The Jury Room S01E04
Category
🦄
CreativityTranscript
00:00In the series you're about to see, we review real murder cases in which the convicted killer
00:11refuses to accept the guilty verdict. Days, weeks, even months of courtroom deliberations
00:17may have been held. Generally, cases whittle down into a handful of key disputed points
00:23of evidence. Our specifically selected jury will review the original trial evidence alongside
00:29revelatory new evidence or analysis. Will you and the jury find the convicted killer guilty
00:36or perhaps not guilty?
00:42I'm Will Hanrahan. Welcome to the Jury Room. Today we are hearing the case of Jack Wombs.
00:47Here's how it all began.
00:48Patrick Tate, Anthony Tucker and Craig Rolfe are three members of a drugs gang. At point-blank
01:03range, they're murdered. Police have to deal with the Essex underworld to build their case.
01:09One so-called supergrass reveals who the killers were, Jack Wombs and Mick Steele. Both men
01:16protest their innocence. One, Jack Wombs, has rejected the chance of early release rather
01:20than admit his guilt. The Jury Room will debate the case of Jack Wombs, a ruthless killer or
01:26an innocent suffering a miscarriage of justice.
01:29Jack Wombs rejected his dying father's appeal to own up to murder. If he had obeyed his dad,
01:49he might have been allowed out early from a life sentence. Wombs said no, he was an innocent
01:54man. Wombs has rejected the same appeal from his mother. In the Jury Room, 12 specifically
02:00selected citizens will be asked to revisit his case and consider evidence not heard by
02:04the original jury before reaching their own verdict.
02:09Will Jack Wombs be found guilty or not guilty? First, the prosecution case. You'll hear from
02:16a former senior investigator at the Metropolitan Police, Colin Sutton.
02:27It was a crime which revealed the brutal British underworld. Three men shot dead on an isolated
02:32Essex road. Tony Tucker, who controlled the ecstasy trade in local nightclubs. He had supplied
02:38the drug to a schoolgirl and daughter of a police officer, Leah Betts. She died as a result. Craig
02:44Rolfe was a cocaine addict who days before his death was suspected of murdering a rival drug dealer.
02:50Patrick Tate, an 18-stone bodybuilder, had traces of cocaine, heroin and steroids in his system
02:55at post-mortem. The night before his death, he had smashed the takeaway manager's head against
03:00the glass counter in a row over pizza.
03:07They're shot, all of them shot in an execution style, would not be putting it too strongly.
03:13They're sitting in a car. The suggestion is, from the circumstances, they may not have realised
03:20what was happening to them. They were just sort of shot out of the blue.
03:25It seemed an obvious underworld hit to police, who narrowed down suspects to others known
03:31to the victims.
03:32Leading the police to wombs and steel were various bits of information they got from various sources,
03:40some of them reliable, some of them not so reliable, some of them covert. But essentially,
03:47once they started investigating those men, there was a mobile phone ping, whatever you want
03:52to call it, a hit, on a mast nearby, which suggested that wombs and steel are in the area.
04:00Key to the case against wombs and steel, an infamous supergrass and member of the same drugs gang,
04:07Darren Nichols.
04:08Witness Nichols, who says that on the day in question, he effectively drove them there,
04:16drove them there to the scene of the murder, not knowing at all that they were going to
04:23or intending to commit murder, that they were going to have a business meeting, in effect,
04:29with the others involved in their drug importation scheme. And it was only when they came back in
04:36the car and he noticed that one of them had speckles of blood or some red substance on his gloves
04:43and that there was some conversation about a gun falling apart when it was fired. It was only at
04:49that point that he realised that what had gone on.
04:55With the supergrass and corroborating mobile phone evidence, detectives believe they have a case
05:01which will convince a jury. The motive for the killing was clear.
05:06Essentially, you've got a drug importation of cannabis which wasn't of the required quality.
05:15And so the transaction was kind of reversed, but some of it was of decent quality and that was meant
05:20to be given back and it wasn't and was never paid for. And there was a kind of an outstanding debt
05:25of tens of thousands of pounds of cannabis. That's what it's about. That gives you the motive
05:33it's suggested. And the murders were a means of enforcing that. And the man who came forward,
05:43Nicholls, said, well, you know, I was there. I know they were there. This is what I saw.
05:47This is what they must have done. And from that appears a reasonably straightforward case.
05:53Hanging a case so much on the word of a fellow hardened criminal, however, presents prosecutors
05:59with a problem. Juries often don't like so-called cut-throat cases when criminals turn on each other.
06:06I think it's worrying, yes. I think you've, you know, it's not a situation you'd want to be in.
06:13It doesn't of itself mean that the information, the evidence that he gave was not true.
06:18You would want to try and find something to support that evidence. Now, the mobile phone ping
06:24supports that evidence. I think there is enough evidence to convict safely from Nicholls' evidence.
06:33Because if Nicholls' evidence is true, then they're murderers and they're guilty.
06:40In this episode of The Jury Room, we're considering the case of Jack Wombs alone.
06:47It's common ground that if Jack Wombs is innocent, so is Mick Steele.
06:51Our jury has chosen Ben as the foreperson.
06:55And, Trevor, why was Ben selected?
06:58Well, we're not really sure, to be honest.
07:00Everyone else has had a go, wanted to, and he said he wanted to do it,
07:04and he's been banging on about it all week.
07:06Well, it's as good a reason as any. One volunteer's worth a thousand press men or women.
07:11OK, let's discuss the prosecution case, shall we?
07:15What have we heard? What evidence did that first jury hear?
07:22The evidence we have against Jack Wombs is a witness statement from Darren Nicholls.
07:27It was known he was a criminal himself.
07:30He said he drove the men to the place where the crime took place.
07:34He said he didn't know what they were planning on doing as he drove them there.
07:39He, when they came back to the vehicle, he said they were covered in blood.
07:43There was also a mobile phone mask that was near the vicinity,
07:49which had a ping from Jack Wombs' mobile phone,
07:54which they say puts him at the crime scene at that time.
07:58I just sometimes wonder whether or not if I was an investigative officer,
08:01would that be enough for me?
08:02We heard Colin Sutton in that report there.
08:05He was saying that it's not perfect, you'd like more.
08:08We've got the mobile phone evidence, but we've also got the confession evidence.
08:12Well, it proves the mobile phone was there, in that area,
08:16probably with Wombs, who's also admitted he was in the area.
