August 12, 2025 • 32 mins
This episode covers the murder of Hilda Marchbank, whos niece was accused of murdering her.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hi, I'm Laura and I'm Jil.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
And this it's Draig Divers.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Hello, everybody, welcome to today's episode. Hello.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Where in the world, wary? We are in the UK,
We're in England. Okay, and what is the title? The
title is Innocent as Charged, Innocent as Church.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
That sounds interesting. Yeah, well you'll just have to wait
and see. Okay, Well, let's not waste any more time
and let's dive in. Let's dive in. Okay. So the
year was nineteen ninety two and Hilda march Back was
eighty nine.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
She lived in Roydon, just outside Rochdale, which is near Manchester.
She's never had any children, but she was extremely close
to her niece Susan May, and Susan.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Was her sister daughter. So Susan looked at Hill Sorry.
Susan looked at Hilda as.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
A second mum, and she had done all her life.
There was barely a day that went by that she
didn't see her. As Hilda got older, Susan would look
after her and she seemed to have problems where memory.
Susan would go and visit Hilda, but by the time
Susan had driven home, which I don't know how far
away she lived, but it was pretty close. Yeah, it's
(01:27):
only a few minutes drive, I think. So by the
time Susan had driven home, the phone would be ringing
and it would be held us saying, am I not
seeing you today? And Susan would be like, I've just
left you a major lunch with your dinner whatever depend
on whatever date it was, and Hilda would just kind
of laugh off and say sorry, I'm.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
A fail because it helda and Hild her would.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Go to Susan's house like three or four times a
week for dinner, so you know obviously that they were
very close.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
So on the eleventh of March nineteen ninety two, Susan
visited held at around nine pm. She didn't usually visit
that late, but Hilda had lost her front door keys.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
She hadn't lost them, but forgotten.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
But basically Hilda I had phoned Susan and I said,
where do you think my front door keys are? And
Susan she'd been trying to teach her to leave her
keys like on a ledge just inside the house because
obviously if held a letter keys in the door.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
I wouldn't be able to get her in help.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Yeah, which is exactly what you keep doing them you
have to do, trained her.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Eventually, eventually she got it.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
I was like, stop leaving the key in the door,
because if I need to come in and emergency, I'm
not gonna.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Get Well, that's what Susan was doing with Hilda.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Yeah, so this was still like a new thing to
held us.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
So she was having she was.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Having problems remembering it, you know, because obviously she wasn't
she wasn't.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Used to no. So Susan said to her, like, don't worry.
Your keys are on the ledge.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Just don't open your front door tonight and held her
I was like, all right, okay, I'll see tomorrow. But
then a lot of while later held her phone again
and asked where her keys were.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
So Susan was kind of a bit worried by this.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Was just go up and check on her. So she
went up to the house and she let herself in.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Other said this was about nine o'clock.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
So she let herself in and Hilda had her nighty on.
She was ready for bed and Susan Susan I said, right,
what's happening? And Hilda was like, what are you doing here?
She'd forgotten that she should even phone Susan. So Susan
explained her that she'd been looking.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
For her keys. She showed her where they were.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
She stayed for about five ten minutes and Kissy could
buye and said see you and the murna. Susan then
picked up her boyfriend and his friend up and she
took them to the pub.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
She dropped them off, then went home.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
She made some phone calls and she spoke to her
daughter Katie on the phone, and then she went to bed.
So the next morning, Susan went to the shop to
buy Hilda a sandwich for her lunch, and then she
drove to Hilda's house, which is what she did every day.
She let herself in and she shouted for her Hilda,
but there was no answer.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
She put down her.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
Handbag, ramwich and kitchen and Hilda. She slipped downstairs and
that our door was slightly open.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
So Susan pushed the.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Door and her words came across a scene of horror. Oh,
she Hilda was on the bed and she'd be murdered.
Don't worry, You're not gonna get graphic details. It was
just what she had said. She came out across the
scene of horror. So yeah, held her was on the
bed and she'd be murdered. Susan said that she was
naked from her breasts down, so I'm taking it to
(04:32):
mean that her nighty was pulled up.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Susan said that he had always bothered her in the years.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Since then, as Hilda was such a private person, and
she just thought how awful it was that that was
how she was lying and held it being beaten and suffocaid.
So Susan went up to the side of the bend
and she was like looking down and Hilda, but she
couldn't remember if she touched her or not. She also
couldn't remember leaving the house. She just couldn't remember. All
(05:00):
she could remember was just seeing the body, and the
next thing she was like out on the driveway thinking
I need to get help.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Yeah, so all them place. They were on the scene within.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Minutes, interviewing witnesses, taking photographs, and remembering forensic evidence, including
footprints and fibers.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
From the scene.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
There had been footprints in the porch and even in
a wardrobe upstairs.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
I don't know why to be a footprint in a
wardrobe is like a like a walk on wardrobe. I
don't know. Business. Yeah, and they've never been identified and held.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
I had clothing fibers on her hand that didn't come
from any of her clothes or Susans, but they never
found out where they came from. So a Susan, no Suman,
and no a neighbor totally not even close. It's because
where I've written Susan as the neighbor, Susan is actually.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Above the word neighbors. So I was looking at the
wrong bit.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
A neighbor had seen a suspicious looking red car, possibly
a boored Fiesta it's the house at about midnight. There
was no one inside, but the engine was running. He
said it was there for about fifteen minutes. Another neighbor
had spotted the same car earlier that night and gave
a detailed description of it to the police as she
thought the three men inside were.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Up to no good. So the police focused on.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Trying to find the car and the men who were
in it. So we're in the next couple of weeks.
Police invested the murder, investigated the murder. They kept in
touch with Susan daily and they took witness statements from her,
her children, and her sister. But then the police called
off their search for the car and the three men,
and without her knowledge, started building up a case against Susan.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Oh, so they started to accuse her m HM.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
So, nineteen days after the murder, the police turned up
on our doorstep and Arresteder for the murder of Hilda.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
So she was shocked.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Obviously, And since Hilda's murder she had seen the police
every day. She'd had no idea that they suspected her.
She just thought they were doing their quis. Yeah, she
was just system Yeah. So her and her son said,
with hindsight, you could see it coming. They scaled everything
down at the house and they were they were like
(07:16):
they were there all the time, like seeing Susan and
the way they were wording it, it was just like, oh,
we're just trying to find out We're just trying to
help you, Susan. We're just trying to get to the
bottom of everything. We want to find out who killed
her auntie. But looking back, they were just sort of
setting it up like for her, and the suspicion is
(07:36):
actually being raised by Susan's sister Anne.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So Anne had a problem with alcohol, but like nobody
was supposed to know that.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
It was sort of like behind closed doors. Yeah, so
quite often.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Like Susan would have to go round to her.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
House and and help because she was fighting with her husband.
