The information I have shared with you regarding anomalies in the case against Alfred Moore , is just the tip of the iceberg . There is much more to it than that and I have compiled a detailed dossier on my new evidence and new arguments , this was handed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission , on the 15th July 2009 . This is an independent body who have the power to look into possible miscarriages of justice. Whilst anybody can apply to have a case reviewed there is no guarantee that the commission will take the case on , you have to be able to back up your claims with either new evidence that wasn't available at the trial , or some new argument/s which were not made at the original trial. The review is in two stages , firstly they conduct an initial review and if the commission believe there is substance to what is being claimed , then they will then take the matter to the next level , a full review. Having reviewed the matter in full and if your claims have 'held' , they then have the power to refer the matter back to the Court of Criminal Appeal . It is then up to the Court to either uphold or dismiss the appeal.
It has been four months now since the commission received my file and I am hoping to hear shortly , as to the result of the initial review. Personally and I stress that this is a personal view, that the matter will go to full review and hopefully beyond.
The Moore case has never been as high profile as the case of Craig and Bentley or the case of Ruth Ellis both which attracted great publicity over the years . In the case of Alfred Moore , the main reason it was never elevated to greater public awareness , was because the Moore family were honest , hard working gentle folk who accepted the verdict of the jury , they were stigmatized and over a period of time Alfred's brothers and sisters ( of which there were nine)
and their families left their native shores , some settled in New Zealand and others in Australia where most of them live to this day , some of whom have been in contact with me since my reinvestigation started. The daughters of Alfred Moore are alive and well and living in this country , they are desperate to clear their father's name.
Since I have been able to study in detail the evidence in the case , both what was available at the time and the more dramatic pieces of evidence which I have uncovered recently , I have to say , again , in my opinion , Alfred Moore was the victim of a Gross miscarriage of justice. I would go as far as saying that the Police officers involved at the time , contrived to have a man killed by legal means.
I am trying to raise the profile of this case , but the attitude of those in the media and the press is one of apathy. It has been suggested that the subject matter is not current and therefore of little interest to the public. We are talking here of a man who was put to death by the authorities , in the twentieth century , for a crime he did not commit. Where are all those who regularly beat the drum and sound the horn when it comes to debate on the re-introduction of the death penalty ?. Probably sat at home watching some reality TV show with which this nation
appears to have become obsessed , more concerned with what Katie and Peter do next , than address issues that affect 'real' peoples lives. AlfredMoore believed that having put his case to his solicitor , he would have his day in court , the truth would out and he would be acquitted. He did not understand the lengths people would go to in order to have him convicted , that is until the morning of his execution when the penny finally dropped . He then took the time to write down his final thoughts and pointed an accusing finger at those he considered to have conspired against him. No doubt there are those who would have this matter brushed under the carpet .
I on the other hand will not let this matter drop and I am in the future going to raise the profile of Alfred Moore . I need suggestions and offers of help , please if you read this blog , tell others let them read it , leave messages and your ideas .( see link below) The Moore family has a right to the truth , they have a right to be heard and above all else they have a right to justice for Alfred.
I am just putting the finishing touches to a book I have written on this subject , it is the culmination of three years work , I have left nothing out , all the facts speak for themselves if you want the truth or are into true crime then it is a must read.
I am currently looking for someone to publish for me , if your interested , contact me by e-mail at info.atpolicemurders1951@ntlworld.com
Another sad note , I have previously mentioned that initially I was assisted in my investigation by my friend Colin van Bellen . On the 24th September 2008 , Colin suffered a heart attack which proved fatal , he died believing that Alfred Moore was innocent.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
The Truth The Whole Truth and Anything But ( 2 )
The second plank , and the most damaging to Alfred Moore , of the prosecution case was the evidence of Constable Jagger . The picture painted to the jury was of a dying Police officer making a deposition from his bedside to a magistrate , Mr. Percy Crowther. In which he told of the events leading up to the shooting of himself and Detective Inspector Fraser , the suspect had answered to the name of Alfred Moore , both he and the dead Inspector had shone their torches into the face of their attacker and saw it clearly . How he had later picked out Alfred Moore at a nine man identity parade.
