Alan Raffle went missing on l5th December 1985. His body was found seven weeks later (early
February 1985) in Kielder Forest, Northumberland. Raffle's father was taken to identify the body
but found this difficult because of the decomposed condition of the body and the fact that animals
had been at it. Identification largely depended, therefore, on fingerprint comparison.
On pathological examination, it was determined that Raffle had been murdered by blows to the head
from a blunt instrument. Some thirty yards away from the body, and hidden or thrown amongst some
trees, a ball-pein hammer was found. Subsequent forensic tests showed the hammer to have hairs of
human origin adhering to it. Bloodstaining was found on the hammer, and the size of its head
suggested it could have inflicted some of the five head wounds. The human hair could have
originated from the head of the dead man. The bloodstaining was human but of insufficient quantity
to group.
Three months after the disappearance of Raffle, on Sunday March 9th 1986, two men were arrested by North
Shields Police on an unrelated charge of aggravated burglary and assault.
These two men were later charged with the murder of Alan Raffle. Both men knew the deceased and
had worked with him in the past. The two men were Frank Wilkinson and Edward Wood.
Who was Alan Raffle?
Alan Raffle was a young man of twenty-three when he disappeared. He lived alone in a 22- foot
caravan on his allotment-cum-yard-cum-stables in the village of New York, North Shields, Tyne and
Wear. He was a wheeler-dealer who lived and earned his money by any means available to him,
usually illegal. He knew and associated with many men of the same outlook and lifestyle, took
many risks in his daily life and, as a consequence, often made enemies.
How was Frank involved with Alan Raffle?
Frank was released from prison, where he had been on remand for armed robbery, in October
1983. Just before Christmas, he went to live with a woman, Ann (whose brother - Edward Wood - he had met
while in prison) in New York village. Frank took on the full responsibility of the whole family -
Ann and her three teenage sons. For work, Frank became a scrap metal dealer who, among other
things, would always help his mates pass on their stolen cars by providing number plates etc.
Early in 1984, Frank was introduced to Alan Raffle and they soon became friends, both in business matters
and socially. They worked together from time to time, perhaps a couple of times a week, on various
enterprises - scrap iron, hay, buying and selling cars, trailers, horse boxes, caravans, solid fuels and
so on.
Frank could often be found at Raffle's caravan where he would sit with Raffle and, over a cup of tea, the
two men would discuss their current business deals. Sometimes Raffle would go to Frank's home where they
would sit and chat. In short, there was a great deal of contact between the two.
There were occasional tiffs between the men because they were often trying to do each other down in deals
over the sales of various items. These arguments were always settled amicably and never at any time did
it come to blows between them. The worst argument between them occurred in the spring of 1985 when Raffle
stole a twin-wheeled trailer from outside Frank's home and then sold the trailer to a Mr Gary Annis, the
proprietor and owner of the Brookland Saddlery, also in New York. This affair was resolved when Raffle
paid Frank the money he had received from Annis as compensation for the trailer.
Who was Edward Wood?
Edward Wood was the brother of Frank's partner, Ann Ornsby-Wilkinson. Eddie was very often in trouble
with the police but had been heard to say he could get away with anything as he had a friend in the
police.
In 1976 Eddie and another man called Ernie Dale were arrested for the illegal scuttling of a trawler in
the North Sea and were subsequently charged with defrauding the insurance company. The captain and owner
were also arrested and charged. One of the police involved in this case was a Mr Keith Atkinson, and it
was this officer who was instrumental in obtaining Eddie's confession and persuading him to implicate the
trawler owner and captain.
In the subsequent trial, Eddie pleaded not guilty, even though he had made a full confession. Against all
the odds he was acquitted.
In some ways, this trial in 1976 can be seen as a rehearsal for the trial of Frank and Eddie for the
murder of Alan Raffle in 1986:
-
In 1976, Eddie's defence had been: "I was there but personally did nothing." In 1986, this was again
his defence.
-
In 1976, Atkinson had been part of the investigation and had played a significant role in Eddie's
questioning. (Atkinson's handling of the case and his conduct during the trial had earned him a
reprimand from the trial Judge.) In 1986, Atkinson was also part of the investigation team and also
took a leading role in Eddie's questioning.
-
In 1976, Eddie was acquitted against all the odds - which is exactly what happened in 1986 too.
How was Frank involved with Edward Wood?
Frank and Eddie met in prison while Eddie was on remand for the above-mentioned insurance fraud and
blackmail and Frank was on remand for armed robbery. They subsequently served prison terms together and,
when Frank was released in October 1983, Eddie still had over a year of his current sentence to serve.
