February 25, 2025 • 51 mins
Today, we’re revisiting a case that rocked the UK to its core, this is the case of Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, a story known as the Babes in the Woods.
There are many articles about this case, but the books 'Babes in the Woods' by Graham Bartlett and Peter James and 'my Girl' by Karen Hadaway truly capture the full depth of this tragic story - a case where justice was finally served after 32 years.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Welcome to Clue Trail , the podcast where every story
is a mystery and every clueleads you deeper into the
unknown From unsolved crimes andpuzzling disappearances to
hidden histories and curiouscoincidences.
We piece together the fragmentsto uncover the truth or raise
even more questions.
Some clues lead to answers,others to even greater mysteries
(00:30):
.
But one thing is certain everytrail tells a story.
Are you ready to follow it?
Let's begin.
Today we are revisiting a casethat rocked the UK to its core.
This is the case of NicolaFellows and Karen Hathaway, a
(00:55):
story known as the Babes in theWoods.
On an October evening in 1986,two best friends, just nine
years old, vanished whileplaying together near their
homes in Brighton.
Their lifeless bodies werediscovered the next day in Wild
Park, and what followed wasdecades of heartbreak, trials
and the relentless pursuit oftruth.
(01:15):
In this episode, we willuncover the layers of this
harrowing case, from thecommunity shaken to its core to
the tireless investigation thatspanned over 30 years.
We'll also reflect on theenduring impact this tragedy had
on the families, the justicesystem and the public's trust.
(01:38):
Nicola and Karen grew up inMolescombe Estate, a small
suburb in Brighton, which was aworking-class area of large
council estates.
These were primarily populatedby families, many of whom had
moved from the inner city.
The area wasn't amongst thesafest ones you could live in.
(01:59):
Police would be around theremost of the time, but there was
a close-knit community withlocal schools, churches and
community centers acting asimportant social hubs.
Nikla and Karen lived only afew streets apart in this area
and, although they were going toseparate schools, they became
(02:21):
best friends.
Their bond was so strong thatit would be impossible to
separate them.
Nicola was a bubbly girl,well-liked by friends and people
in the neighborhood, and shewas dreaming of becoming a nurse
.
A fun story that her parentshad about Nicola was that
whenever they were in thehospital, she would grill the
(02:44):
nurses to understand more aboutwhat they were doing.
Her parents doted on her andher mom was sure Nicola would go
after her dream of becoming anurse.
Karen, same as Nicola, wasincredibly loved and cherished
by her parents.
She was adventurous and sheloved life.
She never broke her parents'rules.
(03:05):
By their own admissions, theywere overprotective and drummed
into her to always be carefuland not to go off with strangers
.
Barry and Susan, nicola'sparents, have been married for
16 years at that point and theywere caring for their two
children, nikla and Jonathan, aswell as Susan's mother.
(03:27):
Additionally, barry had hisbest friend move in, dougie Judd
.
As he had a falling with hismum, he took a room on the
ground floor and Nikla had toshare a bedroom with her
grandmother.
Karen's parents, michelle andLee, had to move around several
times in the early years ofmarriage, mainly in council
(03:48):
estates and flats, until theyfinally settled in this area
where Karen was born.
Like Nicole's family, karen'shouse was also crammed as they
were trying to support otherfamily members.
They had their three childrenexpecting the fourth child and
Michelle's mother, recentlywidowed, moved in as well,
(04:10):
sharing a room particularlysuited Karen, as she absolutely
loved her siblings and she wasvery attached to them.
Both girls grew up in similarenvironments, with close-knit
families which tried to help outwhen they could.
No wonder they became bestfriends.
(04:31):
On 9th of October 1986, thegirls returned from school at
around 3.30pm and, after hangingaround at their respective
houses for some time, at around5pm both girls went out to play
with Karen's sister Lindsay anda few other friends.
Every now and then, susan,nicola's mom would look out the
(04:54):
window and see them playing.
However, not long after Nicolaand Karen broke off the group
and started going towards WildPark.
They didn't seem distressed oranything.
They were seen laughing,running and joking.
At 5.15 pm a park constableassigned to that area saw the
(05:17):
girls in the Wild Park.
They were having the best timeever, not a care in the world,
just innocently playing aroundand having fun.
He recalls telling the girls tocalm down so they don't hurt
themselves.
The girls left and headedtowards a chip shop near their
house.
They were both late for dinnerby now and a neighbor remembers
(05:40):
seeing the girls enjoying a bagof chips A few minutes later.
Members seeing the girlsenjoying a bag of chips.
A few minutes later they areagain back in the park.
As they were late for dinner,their moms became increasingly
worried.
Both girls would generallyrespect their curfew so it
seemed unusual that they're notback in.
At 6 pm Karen's mom, michelle,starts getting worried that she
(06:04):
cannot see the girls in the playarea and she heads to Nicholas'
house to ask Susan if they arethere.
Susan tells her she hasn't seenthem yet.
They start asking the childrenaround if they have seen the
girls.
They do find out they were lastseen at the park, so they head
there, but by then it wasalready started getting dark.
(06:26):
The visibility wasn't great.
Hoping, the girls only losttrack of time.
They both returned home only tofind out they are still not
back.
This is when things start tobecome serious.
Friends and neighbors join thesearch, but they cannot find any
sign of them, with no otheroption.
(06:49):
Just after 8.30 pm that evening,michelle Karen's mom calls 999
to report the girls missing.
Officers were immediately sentover and when they arrived to
the scene there was a swarm ofpeople everywhere.
Clearly, people just wanted tohelp find these little girls.
They immediately met with threeof the parents at Nicola's
(07:12):
house.
Karen's dad was still en routehome In here.
They got all the details fromthe parents regarding the events
of the day and they have done ahouse search as well, just in
case the girls were hiding.
The officers were quite anxiousby this point, especially as it
was dark outside, so one of theofficers got in the car
(07:35):
immediately and started drivingin the area where they were seen
to try to find them Returningback to the house empty-handed.
They had to requestreinforcements.
This was indeed an extremelyserious case and they needed to
act quick to find the girls.
In no time a full-scaleoperation began with many
(07:58):
officers being placed in groupsto search the area all
throughout the night.
Additionally, police were alsointerviewing anyone that might
have seen the girls thatafternoon.
Amongst these people beinginterviewed was Russell Bishop.
He was interviewed in the earlyhours of Friday morning, as
(08:22):
earlier that day he went toNicholas' house with his
girlfriend, marianne Stevenson,and her friend.
They were looking for Dougiewho, if you remember, was living
there during that time.
Bishop 20 at that time wasn'tvery well liked by anyone.
Really.
He was openly cheating on hispregnant girlfriend with whom
(08:44):
they shared a flat with theteenager Marianne, the woman he
appeared with at the doorstepsthat day.
Nicola shared everyone'sdispleased of him and, upon
answering the door, she prettymuch closed it in their face,
swearing at Marianne and tellingthem to go away as Dougie is
not there, and telling them togo away as Doggie is not there.
(09:07):
This conversation was alsoheard by Karen's mom, as she was
at their house at the time whenit happened.
She also shared a sentimenttowards Bishop and she had
indeed previously advised Karento never hang around Bishop.
He also joined the searcheffort the next day alongside
his dog and, interestingly, hemade some odd comments to a
(09:28):
police officer near the park.
According to the officer,bishop was keen to stop looking
for them, as if he is the onewho will find them and if they
were to be found dead, hedoesn't want to be accused,
which is an odd thing to say,especially as only a few minutes
later after this conversationtook place, the girls were found
(09:51):
in a clearing nearby.
At 4pm that day, kevin Rowlandand his friend Matthew Marchant
joined the search.
They knew very well the parkarea and the paths under the
hidden undergrowth, so theystarted making their way towards
one of these paths.
(10:12):
Behind some shrubs and branchesthey found an opening which
looked like someone crawled outof it and when looking further
into it they spotted a pinkpiece of clothing amongst the
shrubs and leaves.
This is when they knew theyfound the girls.
Kevin yelled out to Matthew tofind the police.
(10:32):
He immediately made his way outof the shrubs.
At the same time, at the edgeof the park is where Bishop was
having the odd conversation withthe police officer, and they
hear Matthew yelling and runningtowards them, telling them that
they found the girls.
Both immediately start runningtowards him to make their way to
(10:53):
the girls.
Bishop right-firsted theclearing and tried to get closer
to where the girls were located, but Kevin stopped him.
This is quite interesting, asthe police officer, when Bishop
took off, told him, if he getsthere first to keep everyone
away from the scene, so why ishe rushing to go into the
(11:16):
clearing?
Then, despite not going intothe clearing to see them and
barely having any visibility, hedid say the girls are dead when
the police officer managed toreach the area it's unsure how
he knew this, as they couldbarely see clearly between all
the branches and everything else.
(11:36):
The policeman made his waycloser to the girls and the
scene that unraveled would hauntanyone.
Nikla was on her back.
She had a bruise on her faceand blood on her nostrils,
clearly dying from a violentdeath.
Karen was near Nikola with herhead facing her lap, their hands
(11:58):
almost touching.
The policeman went to check fora pulse but couldn't feel any
sign of life.
He then proceeded to inform hiscolleagues through the radio
using a code name to ensure theneurons are being managed
accordingly.
Upon being told the news, theparents were absolutely
(12:20):
heartbroken.
