Murder of Lesley Molseed - Poor Defence

Poor Defence

Kiszko's defence team made significant mistakes. Firstly, they did not seek an adjournment when the Crown delivered thousands of pages of additional unused material on the first morning of the trial.

Then there was the inconsistent defence of diminished responsibility which Kiszko never authorised, on the grounds that the testosterone he was receiving for his hypogonadism might have made him behave unusually. Kiszko's endocrinologist, if called, would have said that his treatment could not have caused him to act such a way that would make him carry out murder. He was never called.

The manslaughter claim undermined Kiszko's claims that he was totally innocent and destroyed his alibis (a defence known in legal parlance as 'riding two horses'). In fact, his innocence could have been demonstrated at the trial. The pathologist who examined Molseed's clothes found traces of sperm, whereas the sample taken from Kiszko by the police contained no sperm. There was medical evidence that Kiszko had broken his ankle some months before the murder and, in view of that and his being overweight, he would have found it difficult to scale the slope to the murder spot. The sperm findings were suppressed by the police and never disclosed to the defence team or the jury: neither was the medical evidence of his broken ankle disclosed to the court.

Kiszko gave evidence that in July 1975 he had 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 rectify the latter problems and was discharged in September 1975. He said correctly that he had never met Molseed and therefore could never have murdered her and claimed he was with his Aunt tending to his father's grave in Halifax at the time of the murder before visiting a garden centre and then going home. His denials of murder were not believed by most of the jury, nor were his claims that the confession was bullied out of him by the police. When asked why he had confessed, Kiszko replied that "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".

His conviction was secured by a 10-2 majority verdict on 21 July 1976 at Leeds Crown Court after five hours and 35 minutes deliberation. He was given a life sentence for committing Molseed's murder. The judge praised the three girls, but Buckley in particular, who made the exposure claims for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and "sharp observations". Pamela Hind's evidence was read out in court. Park said that Buckley's "Sharp eyes set this train of enquiry into motion". He also praised the police officers involved in the case "..for their great skill in bringing to justice the person responsible for this dreadful crime and their expertise in sifting through masses of material" and said that "I would like all the officers responsible for the result to be specially commended and these observations conveyed to the Chief Constable". DS John Akeroyd and DSupt Holland were singled out for praise.

Sheila Buckley, whose daughter Maxine played a major part in securing Kiszko's conviction, blasted the police for not arresting him earlier and told the Manchester Evening News that "Children are a lot safer now this monster has been put away". She also demanded Kiszko's hanging. Even Albert Wright, Kiszko's solicitor, thought that his client was guilty, but that it was a case of diminished responsibility, and as a result, Kiszko should not have been convicted outright of murder.