The Clydach Murders

[exhmrc1]

That is your view but as you werent there you dont know what evidence there was. Did you know about the phone records and e fit. Did you know about Mandy's feelings on Morris. This has been said by he close friends as well as her family. The juries heard it all and were convinced of his guilt. Others just make things up.

 

[Trampie]

Many juries have been convinced of peoples guilt in the past and they were proved to have got it wrong.

 

[exhmrc1]

Perhaps we better get rid of our legal system and have trial by Trampie and books instead. Let everyone go around committing crimes at will. We have a legal system for a reason and you werent there so didnt see him give evidence and all other issues yet you believe people who havent been questioned. Just 2 examples. He was proven to have lied in court. The woman who did the Efit was found out. Did your book tell you that. Why didnt the BBC question or look into the guys who supposedly saw the Lewis family.

 

[exhmrc1]

I dont know you well you know Gellionnen but I was brought up and live in one of the last houses before it. After my cul de sac there is 1 house in a field and the farm. If Lewis walked over the mountain he would have had to come off it at some point. The 2 routes would have had him come off by the Travellers at Rhydyfro and walk back to his house or come off just before Pontardawe Cross and walk up that way. Booth highly unlikely and would probably have been seen with workers going for morning shift.

 

[Trampie]

What are you talking about exhmrc1, I haven't read any book on the case, I don't have a bias against the police, I have a few family members in the police.

Why do you think there is a fuss around the case ???
I await your answer.

 

[exhmrc1]

In your own words
The evidence presented to the jury might have been tailored to not incriminate the police

It really says everything. It wasnt tailored for anything. The CPS decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge the 3 coppers. Morris was charged and convicted on the evidence not for any other reason yet many like you think you know better than 2 juries and others who actually sat through the case.

Why do I think there is a fuss. Firstly his story abecause people like to think it was the Police. Secondly they werent in the courts so did not witness ALL the evidence only things some people want them to know.

Why diidnt the BBC question their witnesses fully. Why would 2 coppers who know a thing about evidence be seen walking towards the house in clear view along a busy road. Why were they seen by a Taxi driver from Swansea East when there are numerous Taxis locally who saw nothing. Why were 2 of them seen together and only 1 of them later walking up a mountain road. Why didnt they have a get away car. Surely coppers would know the need for that. Why didnt the BBC investigate the EFIT and come up with what Mandy's sister did. Why did the BBC program not properly investigate Morris claim he had sex with Mandy. The phone records were produced in court showing his claim to be false. Why didnt they investigate his version of going to his mothers and turning back and nobody saw him in 9 miles. Why did Morris change his story pre trial after denying for months it was his chain. Why did he get someone to buy another for him to give him an alibi.

The court case went through things in more detail than a one sided book or TV program and 2 juries UNANIMOUSLY found him guilty. It is good enough for me.

 

[Trampie]

People like to think it was the police you say, that is the reason for the fuss you think, the fuss is no witnesses, no dna, no fingerprints linking Morris yet he was found guilty.
Come to think of it what was his motive, others in the frame could have been said to have a greater motive.
Was Morris clever enough to wipe his DNA and fingerprints.
People question the case because they are surprised that a guilty verdict was recorded with such a lack of evidence.

 

[exhmrc1]

There was evidence and crucial evidence. The chain found at the murder scene matched the paint in Morris house. His claim to have been there the day before was disproved by phone records so it can only have been left there later. Why did nobody notice he wasnt wearing his distinctive chain over hours in the pub. Wouldnt someone have noticed that. Is it because he still had it on.

There was a witness a girl living by who claimed to have seen him and gave evidence.

Morris was known to be very against Mandy's friendship with his partner. That could well have been the motive.

The bottom line is EVERY ONE OF THE 2 JURIES believed he was GUILTY. They were in court. You were not but you know better dont you.