08:20But other than that, it's a bit sketchy, isn't it?
08:23Why would Darren Nicholls, the man who turned Queen's evidence,
08:26which is the proper way of describing a supercast, really,
08:29why would he say something that was not true?
08:33Will he reduce his sentence of any sort?
08:35He's wanting on different charges,
08:37and he's been offered a deal to give this evidence.
08:39Or rivalry, or a feud of some sort.
08:43There's many reasons.
08:44He wouldn't be picking him up, though, would he, if there was a feud?
08:47He might not have picked him up.
08:48He might be lying about the whole thing.
08:49He's just been nobbled to be the driver for the two known criminals,
08:55Wombs and Steele, for a driving job.
08:59So he's at the lower end of the gangster family, if we like.
09:03He believed he was technically...
09:04He's a driver.
09:05He's at his forte, he's driving,
09:09rather than he's wanting to start to move up the ladder.
09:11I don't think that would have been the case.
09:14There was something else.
09:15You'll have heard me mention Leah Betts,
09:19a schoolgirl who had been sold an ecstasy tablet.
09:22She later died from ingesting that tablet.
09:26And she was the daughter of an Essex policeman.
09:28And one of those victims that we've heard about
09:32was an ecstasy supplier to nightclubs.
09:36Do you think that might have affected the emphasis of the Essex police search?
09:39Well, the Leah Betts story was absolutely huge,
09:43because every parent's nightmare, you know,
09:45a girl goes out, she's not a habitual drug user,
09:47she takes one tablet of E and she dies.
09:49And it was all over the tabloids.
09:52So a huge, it's going to be a huge motivation
09:57to catch the guy who supplied the drug.
10:00And if, since she was a daughter of a policeman,
10:04to me, that would make every copper in Essex
10:07want to find the guy who supplied the drugs.
10:11I just think that's human nature, don't you?
10:14OK. Sorry, Bryn.
10:15Sorry, in saying that,
10:17I wouldn't draw an adverse inference on that being the case.
10:21No, I think it might be all to the good, you know.
10:23Yes.
10:23Good on them.
10:23But it's not an all-out policy just to nab somebody.
10:29If somebody is doing drugs
10:30and it's killed a policeman's daughter,
10:33you want to find the person who has.
10:35Yes.
10:35It's hard to summon up much human compassion
10:38for those three guys.
10:39I can't.
10:40So I don't think we're talking angels here.
10:41Right.
10:42OK.
10:42A simple case, really,
10:44presented by the police and prosecution.
10:46A reminder of how a jury works.
10:47If a jury believes someone is guilty
10:49by a majority of 10 to 2,
10:51then a guilty plea can be offered.
10:52Join us after the break
10:54when we hear the case for the defence of Jack Wombs.
11:12Welcome back to the jury room.
11:14We have heard the police and prosecution case
11:16against Jack Wombs.
11:17Now, in the company of barrister Matt Stanbury,
11:19we'll hear the case for the defence.
11:22The colonel of the case for the prosecution
11:28was the Nichols' evidence,
11:30the so-called supergraphs.
11:32Without his testimony,
11:33a conviction would seem to be impossible.
11:36Nichols simply couldn't be trusted.
11:38The significance of Nichols, of course,
11:40was that he had every interest,
11:43the defence would say,
11:44in saying that he wasn't involved.
11:46Of course he would say that he thought
11:47that something else was going to go down.
11:49And of course he would say,
11:50I wasn't involved.
11:51Because if he was involved,
11:52then he too would be guilty of murder
11:54under the joint enterprise principle.
11:57So he had every motive,
11:58the defence would say,
11:59to lie,
12:00to worm his way out of it,
12:02to give a false account.
12:04And then there was the mobile phone evidence.
12:07The cell site analysis
12:09was relatively new at the time.
12:11It's a means by which the police
12:13can locate which area you've been in
12:17by the use of your mobile phone.
12:19So an expert conducting an analysis
12:21can tell which area you were in
12:24by virtue of the mast
12:26that your phone was connected to at the time,
12:29the cell site.
12:31The defence case was that
12:33the Wom's mobile phone signal
12:35was indeed picked up
12:36because he was in the vicinity
12:37at the Wheat Sheaf pub
12:39as part of an arrangement with Nichols
12:41related to a car deal.
12:43The signal was picked up by a mast, however,
12:46nearer to the pub
12:47and not the second mast,
12:49which was nearer to the criminal site.
12:52At the original trial,
12:53the defence team also pointed out
12:55that there was no forensic evidence
12:56linking Wom's or Steele
12:58to the murders
12:59and no witnesses.
13:01There was a complete dearth
13:03of physical evidence in this case.
13:05Now, of course,
13:06forensic science has improved
13:08drastically over the last 20 or so years
13:11since these offences took place,
13:13but it was still the 90s.
13:14It wasn't the dark ages
13:16and they had capabilities
13:17for footprint evidence.
13:19I understand that it was snowy,
13:20it was muddy,
13:21and one would have expected
13:22that sort of evidence
13:23potentially to be available.
13:26This lack of physical evidence
13:28placed even more reliance
13:30on the Nichols' testimony.
13:32In a case like this
13:33where there's no physical evidence,
13:35there's no DNA,
13:35there's no fingerprints,
13:36there's no footprints,
13:37there's nothing to put Mr. Wom's
13:39at the scene.
13:40The credibility,
13:42the reliability of the witness
13:44here, Mr. Nichols,
13:45is absolutely critical.
13:46The judge directed the jury
13:48that if they believed Mr. Nichols,
13:51if they were sure
13:51that he was telling the truth,
13:52then Mr. Wom's was guilty.
13:54If they weren't sure
13:55that he was telling the truth,
13:56then he was not.
13:57So this is one of those cases
13:59where it is one person's word
14:01against another.
14:03Nichols' testimony proved
14:05to the centrepiece of the trial.
14:06He was in the witness box
14:07for over three weeks
14:08and it is so-called common ground
14:10that there could have been
14:11no conviction for the murders
14:12unless the jury were sure
14:14of the Nichols' supergrass evidence.
14:21So that's the case for the defence.
14:24I mean, first of all,
14:24a word about the characters
14:25that are involved in this incident.
14:28We don't warm to them, do we?
14:31No.
14:32But this world,
14:34it's something that most of us
14:35can actually fail to relate to
14:37and does that make judging this case
14:39the more difficult?
