Double Murder of Ann Lee & Margaret Johnson
On a cold spring afternoon in May 1982, two housewives Anne Lee, 44, and Margaret Johnson, 66, were savagely murdered as they walked their dogs on Hungry Hill, Aldershot. They were both stabbed several times but the killings appeared motiveless. Mrs Lee, a mother of two, was discovered lying on the path at the top of a small hillock. Monty was pining by her side.
Mrs Johnson, a grandmother who had been married for 47 years, was 20 yards away slumped by a five-bar gate where she had run to escape. The lower rungs were covered in blood.
Although the murders had been committed in daylight and the bodies found close to an army base, there were no witnesses. Robbery and rape were ruled out as potential motives and no weapon was found.
There were two suspicious sightings on the day; a man wearing a camouflage jacket and a lorry driver - crying, with his head in his hands - seen close to the murder scene. The police dismissed both.
Mrs Lee, 44, the wife of a retired Army major, left her home in Highfield Gardens, Aldershot, with her labrador, Monty, to meet Mrs Johnson, 66, the wife of a banking director, who lived in a nearby bungalow and owned a red setter called Tara.
The two women were about halfway round their regular walk on the common when they were attacked and stabbed repeatedly with a double-edged knife.
A former hospital porter who has spent nearly all his adult life behind bars after confessing to the murders of two women was cleared by the Court of Appeal yesterday.
Peter Fell, 39, was described as a "serial confessor" who had been the victim of "oppressive" police interrogation.
The court cleared him of killing Ann Lee, 44, the wife of a retired Army major, and Margaret "Peggy" Johnson, 65, the wife of a banking director, who were repeatedly stabbed on Aldershot Common, Hampshire, while walking their dogs on a May afternoon in 1982. Mr Fell's solicitor, Jim Nichol, said: "He may be a crackpot, he may be crazy, he may be all these things – and probably was in 1982 – but a murderer he was not and never has been."
Peter Fell was sentenced to two life terms in 1984 after being found guilty by a 10-2 majority verdict of a double murder which had occurred in 1982. He was convicted on the strength of his own 'confession' and his supposed resemblance to a photo-fit picture of the killer. In December 2000 he was released on bail pending an appeal court hearing in March 2001 when his convictions were quashed.
On the evening of the murder, he staggered out of a pub in Aldershot and called the police.
He told an officer he had met a man who had told him he was the killer. Mr Fell said the man lived at 10 York Road - his own address.
The police did nothing, so Mr Fell rang again the next day and offered the same information.
It was another two weeks before he was questioned and then he was ruled out as a suspect. Detectives concluded he could not have been on the common at the time of the murder, and in any event, there was no motive.
A year later, the police were no nearer to catching the killer and Mr Fell, a hospital porter, had moved to Bournemouth.
After another night of heavy drinking, he called the local police and said: "I know who did Bournemouth ... Aldershot double, double murderer on May 10, '78."
He gave his own name.
Several days later he was interviewed by the police for nearly 10 hours in seven sessions without a solicitor. To begin with, Mr Fell denied involvement.
"I have not murdered anyone," he told them. "Never have and never will, there's not a lot else I can say ... I know the phone calls and all that ... that's only because I wanted to be someone. I'm nobody."
During subsequent interviews, Mr Fell made a partial confession which he immediately retracted.
He'd said he'd met the two women and had struck one of them with a stick because she looked like his mother.
In the book Trial and Error, author David Jessell describes how officers were taped saying to Mr Fell "the sooner you see clear, my sunshine, the better", and "from the day you started to walk you lied."
Still protesting his innocence, Mr Fell was convicted of both murders in August, 1984, at the end of a 19-day trial at Winchester crown court.
Mr Fell's tendency to make things up was well-known to the police.
During a spell in the army as a cook, he twice lied about being attacked by civilians. He also claimed he was an army boxing champion - another fantasy.
He even tried to incriminate himself in the Yorkshire Ripper murders by phoning the police and giving them his name.
His disturbed childhood also made him prone to attention seeking. His parents split up when he was three, and two sets of foster parents had given him up, leaving him in the care of a children's home.
