The Jury Room S01E03
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?
00:43Hello, I'm Will Hanrahan. Welcome to the jury room. Today, we are hearing the case of Susan
00:48May. Here's how it all began.
00:50An elderly woman is murdered in her own bed as part of what appears to be a burglary.
01:03There are no signs of forced entry. Detectives then suspect that the victim knew her killer.
01:10The woman's niece and primary carer is arrested after incriminating forensic evidence is discovered.
01:16Susan May is found guilty of murder, but did she do it?
01:21The jury room will debate the case of Susan May, a niece who killed her aunt, or an innocent
01:27suffering a miscarriage of justice.
01:29Susan May spent 12 years in jail for the murder of her aunt before being released on parole
01:51in 2005. As she battled breast cancer, Susan May determinedly fought to clear her name.
01:57In 2013, just weeks before a decision was due on whether to grant her a third appeal,
02:04she died, a convicted killer. Her supporters believe that botched forensic tests, police
02:10inadequacies, and poor defence representation in the initial trial resulted in an innocent
02:16woman going to jail. In the jury room, 12 specifically selected citizens will be asked
02:22to revisit the case and consider evidence not heard by the original jury before reaching
02:27their own verdict. Will they find Susan May guilty or not guilty of murder? First, let's
02:34hear from former senior detective Colin Sutton as we consider the prosecution case against
02:40Susan May.
02:42Susan May, who was a full-time carer and used to care for her own mother. Susan May had access
02:47to the house. She had keys because she would take the food around there. On the morning
02:54of March 12th that year, Susan May called the police to report the death of her aunt Hilda.
03:00She had been attacked and was dead. In fact, she'd been suffocated. Detectives find something
03:07which becomes vital to the prosecution case. There's blood in various places which is still
03:13consistent with being strangled or smothered, that blood come up from inside the body. And there
03:34is blood around on the pillow and on the bed as well as on the body. Susan May says that she
03:39doesn't touch the body. She didn't touch the body when she went in there. This becomes important
03:46because as the investigation continues and the forensic scientific evidence retrieval starts,
03:53it's noted that there are three hand marks on a wall near where the body was which are in a position
04:00which is consistent with somebody touching the wall on leaving the bedroom and they appear to be in blood.
04:08Only one particular hand mark is established as being made in blood. That single print changes everything
04:14about the investigation of the case. A fingerprint in blood is always a very convincing piece of evidence.
04:21Whoever's left the marks on the wall is presumably our murderer. I was there at the time of the death.
04:27Susan May makes an effort, a conscious effort, positively to say, no, I didn't touch her.
04:33She makes this denial on a number of occasions that she denies that she's touched her body at all.
04:39Of course, when the prints on the wall are examined, it's found that they do indeed match with Susan May's handprints and they are hers.
04:48So you've got either an outright lie or you've got to come up with some reason as to why they might be there.
04:56Susan May could not come up with a reason that her handprint was there. She must have been lying and police uncover more incriminating evidence.
05:04A motive. You know, Susan May, it's so callous, isn't it? It's such a despicable crime to kill somebody that you're entrusted with caring for.
05:16Why would Susan May have done it? Well, she had debts, significant debts, not huge debts, but debts of around £7,000.
05:24But crucially, she had no real means to pay for it. She had access to Aunt Hilda's bank account and other family accounts,
05:32to money to which she was entitled for her caring duties. But they were now exhausted.
05:37She still had this debt and she would have been a beneficiary of Aunt Hilda's will.
05:43From the start, there was an alternative theory about the murder.
05:46Perhaps it had been a burglary which escalated into violence. That theory was soon discounted.
05:53The fact that the house had no signs of forced entry is persuasive in that if there were a burglary,
06:00one would expect, wouldn't one, that there's some way of forcing entry.
06:04Another piece of evidence convinced the police that Susan May was the killer.
06:08Scratches are discovered on the victim's face. And then Susan May asks an odd question.
06:13You know, if you scratch somebody else's face and you have fingernails of some sort,
06:19then material, DNA material from the face can be dragged under the fingernails.
06:25Now, Susan May asks a detective sergeant that very point and says,
06:31if I've scratched somebody, if you scratch somebody, does stuff get under your fingernails?
06:38Is the material there that can link you back to the person you've scratched?
06:41Why would she ask that question?
06:43You know, is she asking it out of curiosity because she knows Aunt Hilda's been scratched
06:48and thinks this might help the police? Yeah, that's a possibility.
06:51But when it's looked at, she actually has altered her fingernails.
06:58There's an influence there, isn't there? That, you know, she's asking the question
07:01because she wants to know if she's vulnerable and when she gets the answer,
07:04she thinks, I'd better do something about it so the police can't take that material.
07:08Now, our jury has selected a foreperson who will be tasked with collating the opinions
07:15and delivering the not guilty or guilty verdict.
07:19And it's Bryn Jones for this trial.
07:22Why was Bryn chosen a former policeman?
07:24Is that something to do with it or what?
07:26He knows how evidence works and he wanted to do it more importantly, so...
07:32OK, so Bryn Jones is our foreperson for the case against Susan May.
07:37Let's consider that evidence. I mean, what did we hear, guys?
07:41We heard about the prints on the wall.
07:45Now, on the VT, there are four marked marks on the wall
07:50which appear to be four fingerprints.
07:53And we also heard that only one of those four marks,
07:56which would be four fingers,
07:58had significant evidence linking that to Susan May.