14:41I suppose so.
14:41None of us are actually
14:42part of the mafia, hopefully.
14:45I think at the end of the day,
14:47a life is a life.
14:47And if you're put away wrongly,
14:49convicted wrongly,
14:50it's only fair.
14:51We're not like those sort of people.
14:53We're not going to lower ourselves
14:54to their extent.
14:55We're going to be charitable
14:55if we believe that he hasn't done
14:58what he's been accused of,
15:00then obviously he doesn't deserve
15:01to be where he is.
15:02And he's got rid of
15:03some really nasty guys.
15:06So, yeah.
15:07It's interesting to see that
15:09he's not involved in it.
15:12I think it's easy to see
15:14because he rejected his mother
15:15and his father's place
15:16as they were dying.
15:17You know, also.
15:19Yeah, but as in,
15:20so he's accused these people
15:22of committing this crime,
15:24having no relation
15:26to it at all,
15:27just being the driver.
15:29So for me,
15:30it raises some questions too.
15:32His validity.
15:34Yeah, like,
15:34is it valid enough?
15:35Is he trying to cover
15:36his own tracks?
15:37Did he have
15:38some type of involvement
15:40within this crime?
15:41Because you don't just,
15:43as in, you know the background
15:44of these two people,
15:45you don't just drive them around,
15:46like, not knowing
15:47what's going on.
15:48Like, as in,
15:50I reckon he may have known
15:51what was going on
15:53or may have been a part of it.
15:54May have been more involved.
15:55Yeah.
15:56I think so.
15:57I don't personally feel that,
15:59Darren Nick is not a trusted witness
16:00at all.
16:00No, not at all.
16:01I mean,
16:02John, Jack Worms said
16:04he was in the Weaksheth pub.
16:06And that's where the mask was.
16:07The mask actually picked him up
16:08closest to the pub,
16:09not closest to the,
16:10where the crime was committed,
16:11which is quite a big thing.
16:13Because he wouldn't have known
16:14that beforehand.
16:15No.
16:16Also, the case against him
16:18is wholly dependent
16:19on a known criminal
16:20and a known class.
16:21So he's covering his own back
16:22in a way.
16:23And also, police could,
16:24police or juries,
16:26you know,
16:27only human beings
16:28trying to decide a case.
16:29It could be seen
16:29as a means to an end
16:30to put away a criminal,
16:32whether he's done
16:32this crime or not.
16:33Yeah.
16:33It could be a set-up.
16:34Yeah.
16:34Yeah.
16:36A set-up by who?
16:38Well,
16:38maybe I live in a bit
16:40of a fantasy world,
16:41I don't know.
16:41There's an revenge
16:41for Tony Suckersville, so...
16:43If you're a supergrass,
16:44Bryn,
16:45presumably you have
16:45quite a close relationship
16:46with the police?
16:47Mm-hmm.
16:48Or a police man?
16:49Well, you will.
16:50You'd have a...
16:51what they call a handler
16:53for that sort of information.
16:56It'd be a covert handle,
16:57somebody who...
16:59You'd have a different name.
17:01You wouldn't be known
17:02as Darren Nichols.
17:03You'd have a code name.
17:05And he would be talking
17:06to him on quite a regular basis?
17:08Yes.
17:08Yes, he would.
17:10But that doesn't mean
17:10he's a liar.
17:11I mean, just because
17:11you're a grass,
17:12as you call him,
17:12then doesn't make you
17:13a liar, does it?
17:14No.
17:15No, but...
17:16It's a supergrass
17:18for a reason, isn't it?
17:19Yeah.
17:20He's committed crimes himself
17:22and his penalty
17:24would be less
17:26if he give information
17:29to the police.
17:30He wouldn't come forward
17:31to give information
17:33unless he helped himself.
17:34Yeah.
17:34So, if he actually
17:35was involved in this,
17:37as the driver,
17:38and he's saying
17:40to get himself out of it,
17:42I was the driver,
17:44however,
17:44I didn't know
17:45that that's what
17:46they were going to do.
17:47Let's call him something else.
17:48They were going to have a meeting.
17:49Calling him an informer.
17:50And that's basically
17:52what a supergrass is.
17:54It's an informant.
17:56My suggestion is
17:58he's gone there
17:59perhaps knowing
18:01under the joint enterprise
18:02he would be found guilty
18:03and he's realised,
18:06hang on,
18:07I'm in for the deep end here.
18:10Let's cut a deal.
18:11He could have had a deal
18:11with the prosecution,
18:13Crown Prosecution Service
18:14and the police
18:15for a lesser crime,
18:19which is perhaps
18:20what he was actually
18:21convicted of.
18:22I don't know
18:22what Nicholls
18:23was actually convicted of
18:24in part of this investigation.
18:28But the reliability
18:29of Nicholls
18:30is something
18:31that's actually
18:31striking you at the moment.
18:33Yes.
18:33I think that's the main thing
18:34I get the feeling
18:35there's a hidden agenda
18:35and the main witness
18:37all I'm trying to think
18:38is why would he do it
18:39and what were his motives
18:41for doing it
18:41not necessarily
18:42did it actually happen
18:43as he told him the truth.
18:44Something I think
18:45to consider is
18:45maybe that Nicholls
18:46was there
18:47and maybe he was there
18:48with different men
18:49at the time
18:50and the way
18:51to dig himself out
18:52of the hole
18:52was to give evidence
18:53but to give it
18:53against different people
18:54maybe not necessarily
18:56the people
18:56that he's dealing with.
18:58To be an informer
18:59is a very risky thing.
19:01So I'm thinking
19:02well somebody
19:03takes that risk
19:04because maybe
19:05they're telling the truth.
19:06See I'm leaning
19:06on the side of
19:07he may be more reliable
19:09because he's an informant
19:12so to me
19:13that would mean
19:13maybe he's
19:14grasped
19:16on other things.
19:18them type of people
19:19criminals
19:20criminals have their
19:21they do have
19:22a little code
19:22of ethics
19:23they do
19:23and like you say
19:24like we spoke before
19:25child killers
19:26rapists
19:26they all segregate
19:27together
19:28and that's for a reason
19:28because they're hated
19:29in prison.
