| The Dream Solution
- Documents |
08/06/93
- RE: THE APPEAL OF MICHELLE & LISA TAYLOR ENCLOSURE
1
RE: THE APPEAL OF MICHELLE & LISA TAYLOR
ENCLOSURE 1
THE CASE OF THE CROWN, GENERALLY
The Crown's case was that this murder was deliberately planned
and carried out by the two Appellants, and that they tried
to conceal their guilt immediately after the murder by hurrying
back to the clinic where MT worked and by inventing an account
of their whereabouts before and during the time of the murder
in order to conceal the truth of what they had done. Thereafter
in furtherance of this false story they told lies to police
about where they had been and about Lisa's visit to the
flat. The case may be summarised conveniently under different
headings :
1 Time of the murder
A Circumstantial evidence :-
(1) Alison Shaughnessy left work at Barclays Bank, Strand,
at 5.02 on 3 June. Evidence of the computer ( summing up
p 44E).
(2) The average journey time from her place of work to her
home at 541 Vardens Road by the methods of transport and
route she habitually took was 37 minutes. Admissions (idem
p 44G-45G).
(3) There was no reason to believe she did not arrive home
shortly before 5.45pm having left work at 5.02pm. Her husband
confirmed in evidence that she was accustomed to arrive
home about 5.45pm. In a telephone call on the afternoon
of 3 June Alison told her husband she might collect what
he remembered her describing as "a card or something"
on her way home. No such object was found among her possessions.
(4) John Shaughnessy and the Appellant Michelle Taylor arrived
at 41 Vardens Road at about 8.30pm. They discovered Alison's
dead body at the top of a small flight of stairs within
the flat (idem p 74G-75E).
(5) It was apparent that Alison had entered the front door
of the flat, collected her mail opened her flat door and
climbed the internal staircase of the flat. Her coat, umbrella,
handbag and unopened letters were scattered by her body,
indicating that she had not had time to dispose of her possessions
when the attack occurred. (summing up 45H-46A)
B Pathological evidence:-
(1) Dr Rufus Compton, the pathologist who attended the scene
and estimated the time of death, said that in his opinion
Alison had died between 4.00 - 8.00pm. Evidence Vol I 81B-82C
in XX and 103D-104D.
(2) The most likely time was the median time of around 6.00pm
but this in mo way precluded 5.45pm (idem p 81F; 97G; 99E-H;
100B-F; 104B-D).
2 General identity of murderer
A The Crown suggested that there was evidence to show that
the Assailant was not an intruder.
(1) There was no trace of any sexual assault (Summing up
p 76G)
(2) No sign of any forced entry to the flat.
(3) No fingerprints, fibres, footprints or scuffmarks on
any of the drainpipes or brickwork at the back of the flat,
ie at any point of exit from the flat which was situated
on second and third floors (summing up p 86F-87C 99C-E).
(4) Mr Casey who reached his ground floor flat at 5.40/5.45pm
heard no-one come to the front door until the arrival of
John Shaughnessy and Michelle Taylor at 8.30pm (summing
up p 101B-102E).
B The crown suggested that the evidence demonstrated that
Alison's assailant must have been known to her, that she
had willingly allowed that person access to the common parts
of the building and up the staircase of her flat.
(1) Alison had collected the post (which was recovered unopened
beside her body) from the doormat inside the front door
of No 41 and had taken the letters upstairs. (Summing p
46)
(2) Her body was found at the top of the staircase where
she had been attacked before she had had time to dispose
of her handbag or her umbrella (summing up p 45H- 46A).
(3) The mortice lock on the front door was unlocked. It
was Alison's habit to lock the mortice after she had closed
the front door. If she, rather than the ground floor neighbour,
Mr Casey, had left the mortice unlocked, she could only
have done so:-
(a) through forgetfulness (unlikely); or
(b) because she bad admitted a visitor who she was expecting
would soon depart (Summing up p 46C-47C).
NB there was evidence that two bracelets, one of which Alison
wore regularly, could not be located after her death, though
when and in what circumstances they disappeared could not
be resolved (summing up p 99E-100B). These were the only
objects which John Shaughnessy could not find in the aftermath
of the murder.
3 The question of motive
A The Crown suggested that Michelle Taylor continued to
have strong feelings for John Shaughnessy even up to June
1991. In particular:-
(1) The entries she had made in her diary about Alison and
about her feelings for Shaughnessy. (Summing up p 33F-39H
and especially p 35E-G)
(2) Her admitted continuing love for Shaughnessy at the
time of Alison's death, her denial that the relationship
was at an end by June 1991 (see interview of 24 July and
summing up p 40G-43E).
