The Magnificent O'Connors: 6. Undermine, Explain, or Accept

Summary

The Magnificent O'Connors – Episode 6: "Undermine, Explain, or Accept" (BBC Radio 4, October 15, 2025)

Overview

The final episode of The Magnificent O'Connors podcast delves deeply into the O'Connor family's decades-long struggle to overturn Jimmy O'Connor's 1943 murder conviction. Having uncovered a trove of new evidence and a surprising confession, the family faces the painful question of whether to continue their campaign, and what it means to seek justice in the shadows of memory, law, and personal pain. This episode stands as a reckoning: confronting new truths, legal ambiguities, and the emotional toll that seeking justice exacts—especially as time runs short for their 93-year-old matriarch, Nemenie Lethbridge.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Discovery of the Confession and Its Impact

[00:44–04:17]

• The O'Connor family unearthed a previously unknown 1943 confession apparently written by Jimmy O'Connor, implicating himself in the events surrounding Donk Ambridge’s murder.
  • Ragnar: "It has left us, well, totally broken." (00:44)
• The confession details Jimmy as a lookout for a burglary, acknowledging some involvement but denying the actual killing.
  • Ragnar: "It says he was there and that he was part of it. And that terrifies us." (03:00)
• Suspicion arises around the document's authenticity—it's unsigned and written in language uncharacteristic of Jimmy.
  • "Would he use language, for example, like, 'I swear before God'?" – Louise Shorter (03:20)
  • "No, it doesn't sound like him." – Ragnar (03:23)

2. The Family’s Investigation and Legal Strategy

[04:17–08:29]

• The family tracks down an original handwritten version at the National Archives, confirming Jimmy’s handwriting—yet the language still feels alien.
  • "It's all in his handwriting... It still doesn't read like Dad's language." – Ragnar (05:47)
• Milo posits it may have been a desperate plea for help rather than an admission.
  • "Maybe Jimmy just wrote what he believed would get someone to actually listen to him." (06:27)
• A solicitor’s letter corroborates this, indicating Jimmy fabricated the statement in hopes of getting his case re-examined.
  • "He says he did write it, but it was all a desperate attempt..." – Ragnar (07:16)

3. Confounding New Tape and Revisiting Old Witnesses

[08:29–12:30]

• The discovery of a tape labeled "Sailor Boy Ruby 2" introduces extraordinary audio: a conversation between Jimmy and Freddie Andrews—long presumed the real killer, and supposedly estranged from Jimmy post-prison.
  • "Freddie Andrews speaking. Recorded by Dad. It's on one of Dad's tapes. What the fuck?" – Ragnar (08:53)
• Rather than discussing the murder, the tape features casual tales of criminal exploits and camaraderie, adding confusion.
  • "These two men seemed to trust each other. They sounded happy..." – Ragnar (09:52)
• Gary, the nephew of Jimmy’s first wife, corroborates the belief that Jimmy was framed, echoing a long-held family and neighborhood narrative.
  • "Everybody knew in Kilburn's, your dad was stitched up. He was a naughty boy... He got the worst end of it." – Gary (11:29)
  • "He knew who done it, but he wouldn't say, would he?" – Gary (11:58)

4. The Legal Review: Mark Harries KC’s Opinion

[14:29–21:55]

