PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The curt release from the CCRC - announcing referral of the so-called Clive Freeman 'burking' case to the Court of Appeal - states that: "A considerable body of expert pathology opinion, gathered since Mr Freeman’s trial and appeal, the cumulative effect of which undermines the prosecution pathology evidence to the extent it can be argued it was not safe for the jury to place any weight upon it." The bland wording hides the fact that at the heart of Clive Freeman's many applications to the CCRC - unsuccessful until now - is a focus on Dr. Richard Shepherd, the pathologist who changed his opinion from natural causes due to drug and alcohol induced acute pancreatitis and later changed his opinion from accident to homicide. The role Dr. Shepherd played in what the CCRC now says is "a real possibility the Court of Appeal will find Clive Freeman’s convictions for murder and arson unsafe," is made evident in the following commentary, 'The case of Clive Freeman: Why the Criminal Cases Review Commission is in urgent need of reform,' by Dr. Michael Naughton. Dr. Michael Naughton, is the Founder and Director of Empowering the Innocent (ETI) and a Reader in Sociology and Law at the University of Bristol, has headed his commentary, "The case of Clive Freeman: Why the Criminal Cases Review Commission is in urgent need of reform." While the entire commentary can be found at the link below, I have included below the disturbing allegations allegations Dr. Naughton makes against Dr. Shepherd.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-------------------------------------------------------------——————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Mr Freeman's 4th application to the CCRC submits that it is brushing aside the fact that there was a failure to disclose to the defence the notes of the first and second post mortems. Non disclosure is a perennial feature of miscarriage of justice cases. In Clive Freeman's case, justice demands that the jury should have been made aware that the conclusion of the first and second post mortems conducted by Dr Richard Shepherd were that Mr Hardie died of natural causes and that it was only after his third post mortem that he changed his opinion to murder as the cause of death. COMMENTARY: " The case of Clive Freeman: Why the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CRCC) is in urgent need of reform,' by Dr. Michael Naughton, published by 'Empowering the Innocent, on March 24, 2025:"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GIST: The fresh evidence in support of Mr Freeman's claim of innocence
There were two interrelated planks of the prosecution case against Mr Freeman:
1. The main claim that Mr Freeman murdered Mr Hardie was provided by the forensic pathologist at trial, Dr Richard Shepherd, who concluded from the post that the cause of death was by natural causes due to drug and alcohol induced acute pancreatitis.
2. Building on the opinion by Dr Shepherd, the prosecution claimed that there was supporting circumstantial evidence that Mr Freeman had a motive for murdering Mr Hardie as part of a life insurance policy fraud.
In this section, I will restrict the discussion to Mr Freeman's 4th and latest application to the CCRC in February 2021, firstly outlining Dr Shepherd's opinion.
Dr Shepherd's opinion
Mr Hardie died on the 16 April. On the same day, Dr Shepherd carried out his first post-mortem on his body concluding that the cause of death was by natural causes due to drug and alcohol induced acute pancreatitis.
There followed two further post-mortems, the last one was on the 25 April (9 days after Mr Hardie died). It was after this final post-mortem that Dr Shepherd reported that he had changed his opinion and claimed that the cause of death was traumatic asphyxiation.
The following extract is taken from Dr Richard Shepherd's report dated the 8th June 1988:
"11. In my opinion Alexander Calder HARDIE (sic) has no significant natural disease that could have caused his death at that time. 12. The pattern of injuries is entirely consistent with compression of the chest by a heavy object whilst lying on the ground. Asphyxia."
Burking
According to Dr Shepherd, Mr Freeman murdered Mr Hardie in a very specific way using a technique referred to as ‘Burking’, in this case, by applying pressure to the victim's chest with the knees and causing asphyxiation. The prosecution argued that Mr Freeman's military background as a soldier in the Rhodesian army meant that he had knowledge of burking and was trained in the method.
In the 4th application to the CCRC, however, fresh evidence was provided in the form of a number of statements from individuals who had served in the Rhodesian Grey Scouts with Mr Freeman which debunked the claim that Mr Freeman was trained in Burking when he was in the army.
"All statements confirm that the Grey Scout’ only received basic military training, and no one was trained in burking. Indeed, none of the individuals had heard of burking" (4th application to the CCRC, page 11).