19:30They do have
19:30a slight code there
19:31and I think
19:32a grass is the lowest
19:33of the low
19:33complete lowest
19:34of the low
19:35Do you think that
19:35personally
19:36or do you think
19:36that the characters
19:37in this case
19:37think that
19:38You mean in that world
19:40you think
19:40they're not the lowest
19:41of the low
19:42Yeah
19:42within that world
19:44a grass is
19:45the lowest
19:46form you can be
19:47you can't
19:48talk about
19:48what they do
19:49I think the only
19:50way he would have
19:52came forward
19:52so winning
19:53was to cover for himself
19:54What about in our world
19:55an informer
19:57is not the lowest
19:58of the low
19:59an informer
19:59is someone
20:00who's actually
20:00helping justice
20:01He would have been
20:02putting himself at risk
20:03He was a part of their world
20:04He definitely
20:05would have put himself
20:06at risk
20:06as an informer
20:08within that
20:09gang
20:10We already know
20:12that he was involved
20:13in the drugs
20:14I just don't feel
20:14like his story
20:15completely adds up
20:16I just feel like
20:17there's
20:18a bit of
20:20inconsistency
20:21in his story
20:22I feel
20:22Unless he was
20:23offered some type
20:24of protection
20:25Maybe the actual
20:27murders
20:27We don't know
20:28there could be
20:28other guys
20:29what they're saying
20:29it wasn't
20:30I want to believe
20:31I want to believe
20:32that this
20:32this is
20:33this is what
20:33happened
20:34so it's clear cut
20:35but something for me
20:36just
20:37can't put my finger
20:38on
20:39what it is
20:40that I'm trying
20:41to believe
20:42or
20:42I
20:43don't think
20:45that maybe
20:46he's been
20:47completely truthful
20:48around his
20:49involvement
20:50but I'm
20:51erring to the side
20:52of believing him
20:53about these guys
20:54being the killers
20:55he may have been
20:55involved
20:56but he's
20:57thrown them
20:57under the bus
20:58to save himself
20:59by saying
21:00I
21:00were anything
21:01to do with it
21:01but to give
21:03that kind of
21:03information up
21:04that's a big deal
21:05There's no
21:06foreending evidence
21:06there's no
21:07footprints in the snow
21:08there's nothing
21:10linking them
21:10to the crime
21:11It was execution
21:12style
21:12apart from
21:13They've even got the
21:14telephone mask
21:15that's picked up
21:16the signal
21:16outside the
21:17wheat shift
21:17which was not
21:18at the crime scene
21:19And you wouldn't have
21:20known that beforehand
21:21unless he was actually there
21:22That's massive
21:23But let's remember
21:24He could have given
21:25the call to proceed
21:26Let's remember
21:27these people
21:28were killed
21:28execution style
21:29they knew what
21:30they were doing
21:31so they kind of
21:32cover the tracks
21:32They wouldn't have known
21:33about the mask
21:33not then
21:34They wouldn't have known
21:35that that would have
21:35picked up that exact place
21:36and he would have named
21:37that exact place
21:37was the closest
21:38Speculation on your part
21:40Ben I think
21:41they might have known
21:41about it
21:42I think it wouldn't
21:43have taken much
21:43for them to
21:44look for a pub
21:45OK
21:46add a buy right there
21:48we'll cover each other
21:49or whatever
21:50Look at the type
21:52of murder it was
21:53You won't just do
21:55that willy-nilly
21:55and not be careful
21:58Well we've got more
22:00time to discuss
22:00the defence
22:01and indeed the
22:01prosecution points
22:02as the programme
22:03continues
22:03For now
22:05just a reminder
22:06that Jack Worms
22:07was found guilty
22:08of murder
22:08in 1998
22:09after what was
22:10a marathon
22:11five-month trial
22:12and he was sentenced
22:13to life in prison
22:14But join us in part three
22:15to hear why Worms
22:17supporters believe
22:18the real killers
22:19are still at large
22:20Will our jury agree?
22:21See you in a few minutes
22:22Welcome back to the jury room
22:39Convicted prisoners
22:41are not automatically
22:42granted an appeal
22:43They must apply to a body
22:44called the Criminal Cases
22:46Review Commission
22:46and they must offer
22:47new evidence
22:48which has emerged
22:48since the trial
22:49That's then considered
22:51by three judges
22:51who have the power
22:52to quash the conviction
22:53or order a retrial
22:54In 2006
22:55new evidence
22:56led to Worms
22:57being granted an appeal
22:59Unknown to the original jury
23:06there was a deal
23:07between Darren Nichols
23:08and a journalist
23:09to write a book
23:10to be released
23:10after the trial
23:11The two men
23:13were to receive
23:14a £20,000 advance
23:15for the book
23:16split between them
23:17so Nichols
23:17had a financial interest
23:19in the outcome
23:19Nichols also had contact
23:21with a TV producer
23:22and a literary agent
23:24about the story
23:25The evidence
23:27that was relied upon
23:28at the appeal
23:29was that Mr Nichols
23:30had been selling his story
23:32to a book deal
23:34a television deal
23:35a magazine
23:36or newspaper deal
23:37but it wasn't just
23:39the fact
23:39that he was selling
23:40his story in that way
23:41it was the timing
23:42Crucially
23:44Nichols' contacts
23:45with the media
23:45were facilitated
23:46by the police officers
23:47and the defence argued
23:48that Nichols
23:49and the officers
23:50colluded
23:50to suppress that fact
23:52from the original jury
23:53So the argument ran
23:55an already unreliable witness
23:57was now being paid
23:58to give evidence
23:59against Worms and Steele
24:00and that could only happen
24:02with police assistance
24:03You've allowed
24:05these people to come in
24:06you must have known
24:07what was going on
24:08you must have known
24:09that money
24:09substantial sums of money
24:11were changing hands
24:12and that changes everything
24:14The defence said
24:15that had the jury
24:17known about that
24:18it would have given
24:19them pause
24:20at the very least
24:21before relying upon
24:22what Mr Nichols said
24:24because not only
24:25did he then have
24:25the motivation
24:26of saving his own skin
24:28or minimising
24:29his own involvement
24:30in these offences
24:32but he also had
24:33the potential motivation
24:35of financial reward
24:37very substantial
24:38financial reward
24:40And what of the mobile phone
24:42evidence originally introduced?