• Mark Harries KC, legal expert with the charity Inside Justice, reviews the case. His findings focus on "felony murder" law of the 1940s and issues around proper legal direction and witness credibility.
  • "This case is about felony murder." – Mark Harries KC (15:51)
  • The judge’s "felony" definition and direction to the jury are scrutinized, with concerns that burglary (as committed) lacked the element of violence required for felony murder.
    • "Burglary has no intrinsically violent element..." – Mark Harries KC (16:42)
    • "There is little or no evidence, it seems to me, capable of making a jury sure that violence was contemplated." (17:29)
  • He identifies "career criminals" who testified as prosecution witnesses, with hidden relationships to police—undisclosed to the original jury.
    • "I've seen considerable material... which suggests these witnesses were career criminals who had historic relationships with the police as informers." – Mark Harries KC (18:43)
  • On the problematic confession: even if it is true, it may show steps taken to avoid violence, supporting the family's legal challenge either way.
    • "Whether we believe the statement or not doesn't really matter... it actually adds to the argument that this crime was not a felony murder..." – Ragnar (21:06)
  • Harries concludes: "There may well be the bones of an arguable case of a miscarriage of justice here. My informal conclusion is this, that this isn't a hopeless case, in my view." (21:35)

5. Emotional Reckoning and Family Motivation

[22:20–27:53]

• Emotional relief and renewed hope surge upon hearing Mark’s considered belief in the case's viability.
  • "I felt euphoric. I wanted to grab a bottle of champagne and just drink the whole thing..." – Ragnar (22:56)
  • Reaffirmation of the family's determination, especially for their mother, Nemenie, whose health is failing but whose spirit endures.
• The question: Do they have the strength to pursue a new appeal?
  • "You're going to have to decide whether or not you've got the kind of emotional energy and buy in to keep going with that fight." – Louise Shorter (25:46)
  • "I think it'd be impossible to leave it alone now, having come this far. There's no way on earth now that we can stop." – Ragnar (25:59)
  • Nemenie’s unwavering resolve surfaces: "Yes. That's a quick answer and an emphatic one." – Nemenie (27:01)
  • "From the day I met Jimmy, I thought he was innocent and I still believe that... This wrongful conviction profoundly affected other members of the family, including myself. It's made a good stab at ruining a number of lives." – Nemenie (27:01)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Discovery of the Confession

  "It's some weeks since that confession reared its ugly head... we've sent her [Louise Shorter] way. And that includes the 1943 statement."
  – Ragnar O’Connor (01:52)

• Reaction to Handwritten Confession

  "It's all in his handwriting... It's very neat. It still doesn't read like Dad's language."
  – Ragnar O’Connor (05:47)

• Eureka Moment: Taped Conversation

  "Freddie Andrews, the man who we'd believed murdered Don Cambridge, was sitting opposite the man who'd almost been hanged for it."
  – Ragnar O’Connor (08:53)

• Neighborhood’s Long-Memory

  "Everybody knew in Kilburn's, your dad was stitched up. He was a naughty boy and he didn’t get caught for things he done... He got the worst end of it."
  – Gary (11:29)

• Legal Breakthrough

  "This case is about felony murder."
  – Mark Harries KC (15:51)

  "There may well be the bones of an arguable case of a miscarriage of justice here. My informal conclusion is this, that this isn’t a hopeless case, in my view."
  – Mark Harries KC (21:35)

  "These are the words we've wanted to hear for decades. Mum in particular."
  – Ragnar O’Connor (22:56)

• Final Resolve

  "There’s no way on earth now that we can stop. There’s no way on earth after we’ve got all those files..."
  – Ragnar O’Connor (25:59) "From the day I met Jimmy, I thought he was innocent and I still believe that."
  – Nemenie Lethbridge (27:01)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment Description | |----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:44 | Ragnar introduces the family’s renewed efforts and the discovery of the confession | | 03:16 | First reactions to the language and authenticity of the confession | | 05:47 | Handwritten statement found—validity and context discussed | | 08:29 | Discovery and listening to the tape with Freddie Andrews | | 11:29 | Gary presents the enduring local version of the story | | 14:29 | Introduction to Mark Harries KC's legal assessment | | 15:51 | Legal focus on felony murder and judge’s misdirection | | 18:43 | Discussion of compromised prosecution witnesses | | 21:35 | Mark Harries’ concluding remarks—case is "not a hopeless cause" | | 25:46 | Family contemplates emotional value and commitment to new appeal | | 27:01 | Nemenie Lethbridge’s definitive affirmation of family resolve | | 27:53 | Closing thoughts: hope, uncertainty, and looking forward |

---

Tone & Style

Maintaining the family’s authentic voice, the episode is intimate and reflective, marked by moments of raw pain, dark humor, persistent skepticism, and newly felt hope. The narrative is built on forensic investigation but continually returns to the emotional heart of a family that can't let go—and, finally, may not need to.

