I thought if you were hung, you were buried inside the prison grounds. Is this not the case?Originally Posted by underworld
I thought if you were hung, you were buried inside the prison grounds. Is this not the case?
It is, but if you are postumously pardoned the the body can be
exhumed and buried elsewere
Don't spose it'd make much difference to a dead man. Just moving bones.
No, but it allows family/relies to errect a headstone and visit
Discrepancies
Hi,
I've just read both books on the Cameo case. Someone happened to give me the Shortall book a few weeks ago. Vincent Burke wrote the introduction. I had only just about heard of the case before then; no personal interest. But the book so fascinated me that I then wanted the Skelly one too. It's absolutely gripping as an account and it's obvious how much research went into it.
Neither of the authors tells you what their sources are so you can never know for certain who said what, when and to whom, and exactly what the truth is. (That's apart from the trial itself, the anonymous letter and certain written statements to the police, which are reproduced accurately and can't be disputed.) There are also significant discrepancies between the two books which make matters more difficult for the reader. I'm speaking as a general reader, of course. I know nothing about any of the people involved in the case and therefore, unlike some of you, I'm not in a position to make an informed judgment on the accuracy of many of the things which are said in either book.
However, it was a miscarriage of justice in that the convictions were clearly unsafe. I'm now reading the judgment which overturned the convictions in 2003 and that much seems absolutely clear. Circumstantial evidence, no forensic links, evidence held back which could have helped the defence etc.
etc.
I've enjoyed reading many of the comments on this thread. Thank you!
Tess
Newbie
Neither of the authors tells you what their sources are
George Skelly tells where his source of information comes from in the opening pages of his book in `Ackowledgements`.
His brother was with George Kelly on the day of the murders.
I was an old friend of Charles Connolly and Charles gave George all the information on his side of the case.
He interviewed many people who had connections to the case, some did not want to be identified.
More information came from,Merseyside Police, The Coroners Court, Liverpool Crown Court, Merseyside Public Records Office, the Home Office and so on.
I think you will find the sources of information are very good. Even I am in it.
Last edited by captain kong; 09-03-2009 at 11:01 AM.
Discrepancies
Hi Captain Kong,
Thanks for replying!
As I said, I don't doubt for a moment the amount of research that went into Skelly's book.
Of course he gives general acknowledgments but he doesn't note the origin or source of each comment or statement as he makes it. Now I know that doing that might make for a more tedious book, using scholarly conventions, rather than the gripping "docu-story" it actually is, and I am certainly not complaining! The book is totally un-put-downable and I am sure it is soundly based. I think Skelly wished to write a particular sort of book and has succeeded brilliantly.
Nevertheless, it remains impossible for the general, ignorant reader like myself to be certain of every claim he makes, ie where his own personal opinion or interpretation begins and where the actual opinions or statements of his "witnesses" end. If he had used a system of footnotes linking each comment he makes to the particular authority/interview/document/source he had used (all referred to generally in the acknowledgments, as you say), there would be fewer uncertainties; that's all.
(And of course, as in all history books, there can be no certainty that those people he spoke to were always telling the truth. Some may have misremembered or unintentionally misquoted other people, and others may simply have been lying, for whatever reason. But that's a risk which just has to be taken in any such account. You take the general overall picture as likely to be correct.)
I am doubting neither Skelly's sincerity nor the thoroughness of his research, and I certainly accept his conclusions. Broadly speaking, they were also accepted by the Court of Appeal which, thankfully, overturned the convictions as unsound.
By the way, have you a view on how Balmer came to leave in the files the original statement he took from Graham about Johnson's confession to him in prison? Balmer went on to lie in court about the date of the first time he had spoken to Graham and that original statement was never given to the defence. That seems to be accepted by everyone, including the Court of Appeal. That original statement, which would have cast such doubt on Graham's second statement about Kelly's and Connolly's so-called confessions to him, wasn't found until about 1991, I think? I believe it was when Santangelli gained access to the police files? Amazing that the detective left it there to be found at all! Thank God he did. Pure carelessness? Or did he have no choice because he'd already told his boss about it and couldn't easily remove it from the file after that? Might it indicate that at that stage, he hadn't yet hatched the stitch-up plot and then later, when the plot was under way, he simply forgot to remove the earlier incriminating statement which could have undone his plans? I suppose it might also depend on who had access to the files and who was therefore likely ever to read the statement? Probably a very thick file anyway. Or maybe it was someone else, not Balmer, who slipped the statement into the file.
I have a few pages left to read of Skelly's book. I am gobbling it up too quickly, forgetting a lot of details. I'll be reading it again straightaway!
Thanks again for the reply. Intrigued to hear you are mentioned.....I've just read those acknowledgments again!
.
Hi Underworld!
I've started the Skelly book for the second time now and am going to note down all the discrepancies with Shortall's book. I notice Vincent Burke wrote the introduction to Shortall's. Apart from any factual inaccuracies, Shortall's book doesn't seem to have been proofread; it's full of typos and obvious mistakes.
