Is Convicted Murderer Stephen Marsh Innocent?
May 27th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: In my blog post Once Again, the Female Criminal Justice Sentencing Discount from last year, I discussed the BBC article Lovers' 30-year murder sentence (5/18/07). According to the BBC:
"Stephen Marsh, 36, was sentenced to 18 years for persuading Rebecca Harris, 30, to stab his wife Jaspal to death at the marital home in Gorseinon, Swansea. Harris was given a 12-year sentence for carrying out the July 2006 murder."
I wrote:
"Both the man and the woman...deserve severe punishment, but I can't help but notice the gender bias in sentencing here.
"The husband and his lover plotted to kill the man's wife. The husband urged his girlfriend to commit the crime, but physically played no role in the murder. The girlfriend stabbed the man's wife 16 times with a knife. Yet the husband got an 18 year sentence and the girlfriend--the one who actually committed the murder--got only 12 years, partially because she cooperated with prosecutors, but also because she's a woman, and women are treated with kid gloves by the criminal justice system.
"Also, when a man and a woman commit a crime together, the state is more likely to offer a deal to the woman to testify against the man than vice versa."
I regularly receive letters from people who are the family or friends of men who are on trial for or have been convicted of serious crimes, such as murder. The family or friends of the accused or convicted man explain that the man has been the victim of an injustice, or framed, or is in some other way innocent, and they ask me to take up their cause and publicize it.
Recently I received this type of request from Garry Leech in support of Stephen Marsh. Apparently British writer Sandra Lean, author of No Smoke - The Shocking Truth about British Justice, has also taken up Marsh's cause. Garry Leech sent me the following letter:
"Glenn, I have just read your article on the murder of Jaspal Marsh and I would like you to visit www.stephenmarshisinnocent.co.uk before making your mind up with regards to Stephen. There are many people who believe Stephen is innocent who were both friends and family of Jaspal Marsh, and also people who have read the shocking facts of this miscarriage of justice.
"Ask yourself why people who knew Jas would support Stephen. If they thought he was guilty, surely they would not be supporting him, as they have lost a very special person in Jas. The only person who is guilty in this horrific crime is Rebecca Harris. She committed this crime as she knew Stephen would never leave Jas.
"Stephen had nothing at all to gain by being part of this murder. I hope by reading his website that it at least makes you think that this case could be a miscarriage of justice. We can never bring back Jas but we can help support Stephen in his fight for freedom."
I hadn't followed the case since I wrote about it a year ago, and I had to go do a search on my website to remember who Stephen Marsh was. I certainly do think it was unfair that he was sentenced to far more time in prison than Rebecca Harris was, even though she was the one who committed the killing and he was not. Beyond that, I do not really have any particular reason to question Marsh's conviction, and I'm interested as to what readers think. A few comments:
1) Leech writes, "Stephen had nothing at all to gain by being part of this murder." Well, maybe, but maybe not. The Marsh marriage was obviously a troubled one--the website created by Marsh's defenders says, "He had affairs but Jaz was his wife, he knew the difference and so did Jaz."
It is possible, though the Marsh side will deny it, that Stephen wanted to begin a new life with Rebecca, and it would have been much more convenient if Jaspal (aka "Jaz") were out of the way. We're told that Stephen had little interest in Rebecca and wanted to break up with her, but the fact remains that he was having an affair with her, which certainly shows a significant level of interest.
Also, we do not know that Jaz took the affair as lightly as Steven's defenders say she did. Perhaps she was going to cause real trouble over the affairs, and within certain limits, I couldn't blame her.
2) Stephen Marsh -- whose defenders themselves say that he had regular affairs -- doesn't seems like a particularly trustworthy individual. Certainly that does not make him a murderer or an accessory to murder, but it does to some significant degree impugn his credibility.
3) Marsh's defenders write, "If Steve had wanted to be with Rebecca Harris he could have walked out of the door at any time. Steve and Jaz had no children and Steve would have been entitled to half of whatever they had built up together." Again, maybe, but maybe not.
I certainly agree that the fact that they did not have children makes it far, far easier for Stephen to have left his wife. However, we have seen cases where divorcing men are so obsessed with their money, or what they think is "their" money, that they have reacted irrationally or even violently in a situation where most outsiders would think they were getting a pretty decent deal.