The deposition taken from Jagger was read to the hushed court , the jury listened intently and believed what they had heard was the only evidence attributed to Constable Jagger . It was certainly the only evidence presented to both the Magistrates court and the court of Assize , but it was not the only statement Jagger had made with regard to events of the 15th July.
On his admission to Hospital at 4-10am on the morning of the 15th , I now know that Constable Jagger made another statement ( unknown to the defence team). In this statement he says that his attacker wore a white silk scarf . No such scarf was found near to the scene , neither was one to be found in the surrounding fields , the farmhouse or any outbuilding. Both the murder weapon and the scarf have never been found!!. The version of this statement is somewhat different in many ways to the one he gave to the Magistrate.
I know know that Constable Jagger was spoken to by six members of the observation team in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. To each one he gave a differing account of what had happened . To one person he said that a revolver was the weapon used to shoot himself and Inspector Fraser. To another he said the weapon used was a small black automatic . When speaking to each of his colleagues , never once did he say that he and the Inspector had shone their torches into the face of their attacker. These facts , like many others , were not shared with the defence team and of course they were not able to exploit them in court.
I have discovered evidence which strongly suggests that at the time of the shootings , Jagger's torch was not in fact lit but was in his coat pocket.
I now also know that when Jagger gave his deposition to the Magistrate , it was in circumstances other than what was painted to the Jury . They were not told that a man called Mr. R.C.Linney
was also present at that time , this fellow was the Prosecuting solicitor for the West Riding Constabulary and was a skilled attorney . It is my belief that the contents of the Constable's deposition were the words of Mr. Linney and not those of the dying officer.
The deposition taken from Jagger was read to the hushed court , the jury listened intently and believed what they had heard was the only evidence attributed to Constable Jagger . It was certainly the only evidence presented to both the Magistrates court and the court of Assize , but it was not the only statement Jagger had made with regard to events of the 15th July.
On his admission to Hospital at 4-10am on the morning of the 15th , I now know that Constable Jagger made another statement ( unknown to the defence team). In this statement he says that his attacker wore a white silk scarf . No such scarf was found near to the scene , neither was one to be found in the surrounding fields , the farmhouse or any outbuilding. Both the murder weapon and the scarf have never been found!!. The version of this statement is somewhat different in many ways to the one he gave to the Magistrate.
I know know that Constable Jagger was spoken to by six members of the observation team in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. To each one he gave a differing account of what had happened . To one person he said that a revolver was the weapon used to shoot himself and Inspector Fraser. To another he said the weapon used was a small black automatic . When speaking to each of his colleagues , never once did he say that he and the Inspector had shone their torches into the face of their attacker. These facts , like many others , were not shared with the defence team and of course they were not able to exploit them in court.
I have discovered evidence which strongly suggests that at the time of the shootings , Jagger's torch was not in fact lit but was in his coat pocket.
I now also know that when Jagger gave his deposition to the Magistrate , it was in circumstances other than what was painted to the Jury . They were not told that a man called Mr. R.C.Linney
was also present at that time , this fellow was the Prosecuting solicitor for the West Riding Constabulary and was a skilled attorney . It is my belief that the contents of the Constable's deposition were the words of Mr. Linney and not those of the dying officer.
The defence were also not aware of the full medical evidence in the case. That after emergency surgery carried out by Doctor James Hall Wrigley , he had failed to remove the bullet and he had failed to repair a main vein in the stomach , this had resulted in perpetual internal bleeding the pressure of which was so great that it had burst repairs he had made to the stomach wall. The officer was given ether as part of his anaesthesia and prescribed post operative morphine.
I have recently spoken with a former surgeon and he has examined the full medical evidence. Constable Jagger had initially been shot and was in shock , the bullet caused internal damage and his body underwent further trauma during the surgery. My expert told me that the surgical proceedure alone would have been sufficient to put the officer on the critical list . He went on to say that had he been in charge of Jagger's case , he would most definitely have not let Jagger be interviewed by the Police that day , he was far too ill. He found it incredible that within four or five hours after coming round from the operation , Jagger was able to attend an identification parade and later give a statement to a Magistrate.
Friday, 13 November 2009
The Truth , The Whole Truth And Anything But (1)
It is clear from what Colin and myself have discovered that the defence team were not privy to all the prosecution evidence in this case. They had to rely upon the evidence given at the committal proceedings at the Magistrates court , which was basically a condensed version. The jury were not in possession of the full facts during the trial and given those circumstances , I personally do not see how Moore could have had a fair trial . Lord Bingham the Lord Chief Justice once said , when commenting on the case of Derek Bentley , " That fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen".
The one issue that is not in doubt is that the the Murder weapon , believed to have been a handgun , was never found . Almost sixty years on and that weapon has not been accounted for , this despite a massive search of the farmland , surrounding fields and the farhhouse itself. Soldiers from the Royal Engineers equipped with mine detectors spent three weeks searching for the weapon , to no avail. There was no evidence , forensic or circumstantial , to say that Moore had fired a gun that night , nor that a gun had ever been in the pockets of his raincoat.
The Police had always insisted that their cordon was in position by 11-45pm on the night of the 14th July 1951 . Moore always insisted that he arrived back at the farm about midnight , he had walked through the cemetery and through the fields back to his home , in effect he had entered the Police cordon . According to Moore he did not see any Police officers and was not challenged by any during his journey home. When Alfred Moore appealed against his conviction in January 1952 the issue of the Police cordon was raised and the then Lord Chief Justice , Lord Goddard , made the following comment , " If the Police evidence was correct , it was impossible for the appellent to approach his house without passing some Policemen. Moore's evidence was that he had been in his house all along since a much earlier hour". The first part of his comment is of interest to me , what if the Police evidence was not correct ?
Not one Police officer on duty that night saw Moore leave the farm with his brother, nor was he seen by them returning to the farm . The only information as to his leaving and returning to the farm was supplied by Moore and his brother , this information was given in a written statement by Charles Moore and in an interview in the cells , between Moore and Superintendent Metcalfe early on the morning of the 15th July . It was information that was obtained before any Police Officer put pen to paper.
I now have evidence which suggests that even if the cordon was in place by 11-45pm that night , the officers concerned were instructed not to stop anyone until 12-30am. ( Half an hour after Moore said he arrived home).
Further to this I am in possession of other facts which suggest that the cordon was not in fact in position by 11-45pm but it is more likely that it was some fifteen minutes later . Also that the Police had been on observation duty around the farm the previous weekend and had seen nothing of Moore on that occasion . The defence team were not aware of these facts.
With regards to the position of every officer on duty that night , I have taken measurements , photographs and conducted experiments . My overall findings , leave me to believe that the events as portrayed by the Police are innacurate to such extent that the validity of their evidence , must be questioned.
It is now known that it rained for about an hour and a half that night and rained heavily , some time just after midnight until about 1-30am . None of those in the cordon mention this either in their statements or depositions and yet when Moore was arrested some two hours after the alleged time of the shootings , his raincoat when found hanging in the wardrobe , was bone dry. There were no grass stains or grass seeds adhering to it.
The one issue that is not in doubt is that the the Murder weapon , believed to have been a handgun , was never found . Almost sixty years on and that weapon has not been accounted for , this despite a massive search of the farmland , surrounding fields and the farhhouse itself. Soldiers from the Royal Engineers equipped with mine detectors spent three weeks searching for the weapon , to no avail. There was no evidence , forensic or circumstantial , to say that Moore had fired a gun that night , nor that a gun had ever been in the pockets of his raincoat.
The Police had always insisted that their cordon was in position by 11-45pm on the night of the 14th July 1951 . Moore always insisted that he arrived back at the farm about midnight , he had walked through the cemetery and through the fields back to his home , in effect he had entered the Police cordon . According to Moore he did not see any Police officers and was not challenged by any during his journey home. When Alfred Moore appealed against his conviction in January 1952 the issue of the Police cordon was raised and the then Lord Chief Justice , Lord Goddard , made the following comment , " If the Police evidence was correct , it was impossible for the appellent to approach his house without passing some Policemen. Moore's evidence was that he had been in his house all along since a much earlier hour". The first part of his comment is of interest to me , what if the Police evidence was not correct ?
