Murder, Mystery and My Family (2018–…): Season 1, Episode 3 - Episode #1.3 - full transcript

The British justice system

is the envy of the world.

But in the past, mistakes have been made.

Between the year 1900 and the year 1964,

approximately 800 people were
hanged in the United Kingdom.

Many of those, desperately
protested their innocence.

Some of these
longstanding convictions

could be a miscarriage of justice.

She's received most of the
blows, in this position,

once she's already bleeding.

In this
series, a living relative



will attempt to clear their family name.

Deep in my heart, I truly
believe that he wasn't guilty.

Searching for new evidence.

I can make the .32 fire both calibers.

With help from two

of the UK's leading barristers:

one for the defense.

This is a very worrying case;

I think the evidence is very suspect.

And one for the prosecution.

I'm still of the view that this was

a cogent case of murder,
committed during the course

of a robbery.

They are on a mission,



to solve the mystery,
submitting their findings

to a Crown Court judge.

There is a real risk that there has been

a miscarriage of justice here.

I will look again at the evidence,

in the light of the
arguments that you both

have put before me.

Can this modern investigation

rewrite history?

On the 15th of July 1951,
a team of 10 officers

from the Huddersfield
police formed a cordon

around a farm in
Kirkheaton, West Yorkshire.

They suspected the owner, Alfred Moore,

for a spate of burglaries in the area,

and hoped a stake-out
would catch him red-handed,

returning from a job.

At 2 a.m., two officers did attempt

to apprehend a man crossing the farm.

When confronted,

the man shot the two policemen,

and fled into the night.

DI Fraser died instantly at the scene.

The second officer, PC Arthur Jagger,

was fatally wounded, and died
the next day, in hospital.

Three hours after the shooting,
the owner of the farm,

36 year old, Alfred Moore, was arrested

at his farmhouse and charged with murder.

At the subsequent trial,
he was found guilty

and sentenced to death.

On the 6th of February 1952, Alfred Moore

was hanged at Leeds Armley Prison.

He protested his innocence to the last.

"I am not guilty of the crime

of which I have been convicted,

and I beg you to show mercy
and grant me a reprieve,

I am convinced that one day

my innocence will be established."

65 years on,
Alfred's daughter, Bronwyn,

is still desperate to
clear her father's name.

It's heartbreaking, when you read it.

You know that this is the last thing

that he ever did in his life,

and he's pleading for his innocence.

And the last sentence in particular...

It's very moving, when
he says he is convinced

that "one day my innocence
will be established."

And I hope, sincerely,

that that can happen.

In 1939, at the outbreak of war,

Alfred married Alice Cox

and together they had four daughters.

Bronwyn was the youngest,

just two when her father was hanged.

It had been hidden from me.

I like to think I was protected a little,

because I so young when
the incident happened.

By the time I had got old
enough to be able to understand

what had happened, nobody spoke about it,

so it was just forgotten about.

Through her own
research into the case,

and her family past,
Bronwyn believes she has

unearthed the truth about her father.

I did have an insight into his character.

I think my father was quite a weak man;

I would definitely say that
he was dominated by my mother.

He was a clever man, he schooled himself,

and it was his dream to
one day run a poultry farm.

Moore achieved that dream,

buying Whinney Close Farm in 1951.

But just a few months later,
the idyllic life he had planned

was shattered in tragic circumstances,

when the two police officers
were shot dead at the farm.

I'd like to learn more about the incident

from different aspects.

I have the view of my own research,

but I would like to hear what
other people have to say:

professionals who have
looked into the case.

I hope to discover that there's something,

somewhere, in this evidence,

that can prove that my
father was innocent.

Helping Bronwyn
to investigate the case,

are two of the country's
leading legal minds.

Jeremy Dein QC is a top defense barrister

with over 30 years experience,

specializing in serious crime.

Analyzing the case for the prosection,

is Sasha Wass QC, who
has successful convicted

some of the country's
most notorious offenders.

