 |  Please mention eRoytonif you contact SpecSavers |
Well it's 9.30am and I've arrived at Sue's house to get the "formal" part of the interview started. Stay tuned, we're working on a new post right now...
[edit: whoops. It's Mark/Supergood here. I used Sue's computer to write the above message and her computer was still logged into her own account. Sorry for any confusion caused]
.
Sign it as Mark next time 
Just so we know who we are `listening` to!
Mark:
Hello Sue. Shall we get started?
Sue:
Yes, ask what you wish. You did give me some questions to start with...
Police
Before 1992 I trusted the police absolutely, I was brought up to do so. I even trusted them in the first weeks following the murder, why shouldn't I? Once it became evident that they suspected me I felt betrayed and of course as time went on I saw and experienced the fact that the police will manipulate evidence, hide crucial evidence, even get rid of it (lose it) and perjure themselves to gain a conviction!
What is worse still, AFTER conviction, they will go even further to sustain that conviction (pre-appeal etc). I know policing is a difficult job and many do some fine work but what can be identified with any miscarriage of justice is a common factor... corruption. And sadly I would find it very hard now to trust.
Judges ("No-one judges the Judges")
I cannot come to terms with how Judges can choose to ignore really compelling evidence (as at my last appeal) and refuse the appeal. Maybe people will say "well she would say that" but I truly believe they help "protect" the system by monitoring how many appeals are granted. In fact my QC agreed with me on this.
The CCRC was set up in 1997 afer the major miscarriages of Justice ie. Birmingham 6, Guilford 4, Maguires, Stefan Kisco. It is supposed to be an independent body. Before 1997 anyone wishing to appeal had to apply to C4 department at Home Office but it was realised that procedure was very flawed. We are better to have the CCRC but they too seem to be "regulated" and are underfunded. Believe you me, a person does not "bang the drum" of innocence for fun. It is a nightmare, it is all-consuming and takes over your life and every waking thought.
Solicitors
What I would advise anyone who has the misfortune of being accused of something they did not do is to get the correct solicitor for the job. This was my mistake. I had my local family solicitor, whom again I trusted, and his advice and preparation of my defence was, to say the least, inadequate. This is a point my current legal team insist was one of the reasons why my trial went so wrong and also causes great difficulties to the present day for getting me back to the court of appeal.
At trial I had no defence witnesses, which is unbelievable in a murder trial but my solicitors told me it was "not necessary"!! Therefore any evidence presented by the prosecution was not equally balanced or challenged and so in theory the jury only heard prosecution evidence. How can that be fair?
Prison
I had some horrendous experiences in prison and when you are innocent in prison then every day is a toil. However, I did meet some women who became friends and I remain in touch with them. Not everyone in prison is "bad" although some are. I could go on at length about prison but that's another subject altogether. There are some very sad individuals in jail with mental health problems. Prison is not the place for them and when you witness people taking their own life it is so distressing and stays with you.
Royton
I have struggled since release and I know I am "damaged" with all I have been through. I am fortunate to have a loving family and friends and I am grateful for all the support I have had from many in Royton. Obviously I found Royton to have changed quite a lot when I came back. It was a very strange feeling attempting to adjust to "normal" life but my life can never be the same again. I fight on for justice for Aunty and to speak out about the system. Believe me, what happened to me could, God forbid, happen to anyone.
Mark:
What do you think when people have read about your case, seen all the evidence but they still believe that you are guilty? In fact I have been discussing your case online with some friends recently. I'm sure they won't mind if I use their comments so that you can respond to them. I'll keep them anonymous.
The British Justice system does'nt get things wrong she's gulity has hell but has probably erased the crime from her mind telling herself she's not guilty to keep herself sane, but thats just my thoughts and the judge's of course as well as however many people where on the panel.
Mark:
What would you say in response to this kind of statement?
Sue:
Some people will refuse to believe the system gets it wrong. I understand that because it is only when you are touched by something like this that you fully realise how flawed it can be. Many of my friends also believed the above but because they have read everything about my case and journeyed with me through these nightmare years their views have now changed. Not because they know me, not because they think I'm "a nice person" but because they have seen the tactics used - seen prosecution evidence re-written AFTER I was convicted in order to sustain my conviction.