08:03Why would there be another three marks if it's not from her hand?
08:08So handprint evidence in Hilda's blood
08:12suggests there's certainly a reason for more.
08:15It obviously is her fingerprint and it is Hilda's blood,
08:18but could she not have touched the bed,
08:20not touched the body, not remember touching the body?
08:22She would have said. She denied touching the body.
08:24She said she doesn't remember touching...
08:26I don't remember touching anything else.
08:28I think she doesn't remember.
08:29If you had murdered somebody, it would be very easy to say,
08:32well, actually, yeah, the first thing I did was go in and touch her.
08:35Well, yeah, wasn't it? I mean, wouldn't you say that?
08:37Yeah, exactly.
08:38If you had murdered somebody, because that...
08:39Yeah, yeah, so it seems just...
08:41How did she know she was dead if she didn't go up to her and touch her?
08:43And touch her, exactly.
08:44Well, I think it's quite significant as well, her saying,
08:46I never touched her, and then to have her armpit shown in blood,
08:49because even if it was luck, some of us, I know,
08:51we're thinking it was the night before she maybe injured herself or another time.
08:55But she would mention that. Yeah.
08:57Because it's something big.
08:58I think the blood was from where she was smothered,
09:00and it was coming out of...
09:01Because I thought maybe it was an injury,
09:03but I think it was actually from where she was smothered,
09:05because on the VT they said it was...
09:07It would have gone through her nose.
09:08Yeah.
09:09Could she have touched, like, the pillow?
09:11No, because anything she touched in the vicinity of Hilda,
09:15she would have remembered that.
09:18Yeah.
09:19That's really important.
09:20Would you remember that you touched one part of the bed or that part?
09:24It's just if there was a dead member of my family
09:27that I was in charge of taking care of,
09:29and I found that person,
09:31I would pretty much remember everything I'd done from them.
09:34I don't think I would.
09:35Because I would...
09:36I think it's not...
09:37No.
09:38Because you know what?
09:39Maybe sometimes you're in a panic,
09:40you've done something you don't know,
09:41you could be rushing,
09:42oh, my God, what have I done?
09:43Yeah.
09:44You might not remember every specific thing that you've done.
09:46But if that fingerprint's gone from...
09:48She's touched blood and that's gone to the wall,
09:50that blood doesn't just remove from her hand
09:52just by touching that wall.
09:53Mm.
09:54So then they found it further down,
09:55maybe she's washed her hands,
09:56but how does she not know that...
09:58If she don't remember touching that,
09:59how does she not know that she still had blood on her hand?
10:01What I don't understand is,
10:04if you go in,
10:05you're saying we've all talked about finding a family member dead,
10:08wouldn't the first thing you do would be
10:10to see if they were breathing.
10:12Yeah, yeah.
10:13You would naturally touch that body.
10:14Yeah, yeah.
10:15So I find her denial of touching the body
10:17completely unconvincing.
10:18If you're a carer,
10:19you're going to feel for a pulse, aren't you?
10:21She wouldn't have been controlled
10:22and she wouldn't have been able to get that blood on her...
10:24You would...
10:25That's smart.
10:26You would...
10:27So we'll have more time for debate,
10:28but I'm just making sure that we're clear
10:30that there was also the motive evidence
10:32that was put to the jury,
10:33which was from the police,
10:35and the random question about scratch marks.
10:37Did we register that?
10:38That's really weird for me.
10:41Like, one, you'd ask that.
10:42Like, why would you ask that facade?
10:44And then two, after asking it,
10:46you make action to alter your hands.
10:48Like, so that...
10:49That's very weird for me.
10:50Yeah, and I don't know...
10:51Such a...
10:52I know it's not...
10:53It may not be as much as an importance
10:55to other people it is to me,
10:56but as such a tragic situation has happened,
10:59and someone you've cared for,
11:01to then just go out and, you know,
11:02you think, oh, my nails need to do it now.
11:04It is...
11:05You know, it seems...
11:06It seems a bit strange.
11:07I get my...
11:08I get my nails done.
11:09They look a bit, you know...
11:10Yeah.
11:11Do we know who the benefactors are?
11:14All the...
11:15All the people who would benefit from...
11:16There was two.
11:17We said there were two.
11:18Susan and...
11:19A and other.
11:20One was Susan May,
11:21and one was another.
11:22Who was the other person?
11:23You know, this...
11:24That really gets me,
11:25because, I mean, you know,
11:26we all know about human nature.
11:28And I still, at this advanced age,
11:31I'm amazed by what people will do for money.
11:33You know?
11:34Yeah.
11:35It's a huge motivation.
11:36Yeah.
11:37And this woman had debt.
11:38She hadn't got any money left.
11:39But she hadn't got any money left.
11:40Especially for such a lot.
11:41Like, a bank account used to be drained within...
11:43Absolutely.
11:44It's a short period of time.
11:46It's the timeline.
11:47She had the debt, um,
11:49when the money was drained,
11:51so the only other thing that could happen...
11:53Perhaps.
11:54...is getting the money from the will.
11:55Yeah.
11:56So...
11:57So that's the case for the prosecution.
11:58Yes.
11:59That you'll be considering.
12:00If ten or more of our jurors find Susan May guilty,
12:03then a guilty verdict can be returned.
12:05If it's any fewer than ten,
12:06then a not guilty verdict has to be returned.
12:09What about the defence case?
12:10Let's hear about that after the break.
12:21Welcome back to the Jury Room.