The Nicholas Bartha case -- where a divorcing man blew up a building he owned with his wife rather than allow her to have it through their divorce settlement -- is one example. It was extraordinarily selfish of him to put others in danger because of his personal vendetta.
The Darren Mack case is another example. Here the wealthy businessman had a good deal (including 50-50 custody of his daughter and a reasonable financial settlement) but stabbed and nearly cut his ex-wife's head off and attempted to murder a judge.
We have also seen situations where men get screwed financially in divorce even though there are no children involved. Stephen Marsh had affairs yet stayed married to his wife -- it seems that for whatever reason, he was hesitant to leave her.
4) Marsh's defenders write "Steve would never, ever in a million years have left Jaz, she was his rock in life, organized everything for them and looked after him." Again, this seems suspicious. If she was such a great wife, if he was so devoted to her, if she was "his rock in life," why was he repeatedly having affairs? Yes, it is possible that Steven did regard his wife in this reverential manner, but it seems unlikely.
5) Marsh's defenders write:
"Rebecca Harris claimed that Stephen, who was not there (this is not disputed), sent her texts saying 'Do it' and 'Just Do It' and Stephen was jointly convicted of murder. She was sentenced to 12 years in jail, Stephen was sentenced to 18 years. He will never, ever, change his assertion of his complete innocence and so may never come out of prison if we cannot prove his innocence. The media repeatedly reported that 'evidence showed' that Stephen sent texts saying the words 'Do It' and 'Just Do It' and anyone could be forgiven for believing that those words must have been physically recovered from a mobile phone.
"No texts from Stephen to anyone saying any such thing were ever recovered from anywhere - they exist only in the version of events given by the murderer Rebecca Harris
"The 'evidence' referred to was the version of events put forward by Rebecca Harris, this was not made clear by the media, instead by using the phrase 'evidence showed', they allowed their readers and viewers to believe that texts showing those words must physically exist - those words have never been found to exist by any investigation - this is not an opinion this is a fact."
If what Marsh's defenders say here is true, this is very important. I know that prosecutors will sometimes distort evidence in order to win a conviction. I know that defendants don't always have competent legal help. I know that the media can simplify or distort things, particularly when the bad guy in the story is a man. On the other hand, it seems somewhat unlikely that prosecutors could get a conviction based on phantom evidence such as Marsh's defenders describe.
The website and the case for Marsh is at www.stephenmarshisinnocent.co.uk. While some of Marsh's defenders' arguments seem flawed to me, I'm not convinced that they are wrong, and I'm interested to see what readers think of Marsh's guilt or innocence.
"));
19 queries. 0.404 seconds.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
"No texts from Stephen to anyone saying any such thing were ever recovered from anywhere - they exist only in the version of events given by the murderer Rebecca Harris
"The 'evidence' referred to was the version of events put forward by Rebecca Harris, this was not made clear by the media, instead by using the phrase 'evidence showed', they allowed their readers and viewers to believe that texts showing those words must physically exist - those words have never been found to exist by any investigation - this is not an opinion this is a fact."
Of all the points Stephen Marsh's defenders make that are listed in this post, this is the only one that might suggest that he was not involved - or, perhaps, not to go overboard too much, that he had covered HIS tracks well, and reduced his accomplice to having to "manufacture" some evidence to demonstrate the link between them.
It seems that if the had been no text messages found, then the lack of evidence would have been key to the defense discrediting the charge that he was involved. It seems hard to imagine that if either prosecutors or her defense team had used empty claims of text messages which could be shown not to exist, that ample reasonable doubt as to the credibility of those claims would not have existed leading to an acquittal.
Since he was, in fact convicted, it seems quite likely that there was enough additional evidence to tie him to the crime that the “fact” that the texts were not found on a phone didn’t matter. It’s easy to conceive of the idea that Stephen Marsh was bright enough to use a phone that was not traceable to him to send messages, and that she likewise used an untraceable phone to receive them. Text message sent between two “throw-away” phones would be hard to find amongst the millions of messages out there. Thus, the issue of text messages might well have come down to her “memory” of them, without any “proof” of them.
Yet, again, it seems hard to believe that the prosecution would have built a case based on text messages that one party “remembered” receiving. Here must have been quite a bit more evidence of his involvement for him to have been convicted.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
After firing off one reply, I decided to exercise a bit of brain/computer power to do a quick check. Right off, I found a item which would seem to belie the claim that no text messages where found. Here's an excerpt from an article by the BBC, Murder lovers trapped by texts
May 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I compare this to the "barbie bank robbers" case from a while ago. They got very mild sentences, and the two men involved, who were not in the bank actually committing the armed robbery, got 5 and 10 year sentences.
