The tragic killing of Olivia Pratt-Korbel.
Was the right man convicted?
“The fact is juries can get it wrong, and we know from previous cases that the court of appeal can too,” (Barrister Mark McDonald said in reference to the Letby case. 2024)
PROSECUTION vs THOMAS CASHMAN | part 1 | The Trial of Thomas Cashman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTVkXJCAKk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah6cLtcQq1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFSfkVXS05k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2rrOwjXKxw
Thomas Cashman: How detectives caught Olivia Pratt-Korbel murderer -
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpcC0pbi-vU
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jFUnZxG3uo
The problem with these programmes is that they concentrate on emotional responses rather than testing the evidence in any way. Nor am I sure we can rely on the criminal process, despite all the effort and expense to do it either. It is nevertheless, all we have to stand in the way of violent chaos and to secure some measure of justice. Justice is never served when or if an man is punished for a crime he did not commit, however great the temptation may be.The consensus in the Reddit thread seems to be that Cashman had a local reputation for violence and intimidation and that he was guilty of the crimes as claimed but that the prosecution had failed to prove it 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Of course the jury of ten men and two women thought otherwise. Notwithstanding that, in this article I will attempt to review the police case and Cashman's defence as objectively as I can.
Introduction
A couple of nights ago I watched one of a series of Channel 4 programmes, documenting various police murder investigations. You cannot help but be impressed by the application and technical sophistication of the people and process, dedicated to catching a killer or killers as the case may be.
A number of episodes were devoted to two murders that occurred in Liverpool in 2022. (See: Merseyside Detectives: The Murders of Ashley and Olivia ) The first was of Ashley Dale (28) a local government employee, on Sunday 21st August, 2022; the second - the very next day - the tragic death of nine year old Olivia Pratt-Korbel. The two murders were said to be unconnected other than by guns, drugs and thuggery. Two shocking killings, in the same locality, only a day apart, that in a way reflected the appalling state of Britain's crime-ridden cities.
Both died from wounds inflicted by bullets fired from a gun. Both incidents were connected with disputes over the illegal distribution of drugs. It might be noted that although the first was clearly targeted and intentional, the second was not; rather it resulted in the reckless firing of a weapon, in an assassination attempt of someone else - an adult by the name of Joseph Nee (35 at the time). Olivia was not the target but died because a bullet went through the front door whilst she was standing inside. Nevertheless the alleged killer, Thomas Cashman, was charged with her murder on the well-established legal principle of 'transferred malice'. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent )
Alleged Killer - Thomas Cashman.
The alleged shooter Thomas Cashman (33 at the time) was convicted of murder. This is his police photograph:
Given the circumstances, there being no intention to harm the nine year old child as she was unconnected to the drug dispute, a charge of manslaughter might have been expected. However the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Jury agreed, despite the absence of intent, this was murder, on the basis of 'transferred malice', as referred to above. After seven hours of consideration the jury found him guilty on all charges including the murder of Olivia. He was jailed for forty two years.
This was received with some satisfaction by the immediate family and all the other parties involved. In such an emotive case this is understandable. The police were under considerable pressure to get a conviction. However it still begs the question as to whether the right man was prosecuted and sent to gaol? Sometimes the desire to convict someone trumps the need to convict the right one and I wonder if this is what happened here?
Mr Cooper, Cashman's barrister in summing up, described it as "Cinderella Syndrome. "We'll force this evidence into a shoe that doesn't fit and we'll play the banging video again and again." What he didn't add, is that the video evidence is a very poor fit of the man it is said to be!
The unconnected case of the murder of Ashley Dale.
In the other murder case, that of twenty-eight year old Ashley Dale, four men (Sean Zeisz, Niall Barry, Joseph Peers and James Witham) were, it appears, rightly convicted of her murder and given long sentences, whilst two others charged with lesser offences were found not guilty.
Although her partner was the primary target, there is little doubt this was a premeditated and carefully planned attack of Ashley in her own home. I do not intend in this article to discuss her case case further, whilst noting its tragic consequences.
Although happening in close proximity in time and place to the Pratt-Korbel case, it appears it was unconnected, except by virtue of the common factors of criminal gangs, drug score-setting and use of fire-arms, although Barry and Zeisz were (with Fitzgibbon) considered suspects in the Pratt-Korbell murder!
The case of the murder of Olivia Pratt-Korbel.
In the case of Olivia Pratt-Korbel's death, a local man and small-time (?) criminal, Thomas Cashman, was found guilty of murdering her. He was held to be the man captured on CCTV shooting Nee, who rather miraculously survived. Subsequent attempts - both written and in person - for permission to appeal the conviction, have been refused.
Cashman apparently had had eighteen previous convictions for multiple offences and a spell in prison for drug-related ones. He was clearly no saint. But by the same token, none of these appear to have involved violence, coercion or the use of firearms - although local gossip suggests he was known for them. In the present case it was claimed gun powder residue was found on his track suit bottoms. It was suggested it matched that on the door and by implication it was Cashman who carried out the shooting.
