The Jury Room S01E06
Category
🦄
CreativityTranscript
00:00In the series you're about to see, we review real murder cases in which the convicted killer refuses to accept the guilty verdict.
00:12Days, weeks, even months of courtroom deliberations may have been held, but generally cases whittle down into a handful of key disputed points of evidence.
00:23Our specifically selected jury will review the original trial evidence alongside revelatory new evidence or analysis.
00:31Will you and the jury find the convicted killer guilty or perhaps not guilty?
00:42I'm Will Hanrahan. Welcome to the jury room. Today we're hearing the case of Omar Benguit. Here's how it all began.
00:53Alone at night, Yong-ok Shin is uncertain of the masked man behind her.
00:59Yong-ok's family in Korea knew the 26-year-old would benefit from a student experience, but worried they could do nothing if anything went wrong.
01:07That night it did. Ok-hee was attacked and stabbed three times. She was to die fighting for the English words to describe her killer.
01:15Omar Benguit was arrested and convicted of Yong-ok's murder, but did he do it?
01:20The jury room will debate the case of Omar Benguit, drug-crazed killer or innocent suffering a miscarriage of justice.
01:43It took three trials before Omar Benguit was convicted of the murder of Yong-ok Shin.
01:48Two failed appeals later, he says he would rather die in prison than admit his guilt.
01:53In the jury room, 12 specifically selected citizens will be asked to revisit the case and consider evidence not heard by the jury in any of the trials.
02:01In the jury room, will Omar Benguit be found guilty or not guilty?
02:09Omar Benguit became a regular at Winchester Crown Court because of the reliability of the main prosecution witness.
02:15For legal reasons, we cannot identify her. We will simply call her Beverly. Here's why.
02:22At the first trial, there were two accused, Benguit and another man.
02:26They faced murder, assisting murder and serious charges against the witness herself.
02:32The second man was cleared of the serious charges against the witness.
02:36The main evidence against him had come from her, Beverly, and was successfully argued as unreliable.
02:42At the second trial, charges of assisting in murder against that second man were dropped.
02:47Beverly had said he had been with them in the car, but in fact, he was in a different car getting a speeding ticket at the time of the attack on Yong-ok Shin.
02:55Again, the evidence of the main witness had been incorrect.
02:59Only then did a third trial go ahead against Benguit alone, and the case rested heavily on the evidence of the main witness.
03:07You will hear an analysis of the police and prosecution evidence from former senior detective Colin Sutton in the case of Omar Benguit.
03:24Yong-ok Shin, or Okkie as she was known, was thousands of miles from her family, learning English, sampling a different culture.
03:32At the time, she was one of thousands of students encouraged to come to England to learn the language.
03:37It was 2002, and the 26-year-old was building her life.
03:41One evening, she was out with friends, enjoying student times.
03:45What could go wrong?
03:47She was attacked from behind, without warning, just a blitz attack.
03:52She was stabbed in the back three times, deep, six inches deep stab wounds.
03:59And she bled to death.
04:01She was still able to speak to the emergency services when they got there and to people nearby,
04:07but her English wasn't particularly good, and all she could really say was,
04:11broken, it was a masked man.
04:14With no apparent witnesses, no murder weapons or motive,
04:17the investigation was hitting a brick wall, until police came across an eyewitness.
04:22Omar Benguit's name came into the frame for the police because he was named by an acquaintance of his.
04:29She had given him a lift the evening, the early hours of the morning, before the offence took place.
04:36They were acquainted because of their mutual interest in drug-taking, essentially.
04:43In the early hours of Okkie's murder, she drove Benguit and two other men around Bournemouth looking for a crack house.
04:50During the journey, they saw an Asian girl and told her to pull over.
04:54They wanted the Asian girl to join them.
04:56A short time later, the men returned, sweaty and agitated, with one screaming at Benguit,
05:00what have you done?
05:02She noticed that he had blood on his shirt, and at some point later on,
05:07took the shirt off and it ended up in a carrier bag with another item,
05:11and subsequently she gave evidence that that carrier bag was ditched.
05:20There was some corroboration.
05:22She took Benguit to a crack house, to a house where drugs were available and they could take drugs,
05:29and others who were there at the crack house corroborate her story about the blood-stained T-shirt
05:38and being in an agitated state.
05:40So it wasn't solely that we were relying on her evidence,
05:44there was some other circumstantial evidence which supported it,
05:48and you know, circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
05:53The prosecution case against Omar Benguit was simple.
05:56He was fuelled by a sexual desire for Asian women and drugs.
05:59He saw an opportunity on the 12th of July coming across Okkie alone, and he stabbed her.
06:05Witnesses saw blood on his clothes.
06:07Benguit could not explain to the police where he was on that night,
06:10and tried to create a false alibi.
06:13It's very suspicious that he tried to organise an alibi with his brother.
06:19He got his brother, effectively, or asked his brother to tell lies on his behalf,
06:24to give him an alibi to put him somewhere else at the time of this offence.
06:27You know, is that the behaviour of an innocent man?
06:31Why would you go to those lengths?
06:33And then there was the reliability of the main prosecution witness,
06:37twice proved to be so inconsistent in court that retrials were ordered.