As a parent, this is the worstnews you can possibly receive.
The area was immediatelyexamined by crime scene
investigators and the initialinvestigation showed the girls
suffered immensely.
The police got to work to findwho has done this cruel act and
(12:44):
also why.
Why would someone kill thesegirls?
It can only be someone deranged.
They started at inquiries andinterviewed any leads they could
.
They also interviewed the oneswho found the girls as well.
And once more, bishop.
This is where he is starting toslowly deviate from his
(13:05):
recounting of events and hisdetails now contradict the
events described by the two menand the policeman who found the
girls.
He is saying now he wasactually leaving when Michael
came out of the woods screamingthat he found the girls and he
wasn't talking with thepoliceman telling him about how,
if he finds the girls dead, heis scared.
Talking with the policemantelling him about how, if he
finds the girls dead, he'sscared he'll be accused of
(13:28):
murdering them as he has acriminal record.
He's also saying that when hegot to the girls he could see
very well how they were layingdown and he was saying that he
went to check if they're aliveby checking their neck for a
pulse, that he went to check ifthey are alive by checking their
neck for a pulse.
But if you remember Kevin,which is the man who was
(13:49):
awaiting by the clearing hasstopped Bishop from going
anywhere near the girl's body,let alone touch them to check
for a pulse.
Obviously, when these detailswere compared, police definitely
became suspicious of him.
How could he have known how thegirls were positioned if he
wasn't able to clearly see inthe clearing?
(14:10):
Also, why would he say hechecked their poles when three
other witnesses specifically saythis is not the case?
The post-mortem examination wasone of the saddest tasks of all.
Under the watch of seniorpolice investigators, dr West,
(14:37):
the pathologist in charge,started the examination.
Both cold clothes were coveredin mud and vegetation from the
crime scene, as well as certainparts of their bodies.
Dr West took samples of fibersand hair from both the clothes
and the bodies.
This will turn to be a crucialpiece of evidence later on.
(14:58):
Just a fair warning.
These details are horrific.
Both girls had signs ofstrangulation.
Most likely this was done byhand and they have been sexually
assaulted.
In Nicola's case, there weresign of assault before and after
her death.
There was undigested food intheir stomachs which later on
(15:19):
would be relevant to determinethe time of death, as, if you
remember, both girls were seeneating chips before they were
last seen that evening, dr Westconcluding that both have been
strangled, probably by hand.
Karen is believed to have lostconsciousness quick, but death
wouldn't have been instant.
There was a sign Nicolaremained conscious for longer
(15:42):
than her friend, whichunfortunately means she was
awake for the assault.
Dr West placed the time ofdeath between 7 pm and 8 pm
After the post-mortem took place.
Now the detectives embarked onone of the most enormous cases
of their career, whichunfortunately would span across
(16:04):
many years until justice wasserved.
Also, the community was shakenby the level of brutality of
this crime and, of course, theparents of the girls were
absolutely devastated.
Within a couple of weeks,police received nearly 3,000
(16:25):
calls, interviewed 2,000 peopleand took around 700 statements.
At first they invested over3,000 officer hours to different
duties, from taking statementsfrom neighbors, motorists,
recreating the girls' steps thatday and many other tasks,
creating the girls' steps thatday and many other tasks.
But about a month into theinvestigation, a series of two
(16:52):
other unrelated murders halvedthe task force.
Now, with much less support, theinvestigation started to slow
down.
But one thing they were sure ofthey knew the murderer was
close to the girls.
The girls were murdered in thesame place where they were found
(17:12):
, which means they would havewent there with someone they
knew.
Knowing this, they started tofocus on a few key suspects.
However, they were not ready tomove with an arrest yet and, as
with many inquiries, they wouldlook at close family and
friends, in particular male.
So their main suspects wereBarry Fellows, dougie Judd the
(17:34):
two boys who found the girls andRussell Bishop.
You're probably thinking nowBarry Fellows, as in Nicholas'
dad, but how Well.
I believe this was mainlyrelated to Barry not being
present at the search when thegirls were considered missing to
begin with.
As well as being known ashaving quite an aggressive
(17:58):
character, barry was able toclear the timeline of his
whereabouts that evening and hedid maintain he would never hurt
the girls.
So, with that cleared andverified by the police and many
other lines of inquiries theyhad opened at that time, drawing
a blank, they would come backagain to Russell Bishop.
(18:18):
Bishop was asked for aninterview at the police station
six days after the murders.
This interview was interesting.
His accounts of events from theevening when the girls went
missing now were all over theplace.
Barry Evans, the investigatoron this case, was an extremely
(18:41):
skilled interviewer and was ableto extract vital information
such as he was claiming being intwo places at once around that
evening.
At 6 pm he was either at homeor in the park smoking near a
police box.
Police by this point were quitesure something is not adding up
(19:01):
here and either Bishop hassomething to do with the murders
or he knows who is responsible.
Since the timeline of eventswas very narrow, they needed to
make sure they are very preciseand can account for everyone's
whereabouts at that time.
The girls were last seen at6.45pm and, according to the
(19:25):
pathologist, they were killedbetween 7 and 8pm pm.
Bishop was last seen in the parksmoking near a police box at 6
pm and leaving the area at 6.30pm.
This was confirmed by twowitnesses.
Now they needed to clearlydetermine his whereabouts
(19:45):
between 6.30 pm and 8 pm.
Bishop in the first instancesaid he was due at someone's
house after he left the park,but he never made it there.
He now said he was returning tohis flat and on his way he
stopped at a news agent to buysomething but realized he didn't
(20:06):
have any money on him.
Jenny, his pregnant girlfriend,who they shared a flat, was also
invited for an interview in thehopes of clarifying this
timeline.
Jenny told the police that shepicked up their son that evening
from a friend's house and thenreturned to the flat.
At 8.40pm she found Bishop athome and she noted he has
(20:30):
changed his clothes and alsotook a bath.
Also, it looked like he did aload of laundry as well.
He told later the police thathe did this as he fell in Dogpu.
The police checked also withthe news agents to verify if
they have indeed seen Bishopthat evening.
They confirm he hasn't beenthere.
(20:51):
Bishop that evening.
They confirm he hasn't beenthere.
Next they asked about hiswhereabouts on the day the girls
were found.
If you remember, he was one ofthe people to first see where
the girls were and also said tothe investigators at that time
that he checked the girls for apause and that he was able to
see they are dead.
The two boys who actually foundthe girls were clear that he
(21:15):
did not see the girls as, if youremember, he was stopped by one
of them from going into thearea.
When asked about this now, hesaid he did not see, nor he
checked the poles.
That was only his intention atthat time, but he didn't
actually do it.
That was only his intention atthat time, but he didn't
actually do it.
When he was confronted with hissigned statement, he said he
(21:39):
didn't actually read it when hesigned it and, basically
implying the police wrote downthe wrong facts.
By this point, as you canprobably imagine, the
investigators knew thatsomething is not adding up.
He was now their prime suspect.
At the time this was happening,all the forensic evidence
(22:01):
collected were being analyzed aswell.
Amongst the evidence collectedfrom the area nearby was a
sweatshirt.
This sweatshirt was found onthe path leading to Bishop's
house, and the reason it wascollected it was because it
looked like it had blood on it.
(22:21):
There was loads of scrutinydown the line in regards to how
this piece of evidence washandled.
This was taken for testing,specifically testing if the
blood on it is human.
However, this was supposed tobe done in a lab environment
instead of a quick blood testperformed then and there.
When the test came back asfaintly positive, the sweatshirt
(22:42):
was then bagged correctly andmarked as evidence.
The scrutiny was around, ofcourse, cross-contamination.
The officer handling theevidence was scrutinized for
potentially exposing it to otherexhibits in the same space.
This would cost them dearlydown the line.
(23:06):
Three weeks after the girl'sdiscovery Bishop was asked to
come back for yet anotherinterview After yet another
version of events being given tothe investigators.
The lack of alibi during thetime the girls disappeared, as
well as combined with the liesabout checking for the poles
being able to tell the girls aredead.
(23:27):
Even if he was invisible fromwhere he was standing in the
clearing, he was arrested onsuspicions of murder of Karen
and Nikola.
For the next three days he wassubjected to lengthy interviews
as well as having a fullyinvasive medical examination
where samples of saliva, bloodand hair were taken.
(23:48):
In the interviews with theinvestigators he changed his
story once more about the timebetween 6.30 and 8.40.
As the newsagent denied seeinghim.
He now said he went to buy somedrugs and he lied to protect
himself and the drug dealer,which is fair.
But they now checked with thedrug dealer and she confirmed to
(24:11):
them she has sold drugs thatday, but not to him.
She hasn't seen him.
No surprise.
But he again changed his story,saying he just went home after
6.30.
He was asked again what clotheshe was wearing that day.
He said he has shared with himall the clothes he was wearing
(24:31):
that day, of course not beforedoing a load of washing that
evening, which in itself it'sfine, it's just a normal chore.
If he indeed fell in dog poop,of course that is the first
thing anyone would do.
Those stinky poos can linger.
But and this is only based onwhat others who knew him said of
(24:52):
him as well as Jenny he fanciedhimself a bit of a manly man.
Domestic tasks such as washing,cleaning and so on, he felt,
were not for him to do.
That would have been Jenny'sjob.
So she indeed found it weirdwhen she came home and he was
doing laundry.