And Susan said, quote, it was like they had two lifestyles,
the lifestyle they wanted people to see and then this
other terrible lifestyle where maybe Jerry, the husband, handled it better,
but Anne was a terrible alcoholic en coo.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
So in the first few days after the police had talked.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
To the neighbors and one of then the neighbors had
mentioned that only one niece went.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
To visit Hilda, and that that was Susan.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Police had asked Susan why Anne didn't visit, and Susan
just said that Anne hadn't been very well recently.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
I she shouldn't want to say that she was.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
An alcoholic, because maybe she should have just said she
was well, yes, but you know, she thought she was
protecting her. But Anne told police that Susan had stopped
her from visiting, which Susan, she said that was a
bare face lie. That wasn't the case and sh but
she said that, you know, like Anne could bert look
(08:45):
after herself, never mind looking after Hilda. So it was
basically left to her to look after her. But apparently,
and she should never been questioned her use as a
witness because she wasn't fit to answer her questions.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
She didn't know, you know, she didn't know what she
was doing her soon she's an alcoholic.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Yeah, So basically the police stopped all other lines of inquiry.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
And Susan became the chief suspect.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
So because she had visited Hilda at nine pm on
the night of the murder, that placed her at the
scene when the murder could have been committed, and the
case against her was built around three crucial points. The
first was the police's belief that Susan's greed led her
to batter her auntie to death for her money. Susan's
(09:33):
boyfriend at the time was called Chris Ross. He was
fifteen years younger than her, and they had kept their
relations secret relationship's secret because he was still married to
one of Susan's friends. They had been separated for a
few years, but you know, of course it's still a
bit close. So the police they accused Susan of a
(09:54):
murder and Hilda in order to financially benefit from the
inheritance so that she could live much money on Chris okay,
but she already had total control by power of attorney
of and I have held us money anyway, so she
didn't need to murder her to get her money, So
(10:14):
she could have just spent in Yeah, held would probably
been nonewiser well exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
So she didn't need to murder her. But you know,
obviously the police don't, you know, what they're like.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Sometimes they get themselves focused on one person, one suspect, and.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
They just can't see.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Yeah, and Susan she had originally told the police that
she wasn't having a relationship with Chris, but obviously that's
a lie. And when they find out the trade, they
assumed that Susan was just a liar, so she was
lying about everything. But you know, the reason why she
never told, why she said that she wasn't having a relationship,
was because she was trying to keep her secret. And
(10:49):
she did and she said that she just thought, well,
nobody's going to think about that because that had nothing
to do with.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
What happened, So why did they really need to know that? Yeah,
and the.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Fact that he was younger than her, that didn't mean anything,
you know, to her and Chris. They didn't consider ages,
which is why but somebody the police vanished to make
something of that, you know, like you know, fifteen years younger,
and they managed to get in it's something seious, so
her character would be blackened, you know.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
That's yeah, that's what she said.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
So the second crucial point was a comment that Susan
was alleged to I've said to a police officer about
some scratches and held its face. The police claimed that
Susan had asked whether they would be able to retrieve
evidence from under her fingernails. Susan and I she had
ever said that, and her daughter Katie, she took the
(11:40):
way to.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Stand to back up like everything that her mother had said.
So I don't know why.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
I don't know if they'd maybe she maybe said something
and they just kind of took it the wrong way.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
I don't know what that was.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
And the third crucial point was a piece of forensic evidence,
a bloody fingerprint belonging to Susan, which the police claimed
was me around the time of the murder. So I'm
going to quote what one of Susan's friends said about this.
His name is Jeff Goodwin, and he had known Susan
since childhood. Does should show his best friends with his sister,
(12:12):
so he said quote. There were three stains on the wall,
which they presumed by their tests to be blood. One
of the stains was later tested and found to be
human blood, and one of the stains.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
Had Susan's fingerprint in it.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
So they put all three together and said that those
three stains were made after Susan had got blood in
our hands from killing her an at the time of
the murders, imasically the same her blood just touched the wall.
The fingerprint was shown to be a fingerprint only after
it had been enhanced by some chemicals, but the chemicals
had reacted with the original stain to bolden it like
(12:46):
blood blood might have been, like blood might have been.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
That was the stain that was shown in the jury.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
Originally the stain was very very faint, and so the
police took just over a year to build a case
against Susan and the trial was scheduled for April nineteen
ninety three.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
They claimed that she had bludgeoned her added to death and.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
The over taking her money, leaving.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
A bloody finger print behind.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
This proof, so Susan, she'd naively hired a local solicitor
to represent her in court, even though he had no
prior evidence experience of a murder trial.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
She just doesn't believe for one.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Minute that she'll be found guilty, and she saw no
reason to hire expensive representation which assumed she will be
cleared to will charges. So they the jury they never
heard about any other suspects. And also we know there
were other suspects, but the defense team never put that
before the jury because they weren't interested. Susan's solicitor has
(13:46):
said to her, we can get legal aid for a
fingerprint expert, a blood expert, a time of death expert,
but we don't need that because you're not going to
get convicted.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
So basically she had go she had no defense witnesses.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yes, she shouldn't assume that, I mean, I mean, well
a push, not as much as obviously if she didn
since then you think, you know that justice would prevail
and they would find it.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
All out and it'll be fine. But you shouldn't take.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
That for garret, like you should always, like even be
ready to defend yourself of course, with everything that you can,
no matter what you think might or might not happen.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
No matter what the situation is, you should always have
a good defense.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
Yeah, exactly, because you just don't know. Clearly, I've been
obsuming in this case.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
She obviously needed it. Yep.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
So, as I said before, the jury had never heard
about the eyewitness testimony to the red car and the
unident five footprints and clothing five are suggesting the presence
of a burglar. The prosecution painted a picture of a
cruel woman desperate to finance the relationship with a toy
boy lover. And unfortunately, the jury accepted that because they
(14:48):
didn't as those The jury didn't haven't any other else. Yeah, exactly,
that was that was the only sort of scenario, so
they accepted it.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
So they accepted it. Susan brute beat her aunt to
death because that appeared to be the only viable answer.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
So and no, no defense witnesses were ever invited to
discredit the forensics or testified to Susan's character.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
But what lawyer's got all the answer for then? And
on the first of May nineteen ninety three, Susan was found.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Guilty of murdering her Auntie held out and she was
sentenced to life in prison.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Wow, so she was said to riskly prison And I
actually read that.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
I'm not sure, because I think she went to a
few different prisons while she was in prison, and she
was actually in prison with like Maya Hindley.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Oh yeah, and she was like, oh right, God, that
is scary, I know.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Like dot she said that, you know, like Mara would
come up and talk to her, and she just was
like the cage said, the hairs in.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
The back of her neck, just one. Yeah. I wouldn't
repla to be in prison with her, No, definitely not.
Where was that so me and my back in her
home time, As I said, she was sent to prison.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
A group of people who were all individually convinced of
Susan's sorry, Susan's innocent They met and all got pub
After carefully reviewing the evidence. Together, they made a pact
to attempt to clear her Susan's name.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
They called themselves Friends of Susan may And the first
thing they did was look for another solicitor. Yes, I
were going to say that that's a good idea.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
And as the battle to clear her name got underway,
Susan made the decision to concentrate on winning an appeal,
but she was by doing that she was opening herself
up to the possibility of being denied, bro, But obviously
I'm sure it was a risk worth taking. Well, i mean,
she was innocent, so she was determined to prove that.
I mean, she she obviously wanted out of jail, and
(16:43):
she sort of dedicated her time at you know, every
night she was sitting writing letters to whoever she thought
we'd listen, you know. So she did jobs in prison,
but she denied prison courses. So the courses were they
were offending behavior courses, and she refused them because she
hadn't offended. So she thought that would be like admit,
because that's what they try and do in the prison,
(17:03):
what you'd admit, Yeah, exactly. And there was drummed in
here that she didn't do the courses and admit gil
she she might never be released, but.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
She was innocent, and she was she was there was
there was no way she was.
Speaker 4 (17:15):
Going to good honor, to be fair, because a lot
of people might have just crumbled and went on, well, yes,
a situation.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
I'm just gonna have to deal with it.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
But you know, obviously she's innocince, she's adamant that she's
going to clear her name and she's not going to
do anything that's gonna you know, make her look like
she's Gilly.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Yet in nineteen ninety seven, four years after Susan's conviction,
and he appeal was prepared to be granted an appeal,
you need at least one powerful, brand new piece of
evidence not available at the time of the original trial. Right,
So then this it's virtually impossible for the for a
judge till out to go ahead. But Susan's appeal was
rushed and not well enough prepared and failed to overturn
(17:53):
her conviction. So shortly after the failure of the first appeal,
work began on a second appeal and Susan's case was
brought to a national audience and as a result, over
one hundred MPs and members of the House of Lords
were involved in her fight for justice, and they were
headed up by MP McDonald.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
He said that a group of them came together.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
Having studied Susan's case and they could see it was
a miscaracter justice, so they came together to see what
they could do about Croubner innocents and getting her released.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
So right, Honorable Michael.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Meecher, who was the MP for Susan's constituency, having a
German to be in the House of Commons where he
set out the whole case, and he asked for the
Home Office to refer the matter back to the Appeal
cour a game so.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Determined to clear our name would get out of prison.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
Susan had to win this appeal, as I said, under
British law, or preparing an appeal, you can't use evidence
which was available at the time of the original trial,
accepting very rare circumstances. This meant that because Susan's original
defense team choose not to use the majority of crucial evidence,
all this evidence which could have been vital and clearing
(19:02):
Susan's name, and the second pail was deemed admissible because
that had been available at the time of the first trial.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
What it's just an ex Yeah, it does sound like it,
so Jeff could win.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Her childhood friend said that when he and his sister
Dorothy got involved, someone gave them a massive pile of
documents and they had to start reading them, and very
quickly Dorothy found that there was a fourth stain. Remember
I'll talk about the stains on the water. The original
trial being conducted on three stains, but they were actually four.
It was said that it was there before the murder,
(19:36):
and when they took it to the solicitor, they said
they couldn't use it because the original solicitor could have
used that for trial because it was there, it was
in the documents for stating this was very forsture. So
one piece of new evidence submitted improving in the appeal
was that the original forensic expert had falsified his paperwork.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Okay, I don't know one of the details of that.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
This meant that the first stain containing Susan's fingerprint, which
the forensic side said was certain to be blood, had
now been discredited. And today today every incredible scientist scientific
test on this stain has been has been tested negative
over blood.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Okay, so it wasn't blood.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Apparently the second stain was just a smudge and the
police had grouped that together with the first stain.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
So the third stain that was next to the light switch,
and it was human blood.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
But there was no trace of Susan's fingerprint print in it,
and it was also not individually photographed in the original
forensic examination. And it's bellied that the police or ambulance
staff could replace that there when examined and held his body,
and they turned around to turn the light on because
it was next to the light switch they done, so
they could have done it. Yeah, because well, Susan's fingerprint.
(20:59):
So the original prosecution team grouped these stays together. The
fourth stain was disregarded by the police because they admitted
that it must have been there before the murder. It
was in the kitchen and behind her radiator and was
identical the stains one and two. If this stain was
there before the murder, and it was likely that the
stains one and two were also, they weren't in blood,
(21:21):
and it's very likely that Susan visiting held it up
three times every day.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
They were innocent, like put them there.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Well, yeah, because she's in there, like all the time,
she's gonna have left her DNA.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Somewhere and fingerprints whatever.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
Well, the wall with the stains on it was the
passageway between the kitchen where the food was prepared and
the dining table where the food was eating. So the cleaner,
because he had a cleaner, the clearer testified that the
wall was well stained because obviously it was just you know,
two and four, It was just a lot and there
was quite a few stains on it that she tried
(21:53):
to get off when she'd been clearer.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
And she couldn't. Yeah, why was this not saying the.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
Original trailer because the two when its team was absolute shit, she'sus.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
It just shows you definitely make sure you do.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
Your research on who you had to defend you because
that can mean the difference between you actually, you know, having.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
A good chance of winning a case, whether it whether
you're guilty or not guilty. But and it just goes
to show that anybody can get accused of anything.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
You know, all she was doing was just looking after
her aunt, and yet because her fingerprintstance and her stains
are her watz.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
She's got accuse of it. I mean, that's just awful.
I mean, obviously I'm no police expert.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
I don't understand how they're thinking's goal, but I mean,
surely you've got to explore.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
All avenues and unless you're like one hundred percent concrete,
there's no way it could be anybody else. But I
mean you can explore all avenues.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Though you know, fact that they were told about this
other car, this car with the people, and I mean
that should have been like you know, and explored until
they either found something or they had exhausted all possibilities totally.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
You know, there's so many people out there that obviously
get convicted of stuff that they are totally innocent. But
then I guess it was probably cool they got off
of it. They're probably totally get away.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
So you know, on the flip side, well, yeah, because
the person who did this has got a wet yeah, exactly.
So yeah. The fingerprints, so.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
The stains, they were all originally identified as being fingerprints
in blood, and they were referred to throughout the trial
as fingerprints in blood.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
So you know, this is what the jury's here, and
so you can't blieve the jury. Yeah, I don't think
you can blaying the jury at this one. But they
weren't fingerprints and blood.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
You know, at the time of the trial, it was
only the prosecution who produced a forensic expert, and he
claimed that Susan had made these clip stains after killing Hilder.