Going back to your point, Mark, about people believing me guilty because they have seen the evidence, sadly they have not seen ALL the evidence. Because my defence was so poor at trial much of my defence has never been aired before a full court. I've said this before in this topic [post 13] but evidence available pre-trial but not used at trial (through an inadequate defence team) is not classed as appeal evidence. This is how unfair the system is.
In this day and age DNA features greatly and it is a magnificent tool. But it is only as good as the people using it. It can be "mismanaged", it can be cross-contaminated, even planted. And of course DNA is in every cell of our bodies. I could pick up this item, Mark, pass it to you, you could then take it to your house and my DNA is now in your house. (This post contains a very exciting link, image or video but you must log in or register to see it), an expert in forensics, has done some brilliant work to show how cautious we have to be when using DNA as evidence (see (This post contains a very exciting link, image or video but you must log in or register to see it)). Indeed Sir Alex Jeffries, one of the instigators of DNA has also warned of the pitfalls of being over-zealous when relying on DNA ((This post contains a very exciting link, image or video but you must log in or register to see it)). Just the same, as we all thought finger-printing evidence was infallable, the case of Shirley Mckie ((This post contains a very exciting link, image or video but you must log in or register to see it)), Scotland, has now shown that even fingerprint evidence can be unreliable - All frightening facts.
I'm not here to persuade the doubters that I'm innocent. I know I am but when a person is wrongly accused what has to be remembered is that the real perpetraitor remains at large. When I was in prison on the anniversary of Aunty's murder I wrote on a yearly basis to Oldham Police to remind them that I wasn't going to go away and it was their duty to remember and have it on their consciences that Aunty's murderer was still out there. My Aunty deserves justice and to this day she hasn't got that.
Mark:
Isn't there some knowledge about who may have actually commited the murder?
Sue:
For legal reasons I can't say too much on this but yes, whilst in prison a number of women from this area over different years would seek me out to tell me that the man they bought their drugs from bragged about me serving his time. Sadly, he is now dead but the man convicted of HIS murder contacted my legal team to say that the man he murdered was responsible for Aunty's murder. Interestingly enough this takes us back to the red car (see post number 5 in this topic)
Mark:
Here is another comment...
I just can't get my head around the fact that there was no unforced entry, ok the old lady used to forget to lock the door, and that any robber would do such a thing to leave her half beaten and naked, it's not a thing a burglar would do. Also the car outside doesn't make sense. Who is the woman that claims her brother admitted to the crime before it was even released to the press? age, background, relationship with her brother!
Sue:
In the first few days Aunty's murder was linked to a murder in Mytholmyroyd, the (This post contains a very exciting link, image or video but you must log in or register to see it), I think still an unproven murder? The similarities were striking so robbers do leave people half-beaten and suffocated! Once I was charged the police policy file has an entry saying "No further need to liaise with the Mytholmyroyd murder team".
The woman who made a statement claiming her brother had told her he was responsible for Aunty's murder BEFORE I had discovered Aunty's body was certain he came to tell her this around 8am. I discovered Aunty at about 9.45am. The woman's brother was a known burglar and admitted to being out-and-about that night. However, months later, she withdrew her statement.
Mark:
There is a lot to be said about the marks on the wall at your Aunty's house isn't there?
Sue:
Yes, none of this was challenged at trial and now we have far more insight into this area of the case. I'd like to invite Geoff, from my support group to contribute a paragraph about this. He has spent so much time getting his head around the forensics and he never says anything he cannot prove. He even goes back to experts to check that his thoughts and reasonings are correct. I'm indebted to him.
Mark:
I'll ask Geoff to contribute something about this later in this topic.
Mark:
Do you have anything else to tell people, or can you recommend any further reading etc? Other cases perhaps?
