Susan May
Susan
May was convicted of murdering her elderly aunt, Hilda Marchbank. Hilda was
beaten about the head and smothered with a pillow. What evidence was there to
prove Susan was the murderer?
It was claimed Susan incriminated herself by asking about specific injuries
(scratches to her aunt's face) which, in the opinion of the police, only the
killer could know about. There is doubt as to whether the comments were
actually made, as all records of them were lost by the police. Furthermore
Susan's daughter, who was present at the time, is adamant no such comments
were made. Even if they were made then would only the killer know about them?
There is documentary evidence showing the police discussed injuries with
Susan in the days following the murder. Also, it was Susan who found Hilda's
body albeit in a darkened room due to the curtains being closed.
Did Susan have motive to commit the murder? The answer is no. Susan had Power
of Attorney over her aunt's estate and therefore could have sold Hilda's
shares, house, jewellery and other belongings for a considerable amount of
money without breaking the law and gaining the entire proceeds. Yes it might
have caused resentment amongst other members of the family but legally Susan
could have done this as Hilda's registered carer. As it happened, by
murdering Hilda, Susan was only entitled to half of the estate under Hilda's
will. Susan was fully aware of her aunt's will. Also she would have known
that it takes time to inherit from a will. Therefore if Susan wanted money it
was in her interests to keep Hilda alive.
There has never been a single person come forward to say that Susan felt any
anger or frustration towards her aunt. She was described as being devoted to
Hilda. There was a great deal of love between the two women who were
incredibly close. So why would Susan brutally kill her aunt?
Susan's movements on the night of the murder are well accounted for by and
large. She visited her boyfriend, took him to the pub (picking up one of his
friends on the way), made a number of phone calls from home, spoke to her
daughter at home, but she made a very brief visit to Hilda's home because
Hilda could not find her house key (Hilda was almost blind). The visit was
shown to last only a matter of a few minutes yet Hilda's home was ransacked,
with a terribly disturbed scene that must have taken several minutes to
create.
There is not a single piece of forensic evidence linking Susan to the crime.
At her trial it was said that a bloodstained fingerprint was found on a wall
and the print was from Susan. It is true the print was from one of Susan's
fingers but there was no blood as has been proven in recent years since
Susan's conviction. It could have got there at any time and so was not
necessarily connected to the murder. There was no blood on any of Susan's
clothes or in her car. None of Susan's hairs, or textile fibres from her
clothes, were found on Hilda yet Hilda had many fibres under her nails from
clothing that has never been identified. This would suggest Hilda scratched and
struggled with her assailant(s). Susan had no injuries.
In court it was proven that Hilda did often leave her door unlocked.
Therefore any burglar could easily gain access and a number of burglaries had
taken place in the area. Just two days after Hilda's murder a violent burglar
nearly killed a man by kicking him repeatedly in the head. This same man had
been a suspect in Hilda's murder. This man had tried to confide in someone
soon after Hilda's murder about something serious he had done. The woman was
not interested in what he had to say but he kept telling her he had really
done it this time. He even began crying about what he had done.
Another burglar told his sister of Hilda's death before Hilda's body had been
found. How could he have known of Hilda's death at this early stage unless he
played a role in the crime or knew someone who did?
An unidentified car was seen outside Hilda's house at a time at which the
murder could have occurred. Who drove this vehicle? At this time Susan was at
home. Unidentified footprints and fingerprints were found inside Hilda's
house where drawers and wardrobes had been emptied. These were not Susan's.
Were the prints from a burglar? Interestingly one of the suspects, a burglar,
owned a pair of trainers which left footprints the same as one found at the
scene of the murder. He is known to have worn trainers which leave the same
type of print at another scene of a burglary. He told the police he destroyed
the trainers within days after Hilda's murder.
Essentially in Susan's case there was no motive, no forensic evidence,
evidence providing a possible alibi and evidence suggesting Hilda was
murdered by one or more known burglars.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission are currently studying Susan's case. She
has had two failed appeals despite the fact the prosecution's argument at
trial has been entirely eroded.
On 26 April 2005 Susan was released on parole but will continue to fight
against what she maintains is a wrongful conviction.
Susan
is the subject of my article Trial and Error: The Case of Susan May
which can be viewed on the ‘Published Articles’ page of this website.
For more details about Susan May visit www.susanmay.co.uk
To return to the Cases of Interest index please click here
To return to my home page please click here
|