(25:13):
So she indeed found it weirdwhen she came home and he was
doing laundry.
Police suspected he was tryingto get rid of evidence by taking
a bath and washing his clothes.
But was he wearing thatsweatshirt that evening, the one
found on the way to his housewith blood spatters on it?
Well, he said no, but hispartner, jenny, said in her
statement that he was his and hewas part of a set with trousers
(25:36):
as well.
We are not done yet with thissweatshirt, but let's put a pin
on it for now.
Bishop was held in custody forthree days and he was then
released on bail For the nextmonth.
Police would embark once morein checking everything he stated
in these interviews.
(25:56):
Although nothing was madepublic by that point, gossip was
going around about his arrestand he fled to Wales during this
month.
He was fearful he would beattacked by the parents and the
angry community.
During this time, the forensicwas working on analyzing the
sweatshirt and everything elsecollected.
(26:18):
It was discovered that what wasbelieved to be blood spatters
was actually paint, and maybe wewould think that's that not
connected with the murders.
But Bishop was known to workwith paint, specifically paint
stored on cars, graffiti doorsand walls and so on.
(26:38):
So they kept pushing with theanalysis.
They were able to find that thesweatshirt had some traces of
ivy planned, which was alsopresent in the area where the
girls were found.
These traces of ivy were alsofound on the girls.
So the sweatshirt wasdefinitely connected with the
location of the crime.
Proving Bishop was wearing itduring a time where DNA couldn't
(27:01):
prove this conclusively wouldbe yet another pickle the
investigators had to solve.
This is where we're alsostarting to see another mistake
in the investigation.
This is where we're alsostarting to see another mistake
in the investigation.
From Nicola, three hairs and afiber were collected.
For some unknown reason theywere not analyzed.
This could have given thepolice the physical evidence
(27:23):
connecting him to the girls.
This mistake is unforgivable.
Bishop returned back to Moleskbea few weeks after his initial
arrest and he decided he neededto talk with Barry Fellows and
explain the situation.
Obviously Barry wasn't veryhappy and, after listening to
(27:44):
him for a few minutes, decidedit's best that the conversation
stops and he informs the police.
The audacity this man had toapproach the grieving parent
it's unbelievable.
Bishop was requested to returnafter his bail one day early, on
3rd of December 1986, and bythis time he also changed his
(28:08):
lawyer to Ralph Hames.
Ralph is a character we willsee later on what he is up to.
Bishop was remanded in prisonnow until his trial, and he had
a horrible time there.
Child murderers, although notconvicted yet, are not very well
(28:31):
liked in prisons.
Four months after the girlswere discovered, the family was
finally able to put them to rest.
The whole community was sayingtheir goodbyes to these angels.
The parents and family andfriends were heartbroken,
skipping forward to over a yearlater since the discovery of
this horrific murder.
The discovery of this horrificmurder, the trial of Russell
(28:53):
Bishops for the murders of Karenand Nicola has finally started
on 11th of November 1987.
It's, needless to say, theinterest media and the public
had in the ongoings of thistrial.
Bishop, if accused, was facinga life sentence.
A life sentence as a childmurderer and rapist in prison
(29:14):
systems would be hell, for theprosecution was Brian Leary and
in his opening statement hetalked over the events of that
day to the jury.
He talked about the families,the community and everyone who
tried to help and then he movedto the facts.
Bishop was seen around the area.
He changed his story about hiswhereabouts several times.
(29:38):
He owned a sweatshirt and hehad no verifiable alibi for the
time.
The girls were killed,unfortunately, just a few days
later.
The first hiccup happened whenone of the jurors fell ill and
they had to restart the trial.
Selecting happened when one ofthe jurors fell ill and they had
to restart the trial, selectinga whole new set of jurors.
Unsurprisingly, the parentswere upset.
(30:01):
This has dragged already for solong and they wanted justice
for what was done to their girls.
Luckily, the jurors wereselected quick and the trial
restarted the next day.
Jury were selected quick andthe trial restarted the next day
.
First to talk was Susan Fellows.
She told the jury in detail herrecollection of what happened
that day, where the girls wentand the pain of losing them.
(30:22):
She also told the jury thatsomeone on the estate has
accused Barry of being themurderer and someone has written
on their house all sorts ofoffensive statements.
The defense also pushed on thewhereabouts of Barry and Dougie
Judd that evening, although thiswas previously cleared,
starting what would be thefoundation of their strategy to
(30:45):
instil doubts in the mind of thejurors.
This strategy actually startedway earlier.
A few months after Bishop wasarrested, his lawyer appeared
one early morning at the policestation with two girls claiming
they heard a third person sayingthey knew Barry killed the
(31:05):
girls.
Police promptly went straightto the girls' house who claimed
this, and they understood thisto be a fabrication.
The girl had development issues.
When asked how she knows he'sthe killer, she said, and I
quote Barry did it as he's ugly.
The policeman apologized to theparents and to the girl for
(31:28):
disturbing them and left fordisturbing them and left.
Barry was next and the defenseonce more tried to insist on him
having a violent behavior andthat he has shown distemper
towards Nicola as well.
They needed to make sure thejury suspected him.
So they tried everything.
Karen's parents gave theirrecounting of events as well,
(31:51):
but they were not pushed toomuch.
The defense was clearlyfocusing on Barry.
Only On day five is where thingskicked off.
That was the day of the trialwhere Jenny Bishop's partner
would be called on the stand.
If you remember, she was theone to give the statement about
the sweatshirt and that he wasat home at 8.40 doing laundry
(32:15):
after he took a bath, althoughshe was a witness called by the
prosecution by the time she goton the stand.
She has changed her story Now.
Jenny painted the picture ofhaving an incredible stable
relationship, I guess despitehim going around with his
teenage girlfriend.
Jenny then recounted herprevious statement regarding the
(32:37):
sweatshirt belonging to Bishop.
She claimed this was due to herpoor eyesight.
When asked about the signedstatement, she claimed she never
read what was written there andshe signed it hastily as she
was still very angry with Bishopafter finding out about his
affair.
This fueled the defense theorythat this was all a police
(33:00):
conspiracy.
Russell was never guilty ofanything and they cannot prove
he has harmed the girls.
This is also where all thosemistakes the investigators and
the forensics made earlierregarding the handling of
evidence would be brought up,and, unfortunately, it would all
end in Bishop's favour.
(33:21):
The biggest mistake, though,came straight from the
prosecution.
They claimed, for some unknownreason, the girls must have been
dead by 6.30pm.
This mistake was easily pickedup by the defence, and they
fully honed in the fact thatRussell Bishop was seen by
(33:41):
witnesses in the park smokingbetween 6 and 6.30pm.
So how could he have killedthem?
There were several other expertwitnesses from both sides, but
nothing really important cameout of it.
Now, with the trial coming to aclose, prosecution summed up by
reminding the jury of all theevidence presented, regardless
(34:05):
of being questioned in the trial.
All the defense has done in theclosing statement was to offer
alternatives to the jurors,which was actually a very smart
strategy.
They would hone in once more tothe fact that Barry Fellows, or
any other of the suspects theyhad at the start of the
investigation, could have beenthe killer.
At that point, barry stormedout.
(34:27):
What a sick statement to makeabout a grieving father.
When it was proved Barry wasn'tinvolved With that, both
parties rested.
The judge then set the jurywith three important questions.
If they are not sure the girlswere dead by 6.30pm, to acquit.
If they are not sure that thesweatshirt was worn by Bishop to
(34:49):
acquit.
And, lastly, if they are notsure if the sweatshirt was worn
by the murderer, assuming thatwasn't Bishop to acquit.
The jury went out on December 10, 1987, and everyone believed
Russell Bishop would be foundguilty.
But everything was about toturn upside down as the jury
(35:10):
came back four days later with averdict of not guilty.
Everyone was shocked, despitethe evidence and his
ever-changing story was shocked.
Despite the evidence and hisever-changing story, the defense
has put doubt in their minds.
So with that, he was free.
This acquittal bewilderedeveryone, and the community was
(35:32):
again in fear that a childmurderer they don't know of
might be roaming around free.
The girls' families neverstopped advocating for Nicola
and Karen to bring them justice.
Russell Bishop moved back inthe same area and was gloating
around by the fact that he wasvindicated.
He also sold his story to anewspaper and cashed in.
(35:55):
Knowing how this ends, he's sodelusional.
For the next 30 years, thefamily did everything they could
to keep the memory of the girlsalive and to persuade the
police to find the personresponsible for this.
Justice will finally come in2018, 32 years later, but first
(36:17):
we need to go to 1990, threeyears after this trial.
First, we need to go to 1990,three years after this trial.
On 4th of February 1990, thecommunity would be reminded once
(36:39):
more that a criminal is outfree roaming their streets.
When seven-year-old Rachel Wattswent missing At 3.30pm that day
, rachel was roller skating withfour of her friends near White
Hawk.
White Hawk and Moleskine, theplace where Karen and Nicola
lived.
It's within the same area,around 10 minutes drive or 50
minutes walk.
They're basically closeneighborhoods.
At around 4pm Rachel went backhome and asked her dad for some
(37:01):
money to go buy something fromthe shop.
When Rachel did not return homeand her dad could not find her,
he panicked and he called thepolice.
Rachel would have neverventured in places where she
wasn't allowed.
She was also scared of the dark.
A full-scale search beganimmediately.
