The Llanharry murders

[Steve_uk]

An isolated farmhouse, a gun for shooting rabbits and a dead elderly couple, though this is not the White House Farm murders. Megan and Harry (no jokes please) Twose, killed on 26th July 1993 for their £150000 life insurance policies according to the Prosecution, with prospective son-in-law Jonathan Jones in the dock.

 https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/harry-and-megan-tooze/id1318473466?i=1000487566006

[Steve_uk]

A witness impression of the gunman, but as Dorothy L. Sayers remarked on the Julia Wallace case, there were ambiguities enough for the verdict finally to be quashed. https://imsvintagephotos.com/products/1993-artists-impression-gunman-who-murdered-harry-and-megan-twose-their-vintage-photograph-2119192

[RodCrosby]

Amazing how Jonathan Jones even looked like William Herbert Wallace...

Tall, geeky, bespectacled... [although younger]

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-jonathan-jones-and-his-girlfriend-cheryl-tooze-arrive-at-the-high-105805094.html





A paper exploring miscarriages of justice, and how most of them involve a police theory that would seem outlandish even in an Agatha Christie novel. Jones/Wallace as suspect follows this pattern. When the police have no other leads, they try to build a case against a relative of the victim, particularly if that individual can be portrayed as "odd", "aloof", "cold", etc.

https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/54837/1/U585226.pdf

It is a very frightening prospect.

[RodCrosby]

A witness impression of the gunman, but as Dorothy L. Sayers remarked on the Julia Wallace case, there were ambiguities enough for the verdict finally to be quashed. https://imsvintagephotos.com/products/1993-artists-impression-gunman-who-murdered-harry-and-megan-twose-their-vintage-photograph-2119192

There was, AFAIR, no issue of identification in the Wallace Case.

Secondly, there was no evidence against Wallace, and his conviction was quashed under the limb of "cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence", as provided for under the 1907 Act.

The Jones Case was considered under the 1968 Act, which broadened the Court of Appeal's discretion, if they thought the conviction "unsafe or unsatisfactory" or had a "lurking doubt" [the Cooper test].

There was some [very slight] evidence against Jones, but none against Wallace, only suspicion.

Both men were entirely innocent, of course.

[Steve_uk]

Amazing how Jonathan Jones even looked like William Herbert Wallace...

Tall, geeky, bespectacled... [although younger]

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-jonathan-jones-and-his-girlfriend-cheryl-tooze-arrive-at-the-high-105805094.html





A paper exploring miscarriages of justice, and how most of them involve a police theory that would seem outlandish even in an Agatha Christie novel. Jones/Wallace as suspect follows this pattern. When the police have no other leads, they try to build a case against a relative of the victim, particularly if that individual can be portrayed as "odd", "aloof", "cold", etc.

https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/54837/1/U585226.pdf

It is a very frightening prospect.

You see I don't accept Jonathan Jones was innocent, in the same way I believe Sheila Bowler killed her aunt. The Prosecution may not have proved its case but that's a separate issue. For those interested the link you posted begins on Chapter 5 page 99 for the Llanharry murders.

[Steve_uk]

There was, AFAIR, no issue of identification in the Wallace Case.

Secondly, there was no evidence against Wallace, and his conviction was quashed under the limb of "cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence", as provided for under the 1907 Act.

The Jones Case was considered under the 1968 Act, which broadened the Court of Appeal's discretion, if they thought the conviction "unsafe or unsatisfactory" or had a "lurking doubt" [the Cooper test].

There was some [very slight] evidence against Jones, but none against Wallace, only suspicion.

Both men were entirely innocent, of course.

I don't accept this. Wallace made a song and dance about being recognized on a cold January evening, when the typical Liverpudlian would be at home resting by the fireside. Jones' alibi was even weaker: he noticed some lift engineers working on the block of flats he inhabited, workers who didn't remember such a distinct individual, and when he got home the Neighbours theme just happened to be playing. No reason for his peregrinations along Orpington High Street because there was no reason to seek additional office space in the first place. He was seen by nobody, of course, because he was 180 miles away in Llanharry allegedly killing his prospective in-laws.