Not one Police officer on duty that night saw Moore leave the farm with his brother, nor was he seen by them returning to the farm . The only information as to his leaving and returning to the farm was supplied by Moore and his brother , this information was given in a written statement by Charles Moore and in an interview in the cells , between Moore and Superintendent Metcalfe early on the morning of the 15th July . It was information that was obtained before any Police Officer put pen to paper.
I now have evidence which suggests that even if the cordon was in place by 11-45pm that night , the officers concerned were instructed not to stop anyone until 12-30am. ( Half an hour after Moore said he arrived home).
Further to this I am in possession of other facts which suggest that the cordon was not in fact in position by 11-45pm but it is more likely that it was some fifteen minutes later . Also that the Police had been on observation duty around the farm the previous weekend and had seen nothing of Moore on that occasion . The defence team were not aware of these facts.
With regards to the position of every officer on duty that night , I have taken measurements , photographs and conducted experiments . My overall findings , leave me to believe that the events as portrayed by the Police are innacurate to such extent that the validity of their evidence , must be questioned.
It is now known that it rained for about an hour and a half that night and rained heavily , some time just after midnight until about 1-30am . None of those in the cordon mention this either in their statements or depositions and yet when Moore was arrested some two hours after the alleged time of the shootings , his raincoat when found hanging in the wardrobe , was bone dry. There were no grass stains or grass seeds adhering to it.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
The Gun In The Wall
Having read the depositions used at the trial , the uneasy feeling I had about this case , intensified , or was I just being Paranoid?. Because of my unease , I contacted a former colleague Colin van Bellen.
Colin had been in the CID at the same time as myself back in the early 1970's , he had stayed the course and retired after thirty years service with the rank of Detective Sergeant , he had been commended on several occasions and had investigated numerous murder cases. He was renown for his thoroughness when collating and studying evidence. Colin took the depositions and studied them carefully for a few days , at the end of his deliberations , Colin e-mailed me and the message I received from him was simply , " Is this a joke ?" From that moment on I realised that I was not being Paranoid and that my initial 'gut' reaction was justified , all was not well with the case of Alfred Moore.
Colin was soon 'hooked' on the Moore case and strongly believed , as did I , that Alfred Moore had been the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice . We visited the murder scene and although almost sixty years had passed , the landscape is very much as it was back in 1951 . We were quickly able to identify the positions of the Policemen on duty that fateful night .
What quickly became apparent to us , in our opinion , was that the events of that night could not have taken place as the Police and the prosecution would have people believe . Further visits and experiments would later confirm our suspicions.
In December of 2007 , Colin and myself approached our local newspaper , the Huddersfield Examiner , with our current findings and our concerns regarding the conviction of Alfred Moore.
The Examiner ran the story and in the published article , we appealed for people with any information on the subject to come forward . The response was amazing and we had some wonderful and interesting feedback.
One name that continually cropped up was that of Clifford Mead . This being the same man who had first connected himself to the shootings back in 1971 , when he had shown certain people a handgun which he claimed was the gun that had killed two coppers at Kirkheaton in 1951. Unfortuntely Mead had died in 1998. The following year his estranged wife Emma Joyce had also passed way , she died in the November. The very same month in 1999 John Mead , their son approached the Examiner and told of finding a handgun in a boudary wall near to the house in which they were living in 1958 . The family was at that time living in Stafford Hill , Kirkheaton which as he crow flies was less than half a mile from the scene of the murders. John Mead told the Examiner that he had found this gun whilst playing with his brother , Barry. It was said to be rusty and appeared to have been in the wall for a few years , in the opinion of John Mead , the weapon had been well concealed . The two boys took this gun to their father Clifford . According to John Mead when their father saw it , he turned white and began to shake slightly . Taking the gun from them he told them in no uncertain terms , never to tell anyone about this gun because it would cause a lot of trouble . John Mead never saw that gun again. In the newspaper article Mead junior , suggested that this may have been the murder weapon used in the killing of the Police officers back in 1951 and he outlined his thoughts on the matter.
