| The Dream Solution
- Documents |
??/??/??
- Transcript of ITN News
ITN NEWS
COMMENTATOR
The jury of five men and seven women took six hours and
twenty minutes to reach a decision. Michelle glanced briefly
at her parents. Lisa TAYLOR buried her head in her hand.
COMMENTATOR
For the TAYLOR sisters there is some hope, they have now
been granted an appeal on the grounds of prejudicial press
coverage.
ANN TAYLOR
We hope that the judges will realise the truth and obviously
quash the conviction, but also by doing that the case needs
to be re-opened, because the murderer is still out there
and that person has got to be found.
COMMENTATOR
When the appeal is heard the papers could face contempt
of court charges. The TAYLORS could then be freed, yet there
is also the possibility of a re-trial, but would that then
be fair, or just another case of trial by tabloid.
COMMENTATOR
The mother of Lisa and Michelle TAYLOR, the sisters convicted
of murder, leads a campaign for their release. Did the way
their trial was covered by the press prejudice its outcome.
COMMENTATOR
Tonight we examine the case of the two sisters who've been
granted leave to appeal. The way the press covered their
trial may have made it so unfair that the verdict was unsafe.
Their mother believes they should never have been convicted.
ANN TAYLOR
Morals, I think the girls, especially Michelle, was convicted
on her morals, nothing else.
COMMENTATOR
Michelle and Lisa TAYLOR were convicted last July of murdering
Alison SHAUGHNESSY, the wife of Michelle's lover. Their
appeal, which is expected to be heard within weeks, was
granted unusually swiftly and without precedent, on the
grounds that the press coverage on the case may have prejudiced
the defendents1 right to a fair trial. Tonight we examine
those grounds. The prosecution case that the motive was
one of sexual jelousy was a gift to the popular press. The
defence's argument that there was no forensic evidence didn't
grab the same headlines at all. If the Appeal Court overturns
the conviction because the press coverage could have influenced
the jury unfairly, well then court reporting in England
may never be the same again.
COMMENTATOR
At the end of a gripping and highly publicised trial, the
family of the murder victim Alison SHAUGHNESSY emerged from
the Old Bailey satisfied that the court has justly convicted
the TAYLOR sisters Michelle and Lisa, of murder.
MRS. BLACKMORE (ALISON's MOTHER)
As I said, there will be no justice for Alison's death,
but we want the world to know that those two girls did kill
Alison.
COMMENTATOR
The victim's husband John SHAUGHNESSY, who had been the
lover of Michelle TAYLOR, the elder of the sisters, pronounced
justice had been done.
JOHN SHAUGHNESSY
At the end of the day, all I can say is that Alison can
now rest in peace now that we know that those two people
have been sent to prison.
COMMENTATOR
The police were delighted. Here was a case with no concrete
proof of guilt, a case which they knew would be hard to
win, wrapped up in a matter of months.
DS CHRIS BURKE
It was a jigsaw puzzle and thankfully the jury system has
been seen to work in this instance where they have been
given the facts, they have pieced the jigsaw together and
this afternoon they have fitted the last piece of the puzzle
and come up with the right verdict.
COMMENTATOR
But the TAYLOR sisters have always maintained their innocence,
their defence lawyers that their conviction was unsafe.
Today at Bullwood Hall Prison in Essex Michelle and Lisa
are serving life sentences. Their hopes rest on an appeal
hearing which has been granted unusually quickly on unprecedented
grounds, that press reporting seriously prejudiced their
right to a fair trial. Michelle and Lisa TAYLOR were convicted
of murdering Alison SHAUGHNESSY in her flat in South London
on the 3rd of June 1991. Michelle, the elder of the two
sisters, aged 20 at the time of the murder, had been the
lover of the victim's husband John SHAUGHNESSY. The jury
accepted the prosecution case that she'd murdered his young
wife out of jealousy and that she'd enlisted the help of
her younger sister Lisa. There was no forensic evidence
linking either of the girls to the crime. The prosecution
case rested entirely on circumstancial evidence. That was
enough in the jury's eyes to prove they were guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution claimed that as in this
police reconstruction, Alison SHAUGHNESSY made her way home
from Clapham Junction soon after 5-30 on that Monday evening,
that Michelle and her sister Lisa, both of whom she knew,
were waiting for her inside her flat at 4l Vardens Road,
Battersea. They say the sisters murdered Alison at the top
of the stairs, stabbing her 54 times in a frenzied attack.