Together, they will scrutinize the facts,

focusing on the areas that could produce

the new evidence they'll need
to take the case forward.

Bronwyn, hello, I'm Sasha.

Hi.

Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you too.

Jeremy, nice to meet you too.

First, they want to get

Bronwyn's view on the case.

It would help us if you were
to give us a brief overview

of why it is you're so confident

that your father was victim
of a miscarriage of justice.

Lack of evidence, the fact
that the gun was never found,

his alibi was so simple,
but often simple things

are the truth.

In some cases which are
historic, such as this,

modern techniques can actually prove

that a particular defendant did the act.

Are you prepared that that might
be the result in this case?

Yes I am.

You've braced yourself?

Yes, but deep in my heart,

I truly believe that he wasn't guilty.

I can't make any promises,
what I can say is

that I'll be exploring every angle,

in order to see whether there are grounds

for reopening your father's case.

If anything comes to my attention

which causes me concern about the case,

I won't hesitate to
support your perspective.

I was a little nervous when I arrived,

but after meeting them,
I'm really looking forward

to them looking into my father's case.

The first
task for the barristers

is to identify the key
facts of the murder.

Can I tell you what my
first impressions are?

The police staked out Alfred's farm,

because he was suspected of being

a well known, local burglar.

And on the night in question,

a cordon was set around the farm.

And in fact, the shooting took place

on Alfred's own property.

So number one, Alfred
was on his own property

when the guns were discharged.

Secondly, Alfred was actually
identified by the police;

Mr Jagger saw the shooting take place,

he was one of the victims,
and he identified the culprit.

One of the key points
in the prosection case,

as you've identified,

is the so-called identification parade,

but PC Jagger identifies the suspect,

at a hospital, when he's about to die.

For me, it was a farce.

And then the murder weapon:

the murder weapon was never found.

So, far as the police cordon is concerned,

the reasons to be concerned
about the evidence

that police officers gave, so
this is a very worrying case.

And I'm much closer to Bronwyn's
standpoint, than you are.

With the
barristers already at odds,

Bronwyn is returning to West Yorkshire

and the family farm where
the double murder took place.

We're here at Whinney Close Farm.

It was the achievement
of my father's dream,

to be able to build his poultry business,

breed chickens and sell
eggs, raise pigs and ducks.

Coming back all these years later,

to see the farm where I
should have been brought up,

it brings home to me the
different path my life took.

I would've grown up on a
beautiful farm like that,

in the fresh air.

It does affect me, standing here,

thinking what might have been.

Alfred Moore
returned from service

in the merchant navy, to
a Britain ravished by war.

Austerity and rationing
prevented many families

from getting back on their feet.

For some, like Alfred, the
desire for a better family life,

led to the trading of
goods on the black market,

and other illegal activities
to supplement income.

When my father came back
from the merchant navy,

and they needed money, it
was coming up to Christmas,

there was no food in the house,

and he did his first burglary.

I think my father felt pressure,
because knowing my mother,

I can well believe that she was

the driving force behind his activities.

Alfred was
an accomplished burglar.

But his prosperity didn't go unnoticed

by the local constabulary.

By July 1951, despite Moore's decision

to quit his life of crime,

a plan to catch him was already underway.

On the night of the 14th of July,

10 police officers on a stake-out

had formed a cordon around his farm.

Let me talk you through
what the prosecution

at trial called the cordon evidence.

In the earlier part of the evening,

Alfred was at home with
his wife and family,

his brother Charles came to visit.

The evidence of Alfred, and
indeed his brother Charles,

was that Alfred walked
Charles part of the way home.

According to Alfred,

he left his brother at 11:25,
walking back via the cemetery,

up a footpath leading to the farm,

arriving home between 11:45 and midnight.

The police evidence is that the officers

all convened at the
ash tip here, by 11:37,

and thereafter, they
separated to their posts.

The timing of the police

was something very much
relied on by the prosecution.