---

Conclusion

Episode 6 serves as a powerful portrait of memory, justice, and perseverance. While legal answers remain elusive, a leading barrister’s informal opinion injects new hope. The O’Connor family, having battled confusion, bureaucracy, and heartbreak, now confronts the future with resolve, committed to clearing Jimmy’s name—no matter how much time is left.

---

For listeners seeking genuine insight into justice, family legacy, and the cost of truth, this final episode offers both closure and a stirring new beginning.

Transcript

[Ragnar O'Connor]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[History Extra Narrator]

Are you after more fascinating conversations about the past? Well, History Extra might be just the podcast for you. Made by the team behind BBC History Magazine, the History Extra podcast brings you gripping historical stories, compelling interviews with the world's leading historians, and the real history behind your favorite films and TV shows. Coming up, we've got deep dives into Tudor life, the Nazis on trial, the real story of the Gunpowder Plot, and plenty more so to join us on our journey into the past. Just search for the History Extra podcast wherever you listen to podcasts.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

I'm Ragnar o'. Connor. You're about to listen to the history podcast the Magnificent o'. Connors. And this episode contains strong language. Dad's conviction for murder has been a blight on our family for more than 80 years. In that time, we've made several attempts to get it overturned. Each one unsuccessful. Six months ago, we started making this podcast and we found stuff we'd never seen before. Previously withheld documents. The complete transcript of Dad's trial. Information that cast a new light on this story. We were beginning to believe that maybe now, in the twilight years of our mum's life, we actually had a real chance of getting justice. And then we found what appears to be some kind of confession written by our dad in 1943. And it has left us, well, totally broken. Here's Mum and Milo.

[Louise Shorter]

And it obviously upset everybody.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

Yeah, upset. Upset me massively.

[Louise Shorter]

Yes.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

It's some weeks since that confession reared its ugly head and we're back at the family home with Louise Shorter. She's been helping us in our attempt to have one final go at getting Jimmy's conviction overturned. So everything we've uncovered in our investigations, we've sent her way. And that includes the 1943 statement.

[Louise Shorter]

Then there's this statement, isn't there, which is in the file, in which she says, I want to tell the God's honest truth. And the God's honest truth is I was there. I was involved to some degree, but I didn't know it was gonna be anything like what happened.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

None of us had ever seen it before.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

No.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

You'd never seen it before, had you?

[Louise Shorter]

No.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

And it was a real shock. Dad always said I was never there. Yeah. But in this so called confession that suddenly appears out of nowhere where he says, I was there and all this, which we've never seen, the statement says that he was part of a three man team who made a plan to burgle the flat of Don Cambridge. Dad was meant to be the lookout, while the actual break in was done by William Redhead and Freddie Andrews. But when he heard a scream coming from inside the flat, dad ran in and saw Freddy attacking Donk with a tire lever. True. The statement doesn't say it was dad who actually killed Donk, but it says he was there and that he was part of it. And that terrifies us.

[Louise Shorter]

Do you read that and think that that sounds like him?

[Ragnar O'Connor]

No, Jimmy doesn't talk like that.

[Louise Shorter]

Would he use language, for example, like, I swear before God, I mean, you know, I wouldn't.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

No, it doesn't sound like him. No, it's not his language.

[Louise Shorter]

It's quite tantalizing, isn't it? At the end of this, he says, statement taken by Chief Inspector Thorpe, written down, read over, and signature witnessed by Detective Sergeant Griffin.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

But there is no signature.