24:44A new interpretation
24:45came to light
24:46A mobile phone expert
24:49ran his own tests
24:50after the trial
24:51using Worms' phone
24:53He made over 60 calls
24:55in the same conditions
24:55as the night of the murders
24:56and none were picked up
24:58by both transmitters
24:59in the vicinity
24:59This is important
25:01because Worms' phone signal
25:02was picked up
25:03by the mast
25:04nearest to the
25:05Wheatsheaf pub
25:06and not the one
25:07nearest to the murder scene
25:08The phone evidence
25:10actually proves
25:11Worms was not
25:12at the site
25:12of the killings
25:13That's the expert's testimony
25:15The trial judge
25:21it was also claimed
25:22that the appeal
25:22misdirected the jury
25:23so that they could draw
25:24negative inferences
25:25from Worms' refusal
25:27to speak to police
25:28Expert investigators
25:30like Colin Sutton
25:31have rejected
25:32the defence arguments
25:33The main thrust
25:40of the new evidence
25:41related to the Supercross
25:42If the jury
25:43had known
25:44he was being paid
25:44by the media
25:45to say what he said
25:46then the jury
25:47might have dismissed him
25:48as an unreliable witness
25:49The appeal court
25:51did not agree
25:51He can still
25:53want to get paid
25:55and indeed get paid
25:56and receive money
25:57for his story
25:58while telling a true story
26:00can't he?
26:01It doesn't necessarily mean
26:02that it's not true
26:03He never changed his story
26:05He never wavered
26:08from what he said
26:09went on
26:09from day one
26:10and the story
26:11and it's a story
26:12he's told repeatedly
26:14to journalists
26:15to somebody
26:17he's writing a book with
26:18to television
26:20and of course
26:20crucially to the court
26:22and that story
26:23has been consistent
26:24all the way through
26:25Just because he's a co-accused
26:29just because he's willing
26:31to tell his story
26:31to the media
26:32doesn't mean
26:33that his evidence
26:34is unreliable
26:35and the jury had
26:38as much information
26:40really as there was
26:41the one thing
26:42that perhaps was missing
26:44was that they weren't told
26:46explicitly
26:46that he was being paid
26:48by the media
26:49for his story
26:50but they knew
26:52that he was a super grass
26:53they knew
26:54that he was a resident informant
26:55to use the correct term
26:57they knew
26:58that he was doing
26:59what he was doing
27:00in return
27:02for probably something
27:03more precious than money
27:04and that was freedom
27:05at some point
27:05he was going to get
27:06a reduced sentence
27:07you know
27:08can you put a price
27:09on a reduced sentence
27:10Worms' defence team
27:12say the mast
27:13which picked up the signal
27:14on the night of the murders
27:15proves
27:16he was not
27:17at the murder scene
27:18there's a suggestion
27:20that if they had been
27:22at the scene
27:22of the murder
27:23that they would have
27:24struck on another phone mast
27:26but you know
27:27that's not
27:28that's not an exact science
27:29anyway
27:30it depends very much
27:33on atmospheric conditions
27:34weather conditions
27:35and the amount of traffic
27:36on the network
27:37whether or not
27:38your phone uses
27:39a particular mast
27:40so starting at that last point
27:46these were analogue phone days
27:47early 90s
27:48that was
27:49the signal was never
27:50at the strongest
27:51then it was
27:51it could literally change
27:53with the wind
27:54that's what the prosecution
27:55are saying
27:55to rebut that mobile
27:56telephone evidence
27:57I was
27:58I'm still confused
27:59so with the mast
28:01Jack Worms' defence was
28:04it wouldn't have
28:05pinged off that mast
28:06if he hadn't been
28:07at the wheat sheath
28:08so the expert
28:09went back to the wheat sheath
28:10and made a series of calls
28:11and it pinged off
28:12the same mast
28:13that initially pinged off
28:14but because it was
28:15an analogue phone
28:16it doesn't necessarily
28:18mean he was in that area
28:19because weather conditions
28:20and the amount of calls
28:23going through that mast
28:24they only made that call
28:25done them test 60 different times
28:2660 different times
28:27but in the night time
28:30are people using their phones
28:31more
28:31what were the weather conditions like
28:33there's lots of variable factors
28:35that they can't control
28:36on a test like that
28:37if we were juries
28:38on that first case
28:39would you hold much weight
28:41to the evidence
28:42given by Nichols
28:43if you were told
28:44that he was selling
28:45his story at the same time
28:46and for £20,000
28:47this story is very important
28:48to him
28:48he's an experienced liar
28:49that's known as a superclass
28:51he's not going to ever
28:52a superclass isn't he lying
28:54I don't get this
28:55this thing about selling
28:56at the time
28:58he's going to lie
28:59I don't
29:00I don't think that he
29:02I don't understand
29:04the timing of this
29:04because
29:05when this trial's going on
29:08a newspaper will have
29:09bought him
29:10as it were
29:11they buy you
29:13but nothing can happen
29:15I mean
29:16nothing can happen
29:16until the trial's over
29:17and as for the book
29:18say a journalist
29:20it's obviously a ghosted book
29:21has approached him
29:22afterwards
29:23you know
29:23the story will be up there
29:25that's all the more reason
29:27to me
29:28to believe him
29:28because his story
29:30is going to be under
29:31that kind of scrutiny
29:32I mean
29:32every newspaper has lawyers
29:34who crawl over everything
29:35you know
29:35so
29:36it's going to be subject
29:37to scrutiny
29:38so that to me
29:39does not
29:40doesn't
29:41I don't hold that
29:42against him at all
29:42how important does that story
29:44become when you're getting paid
29:45that amount of money for it
29:46well the whole process
29:48of writing a book
29:48is a very long period
29:49so that wouldn't have happened
29:51at the time of the trial
29:52the jury
29:53the jury couldn't possibly
29:54have known that
29:55he was going to write a book
29:56so I don't see
29:57I don't
29:57to me it's not a big thing
29:59would it have been
30:01when you were on the original jury
30:03so if in the original jury
30:05because this was the defence
30:06position at appeal
30:08if the original jury