Sue:
As I've said previously fighting my case is all-consuming. I'm in touch with others who have gone through the same thing and I get a lot of strength from talking to other miscarriages of justice victims. Obviously, only they can fully understand exactly what it's like. If anyone is interested there is a very good book they can read which highlights various cases and, more importantly, the flaws in the system. It is by Sandra Lean and is called "The Shocking Truth about British Justice, No Smoke". It is an excellent book. ((This post contains a very exciting link, image or video but you must log in or register to see it))
My support group have sustained me over these years. My life was put on hold 16 years ago and in a lot of respects I know the work they've done for me and the support they've given me has affected their lives too. But as I've said before they did not come onboard lightly, they looked at the evidence. I've never wanted anyone to support me just because they knew me before. It was important to me that they researched and looked at the evidence never put before the jury and then made up their own minds.
Very interesting Gooders, Ive playfully/Harmfully maybe pointed fun at a few things on here but this is interesting, there is no getting a way from the fact that Susan is a convicted murderer currently and I totally agree off what has been said there are inconsistency's but if susan didn't do it im sure her name will be cleared eventually.
I am a believer in the British justice system but that doesn't mean im right to believe that.
The time has been served and best of luck rebuilding her life.
if susan didn't do it im sure her name will be cleared eventually.
Only if she devotes all her efforts to try and make that happen. With a more efficient, flexible, transparent and accountable appeal system in place maybe Susan would have achieved her aim years and years ago.
I am a believer in the British justice system but that doesn't mean im right to believe that.
Judges are unelected.
Juries can be manipulated.
Police can be corrupt.
Therefore, innocent folk can be wrongly convicted.
p.s. I think you meant Harmlessly, not harmfully!! lol 
I'd like to invite Geoff, from my support group to contribute a paragraph about this (stains on the wall issue)
Here is the text that Geoff has just emailed me to put on this topic. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY - IT IS FULL OF GOLD NUGGETS OF INFORMATION!!!!!!!
Hi Mark and Sue
How I wish I had a penny for every hour I have spent trying to unravel the really haphazard forensic evidence gathering recording system (ie. they didn't have one).
Before trying to explain about the stains let me first tell you about the forensic scientists whose evidence at trial convinced the jury of Susan's guilt.
Michael John Davie
He was the first to find the stains on the day after the murder and claim that they were blood. Susan's defence team before trial never asked him for a copy of his test records from which he claimed the stains to be in blood. When he was asked for these after trial, it turns out that he had not made any records and he added notes to his original documents and even forged a test record foolishly using a standard form that had not existed at the time of the murder - the absence of this knowledge lost us the first appeal. At the last appeal this man's evidence was withdrawn.He had left 2 of the 3 very important stains on the wall for 6 weeks after the murder before taking them to his lab, and when he tested them he could not find them to be of human origin - to this day these stains have never be shown to be of human origin.
Javaid Hussain
This idea about trusting people - he was presented by the police to court as an expert witness and as such he claimed that the stains were 'certainly' blood; this statement was the single most damaging piece of evidence against Susan. Susan's defence team never checked his credentials neither did the judge and I only spotted it after the last appeal when reviewing things for something else, but he was not a blood expert at all. His expertise was in Fingerprint enhancement. According to court rules, he should never have been allowed to open his mouth on the subject let alone be the most damaging of witnesses.Further, the test he used, which was called a TAB test, was not a 'blood specific' test. This test should not have given him any 'certainty' about the stains at all. The test would give positive results for any number of different substances that had any kind of life; animals or plants etc (See the Paisley students report on Susan's web site in the leaflets section.).
The trial was conducted on the basis that there were 3 and 3 only stains found on the wall. We now know that was not true. Our Mr Davie, on a visit to the house a fortnight later, after Susan had become the police's prime suspect, had found a fourth stain just a little further along the wall behind some towels and he had said that this stain must have been there prior to the murder. There is no forensic test to tell you how old a blood stain is once it has dried but the police were happy to claim that this stain was old simply because they said it 'looked' old. I believe if the jury had heard the above facts they would not have returned the verdict they did.
The police's claim at trial was that 2 stains were blood of some kind, 1 stain was blood of human origin (not necessarily that of Susan's aunt), they were all made at the time of the murder, one of them had Susan's fingerprint in it - therefore she must be the murderer.
Susan was found guilty because the prosecution told a better story than the defence concentrating on blackening her character and diverting the jury's attention away from the weakness of the forensic case
If you are not now in a state of shock after reading the above, you might consider reading it again, more slowly
Thanks for the contribution Geoff.