In 2008 , John Mead was living in Lancashire , but we were able to trace him. He told us of the finding of the gun and he also told us that as his mother lay on her death bed she instructed him to fetch her a box from a storage cupboard , within that box were old press cuttings relating to the Police shootings and some old photopraphs. It was then that she told John that it was his father , Clifford , who had shot the two Policemen and the wrong man had been hanged.
John Mead gave us other information which seemed to concur with what we already knew. For example when we questioned him about the gun he had found in 1958 , when speaking to the Newspaper (1999) he was vague in his description , when we pressed him he gave information and detail of the weapon which fitted with the Forensic evidence given in court at Moore's trial . He also gave us details of matters which had been not made public and he would certainly not have been privy to this particular information. During the following months we met with John Mead on several occasions and no matter from which tangent we would slant the conversation it always came back to the same thing , ' It was my father who shot those two coppers in 1951'. Both Colin and myself believed that John Mead was telling the truth.
Colin had been in the CID at the same time as myself back in the early 1970's , he had stayed the course and retired after thirty years service with the rank of Detective Sergeant , he had been commended on several occasions and had investigated numerous murder cases. He was renown for his thoroughness when collating and studying evidence. Colin took the depositions and studied them carefully for a few days , at the end of his deliberations , Colin e-mailed me and the message I received from him was simply , " Is this a joke ?" From that moment on I realised that I was not being Paranoid and that my initial 'gut' reaction was justified , all was not well with the case of Alfred Moore.
Colin was soon 'hooked' on the Moore case and strongly believed , as did I , that Alfred Moore had been the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice . We visited the murder scene and although almost sixty years had passed , the landscape is very much as it was back in 1951 . We were quickly able to identify the positions of the Policemen on duty that fateful night .
What quickly became apparent to us , in our opinion , was that the events of that night could not have taken place as the Police and the prosecution would have people believe . Further visits and experiments would later confirm our suspicions.
In December of 2007 , Colin and myself approached our local newspaper , the Huddersfield Examiner , with our current findings and our concerns regarding the conviction of Alfred Moore.
The Examiner ran the story and in the published article , we appealed for people with any information on the subject to come forward . The response was amazing and we had some wonderful and interesting feedback.
One name that continually cropped up was that of Clifford Mead . This being the same man who had first connected himself to the shootings back in 1971 , when he had shown certain people a handgun which he claimed was the gun that had killed two coppers at Kirkheaton in 1951. Unfortuntely Mead had died in 1998. The following year his estranged wife Emma Joyce had also passed way , she died in the November. The very same month in 1999 John Mead , their son approached the Examiner and told of finding a handgun in a boudary wall near to the house in which they were living in 1958 . The family was at that time living in Stafford Hill , Kirkheaton which as he crow flies was less than half a mile from the scene of the murders. John Mead told the Examiner that he had found this gun whilst playing with his brother , Barry. It was said to be rusty and appeared to have been in the wall for a few years , in the opinion of John Mead , the weapon had been well concealed . The two boys took this gun to their father Clifford . According to John Mead when their father saw it , he turned white and began to shake slightly . Taking the gun from them he told them in no uncertain terms , never to tell anyone about this gun because it would cause a lot of trouble . John Mead never saw that gun again. In the newspaper article Mead junior , suggested that this may have been the murder weapon used in the killing of the Police officers back in 1951 and he outlined his thoughts on the matter.
In 2008 , John Mead was living in Lancashire , but we were able to trace him. He told us of the finding of the gun and he also told us that as his mother lay on her death bed she instructed him to fetch her a box from a storage cupboard , within that box were old press cuttings relating to the Police shootings and some old photopraphs. It was then that she told John that it was his father , Clifford , who had shot the two Policemen and the wrong man had been hanged.
John Mead gave us other information which seemed to concur with what we already knew. For example when we questioned him about the gun he had found in 1958 , when speaking to the Newspaper (1999) he was vague in his description , when we pressed him he gave information and detail of the weapon which fitted with the Forensic evidence given in court at Moore's trial . He also gave us details of matters which had been not made public and he would certainly not have been privy to this particular information. During the following months we met with John Mead on several occasions and no matter from which tangent we would slant the conversation it always came back to the same thing , ' It was my father who shot those two coppers in 1951'. Both Colin and myself believed that John Mead was telling the truth.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
My search for the truth begins
The case against Alfred Moore , had two main strands , one being the evidence given by Constable Jagger which was by way of a written deposition which was read to the court after his death. From the defence point of view this evidence ,including that of the identification parade , could not be properly defended because Jagger could not be subjected to a cross examination. It was a damning piece of evidence against Moore.