06:45A crime committed in hell doesn't have angels for witnesses.
06:50You know, sometimes if you're dealing with an event,
06:53with a crime which has happened within one of these subcultures
06:56and people with these lifestyle choices,
06:58then the only witnesses you are going to find
07:00are going to be people who are members of that subculture.
07:04Just because somebody chooses to be involved in drugs or prostitution
07:08or any of the other kind of things that people might find unusual,
07:14that doesn't, of itself, mean that their evidence is going to be tainted or unreliable.
07:22It's clear that the jury will have had this will be the case,
07:25It's clear that the jury will have had this woman's background
07:28and all the difficulties explored and set out in front of them
07:32because it's a matter for them as to whether or not they believe her as a witness of truth.
07:38And I'm sure the case was put forcefully for the defence
07:42as to why they may wish to consider her unreliable.
07:46And they considered it and they came out in favour of believing her,
07:50believing that she was a witness of truth.
07:52And if what she says is true, then Bengui's a murderer and he's guilty and that's what happened.
08:04Our jury has selected a four person. It's Nicole Dixon.
08:08Nicole, why was she chosen?
08:10She's concise, clear and she actually listens as well.
08:15OK, well I think that's as good a reason as any that I've heard for the selection of a four person.
08:20Let's make sure now that we all understand exactly what was said in the prosecution case.
08:25For me, one of the most telling quotes that I heard during Colin Sutton's report, if you will, of the prosecution case
08:32that is, a crime committed in hell doesn't have angels for witnesses.
08:36In this case, witnesses are important, aren't they? Or are star witnesses important? Tell us about that.
08:40We know that there was three trials
08:46and it took three trials to actually come to a verdict, mainly because she was inconsistent with her evidence.
08:54Perhaps you're jumping ahead a little bit there, because are we sure about the evidence?
08:58We know there's a dispute over the reliability of that evidence, but what else in the evidence did we hear?
09:04There was something about a false alibi, I think?
09:06Oh, the brother, yeah.
09:08He tried to get his brother to lie about an alibi
09:12and also I noted down that people in the crack house they were going to
09:19cooperated with her story, seeing blood on his T-shirt.
09:25They were driving in the car where she stopped the car because he saw an Asian girl.
09:29Two men got out, one being him.
09:31They then come back in the car, he's covered in blood, and his friend said,
09:35what have you done?
09:37At most of the drug house and everything, people corroborated that there was blood on the T-shirt.
09:41I mean, I think if you're on drugs, and I'm not an expert by any means,
09:44I'm sure everyone couldn't have been completely wasted,
09:46and there must be some truth if you're driving a car and someone gets in with blood in, perhaps.
09:52But that is what actually happened.
09:54Whether in court you could be turned over, I don't know, or confused, I don't know.
09:58But, you know, that's all I've got to say.
10:00I found it strange as well that they actually suggested to actually get her in the car.
10:06I thought that was quite a weird thing to say to begin with.
10:08Why would you ask for this young girl to get in the car?
10:11Might have won her a good time.
10:13Yeah.
10:14We know he had a love of Oriental ladies, and a sexual drive towards Oriental ladies, so...
10:21Well, we know that the police and prosecution say that.
10:24And also, a lot of young guys could just say that in jest.
10:28You know, just say, you know, I'd love to get her in the car, I want to speak to her as well.
10:32Also, he's going to appear to be a bit sweaty and not altogether with it
10:36because, you know, he needs his next fix.
10:39Belle, you were trying to say something.
10:41I was just going to repeat the prosecution point,
10:44that just because people are living a lifestyle that you don't approve of,
10:48and they're all in this drug debt and getting wasted,
10:51it doesn't mean to say that they didn't see what they saw,
10:53which is, I'm just reinforcing what Trevor said.
10:56I agree with that, because it's one thing to have just the one person saying it,
11:00but you've got other people saying they saw something.
11:05You know, you can't ignore that, in my eyes.
11:07You just can't ignore that kind of thing.
11:09I agree.
11:10So are we all clear that we know the police and prosecution evidence
11:13put before that original jury?
11:15OK, if three or more members of our jury think Benguit not to be a murderer,
11:19then he will be found not guilty by the jury room.
11:23After the break, we will be considering the case for the defence of Omar Benguit.
11:36Welcome back to the jury room.
11:38We've heard the police and prosecution evidence.
11:40Time now for the defence case, in the company of Barrister Matthew Stambury.
11:50The prosecution was based on the evidence of a witness who was inconsistent.
11:54No verdict was reached about Omar Benguit.
11:57The defence was based on the evidence of a witness who was inconsistent.
12:02No verdict was reached about Omar Benguit and the murder.
12:05She claimed there were three men in the car
12:07when she was driving around Bournemouth on the night of the murder.
12:10That was not true.
12:12One of those individuals wasn't there, he wasn't in her car,
12:16he'd been given a speeding ticket,
12:19and that proved that he was at that location and not where she said he was.
12:25At a second trial, both Omar Benguit and his alleged accomplice
12:30faced charges related to the attack on Yongguk Shin.