B The Crown submitted that Michelle Taylor may well have
felt by June 1991 that her continued relationship with Shaughnessy
was under threat because:-
(1) Shaughnessy had spoken of giving up the practice of
arranging flowers on Monday nights at the hospital in order
to spend more time with Alison.
(2) The Shaughnessy's had recently moved out of the clinic
to Vardens Road and were planning to start a family.
(3) Shanghnessy was talking of returning to Ireland with
Alison sometime in the future. (Referred to in evidence
Vol II p 211)
4 The Appellants' false account of their movement between
2.00-6.00pm on 3 June 1991
A The Crown contended that the Appellants were in the vicinity
of the Clinic for part of the afternoon of 3 June prior
to their departure for 41 Vardens Road to carry out the
murder of Alison Shaughnessy.
B The Crown pointed to two specific incidents:-
(1) 3.20pm. At this time an encashment was made with Michelle
Taylor's speedlink card and utilising her Personal Identification
Number (PIN) at the Lambeth North branch of the National
Westminster Bank (summing up p 58F-61F).
(2) 4.05pm. At this time Nurse Healy identified Michelle
Taylor leaving the clinic carpark in an estate car with
a passenger whose description fitted the Appellant Lisa
Taylor.
C The Appellants contended that they had planned to spend
the afternoon and did in fact spend the afternoon between
2.00-5.15pm driving to and from Bromley where they did some
shopping. Michelle Taylor called a witness Tessa Jordan
to the truthfulness of their plan and Philip Beeson, a friend
of Lisa Taylor, to prove that they were in Bromley, If the
two Appellants had not visited Bromley, the evidence of
the former was suspect, the evidence of (in so far as it
related to 3 June) was untrue.
D The Appellants further contended that when they returned
to the clinic from Bromley they went immediately to JJ Tapp's
room at the clinic. Their case was that JJ Tapp was present
with them until Michelle Taylor left at 6.00pm to arrange
flowers with Shaughnessy.
E The Lambeth North branch of the National Westminster Bank
was a few minutes walk from the clinic. The fact of the
encashment was not, indeed could not, be disputed. The case
for Michelle Taylor was that JJ Tapp most have taken her
speedlink card and using her PIN encashed the £10
at the branch at 3.20pm while she was in Bromley. The evidence
for the jury consisted of :-
(1) The evidence of Miss Tapp that she had never used Michelle
Taylors' speedlink card and never known her PIN. (Summing
up p 59G-H)
(2) The evidence of Michelle Taylor's bank account which
revealed the encashment of several items of £10 at
the same branch over a period of months prior to June 1991
(summing up p 59B).
(3) The account Michelle Taylor volunteered to police (before
the evidence of the use of the card at that time and place
came to light) that :-
(a) she had cashed no money on 3 June
(b) she was in possession of her speedlink card on her shopping
trip to Bromley. (Summing up p 60D-G)
F JJ Tapp claimed in evidence that she had been shopping
at a local supermarket called Costcutters that afternoon
with a wire trolley which she filled with provisions for
her birthday she planned to celebrate with a party in ten
days time. This evidence was not disputed. When the suggestion
was put in cross-examination that she had fraudulently encashed
£10 from Michelle Taylor's account to pay for her
shopping expedition, she denied it, but was unable to say
where she had obtained the money to pay for her purchases.
G In re-examination she agreed to allow her bank account
to be examined by police overnight. Next day her bank manager
gave evidence that an examination of her account revealed
that at 3.44 on 3 June £50 was debited from her account
by the use of her speedlink card and her PIN at a branch
of the National Westminster Bank adjacent to the supermarket
but different from the Lambeth North branch. (Summing up
p 61B-E)
H The learned Judge in his summing up rightly emphasised
the importance of this evidence and directed the jury to
acquit both Appellants unless they were sure JJ Tapp was
telling the truth about the speedlink card. (Summing up
p 66D-67B)
I The Crown contended that on this important issue of credibility
it was open to the jury to conclude:-
(1) That JJ Tapp was telling truth in her denial of Michelle
Taylor's allegation.
(2) That the allegation by Michelle Taylor was untrue.
(3) That it had been made to discredit JJ Tapp.
(4) That at 3.20pm the Appellant had herself used her own
speedlink card and PIN at Lambeth North.
(5) That her volunteered admission to police that she was
in possession of her speedlink card was true.
(6) That her assertion that she was in Bromley at that time
was a lie.