Balmer did lie in court, quite happily, and that makes me even more surprised he didn't remove that first statement by Graham saying that Johnson had confessed to him that HE had done the deed. Johnson had already been found "not guilty" of being an accessory after the fact and Balmer's boss, Smith, wasn't impressed by Johnson's later supposed "confession" to Graham, which Graham spoke about in his first statement to Balmer. Smith said they couldn't use that statement for anything useful. I would have expected Balmer to make sure it disappeared as soon as he had the later statement from Graham saying, this time, that Kelly and Connolly had "confessed" to him in prison.
(The very thought that Kelly and Connolly, while constantly protesting their innocence, would tell a complete stranger in prison that they HAD done the murder, is ludicrous to my mind.)
Rose Heilbron seems to have been good in many ways but I can't work out why on earth they didn't ask for forensic tests on the overcoat, so handily produced late on, nor even ask Kelly to try it on in court. Skelly's of the view that it clearly wouldn't have fitted him because it was already tight on Northam who was smaller than Kelly. Far more should have been made of Thomella's evidence that Kelly had been in his pub, NOT the White Star, the day after the murder.
The police may have lied and stitched them up and held back crucial evidence (such as Graham's earlier statement about Johnson), but the defence could possibly have done a better job even with what they had.
Charles Connolly told me he did not want to know about Shortall, he did not trust him, and thought he was just going to use him to make a bit of money.
He trusted George Skelly and told him everything he knew about the case.
Charles collapsed and died in ASDA Supremarket, Norris Green whilst shopping on Thursday 18th of April 1997. Over 400 people attended his funeral including many show biz celebs and from the boxing world. He was very well thought of.
Charles had me searching all over Preston and at his last known address for Graham, but I couldnt find him, he wanted to find Graham to confess that he had lied. A lot of people there were very suspicious of me and my questions, I walked into a pub he had frequented, the White Horse, and the pub emptied when I asked the landlord a few questions about Graham. I was not welcome.
I searched around Trafford, Manchester for Jackie Dickson, again I could not find her, she may have died early as she was consumptive.
Last edited by captain kong; 09-05-2009 at 02:52 PM.
.....Is right. Heilbron didnt even call Jimmy Skelly to give evidence at the 2nd trial. I think Rose Heilbron had too much on her plate having given birth to a daughter in the same year that the Cameo killings occurred. Perhaps she was too much pre-occupied trying to balance motherhood with a career to do a proper job. I dont want that to sound demeaning to mothers and the fantastic job that they do, but in my opinion, its one or the other especially when so young.
Thanks for that additional info, Captain Kong. I didn't know about Connolly's view of Shortall.
Well, I don't know about Heilbron. I'm sure she could just about afford any nanny help she needed!
I must defend women here! (No offence! Just my hobby horse.) Heilbron is generally considered one of the best. Indeed, George Kelly, after objecting to having a "judy" defend him, later was incredibly impressed by her, according to George Skelly. PLUS, any errors she made were NOTHING in comparison to those of the appalling MALE judges in the case, who misled the jury, gave prejudicial summings-up, dismissed the first jury after four hours, refused to give Heilbron the additional time she needed to prepare for the second trial, didn't seem to understand some of the basic facts of the case....... AND were chauvinistic towards Heilbron herself, if George Skelly is right. I can believe him on this because males, especially elderly ones, in those days, were often chauvinistic. Judges were notoriously so.
Sorry about that!
Heilbron went on, in my opinion, to make a brilliant judge, a whole lot better than many of the men!
In any case, she was being briefed by Harry Livermore, the solicitor. What was he doing? Heilbron didn't seem to want Jimmy Skelly as witness at the second trial, though, even though he was present in the court (or just waiting outside the dock, according to George Skelly's account), because he had been drunk on the night, on his own admission.
I have to agree that she should have exploited things like the overcoat factor etc. etc, but whether that was because she was thinking about the baby at the time or because she'd been badly briefed, is another matter!!
I'm a bit mixed up between the two books now, having just read them one straight after the other, but isn't the implication also that, although she suspected the police of duplicity, she didn't want to dwell on that too much because it would put the jury more against Kelly? She had to tread warily.
Was Doris O'Malley not called because she'd been with Balmer on the night in question? I couldn't understand why she wasn't called unless that was the reason. Shortall says Balmer went to the house to see her and Skelly actually has them drinking together somewhere, if I remember rightly.
Thanks to everyone who's replying, by the way.
Tess,
Heilbron's conduct was dubious to say the least.It was proved in the first trial and stated by Gorman that Skelly was no drunk when kelly left him at 8.30. By not calling Skelly, she stripped Kelly of his only alibi witness, as Gorman pointed out to ****ing effect. I also heard, from a very good source, that she spoke to Catteral's wife after the case, and told her if it was any consolation, that she believed Kelly was guilty! Was that why she was so "negligent".