[Louise Shorter]

There is no signature? No.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

The lack of a signature has us thinking anyone could have written this. Maybe somebody was trying to drop Jimmy in it. The question is, now we've got this statement, what do we do with it?

[Louise Shorter]

This is quite a difficult thing, isn't it? Because. It's. Because it sort of gets to the heart of what do we believe that, you know, what was the truth that Jimmy was telling? Well, we have to either. We either have to undermine it or explain it or accept it.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

The only chance we have of making sense of this confession is to do more digging through old documents and hope something turns up. We've uncovered so much, but we all recognize this has to come to an end. So this confession needs to be our last line of investigation. Louise and her legal friends will then weigh up what we found for once and for all and give us their honest assessment whether they think that after all these years, there is any hope of getting Dad's conviction overTurned. I'm Ragnar O' Connor and from the History Podcast and BBC Radio 4, this is the final episode of the Magnificent Oconnors, episode six, Undermine, Explain or Accept. Milo and I are on a mission to see if we can track down an original handwritten version of Dad's statement. That unsigned copy isn't enough for us, so we head off to the National Archives at Kew, because you can't record when you're in there. We caught up a day or so after to talk about what we'd found. The first thing I picked up was a telegram to the prison where dad was being held saying they fixed the date for his execution and this was the date and time that he was to be hung. And my. My heart sank. And you get this feeling of, yeah, this has gotten serious. Sifting through the prison letters, telegrams and appeal documents, we found exactly what we feared we might find. The original 1943 statement, written unmistakably in the hand of Jimmy O'. Connor. It's all in his handwriting. Yeah, but it's very neat. It's very neat. It still doesn't read like Dad's language. That statement written by dad in his handwriting doesn't read like he wrote it. I mean, I could just be biased. I could just be biased, but I just. It just. It's so weird. The difference is so, to me, is very obvious. Milo has a thought. Could it have been a cry for help? Maybe Jimmy just wrote what he believed would get someone to actually listen to him. He's completely lost his mind and he basically wants to get any attention he can because he's looking at a whole life sentence. Seeing the original hasn't got us that much further forward. If anything, we've helped stand it up. Well done, us. So we redouble our efforts and go back to the piles of documents and tapes sitting in the cellar at Lystrier Park. Perhaps there's something down there we missed or. Which didn't make sense at the time, but can now shed some light on this. In amongst a load of legal stuff from the late 1960s, there's a pile of correspondence written by Dad's solicitor. And in one of the letters, there is indeed a reference to that statement. The solicitor is explaining that Jimmy made it up. He says he did write it, but it was all a desperate attempt to get his case reopened. I don't suppose in a court of law that explanation would hold much sway, but it does ring true to me anyway, and that's a good feeling. But that good feeling, it doesn't last long. From the archive, our dad has one last surprise. I have something to clean for you. That's one of our producers, Vic. While we were going through the archive one final time, she came across a tape we'd given her labeled sailor boy. Ruby 2. Not the most auspicious title, but she listened anyway. Hopefully this is going to be loud enough. Okay, you ready?

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

You can talk as much as you like now. You have to forget that machine, say, and that's your thing.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

That sounds like dad. It was dad. But it was the identity of the person he was talking to that left us gobsmacked.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

As you know, my name is Connie Andrews and I am on the run and I've been involved in some of the biggest crimes in England.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

Is it really. What? It's Freddie Andrews speaking. Freddie Andrews speaking. Recorded by dad. It's on one of Dad's tapes. What the fuck? Freddie Andrews, the man who we'd believed murdered Don Cambridge, was sitting opposite the man who'd almost been hanged for it. We all lent in around the tape recorder. Where was this conversation gonna go?

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

I will tell the story of why I'm on the run, what I'm on the run for. I'll tell you the story right from the beginning.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

But while we were waiting to hear if the subject of Don Cambridge would come up, dad and Freddie seemed more interested in talking about something else entirely.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

The king of Soho is looking for me he's out to get it Lucky Luciano that he's the biggest fight scheme. What do you think he done with the guns full of mobile?