But some of the forensic evidence actually appeared to have
been altered over time, and some of the evidence appeared
to have.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Been put on documents which weren't actually hated until two
years after the event. I don't know, I don't know,
I don't know. How do they how do they get
away with that? Out? How does that happened?
Speaker 3 (24:14):
And another piece of evidence presented to the appeal judge
was how the police treated Susan with.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Regards to her early interviews as a witness.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
Basically, she just she looked like a good suspect to them,
and it's like they just decided she was the one
who'd done it in the world anyone else out, which
obviously isn't.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Good police work.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
And because she didn't realize that she was being treated
as a suspect, she didn't be able to need to
have a lawyer present.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
So to me, well, yeah, I mean, like I think
they should have been disciplined for that.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Surely, if if somebody has been treated as a suspect,
they should know that they are being treated as a suspect,
so they have the right.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
You should have the right to know that that's what
you are. If you're a witness, you're that's fine.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
But if you become a suspect, then they should be saying, sorry,
but you're actually a suspect now.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
You know, And that tells you, like you said to
some legal represented it if you feel you need it.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
Yeah, just because that's that's you know, that's almost like
they're trying to, you know, trip her up and get
her to exactly the confess or let her give them
something that they can work with.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
I just I don't think realize them. I don't see
how that can be legal.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
But maybe there's loopholes and they've got their way around
it because they're like, no, we're she was just a
witness at that point, exactly.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
That's the thing. I just don't know.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
So, but all their efforts and hard work would prove
to be fruitless. So on the seventh of December two
thousand and one, after eight years have been in prison,
Susan's second appeal was dismissed.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Because she's been already eight years in prison. Susan was
obviously deestape, but she refused to give up.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
She continued writing letters every night to people that she
thought might be able to help her. Her sole focused
was to get her name cleared. That's basically what she
lived for.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
We've been in prison for so many years.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
She us to wednds of all three of her children,
the births of our grandchildren, and her sister's funeral. She
died when she was inside, and the first year of
her being inside Susan's mom died.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
She was eighty three, and she hadn't been on well
but with her sister.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Her sister was held out with her sisters or what
her sister had been murdered, her daughter was put away
for it.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
She just went downhill from there.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
But the prison they actually let see that Susan go
home and see her mom before she died, so she
got to spend the afternoon with her, and her mom
died that night, so it's like her mom was just
waiting to see Susan just one last time before she passed.
So in two thousand and five, after twelve years in prison,
Susan was released. So she'd done her time, but she
(26:44):
hadn't been cleared up murdered, so she actually she got
released just for doing her time. Yeah, she had, you know,
so she she was one of the very few people who,
whilst she was protesting her innocence and her few to
cooperate with the prison in terms of the courses designed
to deal with the friend of behavior, was in fact
(27:05):
released on the first possible day that she could be released.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
So that's you know, doesn't that very often. So if
Susan didn't commit this murder, who did Oh yeah, exactly
like who actually do we find out who did? Well?
It is either that's what like you know, like that
must you know like it? So you know, if somebody gets.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Convicted in something and they're obviously very innocent, and the
fact that she's for the twelve years she's been in there,
she's fought hard to try and get appeal. She's fort
her to try clear name, and then after getting released
she still fights to clear name.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
I mean, most people have've done it. You'd probably to
give up by the instrment. I loved them a tip
of mount but that tells me that, well, you're probably eddisent.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
If yeah, if you've still got that effort in you
to like what to clear your name, even though you've
now done your time, then.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
Surely you're innocent. Why would you bother?
Speaker 3 (27:50):
So the clues lie with the red car and the
unidentified footprints, and five hours found it the scene there
is a man who has referred to you as miss X.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
So what I was reading and they.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
Didn't want to give his name out because he hadn't
had a trial, because he hadn't had a fair tile,
so it kind of seemed a bit unfair.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Pe his name out there, but he was wired. So
this Yeah, there's a man called mister X.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
He is widely believed I was responsible for the murder
and Pilda, but he's actually dead now.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
He was fatally stabbed by a fellow criminal.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
His attacker was caught and convicted of murder, but during
his trial, a conversation with a police officer revealed a
piece of information Mister X.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
He continually bragged it.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
In nineteen ninety two, he visited a house in Roydon
and murdered an elderly widow during a burglary, and he
would never get caught for this murder because some woman
was doing his time for him. So it's been proven
that the rex car belonged to mister X's sister and
was sold on shortly after the murder, and the other
men of the criminal for fraternity knew about Hilder's murder.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
Before Susan even been the body. Oh wow. So even
after being released, Susan you know, worked on clearing her
name and it was still her main focus.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
But unfortunately she died of cancer on the thirtieth of
October twenty thirteen when she's sixty eight, just weeks before
finding out whether.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
She'd be granted a third appeal. Oh my shit, So
she died still being a convicted murderer. Yeah, that's awful.
That's really bad.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
See that's where I hate our justice systems or the
justice system sometimes, because you know, there are probably people
like Susan. I was like, you know, there are people
out there like her that have had to go through
an ordeal of being convicted of something they haven't.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Done, and you know, spent twelve years in prison in her.
Speaker 4 (29:56):
Life and missed all those you know, wonderful events that
you know she's have been, you know, therefore because of
something that she didn't.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Do, and then she died without how her name cleared.
Yeah that's awful. Actually, but has has her name? Has
their family stug being fighting's clearer name? I'm assuming so,
But I tried to find out.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
But all I need to get was when you know,
every time I sort of tried to find out, my
searches just kept coming up with articles from.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Twenty thirteen just saying that she died from cancer.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
And so I don't know, like it's hopefully that, but
I know because it would be nice if if her
family could have kept fighting for her, and you know
rightly had her name cleared. Yeah, and I tried to
find it, but I've been kind of and and shame
on you, mister X. No, he's dead, he can't do it. Well, no,
(30:47):
but still if it was, it's just why I believed it.
And that's why his name hasn't been mentioned because he
didn't get a trial.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
So yeah, that's so I don't know what his name was.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
And now that he's dead as well, I mean, it's
not even so much him that I would be thinking obviously,
like his family and stuff like that, because yeah, I
suppose you know, imagine if your dad, your son, your brother,
whoever had died, criminal or not.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
You know, you still love your family, don't. Yeah, So
if he died and then somebody's accusing.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Him of murder, you wouldn't want people knowing that way
like you wouldn't we want people talking about your your
relative like that.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
There there have been.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Cases where that has happened, isn't there the in the
celebrity world we're at all, but we say I'm not.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
It's not I went home. That's fair enough.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
But what a shame for her, because you know, if
she genuinely was Innison and she served twelve years her life,
and anyone then died by even being a clear name, then.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
That's I'm quite so thank you for listening, and if
you like us, don't forget the subscribe rate interview. Yeah, thanks,
Missing
Hi, I'm Laura and I'm Jil.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
And this it's Draig Divers.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Hello, everybody, welcome to today's episode. Hello.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Where in the world, wary? We are in the UK,
We're in England. Okay, and what is the title? The
title is Innocent as Charged, Innocent as Church.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
That sounds interesting. Yeah, well you'll just have to wait
and see. Okay, Well, let's not waste any more time
and let's dive in. Let's dive in. Okay. So the
year was nineteen ninety two and Hilda march Back was
eighty nine.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
She lived in Roydon, just outside Rochdale, which is near Manchester.