Shortall's book is not only full of typing errors but also misinformation. e.g.
he first has the conspirators in the Beehive then emerging to do the deed from the Boundary pub miles away. he also has Heilbron transforming into Livermore when pleading at the Assizes. Yet solicitors were not allowed to plead cases in the High Court! Also, his corny character of a barmaid - "Blackie" is totally discredited as a liar and "romancer" in one of George Skelly's end-of-chapter notes. A bad writer always shows his research. Do we really need to know that the opera La Boheme was playing at the Empire at the time of the trial?! Or potted histories of Cassels and Goddard?
It's obvious Shortall doesnt know his subject but has regurgitated other peoples stuff. finally, in Skelly's book there are plenty of sources and files cited at the end of each chapter. . He just happens to do it in a less pompous and more readable manner than Shortall - who even now accuses Connolly of being implicated! As for the myth in Shortall's book that Johnson could not be tried again. Of course he could. He was acquitted of being an accesory but still could later have been charged with Murder. That was the purpose of balmer and Grahams phoney statement. Ironically, this first statement conjured up by Balmer was to prove to be the tool which finally exonerated K&C!! After 50 years Balmer had been hoist by his own petard!
Johnson was never the killer. He was a Walter Mitty character, whose description was totally different from that of the cinema witnesses. So much for Shortall's research. As Skelly said in his book, the only details which Graham gave in both his statements concerned only details that were already known to the POLICE!
Hi Harryboy,
Thanks for the reply. I must read Skelly's book again (have started) to be able to make any useful response!
I certainly didn't know that Heilbron thought Kelly was guilty. At least she seems to have tried every was possible (according to both Skelly and Shortall) to persuade the second judge to give her more time to prepare the defence in the "new" case of Kelly being tried alone. She also pointed out, correctly, the irregularity of splitting them for the second trial and later presented (at the appeal), a very learned case, with all the citations, for the juryman who had been convicted of a felony being ineligible to sit on a jury. This would have rendered the trial null and void. The judges overruled her arrogantly, with obscure references and semantics, every time. According to Skelly, Kelly was immensely impressed by her when she visited him in prison to discuss the case.
She can't have done too badly at the first trial (given the lies and conspiracy and the fact that she didn't have all the evidence) to have achieved an 11 to 1 jury AGAINST a guilty verdict. That's if Skelly's reference to the note made by Judge Cassels is correct. (I also realise that the jury asked if they had to bring in the same verdict for both men and maybe that means they were more sure of Connolly's innocence than Kelly's.) But still, if the prejudiced judge hadn't dismissed the jury after four hours, they may well have convinced the one dissident jury member. That's Skelly's view anyway.
But why wasn't Doris O'Malley called? Is Skelly correct that she was out with Balmer that night? (How could he know that?) Why wasn't Mrs Hilda Kelly, the neighbour, called? She said George Kelly called to her home at a time which would have made it impossible for him to be at the Cameo at the relevant time. Why wasn't Thomella's evidence made much more of when he insisted Kelly was in HIS pub the following day and not in the White Star as the conspirators said? Thomella was an ex-policeman, hardly likely to give evidence in favour of Kelly unless it was true. His evidence alone showed the conspirators to be lying. Not sure if Heilbron included this fact in her summing up.
To be honest, it's so upsetting reading all this. I certainly agree that a better defence job should have been done but I'm not yet absolutely sure why. Skelly asks a lot of questions in his book but what are the answers? However, lawyers, on the whole, did believe the police at that time, but also, they knew that the general public also tended to trust the police. This meant they had to be careful not to alienate the jury completely by being overtly anti-police.
I don't suppose Heilbron or Livermore ever wrote about it afterwards (???) but Livermore's widow did speak to Shortall and gave him access to his files on the case. I think if he (Livermore) had thought Kelly guilty, it might have filtered through, but that's certainly not the picture Shortall gives. I suspect Heilbron will have thought the same as Livermore on that subject.
I know I'm just rambling! Sorry. remember, I've only known anything at all about this case for about three weeks! Most of you know all about it and have even spoken to people connected with the case.
I really appreciate your insights. Something has just grabbed me about this case. I detest injustice.
Tess,
do you feel more enlightened after reading Skelly's book again?
Shortall seems to tell a completely different story, doesn't he?
There was no good reason for Heilbron not to have called Jimmy Skelly at the second trial. In my view that's what hung Kelly.
I also think the reason Doris O'Malley wasn't called was, according to Skelly's book, she had telephoned Balmer in March telling him that Kelly done the murder. Maybe if she was in the witness box, Gorman may have reminded her of this - thus her evidence on Kelly's behalf would have been discredited. What do you think? By the way, what happened to this so-called movie of the case. Canadian Lad seemed know a bit about it. Does he know anymore?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks