The Jury Room S01E04
Category
🦄
CreativityTranscript
00:00In the series you're about to see, we review real murder cases in which the convicted killer
00:11refuses to accept the guilty verdict. Days, weeks, even months of courtroom deliberations
00:17may have been held, but generally cases whittle down into a handful of key disputed points
00:23of evidence. Our specifically selected jury will review the original trial evidence alongside
00:30revelatory new evidence or analysis. Will you and the jury find the convicted killer
00:35guilty or perhaps not guilty?
00:43I'm Will Hanrahan, welcome to the Jury Room. Today we are hearing the case of Jack Wolmes.
00:48Here's how it all began.
00:56Patrick Tate, Anthony Tucker and Craig Rolfe are three members of a drugs gang. At point-blank
01:03range, they're murdered. Police have to deal with the Essex underworld to build their case.
01:09One so-called supergrass reveals who the killers were, Jack Wolmes and Mick Steele. Both men
01:16protest their innocence. One, Jack Wolmes, has rejected the chance of early release rather
01:20than admit his guilt. The Jury Room will debate the case of Jack Wolmes, a ruthless
01:26killer or an innocent suffering a miscarriage of justice.
01:43Jack Wolmes rejected his dying father's appeal to own up to murder. If he had obeyed his
01:48dad, he might have been allowed out early from a life sentence. Wolmes said no, he was
01:54an innocent man. Wolmes has rejected the same appeal from his mother. In the Jury Room,
01:5912 specifically selected citizens will be asked to revisit his case and consider evidence
02:04not heard by the original jury before reaching their own verdict. Will Jack Wolmes be found
02:11guilty or not guilty? First, the prosecution case. You'll hear from a former senior investigator
02:17at the Metropolitan Police, Colin Sutton.
02:27It was a crime which revealed the brutal British underworld. Three men shot dead on an isolated
02:32Essex road. Tony Tucker, who controlled the ecstasy trade in local nightclubs. He had
02:38supplied the drug to a schoolgirl and daughter of a police officer, Leah Betts. She died
02:43as a result. Craig Rolfe was a cocaine addict who, days before his death, was suspected
02:48of murdering a rival drug dealer. Patrick Tate, an 18 stone bodybuilder, had traces
02:53of cocaine, heroin and steroids in his system at post-mortem. The night before his death,
02:58he had smashed the takeaway manager's head against a glass counter in a row over pizza.
03:06They're shot, all of them shot, in an execution style. I'm not putting it too strongly. They're
03:14sitting in a car. The suggestion is, from the circumstances, they may not have realised
03:20what was happening to them. They were just shot out of the blue. It seemed an obvious
03:27underworld hit to police who narrowed down suspects to others known to the victims. Leading
03:33the police to Wombs and Steel were various bits of information they got from various
03:40sources, some of them reliable, some of them not so reliable, some of them covert. But
03:46essentially once they start investigating those men, there is a mobile phone ping, whatever
03:52you want to call it, a hit, on a mast nearby, which suggests that Wombs and Steel are in
03:59the area. Key to the case against Wombs and Steel, an infamous super grass and member
04:05of the same drugs gang, Darren Nicholls. Witness Nicholls, who says that on the day in question,
04:14he effectively drove them there, drove them there to the scene of the murder, not knowing
04:20at all that they were going to, or intending to commit murder, that they were going to
04:27have a business meeting, in effect, with the others involved in their drug importation
04:32scheme. And it was only when they came back in the car and he noticed that one of them
04:39had speckles of blood or some red substance on his gloves, and that there was some conversation
04:46about a gun falling apart when it was fired, it was only at that point that he realised
04:51that what had gone on. With the super grass and corroborating mobile phone evidence, detectives
04:59believe they have a case which will convince a jury. The motive for the killing was clear.
05:05Essentially, you've got a drug importation of cannabis which wasn't of the required quality,
05:14and so the transaction was kind of reversed, but some of it was of decent quality and that
05:20was meant to be given back, and it wasn't and was never paid for, and there was a kind
05:23of an outstanding debt of tens of thousands of pounds of cannabis. That's what it's about,
05:32that gives you the motive, it's suggested, and the murders were a means of enforcing
05:39that, and the man who came forward, Nicholls, said, well, you know, I was there, I know
05:45they were there, this is what I saw, this is what they must have done, and from that
05:50appears a reasonably straightforward case. Hanging a case so much on the word of a fellow
05:56hardened criminal, however, presents prosecutors with a problem. Juries often don't like so-called
06:02cut-throat cases when criminals turn on each other. I think it's worrying, yes, I think
06:08you've, you know, it's not a situation you'd want to be in. It doesn't of itself mean that
06:15the information, the evidence that he gave was not true, but you would want to try and
06:19find something to support that evidence. Now, the mobile phone ping supports that evidence.
06:27I think there is enough evidence to convict safely from Nicholls' evidence, because if
06:35Nicholls' evidence is true, then they're murderers and they're guilty.
06:43In this episode of the Jury Room, we're considering the case of Jack Wolmes alone. It's common
06:47ground that if Jack Wolmes is innocent, so is Mick Steele. Our jury has chosen Ben as
06:54the foreperson, and Trevor, why was Ben selected? Well, we're not really sure, to be honest.
