Murder of Lesley Molseed

Kiszko was tried at Leeds Assizes then seated at Leeds Town Hall (courtroom pictured)

Kiszko's defence team, led by Waddington, made significant mistakes. Firstly, they did not seek an adjournment when the Crown delivered thousands of pages of additional unused material on the first morning of the trial. Then there was the inconsistent defence of diminished responsibility which Kiszko never authorised, on the grounds that the testosterone he was receiving for his hypogonadism might have made him behave unusually.[4][8] Kiszko's endocrinologist strongly disagreed with this theory, and if called to testify would have said that his treatment could not have caused him to act in such a way that would make him carry out a murder. He was never called.

The manslaughter claim undermined Kiszko's claims that he was totally innocent and destroyed his alibis (a defence known in legal parlance as "riding two horses"). In fact, his innocence could have been demonstrated at the trial. The pathologist who examined the victim's clothes found traces of sperm, whereas the sample taken from Kiszko by the police contained no sperm. There was medical evidence that Kiszko had broken his ankle some months before the murder and, in view of that and his being overweight, he would have found it difficult to scale the slope to the murder spot.[4] The sperm findings were suppressed by the police and never disclosed to the defence team or the jury; neither was the medical evidence of his broken ankle disclosed to the court.

Kiszko gave evidence that, in July 1975, he had become ill and was admitted to Birch Hill Hospital, where he was given a blood transfusion. In August, he was transferred to a Manchester hospital and diagnosed as anaemic along with what he understood was a "hormone deficiency" (which was in fact Klinefelter syndrome).[9] Kiszko agreed to injections to rectify the latter problem and was discharged in September. He said correctly that he had never met Lesley and therefore could not have murdered her, and he claimed he was tending to his father's grave in Halifax with his aunt at the time of the murder, before visiting a garden centre and then going home. When asked why he had confessed, Kiszko replied, "I started to tell these lies and they seemed to please them and the pressure was off as far as I was concerned. I thought if I admitted what I did to the police they would check out what I had said, find it untrue and would then let me go."[9]

Kiszko's conviction was secured by a 10–2 majority verdict on 21 July 1976 after five hours and thirty-five minutes of deliberation. He was given a life sentence for committing Lesley's murder. The judge praised the three teenage girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations". The evidence given by Hind was read out in court. Park said that Buckley's "[s]harp eyes set this train of inquiry into motion". He also praised the police officers involved in the case "for their great skill in bringing to justice the person responsible for this dreadful crime and their expertise in sifting through masses of material", adding, "I would like all the officers responsible for the result to be specially commended and these observations conveyed to the Chief Constable." DS John Akeroyd and DS Holland were singled out for praise.

Sheila Buckley, whose daughter Maxine played a major part in securing Kiszko's conviction, criticised the police for not arresting Kiszko earlier and told the Manchester Evening News that "My daughter had a nightmare life until this monster was arrested. He frightened several local girls in his campaign of terror"[10] Even Albert Wright, Kiszko's solicitor, thought that his client was guilty but that it was a case of diminished responsibility and that he should not have been convicted of murder.

After a month in Armley Gaol, Kiszko was transferred to Wakefield Prison and immediately placed on Rule 43, a segregation policy to protect prisoners from other inmates, as in the eyes of the law, he was now a convicted sex offender. Kiszko launched an appeal, but it was dismissed on 25 May 1978 when Lord Justice Bridge said "We can find no grounds whatsoever to condemn the jury's verdict of murder as in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory. The appeal is dismissed."[9]

After his conviction, Kiszko was fiercely and bitterly hated by the majority of inmates, receiving multiple taunts and death threats during his first months in prison. He was physically attacked four times in total. The first was on 24 August 1976, one day after being transferred to Wakefield Prison, when he was set upon in his cell by five prisoners who stole his watch, smashed up his radio, cut his mouth and injured both his knee and ankle. The attackers said they did it for Lesley and her family.[11][12] On 11 May 1977, he was hit over the head with a mop handle, leaving Kiszko in need of three stitches to a head wound.[13] In December 1978, he was punched once in the face by another prisoner in an unprovoked attack whilst in the prison chapel.[14]

In March 1981, Kiszko was again punched in the face by a prisoner in an unprovoked attack whilst in the prison yard, but this time Kiszko retaliated and fought back. Blows were exchanged and a fight broke out. The two had to be separated by guards. Both men were given a loss of privileges for 28 days. On each occasion, the attacks on Kiszko earned him no sympathy from either other prisoners or guards because of the crime for which he had been jailed. Kiszko was not physically attacked or threatened again during his remaining eleven years in prison. During much of that time, he was in the hospital wing of prisons. When he was not, he was placed among less violent offenders.

