Latest posts - Page 54 of 60

Mapping the Ratcliffe Highway Murders

This year is the 200th anniversary of the Ratcliffe Highway murders, when seven people were killed in a gratuitous frenzy in the space of 12 days. But while 19th century Londoners would have recoiled at the mention of John Williams and his crimes, they probably mean little to the city’s present day inhabitants.

Likewise the scenes of the murders are vastly different to how they were in December 1811. At that time, Ratcliffe Highway ran east from Tower Hill through Wapping and Shadwell to Limehouse. To the south were the docks where ships brought in tobacco, tea and sugar (and sailors), while to the north was the church of St George’s-in-the-east, Cable street and Whitechapel.

In those days the highway was lined either side with shops, pubs, tenements and narrow, dark alleyways. The expansion of the docks and the blitz did their part to reshape the road and now it is known simply as ‘The Highway’. The cramped dwellings have been replaced with trees, small industrial units, grassland, a building site, and a warehouse dating from 1882, now converted into flats. To the south lies the fortress of News International, former home of the now-defunct News of the World.

Ratcliffe Highway photo hasn't loaded — Ratcliffe Highway in the late 19th Century, when it was known as St George’s Street

Ratcliffe Highway looking east — It is now known simply as ‘The Highway’ (looking east from the junction with Artichoke Hill)

The scene of the first murder was the home and business of linen draper Timothy Marr at number 29 on the south side. The numbering of the street has changed with the name but the road roughly opposite the location, Betts Street, remains. At the time of the publication of P.D. James’ book about the murders, Marr’s house had been replaced by a block of flats. It seems the site of Marr’s shop is now a Saab dealership.

Photo hasn't loaded — Approximate location of the murders of Timothy Marr, his wife, their baby and servant boy, at 29 Ratcliffe Highway

The second murder scene, at which a husband and wife and their maid were battered to death 12 nights later, was at the King’s Arms pub at 81 New Gravel Lane. This road, which is further east down the Highway, is now called Garnet Street.

Garnet Street / King's Arms — The King’s Arms would have been on the right hand side of the road as we look at it, where the old dock wall still stands.

The King’s Arms would have been somewhere on the west side of Garnet street (pictured above, heading south). It was knocked down in the 1830s for the extension of London Dock. The dock wall remains today, but behind it you now find blocks of post-war flats.

Heading down Garnet Street takes you towards Wapping and the site of the Pear Tree lodging house which became the centre of the police investigation. It was there where a bloodied knife was found hidden in a closet. The carpenter’s maul used by the killer had also been previously kept there in a locker.

Pear Tree Alley, which was said to run off Cinammon Street, no longer exists but seems to have run parallel to what is now called Clegg Street. In the 1960s it was still a derelict bomb site but it is now the site of a small block of flats and a children’s playground.

There is however a ‘Pear Tree Lane’ which it is claimed was named after the pub, located to the east of St Paul’s Shadwell and the west of Glamis Road and the Shadwell Basin.

The final location to visit is the burial site of John Williams, who committed suicide before facing trial. He was dumped in a hole at the crossroads of Cannon Street Road and Back Lane (now Cable Street). His body was dug up again 100 years later by workmen installing new mains. According to legend the skull was kept by the owner of the Crown and Dolphin pub at the corner.

Burial site photo — The crossroads in 2011. The Crown and Dolphin was closed in 2002 and converted for residential use.

Sam Hallam: A Miscarriage of Justice?

There’s a famous quote from the film Shawshank Redemption, when the main character Andy Dufresne tells another prison inmate: ‘Everybody in here’s innocent. Didn’t you know that?’

So when a young man convicted of murder steps forward and strongly protests his innocence, it’s often hard to keep an open mind. It’s still harder to accept that there has been a miscarriage of justice. We’d all like to think that juries, with their 12 independent, educated minds, can see through prosecution hyperbole and defence obfuscation to the truth.

Obviously there have been glaring examples of where this hasn’t happened. The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Colin Stagg. But in the new millennium, with its CSI forensics, highly-trained police officers and professional lawyers?

The case of Sam Hallam (the murder of Essayas Kassahun) demonstrates how many things have changed, even in the last five years. CCTV is much more prevalent. Mobile phone evidence, showing who phoned who, at what time and at what rough location, is more precise. Scientists use new techniques to get DNA from much smaller samples than have previously been possible.