At 5 pm the same day a couplewas walking around the bank of a
(37:25):
river near a place calledSummerdown.
This place is about 10 milesaway from where Rachel lived.
All of a sudden a couplespotted a girl coming out of the
bushes.
She had no clothes on.
This was Rachel.
The couple immediately wrappedRachel into a jacket and
informed the police.
(37:45):
Everyone was relieved Rachelwas alive, but unfortunately the
ordeal she went through wouldleave lifelong scars.
Rachel was able to tell theinvestigators that she was
snatched and put in a boot of ared car.
The man had a moustache and shewas able to remember that there
(38:07):
were tools in the boot of thecar.
Police started investigatingimmediately and, as they knew,
bishop had a red car went totalk to him.
When the police arrived he wascleaning up his car interior,
probably trying to cleananything that might tie him to
Rachel.
He was able to provide alibisof his whereabouts that day.
(38:28):
But when the police was laterinformed that he and the red car
were seen in the White Hawkarea earlier that day, he was
arrested.
The investigators did not wantto repeat the history from three
years earlier.
So everything, every lead,every piece of evidence was to
be handled by the book.
No shortcuts.
(38:52):
This time they had twowitnesses, a mother and daughter
, which were walking on the sameroad where Rachel was taken
from.
The daughter remembered seeingRachel cleaning her roller
skates, a red car stopping andshe heard a scream At that time
(39:12):
they believe it was boys racingon the streets as the car sped
away.
But when they found out thenews about Rachel later that day
they just realized what theyhave witnessed earlier.
His car was distinctive as hehad the for sale sign on the
window and due to him prancingaround like a hero after the
first trial acquittal, most ofthe people knew who he was.
Basically he was easilyrecognizable.
(39:35):
His defense leaked the story tothe press, hoping this would
work against the police.
Luckily they were very wrong,as this time they had Rachel.
She was within an inch fromdeath, having been strangled,
but she survived and she wasable to pick up Bishop from a
lineup.
Rachel is so brave.
(39:56):
They had an overwhelming amountof forensic evidence as well
connecting him with the crimeand this time they could prove
it was handled by the book noerrors, no shortcuts.
On 8th February, bishopappeared in front of the
magistrates and pleaded notguilty.
No bail was requested, so hewas sent to prison awaiting
(40:20):
trial.
No bail was requested, so hewas sent to prison awaiting
trial.
Bishop trial for kidnap andassault of Rachel Watts began on
14th of November 1990.
In an amazing display ofcourage, rachel decided to
testify in person instead ofvideo link.
She was able to recountperfectly what happened that day
, how she was kidnapped byBishop.
(40:40):
She described him in detail.
She described how she wasthrown in the boot of the car
and unfortunately, she alsoremembered being strangled in
the car.
The defense was on a mission tothrow mud at every single
witness and forensic detail.
Their argument was that thiswas a setup by the police and
(41:01):
that they wanted to frame him.
Bishop also took the stand tojustify how his semen and DNA
were found at the scene.
He said the police went as faras stealing a used condom from
the trash in his house and usedthat at the scene.
Obviously, this is ridiculous.
The defense closed by tellingthe jury every single piece of
(41:22):
evidence and fiber wasmanipulated by the forensic team
to bring Bishop down for crimeshe didn't commit.
This time the jury was on thefold.
After 21 days of trial he wasfound guilty on all accounts.
Bishop was in tears, mostlikely knowing what will happen
to him in prison as a child sexoffender.
(41:42):
He was sentenced to life inprison with a minimum term of 14
years, but police couldn'tcelebrate this as he was free
and he hurt Rachel because ofwhat happened three years
earlier.
This sentence only came at avery expensive price, paid by
Rachel, a seven-year-old girlwho went through hell.
(42:04):
Karen and Nicholas' familiesstruggled heavily with coming to
terms with what happened.
Unfortunately, lee Karen'sfather suffered with depression
and became homeless and addictedto prescription pills.
He passed away 12 years afterhis daughter's death in 1998.
(42:28):
Both couples separated in 1992.
Although in prison, bishop wasnot ready to give up on his
pursuit of punishing the police.
Four years after hisincarceration he started a civil
lawsuit against the police forthe arrest in 1986, with him as
a witness.
He crumbled under thequestioning of Rachel Camden,
(42:53):
which was defending the Sussexpolice.
Bishop asked in day two to dropthe lawsuit.
He claimed he felt overwhelmedwith the court and the lawyers.
Moving to 2005, double jeopardylaws changed in Britain, which
(43:13):
means Bishop could be retriedonce more if enough new evidence
could be presented.
The families pushed hard forthis, but unfortunately in 2006,
the High Court decided therewasn't enough new evidence for
Bishop to be retried.
He must have thought that's it,I'm out of the woods.
But no, there isn't anythinglike a parent who wants justice
(43:33):
for their child.
They have consistently tried topersuade the police to reopen
the case.
In 2012, dci Adam Hibbert comesin the scene.
He was well aware of the caseand the 2006 High Court
rejection of double jeopardy.
But he knew science has come along way since 1987.
(43:59):
When the case was revisited in2005, scientists found new
fibers on the sweatshirt.
If you remember, the sweatshirtwas the focal point during the
first trial.
Adam brought in Roy Green, aleading forensic scientist who
worked on high-profile cases inBritain, to specifically look
over all this evidence one moretime.
(44:19):
So the lengthy process startedand in 2013, dci Adam was about
to get the news he expected forover a year.
After Roy tested the sweatshirtfor DNA and compared it with
Bishop's DNA from the 1990 trial, there was a strong possibility
it was a match.
(44:39):
This confirmed what everyoneknew for so many years he owned
that sweatshirt.
Everything was starting toconnect now and, bringing SIO
Jeff Riley, they would embark inan investigation which would
span across several years.
The families were told inNovember 2013 about the DNA
(45:00):
findings and were asked not todisclose.
Nothing was to be left tochance this time.
The investigation took years andJeff and his team needed to be
sure that the DNA evidencecannot be challenged in court,
especially considering theambiguity regarding how the
(45:21):
evidence was handled back in1987 and the cross-contamination
.
Unfortunately, although the labwas able to confirm Bishop's
DNA was on the cuff of thesweatshirt.
Looking at the chain of custodyand how the sweatshirt was
preserved over these years, theywere not ready to 100% confirm
(45:42):
there wasn't transferred DNA.
This broke the team at thatpoint.
This was the best evidence theyhad in so many years.
But once more they wouldn'tgive up.
So they revisited all thefibers and other forensic
evidence taken back in 86.
Especially the fibers takenfrom the girls' bodies.
(46:02):
Remember those fibers that noone bothered to look into 27
years earlier?
Luckily these fibers, alongsidewith paint flakes, were
preserved perfectly and therecouldn't be any
cross-contamination.
Roy Green, after a very lengthyprocess reviewing every single
fiber collected, managed to findthat fibers from the sweatshirt
(46:26):
match fibers from Bishop's flat.
His team was also able to linkthe paint from Bishop's clothes
to paint chips taken from thegirls' bodies and clothes.
Additionally, some paint fromNicholas also matched the paint
from the sweatshirt and,probably one of the most
important findings paint fromBishop's flat matched the paint
(46:51):
on the sweatshirt.
The most important evidencewould come after Roy's green
analysis on the fibers andtapings from the girls' bodies.
He hoped the tapings, alongsidewith the fibers and other
material, would also havecellular material which can be
(47:12):
tested for DNA, and he was right.
On one of the tapings fromKaren's arm, he found skin
flakes.
Upon testing, he found DNA fromat least two profiles.
Obviously, one would be Karen's, another one which wasn't
identified, and the third onewould be Bishop's.
(47:34):
Roy also looked into othertapings taken from the inside of
the sweatshirts and the results, although not as strong,
contained DNA profiles from bothJenny and Bishop.
They had what they needed.
Bishop has been the one to wearthe sweatshirt which was at the
scene of the crime.
(47:54):
If you remember, the ivy plantsfrom the clearing were also
found on the sweatshirt, and hisDNA was found on Karen's arm.
This is all what Jeff Riley andhis team were waiting for.
At last.
On 10th of May 2016, bishop,still incarcerated, was brought
(48:15):
to the Durham Police Stationwhere he was informed he is
being arrested for the murdersof Karen and Nicholas.
He again completely deniedbeing involved in the murders.
The prep for this trial was avery lengthy process and it
finally started on 15th ofOctober 2018, 32 years since the
(48:36):
murders of Karen and Nicholas.
That was the day the family soeagerly awaited, and likely.
This time this weasel wouldn'tescape again.
The DNA evidence, combined withall the fibers and his lack of
alibi during the time of thedeath was enough for the jury to
finally convict him.
This time, the investigatorsand forensic left nothing to
(48:59):
chance and have done anoutstanding job.
He was found guilty on 10th ofDecember 2018 for the 1986
murders of Nicola Fellows andKaren Hathaway.
He received two life sentenceswith a minimum of 36 years.
He would never leave the prison, as on 20th of January 2022, he
(49:24):
died of cancer at the age of 55.
This is the story of Nicola andKaren, two girls full of life
and potential, loved by familyand friends, whose lives ended
tragically at the hands of pureevil.
Stay updated on all things ClueTrail.
(49:47):
You can find us on Instagram,facebook and TikTok on Clue
Trail Podcast and if you want tosupport the podcast and get
(50:07):
even more content, check out ourPatreon Members.