The prosecution
alleged that Alfred

couldn't have arrived home after 11:45

because the police cordon was in place,

and he would have been stopped.

The prosecution case was that Alfred Moore

didn't return home until
just before two o'clock,

when he walked up this
footpath, to his home,

the police evidence is that he
would have passed this spot,

just before two o'clock in the morning.

And that happens to be where
those two officers were shot.

Yes.

Bronwyn is meeting Steve Lawson,

a former local detective,

with an in-depth knowledge of the case.

Hi Steve, how are you?

They're on the footpath at
the bottom of the cordon,

near the spot where the
policemen were shot.

This is where Constable Jagger

was allegedly posted on
the night in question.

When you dad came home, he
said he came up this footpath

from cemetery, crossed over the stile,

went up the footpath,
over the other two stiles,

and back to the farm.

They say "no, your dad
came home at a later time,

and your dad was the shooter,
and the thing happened

at about two o'clock in the morning."

The problem with that is: whoever it was,

who was up that footpath at
two o'clock in the morning,

had got past this position here,

where Constable Jagger was
supposed to have been positioned.

And he'd been there since 11:45.

So, where do you think
he was positioned then?

It came out at the trial
that it rained that night.

Had they all taken shelter, the policemen?

Were they where they should have been?

And if they weren't, it
makes a whole mockery

of the whole situation.

Jeremy also has
doubts whether the cordon

was even in place at the
time the police claim.

I think this is a very, very shaky area.

I haven't seen any documentation

that their timings are accurate.

Alfred Moore said that he parted company

with his brother at
between 11:20 and 11:25.

If in fact, he parted
company with his brother

a few minutes earlier, he
could have been back at home

before the police cordon was in place.

So the cordon point collapses.

We're playing here with
three, four, five minutes--

And this is really very
primitive observation.

Absolutely, I'm afraid I
think we have to factor in

that these police officers

were part of a team, and they had lost

two of their colleagues
in a vicious murder,

and there was an interest in them

giving evidence in a manner

which made it physically impossible

for Alfred Moore to get
home and breach the cordon.

So overall, I just think this
body of evidence is suspect.

If Alfred Moore was the culprit,

as the police claim, then
what happened to the gun?

A two week search of the
farmhouse and the land

had failed to unearth any
potential murder weapon.

The question of whether Alfred Moore

could be linked to the
murder weapon, is crucial.

And the only connection the
prosecution were able to raise,

was the evidence of Joe Baxter.

Joe Baxter
was a local removal man,

who had served in the navy, and claimed

to be knowledgeable about guns.

Jeremy is hoping firearms
expert, Innes Knight,

can shoot holes in the
evidence of Joe Baxter

connecting Moore to a
possible murder weapon.

What he alleged is that
in Alfred Moore's toolbox,

some considerable time before the murder

of the two police officers,

he saw a Luger automatic revolver.

Yes, that statement is
wrong on so many counts.

Luger only made a pistol.

Yep.

The difference between a pistol

and a revolver, is quite large.

A pistol has a single
barrel and a single chamber.

It is fed from a magazine in the grip,

and uses recoil to operate it.

Loading a round, firing,
and ejecting the spent case.

And this is a Webley revolver.

Has a single barrel, and multiple chambers

that rotate, to line up with
the barrel, one at a time.

It's a completely
different operating system.

And they look
completely different as well.

They look completely different.

Joe Baxter claims that
he knew the difference

between the two, but on the face of it,

that's just rubbish, isn't it?

No one would say a "Luger
automatic revolver".

It has never existed;
anyone with even a slightest

bit of knowledge, would probably not--

So anyone who claims to have had knowledge

of the difference between
the two, is talking nonsense.

It's nonsense, absolutely.

We know that Alfred Moore admitted

to having guns of this type,

including an air pistol, such as this.

Yes.

Joe Baxter said that he
saw what he described

as an automatic pistol, like a Luger,

in Alfred Moore's toolbox.

