- 2 hours ago
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:10Police called it a frenzied attack.
00:12It happened as Mrs Thompson was walking her collie dog
00:15on the Oxfordshire Way just half a mile from her home.
00:21The case of Vicky Thompson was an horrific crime
00:25and even though years had passed,
00:27that was still causing members of the community some upset and fear.
00:34There was a very firm view that the original investigation got it right,
00:40but a man was allowed to walk free.
00:54Ascot Under Witchwood is a very typical rural English village
00:58in the middle of Oxfordshire
00:59and really is quaint and as pretty and as normal as you can imagine.
01:05Vicky Thompson is a 30-year-old mother.
01:08She's got two young children, she's married, she's well embedded in the community.
01:14She's very much middle class, middle income,
01:19living a lovely life in a nice rural village.
01:22So she's got everything going for her.
01:32It was a nice summer's day, a bit like today really,
01:35but certainly it was really warm that day.
01:40Vicky went out for a usual walk with Daisy the dog.
01:45She used the usual route as she did most days.
01:54This is the actual lane that Vicky would have walked every day with Daisy.
02:00It's secluded, but you feel absolutely safe.
02:06Vicky left her house at 4pm.
02:09She'd normally be gone for an hour,
02:11but that afternoon her collie Daisy returned after just half an hour without Vicky.
02:21The children noticed, notified Dad.
02:26And he just felt that perhaps Daisy the dog
02:29would come back a little bit ahead of Mum.
02:33But of course she didn't.
02:36And then as a consequence of them getting a little concerned,
02:40after about half an hour,
02:41they thought this is a bit strange,
02:43she would have been back by now.
02:46And that's when they started going looking for Vicky.
02:51Vicky's husband enlisted some help.
02:54The search, you could say,
02:57was a very thorough search
02:58by a significant number of the community.
03:03Just over three hours after Vicky left her house,
03:07the search party made a horrific discovery.
03:10So here we are at the bottom of the lane
03:14and just over there is the railway embankment
03:19where Vicky was found.
03:22She was still alive when the search party managed to locate her,
03:27but Vicky had some extensive head injuries.
03:31It appeared as though Vicky had been battered with a rock or a stone
03:35and then dragged across fields.
03:41She was going in and out of a conscious state.
03:45She wasn't able to speak.
03:46What was clear is that Vicky had suffered the most horrendous attack.
03:55And although Vicky was positioned near the train track,
04:02it was clear that it certainly wasn't a train
04:05that had just caused an accident.
04:09Vicky was in a serious condition in hospital,
04:14so much so that she needed support
04:17to allow her body to try and recover.
04:21With his wife still barely conscious in hospital,
04:24Jonathan Thompson left her bedside for a few minutes
04:27to appeal for help in tracing her attacker.
04:30The injuries to Vicky in this vicious attack
04:32are so horrific and so unbelievable
04:36that I cannot understand why this should happen to anyone,
04:41let alone my own beautiful wife.
04:43She deserves to have her own plans and dreams come true,
04:47yet all we have now is this nightmare.
04:54The hospital staff did as much as they could for her,
04:58but unfortunately her injuries were so, so severe
05:02towards the end of the week, six days, I think,
05:05I'm afraid the decision was taken to turn the machine off.
05:09The attack on Vicky Thompson was now a murder inquiry.
05:23The murderer struck in broad daylight
05:26just a few hundred yards away from the village.
05:29Detectives say they're still no nearer
05:30to finding the motive behind the attack.
05:33Police began house-to-house inquiries
05:36and a reward was put up to encourage people to come forward
05:40with information leading them to Vicky's killer.
05:44Detectives are still looking for the murder weapon.
05:46A team of divers have been called in
05:48to search the river Evenlode in the hunt for clues.
05:52Where Vicky was situated, the types of things that we were thinking of
05:57is obviously anything that might have come off Vicky's body,
06:02such as bracelets, necklaces, anything like that.
06:06And there were a number of exhibits that were found.
06:09But then we're also thinking about exactly where she was found,
06:14what's been disturbed, what might have been used as a weapon.
06:18So there's lots of stone around.
06:21And the crime scene certainly gave us some opportunities
06:24for forensic examination.
06:29Soil samples were taken as well.
06:31So all that sort of thing,
06:32you don't know the value of that exhibit, of course,
06:36until it's examined at a later stage.
06:39Vicky's husband, Jonathan, organised his own search.
06:44We've had so much support from friends and villagers
06:47that it seemed an obvious thing to do
06:49to ask other people to become involved in this.
06:53A bag was found in a hedgerow.
06:55It contained women's underwear.
06:59They were found nearby,
07:01but not necessarily connected with Vicky.
07:04And we are aware that they obviously did not belong
07:07to our victim.
07:10So I wouldn't say there was a plethora of evidence,
07:13but there's a real opportunity to gather as much as you can.