[Ragnar O'Connor]

What we were hearing sounded like a convivial chat in which Freddy was freely confessing to his part in some kind of heroin smuggling operation. As the minutes rolled by, we were getting increasingly bamboozled. These two men seemed to trust each other. They sounded happy, passing the time of day together.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

We're stranded there. We ain't got no clothes. All our clothes were on the boat.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

And that's where the tape ran out. It was very much our understanding that dad never saw Freddy after his release from prison. Yet clearly he did. And when he got the chance to talk to him with the tape rolling, dad didn't feel like asking Freddy anything about the murder of Don Cambridge. We had no idea what to make of any of this paperwork and old recordings seemed to be adding to the confusion. We just kept on hitting dead ends. So Milo wondered whether we should just step away from the archive. He suggested that as a last row of the dice, we tried something different. Speak to someone who actually knew dad from way back in the day.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

They call me Cybet. Cybet? Sid. Because I used to take all the side bets.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

This is in fact, Gary. I spoke to him the old fashioned way over the Dog and bone. He's the nephew of Dad's first wife. And though not a blood relative, Gary and Dad used to mix in similar circles down Soho Way.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

I run betting shots for a gangster down there.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

This is the first time I've ever spoken to him. And he gave me the story about dad and Donk's murder that he heard back in the day.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

He didn't do it. He was just caught up in it. And the position was that he took the blanket. You know, you can't say nothing. I'm not saying I wouldn't say it on paperwork, you know what I mean? But everybody knew in Kilburn's, your dad was stitched up. He was a naughty boy and he didn't get caught for things he done. He took on the chin. He got the worst end of it.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

The story Gary has always known is that dad didn't kill Donk, someone else did and put it on him.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

You know, he knew who done it, but he wouldn't say, would he?

[Ragnar O'Connor]

So is Gary talking about Freddie Andrews? Is that who he's saying done it?

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

It was people you don't know. Your dad took on the chin and it was, you know, it was to be true. It was well liked for that. He got a bit of street cred there, son. The dad needed to get the pardoners because he never done it. Even the copper in charge. I can't say it, but, you know.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

Gary wouldn't say any more. All of this information just out of reach and adding to my confusion, I couldn't see where else to take this conversation. But before we hung up, there was something Gary wanted to ask me and he sounded a bit hesitant.

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

It's hard to. How can I say it? You. You're trying to get a part of the dad, aren't you? Right. Is it too late? Not being funny.

[Mark Harries KC]

Right?

[Gary (Dad's first wife's nephew)]

Is it true love?

[Ragnar O'Connor]

That's a question my family have been asking for as long as I can remember. Time has never been on our side. The further we get from the crime, the murkier it becomes. We have different versions of events, unsubstantiated rumours from the time, recordings that don't match Dad's story, other documents that do. It's all a blur. Not helped by the fact that to us, this is personal before it's anything else. Milo and I clearly struggle with the weight of the archive, what we want to believe and what we think we can actually prove. We've been through all of this and we feel like we don't know the way forward from here. However, we do have one significant line of inquiry left to come back.

[History Extra Narrator]

Are you after more fascinating conversations about the past? Well, History Extra might be just the podcast for you. Made by the team behind BBC History magazine, the History Extra podcast brings you gripping historical stories, compelling interviews with the world's leading historians, and the real history behind your favourite films and TV shows. Coming up, we've got deep dives into Tudor life, the Nazis on trial, the real story of the Gunpowder Plot and plenty more. So to join us on our journey into the past, just search for the History Extra Podcast, wherever you listen to podcasts.

[Louise Shorter]

So I've known Mark Harries for quite a few years now.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

Me mum and Milo are on a video call with Louise Shorter.