J If the jury resolved the question of Michelle Taylor's
whereabouts at 3.20pm and concluded she was not in Bromley
at that time, the jury were entitled to use that conclusion
in deciding whether or not Nurse Healy's purported identification
of Michelle Taylor driving out of the clinic car park at
4.05pm was correct ( summing up p 52F-53C). Nurse Healy
identified the car as a cream estate car. Michelle Taylor
at that time drove a white Ford Sierra estate car (see her
statement to police of 12 June). She told police that she
had never lent the car to anyone (see interview with police
of 24 July).
K If Nurse Healy was correct in her identification that
Michelle Taylor was at the wheel of the car, there was an
obvious inference that the passenger in the car was Lisa
Taylor. Nurse Healy did not known her but described the
passenger as having her hair in a ponytail (summing up p
52H-53C). Lisa Taylor admitted in her statement to police
on 24 July that she had her hair in a ponytail on 3 June.
L Nurse Healy's evidence was that:-
(1) The driver was Michelle Taylor.
(2) The day in question was 3 June.
(3) The time was approximately 4.05pm.
M It was suggested in cross-examination that she was confused
as to time and date (evidence Vol I p 34F-36H-37B). She
gave good reasons why she considered that her evidence as
to time and date was correct - see evidence Vol I p 46A-C.
The next day 4 June when I went into work I was told that
Alison Shaughnessy had been murdered and I just remember
saying to one of my colleagues, I remember seeing Michelle
leave the clinic that Monday afternoon. I just associated
Michelle with John and Alison. That is why I could remember
it"
N The suggestion that Nurse Healy was mistaken as to date
was put on the basis that at 4.05pm on 4 June the two Appellants
had driven out of the car park having collected Lisa Taylor's
overnight bag from JJ Tapp's room. Confirmation that this
was a false assertion came from JJ Tapp who gave evidence
that when the two Appellants collected the overnignt bag
on 4 June she had to be called from work by her supervisor,
Mr Tuck, to let them into her room. She said that this happened
at around midday. That week JJ Tapp ceased work at 3.00pm.
(Summing up p54A-C)
O The Crown also contended that if the jury resolved the
issue between Michelle Taylor and JJ Tapp in favour of the
latter on the question of the use of Michelle Taylor's speedlink
card at 3.20pm on 3 June, the jury would be entitled to
use that conclusion to test who was telling the truth on
the important question of the whereabouts of the two Appellants
between 5.00-6.00pm on the same day.
5 The "broken" alibi
A At the trial JJ Tapp's evidence was to the following effect
:-
(1) That having made her purchases at Costcutters supermarket
she travelled with her wire trolley to her mother's address
nearby (summing up p 67).
(2) That she remained in the company of her mother and sisters
until soon after 7pm when she returned to her room at the
clinic arriving at about 7.15pm.
(3) That when she returned to her room Lisa Tayior was present
and that the first thing that Lisa said was that she and
her sister had been at the room since about 5.00pm having
been on a shopping expedition.
(4) JJ Tapp said she thought that Lisa Taylor had mentioned
that the shopping expedition was in Lewisham but she could
not be sure. (Summing up p 59F-H and 71C)
(5) Shortly before 8.00pm Michelle Taylor came to JJ Tapp's
room and repeated Lisa Taylor's earlier assertion that they
had come to the room at about 5.00pm. (Summing up p 70B)
(6) JJ Tapp admitted that she had later falsely told police
in a statement on 9 June and repeated on 24 July that she
had been present in her room when the appellants claimed
to have arrived shortly after 5.00pm.
(7) She said she had made these false statements because
between 3 and 9 June the Appellants had repeatedly told
her that they had arrived back at the time and remained
there; and that she had lied in order to support their account
because did not believe either or them was involved in the
murder of Alison Shaughnessy. (Summing up p 71-72)
B The case for the Appellants was that they had in fact
returned to JJ Tapp's room at the clinic shortly after 5.00pm,
that JJ Tapp had been present at that time, that they had
all looked at JJ Tapp's purchases in her wire basket, they
had both remained there until 6.00pm when Michelle Taylor
left to arrange flowers with John Shaughnessy, that Lisa
Taylor had remained there for the rest of the evening, and
that Michelle Taylor returned to the room briefly shortly
after 8.00pm before leaving with Shaughnessy for 41 Vardens
Road.
C The case for the Crown was that the Appellants had deliberately
sought to influence and mislead JJ Tapp in order that she
would support their false account of returning from Bromley
from their shopping expedition and being in JJ Tapp's room
at the material time viz 5.00-6.00pm.