Can I get a partial sentencing discount if I get a vasectomy, or do I have to go the whole sex change route?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Like Glenn, I know no more about this than has been reported. However, I live in the UK, about 40 miles from Swansea, and this is the first I've heard of any campaign, so it's not big news over here. That said, when doubts have been expressed about a conviction previously, very often the conviction has been overturned......eventually. Often it has started like this, just a few friends expressing doubts, and has gathered momentum.
Like Glenn, I'm keeping an open mind, but if there are any developments, i can post again, or let Glenn know.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Interesting you guys have picked this up - there is very little mention of this in the Brit press . For a murderer to get 12 years is far too light , whereas 18 years for conspiracy seems about rightif it were the lesser sentence .
May 27th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I don't understand how premeditated murder can get a lighter sentence than conspiracy to commit murder, regardless of the validity of any convictions...
May 27th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Maybe she was horrible in bed?
Perhaps even it was her solution for his sex drive?
or, and pay attention to this one, maybe the culture difference between Europe and US (where male adultery is more expected and accepted)?
A lot of your "flaw" with their arguments is in your belief that because he had affairs, he must be some level of 'scum' to do so. Perhaps he's just another guy in the view of their social values.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
And this man? Did he have any history of that?
Or is your chivalry showing thru in your belief that because some men are bad, we just accept that all men may be bad. Of course, when that logic is used on women it's generally called misogyny.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Guilty or innocent it's pretty obvious that the person who does the killing should get more jail time than the one who merely encourages it.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I think it's called keeping an open mind and being open to implications of the known facts: good and bad.
From the small window that is shown here, the lack of text messages seems salient. Not having been there for the trial, who knows. I do know that in "family court" cases, the lack of physical evidence or the completely obvious possibility that printed out emails may have been falsified doesn't prevent the judge from assuming anything he wants. I would hope that would change in a murder case, but ....
(From the small tidbit we have here we don't know what the relationship between Marsh and his wife was. They may have had an open marriage.)
May 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
"Guilty or innocent it's pretty obvious that the person who does the killing should get more jail time than the one who merely encourages it."
Hah! You clearly are using that old, defunct, "Cartesian Logic!" Get with the times, man!
May 27th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Glenn said:
"The girlfriend stabbed the man's wife 16 times with a knife. Yet the husband got an 18 year sentence and the girlfriend--the one who actually committed the murder--got only 12 years, partially because she cooperated with prosecutors, but also because she's a woman, and women are treated with kid gloves by the criminal justice system."
The sad reality is that females tend to be treated with kid gloves in two ways:
1). Females are given less time in prison (an issue of quantitiy).
2). The prison living conditions of female prisons are better than the quality of male prisons (an issue of quality).
MXY
May 28th, 2008 at 12:13 am
"Also, when a man and a woman commit a crime together, the state is more likely to offer a deal to the woman to testify against the man than vice versa."
Maybe that's because the state knows women are more likely to offer someone else up to save themselves.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Even if it can be argued that he encouraged the killer woman to kill his wife - did he actually tell her to stab her 16 times? It would be pretty weird to pick out a number like 16. Why not less or why not more if you go for the psycho effect.
In any case, the brutality of the murder should be be considered. And for doing that you get 12 years? I thought some states put you down for doing something like that. By the way the last time any female was punished with death in the part of the world I am from was when the women (it was a gang sort) was found to be kidnapping infants The proven number was about 5-6, with estimates being much higher than that. The women were using infants as leverage to commit other crimes (a crying baby on an accused woman ellicits a lot of compassion) - "crying baby sheild"?. They would hurt the baby to get it to cry bitterly. It was found out that these women have killed some of those babies that were hurt too badly (i.e. needing medical care) or for some reason did not work out for their task - by smashing their heads with ROCKS! Pretty vile stuff - not covered in international media - or even the national media for that matter. The story appeared only in the local news paper only!