[Louise Shorter]

We've worked on other cases before in the past.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

Mark Harries, KC is part of the advisory panel of a charity called Inside Justice. They investigate and try to overturn wrongful convictions.

[Mark Harries KC]

Louise asked me to have a look at some ideas that she had in relation to the Jimmy o' Connor case, just to see from an informal legal perspective whether she was barking up the wrong tree or not. My job is not to pander to.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

What the client wants, or in other.

[Louise Shorter]

Words, if he thought there was absolutely nowhere to go with this case, he would say so. He's really straight up honest like that.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

We'd given Mark access to many of the key documents we had. When the word came back that he'd written an informal but considered legal opinion on Dad's case. We wanted to convene as quickly as possible to hear what he had to say. So we jumped on a video call as soon as we could and Mark's document was read to us by our podcast producer. But here's Mark himself reading some of those words for us now. And straight off the bat, he takes us somewhere we haven't been before.

[Mark Harries KC]

This case is about felony murder.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

Felony murder. Mark's been looking very closely at the trial transcript. He quotes a bit from the judge's summing up where the judge is giving an overview of the case against Jimmy and his co accused, William Redhead.

[Mark Harries KC]

He said, the Crown submit to you that those two people were there with the unlawful object of breaking into that old man's house and committing a felony therein.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

As Mark understands it based on the research he was able to do, the law at the time stated that if a crime can be described as a felony, then it doesn't matter about anyone's intentions or who did what. If someone was murdered during the course of that felony, everyone involved in the crime could be found guilty. So that then leads us to the question, what is a felony?

[Mark Harries KC]

The judge defines felony as a very serious crime involving violence. Burglary was not, I understand, commonly regarded as a felony per se, in the same way that robbery might be. So robbery is theft committed with violence or the threat of violence. Burglary has no intrinsically violent element to it and can be perfectly well committed and usually is committed without any violence at all, actual or contemplated.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

To put that another way, a burglar intends to avoid confrontation, whereas a robber is ready and willing to commit acts of violence and will often come to the crime scene with a weapon in hand. So what does that mean for Jimmy's case?

[Mark Harries KC]

There is little or no evidence, it seems to me, capable of making a jury sure that violence was contemplated. And if that's right, it might be arguable that the judge has misdirected the jury that the burglary of Ambridge's house was a felony.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

By describing Donk's death as a felony, the judge was declaring that those involved were ready and prepared to commit murder if need be. And that meant the jury could deliver a guilty verdict when, without having to worry about who actually did the deed. Mark is suggesting that would be wrong. Here's my reaction when I first heard that bit. Wow, that is some clever shit right there. Clever shit that Mark wouldn't have been able to come up with if we hadn't found those transcripts of the trial. So then he moves on to his next point.

[Mark Harries KC]

My other concern was the extent, if any, to which full disclosure was made as to the relationship between some witnesses and the police.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

You may remember that many of the people who took the stand at the trial had colorful pasts. A rogue's gallery of witnesses for the prosecution.

[Mark Harries KC]

Almost none of this was put before the jury at all. I've seen considerable material from the archives, much of which post dates the trial, which to greater and lesser extents suggests these witnesses were career criminals who had historic relationships with the police as informers.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

Listening to this bit, I remembered one of the new pieces of evidence we found was a letter from one police officer to another. The letter writer was discussing the fact that one of the witnesses from Dad's trial had recently been arrested and was now facing six months in prison. This, of course, he writes, will give us the opportunity of recognising the services which he rendered in the o' Connor case by recommending remission of some portion of the new sentence. Mark's opinion document was giving me good vibes, but we'd not yet hit what we felt were the more challenging aspects of the case. Still to be considered was the elephant in the room Dad's habit and of giving different versions of events to different people.