12:28We've heard a summary of the prosecution case.
12:31Throughout this series,
12:32the jury will hear from a barrister, Matthew Stanbury,
12:34who will analyse the case for the defence of Susan May.
12:41Susan May did not fit the profile of a killer.
12:44Well, Susan May was 48 years old.
12:47She was an upstanding woman.
12:49She had no previous convictions or anything of the sort.
12:52And her case, the defence case,
12:54was simply that she was caring for her aunt.
12:56She'd gone round the next day.
12:58She'd found the body and she'd been horrified.
13:01The prosecution claimed that Susan May had lavished cash
13:04taken from the account of her aunt on her boyfriend.
13:07But the judge warned the jury in strong terms
13:10not to draw any conclusions about the money.
13:13Her defence was that she was entitled to that money,
13:16that she was entitled certainly to access it.
13:19And the judge very fairly at trial
13:21appears to have directed the jury
13:23not to get too bogged down in that.
13:25So the case very substantially turned upon these marks
13:29that were left on the bedroom wall
13:31that were said to be blood stains.
13:33The defence at trial was sceptical about the conclusion
13:37that the mark with the handprint was in fact made in blood
13:40and that it was placed at the same time
13:42as the mark by the light switch.
13:44There had been an incident a few weeks earlier
13:47when she had cut herself in the home
13:50and that that was a possible explanation.
13:52And various other possible explanations were offered
13:55as to how the marks had got on the wall.
13:59And to say that these marks alone
14:01and this supposed motive of a financial motive
14:04were not anything close to being able to prove
14:07that she had committed this awful crime.
14:10It was reported that May had made incriminating comments
14:13about scratches on her aunt's face.
14:15But Susan May always vehemently denied
14:18having said anything about scratch marks.
14:20And there could be an innocent explanation
14:22as to why there was no forced entry.
14:25Susan May's aunt would frequently leave her door open
14:28or at least unlock and that that was one explanation
14:31as to how a burglar, an intruder,
14:34could have gained entry to the property
14:37and that a burglary gone wrong
14:40was another entirely plausible explanation
14:43for this killing.
14:49We've heard the two sides of the Susan May case,
14:52so let's now consider what we've just heard
14:54about the defence case.
14:56I ask you again, let's find out,
14:58we're all clear what the defence case was.
15:00How can you say that she doesn't fit the profile of a killer
15:05and then establish that there is a motive
15:08and then be told to discount that motive?
15:11I just don't get that at all.
15:12Because if the motive of greed, an ancient motive,
15:17is as strong as I believe it to be,
15:19then there is no profile for a killer.
15:21Any of us could kill if we wanted the money enough.
15:26I think it's a really weak defence.
15:29With the door unlocksing though, like my grand does that all the time.
15:33She'll put the key in the door, but she won't actually remember to lock it.
15:36So people go around trying the doors.
15:39Yeah, and people could, it could be known in the area that the old biddy,
15:43she doesn't lock up.
15:46Nothing was taken.
15:48Nothing was taken.
15:50What do they think she had money under the bed or something?
15:52It doesn't sound like there's anything to do with burglary at all.
15:55She might have, you know, cut herself and might have...
15:58It's so convenient.
16:02And suffocation, isn't that supposed to be quite an intimate type of murder?
16:06When someone is, when someone goes to...
16:09And I would imagine it's, again, from a female perspective,
16:12I think that's one of the ways that a person actually murders, isn't it?
16:15Through suffocation.
16:17Because females don't tend to do the more gruesome types of murders.
16:22So suffocation would, again, I believe it's from someone...
16:26And she wouldn't have...
16:27There wouldn't have been a lot of resistance to it.
16:29She could have been asleep.
16:30Not knowing many defensive wounds and things,
16:32because she would have been quite weak, yeah.
16:34And for me, as a carer,
16:37going in on a morning to get the lady up out of bed,
16:41to feed her, to clean her,
16:43and then on a night time at 9 o'clock, I believe it was,
16:47she's gone back to put the lady to bed,
16:50to make sure that she was safe in bed.
16:53It's her duty to lock the door on the way up.
16:56I was going to say, if that was the case...
16:57You're a carer, aren't you, Kerry?
16:59Yes.
17:00So how big a thing is it that a carer, in this case,
17:03will have locked the door?
17:04Absolutely.
17:05It's the last thing you do.
17:06First thing you do, you know, you lock all the doors.
17:08That is your job.
17:10Massive part of your job is keeping that person safe.
17:13You're making sure the exits are clear.
17:17You're making sure that there's nothing left, sort of, fire-wise.
17:21You're making sure there's nothing in view with the curtains closed and things.
17:27I mean, that is everything.
17:29Maybe there's another angle that we may be missing.
17:31Maybe she purposely left them doors open.
17:34Maybe she didn't come back, but maybe she knew somebody was.
17:37Maybe that's why she said, you know, it wasn't my blood or, you know,
17:40I didn't touch my hand.
17:41Yeah.
17:42Why would you, if someone cut themselves previously,
17:48why would you just leave that print on the wall?
17:51Wouldn't you clear them instant?
17:52As a carer as well.
17:53I've got to clean that up.
17:54Yeah.
17:55You would clean that up.
17:56Yeah.
17:57You wouldn't have blood on your wall.
17:58Yeah.
17:59So the only way you wouldn't clean up is if that happened in the heat of the moment.
18:01Yeah.
18:02Yeah.
