Lee Firkins is innocent
Another Miscarriage of Justice!
Home      The Trial - October 2005

Members of the Jury, can you be sure?
Mr Z gave evidence of the alleged series of confessions by Robert.  The jury convicted the Firkins brothers of murder.
Mr Z whose evidence convicted the Firkins brothers was a skilled, devious manipulator with what defence lawyers believe was a long term probably unofficial history as an informant.  He lied, sold drugs, committed offences of violence and lied again.  In the run up to the trial Mr Z who had told police he was going the Christian way was suspected by prison officers of running a jailhouse drug smuggling ring and forcing other prisoners wives and girlfriends to bring drugs and phones into prison. Despite being implicated in a plot involving a female member of his own family who was arrested and prosecuted for smuggling contraband into prison he was left by the police.

The weight of the evidence
The Firkins brothers had an unbreakable alibi for 7pm based on their mobile phones.  To make them guilty, the prosecution had to argue that for no known reason Mr and Mrs Fisher had decided to change their normal routine and eat an hour later than usual. 


The Firkins brothers were forensic blunderers - they left a trail of clues wherever they went.  But the killers at Perch Garage left not a trace.


All the cars which the Firkins brothers had used in the months before 5 November 2003 were traced by police.  Not one contained any forensic material linking them to the murder.


The prosecution argued at trial that this was a robbery gone wrong - they had to do this to match the crime to the defendants.  Yet until the Firkins brothers came along the Police had publicly stated that the murders were "planned and personal". If there was a motive personal to the Fishers, and many local people share this view, then the perpretrators and possibly whoever may have hired them, are still at liberty mightily relieved that the police concentrated their efforts on convincing a jury that the Firkins did it. 


The case against the Firkins brothers was based on the word of a man who was a pathological liar and manipulator of the authorities for his own ends

Was this a fair trial?

Until 2003 a defendant was tried on the evidence which the police had collected without the jury knowing about his character.  This was because Parliament thought it was difficult to reach a fair decision on guilt if bad character was taken into account.

When Parliament passed the Criminal Justice Act 2003 assurances were given that evidence of bad character would not be used where the rest of the case was weak.

In Lee Firkins' case there was no evidence against him at all by the time the prosecution closed their case.  Although the prisoner Mr Z had given evidence of a cell confession by Robert this was not evidence of Lee's guilt.  But even so Lee's character went before the jury.

Could the jury  decide this case fairly?  Can we sure that a just verdict was reached?  Or were they so overwhelmed by Lee's record that they no longer cared about the absence of evidence?  And it was accepted by Robert that he was with Lee for the whole of Bonfire Night 2003 and so Lee's bad character also counted against Robert.


The Campaigns
The Appeal
 The Appeal