[Mark Harries KC]

Now, Connor has not helped himself by the variety of accounts that he gave. Some indisputably and some the subject of challenge throughout the investigation. Then there's the 1943 statement. There are aspects of the statement that I don't feel sit well. The oddity of his losing sight of Ambridge and hearing a scream and his curious determination to enter the property to see what was happening, followed by his discovery then that the killer was mid attack. The convenience of all of that, however, is to be laid against the extraordinary detail in the account. Detail, after all, lends a ring of truth to an account when assessed objectively. The Court of Appeal might regard it as oconnors latest account and signed, say, more likely to be true because it contains greater admissions adverse to him on.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

The face of it, so was its very existence. Regardless of whether it was true or, as our family believed, the fiction of a desperate man going to put the kibosh on everything.

[Mark Harries KC]

This statement presents some difficulties, however. If this statement is accurate and truthful, it represents a plot by which measures were taken to ensure that the burglars were not disturbed by the homeowner.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

In other words, whether we believe the statement or not doesn't really matter. It seems if you take it as true, it actually adds to the argument that this crime was not a felony murder, because it outlines steps taken to try and avoid any confrontation with the homeowner. But if, like us, you think Dad's statement should be disregarded as a work of fiction, the argument still stands that this trial did not prove the crime committed was a felony murder.

[Mark Harries KC]

Further clarity is required as to the parameters of the law of felony murder from the 1940s. But there may well be the bones of an arguable case of a miscarriage of justice here. My informal conclusion is this, that this isn't a hopeless case, in my view.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

And that was that Mark was done. So what did we think? Well, there you go. This is not a lost cause, not a hopeless case or whatever. He said, no, it's not, Mum.

[Louise Shorter]

I thought he might just knock us down and say, don't break your own hearts. But he doesn't.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

I was very scared. He might just come back and say, come on, move on with your lives. He hasn't said that at all. Even Louise, who'd first suggested getting Mark on board, was taken aback by what he'd said.

[Louise Shorter]

I thought that was, you know, really quite something. I didn't expect for him to come back with such a kind of clear route through to actually how this conviction could be quashed. I really think if we don't get this, there ain't no justice.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

I took that video call upstairs in my home office. When it came to an end, I sat there for a minute. I felt euphoric. I wanted to grab a bottle of champagne and just drink the whole thing. Because on this day in 2025, an eminent legal mind just told us the there are grounds to believe dad didn't get a fair trial, that maybe he shouldn't have been convicted for murder, that maybe he shouldn't have been sentenced to hang on his 24th birthday. We were sent through a copy of Mark's document and I read through it from top to bottom. Each point was separately numbered. Item number 96. This is not a hopeless cause. Item number 99. There may well be the bones of an arguable case of a miscarriage of justice. These are the words we've wanted to hear for decades. Mum in particular. And for Milo and I, that's more than a blessing, as at times we weren't sure that she'd even be with us to hear them. How you doing, Mai? I'm okay, thanks buddy. How are you? There have been moments in the last few months where we've been given a stark reminder that the clock is ticking. Yeah, I'm all right. I was glad. I was glad everything was all right. Absolutely. This chat between me and Milo was recorded quite a few weeks ago, long before we heard anything back from Louise and Mark. That day was pretty awful, slightly stressful. I. I thought she was gone. Yeah, I think we all did. It was one of, I reckon three times while making this podcast the mum had to be taken into hospital as an emergency. Each time we were terrified she wouldn't come back out. But she did. She's. She's like Tyson Fury. You know when Tyson Fury got knocked out by fiance Wilder and he somehow rebooted and got back up again and it felt like that. Happily, Nemelie Lethbridge is still with us, but is she still up for the fight? When we meet up with Louise over video call for one final conversation, that's the question that's hanging in the air. If we were to proceed with trying to go down the submission route and appeal and so on and so forth. What does that look like? Louise tells us it will be incredibly difficult, that the court of appeal is overstretched and that getting convictions overturned is tough, time consuming and expensive. We've been down this road before and it almost ruined us. Are we really going to do this all again with our now 93 year old mum?

