Delusions of Innocence

The Tragic Case of Stefan Kiszko

O'Connell, Michael, Malone, Campbell

• Publisher: Waterside Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781910979358
• Topic: Diritto
• Subtopic: Storia giuridica

The case of Stefan Kiszko casts a dark shadow over British justice. Totally unconnected to the murder of which he was convicted—that of a young girl Lesley Molseed—he spent 16 years in prison tormented as a sex-offender and suffering from what one expert described as 'delusions of innocence'. As author Michael O'Connell explains, it was in fact the system by which he was ensnared which was suffering from 'delusions of guilt'. Kiszko could not have been Lesley's attacker as subsequently established by DNA and the medical fact that he could not produce sperm. But a false confession written for him by a corrupt police officer set in train proceedings from which he was never to recover, dying only a short time after his eventual release. In this book, Michael O'Connell investigates every small detail of the case with especial reference to the foibles of the lawyers, investigators and scientists involved, all of whom either missed or ignored the signs that should have pointed to an early discharge from a misguided prosecution. The book includes the participation of a prosecutor who went on to become Lord Chief Justice and a leading defence barrister who became Home Secretary before his elevation to the House of Lords. Everyone seems to have become caught up in the momentum originally fuelled by policing methods that are hopefully now long gone. The most detailed treatment available. Contains Kiszko's original confession and retraction. Explains the points at which the case went wrong. Looks at the motivations of those involved.

Foreword

Campbell Malone

The story of the appalling and savage murder of the young Lesley Molseed and the subsequent arrest, trial and conviction for murder of Stefan Kiszko is both tragic and compelling. It is the perfect illustration of how a serious miscarriage of justice can arise and the devastation that can be caused, not just to the wrongly accused and his family but to the victim and the family of the victim.

As Michael O’Connell, the author of this powerful and comprehensive analysis of the case, points out I would have been ready to welcome another look at this case because I promised Charlotte Kiszko in the final months of her life (and shortly after the premature death of her son, Stefan) that I would do whatever was in my power to keep alive the memory of her son and what the deficiencies of our legal system did to him. I have been happy to assist Michael wherever I could in the way of access to papers and to my recollections as to what happened in the progress to a successful appeal but I must emphasise that this is very much Michael’s book to which he brings not only obvious diligence and time-consuming research but his own passion, perception and trenchant critique.

So I have an obvious interest in the story having been approached by Charlotte to assist her son in attempting to overturn his conviction and been lucky enough to have assisted in clearing his name but why should the modern reader be concerned with the story of a murder and a wrongful conviction now over 40-years-old. The first reason is that the case of Stefan Kiszko is the story of a classic miscarriage of justice, of a vulnerable young man convicted of murder following a confession to that crime when he could not have possibly committed it; and also to two offences of indecent exposure, one of which almost certainly never happened.

I have always believed that for a miscarriage of justice to occur there has to be a defective police investigation, an inadequate defence and a flawed trial. All of those things certainly applied to Stefan Kiszko and that is putting it mildly. Michael, in his book, is more trenchant and readers, faced with the evidence he puts before them, will decide for themselves whether, for example, the police officers in the case were incompetent or something more sinister. So Stefan’s case is a classic miscarriage of justice but it is also unusual in that in clearing his name it was established, on the basis of overwhelming scientific evidence, that he was not merely not guilty but totally innocent. It is also relatively unusual that, albeit some 30 years after the murder, another man, Ronald Castree, was tried to conviction for killing Lesley.

Of course it is undoubtedly true that many things that may have contributed to Stefan’s ordeal have changed. Stefan was interviewed and made his damaging confession unrepresented and without the protection of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Dr James McKeith and Professor Gisli Gudjonsson were yet to join forces to carry out their pioneering research into suggestibility in relation to confessions. Although DNA evidence led to the conviction of Ronald Castree it was not available to either the police or the defence of the time of Stefan’s trial. I am conscious of the penetrating criticism of the defence lawyers by Michael in this book but my own recollection as a criminal lawyer practising at that time is that forensic scientists were rarely challenged and that defence lawyers were, in any event, ill-equipped so to do.

Things are of course different now and in many ways better but my second reason for welcoming this book as being important and relevant is that there are many reasons to believe that miscarriages of justice are just as likely to occur nowadays, if not more! Stefan’s conviction was overturned at a time when a number of other wrongful convictions were coming to light. The successful appeals of Judith Ward, the Birmingham six, etc. led for a time to a feeling that things would be different from then on and the setting up of the Criminal Cases Review Commission was widely welcomed but the pendulum has long since swung back. The pressure on legal aid funding is a time bomb ticking away. Solicitors are poorly paid for criminal defence work and it is often done by inexperienced and overworked unqualified staff. Far from there being a financial incentive to prepare a case for trial properly the reverse is in fact true. Of course there are many diligent and committed lawyers working on behalf of defendants but I am aware that even in complex cases counsel will receive the papers where absolutely no preparation has been done. When attempts are made to prepare a case properly there is constant resistance and downward pressure on expenditure on such things as expert witnesses who may well be absolutely vital in those cases where it is necessary to challenge scientific evidence. This book demonstrates only too clearly why it is vital that defence lawyers do their jobs in a thorough and competent manner.