07:16But you actually don't know what you've actually got
07:20until time has passed
07:21and you've methodically decided what's important and what isn't.
07:26And, of course, what your forensic experts
07:28will be able to deduce from what they've found.
07:32Villagers are terrified the killer is still at large.
07:35There's just no noise.
07:37It's like a ghost town.
07:38I think you've always been free and easy
07:41and everybody's always known one another.
07:44Whereas now it's almost, well, a village of silence.
07:52The villagers really couldn't believe the news when they heard it.
07:57And I know it's a cliché.
07:59People always talk about the community are in shock.
08:01But really, we can't exaggerate it enough.
08:03Such was the speed with which all of this happened.
08:07It took a long time for the local village and the community,
08:11you know, to even assimilate this information.
08:14Police believed the killer could live in the vicinity.
08:19The location of where Vicky went walking
08:23and the location of where she was found
08:26would suggest that there was a local element, a knowledge.
08:33And whilst you've always got to keep an open view about these things,
08:36where it is, the local knowledge would have been very, very helpful.
08:42As the inquiry went on, the potential hypothesis
08:46was that Vicky had disturbed somebody acting inappropriately
08:52and she had possibly called them out on it.
08:59One name was coming out loud and clear during the investigation.
09:03A 20-year-old local odd job man by the name of Mark Weston.
09:09There were some members of the community that were very clear
09:12that Mark Weston was, you know, a trouble causer.
09:18There was a number of things that he did that caused people to be concerned.
09:21And one of them was he was seen burning clothes in his back garden.
09:31He was known in the village as not somebody that, you know,
09:34dressed particularly well.
09:35He would tend to wear the same things all the time.
09:38So this was sort of considered to be unusual.
09:41He brushed that off and said he was just burning some clothes
09:43because he didn't want them anymore.
09:45But of course that raised concerns.
09:48When he was questioned, Mark Weston couldn't prove his whereabouts
09:53on the afternoon Vicky was murdered.
09:56His alibi was raising doubts as to where he actually was.
10:02There was just lots of things that actually were causing
10:05the investigation team some concern.
10:14Police arrested Mark Weston, but at this stage didn't name him.
10:20Allegations were put to him about the evidence that had been presented
10:26and he denied all involvement and was quite, I'll say ferocious,
10:32but ferocious in his denials.
10:36Mark Weston was released the same day pending further inquiries.
10:46The police had no other names in the frame,
10:49so they decided to release more information to the public
10:52in the hope of generating new leads.
10:55As an investigating officer, you've got to consider where are the answers.
11:03And, you know, the answers are in that community.
11:06So the police released as much as we could.
11:11There was something obsessive or compulsive about his conduct
11:16in relation to this attack.
11:18Certainly the attack was a frenzied one
11:20and appears to have been motivated by rage on his part.
11:26By now, the police knew where Vicky had been attacked
11:29because her blood had been found on the ground near a gate.
11:38We disclosed the location.
11:40We also released information about a man that was seen
11:44running away with no clothes in the vicinity.
11:48May have been unconnected,
11:50but of course with the information that we also had,
11:53there was a strong concern that this might have been
11:55the altercation that Vicky might have had.
11:59So there was quite a lot of information that we did share with the public
12:03and we did get a great deal of information back as well.
12:11Six weeks after Vicky Thompson was killed,
12:14police displayed photographs of two bras found in a plastic bag
12:18close to the murder scene.
12:20They revealed that a number of items of women's clothing had been found
12:24during an intensive search of the area
12:27where Vicky Thompson was attacked while out walking her dog.
12:34Khalees are unsure about the significance of the underwear.
12:38They refuse to be drawn on the possibility
12:40that Vicky Thompson may have disturbed a thief
12:43with a fetish for women's clothing.
12:45But they're not ruling anything out.
12:54Two months after Vicky was murdered,
12:58the only person of interest to the police was still Mark Weston.
13:02He was rearrested and taken in for further questioning.
13:05This time, he was named.
13:08But the following day, he was released once more.
13:12The investigating officers at the time
13:15felt that there was not enough evidence in which to charge Weston.
13:20It's not uncommon that a main suspect can be released
13:24if the evidence is not there.
13:25It does not stop the police capability to go and rearrest
13:30if further evidence comes to light.
13:33Villagers were most surprised that no arrest had been made
13:37two months after this horrific event.
13:39I mean, they couldn't understand it.
13:41They couldn't understand it from a generic policing perspective,
13:44but also because there was rumours in the village
13:47that there was one particular person
13:49that it was suspected had committed this particular crime,
13:52and that was Mark Weston.
14:04Weston was detained yet again,
14:06and this time the Crown Prosecution Service
14:08agreed that police had enough evidence to charge him.
14:16Mark Weston was designated as the prime suspect in this murder,
14:22and with good reason.
14:23He was considered to be predatory at best
14:26and criminally predatory at worst in the village.
