Apology?

Michael O’Brien’s quest for an apology for over eleven years of wrongful imprisonment has so far been unsuccessful, but he secured the highest ever compensation to a victim of a miscarriage of justice in a civil action against the police. South Wales Police paid O’Brien and his then brother-in-law Ellis Sherwood a total of half a million pounds in 2006.

“In accordance with counsel’s advice payment into court have been made in full and final settlement of the claims by Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Sherwood without an apology”, said Deputy Chief Constable Dave Francis. “It is emphasised that this has been done without any admission of liability”.

Bad Faith

Francis went on to claim that O’Brien and Sherwood had chosen to accept the payments rather than take their allegations to court, but O’Brien says he had no choice but to accept the payment, because he faced bankruptcy if he pursued his claim and the court awarded him less than the police paid into court.

“I stand by all of my allegations against the police”, said O’Brien. “They acted in bad faith. Let them sue me if they dispute this”. OʼBrien has made no secret of his allegations of bad faith. South Wales Police and those accused, especially Lewis have never sued him.

His solicitor who helped him to bring the historic claim was unimpressed with the way the settlement had been portrayed as well. “South Wales Police are trying to depict their payment of £500,000 plus legal costs of probably the same amount again as a commercial settlement,” said Sarah Ricca. “I wonder if anyone is fooled by such a claim.”

The Newsagent’s Three have yet to receive an apology from either the police or criminal justice system. Nor is there an investigation into unlawful conduct by police officers in this case despite the conclusions of former Detective Superintendent Alan Partridge and the endorsement of the appeal court.¹

Refusal

“Their refusal to apologise after all that they put me and my family through clearly shows that they refuse to accept the findings of the CCRC and appeal court”, said O’Brien. It has had a detrimental effect on the Forceʼs attempts to move on past the discredited methods of policing at that time

“I do not trust them to investigate this crime impartially any more”, OʼBrien said. “I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they refuse to investigate my claims of bad faith in the original investigation, let alone allow the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute any of them. Only a fully independent public inquiry can get to the truth of what happened in my case and other miscarriages of justice in South Wales”.

Consistent Critic

Since his release O’Brien has been the most vociferous critic of South Wales police over miscarriages of justice, including his own. A tireless campaigner for a public inquiry into several Welsh cases including the Cardiff Five and that of Annette Hewins, O’Brien has been a consistent thorn in their side.

Ironically an apology and an investigation into proven police malpractice in his case could have avoided the expense to the public that Francis appears so keen to avoid years ago.

Justice

“The fact that they paid such a large amount into court has nothing to do with concerns for the public purse and everything to do with the strength of the evidence against South Wales officers,” said Ricca. “There now needs to be a public inquiry into this and other cases involving South Wales police officers which raise such serious allegations of police misconduct.”

Nobody wants the murder of Phillip Saunders solved more than Michael O’Brien, so much so that he offered a reward of £50,000 for information leading to the convictions of the real murderer. All he ever wanted was justice.

Sadistic Mysogynist

Between 1968-85 sixteen people had been shot dead. Many had been stabbed as well and the violence against the female victims escalated. All sixteen murders were committed with the same gun and the bullets even came from the very same box of ammunition as well. The killer was a Sadistic misogynist – a particularly vicious one. The level of violence went far beyond what was needed to kill, especially on the women and it became progressively worse.

Towards the end of his reign of evil the female victims were stabbed repeatedly and had their genitals cut out as well. Two had their left breasts cut off as well. He was clearly striking at the female identity of these victims. He also sent a portion of his final victimʼs left breast to a prosecutor who had almost tricked him into revealing himself previously.The trail eventually went cold – frozen it could be said – but why?

An Innocent

There was no shortage of theories, hunches and Chinese whispers as to who il Mostro di Firenze (the Monster of Florence) was. As would be expected in such a case the main suspects were far from angels. There were two or even three main lines of enquiry.

The first victims Antonio lo Bianco and Barbara Locci were murdered in 1968. It took several killings and almost fifteen years to realise that all the murders had been committed with the same gun. By that time Locciʼs husband Stefano Mele had been sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment and had served six. Was he the monster? He couldnʼt possibly have committed all of the murders and this was well known to investigators.

Mele certainly had a powerful motive for the 1968 murders. Locci had a stream of lovers and flaunted it in Meleʼs face, but Mele clearly could not have been il Mostro. The crime spree continued while he was in prison, which meant that either Mele was completely innocent, or there was another killer who got possession of the same gun and just happened to be a particularly vicious serial killer.

Embarrassing

Meleʼs account to investigators was contradictory. It wasnʼt difficult to see why investigators in 1968 had focused on him. His 6-year-old son Natalino had not only been spared, but carried to a nearby home and dropped off there. For a monster who would later kill and mutilate victims in a chilling fashion, this behaviour defied logic. It suggested that the murders of lo Bianco and Locci may well not have been committed by il Mostro, but by someone known to them and who cared about the child. Stefano Mele certainly ticked those boxes.

After all, why would a Sadistic misogynist serial killer care about killing one more, even if it was a child? And why would such a vicious killer take the trouble to ensure that the child not only survived, but was looked after? It made no sense, especially as it increased the prospect of detection. However, if the killer was related to Natalino or cared about him it made perfect sense. No wonder investigators quickly homed in on Stefano Mele.

Stefano was an obvious suspect in the murders of lo Bianco and Locci. The conduct of the killer after the murders also fitted Mele – Natalino was his son after all. He must have known that he would be a prime suspect. The contradictions in his accounts to police and his confession all but secured his fate, but the lack of scientific evidence was surprising to say the least.

And of course the weapon used to kill lo Bianco and Locci was used by il Mostro for the other murders. Either the first murders were not part of the series of il Mostro crimes at all, or there was not just one monster, or il Mostro committed all the crimes. Despite some convictions there remains a widespread belief in Tuscany that the Monster was never brought to justice.