30:09hadn't just known
30:10he was turning
30:10Queen's evidence
30:11he was a super draft
30:12but he was also being paid for it
30:13might you have reached
30:14a different conclusion
30:15I'm just going to be
30:17slightly honest
30:18and say
30:19yeah I think it would have
30:20for me
30:21had a small impact
30:23on my decision
30:24not so much because of
30:27the whole
30:28what he's actually doing
30:29it's just
30:30it just adds another element
30:32to the inconsistencies
30:34for me
30:34I disagree
30:37because let's face it
30:39we're not talking about
30:40people that
30:42people's moral compass
30:44that is due north
30:45here
30:46you know
30:46I've never heard of people
30:49closer to self
30:50than this one
30:51so I'm not surprised
30:52he would have taken a deal
30:53at all
30:54but it doesn't mean
30:55he wasn't telling the truth
30:56what if there was
30:57another killer
30:59and none of these men
31:00were actually the killers
31:01of
31:01we've actually got rid of
31:03three
31:04really nasty
31:05five nasty men
31:06who deserve to be in prison
31:08in one
31:08one incident
31:11isn't that convenient
31:12yeah isn't that convenient
31:13and there's no forensic evidence
31:15there's no footsteps
31:16and we've suddenly
31:18wiped five
31:19you know
31:21men that you wouldn't want
31:22to be walking
31:22along the streets
31:23and were the police
31:24not helping him
31:25to sell his story
31:27am I right there
31:28which is
31:29I don't believe in him
31:29maybe I read too many
31:31many books
31:32but
31:33fail
31:33I don't
31:34with Tracy
31:36she just said
31:36I don't believe
31:37the conspiracy theory
31:38and I don't too
31:39I mentioned on there
31:41that the police
31:41were helping him
31:42oh no
31:43they helped him
31:43sell his story
31:44and there's a
31:46young girl that's died
31:48that is a
31:48police
31:49and we've got to remember
31:51these men are not angels
31:53that have been
31:55gotten rid of
31:55so which conspiracy theory
31:57because there's a few
31:58floating about
31:59which conspiracy theory
32:00don't you believe
32:01Belle and Tracy
32:02it's the police one
32:04I mean
32:04that they were
32:05somehow involved
32:06yeah okay
32:08they helped him
32:09get a deal
32:10but
32:11again
32:12I'm not putting
32:13much weight on that
32:14because
32:14they still have
32:15a job to do
32:16and is it really
32:17worth
32:17their livelihood
32:18their job
32:19their pension
32:20to do all of this
32:21and yes
32:22a policeman's daughter
32:23died
32:24and it was tragic
32:24but
32:25wasn't the guy
32:28who sold her
32:29the drugs
32:30one of the ones
32:31that were murdered
32:31yes
32:31that's what I'm saying
32:33yes
32:33so why would
32:34why would it be
32:35such a
32:36why would it be
32:37such a
32:38I can't
32:38sorry I just can't
32:39get why
32:40there's so much
32:41onus on
32:42okay well
32:43it's got to be
32:43a conspiracy
32:44to get the killer
32:45of that guy
32:46sorry what are you
32:47saying there Kim
32:47that there is
32:47there's another
32:48killer out there
32:48that was paid
32:49to do the job
32:50that's what you think
32:50that's exactly
32:51what I think
32:51there's no evidence
32:53at all I mean
32:53you look at the
32:54weather
32:54the time of day
32:55there's no
32:56trademark
32:57well I have to
32:58stop you there
32:58because you're
32:59having private
32:59conversations
33:00from what I can tell
33:01but the evidence
33:03for both sides
33:04is clear
33:05and that's the
33:06evidence that's
33:07been summed up
33:07for the original
33:08jury
33:08the appeal court
33:09and we've offered
33:10the new evidence
33:11to in part four
33:12the jury will reach
33:13its final verdict
33:14is Jack Wombs
33:15justly imprisoned
33:16for life
33:16for the murder
33:18of three people
33:18or is he an
33:20innocent man
33:20we will see you
33:22after the break
33:23welcome back
33:39it is time
33:40time for our jury
33:41to come to its
33:42conclusion
33:42reach its verdict
33:43jury room
33:44that verdict
33:45will be yours
33:46any moment now
33:46is Jack Wombs
33:47guilty or not guilty
33:49before the debate
33:50a summary of the case
33:51it's first from the
33:51prosecution side
33:52and then the defense
33:53three men
33:59were murdered
34:00execution style
34:01in an alleged feud
34:02between drug gang members
34:03convicted men
34:04Jack Wombs
34:05and Mick Steele
34:06were in the vicinity
34:06of the murders
34:07as can be seen
34:08from mobile telephone calls
34:09picked up
34:10by a nearby transmitter
34:11crucially
34:12another member
34:13of the gang
34:13became a witness
34:14for the prosecution
34:15he had seen the men
34:16return from the murders
34:17having been called
34:18to pick them up
34:19and he had seen
34:20the guns used
34:21that was the prosecution
34:23case
34:23for the defense
34:24it was argued
34:25that the prosecution
34:26witness was unreliable
34:27and that the mobile
34:28phone evidence
34:29was inconclusive
34:30both men
34:31protested their innocence
34:32and in the case of Wombs
34:34did so despite knowing
34:35that a confession
34:36might lead to a shorter
34:37sentence
34:37and the chance
34:38to see his father
34:39before he died
34:40on appeal
34:41and since
34:42the defense has presented
34:43new revelations
34:44the super grass witness
34:45was well paid
34:46for his story
34:47by sections of the media
34:48and no jury
34:49should accept his evidence
34:50as anything
34:51but self-serving
34:52and so we hand
34:56to the jury
34:57a reminder
34:57at least 10 people
34:59have to reach
35:00a guilty verdict
35:00for a guilty verdict
35:01to be returned
35:02Ben is our foreperson
35:04over to you
35:05well this is a
35:07this is a confusing case
35:09it's just
35:10there's no
35:11I think we've got to look at
35:12it's pivotal
35:13there's no physical
35:13evidence
35:14there was
35:15the only witnesses there
35:17is Darren Nichols himself
35:18he's sold his story
35:20he said what he's seen
35:23it's whether we believe
35:24he is a
35:25a credible witness
35:27as for
35:30the mobile phone ping
35:32back in those days
35:34that could
35:34that could go miles to miles
35:36it can go anytime
35:37we don't know
35:37but
35:38it did go closest
35:39to the weeks
35:40it didn't go
