GUILTY UK - Nicola Fellows, 10, Karen Hadaway, 9, Moulsecoomb, Brighton, 9 Oct 1986

[Alyce]

The ex-girlfriend of a man accused of killing two young girls has described seeing the father of one of the victims watching his daughter "having sex".

Marion Stevenson 16 years old in October 1986. , now 48, was called to give evidence for the defence

She told jurors she first got to know Bishop through the Fellows' lodger Dougie Judd,

She recalled one afternoon, a couple of months before the murder, she was there "smoking pot" and drinking with Mr Judd, his brother Tim and Bishop.

She said: "I was going to go to the kitchen to get a drink of water ."I first heard sexual noises so I turned round to see where the noises were coming from, which was the TV.

"Nicky (Nicola) was on Dougie's bed with him. Dougie got on top of her and was having sex. They were both undressed,"

Ms Stevenson said Mr Fellows and another man were watching the images on the television - she observed them unseen for two minutes.

Joel Bennathan QC asked if she had any doubt it was Nicola in the video.
Ms Stevenson replied: "No, definitely."

Ms Stevenson went on to tell the court how Bishop had failed to turn up to meet her on 9 October, the evening the girls went missing.

When they joined the search the next day, Bishop described last seeing the children out "conkering", and said he had felt guilty "because he wished he had told them to go home".

He allegedly told her: "I hope I don't find the bodies if they have been murdered."

Jurors were told that Bishop later told Ms Stevenson about finding the bodies "cuddling up together", and that they had been strangled.

Cross-examining, Brian Altman QC asked: "Had anybody mentioned before this happened the girls had been strangled?"

Ms Stevenson replied: "No."

The trial continues.

Victim's father 'watched sex tape of her'

 

[Kasmeer]

I was curious about the claims about videos of Nicola and looked up the history of home videos, wondering if her family would be likely to even own a video camera at that time. Camcorders did exist in 1986, but having been only invented in 1983 (source: A history of home film-making ), were still very expensive by 1986.

VHS-C was featured in our June issue 1986 issue and 8mm (Video8) in August, followed by VHS in October 1987. Of the 58 camcorders featured the average price was a whopping $1646. Only one camcorder was priced under $1000, the Zenith VM6150 Sharpshooter VHS.

History of Video Now and Then - Videomaker

Throughout 1986 the exchange rate was roughly 1.4-1.5 dollars to the pound ( British Pound to US Dollar Spot Exchange Rates for 1986 from the Bank of England ), so at best, that $1000 camcorder would have cost £666. Quite pricy in this day and age; it must have been astronomical 32 years ago! A family who needs to have a lodger doesn't strike me as rich enough to be at the cutting edge of technology like that?


Obviously, if it's been confirmed anywhere that they actually did own a camera, I've just wasted time and forum space on this, but at least I learned something

 

[StarrChance]

@SkyFixerJim5m

Bishop says he and some friends then went to help look for the missing girls. They looked around the Ditchling Beacon area. He was on his way home when he encountered PC Smith. They had a conversation.

Bishop agrees he told the officer the girls “may have gone up north” and he feared that if they were found he would be suspected. He says in 1984 he’d been briefly arrested for the Brighton Hotel Bombing.

He says that there was a murder of a young woman (Margaret Frain?) in 1978 for which his father was arrested. His father was cleared after 6 weeks but the case remains unsolved.

While Bishop was talking to PC Smith, two young boys came out of the woods shouting that they’d found the girls. Smith told Bishop to go up to the area and get everyone away.

I think it’s very interesting that Russell Bishop mentions his father was a suspect in the the murder of Margaret Frame...as far as I can tell the police never released a suspects name. Russell would have been 12 the time.
Good information with Russell mentioned in the comments.
Who was “The Beast Of Stanmer Park”?
Btw does anyone know the first name of his father?

 

[Alyce]

Central Criminal Court 16 T20187023
russell bishop
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 11:14
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:22
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 12:00

 

[Alyce]

I was curious about the claims about videos of Nicola and looked up the history of home videos, wondering if her family would be likely to even own a video camera at that time. Camcorders did exist in 1986, but having been only invented in 1983 (source: A history of home film-making ), were still very expensive by 1986.