My concern is that not only are wrongful convictions just as likely to occur (albeit in different circumstances to those that applied to Stefan) but that there are not going to be experienced defence lawyers willing and able to take on the investigation required to overturn them. Legal aid is reluctantly made available but at uneconomic rates. The decision to close the Forensic Science Service some years ago was foolish in the extreme and already problems are occurring. Those still involved in trying to bring justice to the wrongly convicted are sometimes experiencing difficulty in tracing exhibits. As well as the age-old problem of trying to get disclosure of key items and documents out of a reluctant public body there is now the problem of who actually is responsible for maintaining and preserving them. As I am writing this Foreword there is an investigation into apparent manipulation of scientific data in criminal cases at Randox with possible implications in many cases. The CCRC is overwhelmed with applications but is consistently underfunded with the result that it is taking longer and longer to complete complex enquiries and may well be unable to investigate as extensively as might be required. They are open to the criticism that they are too cautious in referring cases back to the Court of Appeal

Stefan’s case is in so many ways the benchmark for what can go wrong in the criminal process and how lives can be ruined and in some cases cut short. This book reminds us of why we should care and seek to ensure that it never happens again.

Chapter One

An Overview of the Case

Sunday 5 October 1975 was a cool and quiet early autumn day but one that was marked by the tragic murder of a little girl. The victim was Lesley Susan Molseed, then aged eleven. She lived on Delamere Road on the Turf Hill Estate in Rochdale, Greater Manchester with her mother April and stepfather Danny, her two sisters, 16-year-old Julie and 13-year old Laura, and their brother, 12-year-old Freddie. As well as being the youngest member of the family, Lesley, known as Lel, was especially treasured because she was so tiny, weighing only three stone (19 kilogrammes) and standing just four feet tall (1.2 metres). She had been born with heart and breathing difficulties and in fact spent the first year of her life in hospital. She later attended a school for children with special needs. Around 1 pm on that Sunday Lesley was told by her mother April that she wanted a loaf of bread and an air freshener from a local shop. The younger children of the family, that is her 12-year-old brother Freddie as well as Lesley herself, took it in turns to run these errands for which there was a small cash payment. On this Sunday it was really Freddie’s turn to go to the shop, either the Spar shop on Ansdell Road or Margaret’s shop on Broad Lane, both only a short distance away, but he was off kicking a football, so Lesley went instead. It is clear that for the remainder of his life Freddie was unforgiving in his sense of guilt and self-criticism that, ‘if only, if only’ he had gone to the shop instead of Lesley, she would not have been abducted and murdered on that terrible day.

On 19 March 2005, after 30 years of unrelenting grief and in a state of deep depression, Freddie took his own life by cutting his throat with a kitchen knife. His body was found at his home in Wardle Edge, Smallbridge, Rochdale. He was married, with a wife and three children. At the subsequent inquest the coroner was told that he was deeply affected by his sister’s death.

When Lesley left the house around lunchtime her sister Julie watched as the little girl skipped down the path onto the pavement, setting off towards the shops. She was wearing a blue coat with a hood and carrying a blue lined shopping bag. Julie also noticed Lesley was wearing her Bay City Rollers socks — they were her favourite pop group. Julie could not have realised that Lesley was leaving home for the last time. She would never see her little sister alive again, for this dearly loved little girl had only a few hours to live. A sexual predator armed with a knife, a lustful man with a propensity for ferocious violence against children was trawling the area in a motor car seeking a suitable victim. He saw Lesley and somehow or other lured her into his vehicle. She was to become a victim of a vicious paedophilic psychopathic killer

Her mutilated body, lying face down, was found three days later, at about 7 am on Wednesday 8 October 1975 on Rishworth Moor above the A672 Oldham to Halifax Road. It was on an elevated area of moorland about 15 feet higher than the carriageway of the A672 leading to the motorway intersection number 22. There was a lay-by immediately below on the right hand side of the road from the direction of Ripponden. She had been brutally stabbed 12 times. Her murderer had ejaculated over her body and clothing. The police officers involved in the subsequent murder inquiry, many of them with young children of their own, were fiercely determined that Lesley’s killer should be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for so long that he would be completely removed from society and never kill again.

Near to the body was a small purse and a blue shopping bag, and on a rock some yards away was found a felt-tipped pen. The man who found the body was a shop fitter and joiner from Nottingham. He had spent the night sleeping in his motor vehicle parked in the lay-by. Lesley had been stabbed 12 times in a sustained and frenzied attack. The cause of death was multiple stab wounds in the heart, the aorta and the left lung. It appeared that she was attacked where she was found and probably on the day she was abducted. The most likely weapon was a knife, the blade of which was around 2.5 inches long and the blows to her chest appeared to be targeted, not random.