35:41where he was
35:41so that
35:42that can't be
35:43a whole coincidence there
35:44also
35:45I believe that
35:47you know
35:48I can't
35:48how controversial
35:51it may sound
35:51that it's not
35:52beyond the realms
35:53of possibility
35:53but the actual police
35:54have looked into
35:55themselves
35:55because of this
35:56it's a whole too
35:57convenient for me
35:57that so many people
35:58go missing at the same time
35:59I totally agree with that
36:00I totally agree with that
36:00it's too easy
36:03they've helped him
36:04tell his story
36:04they've given him credibility
36:06which I don't think
36:07he should have been afforded
36:08and I think
36:10it needs to be looked
36:11into a lot
36:11and he's gone underground now
36:12so is he under police
36:13protection now
36:14where is he now
36:15you know
36:16he's probably
36:17got a nice
36:18free place to live
36:19so he's not
36:20I think
36:21I honestly feel
36:23way too much
36:24sometimes a spade
36:25is just a spade
36:26and people
36:28who are
36:29in this drug gang
36:31we know
36:33that they met
36:33in prison
36:34they're criminals
36:35these people
36:36were shot
36:37execution style
36:38I don't understand
36:40why it's such a hard leap
36:41to think
36:42there won't be
36:43forensic evidence
36:43because they know
36:44what they're doing
36:45and the police
36:47are just trying
36:47to do their job
36:48and this
36:49Darren Nicholls
36:51is an informant
36:52and he's underground
36:53because
36:53people are going
36:55to be after him now
36:56so that had to be
36:57part of the deal
36:58and he's never
36:59changed his story
37:00he's absolutely
37:01unlike some people
37:02you know
37:02wavering in and out
37:03of the truth
37:04he's always stuck
37:05to that story
37:06it's only the word
37:07of Darren Nicholls
37:08that the prosecution
37:09stands with
37:10but Darren Nicholls
37:11has had to give up
37:12like he's had to
37:14go into police protection
37:14for someone that's
37:15small
37:15yeah but he's
37:17so he's in a drugs gang
37:18that probably makes
37:19a lot more than
37:20£10,000
37:20so it's not like
37:21the book's that much
37:22incentive anyway
37:23and then he's now
37:25had to probably
37:25not be able to talk
37:26to his relatives
37:27because generally
37:27if you're going
37:28underground
37:28that's it
37:30so to me
37:31it's strange
37:32that either
37:32just for a bit
37:33of a shorter sentence
37:34or for £10,000
37:36that's enough
37:37of a motive
37:37to lie about it
37:38just for your information
37:39Darren Nicholls gave
37:40an interview
37:41which was disguised
37:42his voice was disguised
37:43an actor was used
37:45to play him
37:45if you will
37:46and he said
37:46the worst thing
37:47about everything
37:47is he's lost his life
37:48he'd lost his life
37:51by turning Queen's evidence
37:52just for you to discuss
37:53so why would he lie
37:54he's one of the good guys
37:55I mean I'm
37:56he's one of the good guys
37:57he was part of the criminal
37:58yeah but I mean
37:59he's turned Queen's evidence
38:00so that to me
38:01that people are allowed
38:03to change
38:04but there's still
38:05no physical evidence
38:06they're allowed to change
38:06they're allowed to be forgiven
38:07there's no physical evidence
38:09but why would you lie
38:10he changed to save his skin
38:12but why would you lie
38:13to risk having
38:15no contact
38:16with your family
38:16like why would you
38:17make that decision
38:18now that I'm going
38:19to make this decision
38:19to lie about this crime
38:21and that I won't be
38:23able to speak
38:24to any of my family
38:25ever again
38:25other than himself
38:26if he was actually
38:27implied in it as well
38:28if he was actually
38:29part of it
38:29but why would you
38:31why wouldn't you
38:31I think he may have
38:33probably lied about
38:34his involvement in it
38:35but it doesn't mean
38:36he lied that
38:37that Jack
38:38um
38:39Worms
38:40Worms
38:40didn't kill
38:42these guys
38:43you know
38:43he probably killed
38:44the guys
38:45he's just lied
38:45about his involvement
38:46in it all
38:47to save his skin
38:48yes
38:48they're all criminals
38:49let's not forget
38:50and they all know
38:51what they're doing
38:52the issue
38:54with the police
38:55the policeman's daughter
38:56um
38:58you know
38:59probably you bet
38:59that's just noise
39:02created
39:02by the
39:04the coincidence
39:05that one of the guys
39:06who's been killed
39:07is dead
39:08I just think
39:08the whole case
39:09is made up
39:09of just hearsay
39:10can I
39:11can I just say
39:12another thing
39:13on
39:13this will be
39:14my last bit
39:14for now
39:15Darren Nichols
39:16he wasn't a shooter
39:19he's deemed
39:20not a shooter
39:20he's deemed
39:21as the driver
39:22in this case
39:23he wasn't a suspect
39:25he wasn't a suspect
39:26of killing anybody
39:27yet
39:28he comes forward
39:29to say
39:30yes
39:30I was the driver
39:32in a multiple murder
39:33why would he do that
39:35just to be self-servant
39:36just to be self-servant
39:36why would somebody
39:40admit
39:40that I was a driver
39:41in that thing
39:42why not just
39:43I wasn't even there
39:44I wasn't there
39:47but
39:47he's part of the underworld
39:50but hang on
39:51there's quite a bit
39:52of pressure
39:52a telephone call
39:53was made by
39:54Jack Worms
39:55next point
39:58to Darren Nichols
39:59so Jack Worms
40:01called Darren Nichols
40:02that night
40:02so he's in the frame
40:04for something
40:04a conversation's going to be
40:05had by a police investigator
40:06but Worms has said
40:09that he met
40:10he had Darren Nichols
40:12driving to the weed chief
40:13and met somebody
40:15regarding a deal
40:16over cars
40:17and that was
40:20part of the evidence
40:21so
40:21they're all there
40:23at the scene
40:24but
40:25why
40:25say
40:27I was part of
40:29with murder and gun
40:30but he
40:30I think Colin Sutton
40:31made the point
40:32that Darren Nichols
40:34was going to spend
40:34a lot less time
40:35in prison
40:35for any offences
40:36that he'd committed
40:37if he turned Queen's evidence
40:38if he turned Queen's evidence
40:39so that's
40:40why you'd turn Queen's evidence
40:43isn't it
40:43that's incentive enough
40:44he didn't want to go down
40:45for joint enterprise
