up.’
The judge continued:
Mr Dawson went forward to try to save her from falling but was too late. Then the police arrived and the officer, Police Constable Ball, obviously rightly said to those assembled, ‘Don’t anybody touch anything,’ and that the accused said, ‘I did turn her over, but I had my gloves on.’
Mr Watts, one of the Urban District Council plumbers, told you he ran for the ambulance, having seen this body, and then ‘I went back,’ he said, and ‘I saw the defendant.’ He heard the defendant say to Mr Dawson that he touched the body, but he had his gloves on. ‘Then I saw,’ said Mr Watts, ‘blood on the defendant’s knees as if he had been kneeling down, and I saw a pick handle on the path.’ He said when he first saw this woman there was blood on her face and body.
It was here that the judge highlighted a major difference between the prosecution and defence accounts. Stephen Downing, he said, had denied saying he made the remark about his gloves. ‘Make up your minds about that,’ instructed the judge, before turning to the evidence of the next witness.
There came then Mr Fox, another of these workmen. He went to the scene, and saw the body lying there partly clothed. The accused told him he thought someone must have been in the chapel and taken the pick shaft out. The accused added that he had gone home at dinner time, and also that the woman had moved. The accused then said, ‘There looks like being an identification parade.’
The judge pointed out a further ‘sharp conflict’ between the Crown and defence cases. Stephen Downing denied making any remark about an identity parade. He continued:
One turns to consider the weapon, the pick shaft handle.
Mr Hawksworth, the council workman who’d telephoned the police, told you about this. He said, ‘I had been in the cemetery about 11 o’clock that morning, and I saw the accused coming away from the store with a pair of shears which he would want for his work. I went into the store to check some asbestos sheets and found something else we wanted, which was a chimney cowl placed on top of the lectern. I noticed a pick shaft nearby. I picked it up to have a look at it, then I put it back.’
At this point the judge reminded the jury that Fred Hawksworth had identified the pickaxe handle he had seen in the chapel store as ‘Exhibit 1’, the handle shown to him in court, which the Crown claimed was the murder weapon. Hawksworth had agreed, ‘This is it.’ He had then gone on to say, ‘Later on I saw the pick shaft on the pathway.’
After summarising the evidence given by the lodge keeper, the workmen and the ambulanceman, who were all present in the cemetery at some point, the judge told the jury, ‘I think I am right in saying that, within the cemetery at the relevant time, no one else was seen,’ although he reminded them, ‘There are holes in the hedge, and another gate, where anybody could come in or out.’
He also drew their attention to the evidence given by two defence witnesses, both of whom had claimed to see ‘a person, or two persons, coming away from the direction of the cemetery’.
However, the judge placed emphasis on only one of these witnesses, Mrs Louisa Hadfield, whose evidence, he said, ‘was greatly relied on by the defence’. He reminded the jury:
She told you she was walking in Upper Yeld Road with her dog at about 1.15 and saw a man running ever so fast towards her … that means away from the direction in which the cemetery lay. She described his dress. She was very frightened. The dog snarled at him. She was so concerned that she had reported the matter to the police.
The judge then described the evidence of Mr Paling, which had been read out in court.
Mr Paling, upon whom reliance is not so strongly placed, was a long way down on the left of the plan. He was in Upper Yeld Road and saw a chap coming up on the other side. He was dressed respectably and was in a terrific hurry. This is all about 350 yards off the plan. He was asked if he noticed any blood on the man. He did not notice any. You may wonder if that witness really helps you.
He then spoke of the evidence given by Stephen’s next-door neighbour, Peter Moran.
He saw Stephen coming from the direction of the cemetery towards the shop at around 1.15. Mr Moran had left his house and was on his way back to work in Bakewell at this time. Stephen had told the court he saw Mr Moran outside the cemetery gates.
The judge then spoke about the police version of events, including Stephen’s ‘interrogation and confession’, and the case presented by the defence. I also wanted to examine the alleged movements of key people in and around the cemetery that day, and to check the timings given. Some of the accounts completely contradicted each other.
Wendy Sewell’s workplace was just a few minutes from the entrance to Butts Road, which then became the public footpath leading to the Butts. But where was Wendy between 12.20 p.m. – the time she passed Mr Osmaston a note saying she was going out – and 12.40 p.m., when she was actually seen leaving the building?
And could Stephen really have only been away from the cemetery between 1.08 and 1.15 p.m., the times given for his departure and return by the gatekeeper? He seemed to have done a fair amount in seven minutes – walked to the shop, then on to his house, where he stayed chatting to his mother for a brief time, and then back to the cemetery.
In addition to this, one of his neighbours, Peter Moran, claimed to have seen him at 1.15 p.m., walking towards the shop, the same time the gatekeeper said he saw him coming the other way, re-entering the cemetery.
There were many similar things that didn’t make any sense and seemingly hadn’t been challenged at trial by Stephen’s defence. Why were only the police called in a first instance and then a second workman had to call an ambulance? It all sounded dubious. Many of the timings conflicted and were completely inaccurate.
I also noticed the fact that within this trial summary the judge also failed to mention a vitally important fact – that Wendy had moved from where she was first attacked, to another spot across some gravestones, where she was seen by the workmen. This fact was mentioned by Stephen Downing at trial. And it was also mentioned casually in at least one witness statement by a workman, but for some reason it was not challenged by the defence – even though it was part of Downing’s revised statement made a few days after the ‘confession’. I was determined to get to the bottom of all these inconsistencies.
Doing this with the assistance of Derbyshire police seemed unlikely, however, as around this time I received a reply from Derbyshire police HQ saying that all the paperwork and exhibits relating to the case had been burnt, lost or destroyed, including the murder weapon. I was furious. How dare they destroy evidence before the man had served his time.
CHAPTER 6
I was about to visit a couple of potential witnesses when Stephen’s personal account of events arrived. He also included a hand-drawn diagram of the cemetery layout, which roughly matched the one I’d made myself when I’d visited his parents. Stephen explained:
The cemetery always seemed empty even when there were other people milling about – although I felt particularly isolated when I was alone. The creaking of the huge timbers in the roof structure of the unconsecrated chapel gave the place an eerie feeling, as if you were never quite alone.
It was September and, while the day was warm enough to work without a jacket, the chapel had a chillness that cut