But eyewitness accounts and identification of suspects have been the basis of court cases for centuries. It’s also long been known that human memory is fallible, and that this has an impact on the legal process. We all have experience of its effects – ask 20 people at a football match about a goal or a tackle and you’ll get 20 different versions of the same event. But it may be that with the ‘CSI effect’ juries are now unwilling to accept witness evidence without backup from another source.

Even more ‘dangerous’ is the interaction of witnesses after the event, particularly when rumour comes into play. They may change their account – sometimes without realising it and sometimes out of a misguided attempt to achieve justice for the victim.

Having looked into reports of Sam Hallam’s trial in 2005, it’s clear that there wasn’t a great deal of interest in the case at the time, for whatever reason. There are limited reports on the BBC online, the Camden New Journal and Islington Gazette. The Press Association and the Central News court reporting agency filed short pieces on the opening of the case, the conviction and the sentencing hearing. The most detailed account found online was at the Sam Hallam Campaign website (now defunct), which appears to make use of court transcripts.

In Sam’s case there were two key witnesses who identified him as being present at the scene (although neither did in their initial statements to police). One of them, a 20 year-old man, said he saw Sam standing over the victim with a baseball bat. He said he had been ‘reminded of his name’ by they other key witness, a 19 year-old girl. This girl also identified Sam Hallam, saying she had heard a rumour that a ‘Sam’ was involved in the murder, although she did not state exactly how he was involved.

These are only a few of the inconsistencies, but sadly they are not unusual ones in a murder case. Witnesses are often unwilling to provide names straight away, either because they don’t want to ‘grass’ or because they fear retaliation. It’s also worth pointing out that the 20 year-old was treated as ‘hostile witness’ in court because he effectively withdrew his identification of Sam Hallam. This meant that his identification in his second police statement could be provided to the jury anyway.

It’s impossible to know how the jury reached their verdict, but it’s likely they would have had to decide whether the two witnesses genuinely identified Sam Hallam but felt uncomfortable doing so, were mistaken about their identification, or were trying to cobble evidence together out of rumour.

What Sam Hallam lacked in this situation was a provable defence (although by law he does not have to offer one). He did not answer questions in interview (lawyers almost always advise their clients not to) and his friend contradicted his claim to have been playing football.

But that was it. No forensics, or CCTV footage or phone evidence linking him to the murder. It’s no surprise many feel passionately that he has been wrongly convicted.

Sam is now 24, having served half of his minimum 12 year sentence. During his incarceration his father Terry has died but his family and friends have kept the campaign going. It is a tribute to their hard work and belief that his case was last week referred to the Court of Appeal due to the ‘real possibility that the Court of Appeal would quash the conviction.’

If they do, the court could then order a retrial. The prosecution would then have to assess if they have enough evidence against Sam Hallam to mount a case. It may be some time yet before Sam Hallam is freed.

The Sam Hallam campaign is holding a public meeting to discuss their next steps on Thursday 4 August 2011 at 7.30 pm in the Arden Estate Community Hall, Regan Way, Hoxton, north London.

UPDATE: On May 18, 2012, the prosecution withdrew their opposition to the appeal and the following day the murder conviction was quashed. His acquittal came after spending seven years behind bars.

Off the Map: The case of James Smith

On the morning of December 4, 2010, the body of 28 year-old James Smith was found at an electricity substation near Penge West railway station in south London.

The postmortem revealed he had been electrocuted. A murder investigation was launched by the British Transport Police and the incident was added to the murder map.

James Smith, 28, died after being electrocuted near a railway station in south London.
British Transport Police were called to Penge West at 5.32am on December 4, 2010, and discovered the victim trackside. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
They later arrested one man on suspicion of murder and four others on suspicion of manslaughter. All five have been bailed to return in January 2011.
Officers are investigating whether they were involved in stealing cable at the time of the incident. Detective Chief Inspector Alison Palmer, investigating officer for British Transport Police, said: “Post-mortem results suggest James’ injuries were consistent with electrocution and his family have been informed.
“We are currently keeping an open mind as to why James was in the area at the time of the incident and are keen to hear from anyone that can help us piece together the events leading up to and after his death.
“Our enquiries in the local area are continuing and an investigation to establish the exact circumstances is ongoing. If you think you have any information about the incident, no matter how insignificant it may seem, we want to hear from you.
“This was a tragic incident that has seen a man lose his life and which sadly highlights the dangers of going trackside. Our thoughts remain with James’ family at this very difficult time for them.”
Anyone with information can contact British Transport Police on Freefone 0800 40 50 40 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
original murdermap case summary

Seven months later it has been deleted. Why? Because it is no longer a homicide. Brothers John Tusting, 26, and Jason Tusting, 23, pleaded guilty to charges of burglary and criminal damage recklessly endangering life.