14:29He was a person who didn't interact.
14:31He was a loner.
14:32You might call him a social outcast,
14:34which in a tight-knit community like that is most unusual.
14:38So people were getting off vibes, if you like, from him,
14:42that he was of bad character,
14:44and that was really the best that people were saying about him.
14:46Some other people were saying far worse things about him.
14:49So as far as the village were concerned,
14:51he was the number one suspect.
14:57A lot of the police evidence was circumstantial.
15:01Weston had burnt his clothes on a bonfire.
15:04He was known to hang around the area near the crime scene.
15:08And by now, his seamen had shown up in tests
15:11on the women's underwear.
15:14What the police needed was concrete forensic evidence
15:18that linked him to Vicky.
15:21Footprints had been found in the field
15:22close to where Vicky was discovered,
15:24so a plaster cast was taken of one of them,
15:28and forensic sedimentologist Peter Ball was asked to look at it.
15:33When I started to analyse the lumps of mud
15:37that were in the footprint,
15:39I noticed the mud was right up against the plaster.
15:44And so if you think about it,
15:46turn the plaster cast over,
15:48it's the very, very top surface of the field mud
15:52as the footprint went down on it.
15:55It's the crime scene, untouched and frozen.
16:00Wonderful.
16:02The lumps of mud were slightly different colour
16:04than the rest of the soil.
16:07And I realised that if we look at the detail
16:11of that piece of mud,
16:13that we'll start to work out the past environment
16:17that it came from.
16:20On closer inspection,
16:22Peter discovered some interesting materials
16:24trapped in the mud.
16:26There was animal hair.
16:28It also had lots and lots of fibres,
16:31multi-coloured fibres.
16:32The fibres looked to me like carpet fibres.
16:38And I made a note to ask the police
16:40to find out if the suspect
16:42lived in a house with multi-coloured carpet.
16:45There was pollen.
16:46Now, pollen is everywhere,
16:48but every flowering plant
16:50has a different pollen.
16:53And so you can determine
16:54what plants were around and about.
16:58Peter established the pollen
17:00had an aquatic source.
17:02Weston had admitted
17:03he had been fishing in the river
17:04the morning Vicky was attacked.
17:07I was beginning to think,
17:09well, this is beginning to look quite good.
17:11Maybe we can find something
17:14a bit more substantive.
17:17But back in the 1990s,
17:19forensic science was not as advanced
17:21as it is today.
17:23Angela Gallop has helped crack
17:25many murder cases.
17:27There had been so many changes.
17:29And I mean, if you think of
17:30things like blood grouping,
17:32which preceded DNA profiling,
17:35most of the blood groups we did
17:37didn't last more than,
17:38I don't know,
17:39four to six weeks at the most.
17:41And so you couldn't go back to them
17:42years afterwards.
17:44You might be able to do an ABO test,
17:46but that would only tell you
17:48sort of, you know,
17:48one in ten or one in whatever.
17:50It wouldn't give you the statistics
17:52that you need to be
17:53more confident about the results
17:54and the links
17:55that the results,
17:56your results provide.
18:05As the trial began
18:07at Oxford Crone Court,
18:09the prosecution suffered
18:10an immediate setback.
18:12Weston's defence team
18:14asked for the bag of underwear
18:15to be ruled inadmissible.
18:17The judge agreed.
18:19There was never any suggestion
18:21that it was the underwear
18:22of the deceased.
18:24It was, in fact,
18:25the underwear of other ladies
18:27who lived in the village
18:28and which had been stolen
18:29from their washing lines
18:31by Mr. Weston.
18:33And what identified
18:34or connected him
18:36to that finding
18:37was semen on those items,
18:41the DNA profile of which
18:42matched his.
18:44However,
18:45the evidence
18:47couldn't establish
18:48when that item
18:50had been deposited
18:52in the place
18:53where it was found
18:53and whether it was related
18:54to the killing
18:57of Miss Thompson.
18:59This ruling
19:00very much weakened
19:01the prosecution's case.
19:03We had witnesses
19:05that had lots to say
19:06about Mark Weston,
19:07but that does not
19:09convict an individual.
19:11forensic evidence
19:13clearly strongly supports
19:16ultimately a conviction
19:18and that's what
19:19you've got to think about.
19:30We were relying heavily
19:31on the forensic evidence.
19:33Soil was certainly
19:35a significant part
19:36of the forensic examinations
19:38and it did turn out
19:39to be very useful.
19:40The defence barrister
19:42suggested that perhaps
19:44a bird could have
19:46been carrying
19:48some soil in his beak
19:49and when flying
19:51over the top
19:52of the footprint
19:53dropped it
19:54into the footprint.
19:57And I said,
19:57well, whilst it's possible
19:59it's probably unlikely.
20:01But they could think
20:02of no other reason
20:02nor could I
20:04as to why it was there
20:06except for the fact
20:08that Weston had been seen
20:11standing in a river
20:12before the attack.
