Evidence

Evidence

At Graham’s trials the prosecution claimed that Ms Longhurst was murdered to satisfy long-standing and macabre sexual fantasies.  In the first trial they remained nebulous regarding the detail of what it was they were alleging.   However, for the retrial, their new pathologist (Nathaniel Carey) advanced his own hypothesis.   This was that Ms Longhurst was attacked from behind, and an arm was used as a choke hold.  They then instructed their blood expert (Linda Groombridge) to conduct experiments that would their new hypothesis.

Both from a scientific and legal perspective, this appears to be an erroneous approach to take.   One might imagine that you would start with equation (evidence) to determine the answer (the truth).   In this case the prosecution started with an answer (hypothesis), and then proceeded to manipulate the question many times over in an attempt to make it ‘fit’.

So, what hard evidence did Ms Groombridge use to inform her experiments?   There was a stain on Graham’s shirt estimated to be 5ml (a teaspoon) of Ms Longhurst’s blood.   That was it.   These experiments were physical in nature, with Ms Groombridge playing the ‘victim’, and a colleague playing the ‘assailant’.   Various liquids were used, including Ribena, to create a stain on the assailant’s shirt.  One might imagine someone being attached from behind would struggle, leaving blood spray on clothing and their surroundings.  However, there was no blood spray, so Ms Groombridge acted passively in her experiments, whilst being ‘attacked’.

The defence established a number of flaws in Mr Carey’s hypothesis and Ms Groombridge’s experiments, as well as the whole methodology behind the prosecution’s approach.   In the final analysis even Ms Groombridge conceded that despite similarities, the stain she produced had “significant differences”.   As a result of this concession, and a number of others made by both prosecution experts, the defence experts were not required to give evidence.

Below is a list of possible indicators of violent death due to strangulation/asphyxiation:

IndicatorPresent in this case?

———————————————————————————-

Damaged hyoid bone (neck).

X    The hyoid bone was intact and not broken, fractured or damaged in any way.

———————————————————————————-

Bruising to the neck’s strap muscles.

X   Mr Carey gave evidence that despite 5 weeks decomposition  and fire damage, bruising to the strap muscles would still be detectable.  There was no bruising.

———————————————————————————-

Ligature marks.

X    The area under the tights was still preserved.  There were no bruises or abrasions.

———————————————————————————-

  1. X   Due to 5 weeks decomposition and fire damage, there was no evidence either way.

———————————————————————————-

Bruising, abrasions and/or other injuries.

X   As with strap muscle bruising, other deep bruising wouldhave still been detectable.  As would broken bones or puncture wounds.  None of these were present.   As withpetichia, there was no evidence with way of abrasions.

———————————————————————————-

Urination and/or defecation.

X   There was no urine or faeces in Ms Longhurst’s underwear, oranywhere else.

———————————————————————————-

Blood spray.

X   Ms Longhurst’s fleece and scarf were destroyed in the fire.
However, there was no blood spray on her other clothing, oron Graham’s shirt, or anywhere in the flat.

———————————————————————————-

Torn and/or stretched clothing.

X   Ms Longhurst’s fleece and scarf were destroyed in the fire.
However, none of her other clothing, or Graham’s shirt, were torn or stretched.

———————————————————————————-

Internal Vaginal injuries.

X   Despite 5 weeks decomposition and fire damage, these types of injuries would have still been detectable.  There were no vaginal injuries.
———————————————————————————-

Summary

The prosecution presented no credible evidence to support their claim of a violent, sexually motivated murder.   There is no evidence of:  hyoid bone damage; bruising to the neck’s strap muscles; ligature marks; petichia; any other injuries to other parts of the body; urination and/or defecation; blood spray; torn and/.or stretched clothing.   Further, in the absence of any vaginal injuries, there can only be on possibility – all sexual activity was consensual, and Ms Longhurst’s death was accidental, during the course of BCP.

What of the blood stain?   At the time Ms Longhurst died, Graham was lying on his back on the bed, and Ms Longhurst was kneeling to his left, positioned diagonally over him engaged in BCP.   The blood stain occurred when her head came to rest on his upper right arm.   Graham did not become aware of her death, or the blood stain on his shirt, until after he moved her from his arm.

All the evidence indicates that Ms Longhurst died as a result of vagal inhibition.  This mechanism can stop the heart immediately, or after a few seconds or arrhythmia, and can strike without warning.   A spontaneous expulsion of bloody fluid from the lungs can occur.   The stain may have been caused by this, or perhaps something as simple as a nose bleed.

No attack, no violence, no intent to harm, nothing more than a tragic accident.

2 Comments on "Evidence"

  • Really need to explain how she went from kneeling to the left of Graham positioned diagonally engaging in BCP to resting on Grahams upper arm, was she conscious when she moved, was it voluntary or involuntary? What BCP activity had taken place (I realise that this might be a bit coarse to explain, but it needs to be explained for the public to understand the circumstances surrounding her death) just before she died which would have enabled her to rest upon the arm of Graham and not died in a different position?

    • “Hi Jason, thank you for your interest in my case. When the possibility of setting up this campaign site was first proposed I was a little hesitant. I had to think about the other people that had been affected by these events and circumstances. Jane’s family, my family, and others. I did give some thought to going into the minutiae of who was in what position and so forth. Anyway, evidence at 2 trials is a matter of public record and covers all of this. However, it just didn’t feel like the right thing to do. We are talking about the last few moments of someone’s life. I understand and agree with your points about going into further detail but Jane was my friend and the circumstances dictate continuing responsibility to her and her family.
      We were involved in a certain activity at the time, detailing who was doing what would be crass and salacious, and attract the wrong sort of people. I have no control over what ‘the public’ want to believe and, frankly, doing the right thing is more important. You sound like someone who has the ability to think using logic rather than being controlled by emotion so I hope you appreciate the difficulty of my position. Graham.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *