In 1993 Susan May, then aged 48, was convicted of the murder of her aunt, Hilda Marchbank, at the latter's home in Royton. Ms. May was her aunt's principal carer and visited her several times a day; it was she who discovered the body and called the police. Initially the murder was thought to be a burglary gone wrong, but several weeks later Ms. May was arrested.
Two appeals against the conviction failed and she served 12 years in prison for the offense. She was released in 2005, the first person in the UK to be released at her earliest parole date without admitting guilt
The case is now being re-examined by the UK's Criminal Cases Review Commission after her lengthy campaign to clear her name (backed by >100 MPs and peers).
The CCRC will investigate whether her case should be referred back to the Court of Appeal for a rare third hearing.
The principal evidence against Ms. May was an allegedly "blood-stained handprint" found at the murder scene. However re-examination of this evidence, commissioned by her supporters, carried out by Arie Zeelenberg, a fingerprint analyst and former head of the Dutch national police fingerprint service, casts serious doubts on this.
His report concluded that "There is no evidence that the finger marks... attributed to Susan May were placed in blood". This was based on examination of high resolution photographs of the marks not seen by the jury. Photographs shown to the jury show the marks only after they were treated with Iodine and other chemicals. Prior to this the marks were described by police as "almost invisible" to the naked eye. There are no results of any testing of the marks that show they were in fact blood.
Further:
"In fact there is overwhelming evidence that they were not comprised of blood but instead of sweat and a minor residue of another unknown substance". The broken lines of the ridges and spots around the pores are characteristics found in sweat marks, he said. If the finger was covered in blood it would have spread evenly over the ridges.
This directly contradicts the original trial evidence where it was stated that Ms. May's fingerprint was found in a "blood-stained hand print" and that there was "quite a lot [of blood]" as a result of Ms. May allegedly beating her aunt's face prior to suffocating her.
Two appeals against the conviction failed and she served 12 years in prison for the offense. She was released in 2005, the first person in the UK to be released at her earliest parole date without admitting guilt
The case is now being re-examined by the UK's Criminal Cases Review Commission after her lengthy campaign to clear her name (backed by >100 MPs and peers).
The CCRC will investigate whether her case should be referred back to the Court of Appeal for a rare third hearing.
The principal evidence against Ms. May was an allegedly "blood-stained handprint" found at the murder scene. However re-examination of this evidence, commissioned by her supporters, carried out by Arie Zeelenberg, a fingerprint analyst and former head of the Dutch national police fingerprint service, casts serious doubts on this.
His report concluded that "There is no evidence that the finger marks... attributed to Susan May were placed in blood". This was based on examination of high resolution photographs of the marks not seen by the jury. Photographs shown to the jury show the marks only after they were treated with Iodine and other chemicals. Prior to this the marks were described by police as "almost invisible" to the naked eye. There are no results of any testing of the marks that show they were in fact blood.
Further:
"In fact there is overwhelming evidence that they were not comprised of blood but instead of sweat and a minor residue of another unknown substance". The broken lines of the ridges and spots around the pores are characteristics found in sweat marks, he said. If the finger was covered in blood it would have spread evenly over the ridges.
This directly contradicts the original trial evidence where it was stated that Ms. May's fingerprint was found in a "blood-stained hand print" and that there was "quite a lot [of blood]" as a result of Ms. May allegedly beating her aunt's face prior to suffocating her.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=266894&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire