Purely as an aside, I sometimes wonder about the defence in such cases.I’m not sure claiming that expert evidence is unreliable necessarily helps you advance your argument very far in this instance, given it supports your contention (x3)
The Stefan Kiszko trial is a complete stain on the British legal system. His silk, David Waddington QC, who later became Home Secretary, was professionally negligent on a number of counts. tbf, there was a lot of late disclosure to deal with, but he could have sought an adjournment of the trial when it was dumped on him on the day of the trial and did not. He ran the wrong defence (possibly on instructions tbf - we’ll never know), failed to ask certain key, obvious questions of prosecution and his own witnesses (possibly because he was running the wrong defence), and failed to call compelling corroborative expert evidence on behalf of his client. Add into the mix an appalling and criminal lack of disclosure of material information by the prosecution/WYP and a number of witnesses who simply made stuff up about the defendant, plus the fact Kiszko’s arrest predates PACE (he wasn’t cautioned before his interview and didn’t have a solicitor present when he was palpably lacking the mental acuity to deal with an IUC unattended) and you have possibly the most egregious recorded miscarriage of justice of all time. Absolutely shameful. The subsequent torpid rate at which the injustice was unravelled (in which Warrington may have had a hand) compounds that shame.Purely as an aside, I sometimes wonder about the defence in such cases.
In Kisko, the defence never asked the forensic witness whether there was semen present on the girls person or clothes, nor indeed did they explore the effect of Kisko's congenital condition. In the case of the Cheshire solicitor, the paediatric consultant gave nonsensical statistical evidence which should have been vigorously challenged, but was let pass.
And he’ll never be released.Gosh, well done for that. I bow to your superior research. Upshot is he's still detained, whether as a murderer or madman.
Thanks for that. The witnesses, teenage girls, who made stuff up were suborned by the investigating detective.The Stefan Kiszko trial is a complete stain on the British legal system. His silk, David Waddington QC, who later became Home Secretary, was professionally negligent on a number of counts. tbf, there was a lot of late disclosure to deal with, but he could have sought an adjournment of the trial when it was dumped on him on the day of the trial and did not. He ran the wrong defence (possibly on instructions tbf - we’ll never know), failed to ask certain key, obvious questions of prosecution and his own witnesses (possibly because he was running the wrong defence), and failed to call compelling corroborative expert evidence on behalf of his client. Add into the mix an appalling and criminal lack of disclosure of material information by the prosecution/WYP and a number of witnesses who simply made stuff up about the defendant, plus the fact Kiszko’s arrest predates PACE (he wasn’t cautioned before his interview and didn’t have a solicitor present when he was palpably lacking the mental acuity to deal with an IUC unattended) and you have possibly the most egregious recorded miscarriage of justice of all time. Absolutely shameful. The subsequent torpid rate at which the injustice was unravelled (in which Warrington may have had a hand) compounds that shame.
Stefan Kisko’s trial, conviction and incarceration are a far better example of political interference, (gross)professional incompetence and downright dodgyness within the criminal justice system than that of Peter Sutcliffe and led to a far more tragic and unjust outcome.
I think the OIC and the forensic scientist were charged with pervert, but it never went to trial, as it was thrown out via an abuse of process argument (which notoriously almost never succeed).Thanks for that. The witnesses, teenage girls, who made stuff up were suborned by the investigating detective.
. So add noble cause corruption to ' find a weirdo'. (See also Colin Stagg/ Rachael Nickell).
Nobody called to account for their actions, of course.
I used to work at Manchester Garages & was in work early at their car park on Hathersage rd, clearly remember seeing the body of one of his victims , the police were putting up a tent around it,it was on wasteland next to St Mary’s hospital.You could see where Jean Jordan’s body was found from the top deck of a bus travelling north along Princess Parkway. At the time there was a tramp living in the hedges, as kids we always used to see if we could spot him. Makes you wonder now if he was there on the night and witnessed something he blamed on the meths?
This is a good read about Kiszko.Thanks for that. The witnesses, teenage girls, who made stuff up were suborned by the investigating detective.
. So add noble cause corruption to ' find a weirdo'. (See also Colin Stagg/ Rachael Nickell).
Nobody called to account for their actions, of course.
He was interviewed nine times in all, at least three times directly because of the fiver line of enquiry - twice in November 1977 and once in January 1980. See here: http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/intervws.htm
When you put it like that, though, I'll concede that I'm being too harsh in saying that they "should" have caught him. In the initial two interviews, he was only one man out of about 8.000 they had to cover and he was given an alibi by his wife for the night when the killer had returned to Jordan's body. You can't blame them for moving on. By the time of the next interview about the fiver, in January 1980, they knew he was one of 241 men who could have received that banknote. Thinking about it, it was probably an exceptional piece of work to be able to narrow it down like that. My criticism at that stage isn't of the Manchester detectives who did the work to identify who could have got the note. It's that the West Yporkshire detectives then decided not to pursue as a suspect a man who was one of the 241 and who should have set off alarm bells for various other reasons. This decision was due in some significant measure to him lacking a Wearside accent. My criticism really is that they made a disastrous error in keeping their faith in the authenticity of the tape when, by this stage, it should have been obvious that it was a wild goose chase.
As you say, the tyre track enquiry would eventually have led to Sutcliffe, though that was also wound down for reasons of manpower. The car sightings in red light areas was also incriminating - he was one of a very small number of punbters whose car was seen in the operations in all of Leeds, Bradford and Manchester. Unfortunately, they were swamped by the volume of information that came in. Information about Sutcliffe was kept on four separate index cards because often, something would come to light about him and the other cards would still be stuck in the backlog, waiting to be reviewed by senior detectives. If they could have seen all the information about him in one place - as they could now with a computerised system - they'd have understood much earlier that this was a guy they should be looking at very closely. As it was, I believe at some point they compiled a list of the top 50 suspects - and Sutcliffe wasn't on it!
Yes, I've seen an interview with Bruce when he talks about finding the body. Must have been a terrible experience.
The hoaxer, in a letter before the Vera Millward murder, also promised that his next victim would be an "old slut" in Manchester or Liverpool. I think that also made them think there was a decent chance the tape, when it came, was genuine.