20:15Police had recovered
20:16a pair of Weston's boots
20:18from his house
20:19but the forensics team
20:20could find nothing on them.
20:22They also couldn't prove
20:24that they had made
20:25the footprints in the field.
20:28The issue was whether
20:29the size of the print
20:31matched the size
20:33of the footwear
20:34which is not a very
20:36discriminating comparison
20:37because the footwear
20:38was above average
20:40in size.
20:40I think my recollection
20:41is it was either size 10
20:42or size 11
20:43but even that's not
20:45especially discriminating.
20:47There are a lot of men
20:47out there with,
20:49even within a small village
20:51there'll be several men
20:52who have footwear
20:54of that size.
20:55A farmer told the court
20:57that he believed
20:58the footprints
20:59belonged to him
21:00not Weston.
21:02All in all
21:03the footprint evidence
21:05that is the cast
21:08and the shoes themselves
21:11is circumstantial.
21:13It's not definitive.
21:14The most important thing
21:16that's come out of this
21:17for the case itself
21:19is that the muddy blocks
21:22of soil were there.
21:25They shouldn't have been there.
21:27There's no reason
21:28for them to be there
21:29unless they were put there.
21:32I can understand
21:33why the evidence
21:34that I had
21:35was more novel
21:37than anything else
21:38but it was factually correct
21:40and was accepted as such
21:42but because it didn't have
21:44the DNA with it
21:46it didn't have the punch.
22:03What's interesting
22:04about this particular case
22:05when it went to court
22:07was that the jury
22:08are out for 50 minutes.
22:10That is most unusual.
22:12That's a sit down
22:13get to know each other
22:14go through the brief facts
22:15of the case
22:15and come to you
22:16unanimous decision.
22:17But when you think about it
22:18there was actually no evidence.
22:20This was 1995, 1996.
22:24There was compared to today
22:25you could get nothing
22:26or next to nothing
22:27from forensic science.
22:29You could get something
22:30but not enough
22:30to convict.
22:32Mr. Weston's name
22:33is obviously now cleared
22:34once and for all.
22:36He regrets the ordeal
22:37he and his family
22:38have been through.
22:39He also regrets the ordeal
22:41that the Thompson family
22:42have been through.
22:43He hopes
22:44that the police
22:45can reopen
22:46their other lines
22:47of inquiry
22:47as a matter of urgency.
22:53After the verdict
22:54her husband expressed concern
22:55that her killer
22:56was still at large.
22:57For us
22:58bringing Vicky's murderer
22:59to justice
23:00would have helped us
23:01to come to terms
23:02with what had happened
23:02and allow us
23:03to look to the future.
23:06More than this
23:07we could be sure
23:07that no other family
23:08would have to go through
23:09what we have been through
23:11at the hands
23:11of Vicky's killer.
23:15For the family
23:16of Vicky Thompson
23:17it's a re-traumatising.
23:20It's the state
23:21telling you
23:22that your daughter's life
23:23was worthless.
23:34Vicky's family
23:35were clearly disappointed.
23:37Not necessarily
23:39just because
23:40Mark Weston
23:41was walking free
23:44but they're disappointed
23:45because there is
23:46no justice for Vicky.
23:50Life is almost
23:53on hold isn't it?
23:55It's an absolute
23:56terrible ordeal
23:57for them.
23:58Following his acquittal
24:00Mark Weston
24:01went on the offensive.
24:03I've done nothing wrong
24:04so
24:05well I knew that
24:06from the beginning
24:06but
24:07they still kept saying
24:08it was me
24:08and it wasn't
24:10but now
24:11they've come to realise
24:12they had the wrong person.
24:17Mark Weston
24:19went on a crusade
24:21of demanding apologies
24:23from Thames Valley Police
24:25going to the press
24:27you know
24:28he was a victim
24:29so very much focused
24:32on seeking
24:33at one point
24:35seeking compensation.
24:36He also
24:37started to harass
24:39members of the community
24:41that actually suggested
24:43that he might have been involved
24:45in Vicky's death.
25:00Seven years
25:01after Mark Weston
25:03walked free
25:03Thames Valley Police
25:05were offered
25:06a glimmer of hope.
25:12The double jeopardy rule
25:14prohibited
25:15putting a man
25:17or a woman
25:18on trial
25:19a second time
25:20for the same offence
25:22after they have been acquitted.
25:24The rule against double jeopardy
25:26was in effect
25:28abolished
25:29by an Act of Parliament
25:30passed in 2003
25:32called the Criminal Justice Act.
25:34It doesn't apply
25:35to every charge
25:36it is confined
25:37to very serious charges
25:39including for example
25:41a charge of murder
25:42where fresh evidence
25:45comes along
25:46and nowadays
25:47the opportunities
25:48for that to occur
25:49are far greater
25:50than they used to be
25:51because of scientific developments.