After considering his background and details of the confession, the criminal cases review commission referred the case back to the court of appeal in September, 1999.
Peter Fell now says his only crime was being foolish - he rang the police after the murders were publicised to say the murderer was called Pete and lived in York Road, Aldershot - his own address. He was interviewed and gave an account of his movements on that day, but was released without charge.
A year later with the murders still unsolved, the police received more calls from Fell - identifying himself as the killer. He was arrested and taken to Farnborough Police Station. He confessed after 72 hours questioning without a solicitor and his supporters claim the facts in it did not match with the actual events. The confession was later retracted.
His trial had lasted 19 days, and the jury of six men and six women deliberated for 25 hours and 30 minutes before reaching 10-2 majority verdicts of guilty for each murder. The court heard that Fell, who pleaded not guilty, had made 13 anonymous phone calls to police naming himself as the killer.
The defence had not called him to give evidence, but during the trial, the jury was told that he had made a partial confession to police admitting he had killed the women, although he denied remembering anything about stabbing them. Fell, who has also claimed that he tried to incriminate himself for the Yorkshire Ripper murders, and his supporters say these are many aspects of his case that make the conviction unsafe:
There was no forensic evidence
No murder weapon was found
He was not picked out at an identity parade
The police released him on bail for three months on the same day he made the confession
Detectives came close to charging a second man with the murders
His alibi that he was in a bank at the the time of the killings stands up
A woman who was attacked in a similar fashion a year before the two murders says the photofit of the double killer was the same man who attacked her. Fell was serving in Germany at the time she was attacked.
A second woman has come forward since the publicity given to Fell's case to say she saw a "crazy-looking" man near the murder scene just an hour before the killings who was definitely not Fell.
Fell has been described by psychiatrists as being a classic case attention seeker, who would lie and exaggerate to be noticed.
The Facts
On the afternoon of 10 May 1982, Ann Lee and Margaret Johnson were walking their dogs on Army Common land on the outskirts of Aldershot. The common is about 400-500 yards long by a shorter distance wide, in other words it is quite a small area.
As the two women walked along a track bordered by a fence which marked the grounds of Anglesey House, a large house used by the military as a Courts Martial Centre, they were attacked by a man wielding a knife. That attack took place at approximately 3-0pm.
At about 3-15pm Molly Hogg, who was herself walking with a dog, found the body of Mrs Lee lying face down and she also saw the body of Mrs Johnson lying on her side, some distance away, at the foot of a gate. The dogs of the two victims were still in the vicinity.
The pathologist report showed that the death of the two victims was due to multiple stab wounds. Mrs Lee had suffered 11 wounds to the back of her upper body and Mrs Johnson had suffered 5 wounds to the front of her chest. The wounds in relation to both victims ranged from 1 to 1½ inches in width and penetrated up to 5 inches.
Mrs Johnson was measured and found to be 4'10'' tall. That was said to have some significance, in view of admissions made by the appellant in interview ultimately, that she resembled his mother.
Persons on the common
The jury heard evidence from six witnesses who said that they saw a young dark-haired man on or near the common between 2-10pm and 3-15pm. The appellant it should be said was aged 20 and about 5'11'' tall. His hair would be shortish. He had had a crew-cut when in the army, from which he had been discharged in March of 1982, and there is a photograph amongst the exhibits taken some few weeks before May 1982 which seems to show the appellant with short hair. It is right to add that we were also shown a photograph taken in September 1982 which showed the appellant with much longer hair. In any event his hair was dark brown.
Sylvia Swainson and Joy Whatley saw a young man wearing a camouflage jacket at about 2-10pm. Mrs Swainson described the man as aged 18 to 25, between 5'8" and 5'10", of slim build with short brown hair.
Brian Hackney, a Ministry of Defence policeman, was jogging across the common when (as he assessed) at about 2-58pm he overtook Mrs Lee and Mrs Johnson about 250 yards from the murder scene. About a minute later he passed a man who appeared to be unhappy. Mr Hackney described this man as being in his early twenties, 5'8" tall, of medium build with long, dark, unkempt hair and wearing a green anorak or an army-type jacket and possibly jeans.