18:03And she may not, she may be the murderer,
18:04may not remember actually touching that blood.
18:07That may be correct.
18:08Yeah.
18:09And that's just because, you know, because it's the heat of the moment.
18:10Absolutely.
18:11Yeah, it happens so quick.
18:12If you were to murder someone and you put blood on the wall,
18:14why don't you go out and clean it anyway?
18:16Yeah.
18:17It's not like 12 hours between when the next person...
18:19Yeah.
18:20She probably just didn't realise that she had blood on her hands.
18:22But what do you want to, like, hide any evidence today if you did do it?
18:26Yeah.
18:27You want to, like, make sure that there's no way you can come back around.
18:30The thing is, though, your scene is this was premeditated and planned.
18:34She might have just felt extremely desperate at that time.
18:37You don't know what had gone on in that night.
18:40It might have kicked off and she did what she did.
18:44Can I ask how it's to be you right now
18:46and to be told to disregard the evidence about money?
18:50How can you do that?
18:51Oh, God, that's huge.
18:53I think it would always be just turning around in the back of your head.
18:56There's always a motive.
18:57I don't think you can.
18:58I have been a carer as well.
19:00And if they're suffering...
19:01If your client's suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's,
19:04they can get pretty nasty towards you.
19:06Yes.
19:07In a physical way as well as a verbal way.
19:09I mean, it could even have been that something happened that night
19:12it just happened, you know.
19:15She's really at the end of the day,
19:17because it's such a stressful job as well.
19:19And it could be that she'd had so much over the time that she was looking, yeah.
19:23But she wouldn't be in her bed.
19:24But I still don't believe.
19:25No, she could still be in her bed.
19:26She can take you from her bed.
19:27But I think we're missing a massive point still.
19:29Could you spend £200,000 in a year?
19:32She'd spend £200,000 in a year.
19:33She'd spend £200,000 in a year.
19:34She'd spend £200,000 in a year.
19:35But could you spend...
19:36Do you need to spend £200,000 in a year?
19:37There are other people that have access to her account.
19:39But hang on.
19:40Did Hilda own a house?
19:41Was there any inheritance left?
19:43That's what I was looking for.
19:44Because the cash has gone.
19:45And what is left there?
19:46So what's the motive?
19:47If there's no cash to spend,
19:49and I'm not clear if Hilda...
19:51So as Nicole's trying to figure out what could the motive be,
19:56having been told to disregard the money evidence,
19:58that's something for our jury to discuss.
19:59I can tell you that the original trial jury
20:02were unconvinced of the defence case,
20:04and they found her guilty.
20:05Now, Susan May's campaigners,
20:07and there were a lot of them,
20:08and they were quick to action,
20:10maintained that she was innocent.
20:12Join us in part three,
20:14because we're going to hear new evidence,
20:16new evidence which led to an appeal.
20:18See you after the break.
20:29Welcome back.
20:36Susan May was convicted of murder by a jury.
20:39They heard both sides of the case,
20:40they weighed up the evidence,
20:42and found her guilty.
20:43Convicted prisoners must apply to a body
20:45called the Criminal Cases Review Commission,
20:47and they must offer new evidence,
20:49which has emerged since the trial.
20:50That's then considered by three judges
20:52who have the power to quash the conviction
20:54or order a retrial.
20:56Two appeals followed Susan May's conviction.
20:59The first suggested she simply had a memory loss,
21:02and so had forgotten
21:03that she may have touched her aunt's body.
21:05Maybe that was why Susan's bloody hand mark was on the wall.
21:09Judges dismissed her appeal.
21:11At the second appeal,
21:13the quality of the evidence given
21:14by the original forensic officer
21:16was brought into question.
21:18There was an issue about the possible contamination
21:23of the crime scene.
21:25It appears that a number of errors had been made
21:28to the point where, in the second appeal,
21:30the prosecution made a concession,
21:33agreed that the forensic expert who'd attended the scene
21:37was not somebody upon whom they could rely.
21:40He wasn't a reliable witness
21:41because he had made certain mistakes.
21:43And a lot of that went towards the possibility
21:46that the marks on the wall had got there
21:49by some other means.
21:50In other words,
21:51they hadn't been caused by the assailant,
21:53by the murderer, the killer,
21:55that they had been caused by contamination
21:58of the crime scene,
21:59by somebody at the scene having transferred blood
22:02either on their hands
22:03or when they were moving the body.
22:05That appeal was dismissed.
22:11But in 2013, new evidence emerged
22:14which the original jury trial did not hear.
22:22At the heart of the case against Susan May
22:24is the handprint and two smears present at the scene.
22:27However, new analysis relating to those marks
22:30could prove her innocence.
22:32Forensic reports by the former head
22:33of the National Fingerprint Service of the Netherlands
22:36who re-examined the evidence using high-resolution images
22:39suggested a fundamental weakness
22:41in the case against Susan May.
22:44He's cast doubt upon whether in fact
22:46these marks were blood at all
22:48and that marks in fact may have been
22:51or were sweat marks on the wall
22:54and indeed that they may have been there
22:56for some time prior to the offence.
22:59and of course it's difficult at this stage
23:02to say where that evidence might lead
23:04but on the face of it clearly that is evidence
23:06which would significantly undermine the prosecution case
23:11which so heavily depended on this having been
23:14Anne Hilda's blood
23:16and it having been Susan May's handprint
23:18in that fresh blood.