Outside, Eddie lived with a woman called Brenda McMillan who lived nearby to Ann and Frank. Frank would
regularly drive Ann and Brenda over to Preston prison to visit Eddie while he himself visited another
friend inside. He also helped to take care of Brenda McMillan and saw that she wasn't in need. In 1985
Eddie was released from prison and Frank, Ann and Brenda McMillan drove down to Preston prison to fetch
him home.
Frank took Eddie to work with him at Ann's request, as she wanted Frank to "look after" her brother and
keep him out of trouble. Frank introduced Eddie to Raffle and the two men very quickly got together to
earn money, both being on the make. Their main source of illegal money was the theft and resale of cars.
Eddie would steal the cars, Frank would supply the registration numbers, and sometimes plates and
documents, and Raffle would sell the vehicles with the new registrations: "ringers", as they were called.
Frank did not receive a share of this enterprise: he would only get a fixed amount to cover his time and
the small risk he was taking.
Raffle's disappearance
On the last weekend on which he was seen, December 14th/15th 1985, a few mates were visiting Raffle's
yard. The men were all involved to some extent with the theft of a new blue Ford Sierra from the
security compound of a nearby garage. (This was the car alleged to have been used to transport Raffle to
Kielder forest.) Frank was fitting number plates with Eddie, Raffle was fitting a cassette player and
the others visiting to have a recce.
On the Sunday, in a local pub, friends of Raffle recall that he was called to the phone during lunch and
came back looking white and shaken - as though he had been threatened. Later in the day he was seen
having a drink with Frank and Eddie and they were all laughing together and enjoying themselves.
On the Sunday evening, when Frank and Eddie had finished their business with the car, they both went back
to Frank's place and had a drink together. Eddie told Frank that Raffle owed him money and he needed it
badly; he wanted to go after him for it. Frank told him he was too drunk, he should get to bed. When
Eddie left to go home at about 11pm, Frank declined to go with him.
The official line is that Alan Raffle was not seen alive since, although there were witnesses
who claimed to have seen him after that Sunday.
Circumstances of Alan Raffle's death as given at the trial
It was alleged that, on the night of December 15th 1985, Alan Raffle was lured into a stolen
Ford Sierra car by Frank Wilkinson and Edward Wood. He was then taken to
Kielder
Forest in Northumberland, where he was hit with a ball-pein hammer four or five times on the head and his
body left there.
Why was Frank arrested?
Frank Wilkinson and Edward Wood were both arrested early on Sunday morning March 9th 1986 in connection
with an alleged assault on a man called
Alexander Armstrong.
Armstrong later told the lawyer Clive Hindle that the police had made him say that Frank had threatened
him with "being beaten up in the Kielder Forest". This statement was later withdrawn and was not used in
the subsequent murder trial. Because they knew of their frequent association with Alan Raffle, the police
did, however, make use of this alleged assault (which had been minor and indeed was not used in court) to
question both Frank and, in particular, Wood about Raffle's murder.
What was the evidence against him?
Frank knew Alan Raffle well and often worked with him in various capacities, such as scrap dealing and
car ringing. Consequently, there was a great deal of contact between the two men. Forensic investigation
found some fibre evidence of contact with the dead man's clothing and the murder weapon (which was a
hammer, most probably Frank's and on loan to Wood at the time). The presence of these fibres was entirely
as expected given their frequent contact and their recent work together that weekend on the Sierra. There
were tools belonging to Frank (also on loan to Wood at the time) found in the Sierra and a bloodstained
pine needle on the car's carpet. There was some dubious interpretation of Frank's behaviour while under
surveillance by the police to the effect that Frank had made an abortive trip to retrieve the murder
weapon when clearly aware that he was being followed.
All the evidence was inconclusive. There was no evidence of any bloodstaining on any of Frank's clothing.
There was no evidence that he had ever been inside the Sierra. There was no suggestion of any motive.
At the trial, probably the most telling factors against Frank had nothing to do with the evidence
presented at all, but were these:
- the series of damning statements Edward Wood made to the police during a series of interviews conducted shortly after his arrest
- these
statements were eventually read out in court - even though Wood could not bring himself to take the
stand and repeat the story they told on oath
- Wood's final address to the jury
- the inferences the jury might understandably have taken from the Judge's summing up
What was Frank's defence?
As a career criminal, Frank simply did what he had always done when arrested: he acted in a bolshie
manner, said it had nothing to do with him and refused to cooperate with the police. Not the greatest
defence in the world, but he felt that, as he had not committed the murder, then he could not be
convicted. He was wrong. His only alibi for the night of December 15th 1985 was that he was home when
four other people in the house went to sleep and he was still there when they got up in the morning.