In the toolbox.

Can we just put the
Luger and the air pistol

in the toolbox?

First put the Webley air gun...

Can we just put the
Luger now, side by side.

It would be easy for those
two guns to be confused,

would you agree with that?

Yes, I would agree with that.

And especially because
we can see in the toolbox,

you've got all the bits
of ironmongery there,

which make it less clear
as an object, to identify.

Yes, yes, quite.

So there's every possibility,

that what Joe Baxter in fact saw,

was Alfred Moore's air pistol.

Exactly, I believe that is what happened.

The lack of any direct evidence

against Alfred Moore didn't
prevent the press in 1952

from painting him as
an irrefutable villain.

Bronwyn has come to Huddersfield library,

to dig out local reports about the case.

It's "The story of Alfred Moore, murderer

and self-confessed burglar".

He was being reported
as being the guilty man.

Right from the beginning, there was only

one man they concentrated on.

These papers just report the fact

that Alfred Moore was guilty.

It was Inspector Fraser's
personal ambition

to have more caught, the
disconcerting series of burglars

which had clearly pointed to
him, but could not be proved.

And I do feel that they
took the opportunity

to make the crime, fit.

Alfred Moore's alibi

on the night of the murder was simple,

and one he consistently
maintained to the end.

"How could it be me?

I was in bed with my wife."

It's the simple truth.

You'd think, if he going to
make up an alibi or something,

it would have been a lot stronger.

It's such a simple alibi,
and the only people

that could prove it, are
his wife and children.

There was no reason

for the jury to doubt Moore's alibi,

except for the testimony of
Alfred's 10 year old daughter,

Patricia, who slept in the same bedroom.

In this particular paper,
it says about my sister

being brought in as a witness.

Patricia went into the witness box

and her head barely showing
above the top of it,

Moore called to her "hello Pat."

In a hesitant voice, and
amid occasional tears,

Patricia said that her
father and her uncle Charles

left the house on July
the 14th after supper.

She heard her father come
through the French window,

and he was cross because
she wasn't asleep.

Using Pat as a witness, I
do think was distasteful.

A 10 year old girl, it was something

that she never got over.

Patricia's statement

suggested Moore arrived home much later

than he claimed in his own account.

His own daughter contradicted his alibi.

You're placing emphasis on the testimony

of a 10 year old girl?

Well we both very carefully

at Patricia's evidence--

Well there's not much to look at;

her statement's about three lines long!

She uses as a pinpoint,
the sounding of a whistle.

Yeah.

She doesn't know what that whistle is,

but piecing the evidence together,

it would appear that it must
have been a police whistle

once the shooting had been discovered.

Why?

Let me finish about her evidence.

She doesn't say it was
12:30, or 2:30, or whatever,

she says her father arrived home

after the sounding of a police whistle.

That is consistent with the shooting.

You're saying the little girl,

who might well have been
under malign police influence,

was relied on by the prosecution

to pinpoint Alfred Moore's arrival home

at being approximately
2:30, because she said

in a statement which was
about five lines long,

the authenticity of which we know nothing,

he arrived home after the police whistle.

I think the evidence is
arguably very suspect.

So did the
police target Alfred Moore,

discounting any evidence
that could have pointed

towards other possible suspects?

I would like to see
evidence, if there is any,

about whether there were any
other suspects in this case.

Can modern forensic experts

find anything that indicates someone else

shot the police officers?

The only evidence that remains today

are crime scene photographs
and scientific reports,

making it a difficult task.

The barristers have
called upon pathologist,

Mark Mastaglio, to examine the post-mortem

for clues about the killer's identity.

Two victims in this case, can I start

with Detective Inspector Fraser?

Well DI Fraser received
four gunshot injuries.

They were as follows: on
his right arm and left arm,

then we had a non-perforating wound

to just above the naval area,

the fatal wound occurred
to the upper left side

of the chest.