The second strand was the Police cordon , the Police had always maintained that they were in position by 11-45pm on the night of the 14th July 1951 and anyone coming to and from the farm would have been seen. Alfred Moore always insisted that he arrived back at the farm about midnight and whist walking through the cemetery and along the public footpath which ran through the fields below the farm , he saw no Police officers and was never challenged by any.
In 1971 whist working in the CID at Huddersfield , a number of armed robberies occurred in the Kirkheaton area of the town. After painstaking enquiries lasting several weeks , a number of people were arrested and charged with those offences .
As a result of those enquiries a local family by the name of Mead had come under the spotlight , one member of the family , John Mead , was one of the number who had been arrested and charged. His father Clifford , had been suspected of having been involved in the planning of those offences but such was the lack of evidence against him , he was never arrested.
After the gang had been tried and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment it came to my attention that a meeting had taken place at the home of Clifford Mead . The purpose of that meeting was to discuss options with regards to possible appeals for the gang members. My informant who was present at that meeting , went on to tell me something which has remained very much in my mind for the past thirty eight years , something which was to galvanise my
resolve when I decided to re-examine the case of Alfred Moore . The informant told me that at some point during that meeting , Clifford Mead left the room , albeit for a short time , when he returned he stunned those at the meeting . He raised aloft in his hand a gun ( a handgun) and said simply , ' This is the gun that shot two coppers at Kirkheaton in 1951'. Without further ado , he left the room again and came back empty handed and never elaborated on his statement.
When David Schofield , a nephew of Alfred Moore , wrote to the Huddersfield Examiner in September of 2006 he claimed that his uncle was innocent of the crime for which he had been hung and appealed for anyone with information to contact him. David was living in New Zealand and after some difficulty , I managed to make contact with him and having told him what I knew
we had a brief discussion and it was at that point that I decided to make my own enquiries regarding the Moore case.
From at first reading accounts from newspaper clippings of the day and enquiries at the local library , my quest toook me to the National Archives in Kew. It was within those walls that the file on the Moore case was to be found , but they had been sealed down for a period 75years and were not due to be opened until 2026 . Subsequently I appealed to the Lord Chancillors office and permission was granted to open the file and my re-investigation was under way.
The second strand was the Police cordon , the Police had always maintained that they were in position by 11-45pm on the night of the 14th July 1951 and anyone coming to and from the farm would have been seen. Alfred Moore always insisted that he arrived back at the farm about midnight and whist walking through the cemetery and along the public footpath which ran through the fields below the farm , he saw no Police officers and was never challenged by any.
In 1971 whist working in the CID at Huddersfield , a number of armed robberies occurred in the Kirkheaton area of the town. After painstaking enquiries lasting several weeks , a number of people were arrested and charged with those offences .
As a result of those enquiries a local family by the name of Mead had come under the spotlight , one member of the family , John Mead , was one of the number who had been arrested and charged. His father Clifford , had been suspected of having been involved in the planning of those offences but such was the lack of evidence against him , he was never arrested.
After the gang had been tried and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment it came to my attention that a meeting had taken place at the home of Clifford Mead . The purpose of that meeting was to discuss options with regards to possible appeals for the gang members. My informant who was present at that meeting , went on to tell me something which has remained very much in my mind for the past thirty eight years , something which was to galvanise my
resolve when I decided to re-examine the case of Alfred Moore . The informant told me that at some point during that meeting , Clifford Mead left the room , albeit for a short time , when he returned he stunned those at the meeting . He raised aloft in his hand a gun ( a handgun) and said simply , ' This is the gun that shot two coppers at Kirkheaton in 1951'. Without further ado , he left the room again and came back empty handed and never elaborated on his statement.