07:01Everyone else has had a go, wanted to, and he said he wanted to do it, and he's been
07:04banging on about it all week. Well, if he's got a reason as any, one volunteer's worth
07:10of a thousand pressed men or women. OK, let's discuss the prosecution case, shall we? What
07:15have we heard? What evidence did that first jury hear? The evidence we have against Jack
07:23Wolmes is a witness statement from Darren Nicholls. It was known he was a criminal himself.
07:30He said he drove the men to the place where the crime took place. He said he didn't know
07:36what he was planning on doing as he drove them there. He, when they came back to the
07:41vehicle, he said it was covered in blood. There was also a mobile phone mask that was
07:47near the vicinity, which had a ping from Jack Wolmes' mobile phone, which they say puts
07:56him at the crime scene at that time. I just sometimes wonder whether or not if I was an
08:00investigator officer, would that be enough for me? We heard Colin Sutton in that report
08:05there. He was saying that it's not perfect, he'd like more. We've got the mobile phone
08:09evidence, but we've also got the confession evidence. Well, it proves the mobile phone
08:14was there, in that area, probably with Wolmes, who's also admitted he was in the area. But
08:20other than that, it's a bit sketchy, really. Why would Darren Nicholls, the man who turned
08:26in Queen's evidence, which is the proper way of describing a supercaste, really, why
08:29would he say something that was not true? Will it reduce his sentence of any sort? He's
08:35wanting on different charges, and he's been offered a deal to give this evidence. Or rivalry,
08:40or a feud of some sort. There's many reasons. He wouldn't be picking him up, though, would
08:45he, if there was a feud? Or he might not have picked him up, he might be lying about the
08:49whole thing. He's just been nobbled to be the driver for the two known criminals, Wolmes
08:56and Steele, for a driving job. So he's at the lower end of the gangster family, if you like.
09:03He believed he was technically into it. He's a driver, he's at his forte, he's driving,
09:09rather than he's wanting to start to move up the ladder. I don't think that would have
09:13been the case. There was something else. You'll have heard me mention Leah Betts, a school
09:20girl who had been sold an ecstasy tablet. She later died from ingesting that tablet,
09:26and she was the daughter of an Essex policeman. And one of those victims that we've heard
09:31about was an ecstasy supplier to nightclubs. Do you think that might have affected the
09:38emphasis of the Essex police search, Belle? The Leah Betts story was absolutely huge,
09:43because every parent's nightmare, a girl goes out, she's not a habitual drug user, she takes
09:47one tablet of E and she dies. And it was all over the tabloids. So a huge motivation
09:57to catch the guy who supplied the drug. And since she was the daughter of a policeman,
10:04to me, that would make every copper in Essex want to find the guy who supplied the drugs.
10:11I just think that's human nature, don't you?
10:15In saying that, I wouldn't draw an adverse inference on that being the case.
10:20No, I think it might be all to the good, you know. It's good on them.
10:24It's not an all-out policy just to nab somebody. If somebody is dealing drugs and it's killed
10:31a policeman's daughter, you want to find the person who has.
10:35It's hard to summon up much human compassion for those three guys. I can't.
10:39I don't think we're talking angels here.
10:42A simple case presented by the police and prosecution. A reminder of how a jury works.
10:47If a jury believes someone is guilty by a majority of 10-2, then a guilty plea can be offered.
10:52Join us after the break when we hear the case for the defence of Jack Wolmes.
11:10Welcome back to the jury room. We have heard the police and prosecution case against Jack Wolmes.
11:15Now, in the company of Barrister Matt Stanbury, we'll hear the case for the defence.
11:25The kernel of the case for the prosecution was the Nicholls evidence, the so-called supergrass.
11:30Without his testimony, a conviction would seem to be impossible.
11:34Nicholls simply couldn't be trusted.
11:38The significance of Nicholls, of course, was that he had every interest, the defence would say,
11:43in saying that he wasn't involved. Of course he would say that he thought
11:47that something else was going to go down. Of course he would say, I wasn't involved.
11:51Because if he was involved, then he too would be guilty of murder under the joint enterprise principle.
11:56So he had every motive, the defence would say, to lie, to worm his way out of it, to give a false account.
12:04And then there was the mobile phone evidence.
12:07The cell site analysis was relatively new at the time.
12:11It's a means by which the police can locate which area you've been in by the use of your mobile phone.
12:19So an expert conducting an analysis can tell which area you were in
12:24by virtue of the mast that your phone was connecting to at the time, the cell site.
12:31The defence case was that the Wombs mobile phone signal was indeed picked up
12:36because he was in the vicinity at the Wheat Sheaf pub
12:39as part of an arrangement with Nicholls related to a car deal.
12:43The signal was picked up by a mast, however, nearer to the pub
12:47and not the second mast, which was nearer to the criminal site.
12:51At the original trial, the defence team also pointed out that there was no forensic evidence
12:56linking Wombs or Steele to the murders and no witnesses.
13:00There was a complete dearth of physical evidence in this case.
13:04Now, of course, forensic science has improved drastically
13:08over the last 20 or so years since these offences took place,
13:12but it was still the 90s, it wasn't the Dark Ages,
13:15and they had capabilities for footprint evidence.
13:18I understand that it was snowy, it was muddy,
13:21and one would have expected that sort of evidence potentially to be available.