25:53It should be possible
25:54if that evidence
25:56is compelling
25:57and it is in the interests
25:59of justice
25:59to do so
26:00for an individual
26:01to be tried
26:02a second time.
26:13A decision
26:14was made
26:15to reopen
26:16the Vicky Thompson case.
26:17From
26:18a Thames Valley perspective
26:20what it enabled us
26:21to do
26:22was immediately
26:23look
26:24at those cases
26:26where there was
26:27perhaps
26:28a view
26:28that there was
26:29a miscarriage
26:30of justice
26:30and the Vicky Thompson case
26:32was an ideal case.
26:35It was a case
26:36that was worth
26:37reviewing
26:39and utilising
26:40that legislation
26:43and because it was still
26:44relatively new
26:45we were working through it
26:47at the same time
26:48as trying to also
26:51reinvestigate the murder.
26:59when you
27:01reinvestigate
27:02a cold case
27:03there may well be
27:05a wealth of evidence
27:06that points
27:07to a certain individual
27:08but the whole purpose
27:09of a review process
27:11is that you must also
27:13keep an open mind.
27:14Yes
27:15there was a wealth
27:15of evidence
27:16but there was also
27:19some evidence
27:19that suggested
27:20that the police
27:21at the time
27:21were just picking
27:22on Weston
27:22because he was
27:23Mark Weston
27:25and you can't
27:26just ignore that either.
27:31It had been
27:32ten years
27:33since Vicky
27:33was brutally murdered.
27:35Detectives
27:36were pilling
27:36their hopes
27:37on two lines
27:38of inquiry.
27:39They were hoping
27:40changing loyalties
27:42over time
27:42might mean
27:43someone would be
27:44willing to speak out
27:45but crucially
27:47they were hoping
27:48advancements
27:49in forensic science
27:50might lead
27:51to a breakthrough.
27:54There's something
27:55that is quite difficult
27:57to sit down
27:59with a family
28:00who yes
28:01have been going
28:01through that terrible
28:02grieving process
28:03you're dragging up
28:05all this terrible news
28:08is this really fair?
28:10Vicky's husband
28:11was fantastic
28:12clearly always
28:14wanted justice
28:14for his wife
28:16why wouldn't he?
28:17And
28:17he was very
28:19very supportive
28:20of the investigation
28:21we couldn't
28:22have asked
28:22for a more
28:23engaging
28:23family to
28:25help us.
28:27Vicky's mother
28:28Margaret
28:29joined the appeals
28:31for help.
28:31Well I just
28:33feel somebody's
28:33had ten years
28:34of freedom
28:35that they
28:35didn't deserve
28:36they took my
28:37daughter away
28:37from me
28:38and
28:38he'd be brought
28:40to justice.
28:42The review team
28:43revisited all
28:44the original
28:45evidence.
28:46We looked at
28:47what we'd already
28:48kept
28:49and what we had
28:50retained
28:50from Weston
28:51from the crime
28:53scene
28:53we'd actually
28:54still had
28:55his boots.
28:57The boots
28:58had been
28:59thoroughly
28:59examined
29:00by a forensics
29:01team
29:01during the
29:01original
29:02investigation
29:03to look
29:04for signs
29:04of blood.
29:05None
29:06were found.
29:07The team
29:08decided to
29:08resubmit them.
29:10This was
29:11going to be
29:12our only
29:13opportunity
29:14to potentially
29:16put someone
29:17behind bars
29:18that has
29:19evaded that.
29:21So you need
29:22the very best
29:22of people
29:23behind you.
29:24So whilst
29:25we've got
29:25great detectives
29:27we also
29:27needed the
29:28very best
29:29forensic experts
29:30we could
29:31find.
29:34Mark
29:35Weston's
29:35boots were
29:36obviously
29:36always going
29:37to be quite
29:38important because
29:38they were part
29:39of the clothing
29:40that the police
29:40suspected he
29:41was wearing
29:42at the time.
29:43But it was
29:44the circumstances
29:44of the case
29:45with a sort
29:46of a blunt
29:47instrument,
29:47I think it was
29:48a rock in
29:48this case,
29:49being used
29:50to bludgeon
29:51Vicky Thompson's
29:52head.
29:53That produces
29:54a lot of blood
29:55and you can
29:56see that in
29:56the crime
29:56scene photographs.
29:57The blood
29:58would have
29:58splashed out
29:59and there
30:00would have
30:00been tiny
30:00droplets of
30:01blood flying
30:02through the
30:02air and
30:02then they
30:03were very
30:04likely,
30:04some of
30:05them,
30:05to land
30:05on the
30:06assailant
30:06himself.
30:07So it's
30:08really,
30:08really important
30:09to be
30:09absolutely
30:10certain that
30:12you've looked
30:12as hard as
30:13you can to
30:14find the
30:14blood.