And on the subject of general evidence that points to Susan's innocence, Geoff has just contributed to the following summary:
Hi Mark
Responding to the question about what is the evidence for Susan's innocence...1. Susan was supposed to have brutally beaten her aunt about the face and head and then pulled the pillow over her face to suffocate her before turning to stumble along the wall making the bloodstained finger prints. The problem is, that there is no blood from her hands on the underside of the pillow which is the last thing she touches before touching the wall if she did murder her aunt.
2 Clothing fibres were found on the hand of the deceased that did not match any of Susan's or her aunt's clothes - Who did they belong to but some unknown murderer.
3 There were a number of unidentified fingerprints in the house.
4 There were a number of unidentified footprints in the house - 1 on the floor of a wardrobe in an upstairs bedroom.
5 The significant thing about the red car is simply that it was not identified. Parked outside the house at a time when a murder has been committed it has to be your prime suspect until it is eliminated from the enquiry. If it belonged to a friend of the murderer and he had just borrowed it for the night, under those circumstances it would not be easy for the police to find it quickly would it? If the burglar is off his head because he hasn't had his fix for the day and this old woman won't tell him where she keeps her money - that is when things can get messy and out of control. I guess most Royton people don't have much first hand experience to know how careful or otherwise burglars are?
More gold nuggets there.
Thanks again Geoff.
Geoff, if you read this topic do you think you could invite any forensic experts, or even those Paisley students, to register here and contribute to this topic? Or perhaps you could invite other people to post here who have been involved in Susan's case?
if susan didn't do it im sure her name will be cleared eventually.
Only if she devotes all her efforts to try and make that happen. With a more efficient, flexible, transparent and accountable appeal system in place maybe Susan would have achieved her aim years and years ago.
I am a believer in the British justice system but that doesn't mean im right to believe that.
Judges are unelected.
Juries can be manipulated.
Police can be corrupt.
Therefore, innocent folk can be wrongly convicted.p.s. I think you meant Harmlessly, not harmfully!! lol
Yeah sorry. Harmlessly.
I'm a Portmuthian and not a Roytonian, but I'm a friend of Susan's. The thought had occured to me that had Susan committed this crime, with the injuries that Aunt Hilda sustained, there would have been traces of her Aunt's blood spatter over Susan's clothes - surely even with the scientific aids to detection prevailing in 1993.
As it was, the Police only had these "bloodstains" on the wall to go on. Strange isn't it?
had Susan committed this crime, with the injuries that Aunt Hilda sustained, there would have been traces of her Aunt's blood spatter over Susan's clothes - surely even with the scientific aids to detection prevailing in 1993
Good point Nigel.
And what about the possible contamination of forensic samples taken off the wall through incorrect procedures - eg the storage of forensic samples in a police filing cabinet, and the forensic samples arriving at a laboratory in an unsealed package and with different samples not separated. This sort of incompetence is one of the reasons why I am against the call for a national data base. Mention DNA and people think it is infallible, whereas in reality the human element undermines this.
The idea is great, but you can't trust our government with anything involving a database!
I am a long term supporter of Susan May and because a poster has written posts referring to information I wrote in one of my articles I feel it right to comment.
I could argue that Susan May has always struck me as a thoroughly decent person incapable of this crime, having met her and corresponded with her over a number of years. However, I concentrate on the facts of the case which strongly undermine the prosecution's argument that she is a murderer.
I support Susan for the following reasons:
1) She had no motive to kill her aunt. Indeed she would have benefited far more from her aunt living. Susan had Power of Attorney over her aunt and so had access to 100% of her property and finances whilst ever Hilda was alive. Therefore why kill Hilda and only receive 50% of the estate under Hilda
sorry it should have said 'having met her' not 'haven met her'
Did Susan's sister not have anything to do with the finances? Also, I've always wondered what happened to the house. Did it get sold because I can't imagine anybody feeling comfortable living in a house where something like that happened.
That aside, there's a lot of food for thought there. Sadly, based on all I've read up to now I can't see the truth ever coming out. Maybe the programme will help to revive the issue.