The prosecution say they then drove to the Churchill Clinic,
a private hospital four miles away, where Michelle and John
SHAUGHNESSY, the victim's husband, both worked. He and Michelle
were seen behaving normally at 6 o clock, arranging the
flowers together as usual on a Monday night. Two and a half
hours later John and Michelle found Alison's mutilated body,
when Michelle took him home and went in with him. Michelle's
hysterical reaction, the prosecution argued, was an act
to cover up her guilt. In his summing up the judge warned
the jury that this was not a simple case.
RECONSTRUCTION
JUDGE
This is a case which depends on circumstancial evidence,
there is no eye-witness account that witnesses either of
these two defendents killing Alison. There is no eye-witness
account that puts them in the street at the relevent time.
This is a case that depends on weighing the individual pieces
of evidence and fitting them together like a jigsaw puzzle.
If, at the end of the day it makes a complete picture which
points irresistably to the guilt in respect of either, or
both, of them, you will convict them.
COMMENTATOR
And that's what the jury did. But now within six months
of the conviction the case is to be re-examined on the grounds
that press coverage prejudiced the defendants' right to
a fair trial. The defence will argue at the appeal that
the press coverage was unfair in two ways, firstly that
the press reported the prosecution case in far greater depth
than the defence, and secondly that the press published
material, in particular the video of John and Alison SHAUGHNESSY's
wedding, that was never put before the court.
MICHAEL HOLMES (SOLICITOR)
People may remember that during the summer just gone certain
papers made a, what can I say other than a meal of this
case, titillating headlines, pictures, to such an extent
that we are extremely concerned that jury men and women,
having seen headlines and having read what little was written
about it and looked at the pictures, that they may have
been influenced in their verdict.
COMMENTATOR
The first example of prejudicial reporting the defence will
cite concerned Lisa TAYLOR's fingerprint found on the door
of the SHAUGHNESSYS1 Varden Road flat, the only piece of
evidence linking her, not to the murder but to where the
murder took place. On July the l7th and 18th four national
newspapers reported that in court the prosecution's fingerprint
expert said the fingerprint was fresh when it was found
after the murder. The Daily Express, under the headline
'Sisters left prints at flat said 'Fresh fingerprints from
two sisters accused of killing bridge Alison SHAUGHNESSY
were found at the murder scene, a court was told today'.
This was also reported by The Times and Guardian. The Independent
in its story 'Sisters fingerprints were found at house'
reported the expert said "They took to the powder easily
which suggests they were relatively fresh, probably U8 to
72 hours old". But on another day under cross-examination,
the expert conceded there's no way of telling whether a
fingerprint is fresh or old, which made the sisters' claim
that Lisa had been to the flat three weeks before more credible,
but this correction was not reported. This omission, the
defence will argue, helped convict Lisa, despite the absence
of any hard evidence against her. In a statement the Independent
said "We do not accept that we have prejudiced the
case by our reporting". The paper agreed it didn't
report the correction about the fingerprint but stressed
that later it "...reported the defences explanation
as to why Lisa was in the flat." But what really turned
the fingerprint into a damning piece of evidence against
Lisa was that when first questioned both sisters lied to
the police and said Lisa had never been to the flat where
Alison was murdered. Why?
MICHAEL HOLMES
The girls realised they were getting into deep water, they
were both perfectly innocent and maintain their innocence
of course to this day, and they thought to themselves "Help,
look what we're getting into, the police believe we're guilty
of this", and it is easily explained by young Lisa,
because she was only 17 at the time, panicking and being
advised by her solicitor, saying "Look, look what we're
getting into here, look what they think we've done, don't
for heavens say that you were at Vardens Road otherwise
you're going to get involved", and I think that's a
very reasonable and understandable explanation, so to her
everlasting regret, Lisa lied about going to Vardens Road.
COMMENTATOR
The second example the defence will give of press prejudicing
the case concerns the coverage of Michelle's diary. Day
after day the press highlighted the most damaging words
Michelle had written eight months before the murder about
John and his wife Alison. On July 7th the Daily Star's headline
'I hate Alison... my dream is for her to disappear' , the
Sun called it 'The diary of hate' and on a mocked up page
of the diary quoted 'I hate Alison, the unwashed bitch',
while on the front page the headline was 'The killer mistress
who was at lover's wedding', with an arrow from the word
'Killer' to a masked out picture of Michelle TAYLOR. A week
later Today devoted a whole page to the diary. The headline
' I love him, but what have I got to show for it? Nothing
but memories. I hate Alison". Today did report diary
entries which showed Michelle's passion for John was fading
and her friendship for Alison growing, but they were not
in the headlines, 'I remember him trying to undress me and
me saying no, I remember he said "Okay, give me a kiss".