23:20To understand why detectives could confuse
23:22a bloody handprint with a sweaty mark
23:24is also explainable by the process used at the scene.
23:29One of the issues that arises about the handprints
23:32is that they were treated with iodine at the scene
23:34which of course has a tendency to darken
23:36the colouration of the prints
23:38and the concern is that that might have led the jury
23:41to think that these marks had more of an appearance of blood
23:45whereas in fact prior to being stained
23:48they might have been more consistent with sweat
23:51or some other fluids.
23:53So that is an important issue
23:55that will obviously need to be considered.
23:58There's also another potential suspect
24:00in the case of Hilda Marchbanks
24:02a known burglar who'd struck in the neighbourhood.
24:08It suggested that not only was he a house burglar
24:11but that also he would target elderly victims
24:14and that wasn't something that was known about
24:16at the time of the trial
24:17and there is now some evidence
24:19that he was active in the area,
24:21operating in the area,
24:22may have been seen in the area.
24:24The burglar had been described in police files
24:27as a good suspect
24:28and it's easy, say the defence, to see why.
24:31Also it suggested that not only was he an active burglar
24:35but also that he could on occasions be violent
24:38and that there had been a violent robbery
24:41in the locality
24:42in which somebody had been badly beaten
24:44in the course of a burglary
24:46and of course all of that would have been very much relevant
24:49the defence say
24:50in terms of exploring possible alternative explanations
24:55for this killing.
24:57There were two witness reports
24:59of a red Ford Fiesta outside
25:01around the time of the murder
25:02that added to the alternative theory of a burglar killer.
25:07We understand that there's some evidence
25:10that his sister's vehicle may have been seen in the vicinity,
25:13that the engine, the vicinity of the deceased's home,
25:17that the engine of that vehicle was running at the time
25:21and also that that vehicle was sold sometime,
25:24a short time after the alleged defence.
25:28The police also received an anonymous phone call
25:31naming him as the killer.
25:33Of course the courts will always be careful about that evidence
25:36as to how, where that came from
25:39but in the end it's still important evidence
25:41in terms of advancing a possible alternative explanation
25:45and an additional means of being able to say to a jury,
25:49look you can't be sure that Susan May was guilty of this offence.
25:54She wasn't the only person with a possible motive.
25:58This was, as was suggested at the trial, a burglary gone wrong.
26:04The door was open, there was possible easy access
26:07for a known burglar to come into the house
26:10and to have been responsible for this killing.
26:14Colin Sutton, a senior investigator, dismissed those points.
26:22On the blood potentially being sweat, he said no,
26:25something called a Castle Meyer or KM test
26:28will have been carried out during the investigation.
26:37There are presumptive tests that were done in this case for blood
26:42and they can be, yes they can be, there are certain substances
26:46that can fool that test, but sweat isn't one of them.
26:52And as I understand it, of course by the time the Dutch expert
26:55gets looked at it, he's looking at images of the handprint
26:59and saying it isn't blood.
27:01If the KM test that was used at the time,
27:03the presumptive test for blood said it was blood,
27:05I'd be inclined to go with that.
27:07The judge at the original trial told jurors to discount the evidence
27:11which suggested a money motive on the part of Susan May to kill her aunt.
27:15But investigators still believe that is relevant evidence
27:18and should not be discounted.
27:20I accept the fact that the judge told the jury not to worry
27:23about the money that Susan May had taken from the accounts,
27:27but that still doesn't get away from the fact that that money was exhausted.
27:31Although it was hers, there was no more.
27:34And she was £7,000 in debt with no means of paying it.
27:38So I would maintain that notwithstanding that we shouldn't look back,
27:42but it's still the case that she owed £7,000 and had no means to meet those debts
27:47and stood to benefit from Aunt Hilda dying.
27:50After the defence has spent decades of searching to prove
27:53that Hilda Marchbanks had been killed by a burglar,
27:55the prosecution remains unconvinced.
27:58It's a sad fact of life, isn't it,
28:00in urban areas that people do burglaries.
28:03I don't think anyone's suggesting that this area was a burglary-free zone.
28:10Burglaries do go on.
28:12Where is the evidence?
28:14We have one handprint there that is definitely Susan May.
28:18Susan May had the opportunity, she had the keys,
28:20she had the means to access the house.
28:32So that's it.
28:33We've heard the evidence which was put before the original trial jury,
28:36we've heard the prosecution and the defence,
28:38we've heard the appeal, we've summed it up,
28:40we've had a rebuttal of the evidence put there.
28:42Where do we stand?
28:44I'm still not convinced there's a burglary.
28:47And even the person that was known in the area,
28:52he brutally beats them,
28:54and this wasn't the case in this one either.
28:56She was suffocated with a pillow.
28:58So I don't think that's one and the same,
29:01and I'm still not convinced that there's actually been a burglary.
29:03And there's still the issue of the door which you made,
29:06because if Susan had locked the door,
29:09then the door's not unlocked, not open, is it?
29:14I think it's easy to establish as well that this was blood.
29:18It was Susan May's prints that was connected with that blood.
29:21She did deny it ever touching Hilda Marksbank,
29:24and she was her carer,
29:26and she would have known that door was unlocked as well.
29:29And all that money, £200,000 is a lot of money to spend in a year without...
29:33I know maybe as a family, a vitage was taken maybe of a deteriorating health,
29:39but it's a lot of money to spend,
29:41and maybe some tracks needed to be covered.
29:43And there's a lot of inheritance still at stake.