12:34But the alleged accomplice could show
12:36that he was on another side of the town that night.
12:39What happened next is highly unusual.
12:41A third trial was ordered.
12:44Usually, the prosecution won't be granted dispensation
12:48for a third trial to take place.
12:50It usually only happens in the most serious cases,
12:53and, of course, this was a very serious case.
12:56But the defence would say, well, yes, it was a very, very serious case,
13:00but it was also a case based on seriously shaky evidence,
13:04based on the testimony of a seriously unreliable witness.
13:09The evidence, it was undoubtedly the case
13:12that the jury would have had it well in mind
13:14that the witnesses were people that they needed to be very careful about
13:18and that they were unreliable witnesses,
13:20and the defence said the case has just fallen apart at the seams.
13:24And there was no forensic evidence.
13:27There was no physical evidence to link Omar Benguit to this case,
13:31as there often is.
13:33There is these days almost always some forensic evidence in cases of this sort,
13:38but in this case, unusually, there wasn't any forensic evidence.
13:42There was no knife recovered.
13:44There was no DNA to link him to this attack.
13:47The attacker had worn a mask, and there was no mask recovered.
13:52So although there was circumstantial evidence
13:55upon which the prosecution could rely,
13:57it was, on any view, not the strongest case to put before a jury.
14:06So that's the case for the defence. What have we heard?
14:10I didn't realise she changed her stories that many times.
14:13So that does cast a lot of doubt across my mind.
14:16I'm already changing, you know, because of that.
14:19It's interesting as well that other witnesses withdrew their stories as well.
14:26There's no sense that they were threatened or anything, is there?
14:30In this subculture, that's a reason for people to withdraw evidence sometimes.
14:36I found it strange from her, the things she said to begin with,
14:40it sounded like he put his T-shirt or shirt or whatever it was he was wearing
14:44in the bag and then they went on to the crack house.
14:47But then at the crack house, people are saying, yeah, there was blood on his shirt.
14:50Did she then imagine that she saw someone getting a car covered in blood,
14:53who she knew, when there'd actually had been a stabbing,
14:56which she probably wasn't aware of at the time?
14:58Do you know what strikes me? She's fit enough to drive a car.
15:01I mean, what I was saying before, I don't think because you use drugs,
15:05and I'm not an expert, would make you completely incapacitated
15:08in every single way, including a drug house where everyone's unconscious.
15:13I don't think it really happens like that.
15:15But I can't answer that.
15:17I think this lady is such a terrible witness and so inconsistent.
15:21I mean, supposition it, but was the prosecution, did they lay into her?
15:27And totally, if she's not all that with it, not because she takes drugs,
15:31you can tie someone up in not-so-professional people.
15:34But you can't disregard the fact that there's so many people
15:37that saw him come in to this house and they're all incapacitated.
15:40They're not necessarily dead, they're in a drug house.
15:43We don't know to what extent, but they are all reliable.
15:46I don't think you can assume that they're all unconscious.
15:49I think there's got to be someone there who's aware.
15:52Just for some clarity, often the most high adversity
15:57is the most honest they can be,
15:59and sometimes to a fault where they will get themselves in trouble.
16:03So I feel like if they...
16:06I wouldn't put much incapacity, any issue on the incapacity of people,
16:12because especially if they're in a crack house,
16:15they're likely to have done it for quite a while.
16:18So it's probably to get them back to normal, per se,
16:22and when they're high, you get...
16:25Tracy, you're a housing support worker in Ipswich.
16:28How do you know what you just said?
16:30Well, I work with a wide range of people
16:33and I've worked with quite a lot of people that have dealt with addiction,
16:37so I see it all the time.
16:40I find that it's more difficult to work with someone
16:43if they're needing a fix than after they've got it,
16:47because they actually just...
16:49They're like an open door when they're...
16:52Cos they're happy, they're...
16:54We can call it high, but sometimes it's just to get them lucid.
16:59Yeah, so...
17:00Your girlfriend was trying to say something.
17:02Yeah, no, I definitely, like...
17:04I agree with, like...
17:05Especially with the inconsistencies of the statement.
17:08The only thing that runs through my mind
17:10is the motive to why she would accuse somebody of doing that.
17:14Like, I don't know, like,
17:15why would you accuse somebody of stabbing someone like that?
17:18It could be revenge.
17:19Yeah, exactly.
17:20It could be, you don't know what's going on between her and...
17:23Yeah, so that's the only question in my mind,
17:25to why would you go out and accuse someone?
17:27Is it instructive that she had been arrested for shoplifting
17:30when she gave her evidence originally?
17:32We know she's into the drugs, we know she's...
17:35You say she's a shoplifter.
17:38That doesn't say anything.
17:40Also, do we know who is providing these drugs?
17:42Because a lot of the times it's found that...
17:44From the pimps.
17:45The dealers to crack houses often take crack themselves.
17:48Maybe she's getting rid of competition, we just don't know.
17:51I feel like we've got to stick to the facts
17:53and I'm reluctant to kind of write off her testimony
17:57because it's...
18:00It's just too coincidental to...
18:03Yes, she was arrested for shoplifting,
18:06but, you know, why would you then open up about somebody...
