Margaret Greenwood

Margaret Greenwood was killed at her home at 60 Abbey Drive, Houghton-le-Spring on Tuesday 5 November 1985.

A 12-year old boy and a 22-year-old man were convicted of her murder. However, the 12-year-old boy had his conviction quashed in 1987 and the 22-year-old man, who had confessed, had his conviction quashed in 1999. The conviction against the 12-year-old boy was quashed after it was heard that it was 'unsafe and unsatisfactory' whilst the conviction against the 22-year-old man  was quashed after it was found that he was excessively compliant and suggestible and that his confession could not be relied upon.

The murder was known as the 'penny for the guy murder' on account of it happening on 5 November. However, the court heard that it was thought that her murder had taken place sometime between 4 and 5 November 1985.

It was claimed that they had tricked their way into her home and robbed her of £70. However, it was also reported that although the killer had missed her main cache of money, that they had made off with £500, although at the trial it was reported that they had stolen £270.

There was no sign of a forced entry into her home.

It was said that cupboards and drawers had been ransacked.

Margaret Greenwood had been a polio victim since the age of two, and had walked with the aid of callipers attached to her legs and used a wheelchair, and unable to defend herself. It was noted that she rarely made it to her front door and only once every now and then to her neighbours house. 

She was found by a home-help lying in a pool of blood behind her front door on 5 November 1985. It was thought that she had been murdered sometime between 5pm on the Monday and midnight on 4 November 1985.

Her 79-year-old sister said:

It was noted that her sister had been a civilian worker at Houghton-le-Spring police station and that she first knew something was wrong when she overheard her sister's address being read out over a policeman's walkie-talkie.

She noted that most of the old people that lived on that stretch of road were elderly or disabled, but that there was no warden employed there by Sunderland Council.

A 73-year-old neighbour said:

It was initially thought she had fallen down the stairs. She had lived in Abbey Drive since her husband died from a heart attack in 1980. She was found behind her front door dead on 5 November 1985.

Her post mortem examination showed that she had died from a severe brain injury brought on by a fractured skull.

It was reported that she had been beaten over the head over and over again by a burglar who believed she had a cache of money.

She was last seen alive at 1.50pm on the Monday, 4 November 1985, and the police appealed for anyone that had seen her since then and 10am on 5 November 1985.

During the initial police investigation, the police said that they believed that a mother or wife might be shielding the killer. The police noted that Margaret Greenwood had had a cache of thousands of pounds hidden in her bedroom. A detective said:

The police also appealed for information about anyone that had suddenly become a 'big spender', to come forward.

It was reported that the police interviewed more than 800 people before the arrests were made and had had sixty police officers on the case and that they had been making door-to-door enquiries. It was noted that the bloodstained blunt murder weapon had not been found.

The police noted that they believed that the murderer would have been covered with blood after the murder and appealed for anyone who knew of any bloodstained clothing to come forward.

On 15 November 1985 they police said that they thought that there might have been two men involved in the murder. They added that they had received a mystery telephone call through to their incident room who they thought might have been at the scene and appealed for them to call back. It was heard that the caller had first indicated that they knew something about the murder on a British Telecom chat line on 5 November 1985, which was made about 15 minutes before Margaret Greenwood's body was found. He was said to have then rung the incident room on the Monday.

The police said:

The police also stated that they were investigating links between Margaret Greenwood's murder and reports of a conman working in the area, and also noted that they thought that kids collecting pennies for the guy might hold clues.

The two people convicted of the murder had vehemently denied any part in the killing. However, the 22-year-old, who initially denied being anywhere near her home on the night, later made a confession, later found to be unreliable, which led to their convictions.

In his confession, the 22-year-old claimed that he had clubbed Margaret Greenwood over the head whilst the 11-year-old had stabbed her. They were said to have robbed and murdered Margaret Greenwood on 4 November 1985.

They had both lived in Sherburn Grove, Houghton.

The man had been 21-years-old at the time of his arrest, whilst the boy had been 11.

When the 22-year-old's home was searched the police found a hammer. However, at the time of the trial it was heard that no blood was found on the hammer.

