Paula Leeson trial collapses

[CroydianSlip]

I was appalled reading about this case and shocked to see the case collapse -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-56444145

It raised some interesting points for me though, if something occurs in private then surely there's a real risk of evidence being circumstantial rather than a concrete witness statement for eg. And the judge's assertion that it was more likely murder was upsetting given it's not being pursued.

"Stopping the trial, Mr Justice Goose said there were two available possibilities.

'' Firstly, Mr McPherson restrained his wife under water or overcame her in a struggle or pushed her to cause her to drown, he said. Or secondly, Ms Leeson drowned by an accident, by a trip, fall or a faint, causing her to fall into the water, he added. "Whilst the first of those alternatives is clearly more likely,..." "

Her poor family being left with this outcome too.

He also had a wife and child previously who died in a fire. It’s unbelievable

?!?!?!???!!!!

I can’t see anything in the reports about a previous family, was that definitely true?

Does he get the insurance money now?

My understanding is that if the insurance companies declined to pay out, and he sued them, they would have to prove ‘on a balance of probabilities’ that he killed her, rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

They will probably be able to argue that there's fraud going on before that.

If he didn't declare the existing policy/policies then that's non disclosure.

Multiple smaller policies to get them through without too many questions is an indicator of something dodgy, usually money laundering.

Also you take out insurance on your own life to protect your family. If he took these out without his wife's knowledge then who signed them, who answered the health questions etc. You can't take out insurance secretly on another person's life for obvious reasons.

I don't imagine they'll have to pay tbh.

@NiceGerbil

On the one hand agree that if there wasn't enough evidence then there wasn't.

On the other hand, judges are not infallible.

My jaw dropped though about his previous wife and child.

I’m currently doing a law degree, and I’m reading about judicial reasoning. (Only a student though, so don’t take my opinion as any type of fact!)

Two judges can use the same previous case in their reasoning of a current case but come to two complete different conclusions of the interpretation.

I think for the CPS to move it to trial, they must have felt confident.

I doubt he will get the money from insurance companies, even before you get into the potential fraud beforehand. There is a lower burden of proof in civil law.

I can’t find anywhere about the ex being killed in a fire?

But he’s changed his name twice, lied about how she died, signed up to dating as soon as she died and moved £000s the day after she died.

How can none of that count? Why can you only prosecute murder if you literally have the smoking gun??

Also you take out insurance on your own life to protect your family. If he took these out without his wife's knowledge then who signed them, who answered the health questions etc. You can't take out insurance secretly on another person's life for obvious reasons.

That's interesting and a ray of hope at least.

The starting point for circumstantial evidence is an 1866 case R v Exall
Where the judge said
“Pollock CB directed the jury: ‘It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence as a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then, if any one link broke, the chain would fall. It is more like the case of a rope composed of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength.’”

The issue with this case is that there are two competing explanations that are both possible. There isn’t enough circumstantial evidence to allow the jury to be sure (beyond reasonable doubt) what actually happened. We all have a very strong suspicion but there are not enough strands of evidence. If it could have been demonstrated by the pathologists that her injuries were sustained before death then maybe the case would have gone the other way.
The family could bring a civil case against him which has a balance of probabilities test (more probable than not) which is lower hurdle.

@Sstrongtn

I can’t find anywhere about the ex being killed in a fire?

But he’s changed his name twice, lied about how she died, signed up to dating as soon as she died and moved £000s the day after she died.

How can none of that count? Why can you only prosecute murder if you literally have the smoking gun??

It does all count as circumstantial evidence, but as the post above explains, the circumstantial evidence needs to be strong enough.

In this case it is not absolutely clear cut that evidence is insufficient, otherwise the case would never have come to court.

From what I have read, it sounds like there is a heap of circumstantial evidence around motive and suspect behaviour before/after the event, but a lack of specific evidence around the exact circumstances of her death to sufficiently discount the possibility of an accident.

@Sstrongtn

I can’t find anywhere about the ex being killed in a fire?

But he’s changed his name twice, lied about how she died, signed up to dating as soon as she died and moved £000s the day after she died.