18:09Yeah, but she was also found twice in a court of law to be found lying.
18:13Doesn't make her a bad person, you know.
18:15I dealt with a girl, she was a victim of a robbery,
18:18she was very heavily into drugs, as were the people who robbed her,
18:22because it was a drug debt.
18:24But they were found guilty at Crown Court of robbing her,
18:29but the defence tried to undermine the injured party, the victim,
18:34so much on the fact that she had such a terrible history.
18:38Which is what they're doing here, isn't it?
18:40I mean, they've got a very great case,
18:42but we've got such a terrible witness that...
18:44Tried to discredit her.
18:45Well, I mean, it's very easy, isn't it?
18:47That's the main thing they're doing.
18:49If he did do it, then why was there no forensic evidence found?
18:52Why was there no...
18:53Nothing, no weapon, no fingerprints, nothing.
18:55They didn't find anything, did they?
18:57Can I ask you, because we've heard that evidence before, haven't we,
19:00in other cases in the jury room that no forensic or physical evidence
19:03was found, but what do we expect a murderer to do?
19:06Well, is that get rid of it?
19:08They're going to confiscate, get rid of it,
19:10they're going to hide the evidence, aren't they?
19:12You're happy that you know the defence case?
19:14Yes, I think definitely we know everything.
19:16OK, thank you very much for that for now.
19:18Convicted prisoners must apply to a body
19:20called the Criminal Cases Review Commission
19:22and they must offer new evidence which has emerged since the trial.
19:26That's then considered by three judges,
19:28who have the power to quash the conviction or order a retrial.
19:31Join us in part three when we hear the new evidence heard at an appeal
19:35which Omar Benguit supporters believe prove that he is an innocent man.
19:55Welcome back to the jury room.
19:57We are considering the conviction of Omar Benguit.
20:00Recently, Benguit has been allowed two appeals.
20:02The first was granted because Benguit's defence team argued
20:05there should never have been a third trial.
20:07It was an abusive process.
20:09They also said that the evidence of two witnesses for the prosecution
20:12should not have been put before the jury because of their unreliability.
20:16Well, that appeal failed.
20:18A second appeal was granted in 2014 on two other grounds,
20:23one of which was the sensational new evidence
20:26which named a different man as the possible killer.
20:29The other concerned the post-trial accounts
20:32from the main witness of what had happened that night.
20:39The main prosecution witness
20:41was still causing difficulties for the prosecution.
20:44After the conviction, she decided to put herself about in the media.
20:49She sold her story to a magazine for £500
20:53and she appeared on The Jeremy Kyle Show.
20:56But not only that, but when she gave her account to the magazine
20:59and to The Jeremy Kyle Show,
21:01it was once again completely different
21:03from the account that she'd given previously.
21:06She'd added even more gloss to it,
21:08to the effect that she was now saying
21:10that she'd in fact seen Omar Benguit stab Oki Shin
21:14in the street in Bournemouth that night,
21:16which was not something that she'd said at any of the three trials
21:20or in her statements to the police.
21:22It was demonstrably untrue.
21:24When asked about that,
21:26she said that she had come to remember it over time.
21:29But the defence say that this was hugely significant
21:33and damaging evidence,
21:35because it showed that she was not only unbelievable at the trial,
21:40but she was frankly someone who was not worthy of belief
21:43as to her account whatsoever,
21:45because she simply couldn't tell the same story twice.
21:49The defence team also introduced this new evidence
21:52related to Danilo Restivo,
21:54an Italian native living in Bournemouth
21:56who they said had killed Yong Ok Shin.
22:05Danilo Restivo was a man known to the police.
22:08He was a killer who had struck twice against women.
22:11He had killed in a place called Potenza in Italy
22:14and barely known his victims.
22:16Pounced on her outside a church,
22:18killed her and left her body on the church rooftop.
22:21A so-called blitz attack.
22:23Suspected by the police of the offence,
22:25he absconded and he moved to Bournemouth in England.
22:28He struck again, killing a mother of two who he barely knew.
22:32Police suspected him and were collecting evidence,
22:35including videoing him as he prowled in bushes observing young women.
22:39At the trial, there was no mention of Danilo Restivo.
22:44There appears to have been a public interest immunity application
22:48made by the prosecution at the time.
22:50To have, in effect, a serial killer,
22:53a killer of multiple women who is living in the area at the time,
22:57that is something that is highly relevant.
23:01Restivo had killed in Bournemouth.
23:03He was a sexual pervert who preyed on women.
23:05He'd been seen prowling the town.
23:07Ok Shin was killed on 12th July 2002
23:12and it was understood that both of Restivo's other victims
23:15had also been killed on the 12th of the month.
23:18And the defence at the appeal said,
23:20well, look, this is potentially significant.
23:23He is a man living in the area.
23:25Restivo was known to be living in Bournemouth at the time.
23:28The attacker of Miss Shi was wearing a mask.
23:32Restivo was known on occasion to wear a balaclava.
23:35They said, well, there's a similarity there.
23:38The defence, at the very least,
23:40would have wanted to put that before the jury to say,
23:43look, here's the possibility of somebody else in the area
23:46who could have committed this murder.