[Louise Shorter]

You're going to have to decide whether or not you've got the kind of emotional energy and buy in to keep going with that fight. That is your number one thing that you have to decide as a family.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

I think it'd be impossible to leave it alone now, having come this far. There's no way on earth now that we can stop. There's no way on earth after we've got all those files. The day we went to the National Records Office and I opened that first file and the first thing that I saw was a telegram saying, jimmy o' Connor, execution. This is the day. It's been set. Bam. And we've spent the last, I don't know, six months or whatever going through this stuff page by page. How can we stop now? Our family has been down this road before, but this time it's different. We now know so much more about this case, how it was investigated and how it was tried in a court of law. Milo and I have got the desire and the stamina to keep going with this. But there's one more vote and it's the one that really counts. Mum, do you have the energy? Yes. That's a quick answer and an emphatic one.

[Louise Shorter]

You know, I've spent my life dealing with this. From the day I met Jimmy, I thought he was innocent and I still believe that. And obviously I feel emotional about this. But this wrongful conviction profoundly affected other members of the family, including myself. It's made a good stab at ruining a number of lives.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

This next chapter. We know it will take time. Louise reckons at least a couple of years to make any kind of meaningful progress. Mum is currently 93, so I want to know if she's up for hanging on in there for a bit longer. How does 95 sound, Mum?

[Louise Shorter]

I'd be very happy, but I'd be surprised. All I want to see is the show firmly on the road.

[Ragnar O'Connor]

There are hurdles to overcome, more research to be done, and we have no doubt that it's going to be a difficult process. If we are ever going to straighten this all out, who knows where it will lead and how many of us will see it through to its conclusion? This family has been through so much over the decades in trying to reinvestigate and overturn what we believe is a miscarriage of justice suffered by our dad, Jimmy o', Connor, and our mum, Nemenie Lethbridge. We've seen countless false dawns. We've had promising leads snuffed out. And we've learned things about our dad that have made us question so much of what we thought we knew about him. But in the end, we've arrived here. Our wonderful, resilient mum, in the twilight years of her life, has at last a reason to be hopeful. And that in itself feels like a gift. The magnificent O' Connors was presented by me, Ragnar O' Connor. It was produced by Emily Essen and Victoria McArthur, research by Elizabeth Ann Duffy and Louise Yeoman, script assistants and additional research by Marisha Currie. Our actors were Cameron, Jack and Irene McDougal. The scriptwriters were Emily Essen and Jack Kibblewhite. Sound design and original music by Lomond Campbell. Our story consultant was Jack Kibblewhite and the script editor was Graham Russell. The Executive editor is Gillian Whelan. Commissioning Executive is Tracy Williams and the Commissioning editor is Dan Clark. The Magnificent O' Connors is a BBC Audio Scotland production for BBC Radio 4 and the History Podcast so there. I'm Mark still and for BBC Radio 4 from Shadow World, this is the people versus McDonald's. Hi boys and girls, how you doing today? It's Ronald McDonald, your friend and boy. Gosh, by golly, we're gonna have a lot of fun today. The longest running trial in English history. I just felt totally burnt out and I was. I wasn't really able to carry on a gardener and a former postman against a global fast food giant. Corporations should not just be able to suppress people with secret surveillance, spies and life changing deception. You start thinking what is reality and what's not reality? Subscribe to the people versus McDonald's on BBC Sounds.

[History Extra Narrator]

Are you after more fascinating conversations about the past? Well, History Extra might be just the podcast for you. Made by the team behind BBC History Magazine, the History Extra podcast brings you gripping historical stories, compelling interviews with the world's leading historians, and the real history behind your favorite films and TV shows. Coming up, we've got deep dives into Tudor life, the Nazis on trial, the real story of the Gunpowder Plot, and plenty more so to join us on our journey into the past. Just search for the History Extra podcast wherever you listen to podcasts.