I was very glad it was me this time who refused. I think
we get on much better when nothing happens." And it
was on July the 21st that the Sun reported Michelle TAYLOR's
denials that the diary entries showed a motive for murder.
Eleven paragraphs beneath the headline ' I did sleep with
Alison husband on wedding day', the Sun wrote 'But she denied
hating her love rival and added "I just meant for her
not to have been there from the beginning"'. The defence
will argue at the appeal that the more favourable diary
entries were not given the prominence of the more damaging
ones, and that this press coverage could have tipped the
balance of evidence in the minds of the jury against the
sisters. Ann TAYLOR, their mother, now campaigning for their
release believes the girls were convicted not on any evidence
of murder but on the negative portrayal by the newspapers
of Michelle's personal life.
ANN TAYLOR
Morals, I think the girls, especially Michelle, was convicted
on her morals, nothing else.
COMMENTATOR
And when you say that Michelle, and Lisa too, was convicted
on the basis of Michelle's morals, what do you mean?
ANN TAYLOR
Because of the affair, but what they failed to print was
the affair was over, finished, done with.
MICHAEL HOLMES (SOLICITOR)
Michelle was protrayed as a woman who was having an affair
with a married man and even in this day and age many people
will not approve of that behaviour, and this was hyped of
course to a tremendous extent by certain sections of the
media, day after day. The unwashed bitch, I wish she could
disappear we saw it, we read it every day while the prosecution's
case was running, they could not leave it alone, so yes,
in the minds of the jury here was a thoroughly immoral girl.
COMMENTATOR
But it was the publication of the SHAUGHNESSY wedding video
which the defence will argue most seriously prejudiced the
trial. It appeared after the judge allowed pictures of the
TAYLOR sisters to be published, but the defence were unprepared
for what was printed. In court, defence barristers were
seeking to show how Michelle's feelings for John had waned,
while the papers were printing pictures from this video
made a year before the murder, and which was never brought
before the court. After the wedding all the guests queued
to kiss the happy couple. Michelle's kiss, like the others,
was a simple peck, but the frame some newspapers chose to
highlight made it look far more initimate. 'Cheats kiss'
was the Sun's treatment of the story. 'Till death us do
part", said the Mirror.
ANN TAYLOR
This kiss, the famous kiss, which was a peck on the cheek,
but it didn't look like that in the newspapers. So there
seems to be an awful lot of uproar about that at the moment,
and it will continue. This is the annoying part. I can understand,
yes, the press has got to come into things a lot of the
time, but they've got to be able to report properly.
COMMENTATOR
What damage did the video, the publication of the video
do though?
ANN TAYLOR
I think that made Michelle look hard-hearted.
COMMENTATOR
But the press are in fighting mood. News International which
owns both the Sun and Today deny their coverage in any way
prejudiced the trial.
DANIEL TAYLOR - LAWYER FOR NEWS INTERNATIONAL
Having reviewed the newspapers' coverage of the trial, I
can't agree that they overstepped the mark in this case.
It seems to me that the jury would have been very heavily
influenced in this case by three factors, firstly that both
sisters gave a false alibi, secondly it was denied that
Lisa TAYLOR, who was the younger sister, had ever actually
been at the murder victim's flat, whereas in fact the police
found her fingerprints there, and thirdly the diary entries
of Michelle TAYLOR indicate her intense dislike of the murder
victim. It's also significant, it seems to me, that the
Attorney General's office, which is the proper regulatory
authority in respect of newspaper coverage of trials hasn't
seen fit at any time, either now or during the course of
trial, to take any action in respect of the press coverage.
ROSS HARPER
EX-PRESIDENT OF SCOTTISH LAW SOCIETY TALKING ABOUT PRESS
COVERAGE AT TRIALS IN SCOTLAND.
COMMENTATOR
Throughout the trial Dick FERGUSON, Michelle's barrister
expressed his concerns over the coverage. On the 10th of
July he suggested the judge, Mr. Justice BLOFELD might remind
the jury to try the case on what they hear in court and
nothing else. He said he was worried about the effect that
video stills appearing in that morning's paper were having
on the jury.