For that the govt decided to put 2 of these women serial-baby killers to death. I wonder what can be worse than that. Think of the grief of the parents when they found out that their priceless babies died for earning these crooks measly amounts of money through petty crimes - pick pocketing and that sort. The injustice done to the innocent infants was probably too much for the judges to look the other way. This sort of blind compassion for "assumed" mothers quite frankly is partially responsible for the deaths of those babies - in my opinion anyway. Had people not been so reluctant to be compassionate to criminal women with kids - because of the kids - these women would probably have never stolen those babies and they would probably all be alive.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:58 am
I take the comment about media reporting back. Apparently Amnesty International was trying to commute the death sentences for these 2 women. Even their story confirms the numbers - all victims below the age of 5. I wonder if Amnesty International would have tried the same thing for Ted Bundy - maybe they are that crazy - who knows!
May 28th, 2008 at 1:42 am
MichaelClaymore Said:
“Guilty or innocent it's pretty obvious that the person who does the killing should get more jail time than the one who merely encourages it.”
I agree but it is often not the case – “felony murder” convictions often send people who weren’t anywhere near the crime scene to jail for longer periods than the actual “murderer”.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:39 am
From the BBC story (posted above):
"We were able to ascertain there hade been a lot of phone traffic between them, more importantly there had been text messages. Using the technology that we have, we were able to obtain (some of) those message and examine them."
This doesn't say that they were able to read all of the text messages. The Detective states that Marsh deleted certain messages (and I'm guessing they know that by looking at the number of messages sent and the time(s) they were sent and then comparing them to his Sent folder) and kept others.
This is most likely true, but he hasn't stated that they ever found out what those deleted messages said. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that texts can't be retrieved once deleted unless they've been intercepted en route (ie the person's been placed under surveillance). All the police were able to show Rebecca was the volume of texts and calls between her and Marsh - she then rolled over and implicated him.
I don't know whether he's guilty or not. From the little I can find on the web, I'd have likely convicted him if I'd sat on a jury, but I've long given up on expecting truly objective or factual reporting from the press. I find it hard to believe that he didn't at LEAST have a suspicion of what she intended to do, given that they'd been constantly talking and texting right up until the point of the murder.
Who knows though? Only he and Rebecca know the truth, and one of them's lying.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Well, I should have looked harder - From the BBC (2nd April):
"Detective Superintendent Paul Kemp subsequently discovered that Marsh and his lover had been in almost constant contact via text messages on the night Mrs Marsh died last July. Some were sent within 60 seconds of each other but at one stage there was a 28-minute gap in communications.
One message from Marsh urged Harris to carry out the killing, and another explained which kitchen knife to use.
When questioned over the text messages in court, Marsh said he had no memory of most of them and said that years of alcohol abuse had taken its toll on his memory..."
"But, as the jury heard, he was fully aware of what was taking place at his marital home.
After Harris stabbed Jaspal more than 30 times she sent him a message saying: "She screamed and fought - I'm shaking so much." He replied: "You're a star. I luv u."
They had become involved some nine months before and their relationship had developed into a sado-masochistic affair with Marsh getting a kick out of cutting his lover with the same knife later used to murder his wife.
"From the outset of the inquiry there were certain factors of the accounts that were given by Stephen Marsh and Rebecca Harries which did not quite add up," Mr Kemp said.
"A turning point was when we examined the CCTV of the Swansea city centre area which showed Rebecca Harries travelling in the general direction of the murder scene.
"The second turning point really was the examination of Rebecca Harris's and Stephen Marsh's mobile phones."
Pretty damning stuff.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:45 am
It's amazing that the media routinely portrays men as stupid and women as the superior sex. Yet when it comes to somethings like crime, women are treated as having infantile minds and therefore can't be as resposible for their crimes as men.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Oh, I see - he got more time for telling her to do it. He used those vast psychic powers by summoning "teh patriarchy" and made Harris do it.
Harris was incapable of going to the police and reporting Marsh, since it's just an institution of "teh patriarchy", too.
I don't care what he said or did - she is an adult, and responsible for her actions. Unless she's a minor, or mentally incompetant, there's no way of comparing her violent act of murder to anything he might have done to convince her it was a good idea.
He should be charged and sentenced, but punishing him with a longer sentence is BS. So much for equality.
So, what feminist outrage has been published that's trying to excuse poor Ms Harris?
... and feminists are trying to demand an equality of result in political office and corporate boards? How about a little equity at this end of the scale, first? Why would anyone want to invest their money, or risk their government to a gender that's demonstrably less accountable for it's actions?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:57 am
James Howard - "This is most likely true, but he hasn't stated that they ever found out what those deleted messages said. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that texts can't be retrieved once deleted unless they've been intercepted en route (ie the person's been placed under surveillance). All the police were able to show Rebecca was the volume of texts and calls between her and Marsh - she then rolled over and implicated him."