A Home Office forensic scientist said that no traces of Margaret Greenwood's blood or fibres from her clothing were found on the clothing of either of the accused and that there was nothing on the knife and nothing to suggest that it had been washed. The forensic scientist also noted that she would have expected to have found traces of blood on the hammer, but there were none, even though blood would have been difficult to remove from the wooden shaft.

When the defence asked the forensic scientist if there was no scientific evidence to implicate the 22-year-old man, the forensic scientist replied:

However, the forensic scientist stated that washing might have removed bloodstains from clothing and that some bloodstains could have been removed from the knife by thrusting it into soil.

When the defence summed up, they noted that the 11-year-old boy had at first lied to the police, saying that he had been at home at the time of the murder, but later admitted that he had been in Abbey Drive, although still denied having had anything to do with the murder. The defence then asked whether it was surprising that he had at first lied to the police about where he had been, noting that he had been a 'tearaway' who had, two years earlier, 'pinched' keys from Margaret Greenwood's home. The defence then asked whether it was surprising that a 'pincher of tyres and keys', who knew that the police were looking for someone who broke into Margaret Greenwood's home intending to steal and who had killed her, would say that they had not been anywhere near Abbey Drive.

The defence then noted that whilst they might think of the police as nice, kind people that helped old ladies across the road, that that was not the way they were seen by those living in the accused's home area.

The defence then reiterated that the 11-year-old boy had at first denied that he had been out on the night and then, after some questioning, stated that he had been out for 'penny-for-the-guy', but not in Abbey Drive, and that after some 'hedging', that he had admitted having been in Abbey drive but that after that, he had stated over and over that he had not been involved with Margaret Greenwood's murder.

The defence then claimed that the police had fed the 22-year-old information about Margaret Greenwood's death which had then been used in his confession.

In his confession, the 22-year-old said that he and the 11-year-old boy and a smaller boy had gone to Margaret Greenwood's house and knocked on the door and that Margaret Greenwood had come to the door and they heard her take off the chain. He said that he then asked her for a penny for the guy and that when she refused he just pushed her and lost his head. When he was asked why he did it, a police sergeant said that he replied that it was because they had got nothing.

The 22-year-old was then said to have told the police that he started punching Margaret Greenwood and slapping her on the face to make her come round and that he then hit her with the hammer. When he was asked why he had carried a hammer around with him he said that it was just in case he got into bother. He then said that he hit her about three times and that the 11-year-old boy was 'stabbing her anywhere', on the head and on the arm, and that Margaret Greenwood had been moaning and groaning.

When he was shown the hammer that was found at his home, he admitted that it had been the one that he had used. He then said that whilst he and the 11-year-old boy were hunting about in the sitting room and bedroom that the small boy just followed them around, noting that the television was still on and Coronation street was just finishing.

The police sergeant said that the 22-year-old then went on to describe the interior of the house and its contents, including the colour of the carpet, a cup in the kitchenette that he had used to have a drink of water, a tea towel he had used to wipe his hands and a bottle of orange juice and a glass that had been at the side of Margaret Greenwood's bed.

It was said that he then noted that Margaret Greenwood had still been moaning and that he had put a cushion under her head and that they had then left, taking a route behind the houses so that they would not be seen. The 22-year-old was said to have then drawn a diagram for the police showing the route they had taken back.

The 12-year old boy that was convicted was noted for having, by a bizarre coincidence, met Prince Andrew whilst awaiting trial, his photo appearing in the newspapers. He had been one of eleven children and had been 11-years-old at the time of his arrest.

The 22-year-old man was noted at the time of the trial as having been shy and bashful, to have had difficulty communicating with people, and to have preferred the company of children, as was the case that night of the murder. The Newcastle Evening Chronicle reported:

An organiser at the YMCA said:

At school he was known as The Brick, due to his lack of intelligence. A former classmate said:

At the trial, the judge noted that he had suffered a level of deprivation that was phenomenal, whilst his defence noted that his father had frequently been away in prison.

Following the trial, the defence noted that the 22-year-old was not going to appeal, although solicitors acting on behalf of the 12-year-old gave notice of appeal. The solicitors for the 22-year-old said that they felt there were no grounds for an appeal.

The 22-year -old's conviction was later quashed in 1999 following an appeal in which it was heard that new evidence demonstrated his vulnerability during police questioning. He had spent 13 years in prison.