Rochdale Observer
November 14, 2007
Opening the case for the crown, Mr Taylor told the court that Stefan Kiszko had been receiving injections for his medical condition. He said these had given the tax clerk a sex drive which had led to him exposing himself to girls. He had received one on Friday 3 October and: “Over a period of three days, culminating on the Sunday, he had indulged in such behaviour and the case for the crown is that the abduction and killing of Lesley was the climax.”
Mr Taylor continued that on the Friday evening two girls at Kingsway Youth Club were frightened by a man standing in the doorway of the nearby clinic and the following day two other girls said the same man had exposed himself to them. On the Sunday it was alleged Mr Kiszko had seen Lesley on her errand to the shops, picked her up in his car and driven her to the layby on the A672. “Then he took her on the moor and ended by stabbing her repeatedly with a knife and left her for dead. “The motive was clearly sexual, but it was unusual, not merely because of the age of the girl, but because there was no sexual interference of her or displacement of clothing.” Mr Taylor continued that on 5 November one of the girls had been going home from a bonfire and identified Stefan Kiszko as the man who had exposed himself. He was then questioned by police.
The court was then told that when interviewed on 21 December Mr Kiszko said to police he had no interest in girls and the injections were there to help him. However, he is later alleged to have said later, when told there would be further inquiries: “This is terrible. It’s those damned injections. All this would never have happened.” When pressed, Mr Taylor continued, he is alleged to have admitted he picked Lesley up in his car, adding: “I can’t help myself when I have had these injections. “I picked her up on Sunday dinnertime when I killed her.”
The court was told that on 22 December Stefan Kiszko made a statement under caution in which he admitted killing Lesley but the following day made a second one which retracted the admissions he had made. When asked why he was retracting the original statement he is said to have replied: “I only made it so you would let me go home.”
Mr Taylor said Mr Kiszko was then taken to the layby on the A672 near where Lesley’s body was found and: “He started to shake, held his hands in a praying position and said ‘I can hear noises, can’t you?’ He was obviously very upset.” He was then taken back to Halifax and charged with Lesley’s murder.
Under cross-examination from defence counsel David Waddington, detectives denied that they had suggested to Stefan Kiszko what he had done to Lesley. Chief Inspector Thomas Steele insisted that the tax clerk had told his own story and Detective Constable Robert McFadzen insisted that he had not at any stage in the interview said: “Let’s get this wrapped up and we can all go home for Christmas.” Detective Superintendent Dick Holland said Mr Kiszko had asked him to write his statement for him, adding: “He was obviously under stress, but he was not unfit to make a statement.” He told the jury that there had been no suggestion he would be allowed home if he made a statement.
Ronald Outteridge, principal scientific officer at the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory in Harrogate, told the court fibres removed from the 11-year-old’s clothes were similar to those on a piece of carpet found in the back of Stefan’s car.
Opening the defence case, David Waddington told the jury that Lesley’s killing was ‘a crime of most unusual circumstances.’ He drew their attention to the fact that under the Homocide Act of 1957 a person who killed someone in circumstances which would otherwise amount to murder was guilty of manslaughter if at the time they were suffering from such an abnormality of mind as to substantially impair his mental responsibility for the act. He said: “It may well be at the end of this case that the real choice with which you will be confronted will not be guilty or not guilty of murder but guilty or not guilty of manslaughter, depending on whether your are satisfied that this man was the killer.” However, he stressed: “At this stage you cannot convict my client of any offence.”
Mr Waddington continued Mr Kiszko’s confession was the nub of the prosecution’s case and there was a wealth of evidence to suggest it was untrue. He also pointed out the fibres taken from Lesley’s clothing were of a carpet that was sold widely across the country.
Stefan Kiszko proceeded to give his evidence in a voice that was so low the judge had to ask him to speak louder. He told the court that in July 1975 he had become ill and had been admitted to Birch Hill Hospital, where he was given a blood transfusion. In August he was transferred to a Manchester hospital and diagnosed as being anaemic and having a hormone deficiency. He agreed to injections to ratify the latter problems and was discharged in September. On Sunday 5 October – the day Lesley disappeared – Mr Kiszko said he left home after dinner at about 12.45pm and took his mother and aunt to Rochdale Cemetery to tend his father’s grave. After that he went to a continental grocer’s then a garden centre before returning home.
He said that during police interviews he had constantly asked if he could use the telephone to ring his mother, but his requests were refused. While at Rochdale police headquarters he said he “felt terrified and wanted to see my mother.” Asked by Mr Waddington why he had lied to the police about killing Lesley he said: “I started to tell these lies and they seemed to please them and the pressure was off as far as I was concerned. “I thought if I admitted what I did to the police they would check out what I had said, find it untrue and would then let me go.” The questioning continued and Mr Kiszko said: “I wanted them to stop but they didn’t. They just kept on and on.” He eventually said he had picked up and killed Lesley: “It was not true, I said it to get the police off my back.”
Consultant psychiatrist Dr Michael J Tarsh, called by the defence, said Stefan Kiszko was not a normal personality. After examining him in Armley Jail he described him as socially withdrawn, socially inept, mother-fixated, unhappy, not knowing where to put himself and not knowing how to form relationships. Under questioning from Mr Waddington, he said Mr Kiszko would be emotionally unprepared for the appearance of a sex drive and if he had killed Lesley his level of self-control must have diminished a lot.
In his closing speech, Peter Taylor said the defence had been ‘riding two horses’ using the proposition: ‘I didn’t do it but if I did it was because of diminished responsibility.’ Mr Taylor added: “They are just not horses to be ridden together.”
In his summing up Mr Waddington hit back, declaring that the prosecution had done the same. He said the Crown had fairly listed all the indications Stefan was suffering from diminished responsibility – then had dealt with them in the opposite direction.
Majority verdict decided fate
IT TOOK the jury at Leeds Crown Court five hours and 35 minutes to find Stefan Kiszko guilty of murdering Lesley Molseed at the end of an eight-day trial. Apart from a momentary quiver of the face, he showed no emotion as they delivered their 10-2 verdict. Mr Justice Park told him: “You will go to prison for life” and he hurriedly collected his papers before walking heavily down from the dock. His mother, Charlotte Kiszko, remained stern-faced and impassive in the dock but Lesley’s father, Danny Molseed, broke down sobbing.
Justice Park expressed the public’s gratitude to the West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester police ‘for their great skill in bringing to justice the person responsible for this dreadful crime and their expertise in sifting through masses of material.’ He continued: “I would like all the officers responsible for the result to be specially commended and these observations conveyed to the Chief Constable.”
Previous Article
Post a Comment