The three men broke into the substation to steal copper cable, which is now so valuable that Network Rail have reported a 300 per cent increase in thefts since 2004.

John Tusting had himself suffered severe burns trying to drag Mr Smith away – although he initially claimed he had been doused with petrol and set on fire by three men. He made a 999 call at 5.32am but misled police about the exact location.

The copper was sold the same morning for just £342.

Reactions to a Murder

When someone is murdered in London, who notices? Aside from the obvious – witnesses, the local community, the police – the answer depends on the type of case and the victim.

Carlos Roberto Oliveria was stabbed to death near Burnt Oak tube station in the early hours of Saturday, July 16.

The first media report came from the Hendon Times just over three hours later at 7am, as Burnt Oak station was closed while police investigated.

More coverage came via the BBC and Sky following a limited press release by the Met Police that afternoon. Few details were given beyond the fact a man aged around 30 had been stabbed in Watling Avenue at around 4am.

The next day another press release provided the victim’s age (27) and the cause of death (stab wound to the chest) and the Hendon Times reported that the location was a suspected brothel.

Other than that the case, like many others, did not receive a great deal of attention, starved of both information and what journalists might call an ‘angle.’

The absence of any reaction from officialdom bothered the author of the Barnet Eye blog, who has criticised the ‘disinterested silence’ of Hendon MP Matthew Offord.

As I peruse the twitter feeds – nothing from our MP. Nothing from the Leader of the Council on any Hendon Times story. Is it just because it’s Burnt Oak? Don’t people from Burnt Oak matter? If it was a wealthy Totteridge resident, I wonder what the response would be. If it was a millionaire?
Sometimes the Human race makes me sick. We only care about those we deem important. God bless the victim and his family. I will remember them in my prayers.

Then it emerged another man had been stabbed in Burnt Oak in an apparently unconnected attack, followed by rumours of a third in nearby Edgware. This provided a shocking jolt even to those who already believed the area to be troubled, as a look at the responses on Twitter makes clear.

The victim was finally identified by police on Monday evening as a Brazilian national from Clapham, Carlos Roberto Oliveria (although the usual spelling is Oliveira). Detectives are appealing for witnesses and it is to be hoped they will bring those responsible to justice, but it is a sad fact of life that Mr Oliveria will be quickly forgotten, just another murder victim in London.

Victims, their families and the courts

There’s no denying that the court process can be gruelling for the families of murder victims. They are plunged into a world over which they have no control, a world ruled by men in wigs who appear to have little consideration for their feelings. Their role is to sit quietly at the back of court and try to show as little emotion as possible so as not to disrupt proceedings.

What’s more, they may be called to give evidence in the full glare of the public and answer difficult questions about their loved ones. Previous convictions, drug use, bad behaviour – all could be raked up in what appears to be a cheap attempt to conceal the truth about who committed the crime. The families may even be accused of the crime themselves. It all seems deeply unfair.

But it was still a little surprising when the father of Milly Dowler suggested that his family had paid ‘too high a price’ for the conviction of Levi Bellfield, almost as if it wasn’t worth pursuing the court case at all. He added: ‘We do not see this as true justice for Milly, merely a criminal conviction.’

Bob Dowler said Bellfield ‘was able to decline to give evidence and chose instead to hide behind his defence QC, to challenge the testimony of EVERY witness – WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS IN A SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS SUCH BEHAVIOUR.’

Their complaint was understandable in hindsight. The man who killed their daughter and was already serving a life sentence for killing two other women had been allowed to humiliate them in court. Bellfield knew he would never get out of jail. He had nothing to lose.

The problem is that Bellfield’s conviction wasn’t assured. The prosecution case in a nutshell was that he lived close to where Milly Dowling was last seen and went on to murder two other women. Now imagine that the jury hadn’t been told he had previous convictions for murder.

Most defendants would not have pursued the tasteless questions about Bob Dowler’s lifestyle and Milly Dowler’s lack of self esteem for fear it would turn the jury against them. But the point is that there is a principle of neutral justice at stake. Justice is blind, not because it doesn’t care what it sees, but because it is even-handed and fair in its attempt to get at the truth.

One recent example from the Old Bailey: Jacqueline Barrett, a 34 year-old mother-of-three was strangled and battered to death by her boyfriend Houssam Djemaa during a ‘domestic’ row. Djemaa admitted killing her but claimed that she provoked him by racially abusing him and threatening him with a knife. This would reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter and effectively cut any prison sentence in half.

