:54"Yes." "What was it?"
0:44:54 > 0:44:55"I had a sprained ankle."
0:44:55 > 0:44:58"And?" "And bruises on me."
0:44:58 > 0:44:59Justice Havers interjects.
0:44:59 > 0:45:02"What?" "And bruises on me."
0:45:02 > 0:45:03"A sprained ankle?"
0:45:03 > 0:45:05"And a black eye."
0:45:05 > 0:45:08"A black eye?" "Yes."
0:45:08 > 0:45:10"Lots of bruises?"
0:45:10 > 0:45:11"Yes."
0:45:11 > 0:45:15I can see Stevenson's really trying to get her to say more but it's like
0:45:15 > 0:45:19pulling teeth. Then they approach what I assume is the basis
0:45:19 > 0:45:21for the provocation argument.
0:45:21 > 0:45:24"And in March, did you find that you were pregnant?"
0:45:24 > 0:45:30"Yes." "At the end of March, did you do anything about that pregnancy?"
0:45:30 > 0:45:32"What happened about it?"
0:45:32 > 0:45:37"Well, we had a fight a few days previously, I forget the exact time,
0:45:37 > 0:45:40"and David got very, very violent.
0:45:40 > 0:45:43"I do not know whether that caused the miscarriage or not.
0:45:43 > 0:45:45"But he did thump me in the tummy."
0:45:45 > 0:45:49"And that was followed by a miscarriage?"
0:45:49 > 0:45:52"Yes." "So that was in the last days of March that happened?"
0:45:52 > 0:45:54"Yes."
0:45:56 > 0:46:00I'm confused by Ruth's lack of emotion.
0:46:00 > 0:46:02She is undermining her own defence.
0:46:10 > 0:46:12Is she like anyone you've represented?
0:46:12 > 0:46:15Lots of people I've represented.
0:46:15 > 0:46:20- How so?- I've done a large set of homicides involving abused women,
0:46:20 > 0:46:22women who've been abused in their relationships.
0:46:22 > 0:46:26Women accepted a lot of domestic violence back in those days.
0:46:26 > 0:46:31Because they were too ashamed to even admit it was happening to them.
0:46:31 > 0:46:35I think that when she entered into the witness box it was...
0:46:35 > 0:46:37She was playing out a part.
0:46:37 > 0:46:40Hold the book in your right hand and say after me.
0:46:40 > 0:46:44I suspect the jury were not drawn to her.
0:46:44 > 0:46:47She had cultivated a particular persona.
0:46:47 > 0:46:53I heard her voice on a tape and I was rather interested
0:46:53 > 0:46:58that she had such a middle-class voice, you know?
0:46:58 > 0:47:03I suspect that wasn't the voice that she was brought up with.
0:47:10 > 0:47:12So after this performance from Ruth,
0:47:12 > 0:47:15Christmas Humphreys asks just one question.
0:47:16 > 0:47:20"Mrs Ellis, when you fired that revolver at close range
0:47:20 > 0:47:24"into the body of David Blakely, what did you intend to do?"
0:47:24 > 0:47:29She said, "It was obvious when I shot him I intended to kill him."
0:47:29 > 0:47:33Is it that simple? That's all you need for murder?
0:47:34 > 0:47:37It was in the circumstances of this case.
0:47:37 > 0:47:42You intended to kill or cause really serious bodily harm and you did kill
0:47:42 > 0:47:44and cause really serious bodily harm, is murder.
0:47:46 > 0:47:50Justice Cecil Havers was now presiding over a court
0:47:50 > 0:47:53where the defendant had just admitted the crime
0:47:53 > 0:47:55she stood accused of, premeditated murder.
0:47:55 > 0:47:59His daughter agrees to meet me at the House of Lords.
0:47:59 > 0:48:01In his will, and I had no idea he was doing it,
0:48:01 > 0:48:04he left me the full bottom wig.
0:48:04 > 0:48:07Which I did wear throughout my career in the High Court,
0:48:07 > 0:48:09Court of Appeal and then as president.
0:48:09 > 0:48:14I very much disapprove of hair showing and some women judges don't
0:48:14 > 0:48:17mind and they let their hair sort of come out and you really shouldn't.
0:48:17 > 0:48:21Baroness Butler-Sloss came to the bar in 1955,
0:48:21 > 0:48:22the year of Ruth's trial,
0:48:22 > 0:48:26and was the first ever female judge in the Court of Appeal.
0:48:26 > 0:48:28I remember my father coming home and telling me,
0:48:28 > 0:48:31I was living at home at the time, I wasn't yet married,
0:48:31 > 0:48:35and he came home and said the case is over.
0:48:35 > 0:48:37This is what
0:48:37 > 0:48:39Christmas Humphreys asked
0:48:39 > 0:48:42and this is what she said. And he said, you know,
0:48:42 > 0:48:44"It's very sad, there's nothing I can do about it."
0:48:44 > 0:48:47But Stevenson had one final witness to call,
0:48:47 > 0:48:50a psychologist called Duncan Whittaker.
0:48:51 > 0:48:54I wonder if Whittaker is being put on the stand to testify to Ruth's
0:48:54 > 0:48:57fragile mental state.
