GUILTY UK - Kempsey, found in a septic tank, Jul'19, missing in 1982 - Brenda Venables *husband arrested*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
3​
T20217099​
david venables​
Details:Trial (Part Heard) - DAVID VENABLES; Defence Closing Speech - 10:41



No reporting that I can find.

Dunno, but with what we have heard until now, if I were a member of the jury, I would have trouble rendering a guilty verdict. What evidence did they present that isn't circumstantial or about him being a nasty person? Can you convict a person on the basis of 'who else could have done it?' and WHAT exactly? There were no reports about the autopsy published in the press.

I really wish there was more reporting, hopefully someone will wrap it up in a longread soon.
My reading of it is that collectively the evidence proves guilt.

The lack of concern and not discussing his missing wife in the days following....mmmm.

The farm hand was away at the time and who else knew where the septic tank was?

Who falls or climbs into a septic tank of their own volition and pulls (not puts) the lid back on?

Means .... yep
Motive .... yep
Opportunity ... yep

Any other reasonable explanation? Nope

Holiday at HM's pleasure beckoning.
 
Septic tank murder allegation based on guesswork, farmer’s defence team says

The prosecution case against a retired farmer accused of murdering his wife in 1982 is based on guesswork and speculation, his QC has told a jury.


Lawyers acting for David Venables, 89, told Worcester Crown Court it would have been an “act of madness” for him to have hidden his wife’s body in a septic tank close to their marital home.



Prosecutors claim the pensioner murdered his wife Brenda and dumped her body in the tank at Quaking House Farm in Kempsey, Worcestershire, where it was discovered in 2019.

Venables, who has previously claimed Gloucester serial killer Fred West may have been responsible for his wife’s death, has told the trial he searched in vain for her after waking up to find her missing on May 4 1982.


He reported his wife’s disappearance later the same day, and claims police did search the tank during their initial inquiries.


In his closing speech to jurors on Friday, defence barrister Timothy Hannam QC questioned why Venables, now of Elgar Drive, Kempsey, would have sold the farmhouse if he knew his wife’s body was inside the tank.


The lawyer, who suggested that Mrs Venables’ death may have been suicide, told the court: “It would have been an act of madness for him to put Brenda Venables’ body in his septic tank. It was way too close to home.”


Venables had got someone else to empty the tank on at least one occasion, asked a contractor to add an extra chamber to it, and then sold the property in 2014, Mr Hannam said.


The QC asserted: “Everything he has done since is inconsistent with him putting Brenda in the septic tank.



“Who in their right mind would ask someone to empty a septic tank knowing that their wife’s body was in it? Who on earth would do that?”


Urging the jury to return the “only fair verdict” of not guilty, Mr Hannam said: “There was no direct evidence whatsoever of how Brenda Venables came to die or about how her body came to enter the septic tank.

“The Crown’s case is circumstantial. We say it’s based on a series of assumptions mixed with guesswork and speculation.”

Mr Hannam said a friend of Mrs Venables’ instinct at the time of her disappearance was that the 48-year-old might have drowned herself in a water butt.


The QC told the jury: “It’s far from incredible that she may have chosen to kill herself in the septic tank and it has to be incredible for you to dismiss that as a possibility.


“It (the tank) was very close to the house.”

A worker or a passer-by may have replaced the lid of the tank, Mr Hannam suggested, due to it posing a danger while open.

“There was no suicide note, but so what,” Mr Hannam added. “In Brenda’s mind there was an uncaring husband and no children to apologise to.

“Suicide, we say, cannot fairly be dismissed out of hand.”


Mr Hannam said of the tank: “The Crown’s case is that no one else could possibly have known about it.

“There were lots of footpaths in the vicinity of the farmhouse and the septic tank. It’s not secluded at all.


“The village policeman, the first on the scene, he remembered seeing a concrete pad or slab. It was not invisible.



“It was a major error by the Crown to claim that it was when opening the case to you.”


Mr Hannam added: “The evidence does not support the case. It’s true that there were was no sign of a break-in but it’s also true that there was no sign of a disturbance at all.”


The defence QC invited the jury to conclude that Mrs Venables had left the house clothed rather than in her nightie, because her clothes were found with her skeleton inside the tank.


Mr Hannam added: “Had she been woken by a noise? Had she agreed to meet anyone? Had she just got up in her depressed morning state and gone for a wander?


“We know she was profoundly mentally unwell at the time. It is not beyond the realms of reason that she simply walked out of the house that morning and either killed herself or met with or encountered someone who wished her harm.



“How after 40 years do you rule that out as an impossibility?”

During his closing remarks, Mr Hannam also asked the jury to consider the “comprehensive” police search in 1982, which involved a helicopter fitted with thermal imaging equipment.


Venables denies murder. The trial continues.


BBM
 
I am reminded of Plato's Cave, where people sat and saw shadows on the wall, from which they tried to figure out what the world outside was like.


1*Gmhf5Lmu8d2MihvkrVQ6Lw.jpeg


So the jury is out, the members are deliberating and we can only guess what it is about. No instructions given by the judge were reported, and entire days of the trial are missing from the press.
If David Venables did murder his wife, IMHO it was not because she stood between him and an affair. In fact, he had many, and she knew about it, but that did not stop him. As things stood, she might as well have murdered him. But that did not happen.

I wonder what came of the aerial photographs that they were looking for.
UK - Kempsey, found in a septic tank, Jul'19, missing in 1982 - Brenda Venables *husband arrested*
 
I would have had little doubt about this one. I wonder if there's just one or two jurors holding out.
I call that the Judge may decide to accept a majority verdict after lunch tomorrow.