23:49The case against Benguit had always been weak.
23:52The reliability of the witnesses had been questioned further
23:55and another potential suspect brought to light.
23:58This was never the most overwhelming case.
24:01The defendant, Mr Benguit,
24:03was convicted at the third trial by majority verdict.
24:05Nobody was ever going to pretend
24:07that this was the most overwhelming case against him.
24:09And the defence say that case has become even weaker.
24:13The key witness has been undermined still further.
24:16Another witness has retracted his testimony, his account.
24:20And you have that additional factor of a known serial killer
24:25living in the area at the time,
24:27which ought to have been known about also by the jury.
24:30And the defence say that had the jury known these things,
24:33it's at least possible that the jury wouldn't have convicted this man.
24:41So the argument is that Omar Benguit is in prison
24:44for an offence committed by Danilo Restivo
24:47and that Beverley, by changing her story on TV and in a magazine,
24:51further undermined her evidence.
24:53Well, this is the response from former senior detective Colin Sutton.
25:03I think the opportunity, sadly, that is sometimes afforded to witnesses
25:09and the potential lure of a little bit maybe of fame or infamy,
25:15but more likely a little bit of money,
25:19can sometimes cause them to...
25:23..take decisions that they shouldn't.
25:28But I think it's probably reasonable to make the distinction
25:31between giving evidence in a court
25:33because you think it's the right thing to do,
25:35where there's no financial incentive
25:38or any other kind of motivation to do it
25:42other than doing the right thing,
25:44and the difference of an opportunity to make an easy few hundred quid
25:49just by telling a journalist or the media
25:52what would make a good story for them and what they'd quite like to hear.
25:57The things that the witness got up to with the media,
26:00you kind of can explain away.
26:02You can say, you know, she sold an opportunity to make a few quid
26:07and she took it.
26:09There were other pieces of evidence which joined in with what the witness did
26:15and made it a more compelling case.
26:22So the evidence at the latest appeal was dismissed by the judges.
26:28They dismissed what they'd heard.
26:30They upheld the guilty verdict.
26:32On the point of credibility, they said that nothing had changed.
26:36She was unreliable before the original jury.
26:39The fact that she acted in an unreliable fashion thereafter meant nothing.
26:43That's what I'm hearing. What are you hearing?
26:46I can't believe that the appeal wasn't upheld, actually.
26:49I mean, she's changed her story again.
26:52She's now saying that she actually saw the stabbing.
26:56So she's being even more inconsistent than she was originally.
27:01We know that there is a known offender in the area
27:04that has killed two people before.
27:07It's on the 12th?
27:09It's on the 12th of the month, always on the 12th of the month.
27:12To me, it just seems incredible that this appeal was not...
27:16I mean, I'm in shock, to be honest with you.
27:19I cannot believe...
27:21There's only so much... Sorry.
27:23Sorry. No, no.
27:25I was going originally on the fact that, all right, she takes drugs,
27:28that doesn't make her completely useless
27:30or unable to make a decision or remember anything.
27:33However, obviously, with the glare of the spotlights
27:35and money being offered to her and this, that and the other,
27:38it does appear that she's got a little bit carried away.
27:41She doesn't have to be a necessarily intelligent or unintelligent person.
27:45But I'm afraid... I'm quite amazed.
27:47I'm sort of changing my opinion of the whole thing, really.
27:50I've been a journalist for 47 years.
27:52I've worked for lots of newspapers.
27:54It is the case that people can be overwhelmed
27:57by the pressure from a journalist, their attention,
28:01and they can be led to...
28:04You know, sort of feeding,
28:06because the story is going to be improved by more drama.
28:10So she can be led to say,
28:13oh, I actually saw it, you know?
28:15Yeah, but on the same... Yeah, no, I agree with that as well.
28:18On the same note, though, if she's going to say that,
28:20then how can she be seen as a reliable witness in court?
28:23And how can you say, it doesn't matter that she's a drug addict,
28:26she can still be a reliable witness when, you can say on the same hand,
28:29she's a drug addict, so she's going to need money,
28:31she's going to say what they think. I think whole evidence is...
28:34Do you think it's right to... Because she's gone to, let's face it,
28:37a well-known TV show that is known for its drama
28:40and known for its outlandish stories,
28:42and we know what the media, newspaper media is like.
28:47If she can be easily convinced, if she can be convinced that easily there.
28:50No, but why would she put what she did there
28:54onto what she said in court when she was...
28:56Let's not forget, she was on oath, she was under oath.
29:00So why would... I don't think that would matter too much to her.
29:03But if you took her back into court,
29:05she might revert to her original story.
29:07It might just be that she wanted the money, the publicity.
29:11Could you also get an overzealous journalist
29:13that is trying to make their...
29:15Yeah, to what I meant by feeding it, you see.
29:17Yeah, yeah, they're placing the world and exaggerating
29:20what she's already said and enhancing it themselves.
29:23And she'll also be under the influence of drugs
29:26quite a lot of the time, I would have thought.
29:28And it's drug money. Even on Jeremy Cash.
29:30Because when I heard that evidence, I thought,
29:32£500 is a lot of money, but it's not life-changing.