0:48:57 > 0:49:00Whittaker says he interviewed Ruth for two hours.
0:49:00 > 0:49:03Perhaps that was normal when forensic psychology
0:49:03 > 0:49:07was in its infancy. Now it would be considered too short.
0:49:09 > 0:49:12Melford Stevenson asks him to compare the effect of sexual
0:49:12 > 0:49:16- jealousy on a man and a woman. - "Women are far more interested
0:49:16 > 0:49:18"in interpersonal relationships than men.
0:49:18 > 0:49:21"Women cannot so easily as men separate their sexual experiences
0:49:21 > 0:49:24"with men from their total personal relationships."
0:49:24 > 0:49:26You'll come back to me won't you, Frank?
0:49:26 > 0:49:30You can see that Mr Justice Havers is a bit... Um...
0:49:31 > 0:49:34..sceptical about psychiatry having a role here at all,
0:49:34 > 0:49:37or psychological medicine having anything to offer.
0:49:38 > 0:49:41Well, the truth is that I don't think he was a very helpful witness,
0:49:41 > 0:49:45I don't think that he came with a very clear idea of what it was...
0:49:45 > 0:49:47What his purpose was in being there.
0:49:47 > 0:49:51I take Doctor Whittaker's testimony to Dr Corinne Menn,
0:49:51 > 0:49:54a forensic psychiatrist who has testified in court
0:49:54 > 0:49:56and treated those who kill.
0:49:59 > 0:50:01One of the things
0:50:02 > 0:50:04that really struck me
0:50:05 > 0:50:07in Doctor Whitaker's report was
0:50:08 > 0:50:12there was one sentence which dealt with her personal history
0:50:12 > 0:50:14and her family history.
0:50:14 > 0:50:16One sentence.
0:50:16 > 0:50:18Just to say that there were no issues.
0:50:18 > 0:50:22What struck him was what he described as her equanimity.
0:50:22 > 0:50:27Now I would imagine that today
0:50:28 > 0:50:29we would probably describe that
0:50:29 > 0:50:33as her remaining in a dissociated state
0:50:33 > 0:50:38after the event, a false sense of calm.
0:50:38 > 0:50:39After the storm.
0:50:39 > 0:50:43And that's something that we quite often see in mentally
0:50:43 > 0:50:46disordered patients after the catastrophe, they can
0:50:46 > 0:50:51remain in a very calm state, which is misperceived as being cold
0:50:51 > 0:50:55and callous. I have seen this on innumerable occasions when I have
0:50:55 > 0:50:59gone to assess people in prison after a catastrophic event.
0:51:01 > 0:51:04Maybe Ruth wasn't the cold-blooded femme fatale
0:51:04 > 0:51:07that everyone thought she was.
0:51:07 > 0:51:10Perhaps she was a woman in a dissociated state.
0:51:12 > 0:51:16I wonder if Andrea provided any insight about Ruth's mental
0:51:16 > 0:51:19condition during his conversation with Christmas Humphreys.
0:52:09 > 0:52:12This goes way beyond Andrea's assertion that his mother
0:52:12 > 0:52:14wasn't cold-blooded.
0:52:15 > 0:52:18Was Ruth not even fit to stand trial?
0:52:18 > 0:52:19Why, I think you're crazy!
0:52:19 > 0:52:22That's it, you're crazy, the both of you, you're crazy!
0:52:22 > 0:52:25I ask Corinne if this was a possibility.
0:52:25 > 0:52:27As the law was then,
0:52:28 > 0:52:32it would have been impossible to prove insanity,
0:52:32 > 0:52:34she would have had to manifest
0:52:35 > 0:52:39total out of touch-ness with reality as opposed to partial,
0:52:39 > 0:52:41which is what I'm describing.
0:52:41 > 0:52:45But to come back to your previous question about whether she was fit
0:52:45 > 0:52:47to plead and stand trial,
0:52:48 > 0:52:51from the evidence that I have seen,
0:52:51 > 0:52:57by all accounts even today she would have been found fit to plead
0:52:57 > 0:53:01and stand trial. She can still be mentally disordered,
0:53:01 > 0:53:04but fit to plead and stand trial.
0:53:05 > 0:53:09So even by today's standards, Ruth would have stood trial.
0:53:10 > 0:53:13But she may have been suffering from mental illness, which was not
0:53:13 > 0:53:14understood at the time.
0:53:16 > 0:53:20In a modern court, she'd have the benefit of testimony from an expert,
0:53:20 > 0:53:23who could decode a detached and alienating manner for the jury.
0:53:30 > 0:53:35It's almost the end of day one of the trial, Monday 20th of June.
0:53:35 > 0:53:38Dr Whittaker has left the witness stand.
0:53:38 > 0:53:41It's time for Stevenson to make his closing argument to the jury,
0:53:41 > 0:53:45but before he can begin, Justice Havers stops him,
0:53:45 > 0:53:47asks the jury to step out,
0:53:47 > 0:53:51and tells Stevenson he can't use the defence of provocation.
0:53:51 > 0:53:54In 1955, the House of Lords,
0:53:54 > 0:53:59our Supreme Court, had made it clear they had to be an immediate act.