The first police officer arrived at the murder scene at 8.25 am. Detective Superintendent Richard Holland arrived there at 9 am He was the second most senior officer on the inquiry team, which was headed by Detective Chief Superintendent Jack Dibb, the head of the West Yorkshire No. 1 Crime Area. It was agreed at the outset that there would be a joint inquiry into the murder carried out by officers from the Greater Manchester Police and the West Yorkshire Police. At a very early stage in this inquiry, Dibb was appointed to investigate another murder, this time in the Bradford area. Although he remained in overall charge, the main ongoing responsibility rested with Superintendent Holland.

A pathologist, Professor David Gee, and Mr Ronald Outteridge, a principal scientific officer in charge of biology based at the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory in Harrogate and on occasions at Wetherby, attended the scene. They arrived at about 10.30 am, examined the body and took samples. At first sight it did not seem to be a murder with a sexual motive, for Lesley’s underclothing seemed undisturbed. But later analysis of her clothing in the laboratory showed light staining of semen on her skirt and knickers. There was insufficient to enable a blood grouping to be established, but the semen was shown to contain sperm heads, albeit in limited numbers. A forensic scientist, Peter Guise, made up microscope slides from the semen stains and carried out a test to record the level of sperm heads. It was the lowest available, +H. His results were communicated to the police the next day, 9 October 1975. Ronald Outteridge was informed of them at 5 pm that same day as well. There was, however, no reference in the preliminary report to the existence of sperm in the semen. Most such specimens would contain sperm and at this early stage of the police investigation in October 1975 this would not be regarded as being of great importance.

By December 1975 this had changed. It is now known that when the police detained Stefan Kiszko and induced him to confess to murder they subsequently searched his home, on 21 December 1975. Police Constable Booth, who may have known that semen had been found upon the dead girl’s clothing, found a handkerchief under a pillow on Stefan’s bed and this was sent to the forensic science laboratory the next day. An examination carried out on that handkerchief by a scientist Mr Brian Damper revealed the presence of semen that contained no sperm whatsoever. He conveyed the results to Chief Superintendent Dibb and Ronald Outteridge that same afternoon. That was, of course, before Dr Edward Tierney had obtained the sample from Stefan Kiszko. The whole object of that exercise was to establish whether or not the semen on the murdered victim’s underclothing had been left there by Stefan Kiszko. The one person who would be most interested, one would think, would be the very person who had written out the confession statement, that is Detective Superintendent Holland. The analysis of the sample would undoubtedly corroborate the confession, but only, of course, if it was a true confession.

In a statement dated 22 December 1992, after Stefan’s conviction had been quashed by the Appeal Court the then retired former Superintendent Dick Holland wrote: ‘I have never received a report or statement to the effect that the semen on Molseed’s knickers did not match the ejaculation of Kiszko, or he would not have been charged’. Much depends on whether that statement is true

On 22 February 1992 Dr Tierney was interviewed by a journalist, Margarette Driscoll of the Sunday Times, who recorded him as saying,

‘My physical examination confirmed a diagnosis of hypogonadism. It was explained to Dibb that if indeed Stefan was suffering from hypogonadism then he would be sterile. If he was sterile, there would be no sperm heads present.’

Detective Superintendent Holland was interviewed by the same journalist. She describes him as ‘the other principal investigating officer’. He told her,

‘… had there been any discrepancy between the sample on the girl and the sample produced by Kiszko, then I would have expected the forensic scientist to come back to us and say categorically they don’t match. That would have thrown an entirely different light on the matter.’

I simply don’t believe him. I think he was told and realised exactly the difficulty he had created for himself. He maintained that Stefan Kiszko had provided, openly and voluntarily, three vitally important pieces of information known only to the murderer and a limited number of other people, including Holland himself.

First, it was claimed in cross-examination at the trial that only five police officers, none of them lower than the rank of chief inspector, knew that the killer had ejaculated over the body of the little girl. (That answer may not be entirely accurate or truthful. We know that PC Booth had removed a handkerchief from under a pillow in Stefan’s bedroom for the express purpose of forensic examination. I consider that constable knew for what purpose he took possession of that object). Second, it was never publicly disclosed that the killer had not removed the child’s knickers. Third, the forensic evidence supported Stefan’s purported claim about wiping the blade of the murder weapon on the body or the clothes of the little murdered girl.

Since these detailed facts were set out in Stefan’s confession statement, and he was not the killer, that information must have been fed to him by someone, probably Holland, either before or during the making of the statement. That is what Stefan claimed while giving evidence at his trial. The words were not his, they were those of the police of...

Table of contents

• Copyright and publication details
• Publisher’s note
• Acknowledgements
• About the Author
• Dedication
• Foreword
• Exhibit One — Stefan Kiszko’s Draft Statement
• Exhibit Two — Stefan’s Confession Statement
• Exhibit Three — Stefan’s Retraction Statement
• Further Documents Viewable at WatersidePress.co.uk
• Index