When David Schofield , a nephew of Alfred Moore , wrote to the Huddersfield Examiner in September of 2006 he claimed that his uncle was innocent of the crime for which he had been hung and appealed for anyone with information to contact him. David was living in New Zealand and after some difficulty , I managed to make contact with him and having told him what I knew
we had a brief discussion and it was at that point that I decided to make my own enquiries regarding the Moore case.
From at first reading accounts from newspaper clippings of the day and enquiries at the local library , my quest toook me to the National Archives in Kew. It was within those walls that the file on the Moore case was to be found , but they had been sealed down for a period 75years and were not due to be opened until 2026 . Subsequently I appealed to the Lord Chancillors office and permission was granted to open the file and my re-investigation was under way.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Leeds Assizes -December 1951
The trial of Alfred Moore opened at Leeds Assizes on 10th December 1951.
Leading for the prosecution was Mr. Raymond Hinchcliffe KC he being assisted by Mr. G.Norman Black , the recorder of Huddersfield. Mr. Harry Hylton - Foster KC led for the defence , assisted by his junior , Mr. C.R.Dean . ( Later to become a Judge).
The trial Judge was Mr. Justice Pearson , he was presiding at his first murder trial since being appointed to the bench of the High court.
I do not intend to bore people with the full ins and outs of the trial , and will therefore stick to the main body of evidence and discuss the salient points. The two main planks of the prosecution case were these , The timing of the setting up of the Police cordon around Moor's farm and the evidence by Police Constable Jagger , who at the time of the trial was deceased. His evidence had been written in a deposition recorded by a magistrate who sat at his Hospital bedside in the afternoon of the 15th July 1951. Part of that evidence was , that at an identification parade held at the Huddersfield Infirmary shortly before making his deposition that afternoon , Jagger , had picked out Moore from a nine man parade , as being the person who had shot himself and Inspector Fraser.
The prosecution would also offer evidence to the effect that the bullets (3 in all) recovered from the two Police officers were of 9mm calibre and were , in the normal course of events , for use with automatic hand guns . The Sten gun , used frequently by the military at that time also used 9mm ammunition. Three used 9mm cartridge cases were to be found in the farmhouse . A few days later a live 9mm round was found , under a pile of bricks near to the house !!
Of the bullets recovered from the two bodies , the ballistics expert of the time , said that markings on the bullets suggested that they were fired from a weapon , the barrel of which was larger than that of an automatic . In his opinion , they had been fired from a revolver . It was suggested that this weapon my have been in a state if disrepair.
A removal man by the name of Joe Baxter , who had helped Moore when he moved from an address in Huddersfield some three months earlier to Whinney close farm , would later say that when the wagon was being loaded at Moore's old address , he saw an old black tool box. This box was being put into the wagon when it dropped and the lid came off. As a result Baxter alleged that among the contents he saw a dilapidated revolver. On oath he said that it was a Luger revolver , he had had military training during the war , and knew what he was talking about , what he had seen was a Luger revolver.
In essence , that was the case against Alfred Moore and no doubt to those reading this latest information it will probably seem like the classic 'open and shut case' . Please do remember however , that a coin had two sides . Watch this space for further developments.
Leading for the prosecution was Mr. Raymond Hinchcliffe KC he being assisted by Mr. G.Norman Black , the recorder of Huddersfield. Mr. Harry Hylton - Foster KC led for the defence , assisted by his junior , Mr. C.R.Dean . ( Later to become a Judge).
The trial Judge was Mr. Justice Pearson , he was presiding at his first murder trial since being appointed to the bench of the High court.
I do not intend to bore people with the full ins and outs of the trial , and will therefore stick to the main body of evidence and discuss the salient points. The two main planks of the prosecution case were these , The timing of the setting up of the Police cordon around Moor's farm and the evidence by Police Constable Jagger , who at the time of the trial was deceased. His evidence had been written in a deposition recorded by a magistrate who sat at his Hospital bedside in the afternoon of the 15th July 1951. Part of that evidence was , that at an identification parade held at the Huddersfield Infirmary shortly before making his deposition that afternoon , Jagger , had picked out Moore from a nine man parade , as being the person who had shot himself and Inspector Fraser.