Get access to an exclusivebonus episode every month.
Just head over to Patreon andlook for ClueChall.
Thank you.
Welcome to Clue Trail , the podcast where every story
is a mystery and every clueleads you deeper into the
unknown From unsolved crimes andpuzzling disappearances to
hidden histories and curiouscoincidences.
We piece together the fragmentsto uncover the truth or raise
even more questions.
Some clues lead to answers,others to even greater mysteries
(00:30):
.
But one thing is certain everytrail tells a story.
Are you ready to follow it?
Let's begin.
Today we are revisiting a casethat rocked the UK to its core.
This is the case of NicolaFellows and Karen Hathaway, a
(00:55):
story known as the Babes in theWoods.
On an October evening in 1986,two best friends, just nine
years old, vanished whileplaying together near their
homes in Brighton.
Their lifeless bodies werediscovered the next day in Wild
Park, and what followed wasdecades of heartbreak, trials
and the relentless pursuit oftruth.
(01:15):
In this episode, we willuncover the layers of this
harrowing case, from thecommunity shaken to its core to
the tireless investigation thatspanned over 30 years.
We'll also reflect on theenduring impact this tragedy had
on the families, the justicesystem and the public's trust.
(01:38):
Nicola and Karen grew up inMolescombe Estate, a small
suburb in Brighton, which was aworking-class area of large
council estates.
These were primarily populatedby families, many of whom had
moved from the inner city.
The area wasn't amongst thesafest ones you could live in.
(01:59):
Police would be around theremost of the time, but there was
a close-knit community withlocal schools, churches and
community centers acting asimportant social hubs.
Nikla and Karen lived only afew streets apart in this area
and, although they were going toseparate schools, they became
(02:21):
best friends.
Their bond was so strong thatit would be impossible to
separate them.
Nicola was a bubbly girl,well-liked by friends and people
in the neighborhood, and shewas dreaming of becoming a nurse
.
A fun story that her parentshad about Nicola was that
whenever they were in thehospital, she would grill the
(02:44):
nurses to understand more aboutwhat they were doing.
Her parents doted on her andher mom was sure Nicola would go
after her dream of becoming anurse.
Karen, same as Nicola, wasincredibly loved and cherished
by her parents.
She was adventurous and sheloved life.
She never broke her parents'rules.
(03:05):
By their own admissions, theywere overprotective and drummed
into her to always be carefuland not to go off with strangers
.
Barry and Susan, nicola'sparents, have been married for
16 years at that point and theywere caring for their two
children, nikla and Jonathan, aswell as Susan's mother.
(03:27):
Additionally, barry had hisbest friend move in, dougie Judd
.
As he had a falling with hismum, he took a room on the
ground floor and Nikla had toshare a bedroom with her
grandmother.
Karen's parents, michelle andLee, had to move around several
times in the early years ofmarriage, mainly in council
(03:48):
estates and flats, until theyfinally settled in this area
where Karen was born.
Like Nicole's family, karen'shouse was also crammed as they
were trying to support otherfamily members.
They had their three childrenexpecting the fourth child and
Michelle's mother, recentlywidowed, moved in as well,
(04:10):
sharing a room particularlysuited Karen, as she absolutely
loved her siblings and she wasvery attached to them.
Both girls grew up in similarenvironments, with close-knit
families which tried to help outwhen they could.
No wonder they became bestfriends.
(04:31):
On 9th of October 1986, thegirls returned from school at
around 3.30pm and, after hangingaround at their respective
houses for some time, at around5pm both girls went out to play
with Karen's sister Lindsay anda few other friends.
Every now and then, susan,nicola's mom would look out the
(04:54):
window and see them playing.
However, not long after Nicolaand Karen broke off the group
and started going towards WildPark.
They didn't seem distressed oranything.
They were seen laughing,running and joking.
At 5.15 pm a park constableassigned to that area saw the
(05:17):
girls in the Wild Park.
They were having the best timeever, not a care in the world,
just innocently playing aroundand having fun.
He recalls telling the girls tocalm down so they don't hurt
themselves.
The girls left and headedtowards a chip shop near their
house.
They were both late for dinnerby now and a neighbor remembers
(05:40):
seeing the girls enjoying a bagof chips A few minutes later.
Members seeing the girlsenjoying a bag of chips.
A few minutes later they areagain back in the park.
As they were late for dinner,their moms became increasingly
worried.
Both girls would generallyrespect their curfew so it
seemed unusual that they're notback in.
At 6 pm Karen's mom, michelle,starts getting worried that she
(06:04):
cannot see the girls in the playarea and she heads to Nicholas'
house to ask Susan if they arethere.
Susan tells her she hasn't seenthem yet.
They start asking the childrenaround if they have seen the
girls.
They do find out they were lastseen at the park, so they head
there, but by then it wasalready started getting dark.
(06:26):
The visibility wasn't great.
Hoping, the girls only losttrack of time.
They both returned home only tofind out they are still not
back.
This is when things start tobecome serious.
Friends and neighbors join thesearch, but they cannot find any
sign of them, with no otheroption.
(06:49):
Just after 8.30 pm that evening,michelle Karen's mom calls 999
to report the girls missing.
Officers were immediately sentover and when they arrived to
the scene there was a swarm ofpeople everywhere.
Clearly, people just wanted tohelp find these little girls.
They immediately met with threeof the parents at Nicola's
(07:12):
house.
Karen's dad was still en routehome In here.
They got all the details fromthe parents regarding the events
of the day and they have done ahouse search as well, just in
case the girls were hiding.
The officers were quite anxiousby this point, especially as it
was dark outside, so one of theofficers got in the car
(07:35):
immediately and started drivingin the area where they were seen
to try to find them Returningback to the house empty-handed.
They had to requestreinforcements.
This was indeed an extremelyserious case and they needed to
act quick to find the girls.
In no time a full-scaleoperation began with many
(07:58):
officers being placed in groupsto search the area all
throughout the night.
Additionally, police were alsointerviewing anyone that might
have seen the girls thatafternoon.
Amongst these people beinginterviewed was Russell Bishop.
He was interviewed in the earlyhours of Friday morning, as
(08:22):
earlier that day he went toNicholas' house with his
girlfriend, marianne Stevenson,and her friend.
They were looking for Dougiewho, if you remember, was living
there during that time.
Bishop 20 at that time wasn'tvery well liked by anyone.
Really.
He was openly cheating on hispregnant girlfriend with whom
(08:44):
they shared a flat with theteenager Marianne, the woman he
appeared with at the doorstepsthat day.
Nicola shared everyone'sdispleased of him and, upon
answering the door, she prettymuch closed it in their face,
swearing at Marianne and tellingthem to go away as Dougie is
not there, and telling them togo away as Doggie is not there.
(09:07):
This conversation was alsoheard by Karen's mom, as she was
at their house at the time whenit happened.
She also shared a sentimenttowards Bishop and she had
indeed previously advised Karento never hang around Bishop.
He also joined the searcheffort the next day alongside
his dog and, interestingly, hemade some odd comments to a
(09:28):
police officer near the park.
According to the officer,bishop was keen to stop looking
for them, as if he is the onewho will find them and if they
were to be found dead, hedoesn't want to be accused,
which is an odd thing to say,especially as only a few minutes
later after this conversationtook place, the girls were found
(09:51):
in a clearing nearby.
At 4pm that day, kevin Rowlandand his friend Matthew Marchant
joined the search.
They knew very well the parkarea and the paths under the
hidden undergrowth, so theystarted making their way towards
one of these paths.
(10:12):
Behind some shrubs and branchesthey found an opening which
looked like someone crawled outof it and when looking further
into it they spotted a pinkpiece of clothing amongst the
shrubs and leaves.
This is when they knew theyfound the girls.
Kevin yelled out to Matthew tofind the police.
(10:32):
He immediately made his way outof the shrubs.
At the same time, at the edgeof the park is where Bishop was
having the odd conversation withthe police officer, and they
hear Matthew yelling and runningtowards them, telling them that
they found the girls.
Both immediately start runningtowards him to make their way to
(10:53):
the girls.
Bishop right-firsted theclearing and tried to get closer
to where the girls were located, but Kevin stopped him.
This is quite interesting, asthe police officer, when Bishop
took off, told him, if he getsthere first to keep everyone
away from the scene, so why ishe rushing to go into the
(11:16):
clearing?
Then, despite not going intothe clearing to see them and
barely having any visibility, hedid say the girls are dead when
the police officer managed toreach the area it's unsure how
he knew this, as they couldbarely see clearly between all
the branches and everything else.
(11:36):
The policeman made his waycloser to the girls and the
scene that unraveled would hauntanyone.
Nikla was on her back.
She had a bruise on her faceand blood on her nostrils,
clearly dying from a violentdeath.
Karen was near Nikola with herhead facing her lap, their hands
(11:58):
almost touching.
The policeman went to check fora pulse but couldn't feel any
sign of life.
He then proceeded to inform hiscolleagues through the radio
using a code name to ensure theneurons are being managed
accordingly.
Upon being told the news, theparents were absolutely
(12:20):
heartbroken.
As a parent, this is the worstnews you can possibly receive.
The area was immediatelyexamined by crime scene
investigators and the initialinvestigation showed the girls
suffered immensely.