There was tearing and
blackening to the garment,

and there was charring of
fibers inside the wound.

The gun was very close when it was fired.

You can say it was an attack which must

have been extremely close range?

Well indeed, because we
have three of the injuries

are with the gun virtually
in contact with DI Fraser.

Thank you very much.

Now, PC Jagger, only one injury?

A singular, fatal injury,
in his lower abdomen.

So again, really close.

That scenario tends to
suggest that whoever fired

those shots, was determined
to kill their victims.

Anybody who discharges a
firearm numerous times,

at the upper torso of an
individual, from close range,

must have an idea that they're gonna cause

serious injury, or indeed fatal injury.

Alright, well
that's helpful, thank you.

So the post-mortem
evidence from 1951

indicates that this was a brutal shooting

carried out by an individual
determined to kill.

But what can the latest
investigative techniques

tell us about the murderer?

Bronwyn has come to
Huddersfield University

to meet criminal
psychologist, Donna Young.

You must be Donna, hello.

Thanks for coming.

Thank you.

She's analyzed both case files

and personal documents, to
build a profile of Alfred Moore.

Is it a match for the killer?

What we do, is we model the details

of different types of offenses,

to see what they will tell
us about the individual

who might have carried out those crimes.

So I'm used to trying to dissect

the way somebody was thinking
when they carried out a crime.

It is remarkable how much
you can say about somebody,

just from a few personal documents,

and a few reports about them.

Certainly, my reading of all the documents

is that your father didn't have a serious,

professional criminal
mind, and he didn't have

an aggressive criminal mind.

The reports all talk
about a very obedient,

accommodating, pleasant man.

I'm struggling very much,
to match what we know

about the shooting, from what
I can glean about your father.

He had what we call a
victim life narrative.

Now that's somebody who,
from a very early age,

learnt that they were
essentially powerless.

Would this be the result
of a rather dominant,

bully-type father?

Very much so, yeah, yeah,
and that stays with you.

It guides and shapes all the decisions

that you make in your life.

Including choice of wife?

Yes, yeah, so you'd
probably choose somebody

who's a bit more dominant than you are.

My mother was extremely dominant lady.

I believe that when my
father got into burglary,

that it was at the behest of my mother.

That would make sense,
psychologically speaking,

that would make sense.

But it's the personal letters,

written by Alfred Moore,
from his prison cell,

that are most revealing.

I see here a number of different clues

as to somebody who may not be guilty.

Can you remember the
pieces about the pigs?

Mix four parts of cereal,
to one part of fishmeal,

and don't give the pigs too much fishmeal:

one bucket of swill, upwards a day.

Yes.

It's quite charming, in a way.

And to think that this is written

by somebody sitting in a prison cell.

It's somebody still in life.

When somebody knows that
they are going to die,

we see a withdrawal, from
life and all the details

of their previous life.

Absolute opposite is
what we're seeing here.

He assumes that somehow,

his innocence is going to win through.

It's the last line, where
he expects that one day,

someone will prove his innocence.

Well, maybe that's what you're doing.

Someone will know!

With the investigation
rapidly progressing,

Bronwyn has returned to London

for a catch-up with the barristers.

We've looked, in a great deal of detail,

at the police cordon evidence.

My view is that all of the
timings are wholly unreliable,

and that that body of
evidence is unsustainable.

What we really need, in order to challenge

this conviction, is something
new, that wasn't heard

either at the trial or
at the Court of Appeal.

Okay.

The identification of the killer

by PC Jagger before he died, was central

to the prosecution's case.

But Jagger made another statement,

that was never submitted into evidence.

His first statement, did include a man

wearing a white scarf.

Yes.

I think the white, silk
scarf is quite significant,

because many years later,
I met Steve Lawson,

who'd started investigating
my father's case,

and I also got in touch with
my sister, Pat, and we met.

One of the points Steve brought up,

was about this statement:
a man wearing a silk scarf.