In July 1979, the Inland Revenue finally wrote to Kiszko to inform him he had been sacked. From late 1979 onwards, he developed signs of schizophrenia and began to have delusions, one for example being that he was the victim of a plot to incarcerate an innocent tax office employee so the effects of imprisonment would be tested on him. In January 1980, he said that coded messages on BBC Radio 2's Jimmy Young Show were being sent to him. In 1982, he claimed that his parents had a tape recorder hidden in the kitchen and made him sing after turning it on, later selling the songs to Barry Manilow to make money out of his talent.[15] Throughout the 1980s, Kiszko's claims of innocence were either labelled as symptoms of his schizophrenic delusions or attributed to his being in a state of denial. One forensic psychiatrist made a note of Kiszko having "delusions of innocence".

In October 1981, Kiszko was put in the punishment block for possessing scissors in his cell. On 11 November, he was transferred to Gloucester Prison. In April 1983, he was informed that eligibility for parole required an admission of guilt: if he continued to deny murdering Lesley, he would spend the rest of his life behind bars. This made no difference to Kiszko's stance. Thirteen months later, still denying having carried out the murder, he was moved to Bristol Prison. His mental deterioration was such that in June 1984, a forensic psychiatrist recommended his transfer to a high-security psychiatric hospital. Nothing came of it. Six months later, Kiszko was returned to Wakefield Prison.

In August 1987, Kiszko was transferred to the specialist Category B Grendon Prison where, in June 1988, the prison governor tried to persuade him to enrol on a sex offenders' treatment programme. This would require him to admit he murdered Lesley, followed by an exploration of his motives and behaviours. Kiszko refused to take part, persistently "refusing to address his offending behaviour" on the grounds that he had done nothing that needed addressing. Having been classed as making "no progress" he was returned to Wakefield Prison in May 1989.

In February 1990, the Home Office privately disclosed that Kiszko's first parole hearing would take place in December 1992, by which time he would have served seventeen years in custody. However, he would only be released if he admitted to having murdered Lesley and if he could convince the Parole Board that he would not be a danger to children or the public.

It was now over a decade since Kiszko had developed signs of mental illness and six years since it was recommended he be sent for psychiatric hospital treatment. His health continued to deteriorate; in July 1990, he said he was striking out a ghost who was trying to sexually abuse him. After a further six months of delays, in March 1991 Kiszko was transferred to Ashworth Hospital under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

In August 1991, the new findings in Kiszko's case were referred to the Home Secretary Kenneth Baker, who immediately passed them on to the Court of Appeal. On 19 December 1991, Kiszko was moved from Ashworth to Prestwich Hospital.

Ten months before his parole hearing was due, on 17 February 1992, the judicial investigation into Kiszko's conviction began. It was heard by three judges, Lord Lane (Lord Chief Justice), Mr Justice Rose and Mr Justice Potts.[16] Present at the hearing were Franz Muller QC and William Boyce for the Crown, who were there to argue that Kiszko was guilty of murder and therefore must remain in prison custody for at least another ten months; and Stephen Sedley QC and Jim Gregory, to state that Kiszko was innocent. In court were Lesley's father Fred Anderson and April Molseed, her mother, who were both convinced up to that moment that Kiszko was guilty and should remain behind bars.

After hearing the new evidence presented by Sedley, who said the original verdict "could not in all probability have been obtained if new medical evidence had been before the court at the time of the trial", Gregory, Muller and Boyce did not put up any contrary argument and immediately accepted its validity. Also, after hearing the new evidence, Lord Lane said: "It has been shown that this man cannot produce sperm. This man cannot have been the person responsible for ejaculating over the girl's knickers and skirt, and consequently cannot have been the murderer." Kiszko was cleared, and Lord Lane ordered his immediate release from custody.[16]

The 1976 trial judge Sir Hugh Park, who had praised the police and the 13-year-old girls at the original trial for bringing Kiszko to justice, apologised for what had happened to Kiszko but said he was not sorry for how he had handled the court case. He wrote to Kiszko to express regret that he had been convicted for something he had not done. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, a Conservative MP, said, "This must be the worst miscarriage of justice of all time. It brings shame on everyone involved in the case." He then demanded a full, independent and wide-ranging inquiry into the conviction.