29:45I still want to go into her records,
29:48into her financial records of what she's paid for and how,
29:51I'm talking about Susan,
29:53because that would establish as well whether she's been using the money personally.
29:57I mean, like you say, it's a lot of money to spend.
29:59It's not gone on a sandwich here and there.
30:01It's gone on mortgages or something, hasn't it?
30:03There's a boyfriend, isn't it?
30:05You could be putting pressure on her to spend money on him.
30:07You don't know. They might have had trips.
30:09It would be interesting to know who the other beneficiary was,
30:12and whether or not they had any debts,
30:16and whether they had access to the house as well.
30:20That would be good to know,
30:21but that's something that you'd assume would have been investigated.
30:25We've not heard any evidence for or against them.
30:29We know they had kids, but we don't know about debts, do we?
30:32Also, the way she acted when she got there,
30:34she didn't touch her body.
30:35She didn't try to help when she got there.
30:38So she says.
30:39So she says, although she may be mistaken.
30:41It is her blood, sorry, it is her fingerprint,
30:43it is her handprint probably on the wall.
30:46It just doesn't really ring true that she would not try to help the body.
30:51She also denied the fact that she'd asked about the fingernails
30:54and the DNA under the fingernails.
30:56Why would she deny that? It seems a bit odd.
30:58You see somebody, not just a relative, but somebody you're caring for.
31:01You see blood, you see them, they look like they're in distress,
31:03you're going to help them.
31:04Absolutely.
31:05You're going to try and move them.
31:06What do you make of this Dutch fingerprint expert, though,
31:08who said it's not blood?
31:09Well, he was relying on photographs.
31:11He wasn't relying on the real evidence.
31:13That's the thing.
31:14The policeman said that it would have been done, didn't he?
31:17The policeman said that that particular type of test
31:20would have been done at the time.
31:22But the forensic examiner was,
31:24that's why they got the appeal the first time, wasn't it?
31:27Because the forensic examiner was dodgy.
31:29They found a flaw in part of his, the way he's carried out.
31:33Which could be something as simple as a tick in a box.
31:36He could have skipped the test,
31:38but this guy is working on a photograph of some fingerprints on the wall.
31:43You can't say, you can't say that's, that's iodine on there,
31:47because that looks like iodine.
31:49You couldn't say it was anything.
31:50So you've got the points, you've got the issues,
31:52you've got the two sides to weigh up.
31:55It'll be time for you in a few minutes to come to your verdict.
31:58For now, and we won't discuss this during the break,
32:02we'll simply be considering all of the evidence
32:05when you join us in a few minutes' time.
32:08Welcome back to the Jury Room.
32:24It is time for the verdict from our jury.
32:26But before we hear from them,
32:28a summary of the case of Susan May
32:30from both the perspectives of the prosecution and defence.
32:33Hilda Marchbank was murdered in her bed one spring evening.
32:39Theories that a burglar had carried out the murder
32:42were dismissed when there were no signs of forced entry.
32:44Three marks on the walls leading from Hilda's bed were discovered,
32:48and one of them was Susan May's handprint.
32:50She denied all along touching the bloodied body of her aunt.
32:54It was alleged that she was a liar,
32:56had motive as a beneficiary of Hilda's estate,
32:59and led a secret expensive lifestyle with a lover.
33:02Till her dying day she protested her innocence,
33:05having been found guilty and lost to appeals.
33:08Now an alternative theory based on forensic examination
33:11of the marks on the wall has been put forward.
33:13The handprint was not caused by blood, but by sweat.
33:17If that's true, the case against Susan May
33:19is considerably weakened.
33:21And there are suggestions the killing could have taken place
33:25as a result of a burglary gone wrong.
33:32And so, Brent Jones, who's our foreperson,
33:35a 30-year policeman, is going to lead us now,
33:37as you consider your verdict.
33:39What we've heard, we've heard that there's a motive.
33:45We've got evidence involving fingerprints.
33:49We have the lady as a carer who would, first thing in the morning,
33:55go around, open the door with her key to get the lady out of bed.
34:00And on her night time, she would go back and put the lady to bed
34:04and lock the door on the way out.
34:06So, we have a secure property, but we also have a motive,
34:13and we also have a presumption that there may have been a burglary gone wrong,
34:17but there's no forced entry to the property at all.
34:20So, weigh up that evidence for us, Juri.
34:23I can kind of make up stories in my head,
34:29and I can see a scenario.
34:32I mean, two of us have...
34:34You're a carer, and you've been a carer.
34:36You say you can suddenly snap.
34:38Elderly people can be very, very difficult, very fractious.
34:42And I'm imagining a scenario where the night before,
34:45there was a little row, a little struggle.
34:48Maybe she didn't mean to kill her, but she just snapped.
34:51And then panicked, you know, and blood on the water.
34:54And then she comes back in the morning,
34:55because she's not a very sophisticated person.
34:57The question about material under fingernails is,
35:00most people know the answer to that.
35:02She comes back in the morning and rings the police
35:04and thinks that, you know, she's going to have discovered a carer.
35:08I can just see this happening.
35:10I hate the picture of it in my head, but do you know what I mean?
35:13Because you said that.
35:15That's exactly what I saw when I said it.
35:17But these are presumptions we have to work on the facts.
35:20I think it's presumption brought on by such a weak defence,
35:24in my opinion.
35:25But there is not a part of the defence,
35:27I can't really think they're clutching at straws a little bit.