My sister, Pat, immediately said

"oh, you mean the Tin Man!"

And when she was younger, we
had this man visit the farm,

who was bringing black
market goods basically,

and my mother and father
were storing the goods,

to be sold on, and the
way she described him,

he always wore a mac, with
this white silk scarf.

So we have a possible alternative suspect.

We have a possible alternative suspect.

Well that is something that Jeremy and I

would very much like to investigate.

Could information of a possible

alternative suspect,
provide the barristers

with the breakthrough they need?

Steve Lawson has come to London

to discuss the information he holds.

Tell us how you came across
the case of Alfred Moore.

I got involved in 1971, I was in the CID

and we had two very nasty armed robberies.

The family, known as the Mead family,

they came under suspicion.

John Mead was one of a
gang who was arrested.

Clifford Mead, his father,
was also under suspicion,

but at the time, there was
no evidence against Clifford

and nobody saw to give him up.

Following the convictions
and imprisonment,

I was working one day in the
office, when the phone rang.

And it was a lady on the phone,

and turned out she was the wife

of one of these gang members.

And the essence of the conversation

was that a couple of nights before,

she'd been at the White Cottage,

which was the house which
was owned by Clifford Mead.

Suddenly, without any indication,

Clifford Mead stood up,
left the room, came back,

and introduced this gun
as some sort of trophy,

and just said "this is the gun

that killed two coppers
in Kirkheaton, in 1951."

And that was it, and I just
said to this lady, I said

"will you make a statement
along these lines?"

And she said "no, you don't know

what that man's capable of."

Many years later,

Steve began investigating
the Alfred Moore case

and published a book,
questioning the verdict.

So in 2007, I met Alfred's daughters,

and we were chatting, and I
just said out of the blue,

"did your dad ever wear
a white silk scarf?"

Pat, the eldest, said "no,
my dad never wore a scarf,

but the Tin Man did."

The description she gave: tall, dark hair,

swirly looking, thin pencil mustache,

long coat and a white scarf or a cravat.

Definitely would have
fitted Clifford Mead.

If Clifford Mead and the
Tin Man are the same person,

Clifford Mead, then in
1971, connects himself

to this crime, by saying
"this is the gun that shot."

To me, he remains a suspect.

Have you got any information

as to where Clifford
Mead was, on that night?

Only through John Mead, his recollection

of what his mother told him.

She did say to John,
something on the lines of

"that night, your father
came home in a right state.

He was shaking, he was
incoherent, he was pale,

he just wasn't himself", and then--

So John Mead has said,
his mother said his father

was shaken, the night
of the killing itself?

Yeah.

Mr Lawson, I see you've
got a statement there,

from John Mead.

Do you mind if I have a look at it?

Thank you.

Well it says "I'm the
son of Clifford Mead,

but although it's not easy
for me to publicly say this,

I now believe that my
father, Clifford Mead,

was responsible for those killings.

An innocent man was hung for
a crime he did not commit,

and it's about time that an
injustice was put right."

The information you've given
is extremely important.

We need to ask ourselves whether
this realistically amounts

to evidence of an alternative
suspect, do you agree?

I do, yes.

At Leeds Armley Prison,

on the 6th of February 1952,

Alfred Moore was hanged until dead.

His body was buried in an unmarked grave,

within the prison walls.

I am so surprised to arrive at Armley jail

and see such an austere building,

the last thing my father
saw, before his death.

I'm just lost for words really.

I believe I came to visit my
father, the day before he died.

I was only two years old and thankfully

I remember nothing about it.

Bronwyn wants to see

where her father is laid to rest.

And has been permitted by the prison

to read the record of his execution.

This is the first time that
I've seen such a record.

It gives details of his
age, and his height.

His build was stout and strong.

Then it gives the
particulars of the execution,

the length and drop,
and the cause of death:

his neck was broken.

It's the basic facts of my father's death

and just to see them in black and white,

it's hard, it's very hard.