[Steve_uk]

Crimewatch UK September 1993 starts at 14:45. https://youtu.be/gXHp6PJnOfA

[RodCrosby]

I don't accept this. Wallace made a song and dance about being recognized on a cold January evening, when the typical Liverpudlian would be at home resting by the fireside.

It was not suspicious for an insurance agent to try and track down a potential £1000 [in today's money] commission, never mind proof of murder!

Jones' alibi was even weaker: he noticed some lift engineers working on the block of flats he inhabited, workers who didn't remember such a distinct individual, and when he got home the Neighbours theme just happened to be playing. No reason for his peregrinations along Orpington High Street because there was no reason to seek additional office space in the first place. He was seen by nobody, of course, because he was 180 miles away in Llanharry allegedly killing his prospective in-laws.

You forget, Jones remembered THEM ! And his description of their position and what they were doing at that time could only have occurred on the day of the murder.

He was seen by nobody in South Wales on the day of the murder either, of course...

[Steve_uk]

But he insisted that he had spoken to the lift engineers. Anybody could make up a story that one of them was crouching down. It's typical of this kind of person that they think they are special, better than other folks, out of the ordinary, when in fact Jones was earning well below his potential.

Follow the money trail and you won't go far wrong.

[RodCrosby]

I don't particularly care, but it's best to have a good grasp of the facts, before commenting, n'est-ce pas?

"The three lift engineers (Lippett, Bell and Horstead) when interviewed by the police on the weekend of 31st July/1st August 1993 did not recall the appellant or any conversation with him, although they confirmed that they were regularly asked when the lift would be ready."
In other words they were pestered so often they had no particular reason to remember any individual...

"From our summary of the evidence before the jury six matters are apparent which are of particular relevance to this appeal.
...if the appellant's alibi was false it was remarkable that he was able to describe two lift engineers working in the basement and aspects of television coverage of the test match which, in both cases, occurred only on 26th July."

"Finally, at page 62F the said judge said:
'Now, there are one or two details which you are asked by Mr Rees particularly to note about the defendant's account of this. First, this was the only day of work in the basement. Second this was the week that the work was to finish, and at some time one of the men would have been squatting mixing the cement, Mr Horstead, so that the point is made that for the defendant to get all three right he must surely have been there. No other day would be right.'"

R v Jonathan Jones 95/2946/S1

[Steve_uk]

I don't particularly care, but it's best to have a good grasp of the facts, before commenting, n'est-ce pas?

"The three lift engineers (Lippett, Bell and Horstead) when interviewed by the police on the weekend of 31st July/1st August 1993 did not recall the appellant or any conversation with him, although they confirmed that they were regularly asked when the lift would be ready."
In other words they were pestered so often they had no particular reason to remember any individual...

"From our summary of the evidence before the jury six matters are apparent which are of particular relevance to this appeal.
...if the appellant's alibi was false it was remarkable that he was able to describe two lift engineers working in the basement and aspects of television coverage of the test match which, in both cases, occurred only on 26th July."

"Finally, at page 62F the said judge said:
'Now, there are one or two details which you are asked by Mr Rees particularly to note about the defendant's account of this. First, this was the only day of work in the basement. Second this was the week that the work was to finish, and at some time one of the men would have been squatting mixing the cement, Mr Horstead, so that the point is made that for the defendant to get all three right he must surely have been there. No other day would be right.'"

R v Jonathan Jones 95/2946/S1

Well you may or may not be on the right site. Jones was a 6ft 4ins individual with a cleft chin, who claimed to have talked to the lift engineers, none of whom could remember him. As far as the cricket is concerned, he claimed that there had been a break for rain, but this had occurred the previous day, Sunday. Anyone could have claimed to have watched the three commentators and given their names. He also may have embellished his alibi by adding he was accompanied in the lift by a child, when this detail had been imparted to Cheryl by police officers, but was not mentioned in a previous statement by Jones until then.