She's never had any children, but she was extremely close
to her niece Susan May, and Susan.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Was her sister daughter. So Susan looked at Hill Sorry.
Susan looked at Hilda as.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
A second mum, and she had done all her life.
There was barely a day that went by that she
didn't see her. As Hilda got older, Susan would look
after her and she seemed to have problems where memory.
Susan would go and visit Hilda, but by the time
Susan had driven home, which I don't know how far
away she lived, but it was pretty close. Yeah, it's
(01:27):
only a few minutes drive, I think. So by the
time Susan had driven home, the phone would be ringing
and it would be held us saying, am I not
seeing you today? And Susan would be like, I've just
left you a major lunch with your dinner whatever depend
on whatever date it was, and Hilda would just kind
of laugh off and say sorry, I'm.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
A fail because it helda and Hild her would.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Go to Susan's house like three or four times a
week for dinner, so you know obviously that they were
very close.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
So on the eleventh of March nineteen ninety two, Susan
visited held at around nine pm. She didn't usually visit
that late, but Hilda had lost her front door keys.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
She hadn't lost them, but forgotten.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
But basically Hilda I had phoned Susan and I said,
where do you think my front door keys are? And
Susan she'd been trying to teach her to leave her
keys like on a ledge just inside the house because
obviously if held a letter keys in the door.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
I wouldn't be able to get her in help.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Yeah, which is exactly what you keep doing them you
have to do, trained her.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Eventually, eventually she got it.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
I was like, stop leaving the key in the door,
because if I need to come in and emergency, I'm
not gonna.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Get Well, that's what Susan was doing with Hilda.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Yeah, so this was still like a new thing to
held us.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
So she was having she was.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Having problems remembering it, you know, because obviously she wasn't
she wasn't.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Used to no. So Susan said to her, like, don't worry.
Your keys are on the ledge.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Just don't open your front door tonight and held her
I was like, all right, okay, I'll see tomorrow. But
then a lot of while later held her phone again
and asked where her keys were.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
So Susan was kind of a bit worried by this.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Was just go up and check on her. So she
went up to the house and she let herself in.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Other said this was about nine o'clock.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
So she let herself in and Hilda had her nighty on.
She was ready for bed and Susan Susan I said, right,
what's happening? And Hilda was like, what are you doing here?
She'd forgotten that she should even phone Susan. So Susan
explained her that she'd been looking.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
For her keys. She showed her where they were.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
She stayed for about five ten minutes and Kissy could
buye and said see you and the murna. Susan then
picked up her boyfriend and his friend up and she
took them to the pub.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
She dropped them off, then went home.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
She made some phone calls and she spoke to her
daughter Katie on the phone, and then she went to bed.
So the next morning, Susan went to the shop to
buy Hilda a sandwich for her lunch, and then she
drove to Hilda's house, which is what she did every day.
She let herself in and she shouted for her Hilda,
but there was no answer.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
She put down her.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
Handbag, ramwich and kitchen and Hilda. She slipped downstairs and
that our door was slightly open.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
So Susan pushed the.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Door and her words came across a scene of horror. Oh,
she Hilda was on the bed and she'd be murdered.
Don't worry, You're not gonna get graphic details. It was
just what she had said. She came out across the
scene of horror. So yeah, held her was on the
bed and she'd be murdered. Susan said that she was
naked from her breasts down, so I'm taking it to
(04:32):
mean that her nighty was pulled up.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Susan said that he had always bothered her in the years.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Since then, as Hilda was such a private person, and
she just thought how awful it was that that was
how she was lying and held it being beaten and suffocaid.
So Susan went up to the side of the bend
and she was like looking down and Hilda, but she
couldn't remember if she touched her or not. She also
couldn't remember leaving the house. She just couldn't remember. All
(05:00):
she could remember was just seeing the body, and the
next thing she was like out on the driveway thinking
I need to get help.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Yeah, so all them place. They were on the scene within.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Minutes, interviewing witnesses, taking photographs, and remembering forensic evidence, including
footprints and fibers.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
From the scene.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
There had been footprints in the porch and even in
a wardrobe upstairs.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
I don't know why to be a footprint in a
wardrobe is like a like a walk on wardrobe. I
don't know. Business. Yeah, and they've never been identified and held.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
I had clothing fibers on her hand that didn't come
from any of her clothes or Susans, but they never
found out where they came from. So a Susan, no Suman,
and no a neighbor totally not even close. It's because
where I've written Susan as the neighbor, Susan is actually.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Above the word neighbors. So I was looking at the
wrong bit.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
A neighbor had seen a suspicious looking red car, possibly
a boored Fiesta it's the house at about midnight. There
was no one inside, but the engine was running. He
said it was there for about fifteen minutes. Another neighbor
had spotted the same car earlier that night and gave
a detailed description of it to the police as she
thought the three men inside were.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Up to no good. So the police focused on.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Trying to find the car and the men who were
in it. So we're in the next couple of weeks.
Police invested the murder, investigated the murder. They kept in
touch with Susan daily and they took witness statements from her,
her children, and her sister. But then the police called
off their search for the car and the three men,
and without her knowledge, started building up a case against Susan.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Oh, so they started to accuse her m HM.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
So, nineteen days after the murder, the police turned up
on our doorstep and Arresteder for the murder of Hilda.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
So she was shocked.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Obviously, And since Hilda's murder she had seen the police
every day. She'd had no idea that they suspected her.
She just thought they were doing their quis. Yeah, she
was just system Yeah. So her and her son said,
with hindsight, you could see it coming. They scaled everything
down at the house and they were they were like
(07:16):
they were there all the time, like seeing Susan and
the way they were wording it, it was just like, oh,
we're just trying to find out We're just trying to
help you, Susan. We're just trying to get to the
bottom of everything. We want to find out who killed
her auntie. But looking back, they were just sort of
setting it up like for her, and the suspicion is
(07:36):
actually being raised by Susan's sister Anne.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So Anne had a problem with alcohol, but like nobody
was supposed to know that.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
It was sort of like behind closed doors. Yeah, so
quite often.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Like Susan would have to go round to her.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
House and and help because she was fighting with her husband.