29:35For drugs.
29:37You can't say on one hand, it's because it's a lot of money to get drugs,
29:40and on the other hand say, because she's on drugs,
29:42you can't use her as unreliable.
29:44That's what I think is as well.
29:46So I agree that you could convince her around,
29:48because I personally believe that you would.
29:50But when you agree to do these shows or these stories,
29:54you know exactly what you're getting yourself into.
29:57You know exactly the way it could be conceived.
30:00But do you know the level of how much pressure you're going to get?
30:05Not the level, but there's a risk.
30:07Can I ask a question? Because it's complicated, isn't it?
30:10We're three trials.
30:12Are you confident? Because we're coming to our verdict section in a second.
30:15Are you confident you know all the arguments?
30:18One of the questions I was going to ask is,
30:23the Italian guy, was he ever questioned about it?
30:26I doubt he would have been, because there's already conviction,
30:30so unless some new evidence, some fantastic evidence,
30:35surely you would be asking this guy to come in
30:38to be questioned about the murder.
30:40Well, if he was questioned, he didn't admit it.
30:43What did the judges at appeal say?
30:46There was a different modus operandi.
30:48It's for you to judge whether you accept that.
30:50But that was the evidence that was actually put
30:53both at the appeal and here today.
30:56OK, I think we know now what the defence is saying.
31:01I think we know what the prosecution is saying.
31:03In part four, it is the turn of the jury.
31:05You will be asked to return your verdict.
31:07Join us in a few minutes.
31:11MUSIC PLAYS
31:24Welcome back to the jury room.
31:26Here's a summary of the prosecution
31:28and the defence case of Omar Bangrid.
31:35On the 12th of July in 2002,
31:37an innocent woman was killed in a brutal and senseless attack.
31:40Drug addict Omar Bangrid had been trawling the streets
31:43looking for Asian girls.
31:45He was seen by witnesses carrying a knife similar to the murder weapon.
31:48One witness saw him return to her car, agitated, sweating,
31:52and with blood on his clothes.
31:54Bangrid could offer no explanation for his movements on that night,
31:57but his defence team point to serious and damaging inconsistencies
32:00in the main witness.
32:02They claim this makes the main evidence against him unreliable.
32:05Other witnesses point to the possibility that another man,
32:08Danilo Restivo, is the killer.
32:14It is time for you to tell us your verdict and debate this case,
32:18and I'm going to start with Kim because she's anxious to get in.
32:21Kim, what point were you trying to make?
32:23Well, again, no-one was arrested at the scene of the crime
32:28because, obviously, the girl was in such a state
32:31that she could not make it known.
32:34All she could say was that he was masked.
32:36Now, this guy, Omar, he prefers Oriental and Asian women.
32:43Sexually, he's not a killer.
32:46He didn't go out to attempt to kill.
32:49He may have had a look-out for a woman,
32:52that he wanted to have sexual relationships,
32:55but I think this has just all gone out of proportion.
32:58I don't know why they haven't looked more closely at Restivo.
33:01There were two other victims on the 12th of the month,
33:03just like our victim.
33:05He's known for attacking young women.
33:07He's in the vicinity, he's masked on occasions.
33:11I think it's imperative they look at him.
33:13Like, in the bushes, like, lurking.
33:15I think they've disregarded him.
33:17It's just all a small coincidence and a really unreliable witness.
33:21I can't believe that they haven't gone down another route
33:23of at least trying to, you know,
33:25that's how you exonerate one person,
33:27by bringing in other possible witnesses.
33:29Absolutely, because you think, I mean, going back to the victim,
33:32and we've always got to think of the victim,
33:34this 26-year-old with all her life before her,
33:37bleeding out, beating to death.
33:39And if it was this Italian, is he still walking around?
33:44Danilo Restivo has been convicted of double murder.
33:47A murder in Potenza, Italy, of Elisa Claps,
33:50and a murder in Bournemouth, England, of Heather Barnett.
33:52Is he doing time now? He's in prison.
33:55He's serving a life sentence for murder.
33:57I have a problem with the fact that you tried to create a false alibi.
34:00Even if you know what, you know, if you're going to turn around and say,
34:04yes, I was at Cracked House that night,
34:06even if you know you're going to get into trouble for that,
34:08that's so much better than a murder charge.
34:10And the scale of things.
34:12When you're panicking, you're probably not thinking of things like that.
34:15Yeah, but you could probably say, later in an interview,
34:17when they say, you've been charged with murder,
34:20you could say, well, actually, I was...
34:22That's the only one thing I can put against him, though.
34:25The thing is, he likes Asian women.
34:28He saw an Asian woman on the street.
34:31She might have refused him and said, no, no.
34:34Or she might have got scared.
34:37And then he stabbed her. She was stabbed three times.
34:40There was no discussion between them, was there?
34:43Wasn't he... Wasn't she just from the back?
34:46I mean, that doesn't... That doesn't ring true with...
34:49He hasn't even attempted to...
34:51Or maybe he has and maybe she's one, because we don't know.
34:54What I understand was that they were looking for a crack house.
34:58Yeah.
35:00And he got out of the car...