The prosecution would also offer evidence to the effect that the bullets (3 in all) recovered from the two Police officers were of 9mm calibre and were , in the normal course of events , for use with automatic hand guns . The Sten gun , used frequently by the military at that time also used 9mm ammunition. Three used 9mm cartridge cases were to be found in the farmhouse . A few days later a live 9mm round was found , under a pile of bricks near to the house !!
Of the bullets recovered from the two bodies , the ballistics expert of the time , said that markings on the bullets suggested that they were fired from a weapon , the barrel of which was larger than that of an automatic . In his opinion , they had been fired from a revolver . It was suggested that this weapon my have been in a state if disrepair.
A removal man by the name of Joe Baxter , who had helped Moore when he moved from an address in Huddersfield some three months earlier to Whinney close farm , would later say that when the wagon was being loaded at Moore's old address , he saw an old black tool box. This box was being put into the wagon when it dropped and the lid came off. As a result Baxter alleged that among the contents he saw a dilapidated revolver. On oath he said that it was a Luger revolver , he had had military training during the war , and knew what he was talking about , what he had seen was a Luger revolver.
In essence , that was the case against Alfred Moore and no doubt to those reading this latest information it will probably seem like the classic 'open and shut case' . Please do remember however , that a coin had two sides . Watch this space for further developments.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
The Trial Process
After several weeks of being remanded to Armley Prison Alfred Moore , was brought before the Huddersfield West Riding Magistrates Court on the 27th August 1951. After that hearing he was committed to stand trial at Leeds Assize court.
Everyone involved in the case had given evidence before the Magistrate Mr. Percy Crowther , one of the prosecution witnesses was Patricia Moore , who at the age of ten years was the elder of Alfred's daughters. She was not called as a witness at the Assize court. I have spoken at length with Pat , who is now in her late sixties , she has vivid memories of that Sunday morning. She told me that she was taken to the Police station in Huddersfield and kept there for about six hours , initially her mother was not with her , there was no Police woman to sit with her , just as she described it , ' Big burly Detectives'. She was bullied , threatened , called a lair and at times she was thrown about like a rag doll , until that is she agreed to say what her tormentors wanted her to say. She then gave a statement against her father Alfred , which she knew was not true.
I have seen a copy of that statement , usually as was the practice in those days , at the end of the statement is a record which shows the date it was taken , By whom it was taken , Persons present when the statement was made and the time. The time was usually shown as say , 'Between 10am and 10-30am ', and so on. It is worth noting that with regards to Pat's statement taken that day , it bears no date , and does not show between what times it was made. It does not show in who's presence it was made and is signed by a Chief Inspector Edington. The Police were so desperate to get a conviction , they intended to use a ten year old , terrified little girl to help them do so. The statement she gave , was not true and parts of the untruth can be easily recognised as it contradicts evidence given by experienced Police officers at the trial.
Everyone involved in the case had given evidence before the Magistrate Mr. Percy Crowther , one of the prosecution witnesses was Patricia Moore , who at the age of ten years was the elder of Alfred's daughters. She was not called as a witness at the Assize court. I have spoken at length with Pat , who is now in her late sixties , she has vivid memories of that Sunday morning. She told me that she was taken to the Police station in Huddersfield and kept there for about six hours , initially her mother was not with her , there was no Police woman to sit with her , just as she described it , ' Big burly Detectives'. She was bullied , threatened , called a lair and at times she was thrown about like a rag doll , until that is she agreed to say what her tormentors wanted her to say. She then gave a statement against her father Alfred , which she knew was not true.
I have seen a copy of that statement , usually as was the practice in those days , at the end of the statement is a record which shows the date it was taken , By whom it was taken , Persons present when the statement was made and the time. The time was usually shown as say , 'Between 10am and 10-30am ', and so on. It is worth noting that with regards to Pat's statement taken that day , it bears no date , and does not show between what times it was made. It does not show in who's presence it was made and is signed by a Chief Inspector Edington. The Police were so desperate to get a conviction , they intended to use a ten year old , terrified little girl to help them do so. The statement she gave , was not true and parts of the untruth can be easily recognised as it contradicts evidence given by experienced Police officers at the trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