Some interesting research from Geoff Goodwin there, is that Supergood's dad? Is he a solicitor?
Also that was a bit of a shock reading about the experts, I understood all expert witnesses came from an expert witness register and had to be approved. Seems like you can't trust anyone these days
[this post was originally accidentally posted under the name "supergood" because he left his account logged in on Moj's computer. Sorry for any confusion caused]
Susan's sister was, sadly, a severe alcoholic. The police 'used' her and refused to acknowledge her mental state. It was really very sad and she should never had been allowed to give evidence. Much more could be said on this issue but Ann is no longer with us and it seems disrespectful to speak on this now?? But many points remain unresolved!
Aunty's house was sold....thankfully, and to a solicitor who did give some crucial evidence which helped to disprove some of the police evidence.
Geoff is not a solicitor but because he wanted to get to the truth his work on the forensics is magnificent and actually well respected by present solicitors and eminent experts on forensics. Once again those who have not encountered such matters must find it difficult to understand how so called 'experts' do not always tell the truth! Expert witnesses should just tell a jury what their findings are ..... however at a trial some experts called by the prosecution go beyond their remit and give 'opinions' which suit the prosecution.
Let's be realistic, juries will be swayed by scientific and expert evidence - they expect to hear the truth. But if you look at the case of Sally Clark, the lady convicted of killing her babies, they told her jury it was a 75 million to 1 chance her babies were murdered and did not die of cot death and that was false! As I have said before unless you have encountered this system in any way then you are conditioned to believe all you are told? It is essential that the defence, in the case of an innocent person on trial, put as much evidence as possible before the jury to at least give those 12 people reason to consider every possibility. I was not awarded such a defence.
A lot of it does depend on your solicitors. A trial is a bit like a game in some respects and defence experts can be just as biased in their way, it's a question of who puts together the most plausible version of events. If anything the prosecution have a harder job because they have to actually paint the picture whereas the defence just basically knock holes in it as it were. I have to admit, this case is a tricky one. Obviously this whole topic has been about Susan's innocence and it's pretty persuasive. The bit that always made me wonder is how they came to suspect her if her case is so watertight. Why would they fit her up?
I've been reading these posts all week on this subject as I previously did think she was guilty and I've weighed up both sides and as much as I have the odd misgiving I think that had I been on the jury I would have had to acquit on the basis that the case wasn't proved beyond all reasonable doubt by any means. She's lucky to have such a good support network otherwise I think she would have been in a very bad way and she comes across very well in her posts. The only thing I would say is that as far as the interview went, I felt quite awkward expressing any questions or doubts that weren't pro-Susan as the whole post was so much in her favour, and I really did try to approach it all with an open mind which obviously worked as I would now have acquitted her if I'd been on the jury, whereas I get the impression that those who perhaps questioned her innocence got a bit of a frosty response, not to mention karma points deducted. I mention this concern because I actually really like this site and I think it's a brilliant idea. I've lived in Thornham for years and I think it's doing a hell of a lot for community spirit and I would hate to think that perhaps in the future people might be frightened of saying something that doesn't go with the main flow. I actually thought Susan came across as quite a nice person and that did more to persuade me of her innocence than anything else because I really couldn't visualise her doing something like that. It could just be me of course, but I did feel quite nervous about expressing my views. I certainly wouldn't want to cause any offence
[this post was originally accidentally posted under the name "supergood" because he left his account logged in on Moj's computer. Sorry for any confusion caused]
Citizen Smith has been very honest in expressing his concerns and that is to his credit, but it IS important that he, or anyone not knowing all the facts, views the evidence in question-----especially that evidence never put before the jury, rather than decide on whether Susan comes across as a nice person. ( I'd like to think I am tho').
However, I agree that this forum is an excellent way to air various views and discuss many areas of interest and concern. Well done Supergood for initiating this! And, maybe it will help change people's opinions on differing subjects because it is often only by debate that we realise we can be wrong about things that we took for granted? No-one should feel 'awkward' by offering their own view on anything in such a forum....that has to be the point of the exercise? No offence should be taken?
Posts [ 21 to 40 of 413 ]
Please bookmark this page for times when eRoyton is broken