30:15And so even
30:16though we
30:16knew that
30:17some good
30:17scientists
30:17had looked
30:18at it
30:18originally
30:18and hadn't
30:19found any
30:20blood,
30:20we had
30:21learned by
30:22the mid-2000s
30:23that it was
30:23always worth
30:24going back
30:25and having
30:26another look.
30:29After painstaking
30:31reanalysis,
30:32the team
30:33hit the
30:34jackpot.
30:37They discovered
30:38on one of
30:39his boots
30:39some very
30:40small blood
30:42spots in
30:43an interesting
30:43part of the
30:44boot.
30:45So the
30:45blood here
30:46was around
30:47the base
30:47of the
30:47tongue,
30:47a difficult
30:48area to
30:49get at.
30:50You know,
30:50even the
30:50microscope,
30:51you're sort
30:51of trying to
30:52wiggling it
30:52around to
30:53get it
30:53exactly so
30:54you can
30:55see what's
30:56there.
30:57Some of it
30:57was blood
30:58spots,
30:58some of it
30:58was light
30:59smearing,
30:59and black
31:00leather,
31:01and especially
31:01crinkly old
31:02black leather,
31:03is a difficult
31:03surface to
31:04see blood
31:05against.
31:06And I think
31:06that's probably
31:07why it
31:08wasn't found
31:08originally.
31:10We knew
31:11immediately
31:12that this
31:12was, you
31:13know, could
31:13potentially be
31:14really important.
31:15And so we
31:16took samples
31:17of it,
31:17obviously,
31:18and got it
31:18DNA profiled,
31:20and it
31:20turned out
31:21to match
31:22Vicki Thompson's.
31:26It was the
31:27tiny blood
31:28spots, and
31:29particularly
31:29their position
31:30on the
31:30boot.
31:30It was the
31:31combination of
31:32those things
31:32which was so
31:34critical in
31:34this particular
31:35case, along
31:35with the
31:36DNA, of
31:36course.
31:39There's patterns
31:40in everything
31:40are really,
31:42really important,
31:43and particularly
31:44in blood
31:45staining.
31:46I'm sure we
31:47recognized at the
31:48time that what we
31:49were finding was
31:50going to be deeply
31:50important to the
31:52police investigation
31:53and the possible
31:55retrial of Mark
32:02question.
32:05The blood wasn't
32:07the only new
32:08evidence that
32:08was discovered
32:09that pointed the
32:10finger of guilt
32:11towards Mark
32:12Weston.
32:13He was in a
32:14relationship with a
32:15young girl and
32:16had fathered a
32:16child.
32:17The girlfriend
32:18had gone to the
32:18police after he
32:19had threatened
32:20her.
32:20He tried to
32:22strangle the
32:22mother of his
32:23own daughter
32:24and then sent
32:25her a text
32:26telling her that
32:27he would do the
32:28same to her that
32:29he had done to
32:29Vicki Thompson.
32:41These two new
32:42pieces of evidence
32:43were enough for
32:44police to charge
32:45Mark Weston with
32:46the murder of
32:47Vicki Thompson
32:47for a second
32:49time.
32:56Mark Weston might
32:57have been charged
32:58with murder but
32:59under the new
33:00ruling the police
33:01had another hurdle
33:02to jump over.
33:04So what had to
33:05happen in order to
33:06quash the acquittal?
33:07They had to
33:08persuade the
33:09Court of Appeal
33:09that this new
33:10scientific evidence
33:11met the statutory
33:12test.
33:13In other words it
33:14was one, new
33:15and two, it was
33:17compelling.
33:18And then secondly
33:19having done that
33:20they had to
33:21persuade the
33:21Court of Appeal
33:22that it was in
33:22the interest of
33:23justice that
33:24Mr. Weston
33:24should be tried
33:25for this offence
33:26a second time.
33:27What really
33:28mattered in the
33:29Court of Appeal
33:30was persuading
33:31them that there
33:32was no credible
33:35plausible
33:36alternative
33:37explanation for
33:38the presence of
33:39Vicki Thompson's
33:41blood on Mark
33:42Weston's boots
33:44other than the
33:45proposition that he
33:46was the person
33:47who killed her.
33:49The court ruled in
33:51their favour and
33:52with Weston still
33:53pleading not guilty
33:54a date for a
33:56retrial was set.
33:58It was no surprise
34:00actually that he was
34:01not going to admit to
34:04it.
34:05He got away with murder
34:07once.
34:09So what's the chance
34:11of having another go?
34:24We were certainly
34:25confident that there
34:27was a very strong case
34:29against Mark Weston.
34:33was I nervous?
34:35Was I nervous?
34:35Yes.
34:37And you know what?
34:38I don't say that
34:40lightly but I'm not
34:41going to hide away
34:42from it either.
34:43And you have to rely
34:45and put your trust
34:46now in those 12
34:48members of the jury
34:49to make the right
34:51decision based on
34:53the evidence.