Dr Shepherd stepping outside of his area of expertise
The 4th application to the CCRC also questioned Dr Shepherd's expertise in Rhodesian army training, which was argued should have been challenged by the judge as it was outside of his field of expertise:
Dr Shepherd was not an expert in military training and the methods of killing employed in the military. This evidence should have been challenged by the judge or at the least by defence counsel. Failure to have done so would have undoubtedly led to confusion in the minds of the jury (4th application to the CCRC, page 10).
No post-mortem photographs to support Dr Shepherd's change of opinion
The reason for Dr Shepherd's change of opinion from death by natural causes to murder is something that neither Mr Freeman nor his legal team has seen support for.
Dr Shepherd claimed that on the third post-mortem he saw some bruising on Mr Hardie's back that made him think that he must have been murdered rather than died of natural causes.
However, despite the fact that photographs are a routine feature of post-mortems, and there have been a number of requests from Mr Freeman's lawyers to see the photos from the third post-mortem, they have not been forthcoming.
Suspicious memo
A suspicious memo (in the photograph below) has also been found in the unused evidence that raises the possibility that Dr Shepherd's change of opinion, that is yet to be supported with photographic or other evidence, may have been influenced by the police.
The memo was sent to Dr Shepherd on official notepaper from the Metropolitan Police, Southwark. It is dated a week before Dr Shepherd wrote his final report (8th June 1988) and 6 weeks after his third post-mortem of Mr Hardie (25 April 1988). It was found by Terry Wilcock, one of Mr Freeman's friends and supporters, and raises the possibility that Dr Shepherd's change of opinion on Mr Hardie's cause of death from natural causes to murder may have been influenced by the extract referred to by the police. It reads:
Dear Dickie,
Herewith the extract I promised.
Yours sincerely,
Janet
The discovery of the memo raises a number of pertinent questions:
- What was the 'extract' that was sent to Dr Shepherd by Janet?
- Why would someone from the Metropolitan Police send an extract to a forensic pathologist when he was writing up his final report?
- Did the extract play any part in changing Dr Shepherd's opinion from death by natural causes to death by murder? and,
- Why was Dr Shepherd referred to as "Dickie" in the memo? I heard an interview on Talk TV with Dr Shepherd recently where he was referred to as "Richard". Calling him "Dickie" seems overly familiar, raising further concerns about the possibility that Dr Shepherd's opinion may have been influenced by the police/Janet.
Terry Wilcock who found the memo was unequivocal about his thoughts on it. For him, it "smells of collusion between the police and Dr Shepherd". He wonders why the memo was found in the unused evidence but there was no accompanying extract that was mentioned in the memo.
Mr Freeman believes that ‘Janet’ was Janet Carter who was head of the investigation into Mr Hardie’s death. He thinks that she was a Chief Inspector and that she was promoted to Superintendent after his conviction. Hopefully, the CCRC will be able to clarify this matter, too, when we send them the article.
[Note: The memo is not something that has featured in any of Mr Freeman's applications to the CCRC. This article will be sent to the CCRC on behalf of Mr Freeman with a request that it investigates the matter.]
Jury not told of Dr Shepherd's original opinion
Mr Freeman's 4th application to the CCRC submits that it is brushing aside the fact that there was a failure to disclose to the defence the notes of the first and second post mortems.
Non disclosure is a perennial feature of miscarriage of justice cases.
In Clive Freeman's case, justice demands that the jury should have been made aware that the conclusion of the first and second post mortems conducted by Dr Richard Shepherd were that Mr Hardie died of natural causes and that it was only after his third post mortem that he changed his opinion to murder as the cause of death.
Dr Kolar
Further fresh evidence was submitted to the CCRC in Mr Freeman's 4th application by Dr Kolar. It concurs with the previous seven forensic experts who challenged the alleged method of murder, Burking, in previous applications to the CCRC. It provides additional support that Dr Shepherd's opinion after the third post-mortem was made in error.
Most crucially, for Dr Kolar, Dr Shepherd's opinion on Burking is described as:
"...an unreliable opinion" that "is no longer consistent with current literature" (Dr Kolar, 4th application to the CCRC, page 7-8).