13:26This lack of physical evidence placed even more reliance on the Nicholls testimony.
13:31In a case like this where there's no physical evidence,
13:34there's no DNA, there's no fingerprints, there's no footprints,
13:37there's nothing to put Mr Wombs at the scene,
13:40the credibility, the reliability of the witness here, Mr Nicholls, is absolutely critical.
13:46The judge directed the jury that if they believed Mr Nicholls,
13:50if they were sure that he was telling the truth,
13:52then Mr Wombs was guilty.
13:54If they weren't sure that he was telling the truth, then he was not.
13:57So this is one of those cases where it is one person's word against another.
14:02Nicholls' testimony proved the centrepiece of the trial.
14:05He was in the witness box for over three weeks,
14:08and it is so-called common ground that there could have been no conviction for the murders
14:12unless the jury was sure of the Nicholls supergrass evidence.
14:17So that's the case for the defence.
14:20First of all, a word about the characters that are involved in this incident.
14:25We don't warm to them, do we?
14:28No.
14:30This world, is it something that most of us can actually fail to relate to,
14:34and does that make judging this case the more difficult?
14:37I suppose so. None of us are actually part of the mafia, hopefully.
14:42I think at the end of the day, a life is a life,
14:44and if you're put away wrongly, if convicted wrongly, it's only fair.
14:48We're not like those sort of people.
14:50We're not going to lower ourselves to their extent.
14:52We're going to be charitable if we believe that he hasn't done what he's been accused of,
14:57then obviously he doesn't deserve to be where he is.
15:00And he's got rid of some really nasty guys.
15:03So, yeah.
15:05It's interesting to see that he's not involved in it.
15:11I think it's interesting to see,
15:13because he rejected his mother and his father's pleas as they were dying, you know, also.
15:17Yeah, but as in, so he's accused these people of committing this crime,
15:23having no relation to it at all, just being the driver.
15:27So, for me, it raises some questions to...
15:30His validity.
15:32Yeah, like, is it valid enough? Is he trying to cover his own tracks?
15:36Did he have some type of involvement?
15:39Because you don't just...
15:41As in, you know the background of these two people.
15:43You don't just drive them around, like, not knowing what's going on.
15:46Like, as in, I reckon he may have known what was going on
15:50or may have been a part of it.
15:52May have been more involved. Yeah.
15:54I don't personally feel that...
15:56Darren Nix is not a trusted witness at all.
15:58No, not at all.
16:00I mean, Jack Williams said he was in the Wheatsheaf pub.
16:04And that's where the mask was.
16:06That depicts him closest to the pub,
16:08not closest to where the crime was committed,
16:10which is quite a big thing.
16:12Cos he wouldn't have known that beforehand.
16:14No.
16:15Also, the case against him is wholly dependent
16:18on a known criminal and a known class.
16:20So he's covering his own back, in a way.
16:22And also, police or juries, you know,
16:25only human beings try to decide a case.
16:27It could be seen as a means to an end to put away a criminal,
16:30whether he's done this crime or not.
16:32It could be a set-up, might as well.
16:34Yeah.
16:35A set-up by who?
16:37Well, maybe I live in a bit of a fantasy world, I don't know.
16:40As in revenge for Tony Tucker's death.
16:42But if you're a supergrass, Bryn,
16:44presumably you have quite a close relationship with the police?
16:47Or a police man?
16:48Well, you will.
16:49You'd have a...what they call a handler,
16:52for that sort of information.
16:54It'd be a covert handle.
16:56Somebody who...you'd have a different name.
17:00You wouldn't be known as Darren Nicholls.
17:02You'd have a code name.
17:04And he would be talking to him on quite a regular basis?
17:07Yes, yes.
17:08Yes, he would.
17:09But that doesn't mean he's a liar.
17:11I mean, just because you're a grass, as you called him, Ben,
17:14doesn't make you a liar, does it?
17:16No, but...
17:17He's a supergrass for a reason, isn't he?
17:19Yeah.
17:20He's committed crimes himself.
17:22And his penalty would be less...
17:26..if he gave information to the police.
17:29He wouldn't come forward to give information
17:32unless he helped himself?
17:33Yeah.
17:34So if he actually was involved in this as the driver,
17:38and he's saying to get himself out of it,
17:41I was the driver, however,
17:43I didn't know that that's what they were going to do.
17:46Let's call him something else.
17:48Calling him an informer rather than a supergrass.
17:51That's basically what a supergrass is.
17:53It's an informant.
17:56My suggestion is he's gone there,
17:59perhaps knowing under the joint enterprise
18:02he would be found guilty,
18:04and he's realised, hang on, I'm in for the deep end here.
18:09Let's cut the deal.
18:10He could have had the deal with the prosecution,
18:13Crown Prosecution Service and the police,
18:16for a lesser crime,
18:18which is perhaps what he was actually convicted of.
18:22I don't know what Nicholls was actually convicted of
18:25in part of this investigation.
18:28But the reliability of Nicholls
18:30is something that's actually striking you at the moment?
18:33Yes.
18:34I think that's the main thing.
18:35I get the feeling it's a hidden agenda,
18:37and the main witness...
18:38All I'm trying to think is why would he do it
18:40and what were his motives for doing it?
18:42Not necessarily did it actually happen,
18:44is he telling the truth?