And Susan said, quote, it was like they had two lifestyles,
the lifestyle they wanted people to see and then this
other terrible lifestyle where maybe Jerry, the husband, handled it better,
but Anne was a terrible alcoholic en coo.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
So in the first few days after the police had talked.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
To the neighbors and one of then the neighbors had
mentioned that only one niece went.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
To visit Hilda, and that that was Susan.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Police had asked Susan why Anne didn't visit, and Susan
just said that Anne hadn't been very well recently.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
I she shouldn't want to say that she was.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
An alcoholic, because maybe she should have just said she
was well, yes, but you know, she thought she was
protecting her. But Anne told police that Susan had stopped
her from visiting, which Susan, she said that was a
bare face lie. That wasn't the case and sh but
she said that, you know, like Anne could bert look
(08:45):
after herself, never mind looking after Hilda. So it was
basically left to her to look after her. But apparently,
and she should never been questioned her use as a
witness because she wasn't fit to answer her questions.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
She didn't know, you know, she didn't know what she
was doing her soon she's an alcoholic.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Yeah, So basically the police stopped all other lines of inquiry.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
And Susan became the chief suspect.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
So because she had visited Hilda at nine pm on
the night of the murder, that placed her at the
scene when the murder could have been committed, and the
case against her was built around three crucial points. The
first was the police's belief that Susan's greed led her
to batter her auntie to death for her money. Susan's
(09:33):
boyfriend at the time was called Chris Ross. He was
fifteen years younger than her, and they had kept their
relations secret relationship's secret because he was still married to
one of Susan's friends. They had been separated for a
few years, but you know, of course it's still a
bit close. So the police they accused Susan of a
(09:54):
murder and Hilda in order to financially benefit from the
inheritance so that she could live much money on Chris okay,
but she already had total control by power of attorney
of and I have held us money anyway, so she
didn't need to murder her to get her money, So
(10:14):
she could have just spent in Yeah, held would probably
been nonewiser well exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
So she didn't need to murder her. But you know,
obviously the police don't, you know, what they're like.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Sometimes they get themselves focused on one person, one suspect, and.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
They just can't see.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Yeah, and Susan she had originally told the police that
she wasn't having a relationship with Chris, but obviously that's
a lie. And when they find out the trade, they
assumed that Susan was just a liar, so she was
lying about everything. But you know, the reason why she
never told, why she said that she wasn't having a relationship,
was because she was trying to keep her secret. And
(10:49):
she did and she said that she just thought, well,
nobody's going to think about that because that had nothing
to do with.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
What happened, So why did they really need to know that? Yeah,
and the.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Fact that he was younger than her, that didn't mean anything,
you know, to her and Chris. They didn't consider ages,
which is why but somebody the police vanished to make
something of that, you know, like you know, fifteen years younger,
and they managed to get in it's something seious, so
her character would be blackened, you know.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
That's yeah, that's what she said.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
So the second crucial point was a comment that Susan
was alleged to I've said to a police officer about
some scratches and held its face. The police claimed that
Susan had asked whether they would be able to retrieve
evidence from under her fingernails. Susan and I she had
ever said that, and her daughter Katie, she took the
(11:40):
way to.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Stand to back up like everything that her mother had said.
So I don't know why.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
I don't know if they'd maybe she maybe said something
and they just kind of took it the wrong way.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
I don't know what that was.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
And the third crucial point was a piece of forensic evidence,
a bloody fingerprint belonging to Susan, which the police claimed
was me around the time of the murder. So I'm
going to quote what one of Susan's friends said about this.
His name is Jeff Goodwin, and he had known Susan
since childhood. Does should show his best friends with his sister,
(12:12):
so he said quote. There were three stains on the wall,
which they presumed by their tests to be blood. One
of the stains was later tested and found to be
human blood, and one of the stains.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
Had Susan's fingerprint in it.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
So they put all three together and said that those
three stains were made after Susan had got blood in
our hands from killing her an at the time of
the murders, imasically the same her blood just touched the wall.
The fingerprint was shown to be a fingerprint only after
it had been enhanced by some chemicals, but the chemicals
had reacted with the original stain to bolden it like
(12:46):
blood blood might have been, like blood might have been.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
That was the stain that was shown in the jury.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
Originally the stain was very very faint, and so the
police took just over a year to build a case
against Susan and the trial was scheduled for April nineteen
ninety three.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
They claimed that she had bludgeoned her added to death and.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
The over taking her money, leaving.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
A bloody finger print behind.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
This proof, so Susan, she'd naively hired a local solicitor
to represent her in court, even though he had no
prior evidence experience of a murder trial.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
She just doesn't believe for one.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Minute that she'll be found guilty, and she saw no
reason to hire expensive representation which assumed she will be
cleared to will charges. So they the jury they never
heard about any other suspects. And also we know there
were other suspects, but the defense team never put that
before the jury because they weren't interested. Susan's solicitor has
(13:46):
said to her, we can get legal aid for a
fingerprint expert, a blood expert, a time of death expert,
but we don't need that because you're not going to
get convicted.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
So basically she had go she had no defense witnesses.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yes, she shouldn't assume that, I mean, I mean, well
a push, not as much as obviously if she didn
since then you think, you know that justice would prevail
and they would find it.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
All out and it'll be fine. But you shouldn't take.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
That for garret, like you should always, like even be
ready to defend yourself of course, with everything that you can,
no matter what you think might or might not happen.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
No matter what the situation is, you should always have
a good defense.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
Yeah, exactly, because you just don't know. Clearly, I've been
obsuming in this case.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
She obviously needed it. Yep.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
So, as I said before, the jury had never heard
about the eyewitness testimony to the red car and the
unident five footprints and clothing five are suggesting the presence
of a burglar. The prosecution painted a picture of a
cruel woman desperate to finance the relationship with a toy
boy lover. And unfortunately, the jury accepted that because they
(14:48):
didn't as those The jury didn't haven't any other else. Yeah, exactly,
that was that was the only sort of scenario, so
they accepted it.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
So they accepted it. Susan brute beat her aunt to
death because that appeared to be the only viable answer.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
So and no, no defense witnesses were ever invited to
discredit the forensics or testified to Susan's character.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
But what lawyer's got all the answer for then? And
on the first of May nineteen ninety three, Susan was found.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Guilty of murdering her Auntie held out and she was
sentenced to life in prison.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Wow, so she was said to riskly prison And I
actually read that.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
I'm not sure, because I think she went to a
few different prisons while she was in prison, and she
was actually in prison with like Maya Hindley.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Oh yeah, and she was like, oh right, God, that
is scary, I know.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Like dot she said that, you know, like Mara would
come up and talk to her, and she just was
like the cage said, the hairs in.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
The back of her neck, just one. Yeah. I wouldn't
repla to be in prison with her, No, definitely not.