Moreover, Dr Kolar's report concluded that Dr Shepherd did not have sufficient pathology evidence to state a specific cause of death and should have recorded “unascertained” as the correct entry for cause of death on his post-mortem report:
“The cause of death….should be given appropriately as unascertained at autopsy examination” (Dr Kolar, 4th application to the CCRC, page 9).
Professor Kroll
If this isn't enough to indicate that Mr Freeman is a prima facie victim of a wrongful conviction who should have his conviction referred back to the Court of Appeal, yet further additional fresh evidence was sent to the CCRC in a letter dated 31 October 2020 from Professor Mark Kroll leaves little doubt.
In it, Professor Kroll states categorically that Mr Freeman did not murder Mr Hardie according to fresh evidence that has emerged since Mr Freeman was convicted.
The following is an extract taken directly from Professor Kroll's letter to the CCRC:
"I have reviewed evidence in the above case and wish to opine on the possibility of death from knee-force on the chest. Death from weight to the chest alone requires a force of 2550 newtons causing flail chest. A force of 2550 N is equivalent to a weight of 260 kg with earth gravity. I understand that Mr. Freeman weighed 15 st or 102 kg. We have studied the single knee weight force from police officers weighing over 90 kg and, depending on the application location and alignment, the force is 24.9 – 33.3. kg.2 Hence, the weight required would have been about 10 times that available. With a double knee restraint, the weight would have been about 51.2 ± 11.2 kg which is also insufficient...An adult male has 60% of his weight above the legs and thus the upper body weight of Mr. Freeman was 61 kg. Even if he had been able to put all of that weight on Mr. Hardie’s back — which would have been difficult due to the need to use the arms and hands for stability — it would have been far too little to cause asphyxia. The Coroner's opinion, of chest weight causing asphyxia in this case, is contrary to present scientific knowledge" (my emphasis).
Alleged circumstantial evidence
In terms of motive, the prosecution claimed that Mr Freeman murdered Mr Hardie in his flat, which he then set fire to in an attempt to hide the identity of Mr Hardie, who he hoped would be mistaken for himself so that a £300,000 life insurance policy would be paid out on.
Differences between Mr Hardie and Mr Freeman
There are a number of immediate problems with this prosecution claim as there were significant physical and other differences between the two men.
1. Mr Hardie was 5’ 6” tall and weighed 140 lbs, whilst Mr Freeman is six feet tall and weighed 200 lbs at the time.
2. Mr Hardie had hardly any teeth and had only three fingers on his left hand, whilst Mr Freeman had all of his teeth and fingers.
As such, the idea that Mr Hardie thought that Mr Hardie would be mistaken for him is absurd.
Fingerprints
Also acting against the idea that Mr Freeman hoped that Mr Hardie's body would be mistaken for his was that it was quite straightforward for the police to identify Mr Hardie. He was a convicted burglar, so the police held his fingerprints.
Insurance policy
Much has been made of Mr Freeman renewing an insurance policy eight days before the death of Mr Hardie. I repeat, renewing an existing life insurance policy rather than taking out a new life insurance policy.
This may seem like a minor point, but the prosecution's alleged circumstantial evidence is based entirely on the claim that Mr Freeman's motive to murder Mr Hardie was as part of a life insurance policy fraud relating to a new life insurance policy that he was claimed to have taken out eight days before Mr Hardie's death.
In response to this, Mr Freeman said:
"I promised my wife that I would update my insurance policy whilst I was in the UK. The Rhodesian monetary system at time was worthless. A trillion dollar note couldn't buy a packet of cigarettes."
He went on: If it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable to say that I would take out a new life insurance policy and murder Hardie just eight days later."
Mr Freeman also acknowledges that a drunken telephone conversation with his brother when he heard that Mr Hardie had been found dead in his flat to the effect that his family could make an insurance claim if Mr Hardie was mistaken for himself was just that - an off the cuff joke in poor taste that he made when he was very drunk.
The main point about the insurance policy, though, whatever we may think about Mr Freeman's sense of humour when he was drunk, is that there is no evidence to support the prosecution's claim that he murdered Mr Hardie to fraudulently cash in on a life insurance policy:
- No new life insurance policy was taken out; and,
- No claim was ever made against Mr Freeman's existing life insurance policy."
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/freedom-for-freeman