Also on the common was a group of soldiers including Richard Nikolic, Ian Loisy and Corporal Peter Waterman. Between 2-15pm and 2-30pm Nikolic, who was about 250 yards from the scene of the attack, saw a young man wearing clothes with the colours camouflage and blue. Nikolic was lost and asked the man if he had seen any Landrovers and the man replied "Yeah, there are some jeeps down there", pointing out a track. Loisy and Waterman described the man as wearing either blue jeans and an army combat-jacket or a blue jacket and green combat trousers.
The relevance of the camouflage or green jacket was that the appellant denied at all times owning either a green or camouflage jacket, although a dozen witnesses gave evidence that the appellant did own such a jacket.
Telephone calls to the police
On 11 May 1982, the day following the attack, an anonymous telephone call was made at 11-43pm to Aldershot police station. The call was not recorded but a note of the call has been accepted as accurate. That note reads:-
"I met a man in a pub tonight who got very drunk and he started rambling on about the murders. He seemed to know a lot about them and kept saying how sorry he was that he'd done it. I only know he lives at 10 York Road Aldershot. He asked me to go back there with him tonight but I didn't."
At 11-47pm on 12 May 1982 PC Mills at Aldershot police station received a further anonymous telephone call from a male which was recorded in a note as follows:-
"I know where the man who did the killings lives. My brother rang you yesterday and told you. His name is Pete and he lives at 10 York Road."
It is undisputed that the appellant made those two calls.
Over a year later, on 4 June 1983, by which time the appellant had moved to Bournemouth, a series of anonymous telephone calls were received at Bournemouth police station. Once again it was, and is, undisputed that the appellant made these telephone calls.
The calls were made between 9-0pm and midnight on the `999' system and were tape-recorded. The caller was plainly drunk. The calls referred to the double murder at Aldershot on 10 May 1982 and mentioned the two women and the two dogs. The calls identified the attacker as the appellant living at an address in Bournemouth of 13 Wellington Road.
The first police investigation of the appellant
The appellant was employed as a sales representative for Olan Mills Portrait Studios, Grosvenor Road, Aldershot. His bed-sit at 10 York Road was on a direct route between the scene of the attack and his place of work. On 19 May 1982 police officers making house-to-house enquiries about the attack spoke to the appellant and obtained answers from him to a proforma questionnaire. The appellant stated in that questionnaire that he had not visited the common between 1-30 pm and 3-30pm on the day in question or on any other occasion. His account of his movements was that he had been in the Unicorn or Trafalgar public house until closing time and then from 2-30 pm to 3-30pm on 10 May he had possibly been at home. He then said that from 3-30pm until 8-0pm he had been at work. He stated that he had possibly been wearing a blue jacket and grey trousers. He did not mention visiting his bank.
On 23 May 1982 the appellant was again seen by police officers. He gave the same account of his movements. His room at 10 York Road was searched and there was no trace of a green jacket. The appellant said that he had never owned a knife other than one which he then produced and which was a pocket knife with a 1" blade.
On 4 July 1982 the appellant was again seen by police officers and he made a written statement about his movements. He said that he was in the Trafalgar public house until about 2-30pm and then went either to the Cosy Café or the Job Centre until about 3-30pm when he went to work.
Other evidence of the appellant's movements on 10 May 1982
According to two colleagues of the appellant, on 10 May 1982 Mark Keable, the appellant's employer, had asked his staff to start work half an hour earlier than usual, that is at 3-0pm. Those two colleagues, Jean Stone and Susan Bennett, remembered 10 May because they had objected to the above request as they both had to collect their children from school before then going to work. Having collected their children they went to Aldershot and then arrived at work at about 4-0pm. Both stated that when they arrived at work the appellant was not present and that when he did arrive, about 5 or 10 minutes later, he was unusually smartly dressed.
The alibi
At his trial the appellant relied on alibi. It could be demonstrated that between 2-0pm and 4-0pm on 10 May 1982 someone had cashed a cheque drawn on the appellant's bank account at Barclays Bank, Victoria Road, Aldershot. The appellant had written two cheques drawn to cash on that day and the second had only been entered on the bank's computer at 3-47pm. Mrs Hewer, an employee from the bank, gave evidence that in accordance with her standard practice that cheque must have been presented at the counter after 2-30pm. If it was the appellant who presented that cheque personally then it was common ground that he could not also have been on the common at the time that the murders took place.