18:45Something I think to consider is maybe that Nicholls was there,
18:48and there were different men at the time.
18:50And the way to dig himself out of the hole was to give evidence,
18:53but to give it against different people,
18:55maybe not necessarily the people that he's dealing with.
18:58To be an informer is a very risky thing.
19:01So I'm thinking, well, if somebody takes that risk,
19:04because maybe they're telling the truth.
19:06See, I'm leaning on the side of he may be more reliable
19:10because he's an informant,
19:12so to me that would mean maybe he's grasped...
19:17I don't think so.
19:18I think them type of people...
19:20Criminals, they do have a little code of ethics, they do.
19:23And like you say, like we spoke before,
19:25child killers, rapists, they all segregated together,
19:28and that's for a reason, because they're hated in Britain.
19:30They do have a slight code there,
19:32and I think a grass is the lowest of the low,
19:34complete lowest of the low.
19:35Do you think that personally,
19:36or do you think that the characters in this case think that...?
19:39You mean in that world you think they're the lowest of the low?
19:42Yeah, within that world, a grass is the lowest form you can be.
19:47You can't talk about what they do.
19:49I think the only way he would have came forward so willingly
19:52was to cover for himself.
19:54But what about in our world?
19:56An informer is not the lowest of the low.
19:58An informer is someone who's actually helping justice to be done.
20:01He would have been putting himself at risk.
20:03He was a part of their world.
20:04He definitely would have put himself at risk
20:06as an informer within that gang.
20:10See, we already know that he was involved in the drugs.
20:13I just don't feel like his story completely adds up.
20:16I just feel like there's a bit of inconsistency in his story, I feel.
20:22It's unless he was offered some type of protection.
20:25Maybe the actual murders.
20:26We don't know.
20:27There could be other guys.
20:28What were they saying?
20:29I want to believe him.
20:30I want to believe that this is what happened,
20:33so it's clear-cut,
20:35but something for me just can't put my finger on what it is
20:39that I'm trying to believe.
20:41I don't think that maybe he's been completely truthful
20:47around his involvement,
20:49but I'm airing to the side of believing him
20:52about these guys being the killers.
20:54He may have been involved,
20:55but he's thrown them under the bus to save himself
20:58by saying I were anything to do with it.
21:01But to give that kind of information up, that's a big deal.
21:05There's no forensic evidence.
21:06There's no footprints in the snow.
21:08There's nothing linking them to the crime.
21:10It was execution-style.
21:11Apart from...
21:12Well, they've even got the telephone masts.
21:14He's picked up the signal outside the wheat shift,
21:16which was not at the crime scene.
21:18And you wouldn't have known that beforehand
21:20unless he was actually there.
21:21So that's massive.
21:22But let's remember...
21:23I mean, he could have given the call to proceed.
21:25Let's remember these people were killed execution-style.
21:28They knew what they were doing, so they kind of covered it up.
21:31They wouldn't have known about the masts back then.
21:33They wouldn't have known that that would have picked up that exact place
21:36and he would have named that exact place.
21:38It was the closest. They wouldn't have had that information.
21:40Speculation on your part, but I think they might have known about it.
21:43I think it wouldn't have taken much for them to look for a pub,
21:46OK, at a buy right there, we'll cover each other or whatever.
21:51Look at the type of murder it was.
21:54You won't just do that willy-nilly and, you know, not be careful.
21:58What do you mean?
21:59Well, we've got more time to discuss the defence
22:01and indeed the prosecution points as the programme continues.
22:04For now, just a reminder that Jack Wombs was found guilty of murder in 1998
22:09after what was a marathon five-month trial
22:12and he was sentenced to life in prison.
22:14But join us in part three to hear why Wombs supporters
22:17believe the real killers are still at large.
22:20Will our jury agree? See you in a few minutes.
22:35Welcome back to the jury room.
22:37Convicted prisoners are not automatically granted an appeal.
22:41They must apply to a body called the Criminal Cases Review Commission
22:44and they must offer new evidence which has emerged since the trial.
22:47That's then considered by three judges
22:49who have the power to quash the conviction or order a retrial.
22:52In 2006, new evidence led to Wombs being granted an appeal.
23:04Unknown to the original jury,
23:06there was a deal between Darren Nicholls and a journalist
23:09to write a book to be released after the trial.
23:12The two men were to receive a £20,000 advance for the book split between them,
23:16so Nicholls had a financial interest in the outcome.
23:19Nicholls also had contact with a TV producer
23:22and a literary agent about the story.
23:25The evidence that was relied upon at the appeal
23:28was that Mr Nicholls had been selling his story to a book deal,
23:33a television deal, a magazine or newspaper deal,
23:37but it wasn't just the fact that he was selling his story in that way,
23:41it was the timing.
23:43Crucially, Nicholls' contacts with the media
23:45were facilitated by the police officers
23:47and the defence argued that Nicholls and the officers colluded
23:50to suppress that fact from the original jury.
23:53So the argument ran, an already unreliable witness
23:56was now being paid to give evidence against wombs and steel,
24:00and that could only happen with police assistance.
24:03You've allowed these people to come in,
24:05you must have known what was going on,
24:07you must have known that money,
24:09substantial sums of money, were changing hands,
24:12and that changes everything.