I'm sure you're right, deleted text messages are not recoverable. I'm also certain that this is why Stephen Marsh's defenders are hanging their hats on the fact that the text messages (that Harris likely related what they had said) were not actually in evidence - just Harris' account of them.
But, phone companies do keep track of the number and time of text messages (as the father of current and former teenagers, I'm all too aware of the itemized bills). So, it would be easy to tell if some messages had been selectively deleted (as opposed to deleting a block of them). Knowing that messages had been exchanged between them, the authorities could simply have pushed Harris to save her own skin by revealing what had been deleted.
A sentence of just 12 years seems very light for some one who brutally stabbed another human being, then "bragged" about it afterwards - even if she did confess and cooperate to help nail her accomplice.
His 18 year sentence is more in line with conspiracy. Celia mentioned “felony murder” as a charge (in the States for an accomplice), but I don’t know if they have a complementary charge in the UK, and felony murder usually gets the perpetrator quite a bit stiffer sentence that 18 years (in many cases life, without parole).
From the perspective of Men’s Rights, the only thing I see in this sad affair (pun intended) is the sentencing disparity – or, more accurately, the extremely light sentence handed to the woman involved. They may have needed her testimony to his involvement to get a conviction in what would have otherwise been a circumstantial case, but it does seem like they gave up far to much to secure her testimony. It seems to me that a woman who “rolled” so quickly under interrogation would have given up the guy on the witness stand for very little in reduced punishment – say, 40 years instead of life with no parole.
She confessed, and they had her in the vicinity on video tape. No way a jury wouldn’t have convicted her. And, Life without parole would have been a mere matter of formality for any halfway-decent prosecutor to procure for the court. Must of have been some over-grown sense of Chivalry which drove the fools to go easy on her.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Life without parole is pretty rarely given in the UK - even for horific murders like this one. We seem to be hell bent on releasing as many prisoners as possible - mainly to stop our (largely Victorian-legacy) prisons from bursting at the seams.
It seems reasonably clear that he instigated and encouraged her actions in murdering his wife. That being said, I'm as surprised as some others on here that she was given less jail time than him, even with her co-operation and remorse (and his complete lack of either) taken into account.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I remember the case of Pamela Smart, in NH, in 1990. Pamela, a teacher, convinced her teenaged lover and his friends to murder her husband, Greg. They did. She was convicted and sentenced to life without parole, the three boys received sentences of upwards of 28 years. They testified against her, to the fact that it was at her urging that they committed their crime. If not for Pamela Smart, those three boys would never have committed murder. She didn't actually commit the murder, she wasn't even in the area when it happened, but she was behind it all the way. I'm not saying that the judicial system is gender neutral, but in some cases they are able to see past gender and rule on the facts.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
One of the things my experience with the family law courts did to me is to wipe out my belief in the court system in general. As a low-level activist, I have seen quite a few cases of blatant gender bias in family court, and some cases in the special domestic violence courts of Ontario. Glenn says, "it seems somewhat unlikely that prosecutors could get a conviction based on phantom evidence such as Marsh's defenders describe." I know that Glenn has reviewed many more cases than I have, so it surprises me that he retains faith in any part of the system.
I'm not happy with my changed point of view. It would be very nice to believe that the courts give a pretty fair shake to poor people, ethnic minorities, men, or whoever happens to be a convenient suspect for police or prosecutors desperate for a conviction. It's alarming to think that a high percentage of the convicted are innocent. Still, regardless of what I'd like to believe, the case against the courts is too strong for me to ignore. Despite the discomfort, I think it would be healthier for society to have a great deal more doubt about the infallibility of the courts, and a far more cynical attitude about the impartiality and truthfulness of the state.
This is such an uncomfortable, insecure viewpoint that I don't expect it to be popular. I think that's also a problem for equal parenting advocates. People believe, and they need to believe, that the system more or less always delivers the peace and security of the person that it claims to. It's a worrisome world without such beliefs, and most folks don't want to adopt any added worry, but we have to persuade them to do just that if we hope to see them rally behind fundamental changes to family law.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
slwerner said:
“Celia mentioned “felony murder” as a charge (in the States for an accomplice), but I don’t know if they have a complementary charge in the UK, and felony murder usually gets the perpetrator quite a bit stiffer sentence that 18 years (in many cases life, without parole).”