Throughout 1986 the exchange rate was roughly 1.4-1.5 dollars to the pound ( British Pound to US Dollar Spot Exchange Rates for 1986 from the Bank of England ), so at best, that $1000 camcorder would have cost £666. Quite pricy in this day and age; it must have been astronomical 32 years ago! A family who needs to have a lodger doesn't strike me as rich enough to be at the cutting edge of technology like that?


Obviously, if it's been confirmed anywhere that they actually did own a camera, I've just wasted time and forum space on this, but at least I learned something

That is a very good point Kasmeer - it would surely have been worth the Prosecution's time to check re the validity of the Fellows family owning such an expensive item at that time

 

[Alyce]

I think it’s very interesting that Russell Bishop mentions his father was a suspect in the the murder of Margaret Frame...as far as I can tell the police never released a suspects name. Russell would have been 12 the time.
Good information with Russell mentioned in the comments.
Who was “The Beast Of Stanmer Park”?
Btw does anyone know the first name of his father?

I can't see any mention of a named suspect - perhaps RBs father was questioned, being as they lived so near to the park - and RB interpreted this as "being considered a suspect"

 

[jessie]

I was curious about the claims about videos of Nicola and looked up the history of home videos, wondering if her family would be likely to even own a video camera at that time. Camcorders did exist in 1986, but having been only invented in 1983 (source: A history of home film-making ), were still very expensive by 1986.

RSBM

=====================================



I think you have a very valid point here @ Kasmeer.
I began searching cine film transferred to video around that date, but even then it was rarely done.
It raises many questions - and they really need to be answered - this needs historic investigation not bland acceptance.

I do have a relation who is an expert on old films etc so will email about the accessibility of home vids at that time, he knows the most improbable things .

Have you considered emailing the lawyers involved about this?[/QUOTE]

 

[Alyce]

RSBM

=====================================



I think you have a very valid point here @ Kasmeer.
I began searching cine film transferred to video around that date, but even then it was rarely done.
It raises many questions - and they really need to be answered - this needs historic investigation not bland acceptance.

I do have a relation who is an expert on old films etc so will email about the accessibility of home vids at that time, he knows the most improbable things .

Have you considered emailing the lawyers involved about this?

[/QUOTE]

Very good idea Jessie - do you remember, Helen Bailey case when it was decided to contact Prosecution counsel re the rain, or lack of, on the day Helen was allegedly sighted by a witness ( hours after she had been murdered ).
I remember the QC using this point during his summing up.

 

[Alyce]

Central Criminal Court 16 T20187023
russell bishop
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 11:14
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:22
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 12:00
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 21 Continues - 12:10
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 21 Continues - 14:21
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 14:51

 

[Kasmeer]

I think you have a very valid point here @ Kasmeer.
I began searching cine film transferred to video around that date, but even then it was rarely done.
It raises many questions - and they really need to be answered - this needs historic investigation not bland acceptance.

I do have a relation who is an expert on old films etc so will email about the accessibility of home vids at that time, he knows the most improbable things .

Have you considered emailing the lawyers involved about this?

Honestly I wouldn't even know where to start regarding contacting the lawyers, especially as I'd hope that a point that obvious had been considered already. Thinking further, it's always possible that they could borrow a video camera from a friend or relative. I'm not getting any impression of anyone involved being rich or having rich friends, but it couldn't be ruled out sufficiently to be proof of lack of access.

That said, knowing prices of camcorders then certainly shapes my opinion of the plausibility of any claims of videos... I'd hope the jury are made aware of this (younger people used to smartphones might have no idea how unusual home videos were in that time), so if anyone has more knowledge than me about contacting the lawyers, I'm happy for my thoughts to be passed on!

 

[jessie]

Very good idea Jessie - do you remember, Helen Bailey case when it was decided to contact Prosecution counsel re the rain, or lack of, on the day Helen was allegedly sighted by a witness ( hours after she had been murdered ).
I remember the QC using this point during his summing up.[/QUOTE]


Yes I do Alyce. We are WS'ers for good reason.

 

[jessie]

Honestly I wouldn't even know where to start regarding contacting the lawyers, especially as I'd hope that a point that obvious had been considered already. Thinking further, it's always possible that they could borrow a video camera from a friend or relative. I'm not getting any impression of anyone involved being rich or having rich friends, but it couldn't be ruled out sufficiently to be proof of lack of access.

