"Error that stared lawyers in the face for 27 years"
 
   When Stephen Downing walked free yesterday after
   serving 27 years for a crime he probably never
   committed, it was not startling new evidence that cleared
   his path. 

   Although forensic science and the dogged work of a
   local journalist have thrown up a whole raft of
   inconsistencies in his conviction, it was a procedural
   travesty that gave him his liberty, a glaring error that had
   been staring lawyers in the face for more than 25 years. 

   Quite simply, when Mr Downing was arrested in
   September 1973 for the murder of Wendy Sewell, he
   was questioned from 2.30pm until 11pm before being
   charged. He was not cautioned until 10.30pm and,
   according to police statements still in existence,
   he appears never to have been told he was entitled to see
   a solicitor. 

   According to Julian Bevan QC, representing the Crown
   at the Court of Appeal yesterday, there is reason to
   believe Mr Downing, then a 17-year-old with a mental
   age of 11, asked for a solicitor but was denied one. All
   these omissions and denials represent serious breaches
   of the Judges' Rules on interrogation and would have
   rendered his confession - the main plank of the
   prosecution - inadmissible. Astonishingly, however, they
   were never used in court by Mr Downing's original
   defence counsel, the late Dennis Barker QC, so his
   statement - which he had already retracted - was read
   out to the jury. 

   "This point has lain dormant for over 25 years and has
   been sitting there, obvious to any criminal lawyer, and
   has been completely missed," said Mr Bevan, who, far
   from opposing bail until the appeal, actually echoed
   concerns raised by Mr Downing's counsel, Edward
   Fitzgerald QC. 

   "I am happy to accept in this case there is a very real
   possibility that the rights he was entitled to were never
   brought to his attention," Mr Bevan added. "All the
   indications are that they were not. 

   "Applying present-day standards, the Crown recognises
   that a failure to inform a prisoner in custody of his rights
   would be regarded as a serious breach, as, of course,
   would a failure to caution a suspect at the appropriate
   moment." 

   Seventy miles away at Littlehey prison, Cambridgeshire,
   the technical nature of the release seemed academic. Mr
   Downing, who was entitled to parole 10 years ago but
   continued to protest his innocence, emerged at 4.15pm,
   wearing a loose-fitting new suit, looking slightly
   bewildered but smiling broadly. 

   Mr Downing's release is a victory for Don Hale, editor
   of the Matlock Mercury. Mr Hale has been
   investigating the case for more than six years, gathering
   fresh witness statements and highlighting forensic flaws
   that, he believes, point to the murder having been
   committed by someone else. 

   Mrs Sewell, 32, died two days after suffering severe
   head wounds in the cemetery where Mr Downing
   worked. He found her, still alive, and alerted other
   workmen but he was soon arrested by police because
   he had blood on his trousers and used a pick axe handle
   in his work - the same kind of implement used to attack
   the victim. 

   It is now known that the blood on Mr Downing's
   trousers had already begun to clot before he knelt in it.
   Independent forensic scientists have confirmed that
   other spots of blood on his clothing could have been
   sprayed there by Mrs Sewell as she struggled to
   breathe. 

   In his "confession", Mr Downing said he sexually
   assaulted Mrs Sewell, yet an autopsy later showed he
   had not. And Mr Hale has found no fewer than six
   witnesses who said they saw Mr Downing leave the
   cemetery while Mrs Sewell was still alive. 

   One alternative theory for the murder relates to Mrs
   Sewell's promiscuity. She had had a number of lovers in
   the area - a fact that led to her being cruelly named the
   Bakewell Tart - and it is thought one might have
   become jealous of the others. 

   By Steve Boggan, Ian Herbert and Terri Judd 
   8 February 2001
   From "The Independent" an English brooadsheet

   -------------------------------------------------

   "Perceptions" note:

   We have already speculated - 
   in http://www.perceptions.couk.com/laworjustice.html#frame

   - that these disturbingly frequent cases, of 'soft target'
   (working-class, no influence, mentally challenged) young
   males being 'framed' for murders - especially sex-murders -
   follow a pattern.

   The most likely reason is the shielding of an influential
   person - the real murderer in each case.

   If this is so, in most cases that person's influence extended
   to senior police officers - since most cases were glaring 
   'fit-ups' of people who could not have committed the crime,
   but where police officers consistently "rearranged" the 
   evidence.         
   

   -------------------------------------------------

   Evidence page for 
   http://www.perceptions.couk.com/laworjustice.html

   http://www.perceptions.couk.com/Seema1.html [view html]

   -------------------------------------------------
   
              FURTHER REFERENCES

  GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE


file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/fitup.txt