You are right on both counts. They dropped felony murder in the UK in the 1950s – despite the fact that its origins lie in British common law. I suspect that this was done because it was, in my view quite rightly, regarded as a “legal fiction” and less capable of producing “just” results. I also think that there is a clear difference in “intent” coupled with “conspiracy” versus the rather loose attributes of proximate cause analysis frequently applied to felony murder cases. The “agency” theory is a more “just” means of analysis in these cases.
This case is, obviously, not like felony murder – it falls under conspiracy to commit murder (which I think is covered under the UK’s Homicide Act – lying in the tenet of “common purpose”). In this case there is no question that Harris was the person who committed the murder – she admitted to doing it. The question raised by Marsh’s friends is whether or not there was conspiracy. The sentencing here is akin to the Pamela Smart case, mentioned by Beth, wherein the actual murderers got a lesser sentence than the person who, according to the court, put them up to it. It is sort of like asking the question, “Who is the guiltier party?” the murderer or the person who persuaded the murderer into doing it. We see the same thing in war crime trials, where the “leaders” get death while the actual perpetrators receive lesser or no penalty.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Erik writes:
"As a low-level activist, I have seen quite a few cases of blatant gender bias in family court, and some cases in the special domestic violence courts of Ontario. Glenn says, "it seems somewhat unlikely that prosecutors could get a conviction based on phantom evidence such as Marsh's defenders describe." I know that Glenn has reviewed many more cases than I have, so it surprises me that he retains faith in any part of the system."
Erik, we're talking about two different things here. The evidence standards for family courts and domestic violence courts are much, much shoddier than those in real criminal courts, which is the subject here.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Celia - "“Who is the guiltier party?” the murderer or the person who persuaded the murderer into doing it."
Celia,
My bigger issue in this case was a mere 12-year sentence for a person who repeatedly stabbed another while carrying out a premeditated murder. Surely, she must have been facing a life sentence. To have bargined it down to what would be appropriate for a 2nd degree murder seems way too generous just for her cooperation.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Addendum to my earlier comment with respect to sentencing – I agree with some others here in thinking that if the tables were turned and he murdered her husband, even in light of his turning state’s witness, he would have been held to a higher standard of accountability than she was in this instance.
Glenn said:
“The evidence standards for family courts and domestic violence courts are much, much shoddier than those in real criminal courts . . .”
You got that right, in fact much of what passes off as “evidence” in family courts would not be legally admissible in “real” courts. Much of this goes to the fact that family courts are not what would traditionally be considered courts of law – rather, they are hand-me-downs of courts of “equity”. If they were run like “real” courts a lot of the BS that they hand down would disappear.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Slwerner said:
“My bigger issue in this case was a mere 12-year sentence for a person who repeatedly stabbed another while carrying out a premeditated murder.”
I agree - it seems to be a very light sentence but, of course, we’d need to read the entire transcript from the trial to get a better understanding of the sentencing in the UK setting (ie under UK sentencing guidelines). None the less, I agree it seems mighty light considering the character of the crime.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Glenn originally inquired - "While some of Marsh's defenders' arguments seem flawed to me, I'm not convinced that they are wrong, and I'm interested to see what readers think of Marsh's guilt or innocence."
So, then,
As wrap-up; does anyone here believe that Stephen Marsh is innocent?
May 29th, 2008 at 1:42 am
slwerner,
No one can know whether he is innocent or not. To merely have a doubt on his guilt (or more accurately, justice in the sentencing delivered) does not mean anyone believes he is innocent. It is pathetic to say that alleged perp "persuaded", without threat of physical violence, another accomplice to commit a crime. If Mr. Marsh has no criminal record, if the killer woman had no evidence of her life in danger, it cannot be held as criminal persuasion. The court that decided nilly-willy to consider the persuasion of which there can be no possible evidence. Even "Do it" doesn't cut it for me. It has to be "Kill her or else.." sort of language there, with enough proof that it was him that sent that text message. For all we know she could have sent those messages to herself. Text messages do not carry proof of identity as voice does. In all practical cases - it merely means some text was transferred from one phone to another. That is all. Imagine this - If I borrow your phone for a minute, just to check its cool features, and when you are not looking send out inappropriate messages to all numbers in your phone book.. are you to be held liable for that? How will you prove that I ever borrowed it?