The police got to work to findwho has done this cruel act and
(12:44):
also why.
Why would someone kill thesegirls?
It can only be someone deranged.
They started at inquiries andinterviewed any leads they could
.
They also interviewed the oneswho found the girls as well.
And once more, bishop.
This is where he is starting toslowly deviate from his
(13:05):
recounting of events and hisdetails now contradict the
events described by the two menand the policeman who found the
girls.
He is saying now he wasactually leaving when Michael
came out of the woods screamingthat he found the girls and he
wasn't talking with thepoliceman telling him about how,
if he finds the girls dead, heis scared.
Talking with the policemantelling him about how, if he
finds the girls dead, he'sscared he'll be accused of
(13:28):
murdering them as he has acriminal record.
He's also saying that when hegot to the girls he could see
very well how they were layingdown and he was saying that he
went to check if they're aliveby checking their neck for a
pulse, that he went to check ifthey are alive by checking their
neck for a pulse.
But if you remember Kevin,which is the man who was
(13:49):
awaiting by the clearing hasstopped Bishop from going
anywhere near the girl's body,let alone touch them to check
for a pulse.
Obviously, when these detailswere compared, police definitely
became suspicious of him.
How could he have known how thegirls were positioned if he
wasn't able to clearly see inthe clearing?
(14:10):
Also, why would he say hechecked their poles when three
other witnesses specifically saythis is not the case?
The post-mortem examination wasone of the saddest tasks of all.
Under the watch of seniorpolice investigators, dr West,
(14:37):
the pathologist in charge,started the examination.
Both cold clothes were coveredin mud and vegetation from the
crime scene, as well as certainparts of their bodies.
Dr West took samples of fibersand hair from both the clothes
and the bodies.
This will turn to be a crucialpiece of evidence later on.
(14:58):
Just a fair warning.
These details are horrific.
Both girls had signs ofstrangulation.
Most likely this was done byhand and they have been sexually
assaulted.
In Nicola's case, there weresign of assault before and after
her death.
There was undigested food intheir stomachs which later on
(15:19):
would be relevant to determinethe time of death, as, if you
remember, both girls were seeneating chips before they were
last seen that evening, dr Westconcluding that both have been
strangled, probably by hand.
Karen is believed to have lostconsciousness quick, but death
wouldn't have been instant.
There was a sign Nicolaremained conscious for longer
(15:42):
than her friend, whichunfortunately means she was
awake for the assault.
Dr West placed the time ofdeath between 7 pm and 8 pm
After the post-mortem took place.
Now the detectives embarked onone of the most enormous cases
of their career, whichunfortunately would span across
(16:04):
many years until justice wasserved.
Also, the community was shakenby the level of brutality of
this crime and, of course, theparents of the girls were
absolutely devastated.
Within a couple of weeks,police received nearly 3,000
(16:25):
calls, interviewed 2,000 peopleand took around 700 statements.
At first they invested over3,000 officer hours to different
duties, from taking statementsfrom neighbors, motorists,
recreating the girls' steps thatday and many other tasks,
creating the girls' steps thatday and many other tasks.
But about a month into theinvestigation, a series of two
(16:52):
other unrelated murders halvedthe task force.
Now, with much less support, theinvestigation started to slow
down.
But one thing they were sure ofthey knew the murderer was
close to the girls.
The girls were murdered in thesame place where they were found
(17:12):
, which means they would havewent there with someone they
knew.
Knowing this, they started tofocus on a few key suspects.
However, they were not ready tomove with an arrest yet and, as
with many inquiries, they wouldlook at close family and
friends, in particular male.
So their main suspects wereBarry Fellows, dougie Judd the
(17:34):
two boys who found the girls andRussell Bishop.
You're probably thinking nowBarry Fellows, as in Nicholas'
dad, but how Well.
I believe this was mainlyrelated to Barry not being
present at the search when thegirls were considered missing to
begin with.
As well as being known ashaving quite an aggressive
(17:58):
character, barry was able toclear the timeline of his
whereabouts that evening and hedid maintain he would never hurt
the girls.
So, with that cleared andverified by the police and many
other lines of inquiries theyhad opened at that time, drawing
a blank, they would come backagain to Russell Bishop.
(18:18):
Bishop was asked for aninterview at the police station
six days after the murders.
This interview was interesting.
His accounts of events from theevening when the girls went
missing now were all over theplace.
Barry Evans, the investigatoron this case, was an extremely
(18:41):
skilled interviewer and was ableto extract vital information
such as he was claiming being intwo places at once around that
evening.
At 6 pm he was either at homeor in the park smoking near a
police box.
Police by this point were quitesure something is not adding up
(19:01):
here and either Bishop hassomething to do with the murders
or he knows who is responsible.
Since the timeline of eventswas very narrow, they needed to
make sure they are very preciseand can account for everyone's
whereabouts at that time.
The girls were last seen at6.45pm and, according to the
(19:25):
pathologist, they were killedbetween 7 and 8pm pm.
Bishop was last seen in the parksmoking near a police box at 6
pm and leaving the area at 6.30pm.
This was confirmed by twowitnesses.
Now they needed to clearlydetermine his whereabouts
(19:45):
between 6.30 pm and 8 pm.
Bishop in the first instancesaid he was due at someone's
house after he left the park,but he never made it there.
He now said he was returning tohis flat and on his way he
stopped at a news agent to buysomething but realized he didn't
(20:06):
have any money on him.
Jenny, his pregnant girlfriend,who they shared a flat, was also
invited for an interview in thehopes of clarifying this
timeline.
Jenny told the police that shepicked up their son that evening
from a friend's house and thenreturned to the flat.
At 8.40pm she found Bishop athome and she noted he has
(20:30):
changed his clothes and alsotook a bath.
Also, it looked like he did aload of laundry as well.
He told later the police thathe did this as he fell in Dogpu.
The police checked also withthe news agents to verify if
they have indeed seen Bishopthat evening.
They confirm he hasn't beenthere.
(20:51):
Bishop that evening.
They confirm he hasn't beenthere.
Next they asked about hiswhereabouts on the day the girls
were found.
If you remember, he was one ofthe people to first see where
the girls were and also said tothe investigators at that time
that he checked the girls for apause and that he was able to
see they are dead.
The two boys who actually foundthe girls were clear that he
(21:15):
did not see the girls as, if youremember, he was stopped by one
of them from going into thearea.
When asked about this now, hesaid he did not see, nor he
checked the poles.
That was only his intention atthat time, but he didn't
actually do it.
That was only his intention atthat time, but he didn't
actually do it.
When he was confronted with hissigned statement, he said he
(21:39):
didn't actually read it when hesigned it and, basically
implying the police wrote downthe wrong facts.
By this point, as you canprobably imagine, the
investigators knew thatsomething is not adding up.
He was now their prime suspect.
At the time this was happening,all the forensic evidence
(22:01):
collected were being analyzed aswell.
Amongst the evidence collectedfrom the area nearby was a
sweatshirt.
This sweatshirt was found onthe path leading to Bishop's
house, and the reason it wascollected it was because it
looked like it had blood on it.
(22:21):
There was loads of scrutinydown the line in regards to how
this piece of evidence washandled.
This was taken for testing,specifically testing if the
blood on it is human.
However, this was supposed tobe done in a lab environment
instead of a quick blood testperformed then and there.
When the test came back asfaintly positive, the sweatshirt
(22:42):
was then bagged correctly andmarked as evidence.
The scrutiny was around, ofcourse, cross-contamination.
The officer handling theevidence was scrutinized for
potentially exposing it to otherexhibits in the same space.
This would cost them dearlydown the line.
(23:06):
Three weeks after the girl'sdiscovery Bishop was asked to
come back for yet anotherinterview After yet another
version of events being given tothe investigators.
The lack of alibi during thetime the girls disappeared, as
well as combined with the liesabout checking for the poles
being able to tell the girls aredead.
(23:27):
Even if he was invisible fromwhere he was standing in the
clearing, he was arrested onsuspicions of murder of Karen
and Nikola.
For the next three days he wassubjected to lengthy interviews
as well as having a fullyinvasive medical examination
where samples of saliva, bloodand hair were taken.
(23:48):
In the interviews with theinvestigators he changed his
story once more about the timebetween 6.30 and 8.40.
As the newsagent denied seeinghim.
He now said he went to buy somedrugs and he lied to protect
himself and the drug dealer,which is fair.
But they now checked with thedrug dealer and she confirmed to
(24:11):
them she has sold drugs thatday, but not to him.
She hasn't seen him.
No surprise.
But he again changed his story,saying he just went home after
6.30.
He was asked again what clotheshe was wearing that day.
He said he has shared with himall the clothes he was wearing
(24:31):
that day, of course not beforedoing a load of washing that
evening, which in itself it'sfine, it's just a normal chore.
If he indeed fell in dog poop,of course that is the first
thing anyone would do.
Those stinky poos can linger.
But and this is only based onwhat others who knew him said of
(24:52):
him as well as Jenny he fanciedhimself a bit of a manly man.
Domestic tasks such as washing,cleaning and so on, he felt,
were not for him to do.
That would have been Jenny'sjob.
So she indeed found it weirdwhen she came home and he was
doing laundry.
(25:13):
So she indeed found it weirdwhen she came home and he was
doing laundry.
Police suspected he was tryingto get rid of evidence by taking
a bath and washing his clothes.