In 1989, Alfred
Moore's remains were exhumed,

along with other executed prisoners,

and reburied at a cemetery

just a short walk from the prison.

It may be odd to say,
but I'm quite relieved

to find that my father is
in such a peaceful place.

Hi dad, I hope this is a surprise,

66 years later.

I'm here with respect,

I'm so pleased that you're
no longer inside Armley jail.

I hope you can now rest in peace.

I know you're not guilty of murder,

and hopefully this will lead, one day,

to clearing your name.

Bye dad.

I will see you again, I promise.

With the
investigation drawing to a close,

Jeremy is still searching for new evidence

that casts doubt on Alfred
Moore as the killer.

He knows PC Jagger's
identification of Moore

was a damning piece of evidence,

that formed the core of
the prosecution's case,

but it was made in an unorthodox fashion,

at his hospital bedside,
just hours before he died.

If we can obtain expert evidence,

to the effect that PC Jagger
was not in a fit state

to engage in that
identification procedure,

it's possible to use that material

as the basis for reopening
Alfred Moore's convictions.

Phillip Hopkins is a professor

of anesthesia at the University of Leeds.

He's studied PC Jagger's
medical records in detail.

So he was brought into
hospital and underwent surgery

for the removal of the
bullet, he was given morphine

and then at 4:50, there was
a identification procedure.

Correct, yes.

The surgeon described him
as being "alert", by midday.

Alert, at it's most basic,

means he opens his eyes spontaneously.

What it doesn't infer at
all, is anything about

PC Jagger's mental function,
whether his memory was intact,

whether he was aware of
where he was, who he was,

what year it was; it would be standard

to write alert and orientated.

Yes, rather than...

Alert.

Doesn't suggest disorientated, does it?

It doesn't either suggest or not suggest

that he's disorientated,
it makes no comment.

And by the time the identification
procedure takes place,

he's described as "mentally very bright,

and not under the
influence of the morphine

given earlier that day, at five to one."

Well he's incorrect about
the "under the influence

of the morphine", he's also
discounting the effects

of the general anesthetic.

The agent was ether, and one
of the downsides of ether

was that it affected mental functioning

for a prolonged period of time.

Are you able to comment on what you feel

PC Jagger's state of mind
is likely to have been,

at the time of that identification parade?

Most people have had flu.

Yeah.

And when we get a really bad dose of flu,

our mind often plays tricks with us.

And that's exactly what
can happen with septicemia,

it can happen with drugs such as morphine

and the anesthetic drugs.

In your view, is PC
Jagger's identification

of Alfred Moore, as his killer, reliable?

No.

And if you were on
a jury, would you be prepared

to rely on his identification
of the man in the dock?

No.

This is really a case
about an identification.

That identification has
been deemed unreliable,

by an eminent expert, so my
view is that there are grounds

for reopening the case of Alfred Moore,

and I'll be working towards compiling

the necessary arguments,
over the forthcoming days.

I'll give it some more
thought, but I have to say,

I don't immediately feel
that there is any cause

to open up this conviction.

The legal
arguments have been prepared,

and it now falls to His
Honour Judge David Radford

to deliberate.

Based on his expert opinion,
he will recommend if the case

should be reviewed or not.

I've arrived here today
to listen to the evidence

being presented before the judge.

I'm reasonably confident
that Jeremy's investigation

will show some new legal arguments,

that will help to prove
my father's innocence.

Now I feel that this is the
end of quite a long road,

and it is the moment of truth.

Hello Bronwyn, how are you?

I'm very well, thank you.

Yep, good.

Hi Bronwyn.

How are you feeling?

I'm feeling a little nervous,
but also quite excited.

I hope the decision will
be favorable, obviously.

I've come to my own conclusion
that my father was innocent.

Let's just press on and find out

what the judge's view is.

Yep.

Judge Radford has
over 40 years of experience

at the Criminal Bar, and
sat at the Court of Appeal.