RECONSTRUCTION OF TRIAL.
RICHARD FERGUSON QC (BARRISTER)
It is something which they could not avoid seeing, and in
those circumstances My Lord, I am apprehensive that they
might try to draw inferences, either for or against the
defendant, Michelle TAYLOR, from what appears in the photographs,
and that is my concern My Lord. I thought it right and proper
having spoken to Mr. NUTTING, that I should share that concern
with your Lordship.
JUSTICE BLOFELD
I am certainly prepared to tell them what in broad terms
I have already outlined to you. I do not think it would
be helpful to go much further than that.
DICK FERGUSON
The only thing is if this goes on My Lord, I think I should
say, and I think certainly the media should be under no
misunderstanding, it will get to the stage where it may
well affect the fairness of the trial for the defendant,
and I think that it is a risk which is becoming a more appreciable
risk the more this type of coverage the case attracts.
COMMENTATOR
The granting of the appeal on grounds of prejudicial press
coverage has allowed the TAYLOR sisters' defence lawyers
to present all aspects of the evidence again, and that will
raise, once again, the disputed version of events that day.
If Michelle and Lisa did kill Alison, as the prosecution
maintained, they could only have done it between Alison's
earliest possible return home at twenty to six and six o
clock. From six the sisters' alibi is undisputed. The prosecution
said they spent the afternoon of June the 3rd in Lambeth,
when Michelle's cashpoint card was used at a local bank.
Then they drove to Vardens Road, four miles away, to kill
Alison when she got home. A passing doctor testified he'd
caught a glimpse of two girls and a man leaving the flat,
but he couldn't positively identify Michelle or Lisa. The
defence, however, said the girls had been in Bromley, not
in Lambeth, and that the cashpoint card had been used by
someone else. They'd invited Lisa's best friend, Tessa JORDAN
to go shopping in Bromley with them. She testified in court
that it was only at the last minute she couldn't go, and
as the judge pointed out, this testimony could, if the jury
chose to believe it, lend credence to the sisters' version
of events.
RECONSTRUCTION - SUMMING UP of
JUSTICE BLOFELD
The point is made on their behalf that if Tessa JORDAN is
correct about that, that the initial arrangeement was that
Tessa should go with Michelle and Lisa, to Bromley in order
to try and find dresses either for both or one of them,
it really is absurd to suggest that when the plan came to
a halt, when Tessa told them she could not go because she
had to go with her mother, that on the spur of the moment
they decided to go and murder Alison. That point having
been made, it is a point that you should consider with care.
COMMENTATOR
The TAYLOR sisters returned from Bromley, the defence maintained,
at about 5.15 and during that crucial twenty minutes were
back in Michelle's hostel at the Churchill Clinic watching
neighbours in the room of Michelle's close friend, JJ TAPP.
JJ TAPP agreed in two separate statements, one in June and
one a month later in July, that Michelle and Lisa came to
see her from about 5.15 onwards, but when in August the
police arrested her for conspiracy to murder, she made a
new statement that she'd lied about being home so early
and that in fact she'd arrived home much later, at about
7.15 to 7.20. She was cautioned for wasting police time
and released.
MICHAEL HOLMES (SOLICITOR)
We believe that the evidence that Miss TAPP gave from the
witness box at the Old Bailey was incorrect, and that her
first version given to the police was in fact the correct
one. Nobody asked or demanded of Miss TAPP to say what time
my clients were there, this was a matter of discussion,
and she supported their time of return, but she changed
that evidence only after she herself had been arrested for
conspiracy to murder.
COMMENTATOR
But even with the girls alibi gone, there was very little
time in which they could have committed the murder. The
prosecution case was that in the twenty minutes between
twenty to six and six, they stabbed the victim 54 times,
removed all traces linking them to the crime, disposed of
the weapon and their blood-stained clothes, drove four miles
in congested rush-hour traffic and arrived at the Churchill
Clinic by six o clock. The defence said it couldn't be done.
First of all they referred to research by a Home Office
Pathologist which shows this kind of multiple stabbing is
virtually unknown from a woman. Doctor Bill HUNT has never
seen or heard of a case where a woman has stabbed anyone
more than 12 times.