But was he wearing thatsweatshirt that evening, the one
found on the way to his housewith blood spatters on it?
Well, he said no, but hispartner, jenny, said in her
statement that he was his and hewas part of a set with trousers
(25:36):
as well.
We are not done yet with thissweatshirt, but let's put a pin
on it for now.
Bishop was held in custody forthree days and he was then
released on bail For the nextmonth.
Police would embark once morein checking everything he stated
in these interviews.
(25:56):
Although nothing was madepublic by that point, gossip was
going around about his arrestand he fled to Wales during this
month.
He was fearful he would beattacked by the parents and the
angry community.
During this time, the forensicwas working on analyzing the
sweatshirt and everything elsecollected.
(26:18):
It was discovered that what wasbelieved to be blood spatters
was actually paint, and maybe wewould think that's that not
connected with the murders.
But Bishop was known to workwith paint, specifically paint
stored on cars, graffiti doorsand walls and so on.
(26:38):
So they kept pushing with theanalysis.
They were able to find that thesweatshirt had some traces of
ivy planned, which was alsopresent in the area where the
girls were found.
These traces of ivy were alsofound on the girls.
So the sweatshirt wasdefinitely connected with the
location of the crime.
Proving Bishop was wearing itduring a time where DNA couldn't
(27:01):
prove this conclusively wouldbe yet another pickle the
investigators had to solve.
This is where we're alsostarting to see another mistake
in the investigation.
This is where we're alsostarting to see another mistake
in the investigation.
From Nicola, three hairs and afiber were collected.
For some unknown reason theywere not analyzed.
This could have given thepolice the physical evidence
(27:23):
connecting him to the girls.
This mistake is unforgivable.
Bishop returned back to Moleskbea few weeks after his initial
arrest and he decided he neededto talk with Barry Fellows and
explain the situation.
Obviously Barry wasn't veryhappy and, after listening to
(27:44):
him for a few minutes, decidedit's best that the conversation
stops and he informs the police.
The audacity this man had toapproach the grieving parent
it's unbelievable.
Bishop was requested to returnafter his bail one day early, on
3rd of December 1986, and bythis time he also changed his
(28:08):
lawyer to Ralph Hames.
Ralph is a character we willsee later on what he is up to.
Bishop was remanded in prisonnow until his trial, and he had
a horrible time there.
Child murderers, although notconvicted yet, are not very well
(28:31):
liked in prisons.
Four months after the girlswere discovered, the family was
finally able to put them to rest.
The whole community was sayingtheir goodbyes to these angels.
The parents and family andfriends were heartbroken,
skipping forward to over a yearlater since the discovery of
this horrific murder.
The discovery of this horrificmurder, the trial of Russell
(28:53):
Bishops for the murders of Karenand Nicola has finally started
on 11th of November 1987.
It's, needless to say, theinterest media and the public
had in the ongoings of thistrial.
Bishop, if accused, was facinga life sentence.
A life sentence as a childmurderer and rapist in prison
(29:14):
systems would be hell, for theprosecution was Brian Leary and
in his opening statement hetalked over the events of that
day to the jury.
He talked about the families,the community and everyone who
tried to help and then he movedto the facts.
Bishop was seen around the area.
He changed his story about hiswhereabouts several times.
(29:38):
He owned a sweatshirt and hehad no verifiable alibi for the
time.
The girls were killed,unfortunately, just a few days
later.
The first hiccup happened whenone of the jurors fell ill and
they had to restart the trial.
Selecting happened when one ofthe jurors fell ill and they had
to restart the trial, selectinga whole new set of jurors.
Unsurprisingly, the parentswere upset.
(30:01):
This has dragged already for solong and they wanted justice
for what was done to their girls.
Luckily, the jurors wereselected quick and the trial
restarted the next day.
Jury were selected quick andthe trial restarted the next day
.
First to talk was Susan Fellows.
She told the jury in detail herrecollection of what happened
that day, where the girls wentand the pain of losing them.
(30:22):
She also told the jury thatsomeone on the estate has
accused Barry of being themurderer and someone has written
on their house all sorts ofoffensive statements.
The defense also pushed on thewhereabouts of Barry and Dougie
Judd that evening, although thiswas previously cleared,
starting what would be thefoundation of their strategy to
(30:45):
instil doubts in the mind of thejurors.
This strategy actually startedway earlier.
A few months after Bishop wasarrested, his lawyer appeared
one early morning at the policestation with two girls claiming
they heard a third person sayingthey knew Barry killed the
(31:05):
girls.
Police promptly went straightto the girls' house who claimed
this, and they understood thisto be a fabrication.
The girl had development issues.
When asked how she knows he'sthe killer, she said, and I
quote Barry did it as he's ugly.
The policeman apologized to theparents and to the girl for
(31:28):
disturbing them and left fordisturbing them and left.
Barry was next and the defenseonce more tried to insist on him
having a violent behavior andthat he has shown distemper
towards Nicola as well.
They needed to make sure thejury suspected him.
So they tried everything.
Karen's parents gave theirrecounting of events as well,
(31:51):
but they were not pushed toomuch.
The defense was clearlyfocusing on Barry.
Only On day five is where thingskicked off.
That was the day of the trialwhere Jenny Bishop's partner
would be called on the stand.
If you remember, she was theone to give the statement about
the sweatshirt and that he wasat home at 8.40 doing laundry
(32:15):
after he took a bath, althoughshe was a witness called by the
prosecution by the time she goton the stand.
She has changed her story Now.
Jenny painted the picture ofhaving an incredible stable
relationship, I guess despitehim going around with his
teenage girlfriend.
Jenny then recounted herprevious statement regarding the
(32:37):
sweatshirt belonging to Bishop.
She claimed this was due to herpoor eyesight.
When asked about the signedstatement, she claimed she never
read what was written there andshe signed it hastily as she
was still very angry with Bishopafter finding out about his
affair.
This fueled the defense theorythat this was all a police
(33:00):
conspiracy.
Russell was never guilty ofanything and they cannot prove
he has harmed the girls.
This is also where all thosemistakes the investigators and
the forensics made earlierregarding the handling of
evidence would be brought up,and, unfortunately, it would all
end in Bishop's favour.
(33:21):
The biggest mistake, though,came straight from the
prosecution.
They claimed, for some unknownreason, the girls must have been
dead by 6.30pm.
This mistake was easily pickedup by the defence, and they
fully honed in the fact thatRussell Bishop was seen by
(33:41):
witnesses in the park smokingbetween 6 and 6.30pm.
So how could he have killedthem?
There were several other expertwitnesses from both sides, but
nothing really important cameout of it.
Now, with the trial coming to aclose, prosecution summed up by
reminding the jury of all theevidence presented, regardless
(34:05):
of being questioned in the trial.
All the defense has done in theclosing statement was to offer
alternatives to the jurors,which was actually a very smart
strategy.
They would hone in once more tothe fact that Barry Fellows, or
any other of the suspects theyhad at the start of the
investigation, could have beenthe killer.
At that point, barry stormedout.
(34:27):
What a sick statement to makeabout a grieving father.
When it was proved Barry wasn'tinvolved With that, both
parties rested.
The judge then set the jurywith three important questions.
If they are not sure the girlswere dead by 6.30pm, to acquit.
If they are not sure that thesweatshirt was worn by Bishop to
(34:49):
acquit.
And, lastly, if they are notsure if the sweatshirt was worn
by the murderer, assuming thatwasn't Bishop to acquit.
The jury went out on December 10, 1987, and everyone believed
Russell Bishop would be foundguilty.
But everything was about toturn upside down as the jury
(35:10):
came back four days later with averdict of not guilty.
Everyone was shocked, despitethe evidence and his
ever-changing story was shocked.
Despite the evidence and hisever-changing story, the defense
has put doubt in their minds.
So with that, he was free.
This acquittal bewilderedeveryone, and the community was
(35:32):
again in fear that a childmurderer they don't know of
might be roaming around free.
The girls' families neverstopped advocating for Nicola
and Karen to bring them justice.
Russell Bishop moved back inthe same area and was gloating
around by the fact that he wasvindicated.
He also sold his story to anewspaper and cashed in.
(35:55):
Knowing how this ends, he's sodelusional.
For the next 30 years, thefamily did everything they could
to keep the memory of the girlsalive and to persuade the
police to find the personresponsible for this.
Justice will finally come in2018, 32 years later, but first
(36:17):
we need to go to 1990, threeyears after this trial.
First, we need to go to 1990,three years after this trial.
On 4th of February 1990, thecommunity would be reminded once
(36:39):
more that a criminal is outfree roaming their streets.
When seven-year-old Rachel Wattswent missing At 3.30pm that day
, rachel was roller skating withfour of her friends near White
Hawk.
White Hawk and Moleskine, theplace where Karen and Nicola
lived.
It's within the same area,around 10 minutes drive or 50
minutes walk.
They're basically closeneighborhoods.
At around 4pm Rachel went backhome and asked her dad for some
(37:01):
money to go buy something fromthe shop.
When Rachel did not return homeand her dad could not find her,
he panicked and he called thepolice.
Rachel would have neverventured in places where she
wasn't allowed.
She was also scared of the dark.
A full-scale search beganimmediately.
At 5 pm the same day a couplewas walking around the bank of a
(37:25):
river near a place calledSummerdown.
This place is about 10 milesaway from where Rachel lived.