May 29th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I'm with Glenn's original interpretation on this one. The facts are much too convoluted and the man was preying on women way too much for me to come to his defense. I appreciate his friends' efforts and am also interested in new evidence that would shed light on his innocence. Short of that, I don't understand how this man deserves more attention than me.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Pankaj - ”For all we know she could have sent those messages to herself. Text messages do not carry proof of identity as voice does. In all practical cases - it merely means some text was transferred from one phone to another.”
Pankaj,
While I can appreciate that you taken the time to give a thoughtful answer, two things come to mind.
First, even text message transmissions are recorded in the phone company records. I touched on it earlier on, but I’ve become more aware of this as I’ve had to keep a close eye on my teenage son’s phone (over)usage. I don’t see the content of the messages, but I know to what number they were sent, and at what time (like when a furry of texts back-and-forth happen around 2 AM on a school night).
The Police have a surveillance tape of Harris entering the neighborhood (alone) not long before the time of death, and Marsh was known to be at friends house (eyewitnesses put him there, creating his alibi). Numerous text message where discovered to have been sent between their two phones around the time of the crime. More messages where sent than were still resident on the phones, so it could be known that some messages had been erased.
Apparently, during her confession to police, Harris recounted the content of some of the deleted messages – that’s where the 'Do it' and 'Just Do It' language comes in, from texts not recovered (remember that BIG KEY to his defenders?), but by her word-of-mouth only.
So, unless you’re implying that she had HIS phone with her that whole time, and even sent texts from it to his wife’s phone (in a very elaborate pre-crime cover-up), then you suggest that she could have sent the texts to herself (and erased some of them) does seem to likely.
And secondly, I was trying to gauge the general stand of posters to Glenn’s original reason for the post - Glenn Sacks:
“…I'm interested to see what readers think of Marsh's guilt or innocence."
That’s why I was asking if anyone believed that Marsh was innocent. Perhaps I should have asked if anyone believed that Marsh was the victim of an elaborate plot by his girlfriend to try to make it look as if he were involved in his wife’s murder, while he, himself, had not been actually involved at all?
May 29th, 2008 at 10:45 am
The fact that he was convicted means nothing to me , after all I was jailed, removed from my home, and had my son taken way based on spousal abuse of which there was no evidence what so ever. With today's "Bash-the-man and get ahead in politics" environment I will always give the man the benefit of the doubt.
In this case, there was obviously no evidence that this guy had anything to do with his wife's murder; but the prosecution saw the opportunity to have a more politically correct conviction. It seems that today if a married woman is murdered, all logic goes out the door, and there is a zealous investigation and prosecution of the husband.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Glenn writes: "Erik, we're talking about two different things here. The evidence standards for family courts and domestic violence courts are much, much shoddier than those in real criminal courts, which is the subject here."
(Actually, it's "Eric" with a "c".) Yes Glenn, the rules of evidence for family courts are notoriously lax or effectively nonexistent, but as I said in my earlier comment, my experience has raised powerful doubts in my mind about any decision made by the courts in general. I find it entirely plausible that the most obvious guilty verdict in a criminal case can be wrong, because the prosecution is quite ready to present any case that will win regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused, judges don't recognize that it's their job to protect the public from the overreaching power of the state, and defense lawyers vary greatly in quality.
Based on his comment, "Mike" has generalized his doubts in the same way that I have. Maybe this is a reaction of many people who've been exposed to the family courts -- contempt for one leads to contempt for the other. Certainly, it is easy to find fault with the criminal courts when something motivates you to examine them.
I didn't try to address Marsh's guilt or innocence in my earlier comment. I must say that the evidence described in the article seems very thin, and relies too much on the assertions of a hands-on murderess with a sweet plea bargain. My starting point remains a profound distrust of officials and the system, which I consider sad but healthy. In the event that I sit on a jury, the prosecution will have a heavy burden satisfying me.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
From the BBC reporting on the case (see my second post above):
"One message from Marsh urged Harris to carry out the killing, and another explained which kitchen knife to use."
I think this suggests that
a) the police were able to recover quite a few of the messages and
b) that Marsh had a pretty central role in instigating the murder.
I find it hard to give much credit to the notion that the woman was texting herself from Marsh's phone (and surely he'd have brought up the fact that his phone had been missing for a period of time as a defence anyway) whilst on her way to, and immediately after, committing an horrific murder (stabbed 16 times).