24:14The defence said that had the jury known about that,
24:17it would have given them pause at the very least
24:20before relying upon what Mr Nicholls said,
24:23because not only did he then have the motivation of saving his own skin
24:27or minimising his own involvement in these offences,
24:31but he also had the potential motivation of financial reward,
24:36very substantial financial reward.
24:39And what of the mobile phone evidence originally introduced?
24:43A new interpretation came to light.
24:46A mobile phone expert ran his own tests after the trial
24:51using Wombs's phone.
24:53He made over 60 calls in the same conditions as the night of the murders,
24:56and none were picked up by both transmitters in the vicinity.
24:59This is important because Wombs's phone signal
25:02was picked up by the mast nearest to the Wheatsheaf pub
25:05and not the one nearest to the murder scene.
25:08The phone evidence actually proves
25:10Wombs was not at the site of the killings.
25:13That's the expert's testimony.
25:16The trial judge, it was also claimed at the appeal,
25:19misdirected the jury so that they could draw negative inferences
25:22from Wombs's refusal to speak to police.
25:25Expert investigators, like Colin Sutton,
25:28have rejected the defence arguments.
25:36The main thrust of the new evidence related to the supercross.
25:39If the jury had known he was being paid by the media
25:42to say what he said,
25:44then the jury might have dismissed him as an unreliable witness.
25:47The appeal court did not agree.
25:49He can still want to get paid, and indeed get paid,
25:53and receive money for his story,
25:55while telling a true story, can't he?
25:58It doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true.
26:01He never changed his story.
26:03He never wavered from what he said went on from day one.
26:07And it's a story he's told,
26:09to journalists, to somebody he's writing a book with,
26:13to television, and, of course, crucially, to the court.
26:17And that story's been consistent all the way through.
26:21Just because he's a co-accused,
26:24just because he's willing to tell his story to the media,
26:27doesn't mean that his evidence is unreliable.
26:30And the jury had...
26:34..but they knew that he was a supergrass.
26:36They knew that he was a resident informant,
26:38to use the correct term.
26:40They knew that he was doing what he was doing
26:44in return for probably something more pressure-testing.
26:47They knew that he was doing what he was doing
26:50in return for something more pressure-testing.
26:52They knew that he was doing what he was doing
26:55in return for something more pressure-testing.
26:57They knew that he was doing what he was doing
27:00in return for something more pressure-testing.
27:02He was doing probably something more precious than money,
27:05and that was freedom at some point.
27:07He was going to get a reduced sentence.
27:09You know, can you put a price on a reduced sentence?
27:12Wormser's defence team say the mast which picked up the signal
27:16on the night of the murders proves he was not at the murder scene.
27:20There's a suggestion that if they had been at the scene of the murder,
27:24they would have struck on another phone mast,
27:27but, you know, that's not...
27:29That's not science anyway.
27:31It depends very much on atmospheric conditions, weather conditions
27:35and the amount of traffic on the network,
27:37whether or not your phone uses a particular mast.
27:44So, starting at that last point, these were analogue phone days,
27:48early 90s, the signal was never at the strongest,
27:51then it was... It could literally change with the wind.
27:54That's what the prosecution are saying
27:56to rebut that mobile telephone evidence.
27:58I don't know, I'm still confused.
28:00So, with the mast, Jack Wormser's defence was
28:03it wouldn't have pinged off that mast if he hadn't been at the wheat sheaf.
28:08So the expert went back to the wheat sheaf and made a series of calls
28:11and it pinged off the same mast that it initially pinged off.
28:14But because it was an analogue phone,
28:16it doesn't necessarily mean he was in that area,
28:19because weather conditions and the amount of calls...
28:23They made that call down to 60 different times.
28:27But in the night-time, are people using their phones more?
28:30What were the weather conditions like?
28:32There's lots of variable factors that they can't control on a test like that.
28:36If we were juries on that first case,
28:38would you hold much weight to the evidence given by Nicholls
28:42if you were told it was selling the story at the same time?
28:45And for £20,000, this story is very important to him,
28:48he's an experienced liar, known as a supergrass,
28:50he's not going to ever waver from this story.
28:52A supergrass isn't a liar.
28:54I don't get this thing about selling the times.
29:01I don't think that he...
29:03I don't understand the timing of this,
29:05because when this trial's going on,
29:08a newspaper will have bought him, as it were,
29:11they buy you.
29:14But nothing can happen.
29:16Nothing can happen until the trial's over.
29:18And as for the book, say a journalist,
29:20it's obviously a ghosted book,
29:22the story will be up there.
29:25That's all the more reason, to me, to believe him,
29:28because his story is going to be under that kind of scrutiny.
29:32Every newspaper has lawyers who crawl over everything,
29:35so it's going to be subject to scrutiny.
29:38So that, to me, does not...
29:40I don't hold that against him at all.
29:42How important does that story become
29:44when you're getting paid that amount of money for it?
29:46The whole process of writing a book is a very long period,
29:49so that wouldn't have happened at the time of the trial.
29:52The jury couldn't possibly have known
29:54that he was going to write a book.
29:56So I don't see... I don't...
29:58To me, it's not a big thing.
30:00Would it have been when you were on the original jury?
30:03So if in the original jury,
30:05because this was the defence position at appeal,
30:07if the original jury hadn't just known he was turning Queen's evidence,
30:10he was a supergrass, but he was also being paid for it,
30:13might you have reached a different conclusion?