35:30That is supposition, and I apologise.
35:32But I'm not convinced personally.
35:34Yeah.
35:35That's the point for me is, when you ask somebody a question about
35:39the trace of, like, a finger...
35:41Yeah, underneath your nails and stuff.
35:44OK, asking that question is a bit weird anyway.
35:48Yeah.
35:49But then going to, like, do something about it and, like...
35:51And then denying you said it.
35:53Yeah.
35:54And then denying that you've actually touched this person as well.
35:56Yeah.
35:57It's really...
35:58Like Ben said, I mean, that's such a callous thing to go and do.
36:00You've just...
36:01It's your auntie.
36:03Yeah, it's family.
36:04It's your family.
36:05Yeah.
36:06It's the person you care for on a daily basis.
36:07You can't help but become quite involved with these people,
36:09even if you weren't related.
36:10Yeah.
36:11But this is a relative.
36:12There's also...
36:13And you go out and get your hands manicured.
36:14That's a weird...
36:15It's also such a massive amount of money that's gone missing.
36:17It's the last bit of Hilda Marchbank's money.
36:20This must have been there for a number of years.
36:22And you think...
36:23It's the way that...
36:24Sooner or later, she was going to start asking questions,
36:25where is that money?
36:26I know she wasn't meant to work for...
36:28And the old people.
36:29At what point was it exhausted?
36:30Yeah.
36:31How long before the murder was it exhausted?
36:32It still was.
36:33Had she just got to the end of the money?
36:35Yeah.
36:36For more money.
36:37Maybe that was the reason.
36:38And that's why I had an article done.
36:39That was the reason, yeah.
36:40There was a good amount of money in the will.
36:41For me.
36:42Because old people don't spend their money.
36:44In our series so far, I think...
36:46I've detected that Carrie is empathetic enough
36:49to listen to both sides.
36:51But in this case, you a carer...
36:53Sorry.
36:54You seem...
36:55I don't know.
36:56Maybe it's because you understand being a carer
36:58more than the rest of us.
36:59And Kim has been a carer.
37:01Is that why you...
37:02I sense of finding it difficult to believe Susan May's story?
37:05Yeah.
37:06I think so.
37:07I mean, like I say, whether it's relative or not relative,
37:09you can't help...
37:11Unless you're...
37:12I mean, people that go into the care profession
37:16are generally...
37:17Have got a nice personality.
37:19They have a caring personality.
37:21And so, if you're going into it because...
37:23Just purely based on the fact that you are actually
37:25a family member, you may have an actual resentment
37:28towards the person because you're having to look after them.
37:31But if you're being a paid carer and you're going into that profession
37:34because that's what you want to do, you do...
37:37You do make a form a relationship.
37:39You can't not form a relationship.
37:41And if she's been with that person for so long...
37:43I mean, my first initial thought would be...
37:46I mean, I'd be in bits.
37:47I'd be in absolute bits.
37:48The first phone call I'd want to hear,
37:49I'd want to hear the 999 call.
37:51The whole picture and the money that's been drained from the account,
37:54the inheritance that she's...
37:56You know, to gain.
37:58You know, caring for her and being a family member
38:01and everything you think together, like she's got...
38:03I mean, little things like getting your nails done just soon after.
38:06That may be nothing.
38:07That may be comfort to some people.
38:08Some people, that's just...
38:09Some people could be thinking, you know, I would do the same.
38:10But I don't personally feel that.
38:12And that's for you to decide.
38:13But it's just a question she's asked.
38:15It don't seem like...
38:16You know, did she suffer may be the first question.
38:18Do you find yourself still influenced by the money?
38:23We know that there was a will.
38:25We know that Susan was on that will.
38:27That is still motive in my eyes.
38:29There's still...
38:30There was still money and there was still a house to be gained.
38:34She still had debt.
38:36Desperate times.
38:38And we can be...
38:39We can try to be the detective as much as we like,
38:41but the facts are the facts.
38:43And there's a bloody handprint.
38:45I mean, the prosecution said
38:47tests would have been done.
38:49I feel like the defence are clutching at straws.
38:52And the defence are doing what the defence would normally do.
38:54It distract him.
38:55Yeah.
38:56That's what I said about the burglar,
38:57to kind of, like, throw us off to say...
38:59Because he's a well-known burglar, we're going to think...
39:02But it's weak at the end of the day.
39:04And this car, the red car that was outside,
39:06how do we know the burglar didn't just drive off and dump it
39:08because he thought,
39:09I don't want to be associated with this, obviously, crime?
39:11Maybe it was for someone that was actually
39:13the opposite side of the road.
39:14Yeah, exactly.
39:15So you just can't pinpoint that.
39:17It's the thing...
39:18So it happened in the 90s.
39:19That's the thing.
39:20A lot of money is subjective.
39:21If she was a carer and she didn't have any money left,
39:24and she had a boyfriend that she was spending money on,
39:27seven grand is a lot of money.
39:29To us, it might not feel like a lot of money.
39:31I personally think it's a huge amount of money,
39:33and I would be freaked out having that kind of debt.
39:35But, you know, it's subjective.
39:37A lot of money is subjective.
39:38I just think it's important to consider the motive
39:40of, like, what was going on.
39:41I think, yeah, maybe, like, disregard the money factor of it,
39:44but the motive behind what she was doing
39:46is still important for me.
39:48I don't know if you'd carry on, even after you've served your sentence,
39:52you've been released from prison.