Conversations on 11 May 1982
A conversation between the appellant and his girlfriend Lorraine Sturrock was relied on at the trial. It appears that their relationship was brought to an end on 11 May 1982 and Lorraine Sturrock said that she remembered the appellant using words to the effect "if it wasn't for you you bitch this never would have happened."
One evening after the murder the appellant had a conversation with Jean Stone . They were discussing the murders and Jean Stone expressed surprise that two women with dogs could both be attacked. The appellant had responded that it was possible to immobilise one woman, run after the second and kill her, then return to kill the first. The Crown attached significance to this conversation suggesting that the appellant whilst in the army may well have received training on such matters. The procedure described by the appellant would be consistent with the way in which the two murders had taken place.
Possession of a knife
The appellant's neighbour at York Road was a man named John Harper. Initially Mr Harper made a statement saying that the appellant had told him that he (the appellant) had a knife which he had retained from the army, but that when on a later occasion Mr Harper had asked to borrow the knife the appellant had told him that he had thrown it away.
Mr Harper made a later statement dated 10 August 1983 in which he claimed to have seen the knife. He described it as in total about 8½ inches long with a handle of about 3 inches and a blade of about 5 inches in length narrowing to a point, the blade being about 1 inch wide. Significantly, Mr Harper described the blade as being "maybe two-sided". Mr Harper explained that he initially failed to mention that he had seen the knife because he had not wanted to get involved in the investigation.
Mr Harper ultimately chose a knife from an array of knives in a shop in Aldershot as similar to the knife he had seen in the appellant's possession, and the pathologist, Dr Pullar, gave evidence that the injuries caused to Mrs Johnson and to Mrs Lee could have been caused by such a weapon.
A number of the appellant's fellow soldiers gave evidence to the effect that while stationed in Germany the appellant had had a knife of widely varying descriptions. At least two of the witnesses described the appellant throwing a knife at a door. The knife or knives described by these witnesses were not however double-edged or sharp at both edges.
The appellant, throughout the interviews and with whatever other admissions he may have made, maintained that he had never owned a knife of the type described by Mr Harper, and maintained resolutely that he did not remember using any knife on the day in question.
The photofits
Mr Hackney, who had been jogging on the common on 10 May 1982, provided details to the police which led to the first photofit picture being compiled on 11 May 1982. Further details were supplied by Mr Hackney which led to a second photofit being compiled on about 21 May 1982. Corporal Waterman also supplied a description used in compiling the photofit. These photofits were published in the press on 10 and 11 June 1982 and were regarded by many people as bearing a striking resemblance to the appellant. Undisclosed at the trial was the fact that many people had contacted the police saying that the photofit bore a striking resemblance to other people. Out of 157 people who had contacted the police only 5 suggested that the resemblance was of the appellant. Also undisclosed at the trial was the fact that Mr Hackney had identified other persons at the labour exchange as bearing a similarity to the person that Mr Hackney had seen on the common.
On 4 July 1982 the appellant himself spoke to police officers and stated that people were saying that the photofit pictures looked like him. He went on to say words to the effect of:-
"Are you accusing me of being the murderer because if you are I shall get a solicitor in order to sue the police for harassment."
he not only did not talk of any special features that only the murderer would have known but was inaccurate about many of the features of the murders e.g. he suggested he hit and punched in the face but no sign of such injury was present on the victims; he described seeing two children, and DCI Long accepted in evidence that "no-one there of that description at the relevant time"; he said he spoke to a man going rabbit shooting, but there would not seem to have been any such person; he said he attacked the dark-haired woman first but DCI Long accepted that in all probability the fair-haired lady was attacked first; the dark-haired lady was in her 60s and slim, and bore very little resemblance to the appellant's mother who was 42 and certainly not slim. They were both short but even then there were 3 inches difference in height.
*https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/696.html link to court case documents