34:54evidence and of course
34:55beyond all the
34:56reasonable doubts
34:57which you know
34:58we're constantly
34:59reminded of
35:00and rightly so.
35:0515 years later to
35:07have to appear back
35:08in court to see
35:09the man you're
35:10pretty sure murdered
35:12your daughter must
35:13have been horrendous
35:14for the family with
35:16no guarantee that
35:17he's going to be
35:17found guilty.
35:19I was prosecuting
35:21counsel in the case
35:23of the second trial
35:25of Mark Weston
35:26charged with the
35:28murder of Vicky
35:29Thompson.
35:29If you've conducted
35:32a prosecution
35:33against your suspect
35:35a first time
35:36and it's failed
35:38and then you're
35:40having a second
35:41go at it
35:41quite obviously
35:43there is additional
35:44pressure not for it
35:45to result in the
35:46same outcome
35:47but in this
35:48particular case
35:50I don't recall
35:53feeling it
35:54especially severely
35:54for the simple fact
35:55that I knew
35:57perfectly well
35:58that first time
35:59round
35:59the case
36:00had been a weak
36:01one
36:01and I also
36:03knew perfectly
36:04well
36:04that the case
36:05that I'd been
36:06given to present
36:07was overwhelming.
36:15To the relief
36:17of the prosecution
36:17this time
36:19the bag of underwear
36:20was deemed
36:20admissible.
36:22once the prosecution
36:24had evidence
36:26of blood
36:26not merely
36:28by the gate
36:28but on the
36:29boots of the
36:30person
36:31whose semen
36:32contaminated
36:33the items of
36:34underwear
36:34in the plastic bag
36:35everything changed
36:37what had been
36:38a very weak case
36:39became an overwhelming
36:40case
36:40at a stroke
36:42and the case
36:43theory that was
36:44presented to the jury
36:45at the second trial
36:47was that Weston
36:49was hiding
36:50in the hedgerow
36:51that he was
36:54masturbating
36:55and that Vicky Thompson
36:57walking her dog
36:59came upon him
37:00and saw him
37:02doing this
37:04and he therefore
37:05faced exposure
37:07in circumstances
37:08which would have
37:09been humiliating
37:11for him
37:11for behaving
37:12in that way.
37:14Faced with this
37:15possibility
37:16Weston
37:17killed her.
37:19The spots of blood
37:21on Weston's boot
37:22proved critical.
37:24There was a one
37:25in a billion
37:26chance
37:27of this DNA
37:28evidence
37:29being incorrect
37:29as a comparison
37:31we stand
37:32a one
37:33in 74 million
37:34chance
37:35of being hit
37:36by an asteroid
37:36so I think
37:37we can be pretty
37:38sure
37:38this forensic
37:39evidence
37:40was good.
37:43But even so
37:44the defence
37:45tried to discredit
37:46the forensic
37:47findings.
37:48It may not
37:49surprise people
37:50to hear that
37:51when the forensic
37:51scientists
37:52who examined
37:53it the first
37:54time round
37:55were called
37:56to give evidence
37:56at the second
37:57trial
37:57they of course
37:58said
37:59I examined
38:00those boots
38:01very carefully
38:02I found
38:03no blood
38:04upon them
38:05and I believe
38:06that that is
38:07because there
38:07was no blood
38:08upon them.
38:09However
38:09what the prosecution
38:11was able to do
38:12in the trial
38:12is to be able
38:14to say
38:15that it was
38:16possible for
38:17these things
38:17to be missed
38:19without people
38:20seriously being
38:21at fault
38:22and we were
38:23also able
38:24to demonstrate
38:24that the techniques
38:25that were available
38:26for doing it
38:27the second time
38:28round
38:29lighting etc
38:31were much better
38:32than the first
38:32time round
38:33the issue
38:33was not
38:35is that her blood
38:36the issue was
38:37when and how
38:37did it get there
38:42I think it was
38:42suggested by the
38:43defence at trial
38:44that the reason
38:46why the blood
38:46was on the shoe
38:47was because
38:47Mark Weston
38:48had walked
38:49in the vicinity
38:50of the attack
38:50and just happened
38:51to get some
38:52of the blood
38:52on his shoe
38:53we were able
38:54to say
38:54because of the
38:55detail we had
38:56of the pattern
38:57of blood staining
38:57on the shoe
38:58that it couldn't
38:59have been deposited
39:00in that way
39:01the forensics team
39:03were able to establish
39:04that the blood
39:04was wet
39:05when it landed
39:06on the boot
39:06because of the way
39:07it was ingrained
39:08in the leather
39:10so all this detail
39:12that forensic scientists
39:14are so hooked up on
39:15can be really
39:16really critical
39:16for answering
39:17some fairly basic
39:18questions like that
39:19and clarifying
39:20what actually happened
39:32the trial created
39:34significant questions
39:37which revolved