Modern networks triangulate mobile phones automatically - as long as they're switched on, a phone's position will be known from the various transmitters that it is in contact with as it keeps 'looking' for a signal.
I've read of cases in the UK where a person has murdered their partner and then tried to fake their time of death (or pretended they're still alive) by using the victims mobile to send themselves messages. They've been caught out because the police have checked with the phone providers and found out where the messages were sent from.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:41 am
I have seen the content of the texts and can absolutely and categorically confirm that no text mentioning a knife in any way was ever recovered (or, in my opinion, ever sent). The newspapers were reporting that 'evidence showed' that these texts were sent without making it clear that the evidence they were referring to was the word of Rebecca Harris the murderer. It is legally correct that anything spoken from the witness box by a co-defendant can be described as evidence, however before being caught up in these terrible events, I, along with most other people I think, would have believed that something had to be physically seen to exist before it could be described as evidence, this is not the case.
I telephoned one of the newspapers to ask them why they were deliberately presenting things in this way, they said that they were not breaking the law, I said strictly speaking you may not be but does your professional integrity mean nothing to you? They repeated, we are not breaking the law.
Stephen has never claimed that his phone wasn't in his possession. Our campaign probably isn't headline news to most people, I would have taken no notice at all of anything like it in the past.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Please note that my remarks above refer to the UK legal system, I do not know what the USA position is.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Stephen Marsh has been granted leave to appeal. The decision was made at the Royal Courts of Justice on 17th June 2008. His supporters are exhausted and relieved.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:40 am
With the news that Stephen Marsh has been granted leave to appeal i would just like to ask people with an open mind to follow this case and if there is anyone out there who thinks they might be able to help or even pledge there support then please visit his website: www.stephenmarshisinnocent.co.uk. When this crime was commited we lost two people, one of them in Jas who was a truly amazing person who we will never forget and the other being Stephen. We could never support Stephen if we thought he had anything to do this horrific crime because Jas was just as much a part of our family as Stephen was. We as Stephens family and friends know he is innocent and will keep fighting until his conviction is over turned and he is proved innocent, only then will Rebecca Harris get the sentence she deserves which can only be life in prison.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:42 am
The problem with many of the opinions posted here is that they are based on media reports, and not on facts. For example, someone stated that messages were sent between the two when the crime was being committed - this cannot be claimed, because no time of death was ever ascertained. The mobile phone traffic shows the times of texts back and forth, yet these timings cannot be made to fit with Harris's version of events - at one point she claims that Stephen Marsh is responding to a text that, the records show, he did not even receive until 6 minutes later! She claims to have made the journey from where she was caught on cctv to the Marsh household in a factually impossible time. The "plan" which she claims had been under construction for some weeks could not have been in place prior to 11.03 that night, because, according to Harris, until she received a text from a friend at 11.03pm, she thought Stephen had gone home. Being home while your lover murders your wife, apparently at your insistence, doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, provide an alibi! She claims that the plan involved him calling an ex-girlfriend to arrange an alibi, but when the ex-girlfriend failed to answer the call, he called a male friend instead. There are three points to be made about this - firstly, the timing of the messages on his phone show that this could not possibly have happened at the time or in the order she claims. Secondly, she is seen on cctv returning to the nightclub alone, and he is seen at another part of town, alone, more than half an hour before the call to the male friend (alleged to have been witnessed by Harris) is made. Quite simply, she could not possibly have known about this call at the time it was made, since all of the evidence shows she was not with Stephen Marsh, or anywhere near him, at that time. Thirdly, after claiming that Stephen called the ex-girlfriend who did not answer, and then the male friend, Harris claims that Stehen left ... to go and meet the ex girlfriend. How? The ex-girlfriend didn't answer his call, remember. (Also, in her earlier statement, this was the point at which she claimed, in three different statements, that she believed Stephen was going, or had gone,home.) I've seen a great deal of the "evidence" in this case, most of it evidence of very little, far less a conspiracy to murder. It should also be made clear that Stephen Marsh was not convicted of conspiracy, he was convicted of murder.
I don't have any hesitation in nailing my colours to the mast, based on the evidence I've seen (rather than misleading, and often blatantly dishonest reporting.) Stephen Marsh is an innocent man who was fitted up twice - once by his lover, and a second time by the British Justice System.