30:16I'm just going to be slightly honest
30:18and say, yeah, I think it would have, for me,
30:21had a small impact on my decision.
30:24Not so much because of the whole... what he's actually doing.
30:29It just adds another element to the inconsistencies, for me.
30:34Motivations.
30:36See, I disagree, because, let's face it,
30:39we're not talking about people that...
30:42people's moral compass that is due north here.
30:47I've never heard of people closer to self than this one,
30:51so I'm not surprised he would have taken the deal at all,
30:54but it doesn't mean he wasn't telling the truth.
30:57What if there was another killer
30:59and none of these men were actually the killers of...?
31:02We've actually got rid of three... Really nasty men.
31:05..five nasty men who deserve to be in prison in one...
31:09..one incident. Isn't that convenient?
31:12Yeah, isn't that convenient?
31:14There's no forensic evidence, there's no footsteps,
31:17and we've suddenly wiped five...
31:20..you know, men that you wouldn't want to be walking along the streets.
31:23And were the police not helping him to sell his story?
31:26Am I right there?
31:28I don't believe in him.
31:30Maybe I read too many books, but...
31:33Val?
31:35With Tracy, she just said, I don't believe the conspiracy theory,
31:38and I don't, too.
31:40But it was mentioned on there that the police were helping him.
31:43They helped him sell his story? Yeah.
31:45And there's a young girl that's died that is a police officer.
31:50And we've got to remember, these men are not angels...
31:53No. ..that have been gotten rid of.
31:56So, which conspiracy theory, cos there's a few floating about,
31:59which conspiracy theory don't you believe, Val and Tracy?
32:02It's the police one, I mean...
32:04That they were somehow involved.
32:07Yeah, OK, they helped him get a deal, but...
32:11Again, I'm not putting much weight on that,
32:13because they still have a job to do,
32:15and is it really worth their livelihood, their job, their pension,
32:19to do all of this?
32:21And, yes, a policeman's daughter died, and it was tragic,
32:24but wasn't the guy who sold her the drugs
32:29one of the ones that were murdered?
32:31Yes. That's what I'm saying.
32:33So, why would it be such a...
32:36Why would it be such a...
32:38I can't... Sorry, I just can't get why there's so much onus on,
32:42OK, well, it's got to be a conspiracy to get the killer of that guy.
32:46Sorry, what you're saying there, Kim, that there is...
32:48There's another killer out there that was paid to do the job.
32:50That's what you think? That's exactly what I think.
32:52There's no evidence at all.
32:54I mean, you look at the weather, the time of day,
32:56there's no time, treadmarks...
32:58Well, I have to stop you there, because you're having
33:00private conversations, from what I can tell.
33:02But the evidence for both sides is clear,
33:06and that's the evidence that's been summed up
33:08for the original jury, the appeal court,
33:10and we've offered the new evidence too.
33:12In part four, the jury will reach its final verdict.
33:14Is Jack Wolmes justly imprisoned for life
33:17for the murder of three people, or is he an innocent man?
33:21We will see you after the break.
33:37Welcome back. It is time.
33:39Time for our jury to come to its conclusion, reach its verdict.
33:42Jury room, the verdict will be yours any moment now.
33:45Is Jack Wolmes guilty or not guilty?
33:47Before the debate, a summary of the case,
33:49first from the prosecution side, and then the defence.
33:57Three men were murdered, execution style,
33:59in an alleged feud between drug gang members.
34:02Convicted men, Jack Wolmes and Mick Steele,
34:04were in the vicinity of the murders,
34:06as can be seen from mobile telephone calls
34:08picked up by a nearby transmitter.
34:10Crucially, another member of the gang
34:12became a witness for the prosecution.
34:14He had seen the men return from the murders,
34:16having been called to pick them up,
34:18and he had seen the guns used.
34:20That was the prosecution case.
34:22For the defence, it was argued that the prosecution witness
34:25was unreliable, and that the mobile phone evidence
34:28was inconclusive.
34:30Both men protested their innocence,
34:32and in the case of Wolmes, did so despite knowing
34:34that a confession might lead to a shorter sentence
34:37than the chance to see his father before he died.
34:40On appeal and since, the defence has presented new revelations.
34:44The super-grass witness was well paid for his story
34:46by sections of the media,
34:48and no jury should accept his evidence
34:50as anything but self-serving.
34:55So we hand to the jury a reminder,
34:57at least ten people have to reach a guilty verdict
35:00for a guilty verdict to be returned.
35:02Ben is our foreperson. Over to you.
35:06Well, this is a confusing case.
35:09It's just... There's no...
35:11I think we've got to look at... It's pivotal.
35:13There's no physical evidence.
35:15The only witnesses there is Darren Nicholls himself.
35:18He sold his story.
35:21He said what he's seen.
35:23It's whether we believe he is a credible witness.
35:28As for the mobile phone ping,
35:32back in those days, that could go miles to miles.
35:35It can go any time. We don't know.
35:37But it did go closest to the Weekshift pub.
35:39It didn't go where he was.
35:41So that can't be a whole coincidence there.
35:44Also, I believe that, you know...