The Molseed family publicly apologised for the things they had said after his conviction, such as demanding that he be hanged in public. Frederick Anderson had also told the media that he would be outside the prison gates waiting for Kiszko should he ever be released. Lesley's older sister Julie Crabbe said when Kiszko was cleared: "How could anyone feel about this innocent man who has spent sixteen years in prison, and they were not very nice to him in prison. At least his mum knows that he will come home. Our Lesley will never come home again."[18]

In February 1992, Kiszko's mother said that it was Waddington who ought to be "strung up" for his pro-capital punishment views and for the way he had handled her son's defence at the 1976 trial. Lord Lane, Waddington, the four girls, Ronald Outteridge and prosecution barrister Peter Taylor all offered no apology, nor did any of them express any words of remorse or even simple regret for what had happened. Even the West Yorkshire Police, while accepting and admitting they had been wrong, tried to justify the position they had taken in 1975. All Waddington would say was that if this evidence had been available in July 1976, the trial would have taken "a very different course".

Dick Holland, the surviving senior officer in charge of the original investigation, said: "Words can't express the regret I feel for the family and for Kiszko, now [that] it has turned out he is innocent. But the enquiry was done diligently and honestly within the terms that were legally and scientifically available. After Kiszko's arrest, the forensic science service received a hanky which may have had seminal stainings from Kiszko. After his arrest, he produced a sample in the presence of his solicitor and doctor which was sent to the laboratory for comparison. Now how much further can you go?"[18]

On 2 March 1992, Edward Tierney, who ordered the sperm tests that led to the freeing of Kiszko, was dismissed after 25 years because he had demanded that police surgeons should be independent of the police and Crown Prosecution Service.[19]

Kiszko needed further psychiatric treatment for another month and remained in Prestwich Hospital. He was fully released on 17 March 1992[20] but the sixteen years of incarceration for something he had not done had both mentally and emotionally destroyed him. Kiszko became a virtual recluse and showed little interest in anything or anyone. He bought a new car (a silver Ford Sierra) and drove it on short journeys to the shops, Morrisons or garden centres, or to visit relatives,[21] but other people's apologies for what had happened, encouragement and support seemed to frighten him. As his mental health had deteriorated over the years, so now did his physical health; in October 1993, Kiszko was diagnosed with angina.

Kiszko died at 1:00 a.m. on 23 December that year, after a severe heart attack at his home, eighteen years and two days after he made the confession that helped lead to his wrongful conviction for murder. He was rushed to Rochdale Infirmary but was pronounced dead on arrival.[22][23][24] Lesley's sister was one of those who attended his funeral, two weeks later, on 5 January 1994. Four months after her son's death, Charlotte Hedwig Kiszko, died at Birch Hill Hospital, Rochdale, on 3 May, at the age of 70.[23][16] The two are buried together in Rochdale Cemetery.[25]

After being released from prison, Kiszko had been told he would receive £500,000 in compensation for the years spent in prison. He had received an interim payment, but neither he nor his mother ever received the full amount they were awarded, since both died before Kiszko was due to receive it.[26]

In 1994, the surviving senior officer in charge of the original investigation, Detective Superintendent Dick Holland, and the retired forensic scientist who had worked on the case, Ronald Outteridge, were formally charged with "doing acts tending to pervert the course of justice" by allegedly suppressing evidence in Kiszko's favour, namely the results of scientific tests on semen taken from the victim's body and from the accused.[24] On May Day 1995, the case was challenged by defence barristers, arguing that the case was an abuse of process and that charges should be stayed as the passage of time had made a fair trial impossible. The presiding magistrate agreed and as the case was never presented before a jury, the law regards the accused as presumed innocent.[27]

Holland, who came to public prominence as a senior officer on the flawed investigation into the murders committed by Peter Sutcliffe, retired in 1988, at a time when he viewed the conviction of both Kiszko and of Judith Ward (whose conviction was also viewed as unsafe by the High Court in May 1992) as being among his "finest hours" during his 35 years in the police force. However, Holland was demoted during the Sutcliffe inquiry, four years after Kiszko's conviction. He died in February 2007 at the age of 74.

Castree's trial began at Bradford Crown Court on 22 October 2007.[38] During the trial, a scientist told a jury how DNA taken from Lesley's knickers was linked to Castree. Forensic expert Gemma Escott explained to Bradford Crown Court the chances of the semen samples belonging to anyone other than Castree were one in a billion.[16] Castree was found guilty on 12 November 2007. [39] He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of thirty years,[40] which is expected to keep him in prison until at least November 2036 and the age of 83.