0:53:59 > 0:54:04For instance, the man coming in and seeing a lover in bed with his wife.
0:54:04 > 0:54:05Or the woman coming in
0:54:05 > 0:54:08and seeing her husband in bed with another woman.
0:54:08 > 0:54:13And if on that immediate thing, he or she kills the husband,
0:54:13 > 0:54:16or kills the woman,
0:54:16 > 0:54:21that would be capable of being provocation under the old law.
0:54:21 > 0:54:28Nowadays, the courts look at a much wider approach to the psychological
0:54:28 > 0:54:32effect upon the partner or the spouse
0:54:32 > 0:54:35of what is the behaviour of the other.
0:54:35 > 0:54:41But that was not open to my father to ask the jury to look at.
0:54:41 > 0:54:46And so he ruled that provocation was not open to the jury.
0:54:46 > 0:54:52In 2009, the defence of provocation was replaced by new defence called
0:54:52 > 0:54:55loss of control, which recognises sustained domestic
0:54:55 > 0:54:57and psychological abuse.
0:54:58 > 0:55:00But even today, that defence
0:55:00 > 0:55:03relies on a sudden temporary loss of control.
0:55:04 > 0:55:10On the morning of Tuesday the 21st of June, 1955, the trial resumes,
0:55:10 > 0:55:12Stevenson makes no closing argument.
0:55:13 > 0:55:16One can well see why he opened the case the way he did.
0:55:17 > 0:55:19But of course, after the ruling,
0:55:19 > 0:55:21he then said he couldn't address the jury.
0:55:22 > 0:55:26Now, he'd only had one limb to his argument,
0:55:26 > 0:55:30the judge had removed that, therefore there wasn't anything
0:55:30 > 0:55:32to say and he'd opened the case
0:55:32 > 0:55:35saying I'm not going to ask you to apply some unwritten law.
0:55:37 > 0:55:39So there was nothing left in his armoury.
0:55:39 > 0:55:43The jury go out for 14 minutes and return a verdict of guilty,
0:55:43 > 0:55:46with no recommendation of mercy.
0:55:46 > 0:55:50I don't know whether you know what happened on the actual moment
0:55:50 > 0:55:54of the sentence of death, have you heard about it?
0:55:54 > 0:55:56- No.- The judge puts...
0:55:56 > 0:55:59Of course was robed and he put on a black cap,
0:55:59 > 0:56:04a square of black on top of his head and then he pronounced the death
0:56:04 > 0:56:08sentence and I sat in court for half a dozen cases of that
0:56:09 > 0:56:13and the whole court falls absolutely silent.
0:56:13 > 0:56:18The sentence of the court upon you is that you be taken from this place
0:56:18 > 0:56:21to a lawful prison and thence to a place of execution
0:56:22 > 0:56:25and that you be there hanged by the neck...
0:56:25 > 0:56:28Until you're dead. And it's quite a...
0:56:30 > 0:56:34A very solemn and I found as a very young barrister
0:56:34 > 0:56:36a quite scary moment.
0:56:36 > 0:56:40And it was very shocking when my father put on the black cap,
0:56:40 > 0:56:41absolute hush in court.
0:56:45 > 0:56:49According to the law of the day, Ruth Ellis didn't have a defence.
0:56:49 > 0:56:53Provocation didn't run and there was no such thing as diminished
0:56:53 > 0:56:57responsibility. Stevenson, as a man of his time,
0:56:57 > 0:57:01failed to understand or draw up the depths of Ruth's hardship.
0:57:01 > 0:57:04And Ruth's demeanour in court made that almost impossible.
0:57:05 > 0:57:09But I am troubled that the court didn't hear the whole truth.
0:57:13 > 0:57:17In the next episode, I discover that Bickford's reasons for not revealing
0:57:17 > 0:57:21Cussen's role may be more complex than I thought.
0:57:21 > 0:57:24I think his motivation was something else because he must have known that
0:57:24 > 0:57:30client privilege does not extend to allowing the client to tell lies
0:57:30 > 0:57:32in the witness box. It doesn't cover that.
0:57:32 > 0:57:37And it seems to me therefore there is another motivating factor.
0:57:37 > 0:57:40I look at Cussen's personal connections.
0:57:40 > 0:57:44Now one thing we discovered since the last time we spoke to you,
0:57:44 > 0:57:47which we were really surprised to discover
0:57:47 > 0:57:49is have you ever heard of Edward Cussen?
0:57:49 > 0:57:53And at the last-minute legal battle to save Ruth Ellis's life...
0:57:53 > 0:57:58We know that Mischcon recognised that there was a problem with the
0:57:58 > 0:58:02conviction and the safety of the conviction of Ruth Ellis.
0:58:02 > 0:58:05And I examine the repercussions
0:58:05 > 0:58:08of Ruth's case, both personal and legal.
0:58:08 > 0:58:13I just think we've learnt a lot even in the last 50 years about the human
0:58:13 > 0:58:17condition and long may it be so because you can only deliver justice
0:58:17 > 0:58:21if we understand the human beings that we're dealing with.