Hilda Marchbank • Royton • March 1992
Susan May was convicted of murdering her aunt, Hilda Marchbank, for whom she was the principal carer. Susan maintained her innocence until her death in October 2013. Her deathbed confession was: “I did not kill my aunty.” The conviction remains in force, but the investigation, forensic handling and presentation of the scientific evidence have all been seriously questioned.
The starting point
Hilda Marchbank was 89 and lived alone at 24 Tandle Hill Road in Royton. Susan May, her niece and principal carer, visited daily. On the morning of 12 March 1992 Susan said she found Hilda dead in her bedroom and called for help.
The prosecution later alleged that Susan had killed Hilda the previous evening for financial gain. Susan denied the accusation throughout her life. She was convicted in May 1993 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The CCRC later identified serious concerns about the early police treatment of Susan. She was dealt with as a witness while evidence was developing against her, was not cautioned at that stage and did not have legal advice. The Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion about the effect of those events.
A police policy entry described Michael Rawlinson and another man as “good suspects”, although it recorded no evidence then linking them to the murder. Rawlinson was a burglar with a history of violence and possible access to an orangey-red Ford Fiesta. That line of enquiry did not feature at Susan’s trial.
Why the case remains disputed
The prosecution case was circumstantial and depended heavily on marks on the bedroom wall. Later records raise questions about what those marks were, when they were deposited, how the samples were handled and whether alternative lines of enquiry were properly pursued.
Later testing and expert opinion did not produce one simple answer. A positive presumptive reaction is not the same as confirmation of human blood.
Unlabelled material, retrospective notes, unusual storage and a leaking reference sample all require careful explanation.
Police described two men as “good suspects”. A related Fiesta was recovered, but its initial examination and disclosure history remain disputed.
“There’s a bloody hand print on the wall.”The trial judge’s description to the jury — later scientific evidence is more qualified
Watch and listen
The first programme allows visitors to hear Susan herself. The second is Geoff Goodwin’s detailed campaign presentation. It is advocacy, and its conclusions should be checked against the source material presented on this site.
Hear Susan describe the case and her continuing claim of innocence in her own words.
Geoff Goodwin presents the campaign’s detailed argument that Susan’s conviction is unsafe.
Who judges the judges?
The investigation, forensic work, legal representation and presentation of the evidence have all attracted criticism. Geoff Goodwin’s presentation asks where responsibility lies when those parts of the justice system overlap.
Evidence policy: this site distinguishes original records, official findings, expert opinions, campaign arguments and unresolved questions. A document’s presence in an archive does not prove that every statement in it is true.