For this program, he'll
be treating this matter

as he would any other case.

I'm here today to consider,

with the help of learned counsel,

the safety of the
conviction of Alfred Moore.

Mr Dein, on behalf of the defense,

do you wish to make your submissions?

Yes please.

This was a case characterized
by circumstantial evidence,

depending wholly on the
identification evidence

of PC Jagger.

There is now the evidence
of Professor Hopkins,

consultant anesthetist.

In his view, PC Jagger
would have been incapable

of making a reliable
identification of his killer.

Professor Hopkins found the circumstances

of the identification parade,
quote, "extraordinary",

and that in his opinion, the evidence is

fundamentally unreliable.

Coming to the point, it is my submission

that Mr Jagger's
identification of Alfred Moore

was so flawed that it ought never

to have surfaced in
evidence, and without it,

no sustainable case would have existed.

Thank you very much Mr Dein.

Miss Wass, do you want to respond?

First of all, I agree
entirely with Mr Dein

that this is a case that depended wholly

on the identification of PC Jagger.

I am not persuaded by
Professor Hopkins evidence.

Well it's perhaps for me to
be persuaded, rather than you.

Alright.

One has to work on the
basis that we are dealing

with competent medical practitioners here,

and there is not a scintilla of evidence

to suggest that the patient, PC Jaggers,

was either disorientated, confused,

or in any way incapable of
giving a coherent account.

Professor Hopkins'
evidence does, in reality,

do nothing to undermine the evidence

that was before this jury.

And that remains the position.

Yes, thank you both, I will now consider

your helpful submissions
and I will look again

at the evidence, in the
light of the arguments

that you both have put before me.

Thank you very much.

Jeremy has done all he can

to convince the judge, the
case should be reviewed.

But Bronwyn is not convinced.

Bronwyn, are you okay?

Yes, I feel fine, a little
frustrated actually,

because obviously there were points there

where I would have loved
to have interrupted.

Certainly from my perspective,
I share your frustration,

because the framework is just so limited

in terms of identifying new material.

And I know Sasha opposed,
but I'm hoping that the judge

will take the view that's
sufficiently powerful

to justify a reopening of the case.

Exactly, exactly.

So I think what we've got to
do now Bronwyn, is just wait,

and the judge will come to his decision,

and we have no idea what that decision is.

No, it's now out of our hands.

Jeremy has cast serious doubt

on the police investigation,
but with a lack of hard proof

that the Tin Man is a genuine suspect,

the only new evidence he can present

concerns PC Jagger.

Will it be enough?

The judge has reached his verdict.

There can be no doubt,
someone fatally shot

two police officers, not far from

the farmhouse home of Mr Alfred Moore.

One of those officers survived long enough

to be able, positively
to identify Mr Moore

as the man who had shot
him and his colleague.

The fact, in my view,
remains the available

medical evidence, from
fully and properly qualified

medical practitioners,
would have made clear

that if Police Constable
Jagger was well capable

of undertaking a proper identification.

In my view, I see no proper basis

suggesting that the jury's verdict

should be exceptionally considered,

now to be referred
again, as to it's safety.

I'll rise.

Well I know you'll be very disappointed.

Extremely, yes extremely disappointed.

I do understand it has to be
considered on a legal point,

but I have not changed
my opinion, one iota,

that my father's conviction was unsafe.

In my view, the evidence
was made to fit the crime.

Well this is not the end of the road,

it's just the end of this chapter.

We both admire your
resilience and determination.

I'm sorry that I haven't been able

to come up with enough to swing it round.

We can only wish you the best of luck

in fighting to declare
your father's innocence,

and one day, I hope you'll succeed.

Thank you very much.

I'm not surprised,

and I'm also terribly disappointed.

But I would like somebody
in authority to come forward

and say "yes, you're right."

It's okay feeling he was innocent,
but he was judged guilty.

Once my father was executed,
there was absolutely no hope,

because you couldn't
bring him back, not ever.