D The Crown stressed the following points:-
(1) If JJ Tapp was telling the truth that:-
(a) Lisa Taylor had said to her at 7.15pm that the two sisters
had been in the clinic since around 5.00pm
(b) Michelle Taylor had repeated this assertion before she
left for Vardens Road with Shaugnessy.
it followed that the two Appellant: were asserting a false
account of their movements before the body had been discovered
and in respect of a period of time whose significance would
be known only to those who had Killed Alison. (Summing up
p 74)
(2) The further attempts between 4 and 9 June to influence
JJ Tapp's account to police was in furtherance of this attempt
to set up a false alibi.
E The Crown claimed that if the jury were satisfied on the
evidence of JJ Tapp that the two Appellants embarked on
the attempt to establish the false alibi for the material
time before the body had been discovered, their only motive
for so doing was to conceal guilt
F The Crown further claimed that the attempts to firm up
JJ Tapp's willingness to support their account between 4
and 9 June , the subsequent account which both Appellants
gave to police and the Appellant Michelle Taylor's account
in the witness box were all an extension of this initial
attempt and were put forward in order to conceal guilt.
G The Crown further submitted that the false account which
the Appellants gave about their whereabouts between 3.00-5.00pm
was inextricably linked to the false account of their whereabouts
between 5.00-6.00pm, because when Lisa Taylor told JJ Tapp
at 7.15pm that she and her sister had been in the room since
about 5.00pm she added that they had returned at that time
from shopping in Lewisham/Bromley. The jury could therefore
conclude:-
(1) That by 7.15pm the appellants had already concocted
the false story of a shopping expedition to cover the period
3.00-5.00pm.
(2) That they had already decided to claim that they were
at the clinic from 5.00pm onwards and to enlist JJ Tapp
to support their alibi.
6 Fingerprint Evidence (Summing up p 79C-83H)
A The fingerprints of both Appellants were found at the
flat.
(1) Three marks were identical to Michelle Taylor. These
were found on the bannister rail of the internal staircase
of the flat. One was on the top surface of the rail. The
other two were on the underside (evidence Vol II p 127E).
(2) Two marks were identical to a finger and thumb print
of Lisa Taylor. These were found on the inside surface of
the front door to the flat at the bottom of the internal
staircase. Their position on the door was consistent with
the Appellant pushing the door shut. (Evidence Vol II p
128G-130E)
B The fingerprint expert Mr Milne whose expertise extended
over a period of 27 years (see evidence Vol II p 123E) expressed
his opinion that these prints were "relatively fresh",
(idem p 132A). He explained this later by suggesting the
print had been probably put onto the door between 1 and
4 June (see idem p 132C; p 147C-146D).
C He based his opinion on three factors:-
(1) The ease with which the aluminium powder adhered to
the marks (idem p 131G- 132D).
(2) The surface on which the print appeared (idem p 334H;
p 140D-F; p 141F).
(3) The absence of any damage or interference with the print
(idem p 134H; p 141B; p 141F-142B; p 143B-D; p 145G-146D).
Although he conceded:-
(1) In chief and in cross examination "there is no
definitive test for the age of a finger mark" (idem
p 132A-B; p 133F-G; p 142F-G).
(2) The judgement of the age of a print is an art rather
than a science (idem p 136C).
(3) That he could not rule out the possibility that the
print had been put on the door 2-3 weeks earlier but that
he thought it was improbable (idem p 142G-H)
D The learned Judge warned the jury of the fallibility of
such evidence at summing up p 81A-F.
E Mr Milne was of the view that the age of the Lisa Taylor'
prints was roughly the same as the 'Michelle Taylor' prints
(p 146E-147C).
F Since the Appellant Michelle Taylor went to the flat after
8.00pm on 3 June with John Shaughnessy no significance could
attach to the presence her fingerprints at the flat (summing
up p 79E).
G But the Crown did rely on the presence of the finger and
thumb print of Lisa Taylor on the inside of the front door
of the flat. The Crown suggested that the fact that Lisa
Taylor had lied to police in claiming that she had never
been to the flat was an addtional factor to be taken into
account to assess whether she had visited the premises for
an innocent purpose as claimed by the Appellants or at the
time of Alison's murder as suggested by the Crown, (For
lie, see statement of Lisa Taylor to police on 24 July;
summing up p 81G)
H Michelle Taylor also denied in her interview with police
on 24 July that Lisa had ever been to the flat. In evidence
at the trial Michelle Taylor said that she had lied deliberately
to the police to protect her sister from involvement She
repeated how in fact two or three weeks prior to 3 June
she and her sister had gone to the flat to offer to clean
the windows. For detail of account see summing up p 82E-83C.