DR. HUNT
Well the fact that it is suggested that a person was killed
with 54 stab wounds by a woman in my hundred cases of stabbing
only 14 were committed by women, and most of those only
carried out one stabbing action, and the most stabbing actions
were 12, while the most in men that stab were 98 or more,
and so this is very surprising. Secondly, one would expect
to find blood on the assailant and perhaps one might hope
to find fibres from the assailant on the victim, so really
it is exceptional inasmuch as it is surprising that there
were so many stab wounds, it is surprising it was done by
a woman, and it's surprising that there is no direct forensic
connection between the two.
COMMENTATOR
But there's another point, and that's the timings. Police
say they did the journey from the scene of the murder in
Vardens Road to the Churchill Clinic in eleven and a half
minutes, arguing Michelle and Lisa could have done it in
that time, but the defence has always argued that the test
drive was unfair, that the police were advanced drivers
in a high performance Rover, while Michelle, an ordinary
driver in a ten year old Ford Sierra could not realistically
have driven it in less than fifteen minutes. It's since
emerged there were road works on the route at the time of
the murder, reducing traffic to one lane, which might well
have made the journey even slower. At the appeal the defence
will repeat the point argued at the trial but not highlighted
by the press, that the sisters would not have had time to
commit the murder and be back inside the Churchill Clinic
by six. But the journey time from Vardens Road become irrelevant
if the evidence of two eye-witnesses is accepted. Two of
Alison's neighbours say they believe they saw her alive
after six o clock, putting the TAYLOR sisters out of suspicion.
Alison's neighbour living in the basement of the house,
said so in a statement which was read in court, but she
herself didn't testify for medical reasons. "But you
saw her come in after six, you're sure that day she definitely
came in after six?"
CHRISTINA WRIGHT (NEIGHBOUR)
Yes.
COMMENTATOR
How can you be so sure?
CHRISTINA WRIGHT
I was watching television and I know, every night that is
when she's, between six, half-past six.
COMMENTATOR
And you're sure that that night she came in while you were
watching television?
CHRISTINA WRIGHT
Yes.
COMMENTATOR
And what were you watching?
CHRISTINA WRIGHT
I was watching the television, it was the news.
COMMENTATOR
And which channel news were you watching?
CHRISTINA WRIGHT
BBC.
COMMENTATOR
Are you sure it was the BBC?
CHRISTINA WRIGHT
Yes.
COMMENTATOR
On the 'phone from Bangladesh, where she is now a nurse,
Joanna McLEOD, another neighbour told us she is almost certain
she too saw Alison after six, correctly describing what
Alison was wearing that day, but the significance of this
wasn't fully appreciated at the time of the trial, so it
wasn't brought before the court.
JOANNA McLEOD
I was coming home from work and, cycling home, and on the
same side of the road as I lived, there was a girl who has
sort of dark curly hair and was wearing a sort of black
top, in front of me walking, I didn't see her face, but
I could tell it was sort of a young girl and I saw her go
into a house on the same level as mine, a door or two up
from mine.
COMMENTATOR
What time was this?
JOANNA McLEOD
It must have been about five past six, ten past six at the
latest.
COMMENTATOR
This was a difficult case for any jury to decide, the circumstancial
evidence against the sisters, the motive, the lying, the
failure of the alibi weighed heavily against them, despite
the absence of any forensic evidence or eye-witness accounts
linking them to the murder. The Court of Appeal will judge
whether in this particularly finely balanced case it was
the press which tipped the scales against the sisters. The
TAYLORS believe that someone else killed Alison SHAUGHNESSY.
Other unidentified fingerprints were found in the flat,
and some of Alison's jewellery was missing but once the
police found Michelle's diaries she became the prime suspect,
and other possibilites were dismissed.
ANN TAYLOR
As far as the police were concerned, wey-hey, yes, we've
got the motive, and other enquiries seemed to go just out
the window. We've just got to hope and pray that this country's
system is supposed to be, or will be as good as it is supposed
to be, and the girls will be released.
COMMENTATOR
Tracey, the third TAYLOR sister, now 14 is, like her parents,
convinced of her sisters' innocence. This poem was sent
to her by Lisa from prison a few weeks ago.'
TRACEY
I look out the window and what do I see, Barbed wire and
fences surrounding me. Locked in a room with only four walls,
A door that is locked, hardly opened at all. And what did
we do to get ourselves here? Nothing at all, we've made
that quite clear. The jury we had didn't listen at all,
A whole load of tabloids that made us look small. So sit
and be patient is all we can do, 'Till the judges at the
High Court realise the truth. |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