Where was that so me and my back in her
home time, As I said, she was sent to prison.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
A group of people who were all individually convinced of
Susan's sorry, Susan's innocent They met and all got pub
After carefully reviewing the evidence. Together, they made a pact
to attempt to clear her Susan's name.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
They called themselves Friends of Susan may And the first
thing they did was look for another solicitor. Yes, I
were going to say that that's a good idea.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
And as the battle to clear her name got underway,
Susan made the decision to concentrate on winning an appeal,
but she was by doing that she was opening herself
up to the possibility of being denied, bro, But obviously
I'm sure it was a risk worth taking. Well, i mean,
she was innocent, so she was determined to prove that.
I mean, she she obviously wanted out of jail, and
(16:43):
she sort of dedicated her time at you know, every
night she was sitting writing letters to whoever she thought
we'd listen, you know. So she did jobs in prison,
but she denied prison courses. So the courses were they
were offending behavior courses, and she refused them because she
hadn't offended. So she thought that would be like admit,
because that's what they try and do in the prison,
(17:03):
what you'd admit, Yeah, exactly. And there was drummed in
here that she didn't do the courses and admit gil
she she might never be released, but.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
She was innocent, and she was she was there was
there was no way she was.
Speaker 4 (17:15):
Going to good honor, to be fair, because a lot
of people might have just crumbled and went on, well, yes,
a situation.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
I'm just gonna have to deal with it.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
But you know, obviously she's innocince, she's adamant that she's
going to clear her name and she's not going to
do anything that's gonna you know, make her look like
she's Gilly.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Yet in nineteen ninety seven, four years after Susan's conviction,
and he appeal was prepared to be granted an appeal,
you need at least one powerful, brand new piece of
evidence not available at the time of the original trial. Right,
So then this it's virtually impossible for the for a
judge till out to go ahead. But Susan's appeal was
rushed and not well enough prepared and failed to overturn
(17:53):
her conviction. So shortly after the failure of the first appeal,
work began on a second appeal and Susan's case was
brought to a national audience and as a result, over
one hundred MPs and members of the House of Lords
were involved in her fight for justice, and they were
headed up by MP McDonald.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
He said that a group of them came together.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
Having studied Susan's case and they could see it was
a miscaracter justice, so they came together to see what
they could do about Croubner innocents and getting her released.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
So right, Honorable Michael.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Meecher, who was the MP for Susan's constituency, having a
German to be in the House of Commons where he
set out the whole case, and he asked for the
Home Office to refer the matter back to the Appeal
cour a game so.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Determined to clear our name would get out of prison.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
Susan had to win this appeal, as I said, under
British law, or preparing an appeal, you can't use evidence
which was available at the time of the original trial,
accepting very rare circumstances. This meant that because Susan's original
defense team choose not to use the majority of crucial evidence,
all this evidence which could have been vital and clearing
(19:02):
Susan's name, and the second pail was deemed admissible because
that had been available at the time of the first trial.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
What it's just an ex Yeah, it does sound like it,
so Jeff could win.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Her childhood friend said that when he and his sister
Dorothy got involved, someone gave them a massive pile of
documents and they had to start reading them, and very
quickly Dorothy found that there was a fourth stain. Remember
I'll talk about the stains on the water. The original
trial being conducted on three stains, but they were actually four.
It was said that it was there before the murder,
(19:36):
and when they took it to the solicitor, they said
they couldn't use it because the original solicitor could have
used that for trial because it was there, it was
in the documents for stating this was very forsture. So
one piece of new evidence submitted improving in the appeal
was that the original forensic expert had falsified his paperwork.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Okay, I don't know one of the details of that.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
This meant that the first stain containing Susan's fingerprint, which
the forensic side said was certain to be blood, had
now been discredited. And today today every incredible scientist scientific
test on this stain has been has been tested negative
over blood.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Okay, so it wasn't blood.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Apparently the second stain was just a smudge and the
police had grouped that together with the first stain.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
So the third stain that was next to the light switch,
and it was human blood.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
But there was no trace of Susan's fingerprint print in it,
and it was also not individually photographed in the original
forensic examination. And it's bellied that the police or ambulance
staff could replace that there when examined and held his body,
and they turned around to turn the light on because
it was next to the light switch they done, so
they could have done it. Yeah, because well, Susan's fingerprint.
(20:59):
So the original prosecution team grouped these stays together. The
fourth stain was disregarded by the police because they admitted
that it must have been there before the murder. It
was in the kitchen and behind her radiator and was
identical the stains one and two. If this stain was
there before the murder, and it was likely that the
stains one and two were also, they weren't in blood,
(21:21):
and it's very likely that Susan visiting held it up
three times every day.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
They were innocent, like put them there.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Well, yeah, because she's in there, like all the time,
she's gonna have left her DNA.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Somewhere and fingerprints whatever.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
Well, the wall with the stains on it was the
passageway between the kitchen where the food was prepared and
the dining table where the food was eating. So the cleaner,
because he had a cleaner, the clearer testified that the
wall was well stained because obviously it was just you know,
two and four, It was just a lot and there
was quite a few stains on it that she tried
(21:53):
to get off when she'd been clearer.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
And she couldn't. Yeah, why was this not saying the.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
Original trailer because the two when its team was absolute shit, she'sus.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
It just shows you definitely make sure you do.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
Your research on who you had to defend you because
that can mean the difference between you actually, you know, having.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
A good chance of winning a case, whether it whether
you're guilty or not guilty. But and it just goes
to show that anybody can get accused of anything.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
You know, all she was doing was just looking after
her aunt, and yet because her fingerprintstance and her stains
are her watz.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
She's got accuse of it. I mean, that's just awful.
I mean, obviously I'm no police expert.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
I don't understand how they're thinking's goal, but I mean,
surely you've got to explore.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
All avenues and unless you're like one hundred percent concrete,
there's no way it could be anybody else. But I
mean you can explore all avenues.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
Though you know, fact that they were told about this
other car, this car with the people, and I mean
that should have been like you know, and explored until
they either found something or they had exhausted all possibilities totally.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
You know, there's so many people out there that obviously
get convicted of stuff that they are totally innocent. But
then I guess it was probably cool they got off
of it. They're probably totally get away.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
So you know, on the flip side, well, yeah, because
the person who did this has got a wet yeah, exactly.
So yeah. The fingerprints, so.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
The stains, they were all originally identified as being fingerprints
in blood, and they were referred to throughout the trial
as fingerprints in blood.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
So you know, this is what the jury's here, and
so you can't blieve the jury. Yeah, I don't think
you can blaying the jury at this one. But they
weren't fingerprints and blood.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
You know, at the time of the trial, it was
only the prosecution who produced a forensic expert, and he
claimed that Susan had made these clip stains after killing Hilder.