 

[Trampie]

Juries often get it wrong, he might have done it, but whether he should have been found guilty on what is known is debatable, hence why the fuss, hence the appeals, books, TV programmes etc

 

[exhmrc1]

The people dont actually know what was said in the Trial. You and them werent there. They didnt see Morris being questioned like the jury and others did. I was talking a couple of days after the first trial to the father of one of the BBC reporters. They and the other press there were CERTAIN of his guilt. Of course they are all wrong and you and your fellow supporters are right. The jury were taken to the house, the New Inn and along the route Morris claimed he walked that night. They didnt believe any of his evidence after seeing him in court. They didnt have any doubts.. None of them but you who wasnt there claim you know better. The whole BBC story is unbelieveable. That is coming from someone who knows the area really well. They gave a one sided version and never checked through the evidence they used. It just wouldnt have happened that way

 

[Wizard1999]

100% Dai Morris was guilty. The case is very straightforward even a monkey can see it. Answer me these questions anyone from the 'bandwagon brigade'
1. A gold chain that was proved to be from Dai Morris was covered in blood on the floor in the Grandmother's bedroom (he even admitted to this in the end because of overwhelming DNA proof even though he consistently refuted that the chain was his for ages, even swearing on his children's lives that it wasn't his! - hardly surprising as he already killed two kids. So unless Dai can explain how it got there he's obviously the murderer.
2. After changing his story (per above) Dai tried to explain how it got there by saying he had sex with Mandy in the morning the day before the murders and left the chain on the kitchen table. Ok now someone tell me why there are phone records that show telephone calls from Mandy Jewell's house the same morning (when Mandy Jewell said she was in work and Dai Morris lived) and also phone records that show a telephone call the same morning from Allison Lewis's house to the school where Mandy's kids were i.e. only Mandy had any reason to call the school from the house as Allison/Stephen Lewis had nothing to do with the school whatsoever.
3. Nothing else matters in the case. Unless point 2 (above) can be explained then Dai was obviously lying through his teeth again and is the murderer
4. Just a couple more points to hammer it home. a) Why has not one witness been found (someone in a car or on foot) that can testify to seeing someone on a pavement/road during a 6.2 mile 3 hour walk that Dai claims he went on from 11.30am to 3am. A guy nearing 40 also wants us to believe his alibi consists of trying to walk 8 miles to his parents house because of an argument, but halfway there turns back around because it was raining - all of that makes no sense b) Dai said he left his chain on the kitchen table. Why was it found a day later on the grandmother's bedroom floor covered in blood. c) Dai was not just a petty criminal. He had already been convicted for aggravated assault and robbery - he went down for 5 years for robbing a woman and chucking her over the bonnet of a car. He was also accused of battering a man over the head with an iron bar! but escaped due to lack of evidence
Dai is/was GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

 

[Trampie]

No witnesses, no dna, no fingerprints, little motive, what was said at trial in that context by people speculating at what might have happened should be of lesser importance than hard evidence, for instance apparently sometimes people admit to crimes they did not do, saying Morris was apparently not a nice person and a dangerous character in isolation should not have been good enough to get a conviction.

 

[Dr. Winston]

Multiple juries and appeals found him guilty with no problem at all.

People with no legal training yet who have read a discredited book and watched a documentary think otherwise.

I know where my money is going.

 

[Trampie]

What are you talking about exhmrc1, I'm not in the Morris camp, I'm no supporter of Morris, I think he deserved to be locked up for the safety of the public but as regards the case I look at any case in the public eye without getting emotionally involved, i look at court cases like a game, because that what court cases are a game and if you was teaching somebody to judge a case you would not use the Morris case as an example of 'in this situation you convict', i would actually say the opposite and by the way you weren't there was you exhmrc1 ?

 

[exhmrc1]

No I wasnt but then I accept the people who were there are in a better position to judge. Something you dont and think you know better. Things have come out neither of us know. The fact he was at home as proven by phone records when he claimed to have his chain left there a.nd had sex. There is also the fact he admitted it to his solicitor in the police station which wasnt allowed as evidence in court because a tape was left on when it shouldnt have been. The Efit done by someone who claimed not to know the Lewis family but went to the gym with them. How much else was there