[RodCrosby]

It was proven that there had been 2 breaks for rain on the Monday morning and a discussion of that had occurred on screen at 1.40pm, while players were at lunch. Jones was unsure whether the players absence was due to lunch or rain, when giving his statement months later. He also remembered the commentators on screen. It was also proven there had been no commentators on screen on the Sunday...

There was no evidence Jones had been in South Wales on the day of the murders and no forensics linking him to the crime.

"if the appellant was the killer there were several extremely perplexing features. In particular, a man of good character with no experience of shotguns had, for weeks, meticulously planned the execution of his girlfriend's parents towards whom for over a decade he had shown no sign of hostility. No motive was shown for those executions. They were carried out at close range yet no trace of blood or tissue was found on the appellant's thick lensed spectacles, clothing or footwear, or in his car, which the prosecution claimed he later used when disposing of incriminating evidence."

R v Jonathan Jones

It does seem a bit odd to try to deny the judgment of the Court of Appeal in any [or seemingly every] case.
Self-evidently, it's existence is deemed necessary by Parliament, in acknowledgement that miscarriages of justice do actually happen, and the Court of Appeal as we know does not exercise its discretion lightly or frivolously.

[Steve_uk]

It was proven that there had been 2 breaks for rain on the Monday morning and a discussion of that had occurred on screen at 1.40pm, while players were at lunch. Jones was unsure whether the players absence was due to lunch or rain, when giving his statement months later. He also remembered the commentators on screen. It was also proven there had been no commentators on screen on the Sunday...

There was no evidence Jones had been in South Wales on the day of the murders and no forensics linking him to the crime.

"if the appellant was the killer there were several extremely perplexing features. In particular, a man of good character with no experience of shotguns had, for weeks, meticulously planned the execution of his girlfriend's parents towards whom for over a decade he had shown no sign of hostility. No motive was shown for those executions. They were carried out at close range yet no trace of blood or tissue was found on the appellant's thick lensed spectacles, clothing or footwear, or in his car, which the prosecution claimed he later used when disposing of incriminating evidence."

R v Jonathan Jones

It does seem a bit odd to try to deny the judgment of the Court of Appeal in any [or seemingly every] case.
Self-evidently, it's existence is deemed necessary by Parliament, in acknowledgement that miscarriages of justice do actually happen, and the Court of Appeal as we know does not exercise its discretion lightly or frivolously.

But he got the timimgs wrong of when they did break for rain. Any fool could have guessed that a cricket match would be paused for rain, when all Jones had to do was look out of the window or check the weather forecast.

He said that when he returned to his flat the music was on for the beginning of "Neighbours" on television which would have been about 1.30 pm. He watched cricket on television until about 3 pm. He recalled them stopping for lunch. He described seeing a conversation between commentators and he mentioned Lewis, Boycott and Benaud. On 5th October he said there was a break for lunch or for rain. In fact lunch was taken at 1 pm and there was no break for rain on the afternoon of the 26th although there was on Sunday 25th. However, reference was made during the broadcast on the 26th at 13.40 to two breaks for rain having occurred earlier that day. At 14.35 Lewis was on screen and a discussion followed between Boycott Benaud and Illingworth.

[RodCrosby]

There were sufficient points of detail in his memory to support his alibi. He also remembered two wickets had fallen, which was correct.

How does looking out of the window in South Wales [or Orpington for that matter] tell you what the weather is doing in Headingley, btw?

Just curious...

[Steve_uk]

There were sufficient points of detail in his memory to support his alibi. He also remembered two wickets had fallen, which was correct.

How does looking out of the window in South Wales [or Orpington for that matter] tell you what the weather is doing in Headingley, btw?

Just curious...

It might not, but a transistor radio would.