But some of the forensic evidence actually appeared to have
been altered over time, and some of the evidence appeared
to have.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Been put on documents which weren't actually hated until two
years after the event. I don't know, I don't know,
I don't know. How do they how do they get
away with that? Out? How does that happened?
Speaker 3 (24:14):
And another piece of evidence presented to the appeal judge
was how the police treated Susan with.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Regards to her early interviews as a witness.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
Basically, she just she looked like a good suspect to them,
and it's like they just decided she was the one
who'd done it in the world anyone else out, which
obviously isn't.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Good police work.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
And because she didn't realize that she was being treated
as a suspect, she didn't be able to need to
have a lawyer present.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
So to me, well, yeah, I mean, like I think
they should have been disciplined for that.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Surely, if if somebody has been treated as a suspect,
they should know that they are being treated as a suspect,
so they have the right.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
You should have the right to know that that's what
you are. If you're a witness, you're that's fine.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
But if you become a suspect, then they should be saying, sorry,
but you're actually a suspect now.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
You know, And that tells you, like you said to
some legal represented it if you feel you need it.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
Yeah, just because that's that's you know, that's almost like
they're trying to, you know, trip her up and get
her to exactly the confess or let her give them
something that they can work with.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
I just I don't think realize them. I don't see
how that can be legal.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
But maybe there's loopholes and they've got their way around
it because they're like, no, we're she was just a
witness at that point, exactly.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
That's the thing. I just don't know.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
So, but all their efforts and hard work would prove
to be fruitless. So on the seventh of December two
thousand and one, after eight years have been in prison,
Susan's second appeal was dismissed.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Because she's been already eight years in prison. Susan was
obviously deestape, but she refused to give up.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
She continued writing letters every night to people that she
thought might be able to help her. Her sole focused
was to get her name cleared. That's basically what she
lived for.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
We've been in prison for so many years.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
She us to wednds of all three of her children,
the births of our grandchildren, and her sister's funeral. She
died when she was inside, and the first year of
her being inside Susan's mom died.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
She was eighty three, and she hadn't been on well
but with her sister.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Her sister was held out with her sisters or what
her sister had been murdered, her daughter was put away
for it.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
She just went downhill from there.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
But the prison they actually let see that Susan go
home and see her mom before she died, so she
got to spend the afternoon with her, and her mom
died that night, so it's like her mom was just
waiting to see Susan just one last time before she passed.
So in two thousand and five, after twelve years in prison,
Susan was released. So she'd done her time, but she
(26:44):
hadn't been cleared up murdered, so she actually she got
released just for doing her time. Yeah, she had, you know,
so she she was one of the very few people who,
whilst she was protesting her innocence and her few to
cooperate with the prison in terms of the courses designed
to deal with the friend of behavior, was in fact
(27:05):
released on the first possible day that she could be released.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
So that's you know, doesn't that very often. So if
Susan didn't commit this murder, who did Oh yeah, exactly
like who actually do we find out who did? Well?
It is either that's what like you know, like that
must you know like it? So you know, if somebody gets.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
Convicted in something and they're obviously very innocent, and the
fact that she's for the twelve years she's been in there,
she's fought hard to try and get appeal. She's fort
her to try clear name, and then after getting released
she still fights to clear name.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
I mean, most people have've done it. You'd probably to
give up by the instrment. I loved them a tip
of mount but that tells me that, well, you're probably eddisent.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
If yeah, if you've still got that effort in you
to like what to clear your name, even though you've
now done your time, then.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
Surely you're innocent. Why would you bother?
Speaker 3 (27:50):
So the clues lie with the red car and the
unidentified footprints, and five hours found it the scene there
is a man who has referred to you as miss X.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
So what I was reading and they.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
Didn't want to give his name out because he hadn't
had a trial, because he hadn't had a fair tile,
so it kind of seemed a bit unfair.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Pe his name out there, but he was wired. So
this Yeah, there's a man called mister X.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
He is widely believed I was responsible for the murder
and Pilda, but he's actually dead now.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
He was fatally stabbed by a fellow criminal.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
His attacker was caught and convicted of murder, but during
his trial, a conversation with a police officer revealed a
piece of information Mister X.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
He continually bragged it.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
In nineteen ninety two, he visited a house in Roydon
and murdered an elderly widow during a burglary, and he
would never get caught for this murder because some woman
was doing his time for him. So it's been proven
that the rex car belonged to mister X's sister and
was sold on shortly after the murder, and the other
men of the criminal for fraternity knew about Hilder's murder.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
Before Susan even been the body. Oh wow. So even
after being released, Susan you know, worked on clearing her
name and it was still her main focus.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
But unfortunately she died of cancer on the thirtieth of
October twenty thirteen when she's sixty eight, just weeks before
finding out whether.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
She'd be granted a third appeal. Oh my shit, So
she died still being a convicted murderer. Yeah, that's awful.
That's really bad.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
See that's where I hate our justice systems or the
justice system sometimes, because you know, there are probably people
like Susan. I was like, you know, there are people
out there like her that have had to go through
an ordeal of being convicted of something they haven't.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Done, and you know, spent twelve years in prison in her.
Speaker 4 (29:56):
Life and missed all those you know, wonderful events that
you know she's have been, you know, therefore because of
something that she didn't.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Do, and then she died without how her name cleared.
Yeah that's awful. Actually, but has has her name? Has
their family stug being fighting's clearer name? I'm assuming so,
But I tried to find out.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
But all I need to get was when you know,
every time I sort of tried to find out, my
searches just kept coming up with articles from.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Twenty thirteen just saying that she died from cancer.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
And so I don't know, like it's hopefully that, but
I know because it would be nice if if her
family could have kept fighting for her, and you know
rightly had her name cleared. Yeah, and I tried to
find it, but I've been kind of and and shame
on you, mister X. No, he's dead, he can't do it. Well, no,
(30:47):
but still if it was, it's just why I believed it.
And that's why his name hasn't been mentioned because he
didn't get a trial.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
So yeah, that's so I don't know what his name was.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
And now that he's dead as well, I mean, it's
not even so much him that I would be thinking obviously,
like his family and stuff like that, because yeah, I
suppose you know, imagine if your dad, your son, your brother,
whoever had died, criminal or not.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
You know, you still love your family, don't. Yeah, So
if he died and then somebody's accusing.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Him of murder, you wouldn't want people knowing that way
like you wouldn't we want people talking about your your
relative like that.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
There there have been.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Cases where that has happened, isn't there the in the
celebrity world we're at all, but we say I'm not.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
It's not I went home. That's fair enough.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
But what a shame for her, because you know, if
she genuinely was Innison and she served twelve years her life,
and anyone then died by even being a clear name, then.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
That's I'm quite so thank you for listening, and if
you like us, don't forget the subscribe rate interview. Yeah, thanks,
Missing
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.