39:53Would you carry on if you were guilty?
39:54Would you carry on saying, I didn't do it?
39:55I didn't do it.
39:56There's a big reason to carry on potentially innocent.
39:57Why?
39:58She's done her time.
39:59Because she's named...
40:00If she did commit this murder,
40:01once she's confirmed as being innocent,
40:02she's named back into that world.
40:03But she died protesting her innocence.
40:05And she had cancer,
40:06and she knew there wasn't...
40:08We could...
40:09Could be family members that stood to inherit that.
40:11If...
40:12Inherit that, if...
40:13If...
40:14If...
40:15If...
40:16If...
40:17If...
40:18If...
40:19If...
40:20If...
40:21If...
40:22If...
40:23If...
40:24If...
40:25If...
40:26If...
40:27If...
40:28If...
40:29If it's found that she wasn't guilty.
40:30Yeah.
40:31Again, you're...
40:32You're looking further and further.
40:33I noticed that, and that's interesting to watch.
40:34Yeah.
40:35But I...
40:36I'm intrigued why...
40:37Uh...
40:38She continued to deny...
40:39Yeah.
40:40Any involvement in it as she was dying.
40:42I...
40:43I...
40:44I'm not saying that should cloud our judgment,
40:45but I'm interested in...
40:46In that fact.
40:47Does that strike any of you, or...?
40:48Yeah, it is.
40:49It's...
40:50It's been bothering me,
40:51because I'm...
40:52Leaning...
40:53Very much to it in a certain direction,
40:54but this is what bothers me.
40:55Why do you go on protesting your innocence?
40:57And you're going to meet your maker, if you like,
40:59and you...
41:00You don't want to die a convicted criminal,
41:02because you haven't done something.
41:03That unsettles me.
41:05Yeah.
41:06Or you just don't want to die...
41:07In jail.
41:08Yeah.
41:09It could be...
41:10She's out.
41:11No, she's out.
41:12She's on parole.
41:13She's let out.
41:14But she may have wanted to die without a stain on her name.
41:15Yeah, that's what I mean.
41:16And some people just don't want to admit to what they've done.
41:18They will defend themselves to the end, they don't want to say.
41:20Innocent could be the fact she didn't want to admit to it before she died.
41:23She wanted to remain denying.
41:24Or it could be the fact that maybe she believed her family
41:27could inherit what she feels she should have inherited.
41:30I've actually been thrown across the room myself by an old lady.
41:34And generally, they're, you know, up and about,
41:37and they're actually really difficult to keep in bed
41:39when they're starting to lose it a little bit.
41:42So I find it weird the person being in bed could actually have attacked someone.
41:47I don't feel that that rings true either.
41:49So, seconds away from your being asked to give your verdict,
41:53anybody with any burning thing that they have to make
41:56before we reach that verdict to convince other people of your position?
41:59Just on the note that carries me,
42:01the snapping could have been the realisation
42:05that there was no money left in the pot.
42:07Hmm, yeah.
42:08Where am I going to get...
42:09Why am I going to look after you?
42:11Of course, I suppose.
42:12I'm not going to get paid anymore.
42:13We're looking back to desperation.
42:14Yeah.
42:15You know, and it's, well, I've got no money.
42:18Well, you know, use to me anymore.
42:20We don't know what's going on between her and her boyfriend.
42:22He could be saying he's going to leave those.
42:24So it is that time.
42:26Brim will know that at least ten of you have to return a guilty verdict
42:30for a verdict of guilty to be delivered by you as our jury.
42:34Let's get your verdicts now.
42:37Um, I'll start at this end with you, Janet.
42:41Um, a nurse.
42:43Um, do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
42:48I think she's guilty.
42:50Let's move along to...
42:52Do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
42:56I find her guilty.
42:58Guilty.
42:59Let's walk over to the other side of our jury now.
43:01Let's go to Cara Kerry.
43:02Uh, Kerry, do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
43:06Guilty.
43:07And Tracy, next to you, do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
43:12Guilty.
43:13Guilty.
43:14Let's go to Belle.
43:15Belle, there's one thing puzzling you.
43:18I'm intrigued to know how you resolved that.
43:21As I ask you, did you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
43:25Guilty.
43:26Kim, also a former carer, do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
43:32Guilty.
43:33And next to you, Jess, psychology graduate.
43:37Do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
43:40Guilty.
43:41Let's cross back now to Nicole and Ben.
43:44First you, Nicole.
43:45Do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
43:48Guilty.
43:49Ben, do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
43:52Guilty.
43:53I'll ask our four-person next.
43:55Bryn, do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
43:58I find her guilty.
44:00Which leaves me with Adrian and Trevor.
44:02Adrian, first you.
44:03Do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
44:05Guilty.
44:06And Trevor, finally, do you find Susan May guilty or not guilty?
44:10Guilty.
44:12Bryn, I'm going to ask you, you've been collating for us,
44:14to stand, please, to return the jury's verdict.
44:18Do stand.
44:19In the case of Susan May, what is your verdict?
44:22Guilty, unanimously.
44:27Thank you, Bryn, and thank you to our jury.
44:30This has been a full television trial
44:32based on the facts and the evidence
44:33established in the case against Susan May.
44:35The jurors are members of the public.
44:37They've made their own decisions.
44:39What's your verdict?
44:40We'll see you next time on The Jury Room.
45:10The Jury Room
45:10The Jury Room
45:14The Jury Room
45:14The Jury Room