How can none of that count? Why can you only prosecute murder if you literally have the smoking gun??

The prosecution claim Mr McPherson took out seven life insurance policies on his wife and forged her will.

Another witness, Lynn Dale, one of Ms Leeson's best friends, told the court about signing two "Trust" documents, which would divert around £800,000 life insurance from Ms Leeson's son to Mr McPherson in the event of her death.

Ms Dale said: "I do not recognise the document at all. I can categorically state this is not my signature and not my handwriting, I have no knowledge of ever having been asked to complete this."

He is also accused of forging a will and her friend's signature and diverting £800,000 payout intended for her son to claim it himself.

This all sounds super dodgy.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

The starting point for circumstantial evidence is an 1866 case R v Exall Where the judge said “Pollock CB directed the jury: ‘It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence as a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then, if any one link broke, the chain would fall. It is more like the case of a rope composed of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength.’”

The issue with this case is that there are two competing explanations that are both possible. There isn’t enough circumstantial evidence to allow the jury to be sure (beyond reasonable doubt) what actually happened. We all have a very strong suspicion but there are not enough strands of evidence. If it could have been demonstrated by the pathologists that her injuries were sustained before death then maybe the case would have gone the other way.
The family could bring a civil case against him which has a balance of probabilities test (more probable than not) which is lower hurdle.

It’s a bit like the Casey Anthony case, the reason she got found not guilty was because the defence was able to create an alternative story using the same evidence that the prosecution was using. The jury thought she did it but the alternative story, as unlikely as it was, was still viable and was strong enough to compromise the certainty of the prosecution’s story.

The day after he murdered, oops sorry, she died accidentally. He transferred 27k from their joint account to his single account!!!

@CaptainMarvelDanvers sorry if I'm being thick here... I remember reading about the Casey Anthony case and the comments I read were to the effect of the jury had done a bad job, and that they'd been spoilt by TV dramas to expect DNA and CCTV evidence. Could a jury not legitimately have found her guilty if they found the prosecution's account credible beyond reasonable doubt?
I was on a jury once (not a murder trial) and the defence had alternative explanations for all the evidence. However, the alternative explanations were just not very credible compared to the prosecution's case, so we found the defendant guilty.
Again sorry for the basic questions, I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this.

It helpfully shows that if you make sure to kill your wife in a way that could be construed as an accident, then you can't be convicted. So, men: if you want to commit murder, make sure you drown your wife in a swimming pool rather than stab her or hit her over the head with a hammer.

[quote bourbonne]@CaptainMarvelDanvers sorry if I'm being thick here... I remember reading about the Casey Anthony case and the comments I read were to the effect of the jury had done a bad job, and that they'd been spoilt by TV dramas to expect DNA and CCTV evidence. Could a jury not legitimately have found her guilty if they found the prosecution's account credible beyond reasonable doubt?
I was on a jury once (not a murder trial) and the defence had alternative explanations for all the evidence. However, the alternative explanations were just not very credible compared to the prosecution's case, so we found the defendant guilty.
Again sorry for the basic questions, I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this.[/quote]
The prosecution had no evidence on how Caylee died, so the defence argued that she drowned in the pool and George Anthony covered it up.

The defence didn’t just cast doubt on each piece of evidence, they had a complete viable alternative explanation for what happened. Then you had Cindy Anthony basically testifying that she was the one searching the internet for information on chloroform and not Casey.

If you read what the jury have said about their decision, if it went on feelings only they would have convicted Casey Anthony, but if they went on evidence presented then they didn’t believe there was enough there to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should have added - the prosecution’s case wasn’t credible beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence brought the reasonable doubt.

So, men: if you want to commit murder, make sure you drown your wife in a swimming pool rather than stab her or hit her over the head with a hammer.

That's very akin to an explanation by Miss Marple in A Christmas Tragedy (a short story in The Thirteen Problems). She says something like men are so much stronger that it leaves them open to temptation. Who is to question their account of their wife slipping on a cliff walk if no one saw him throw her over etc.? She uses to to explain why she knew intuitively that a man she had met was about to murder his wife.