Is it beyond all reasonable doubt though?

Is there a 'reasonable' possibility that BV left home of her own volition and died at her own hand or that of another who had intent, other than DV, and ended up in the cesspit?

I know which way I'd go and the reasons why!
 
Jury retires in case of farmer accused of killing wife found dead in septic tank


THE jury has retired in the trial of David Venables, the retired pig farmer accused of murdering his wife and hiding the body in a septic tank.


The 89-year-old, of Elgar Drive, Kempsey, denies a single count that he murdered his wife “on a day between May 2 and May 5, 1982”.


The jury of five men and seven women have retired after hearing five weeks of evidence.

During the trial the crown alleged Venables killed Brenda, who went missing in 1982, to continue a long-standing affair with Lorraine Styles.


Venables was arrested on July 30, 2019, 18 days after Brenda’s remains were found in a septic tank at Quaking House Farm in Kempsey, where the couple had lived in 1982.


Prosecutor Michael Burrows QC had told the jury that Venables lied about the affair and sought to downplay its significance to police, adding Venables his seen his wife as an “obstacle” as he thought she would never divorce him.

He had told them Venables “got away with murder” for nearly 40 years, and also said Venables had blamed notorious serial killer Fred West in police interviews.


But giving evidence from the witness box Venables told the jury he had loved his “very good-looking” wife who he had married in June 1960.

He told the jury it had been a complete mystery where she had gone when she went missing adding: “I was very concerned about it, and very worried but I’m not a person to show emotion.”


Timothy Hannam QC, defending Venables, said it would have been an “act of madness” for him to have put Brenda Venables’ body in the underground chamber adding: “It was way too close to home”.

In his closing remarks he said: “The Crown’s case is circumstantial.


“We say it’s based on a series of assumptions mixed with guesswork and speculation.”


He added Brenda could have committed suicide, and left no note.


Their deliberations have already passed more than seven hours.



The trial continues.


BBM
 
Into a third day of deliberations tomorrow then (Friday). Judging by the short timings between resumption and adjournment, it would appear that the Judge would not have had time to instruct on a majority verdict option.

3​
T20217099​
David Venables​
Details:Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 13:00 - 10:33
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 13:00
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:00 - 13:04
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 13:00
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:00 - 13:04
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 14:01
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 16:00 - 14:03
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:06


I hope it's just one or two that are sticking and Judge will be able to call in a majority tomorrow, rather than a completely split Jury
 
I hope it's just one or two that are sticking and Judge will be able to call in a majority tomorrow, rather than a completely split Jury
Informative article about length of time a jury takes to reach a verdict.

At the time of writing (2019) the record at the Old Bailey (once on my beat) is eighteen days o_O

 
Having found myself in a search engine rabbit hole on jury trials, I thought I'd share a little known fact that I have never really considered:

Perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict despite a defendant having clearly broken the law.

Apparently a majority of jurors will suffice and the round is on the hoodlum at the local hostelry.

Of course this happened recently with the Edward Colson statue trial in Bristol....not sure about the liquid refreshment though!

This rare phenomenon and its implications for the law have been referred to the Court of Appeal, who will deliver their final decision at a later date.

 
Perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict despite a defendant having clearly broken the law.

I'd cite this one as an example. This man could be out on parole within a couple of years.
He did plead guilty to manslaughter but the fact that he dug the grave days before he killed her .....

 
I'd cite this one as an example. This man could be out on parole within a couple of years.
He did plead guilty to manslaughter but the fact that he dug the grave days before he killed her .....


It would be a case of what is termed 'Perverse Jusctice' if the jury had acquitted RB of all charges, not a NOT GUILTY verdict to all charges....an acquittal which is an affirmation that there was no case to answer. A jury can do this with just a majority agreeing....it very rarely happens but is a little concerning.

RB was charged with murder. There was not an alternative charge of manslaughter offered by the CPS. What RB did do was to invoke one of the statutory defences to murder, and plead 'Not Guily' by reason of diminished responsibility. The Judge will then offer to the Jury an alternative verdict of manslaughter when he/she directs them. The Jury then decide on the diminished responsibility or not and if he is guilty of the killing and return the verdict accordingly.

This case is disturbing for so many reasons. The premise in law is that we are all sane. The defence called a psychologist to say that RB had an Adjustment Disorder at the time of the killing. The prosecution called a psychiatrist who said RB didn't have an Adjustment Disorder. It's somewhat more complex and nuanced than that though!

The jury don't have to accept what they are told regarding the defendants mental state.

It is up to the defence to prove that the defendant had diminished responsibility at the time of the killing. The prosecution are expected to prove everything else.

Interestingly though the burden of proof for the defence to show diminished responsibility is 'in the balance of probabilities', whereas the defence have to prove the case for The Crown 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

So RB received a determinate sentence of twenty-six years....out in thirteen less time on remand. Therefore a blinding defence probably saved him about seven years inside, less remand, taking the sentencing guidelines for murder into account and then he'd have been on a life licence too once given parole....minor breach and back in the slammer!

It's difficult to say why the jury didn't accept RB was of sound mind, without being there to hear all the evidence and see everyone play their parts in Court and even then we'd have no idea how the jury deliberations played out.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
1,737
Total visitors
1,812

Forum statistics

Threads
600,139
Messages
18,104,560
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top