39:40around the legislation
39:42of 2003
39:43so the double jeopardy
39:44legislation
39:44and the biggest issue
39:46was
39:47is that blood
39:49that was found
39:50on that boot
39:53compelling
39:54clearly it was
39:56but was it new
39:58because it had been there
40:00all those years
40:02so this was
40:04certainly
40:05a vigorous debate
40:08no matter how strong
40:10that evidence was
40:12it was down to
40:13whether it was new
40:14and whether it was compelling
40:16when the jury went out
40:17to consider their verdict
40:18in the second trial
40:19I felt
40:21very confident
40:22as to what
40:23what the result would be
40:24it was a very
40:26very strong case
40:27it would have been
40:27a truly remarkable
40:29outcome
40:30if they had reached
40:32a different verdict
40:33the only issue
40:35in the case
40:35was the identity
40:36of the person
40:37who was responsible
40:38for the killing
40:39of Vicky Thompson
40:40in the end
40:41the question
40:43the jury had to answer
40:44was
40:44are you sure
40:45that person
40:46was Mark Weston
40:47if the answer
40:47to that question
40:48was yes
40:48he was guilty
40:49if the answer
40:50to that question
40:50was no
40:50he wasn't
40:51it was as simple
40:52as straightforward
40:52as that
41:00I'm delighted
41:01to say
41:02that
41:04Mark Weston
41:05was found guilty
41:06of murder
41:07and was given
41:08a life sentence
41:09delighted in that respect
41:11because
41:12we've now
41:14overturned
41:15a miscarriage
41:16of justice
41:17which you don't hear
41:18very often
41:19when you're talking
41:20about somebody
41:20that's walked free
41:22Weston was told
41:24he'd serve a minimum
41:25of 13 years
41:26in prison
41:27it is a sense
41:29of satisfaction
41:29I suppose
41:30every time you
41:31are able to help
41:33a court
41:33make this decision
41:34about whether
41:35someone's guilty
41:36or not guilty
41:36and if they
41:37are guilty
41:38if they are capable
41:39of doing what
41:40Mark Weston did
41:41then it's absolutely
41:42right that other
41:43people should be
41:44protected
41:45from him
41:46but I know
41:47ultimately
41:48in relation to
41:49the family
41:49that they will
41:51carry this grief
41:51forever
41:52and I know
41:52there's only a
41:53certain amount
41:53that anybody
41:54can do about that
41:58there is no doubt
41:59about it
42:00no matter how
42:01many expert
42:04investigators
42:05that you have
42:07in your team
42:08if you do not
42:10have
42:11the same level
42:13of expertise
42:15and support
42:17from your
42:18forensic colleagues
42:19you will not
42:21progress
42:22the types
42:24of investigations
42:25like Vicky Thompson
42:26to a successful
42:27conclusion
42:29forensic science
42:31and the advancement
42:32has meant that
42:34so many families
42:35but particularly
42:36Vicky Thompson's
42:37family
42:37all this time
42:38later
42:39can at least
42:40get their day
42:41in court
42:41where it's meaningful
42:43not meaningless
42:44like it was
42:44in 1996
42:45forensic evidence
42:47is the
42:48independent
42:49expert witness
42:50and it made sure
42:52that Mark Weston
42:53and people like him
42:55have been banged to rights
43:04Mark Weston
43:05was the first person
43:06in the UK
43:07to face a second
43:08murder trial
43:09following the discovery
43:10of new forensic evidence
43:13if this change
43:14in the law
43:15has brought about
43:16a situation
43:16where 20 to 25
43:18people who committed
43:19an offence of murder
43:21and who first time
43:23round
43:23were wrongly acquitted
43:25and justice
43:27has since been done
43:28by convicting them
43:29I don't think
43:30you'd find many people
43:31who would suggest
43:32that that's not
43:32a good thing
43:34we knew
43:34when we embarked
43:35on the Vicky Thompson
43:37case
43:38that it was going
43:40to be certainly
43:41nationally
43:42under careful scrutiny
43:45why?
43:46because it was
43:47the first
43:48not guilty
43:49trial
43:50where double jeopardy
43:52was used
43:52so for us
43:53it was absolutely
43:56important
43:56that we did
43:57everything right
43:58we dealt with
44:00the high bar
44:01that was required
44:03to apply
44:04this legislation
44:05and I'm pleased
44:08to say
44:08that that man
44:09who caused
44:11all that
44:12grief
44:13and loss
44:14to a loving family
44:15got given
44:16a life sentence
44:19I'm immensely proud
44:20about what
44:21my team
44:23and I accomplished
44:24but I never
44:26underestimate
44:27that actually
44:28it's that family
44:30really
44:30that should look
44:31back on this
44:32and think
44:33you know
44:33they've got the justice
44:34they rightly deserved
45:04left