Is Convicted Murderer Stephen Marsh Innocent?
Background: In my blog post Once Again, the Female Criminal Justice Sentencing Discount from last year, I discussed the BBC article Lovers’ 30-year murder sentence (5/18/07). According to the BBC:
“Stephen Marsh, 36, was sentenced to 18 years for persuading Rebecca Harris, 30, to stab his wife Jaspal to death at the marital home in Gorseinon, Swansea. Harris was given a 12-year sentence for carrying out the July 2006 murder.”
I wrote:
“Both the man and the woman…deserve severe punishment, but I can’t help but notice the gender bias in sentencing here.
“The husband and his lover plotted to kill the man’s wife. The husband urged his girlfriend to commit the crime, but physically played no role in the murder. The girlfriend stabbed the man’s wife 16 times with a knife. Yet the husband got an 18 year sentence and the girlfriend–the one who actually committed the murder–got only 12 years, partially because she cooperated with prosecutors, but also because she’s a woman, and women are treated with kid gloves by the criminal justice system.
“Also, when a man and a woman commit a crime together, the state is more likely to offer a deal to the woman to testify against the man than vice versa.”
I regularly receive letters from people who are the family or friends of men who are on trial for or have been convicted of serious crimes, such as murder. The family or friends of the accused or convicted man explained that the man has been the victim of an injustice, or framed, or is in some other way innocent, and they ask me to take up their cause and publicize it.Â
Recently I received this type of request from Garry Leech in support of Stephen Marsh. Apparently British writer Sandra Lean, author of No Smoke – The Shocking Truth about British Justice, has also taken up Marsh’s cause. Garry Leech sent me the following letter:
“Glenn, I have just read your article on the murder of Jaspal Marsh and I would like you to visit www.stephenmarshisinnocent.co.uk before making your mind up with regards to Stephen. There are many people who believe Stephen is innocent who were both friends and family of Jaspal Marsh, and also people who have read the shocking facts of this miscarriage of justice.
“Ask yourself why people who knew Jas would support Stephen. If they thought he was guilty, surely they would not be supporting him, as they have lost a very special person in Jas. The only person who is guilty in this horrific crime is Rebecca Harris. She committed this crime as she knew Stephen would never leave Jas.
“Stephen had nothing at all to gain by being part of this murder. I hope by reading his website that it at least makes you think that this case could be a miscarriage of justice. We can never bring back Jas but we can help support Stephen in his fight for freedom.”
I hadn’t followed the case since I wrote about it a year ago, and I had to go do a search on my website to remember who Stephen Marsh was. I certainly do think it was unfair that he was sentenced to far more time in prison than Rebecca Harris was, even though she was the one who committed the killing and he was not. Beyond that, I do not really have any particular reason to question Marsh’s conviction, and I’m interested as to what readers think. A few comments:
1) Leech writes “Stephen had nothing at all to gain by being part of this murder.” Well, maybe, but maybe not. The Marsh marriage was obviously a troubled one–the website created by Marsh’s defenders says, “He had affairs but Jaz was his wife, he knew the difference and so did Jaz.”
It is possible, though the Marsh side will deny it, that Stephen wanted to begin a new life with Rebecca, and it would have been much more convenient if Jaspal (aka “Jaz”) were out of the way. We’re told that Stephen had little interest in Rebecca and wanted to break up with her, but the fact remains that he was having an affair with her, which certainly shows a significant level of interest.Â
Also, we do not know that Jaz took the affair as lightly as Steven’s defenders say she did. Perhaps she was going to cause real trouble over the affairs, and within certain limits, I couldn’t blame her.
2) Stephen Marsh — whose defenders themselves say that he had regular affairs — hardly seems like a trustworthy individual. Certainly that does not make him a murderer or an accessory to murder, but it does to some significant degree impugn his credibility.
3) Marsh’s defenders write, “If Steve had wanted to be with Rebecca Harris he could have walked out of the door at any time. Steve and Jaz had no children and Steve would have been entitled to half of whatever they had built up together.” Again, maybe, but maybe not.Â
I certainly agree that the fact that they did not have children makes it far, far easier for Stephen to have left his wife. However, we have seen cases where divorcing men are so obsessed with their money, or what they think is “their” money, that they have reacted irrationally or even violently in a situation where most outsiders would think they were getting a pretty decent deal.
The Nicholas Bartha case — where a divorcing man blew up a building he owned with his wife rather than allow her to have it through their divorce settlement — is one example. It was extraordinarily selfish of him to put others in danger because of his personal vendetta.
The Darren Mack case is another example. Here the wealthy businessman had a good deal (including 50-50 custody of his daughter and a reasonable financial settlement) but stabbed and nearly cut his ex-wife’s head off and attempted to murder a judge.
We have also seen situations where men get screwed financially in divorce even though there are no children involved. Stephen Marsh had affairs yet stayed married to his wife — it seems that for whatever reason, he was hesitant to leave her.
4) Marsh’s defenders write “Steve would never, ever in a million years have left Jaz, she was his rock in life, organized everything for them and looked after him.” Again, this seems suspicious. If she was such a great wife, if he was so devoted to her, if she was “his rock in life,” why was he repeatedly having affairs? Yes, it is possible that Steven did regard his wife in this reverential manner, but it seems unlikely.
5)Â Marsh’s defenders write:
“Rebecca Harris claimed that Stephen, who was not there (this is not disputed), sent her texts saying ‘Do it’ and ‘Just Do It’ and Stephen was jointly convicted of murder. She was sentenced to 12 years in jail, Stephen was sentenced to 18 years. He will never, ever, change his assertion of his complete innocence and so may never come out of prison if we cannot prove his innocence. The media repeatedly reported that ‘evidence showed’ that Stephen sent texts saying the words ‘Do It’ and ‘Just Do It’ and anyone could be forgiven for believing that those words must have been physically recovered from a mobile phone.
“No texts from Stephen to anyone saying any such thing were ever recovered from anywhere - they exist only in the version of events given by the murderer Rebecca Harris
“The ‘evidence’ referred to was the version of events put forward by Rebecca Harris, this was not made clear by the media, instead by using the phrase ‘evidence showed’, they allowed their readers and viewers to believe that texts showing those words must physically exist – those words have never been found to exist by any investigation – this is not an opinion this is a fact.”
If what Marsh’s defenders say here is true, this is very important. I know that prosecutors will sometimes distort evidence in order to win a conviction. I know that defendants don’t always have competent legal help. I know that the media can simplify or distort things, particularly when the bad guy in the story is a man. On the other hand, it seems somewhat unlikely that prosecutors could get a conviction based on phantom evidence such as Marsh’s defenders describe.
The website and the case for Marsh is at www.stephenmarshisinnocent.co.uk. While some of Marsh’s defenders’ arguments seem flawed to me, I’m not convinced that they are wrong, and I’m interested to see what readers think of Marsh’s guilt or innocence.
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