To run this defence his barrister questioned the victim’s mother Angela about her daughter’s past as a drug addict and previous convictions for violence. There was even a hint that the parents were partially to blame.

“She could become racially abusive when she was angry,” Paul Mendelle QC told the court. “She claimed that she had inherited her racial abuse from her parents.”

Obviously this compounded the family’s grief. As her mother Angela said after the guilty verdict: “He tried to paint Jacqueline in the worst possible light at court rather than admit what he had done, but didn’t once mention his controlling behaviour or trying to push Jacqueline and her family apart.”

Yes, the defendant was allowed to put forward a defence based on lies about his victim, but this is the whole point of the trial – to get at the truth. Until the jury returned their verdict he was innocent of the crime, and entitled to fight his case. This explains why Bellfield was allowed to suggest Milly had run away because of problems at home and been snatched from somewhere other than his doorstep.

Sometimes this results in added trauma for those involved in the trial. Watch any murder case at the Old Bailey and you will see witnesses challenged, accused of dishonesty or blamed for crimes they did not commit. The idea is that the truth will shine through and that juries will convict only when they are sure of guilt, not because they sympathise with the victim or the victim’s family. You only have to imagine yourself in the dock to understand why the defendant should be allowed to challenge prosecution witnesses.

Another reason why the Dowler family were so traumatised was that the court case was reported in excruciating detail by the media. They had already suffered nine years of press intrusion (and potentially having their phones hacked by the News of the World) before a suspect was finally put on trial. During the trial they complained about having to sit in court next to a great legion of TV and newspaper journalists tweeting away on their phones whenever anything ‘interesting’ happened.

Sadly this is another example of a family finding itself on the rough end of a principle, this time the principle of open justice. Murder trials should be reported. The question is, how much?

In reality most cases only feature in the papers two or three times – the prosecution opening, the defence case and the verdict. Sometimes the defence case is skipped entirely. Details that cast the victim in a poor light are glossed over in an attempt to make the story more newsworthy. Graphic details of rape and murder cases are not reported, on the basis that nobody would want to read about it.

Anyone seeing these reports might think the defendant was guilty already, not innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps this is one reason why people are so shocked by what really happens in court.

Unfortunately for the Dowlers, Milly’s murder became one of those cases, like Soham, Ben Kinsella and Damilola Taylor, that gained massive media attention because of the issues raised. How did a 13 year-old girl disappear in broad daylight? Why was Bellfield not caught until after he killed again?

But now the furore about callous defence barristers and a carnivorous press has died down (ok, maybe not the last one), someone can work out how best to prepare victims’ families for the justice system without compromising either a fair trial or open justice.

Louise Casey, the Victims’ Commissioner, revealed that a survey found that ‘families that had had no involvement with the police and courts actually coped better with their bereavement.’

She argues that a ‘victims’ law’ should be passed to protect families from the harshness of the system. As reported in the Guardian, this would include:

a criminal practice direction to ensure families were treated with dignity and respect during court cases
judges should clear the court when particularly distressing evidence is about to be heard or at least the families given due warning
the right to information from the crown prosecution service, including meeting the prosecuting lawyer
the right to sentencing remarks from the judge in writing and trial transcripts
release of the body back to the family within 28 days
courts to have a family meeting to ensure that their needs during the trial are met

From my experience, prosecutors do chat to families, there is a dedicated witness service in court and relatives are warned when disturbing evidence is likely to emerge, although it’s up to the professionals to make sure it happens. Sometimes things go wrong, so if it really needs legislation to make it happen, then so be it. The court process is never going to be easy, but it could be made a little easier.

There is another theory – victims are traumatised by the system because they are over-protected by the state and feel shut out of the whole process.

The criminologist Nils Christie, in a 1977 article ‘Conflicts as Property’, argued that we should restore the victim to the centre of court cases.

Highly industrialised societies do not have too much internal conflict, they have too little. We have to organise social systems so that conflicts are both nurtured and made visible and also see to it that professionals do not monopolise the handling of them. Victims of crime have in particular lost their rights to participate. A court procedure that restores the participants’ rights to their own conflicts is outlined.

Giving the victim direct involvement ‘creates the opportunity to get at the root of the conflict, heal the wounds it has caused and at last have a real path to peace. As the parties come to understand one another, they are far more likely to assume responsibility for what they have done.’