I The jury bad to consider whether the Michelle Taylor's
stated reason for telling the lie was or might be true and
had to asses the truthfulness of her account about the visit
(summing up p 81G -82D).
J The Crown suggested the Appellant had lied deliberately
to conceal Lisa's 3 June visit and was not telling the truth
in claiming they had gone to the flat in mid May to offer
to clean the windows. The Crown asked the jury to consider
the following matters:-
(1) Shaughnessy's evidence that his wife had never mentioned
the visit
(2) His evidence that Michelle Taylor never mentioned the
visit, and confirmation by Michelle Taylor in cross-examination
that she had never told him of the visit
(3) The fact, admitted in cross-examination by Michelle
Taylor, that neither she nor Lisa had ever mentioned the
visit to anyone else.
(4) The unnecessary risk both Appellants ran in telling
a lie about an innocent visit to the flat (The Appellant
admitted in cross-examination that she would have expected
Alison to tell Shaughnessy of the alleged visit Michelle
Taylor admitted she did not know if Shaughnessy had told
the police of the visit (summing up p 83 C-G).
(5) The fact that she had already admitted visits by both
John and Alison Shaughnessy to her home, where Lisa and
her parents lived as eariy as her statement to police of
4 June, and details of her association with Shaughnessy
in subsequent statements and interviews.
K The jury also had to consider the evidence of the expert
that it was "improbable" that the fingerprint
could have been put on the door by Lisa Taylor 2-3 weeks
before his examination.
L The learned Judge put all these issues fairly to the jury
and reminded them of the salient features of the evidence
and in particular:- Summing up
p 80B-81F
p81G-82D
p83E-H NB
p 80C; 81A; 81F
7 The sighting by Dr Unsworthwhite (summing up p 51E-52C;
54G-58C)
A The significance of Dr Unsworthwhite's evidence was limited
to a description of two girls in the vicinity of 41 Vardens
Road at the material time. The Crown emphasised the following
matters:-
(1) The coincidence of two girls seen leaving via the front
door of Vardens Road coming down the steps and jogging down
the road (evidence Vol I p 50C).
(2) The fact that the sighting was at about 5.45pm on 3
June (idem p 52F).
(3) The description given was different as to hair colour,
clothing and height but fitted then Appellants in the following
ways:-
(a) as to one of them wearing her hair in a pony tail (idem
p 5 1E)
(b) that both were in their late teens or early 20s (idem
p 50H-51B)
(c) that though he lived in Vardens Road himself he had
never seen these two girls in Varden's Road before (idem
p 52B-C)
(4) The girls could not have come from No 43 Vardens Road
(which shared a staircase with No 41) because neither of
the occupants of that address fitted the descriptions given
by Dr Unsworthwhite and neither had had visitors of that
description that day (summing up p 56F)
B Dr Unsworthwhite gave evidence that a 45/55 year old man,
5'10'/5' 11' in height, wearing a grey coat came out of
the same house just after the girls, and walked unhurriedly
down the steps to the pavement (idem p 53B; 59G-60D; 64E-65B).
His identity remained a mystery. The learned Judge dealt
with this aspect of Dr Unsworthwhite's evidence at summing
up p 56F-57B.
C The Crown suggested to the jury that Dr Unsworthwhite's
evidence was consistent with the other more significant
evidence outlined above which pointed to the Appellant's
guilt. By itself it was insufficient to found a case - see
Vol II p 155D- 156D (submissions).
D The learned Judge emphasised the presence of the unexplained
and unidentified man in the account which Dr Unsworthwhite
gave and directed the jury to adopt the argument urged by
Counsel for the Appellants that it was not possible to separate
his evidence about the man and his evidence about the girls.
He directed them to consider the evidence as a whole (see
summing up p 56F-57B).
E The learned Judge also emphasised that Dr Unsworthwhite's
description of clothing did not fit what was known (and
unchallenged) of the clothing which the two Appellants were
wearing at the material time (summing up p 55E-F).
F The learned Judge also included Dr Unsworthwhite in his
directions about the dangers of identification evidence
and in particular he emphasised:-
(1) That such evidence causes great problems.
(2) Had to be approached with caution.
(3) Genuine mistakes are easily made.
(4) Need to examine the evidence very carefully indeed.
(5) Need for the application for special caution (summing
up p 51E-52C).
G The learned Judge ended his summary of Dr Unsworthwhite's
evidence with these words:-
"You will want to look at his evidence with great care,
because the way you are dealing with this type of evidence,
as I said there is a special need for caution because he
might be wrong about timing; he might be wrong about the
date and you have this unexplained older man (summing up
p 58B-C). |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