35:02Him and apparently two others, according to her story,
35:05got out of the car and then they came back.
35:07That's all she knew.
35:09So we don't... So he...
35:11I don't think he was necessarily prowling for women.
35:14He might have just said, ooh.
35:16She's just... If that lady was dead on the floor
35:19and he had a clean shirt on,
35:22when he saw the woman dead on the floor,
35:25at that point, could he have got blood on his shirt?
35:28I think he would have.
35:30Wouldn't there have been forensic evidence of him touching the body?
35:34If he was, then there isn't anyway.
35:37Janet, just to clarify that,
35:39she didn't see the body on the floor.
35:42No.
35:44They've got out of the car.
35:46Yeah.
35:48The three men have allegedly got back into the car.
35:51One of them's saying, what have you done?
35:54She's noticed he's got blood on his shirt.
35:56He then takes that shirt off, puts it in the bag and...
36:00She's also... They withdrew, didn't they?
36:02Yeah. They withdrew.
36:04She didn't see it.
36:06But then she made the claim.
36:08Yeah, she's also said she has.
36:10Yeah.
36:12And I don't think we can disregard it
36:14just for the fact that she needed a few quid to buy drugs.
36:17But she said something... She said a completely different statement.
36:20On the evidence you've heard, what do you think Omar Bengood's motive was?
36:23Was it sexual? Was it money?
36:25If he did it, what's his motive?
36:27I think it's probably sexual.
36:29It started off and things went wrong straight away.
36:32He had no previous form.
36:34Can I say something? He had no previous form for any violence.
36:37If he was guilty, I think his motive...
36:39If he was, I think his motive probably was drugs at the time.
36:43If he was under influence of drugs at the time...
36:46And it's always the first time.
36:48Don't know what goes through the mind.
36:50We have to remember they were looking for a crack house,
36:53so they needed a fix.
36:55So...
36:57Senses are heightened and they're, you know, they're on edge.
37:00On edge, yeah. Sweaty.
37:02He might not have had a motive.
37:04It might have been a spur-of-the-moment thing.
37:06Trevor, retired fireman, you've worked with people an awful lot of the time.
37:09No, I think if you were desperate for a fix,
37:11the last thing you'd probably think of is going to either talk
37:14or run after a woman and stab her in the back without talking to her.
37:17I also very briefly think the whole thing's clouded by the use of drugs,
37:21people's perception of what people are like on drugs
37:24and the witness being so unreliable.
37:27Yeah.
37:28It would appear, sorry, unreliable.
37:30It couldn't have been a spur-of-the-moment because of...
37:33It could be, it never happened. This is what starts to...
37:36If she just lied about that, there isn't a great deal.
37:39If someone wasn't getting Tinchy Carr covered in blood...
37:41She's not a reliable witness at all.
37:43He had a mask in her hand for another reason.
37:46Is there a possibility that he sees this attractive girl,
37:51gets out the car, says he's going to chat her up, then she runs?
37:55Yeah.
37:56And then if he's desperate for a fix and he's in that kind of mood,
38:00that is what excites him, and then it just happens.
38:03You don't use a black mask and a knife just for murder, do you?
38:06The only thing...
38:07But not to go and talk to a girl, do you?
38:09I also think as well, because she was a foreign student
38:12from one of the oriental countries,
38:14that we've got to keep ties with, close ties,
38:16they would have wanted to get this fixed as soon as possible,
38:20find someone, get the mean banged up, just for relations.
38:23If he was guilty, people would say, why would he...?
38:25Between him and them, I don't think he's guilty.
38:27Let's drill into that point.
38:29Yang Ok-shin was a Korean student learning English.
38:31Yeah.
38:32Students bringing from overseas a lot of money into the education system.
38:36Are you suggesting that in haste to convince the South Korean
38:39authorities that the English justice system was sound,
38:42they rushed to judgment?
38:43Yeah. Exactly. That's exactly what I'm saying.
38:45But then could we argue that if she was stabbed in the back
38:49and she said he was wearing a mask,
38:51she could have been trying to find the words,
38:53but I couldn't see his face?
38:54Cos she couldn't speak English.
38:56If her English wasn't...
38:57Was she alone, though? Because I thought...
38:59She'd left her friends.
39:00She'd left her friends at that point, so there were no other...
39:03But, yeah, I do personally agree that, like,
39:05this decision that has been made, for me,
39:07can only be made on the one inconsistency,
39:09that he said that he had that alibi.
39:11But there's so many more inconsistencies on the other side
39:14of accusing him with that witness.
39:16Because, for me, she just...
39:18There's no way you can rely on someone like that, like,
39:21with the amount of inconsistencies that she's put forward. Yeah.
39:24And even now, from what she's told her story and done all this.
39:27I think, for me, the fact that he asked his brother to lie for him as well.
39:31Cos that could...
39:32So, Colin Sutton... I'll ask you, Kirkpreet.
39:35Colin Sutton said that he found that very suspicious.
39:39That Omar Bengrit could have offered an alibi, he didn't.
39:43Then, on remand, he tries to get his brother to give him an alibi.
39:47Does that... What impact does that have on you?