35:47I convert how controversial it may sound,
35:50that it's not beyond the realms of possibility
35:52for the actual police to have looked into themselves because of this.
35:55It's a whole too convenient for me
35:57that so many people go missing at the same time.
35:59I totally agree with that.
36:01It's too easy to get their help in selling stories.
36:04They'd give him credibility,
36:06which I don't think he should have been afforded.
36:08And I think it needs to be looked into a lot deeper.
36:10And he's gone underground now.
36:12So is he under police protection now?
36:14Where is he now?
36:16You know, he's probably got a nice, free place to live, you know.
36:19So he's not...
36:21I think, I honestly feel that way too much,
36:24sometimes a spade is just a spade.
36:26And people who are in this drug gang,
36:31we know that they met in prison, they're criminals.
36:35These people shot execution style.
36:38I don't understand why it's such a hard leap
36:41to think there won't be forensic evidence
36:43because they know what they're doing
36:45and the police are just trying to do their job
36:48and this Darren Nicholls is an informant
36:52and he's underground because people are going to be after him now.
36:55So that had to be part of the deal.
36:57And he's never changed his story.
36:59He's absolutely, unlike some people,
37:01you know, wavering in and out of the truth.
37:03He's always stuck to that story.
37:05It's only the word of Darren Nicholls that the prosecution stands with.
37:09But Darren Nicholls has had to give up...
37:12He's had to go into police...
37:14For someone that's small.
37:16Yeah, but he's in a drugs gang
37:18that probably makes a lot more than £10,000.
37:20So it's not like the book's that much incentive anyway.
37:23And then he's now had to probably not be able to talk to his relatives
37:26because generally if you're going underground, that's it.
37:29So to me, it's strange that either just for a bit of a shorter sentence
37:34or for £10,000, that's enough of a motive to lie about it.
37:37Just for your information, Darren Nicholls gave an interview
37:40which was disguised, his voice was disguised.
37:43An actor was used to play him, if you will.
37:45And he said the worst thing about everything is he's lost his life.
37:49He'd lost his life by turning Queen's evidence.
37:51Just for you to discuss.
37:53He's one of the good guys.
37:55How is he one of the good guys? He was part of the criminal...
37:58Yeah, but he's turned Queen's evidence, so that to me...
38:01People are allowed to...
38:03But there's still no physical evidence.
38:05They're allowed to change, they're allowed to be forgiven.
38:07There's no physical evidence.
38:09But why would you lie to risk...
38:11But why would you lie to risk having no contact with your family?
38:15Why would you make that decision now
38:17that I'm going to make this decision to lie about this crime
38:20and that I won't be able to speak to any of my family ever again?
38:24Other than himself, if he was actually implied in it as well,
38:27if he was actually part of it.
38:29But why would you lie?
38:31I think he may have probably lied about his involvement in it,
38:34but it doesn't mean he lied that Jack...
38:38Rose. Rose.
38:40..didn't kill his... You know, he probably killed the guys.
38:43He's just lied about his involvement in it all
38:45to save his skin, yes.
38:47They're all criminals, let's not forget,
38:49and they all know what they're doing.
38:51The issue with the police, the policeman's daughter,
38:55um...
38:57You know, poorly, you bet.
38:59That's just noise created by the coincidence
39:03that one of the guys who's been killed is dead.
39:06I just think the whole case is made up of it, just hearsay.
39:09Can I just say another thing on...
39:11This will be my last bit for now.
39:13Darren Nicholls, right, he wasn't a shooter.
39:16He's deemed not a shooter.
39:18He's deemed as the driver in this case.
39:21He wasn't a suspect.
39:23He wasn't a suspect of killing anybody,
39:25yet he comes forward to say,
39:27yes, I was the driver in a multiple murder.
39:31Why would he do that just to be self-servant?
39:34Why would somebody admit that I was a driver in that thing?
39:40Why not just... I wasn't even there.
39:43I wasn't there, but bear in mind, he's part of the underworld.
39:47But hang on, Bryn.
39:49There's quite a bit of pressure from the underworld.
39:52A telephone call was made by Jack Wolmes.
39:55OK, next point, to Darren Nicholls.
39:57Yeah.
39:58So Jack Wolmes called Darren Nicholls that night.
40:00Yes.
40:01So he's in the frame for something,
40:03a conversation's going to be had by a police investigator.
40:06Yes.
40:07But Wolmes has said that he met...
40:09He had Darren Nicholls driving to the wheat chief
40:13and met somebody regarding a deal over cars.
40:17Yeah.
40:18And that was part of the evidence.
40:20So they're all there at the scene,
40:23but why, you know, why say,
40:26oh, well, I was part of the murdering gang?
40:29But I think Colin Sutton made the point
40:32that Darren Nicholls was going to spend a lot less time in prison
40:35for any offences that he'd committed.
40:37Yep.
40:38If he'd turned Queen's evidence.
40:39If he'd turned Queen's evidence.
40:40Yeah.
40:41So that's why you'd turn Queen's evidence, isn't it?
40:43Yeah.
40:44That's incentive enough.
40:45Yeah, cos he didn't want to go down for joint enterprise.
40:47Is there still anybody on the fence?
40:48Yeah.
40:49OK.
40:50Big time.
40:51What's it going to take, Gertrude, to change...
40:54to pick a side?
40:56I don't know.