What happened to Frank's appeal?
On May 13th 1987 an appeal was lodged with the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
-
The Foreman of the Jury should have been
dismissed,
as it became known that his mother
was a best friend of the victim's mother.
-
A severance of the trial, between Frank Wilkinson and Edward Wood, should have been
granted on the grounds that it was an exceptional case.
-
The evidence against Frank Wilkinson was purely circumstantial.
-
The trial judge misdirected the jury in
several
respects:
-
There was misdirection in respect of the co-accused's self-serving admissions.
-
There were misdirections re warnings about actions.
-
The judge did not instruct the jury to ignore Wood's final address from the dock.
(This address took the form of a statement of alleged fact despite Wood having
been expressly warned against doing this.)
Frank appeared before the Court of Appeal on February 29th 1988 and his appeal
against conviction was refused on the grounds, amongst others, that the court was tired of
"frivolous" appeals.
What developments have there been since the appeal?
-
In April 1988, while in Frankland Prison, County Durham. Frank received a confession signed by Edward Wood and dated March 10th 1988 - shortly
after
Frank's appeal had been rejected, The original statement is now in the hands of the Criminal Cases
Review Commission.
-
There was a petition to the Home Secretary.
-
Frank sent the Criminal Cases Review Commission a document, painstakingly researched and compiled by
himself from inside prison, entitled "Frank Wilkinson and The Murder of Alan Raffle: Causes for
Concern over Conviction". This document is the source for much of the material in this web site and
details why the case against him and his conviction should be regarded as unsafe.
-
On at least two occasions, separate Home Secretaries have refused to send his case back to the Appeal
Courts. Frank is actively involved in appeal processes to this day.
-
In November 2008, Frank's second application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, plus supporting
documentation from his legal team, was received by the Commission and was passed to a Commissioner to
decide whether or not the application would be accepted.
-
On March 24th 2009, a Judicial Review to consider whether or not the Category A Team should have held
an oral hearing when conducting Frank's last two Category A Reviews found in Frank's favour.
-
On June 24th 2009, the Secretary of State's application to proceed with an appeal against the Judicial
Review went before the Appeal Court. The Court refused the application.
-
On July 1st 2009, after 23 years in prison as a Category A prisoner, Frank's personal officer told him
that he had been downgraded to Category B. This is the first real sign that progress for Frank within
the prison system might just be possible. The fact that this move followed quickly on the heels of the
Secretary of State's failed appeal is probably not a coincidence.
-
On July 20th 2009, the Criminal Cases Review Commission allocated a Case Review Manager to consider Frank's
application for a review of his conviction for murder. The review process will consider the issues raised in
the application and assess what lines of enquiry or further information is required in order to address those
issues. Once this work is complete, the application will progress to the decision-making stage. The Case Review
Manager's findings will go to a Commissioner or a panel of Commissioners who will have to consider whether there
is any new evidence or new argument which raises a real possibility that Frank's conviction would be overturned
if it were referred to the Court of Appeal. If this test is met, then the case will be referred to the Court of
Appeal. If this test is not met, then the Commission will issue a provisional decision explaining why the case
does not meet the criteria for a reference. All of this is likely to take several months.
-
On October 7th 2009, Frank received a letter out of the blue from a member of the public offering new evidence in
support of his appeal. This evidence has been forwarded to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Current situation
Now 63 years old, and after more than 23 years in prison, Frank was finally downgraded to Category B in July 2009.
He is now looking to move to a prison out of the High Security estate and start on the road to release. The Prison
Service, having previously considered that there was no "real" evidence that his risk to the public should he escape
had been sufficiently reduced to warrant a lower security category, suddenly changed its mind only after losing an
appeal against a Judicial Review in Frank's favour. In fact, having spent the first 10 years or so fighting the system
in every way he could, Frank is now more a model prisoner than the problem prisoner he undoubtedly once was. But he
refuses to partake in any of the so-called "Offending Behaviour" courses that are recommended to him, and these are
seemingly the only measure of risk reduction acceptable to the Prison Service. Frank's unfailingly good behaviour,
his impressive educational achievements (he has a BA, an MA and a PhD), his good influence on other, usually younger,
prisoners, the good reports written on him by those in the Prison Service and the Probation Service who actually know
him (rather than those who write reports from other reports) - none of these was considered as "real" evidence of the
profound change that has indeed taken place in Frank. He is not a murderer, but he was a career criminal. These days,
his thoughtful, reflective attitude to life in general and his personal experience in particular are always insightful
and often impressively even-handed. Of all those involved in this story of a miscarriage of justice, no one comes out of
it as well as he does.