All of a sudden a couplespotted a girl coming out of the
bushes.
She had no clothes on.
This was Rachel.
The couple immediately wrappedRachel into a jacket and
informed the police.
(37:45):
Everyone was relieved Rachelwas alive, but unfortunately the
ordeal she went through wouldleave lifelong scars.
Rachel was able to tell theinvestigators that she was
snatched and put in a boot of ared car.
The man had a moustache and shewas able to remember that there
(38:07):
were tools in the boot of thecar.
Police started investigatingimmediately and, as they knew,
bishop had a red car went totalk to him.
When the police arrived he wascleaning up his car interior,
probably trying to cleananything that might tie him to
Rachel.
He was able to provide alibisof his whereabouts that day.
(38:28):
But when the police was laterinformed that he and the red car
were seen in the White Hawkarea earlier that day, he was
arrested.
The investigators did not wantto repeat the history from three
years earlier.
So everything, every lead,every piece of evidence was to
be handled by the book.
No shortcuts.
(38:52):
This time they had twowitnesses, a mother and daughter
, which were walking on the sameroad where Rachel was taken
from.
The daughter remembered seeingRachel cleaning her roller
skates, a red car stopping andshe heard a scream At that time
(39:12):
they believe it was boys racingon the streets as the car sped
away.
But when they found out thenews about Rachel later that day
they just realized what theyhave witnessed earlier.
His car was distinctive as hehad the for sale sign on the
window and due to him prancingaround like a hero after the
first trial acquittal, most ofthe people knew who he was.
Basically he was easilyrecognizable.
(39:35):
His defense leaked the story tothe press, hoping this would
work against the police.
Luckily they were very wrong,as this time they had Rachel.
She was within an inch fromdeath, having been strangled,
but she survived and she wasable to pick up Bishop from a
lineup.
Rachel is so brave.
(39:56):
They had an overwhelming amountof forensic evidence as well
connecting him with the crimeand this time they could prove
it was handled by the book noerrors, no shortcuts.
On 8th February, bishopappeared in front of the
magistrates and pleaded notguilty.
No bail was requested, so hewas sent to prison awaiting
(40:20):
trial.
No bail was requested, so hewas sent to prison awaiting
trial.
Bishop trial for kidnap andassault of Rachel Watts began on
14th of November 1990.
In an amazing display ofcourage, rachel decided to
testify in person instead ofvideo link.
She was able to recountperfectly what happened that day
, how she was kidnapped byBishop.
(40:40):
She described him in detail.
She described how she wasthrown in the boot of the car
and unfortunately, she alsoremembered being strangled in
the car.
The defense was on a mission tothrow mud at every single
witness and forensic detail.
Their argument was that thiswas a setup by the police and
(41:01):
that they wanted to frame him.
Bishop also took the stand tojustify how his semen and DNA
were found at the scene.
He said the police went as faras stealing a used condom from
the trash in his house and usedthat at the scene.
Obviously, this is ridiculous.
The defense closed by tellingthe jury every single piece of
(41:22):
evidence and fiber wasmanipulated by the forensic team
to bring Bishop down for crimeshe didn't commit.
This time the jury was on thefold.
After 21 days of trial he wasfound guilty on all accounts.
Bishop was in tears, mostlikely knowing what will happen
to him in prison as a child sexoffender.
(41:42):
He was sentenced to life inprison with a minimum term of 14
years, but police couldn'tcelebrate this as he was free
and he hurt Rachel because ofwhat happened three years
earlier.
This sentence only came at avery expensive price, paid by
Rachel, a seven-year-old girlwho went through hell.
(42:04):
Karen and Nicholas' familiesstruggled heavily with coming to
terms with what happened.
Unfortunately, lee Karen'sfather suffered with depression
and became homeless and addictedto prescription pills.
He passed away 12 years afterhis daughter's death in 1998.
(42:28):
Both couples separated in 1992.
Although in prison, bishop wasnot ready to give up on his
pursuit of punishing the police.
Four years after hisincarceration he started a civil
lawsuit against the police forthe arrest in 1986, with him as
a witness.
He crumbled under thequestioning of Rachel Camden,
(42:53):
which was defending the Sussexpolice.
Bishop asked in day two to dropthe lawsuit.
He claimed he felt overwhelmedwith the court and the lawyers.
Moving to 2005, double jeopardylaws changed in Britain, which
(43:13):
means Bishop could be retriedonce more if enough new evidence
could be presented.
The families pushed hard forthis, but unfortunately in 2006,
the High Court decided therewasn't enough new evidence for
Bishop to be retried.
He must have thought that's it,I'm out of the woods.
But no, there isn't anythinglike a parent who wants justice
(43:33):
for their child.
They have consistently tried topersuade the police to reopen
the case.
In 2012, dci Adam Hibbert comesin the scene.
He was well aware of the caseand the 2006 High Court
rejection of double jeopardy.
But he knew science has come along way since 1987.
(43:59):
When the case was revisited in2005, scientists found new
fibers on the sweatshirt.
If you remember, the sweatshirtwas the focal point during the
first trial.
Adam brought in Roy Green, aleading forensic scientist who
worked on high-profile cases inBritain, to specifically look
over all this evidence one moretime.
(44:19):
So the lengthy process startedand in 2013, dci Adam was about
to get the news he expected forover a year.
After Roy tested the sweatshirtfor DNA and compared it with
Bishop's DNA from the 1990 trial, there was a strong possibility
it was a match.
(44:39):
This confirmed what everyoneknew for so many years he owned
that sweatshirt.
Everything was starting toconnect now and, bringing SIO
Jeff Riley, they would embark inan investigation which would
span across several years.
The families were told inNovember 2013 about the DNA
(45:00):
findings and were asked not todisclose.
Nothing was to be left tochance this time.
The investigation took years andJeff and his team needed to be
sure that the DNA evidencecannot be challenged in court,
especially considering theambiguity regarding how the
(45:21):
evidence was handled back in1987 and the cross-contamination
.
Unfortunately, although the labwas able to confirm Bishop's
DNA was on the cuff of thesweatshirt.
Looking at the chain of custodyand how the sweatshirt was
preserved over these years, theywere not ready to 100% confirm
(45:42):
there wasn't transferred DNA.
This broke the team at thatpoint.
This was the best evidence theyhad in so many years.
But once more they wouldn'tgive up.
So they revisited all thefibers and other forensic
evidence taken back in 86.
Especially the fibers takenfrom the girls' bodies.
(46:02):
Remember those fibers that noone bothered to look into 27
years earlier?
Luckily these fibers, alongsidewith paint flakes, were
preserved perfectly and therecouldn't be any
cross-contamination.
Roy Green, after a very lengthyprocess reviewing every single
fiber collected, managed to findthat fibers from the sweatshirt
(46:26):
match fibers from Bishop's flat.
His team was also able to linkthe paint from Bishop's clothes
to paint chips taken from thegirls' bodies and clothes.
Additionally, some paint fromNicholas also matched the paint
from the sweatshirt and,probably one of the most
important findings paint fromBishop's flat matched the paint
(46:51):
on the sweatshirt.
The most important evidencewould come after Roy's green
analysis on the fibers andtapings from the girls' bodies.
He hoped the tapings, alongsidewith the fibers and other
material, would also havecellular material which can be
(47:12):
tested for DNA, and he was right.
On one of the tapings fromKaren's arm, he found skin
flakes.
Upon testing, he found DNA fromat least two profiles.
Obviously, one would be Karen's, another one which wasn't
identified, and the third onewould be Bishop's.
(47:34):
Roy also looked into othertapings taken from the inside of
the sweatshirts and the results, although not as strong,
contained DNA profiles from bothJenny and Bishop.
They had what they needed.
Bishop has been the one to wearthe sweatshirt which was at the
scene of the crime.
(47:54):
If you remember, the ivy plantsfrom the clearing were also
found on the sweatshirt, and hisDNA was found on Karen's arm.
This is all what Jeff Riley andhis team were waiting for.
At last.
On 10th of May 2016, bishop,still incarcerated, was brought
(48:15):
to the Durham Police Stationwhere he was informed he is
being arrested for the murdersof Karen and Nicholas.
He again completely deniedbeing involved in the murders.
The prep for this trial was avery lengthy process and it
finally started on 15th ofOctober 2018, 32 years since the
(48:36):
murders of Karen and Nicholas.
That was the day the family soeagerly awaited, and likely.
This time this weasel wouldn'tescape again.
The DNA evidence, combined withall the fibers and his lack of
alibi during the time of thedeath was enough for the jury to
finally convict him.
This time, the investigatorsand forensic left nothing to
(48:59):
chance and have done anoutstanding job.
He was found guilty on 10th ofDecember 2018 for the 1986
murders of Nicola Fellows andKaren Hathaway.
He received two life sentenceswith a minimum of 36 years.
He would never leave the prison, as on 20th of January 2022, he
(49:24):
died of cancer at the age of 55.
This is the story of Nicola andKaren, two girls full of life
and potential, loved by familyand friends, whose lives ended
tragically at the hands of pureevil.
Stay updated on all things ClueTrail.
(49:47):
You can find us on Instagram,facebook and TikTok on Clue
Trail Podcast and if you want tosupport the podcast and get
(50:07):
even more content, check out ourPatreon Members.
Get access to an exclusivebonus episode every month.
Just head over to Patreon andlook for ClueChall.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.