I've been having the feeling that we're back to living in that world, lately with all the revelations about age caps on classifying some crimes, recent verdicts etc.

I guess I've assumed that each juror has the freedom to think "oh come on", "nah, seems far-fetched" or "nah, seems very out-of-character", and use those conclusions to reach a verdict. I remember from my jury experience that the term "reasonable doubt" was not given much further explanation, so it's essentially up to each juror to draw the line, I guess? Perhaps one jury is shy of reaching a guilty verdict due to discomfort with circumstantial evidence, whereas another jury may have no such compunction? I guess without knowing the details of a case it's difficult to discuss the theory.

@bourbonne
My limited understanding based on the news reports is that both explanations are sufficiently credible to mean that without further evidence the jury could never reach the beyond reasonable doubt threshold. If the pathology evidence had been more clear cut then it would have been different. People can and do fall into bodies of water and drown without anybody else being involved so it is not an unrealistic scenario.

(If someone could be tried for appearing dodgy as fuck then I don’t think the jury would have hesitated. )

[quote bourbonne]@CaptainMarvelDanvers sorry if I'm being thick here... I remember reading about the Casey Anthony case and the comments I read were to the effect of the jury had done a bad job, and that they'd been spoilt by TV dramas to expect DNA and CCTV evidence. Could a jury not legitimately have found her guilty if they found the prosecution's account credible beyond reasonable doubt?
I was on a jury once (not a murder trial) and the defence had alternative explanations for all the evidence. However, the alternative explanations were just not very credible compared to the prosecution's case, so we found the defendant guilty.
Again sorry for the basic questions, I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this.[/quote]
In my experience of sitting on a jury (four minor trials) this was the case in each one - the defence put forward an alternative narrative that ‘explained’ all the evidence. The level of credibility varied from laughable to vaguely plausible.

As you say, the job of the jury is not simple to decide which explanation is more likely, but to have sufficient certainty in the case made by the prosecution. It’s not an easy task - in each case I considered, the defence case could possibly have been true. Trying to weigh exactly how certain you have to be is really quite hard.

I would really like to understand more about why, in this case, the judge has intervened rather than leaving it to the jury to decide in the usual way.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

But why did the judge stop the trial rather than leave it to the jury? That’s the bit I don’t really understand.

I've been on a jury where the judge decided that there wasn't enough evidence against one of the defendants half-way through the trial.

The judge still needed the jury to give a verdict, so he directed us to return a verdict of not guilty on this defendant there and then. We weren't offered time to consider whether we agreed with that or not, but as it happens, we had been discussing the case amongst ourselves before the day started and most of the jurors seemed to think that defendant shouldn't have been brought to trial. Even so, it did feel rather like we were railroaded into it.

I imagine a strong-minded jury in our place could have refused to deliver such a verdict if they thought it was manifestly unjust.

@Bubbinsmakesthree
Under the Criminal Procedure Rules the court has the power to direct a jury to acquit on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient for any court to reasonably convict. The prosecution have the right to make representations to the judge on this point.

Judges hear a lot of cases and will recognise times where the evidence just doesn’t meet the standard. There is no point putting something to a jury that is so weak that they will never be able to produce a reliable verdict. The court has a duty to ensure the defendant gets a fair trial.
I assume that the judge felt that there was no realistic possibility of a safe guilty verdict when two plausible scenarios existed with no way to properly distinguish which was true beyond reasonable doubt.
Hard though it is, it is better that someone is acquitted even when the circumstances are questionable than an innocent person be convicted on weak evidence in an emotive case.

Thanks @ChazsBrilliantAttitude - so how does that differ from the role of the CPS? I thought they decided whether there was sufficient evidence to bring a case forward?

(Sorry to ask lots of questions but sounds like you know what you’re talking about!)

Sometimes it’s only when the evidence gets questioned in court do the weaknesses appear. It might look strong on paper so the CPS go ahead but the actual answers in court might be more nuanced or conditional.