40:46is there still
40:47anybody on the fence
40:48yeah
40:49okay
40:50what's it going to take
40:52Gurpreet
40:53to change
40:54to pick a side
40:56I don't know
40:57I think there's just
40:58because there's so much
40:59to consider now
41:00um
41:01I'm trying to
41:03put beside the whole
41:05police conspiracy
41:06and just trying to
41:07consider
41:07but
41:08there are some
41:10inaccuracies
41:11in
41:11the informant's
41:13statement
41:14that I feel
41:14but I
41:14I don't know
41:16yeah
41:18it's going to take
41:19a little bit
41:20and what about you
41:20Kerry
41:21in every single case
41:23I'm always
41:24wanting to know
41:25stuff that I can't
41:27that they can't tell me
41:28um
41:29do you imagine a jury
41:30as a trial
41:31has it any different
41:32probably not
41:33I always want to know
41:35though
41:35what other
41:36people have been
41:37interviewed
41:38what other things
41:38have
41:39you want to be the
41:39policeman
41:39yeah
41:40yeah
41:41I want to know
41:42too many questions
41:43you're a juror
41:44I
41:46I'm going to really
41:48struggle on this one
41:49I really am
41:4950-50
41:50one minute I'm
41:51yeah
41:51one minute I'm
41:52I
41:52well
41:54there's a challenge
41:56she's 50-50
41:57and
41:57I was going to say
41:59which side of 50-50
41:59you're on
42:00but I kind of think
42:00that doesn't
42:01um
42:03did
42:03Bryn
42:04have you come to
42:05your conclusion
42:06and if so
42:08can you explain
42:09why you have to
42:09Kerry
42:10I mean
42:11I've been
42:12desperate
42:12this week
42:14to
42:14to look at
42:16every case
42:17in
42:17out of my
42:20role as a cop
42:21and I think
42:21I have done that
42:22because I'm no
42:23longer a cop
42:24I have nothing to
42:25gain
42:25from find
42:26everybody guilty
42:27but
42:27this particular case
42:30yeah
42:31there was
42:32quite a lot of
42:33rumour
42:33around at the time
42:34that the cops
42:36had killed them
42:37and set a load
42:38of people
42:38that's
42:39one of the
42:40conspiracy theories
42:41I didn't buy that
42:42you know
42:43it's just
42:44not worth
42:45doing that
42:46you know
42:47yes
42:47a policeman's
42:48daughter's died
42:49as a result
42:50of some drugs
42:50supplied by one
42:52of the people
42:52who were being
42:52killed
42:53but
42:54hundreds and
42:55hundreds of kids
42:56are killed
42:56every year
42:57by illegal
42:58drugs
42:58and the cops
43:00don't go around
43:00and bundle them
43:03off
43:03hope that helps you
43:04Kerry
43:04Trevor
43:04we haven't heard
43:05much from you
43:06no
43:06obviously Darren Nichols
43:08has said this
43:09for a reason
43:10my problem is
43:11is it because
43:13it's his best option
43:15because he was
43:16involved with this
43:17and this is his best
43:18option
43:18and he's come forward
43:19to do that
43:20I can't see
43:21I can't see really
43:21I don't think
43:22Darren Nichols
43:22had a sudden
43:23pang of conscience
43:24and turned into
43:25he is obviously
43:27looking after himself
43:28I agree
43:29now
43:30the conspiracy theory
43:31I'm afraid
43:32that's a little bit
43:32too much TV
43:34for me
43:34but
43:35I personally think
43:37this did happen
43:38only because
43:39I can't think
43:40of any other reason
43:41why Darren Nichols
43:42would stitch himself
43:43up like this
43:43if it was for 20 grand
43:45and a life away
43:46from his family
43:46so for me
43:48that's kind of
43:49where I'm going
43:50but it is very difficult
43:51well time is up
43:52as difficult as it is
43:53to reach our verdict
43:55so Ben
43:56stand by
43:57your full person
43:58you'll be collating
43:59the evidence for us
44:00we're going to start over
44:02with Bryn I think
44:03Bryn
44:03former policeman
44:05he's tried very very hard
44:06during the jury room
44:08not to be a policeman
44:09how do you find
44:11Jack Worms
44:13guilty
44:13or not guilty
44:14guilty
44:15Gurpreet
44:17next to you
44:18how do you find
44:19Jack Worms
44:20guilty
44:21or not guilty
44:22guilty
44:31let's swap
44:33now to Kerry
44:35who's battled
44:35throughout this one
44:37she's been 50-50
44:38just a few minutes ago
44:39and still 50-50
44:40well
44:42if that's not an option
44:43or is it
44:43we'll find out
44:44how do you find
44:46Jack Worms
44:46guilty
44:47or not guilty
44:48gosh
44:49I really am flipping
44:53a coin
44:53oh gosh
44:58guilty I suppose
45:02next to you
45:04next to you
45:04Tracy
45:04how do you find
45:07Jack Worms
45:08guilty or not guilty
45:09guilty
45:10let's go back to
45:12Nicole
45:13who's had several
45:15theories
45:15she's voiced in the jury room
45:17today
45:17how do you find
45:18Jack Worms
45:19guilty or not guilty
45:20not guilty
45:21Janet
45:23Janet next to you
45:25how do you find
45:26Jack Worms
45:27guilty
45:27or not guilty
45:28because I've got reasonable doubt I've got to say not guilty okay let's go over to Trevor Trevor
45:37how do you find Jack Worms guilty or not guilty guilty and next to you Adrian we didn't hear much
45:43from you Adrian it's time for your verdict how do you find Jack Worms guilty or not guilty um like
45:49yourself I'm on the fence it's really hard but I'm gonna go with guilty and next to you Jess how do
45:57you find Jack Worms guilty or not guilty guilty let's come back now to Bell Bell how do you find
46:05Jack Worms guilty or not guilty guilty so there's two jurors left Kim and Ben first Kim Kim how do
46:15you find Jack Worms guilty or not I don't like to side with them a criminal say that he's innocent
46:21but I believe in this case he is so I'm gonna say not guilty and the final verdict will be from our
46:26four-person then how do you find Jack Worms guilty or not guilty not guilty you've been collating as
46:32we've gone along I haven't so I don't know right now I've lost count what the verdict will be please
46:38stand and deliver your verdict do you find Jack Worms guilty or not guilty not guilty
46:45many thanks ladies and gentlemen of our jury this has been a for television trial based on the facts
46:55and the evidence established in the case against Jack Worms the jurors are members of the public
47:00they've made their own decisions Jack Worms continues to protest his innocence after almost 20 years in
47:06jail what's your verdict see you next time in the jury room
47:36you