40:57I think there's just... cos there's so much to consider now.
41:02I'm trying to put beside the whole police conspiracy
41:06and just trying to consider it,
41:08but there are some inaccuracies in the informant's statement
41:13that I feel, but I don't know.
41:16It's difficult, isn't it?
41:18Yeah, it's going to take a little bit.
41:20And what about you, Kerry?
41:22In every single case, I'm always wanting to know stuff
41:26that they can't tell me.
41:28Do you imagine a jury as a trial?
41:30Has it any different?
41:31Probably not.
41:32No.
41:33I always want to know, though, what other people have been interviewed,
41:37what other things have...
41:38You want to be the policeman?
41:39Yeah.
41:40Yeah.
41:41But you're not, you're a juror.
41:42I want to know too many questions.
41:43You're a juror.
41:46I'm going to really struggle on this one.
41:48I really am 50-50.
41:50One minute I'm, yeah, one minute I'm...
41:53Well, there's a challenge.
41:55She's 50-50.
41:57And I was going to say which side of 50-50 you're on,
42:00but I kind of think that doesn't work.
42:03Bryn, have you come to your conclusion?
42:07And if so, can you explain why you have to, Kerry?
42:11I mean, I've been desperate this week to look at every case in...
42:19..out of my role as a cop, and I think I have done that,
42:22because I'm no longer a cop.
42:24I have nothing to gain from finding everybody guilty,
42:27but this particular case, yeah,
42:31there was quite a lot of rumour around at the time
42:34that the cops had killed them and set a load of people up.
42:38That's one of the conspiracy theories.
42:41I didn't buy that.
42:43You know, it's just not worth doing that.
42:46You know, yes, a policeman's daughter's died
42:49as a result of some drugs supplied by one of the people who'd been killed,
42:53but hundreds and hundreds of kids are killed every year by illegal drugs.
42:58And the cops don't go around and bundle them off.
43:02Hope that helps you, Kerry. Trevor, we haven't heard much from you.
43:05No. Obviously, Darren Nicholls has said this for a reason.
43:09My problem is, is it because it's his best option?
43:14Because he was involved with this, and this is his best option,
43:18and he's come forward to do that.
43:20I can't see, really.
43:22I don't think Darren Nicholls had a sudden pang of conscience and turned into...
43:26He is obviously looking after himself. I agree.
43:29Now, the conspiracy theory, I'm afraid that's a little bit too much TV for me.
43:34But I personally think this did happen
43:38only because I can't think of any other reason
43:41why Darren Nicholls would stitch himself up like this
43:44if it was for 20 grand and a life away from his family.
43:47So, for me, that's kind of where I'm going, but it is very difficult.
43:51Well, time is up. As difficult as it is to reach our verdict.
43:55So, Ben, stand by. You're a full person.
43:58You'll be collating the evidence for us.
44:01We're going to start over with Bryn, I think.
44:03Bryn, a former policeman, he's tried very, very hard
44:06during the jury room not to be a policeman.
44:09How do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
44:14Guilty.
44:16Gerpreet, next to you.
44:18How do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
44:30Guilty.
44:32Let's swap now to Carrie, who's battled throughout this one.
44:37She'd been 50-50 just a few minutes ago.
44:39I'm still 50-50.
44:41Well, that's not an option, or is it? We'll find out.
44:44Next, how do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
44:48Gosh.
44:52I really am flipping a coin.
44:57Gosh.
45:01Guilty, I suppose.
45:03Next to you, Tracey.
45:05How do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
45:10Guilty.
45:12Back to Nicole, who's had several theories.
45:15She's voiced in the jury room today.
45:17How do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
45:20Not guilty.
45:22Janet, next to you. Nicole, next to you, Janet.
45:25How do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
45:30Because I've got reasonable doubt, I've got to say not guilty.
45:34OK, let's go over to Trevor.
45:36Trevor, how do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
45:40Guilty.
45:41Next to you, Adrian. We didn't hear much from you, Adrian.
45:44It's time for your verdict.
45:46How do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
45:49Like yourself, I'm on the fence.
45:51It's really hard, but I'm going to go with guilty.
45:54And next to you, Jess.
45:56How do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
45:59Guilty.
46:01Let's come back now to Belle.
46:04Belle, how do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
46:08Guilty.
46:10Two jurors left, Kim and Ben.
46:12First, Kim.
46:14Kim, how do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
46:17I don't like to side with a criminal and say that he's innocent,
46:20but I believe in this case he is, so I'm going to say not guilty.
46:24And the final verdict will be from our four-person.
46:26Ben, how do you find Jack Worms? Guilty or not guilty?
46:29Not guilty.
46:31You've been collating as we've gone along.
46:33I haven't, so I don't know right now.
46:35I've lost count of what the verdict will be.
46:37Please stand and deliver your verdict.
46:40Do you find Jack Worms guilty or not guilty?
46:43Not guilty.
46:48Many thanks, ladies and gentlemen, of our jury.
46:51This has been a for-television trial based on the facts
46:54and the evidence established in the case against Jack Worms.
46:57The jurors are members of the public.
46:59They've made their own decisions.
47:01Jack Worms continues to protest his innocence
47:04after almost 20 years in jail.
47:06What's your verdict? See you next time in the jury room.
47:36Subtitling by SUBS Hamburg