That said, knowing prices of camcorders then certainly shapes my opinion of the plausibility of any claims of videos... I'd hope the jury are made aware of this (younger people used to smartphones might have no idea how unusual home videos were in that time), so if anyone has more knowledge than me about contacting the lawyers, I'm happy for my thoughts to be passed on!

Don't stress yourself Kasmeer you have done brilliantly here. I can only say better to never assume certain points should have been obvious to lawyers.
Hoping I can help with the history of home videos around 1986, but if not someone here will be able to suggest ways of contacting lawyers with the points you have raised. If not relevant no harm done, but imagine if it is indeed relevant. Well done. j x

 

[StarrChance]

I can't see any mention of a named suspect - perhaps RBs father was questioned, being as they lived so near to the park - and RB interpreted this as "being considered a suspect"

Well his actual words were “He says that there was a murder of a young woman (Margaret Frain?) in 1978 for which his father was arrested. His father was cleared after 6 weeks but the case remains unsolved.”
Arrested is different to questioned , just makes you wonder about the whole family...

 

[Kasmeer]

Don't stress yourself Kasmeer you have done brilliantly here. I can only say better to never assume certain points should have been obvious to lawyers.
Hoping I can help with the history of home videos around 1986, but if not someone here will be able to suggest ways of contacting lawyers with the points you have raised. If not relevant no harm done, but imagine if it is indeed relevant. Well done. j x

Heh, the thought of doing the contacting has sent my social anxiety through the roof tbh - if it really is such a good point, then please, somebody else do the contacting bit of it as I'm kinda regretting ever mentioning it right now...

I'm trying to look back and see who's made that allegation so far; at present I can only find Marion Stevenson claiming to have witnessed it (the defence QC mentions it in the opening and a minor witness has "heard rumours"). Police investigated a few years back, I'd like to know who gave them the information which led to that. Is it known whether or not Ms Stevenson is still friendly with Bishop? As in, friendly enough to embellish her evidence to help him? I would hope not, but I'd find the accusation more credible from someone less connected to RB.

 

[Alyce]

Central Criminal Court 16 T20187023
russell bishop
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:06
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:00 - 11:43

 

[Alyce]

Interesting article - throwing doubt on the validity of the video

Prosecutor Brian Altman QC said Ms Stevenson gave nine statements to the police in 1986 and asked her: "Can you try to explain why there is not one mention at all about this video allegation?"



much more at link

Ex-girlfriend 'besotted' by murder accused

 

[Legally Bland]

Interesting article - throwing doubt on the validity of the video

Prosecutor Brian Altman QC said Ms Stevenson gave nine statements to the police in 1986 and asked her: "Can you try to explain why there is not one mention at all about this video allegation?"



much more at link

Ex-girlfriend 'besotted' by murder accused

Thanks for posting. I don't think the jury should have any doubts about finding him guilty now.

 

[Kasmeer]

From the link above Ex-girlfriend 'besotted' by murder accused :

Jurors also heard Ms Stevenson gave "completely different" accounts of the video of Nicola to police in 1988 and 2007.

She said: "I have explained that in 1988 I was heavily smoking pot and so my memory was not as clear as it was in 2007 when I was not smoking it.

"As the years went on, things have got a lot clearer to me."

Being charitable (so assuming she is actually not just making this up), she may believe that things have got clearer over time, but I'm always sceptical about that. The brain tends to unconsciously add details to memories that may be entirely inaccurate, particularly adding in suggestions made by others. I've read cases where people have given detailed confessions to crimes, that they actually never committed, after "suggestions" by the police interviewing them... so I'm very wary of uncorroborated memories that have "changed" over time! Either it's the brain inventing stuff to fill in the gaps, or it's just plain made up, either way I'd need to see more than just one person bringing that allegation to believe it now.

 

[Alyce]

No trial today

Judge Justice Sweeney is in court, but with other cases

 

[Alyce]

Back to trial on Monday



The Crown Court
at Central Criminal Court

Daily List for Monday 3 December 2018 at Old Bailey London EC4M 7EH

Court 16
- sitting at 09:30 am


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SWEENEY


For Mention

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX





SITTING AT 10:00 AM

Trial (Part Heard)

T20187023
BISHOP Russell




DTA, Order made under s.82 CJ Act 2003 Order made under Contempt of Court ACT