39:50It does bring an inconsistency in my mind.
39:53But, like, as we were just saying, it could just be his brother,
39:56the moment he was just trying to put himself somewhere else,
39:59he's slightly worried.
40:01It doesn't make him a murderer, though.
40:03It doesn't say that he did it for me,
40:05but it does raise a question in my mind of why would he say that?
40:09Like, just tell the truth if you weren't...
40:12Cos he's actually realising that there is a real possibility
40:15that he's going to go down for a crime that he didn't commit.
40:18He's asking his brother to lie for him, you know.
40:21Just say... If you're innocent, just say,
40:23I wasn't... I didn't do it, or I wasn't here, I was here,
40:26but he had no... He's asking his brother to lie for him.
40:29You know, his brother didn't come forward and say,
40:31he was here, he asked, please lie for me, please lie for me,
40:34you know, say I was here. That just screams guilty to me.
40:37Brian, you've been anxious to get some clarification.
40:40What's that about?
40:42It's just the idea that people don't carry knives,
40:46hoods, balaclavas in their cars.
40:49Habitual criminals always carry this sort of thing around.
40:53I've arrested nine, ten-year-old kids with knives down their socks,
40:57balaclavas in their pockets,
40:59and they're not even habitual criminals.
41:01But they don't want to be seen when they're committing damage
41:04and things like that.
41:05But in cars, when we stop cars, there's sledgehammers in boots
41:09that nobody can understand why they've got a sledgehammer.
41:12None of them work, but they're carrying knives, guns,
41:16all kinds of things, on a regular basis.
41:19Final comments, please.
41:21She's just too inconsistent, and even after the conviction,
41:25she completely changes her story,
41:27and she's suddenly actually seen...
41:29I wonder if that is why there were three trials, then.
41:32Well, that is why there were three trials,
41:34because her evidence was inconsistent all the time,
41:37and even after conviction, it's still inconsistent.
41:40In fact, it's changed completely,
41:42because she's now actually seen the stabbing.
41:45I know she was on drugs, probably, and under the influence of drugs,
41:48and you don't know what that does to your memory and your brain, but...
41:51No, we don't.
41:52I lean on the side of what happens after the conviction.
41:56It shouldn't be...
41:58It should be separated from what happened in that court,
42:01because they're completely different circumstances.
42:04Even in the court, there was a stonewall,
42:06because there was more and more of those cases,
42:08because the evidence was... The witness was unreliable.
42:12That was on cases about her, not the murder, from my recollection.
42:18Are you discounting all the Jeremy Kyle stuff and everything?
42:21Yeah, because it happened after the conviction,
42:24and we know what the media's like, we know what television's like.
42:28I'm not shocked that she said something completely different.
42:31She also plays a massive part in him being convicted of murder.
42:34She is the main witness of seeing him come back
42:38and seeing him at the time, at the place.
42:40I just don't know if you can look at it as very reliable.
42:43Adrian, do you think it matters that there were three trials?
42:46Yeah, definitely. In what way?
42:48You know, it's strange that there were three.
42:50Usually there's two, but three, like the detective said,
42:53the juror said, it's weird that there was three.
42:56Is it relevant to you as you consider your verdict?
42:59I'm just like... This case is so muggled up,
43:03there's so much different stories, and it doesn't sit with me very well.
43:08The fact that the brother... I have to go back on this again.
43:11The fact that he got his brother to lie,
43:13you've got to remember someone was murdered.
43:15She was murdered an innocent woman.
43:17OK, so it's time for your verdict.
43:19You're the guy, you're the foreperson.
43:22Let's start over here with Cara Kerry.
43:25Cara is your profession, Kerry.
43:27Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
43:33Just guilty or not guilty?
43:35Not guilty.
43:37Tracy, support worker working at a housing in Suffolk,
43:40do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
43:43Guilty.
43:45Let's hop over to Bryn, 30 years a policeman.
43:47Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
43:50Guilty.
43:52Gurpreet, next to you.
43:54Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
44:04Guilty.
44:06Trevor, retired fireman.
44:09Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
44:13Not guilty.
44:15Moving along the line, next to you, Adrian.
44:17Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
44:20Guilty.
44:22Jess, our psychology graduate.
44:24Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
44:27Guilty.
44:29Let's swap to this side of the jury now.
44:31Let's come to Janet.
44:33Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
44:36Guilty.
44:38Ben, works for TfL, next to you.
44:41Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
44:46Guilty.
44:48Kim, also a former carer.
44:52You've weighed up the evidence.
44:54Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
44:59Not guilty.
45:02Belmooney, do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
45:06Not guilty.
45:08And so our four-person, Nicole, finally your verdict.
45:11Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
45:14Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
45:17Not guilty.
45:20Nicole, can you please stand and return the verdict from the jury room?
45:24Do you find Omar Benguit guilty or not guilty?
45:28Not guilty.
45:34Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very, very much.
45:37This has been a for-television trial based on the facts and the evidence
45:40established in the case against Omar Benguit.
45:42The jurors are members of the public.
45:44Omar Benguit is currently serving life but protests his innocence.
45:49What is your verdict?
45:51We'll see you next time in the jury room.
46:12The jury is adjourned.