What happened?
At about 10 p.m on the 22nd August, 2022, whilst walking along Kingsheath Avenue, Dovecote, Joseph Nee and his friend Paul Abraham found themselves being shot at by a person in dark clothes and a balaclva who had been lying in wait for them. Mr Abraham managed to escape frightened but unhurt, whilst Nee, obviously the intended target was struck twice in quick succession by bullets from a 9mm self loading weapon.
He was still able to move and staggered towards what he saw as the open door of the Korbel's house at number. A third shot was then fired which seems to have missed, before the gun is said to have seized. A revolver was then produced from somewhere and two more 3.8 mm bullets were fired, one through the half open door, passing through Mrs Korbel's wrist and entering Olivia's chest on her left side, leaving through the right and shattering her right upper humerus. The trajectory might suggest she was standing and turning at the time. These were fatal injuries. A second shot from the revolver resulted in a bullet embedding itself in the inner door frame. From this it is deduced the gunman managed to get his right arm aroung the half-open door and that Nee at that time was cowering behind it.
Mrs Korbil said after being injured, she managed to get Olivia upstairs, after which she hears another gun shot and Nee saying, "Please lad don't shoot." Somehow the gun residue on the inside surface of the door has to be explained. It certainly suggests at some point both attacker and victim were inside the hall when the fifth shot was fired and before the gunman fled.
The police therefore came to the conclusion that in total five shots were fired from two weapons. They made no assertion that more than one attacker was involved, although the use of a second gun might raise questions in the mind. Mr Abraham said in the initial phase the gunman fired with two hands on the weapon, so a second gun wasn't out at first. If two attackers were not involved, he would have had to put the jammed gun in his pocket (it wasn't dropped at the scene) and pulled out a revolver to continue shooting. It is not clear from reports how many bullets or casings were recovered and where, although one witness stated she in fact heard seven shots not five.
Cashman's movements on the day
A lot of police time and effort was put into tracing Cashman's movements on the day, both on foot and in his white Fiat Berlingo van. In the absence of definitive witness or forensic evidence linking him to the crime, this circumstantial information proved decisive. He accepted most of it accurately reflected his movements only denying it was him after he had parked up his van, not long prior to the attack. If so it seems highly coincidental that the gunman bears a close resemblance to Cashman's earlier appearance, and his location and timing neatly fits.
However it does seem strange to me, that having given some thought to the attack he gave so little to his escape. One might have expected he would have had an accomplice to whisk him away in a stolen car or motor bike, or had one handily parked for him to drive off in and abandon at some remote spot. But no he apparently travelled on foot, initially running, and was thereby tracked on CCTV.
Cashman's movements on the day
Journey one
2pm: "Intended target" Joseph Nee is recorded driving along Finch Lane and arriving at his friend Timothy Naylor's address on the corner of Finch Lane and Kingsheath Avenue.
3:05pm: Thomas Cashman leaves his home in Grenadier Drive, on the Point Estate in West Derby, wearing a distinctive blue t-shirt. He drives onto Princess Drive, ending up on Finch Lane, and takes a left onto Kingsheath Avenue, where he has a "full view" of Timothy Naylor's house with Nee's white van parked outside.
3:10pm: Cashman enters his sister Coleen Cashman's address on Mab Lane wearing distinctive blue t-shirt and dark pants.
3:17pm: Cashman leaves his sister's house on Mab Lane wearing a dark tracksuit. He drives along Princess Drive and turns right on to Finch Road. He passes the Dovecot Labour Club. This "once again affords him a clear view to his right" of Timothy Naylor's address. Nee's van is still there at the time.
3:33pm: Joseph Nee leaves Finch Lane in his van. At around the same time Cashman returns to his sister's on Mab Lane with a passenger in his van where he sees his friend Ben Russell. Cashman speaks to Ben Russell through the windows of their respective vehicles. He enters the address, but less than two minutes later and he is back out on foot heading in the direction of Snowberry Road. He is out of sight for more than 15 minutes. He reappears as he crosses Snowberry Road onto Rothbury Road.
3:56pm: Cashman is at the junction of Berryford Road and Finch Lane having walked from the Berryford Road direction. He looks in the direction of Mr Naylor's home on Finch Lane. Nee's van is not there. Cashman does an "about-turn" and walks away via Snowberry Road. The prosecution told the jury that this was an aborted mission to shoot Joseph Nee.
4:05pm: Cashman returns to his sister's address on Mab lane.
4:10pm: Cashman leaves his sister's on Mab Lane, now wearing the distinctive blue top from earlier in the afternoon, and gets in the Citroen Berlingo van. He parks up outside another house on Finch Lane, the home of his half brother Kevin Dunn. He is wearing the blue shirt, grey tracksuit pants and black trainers. He is afforded a "good view" of Timothy Naylor's address.
4:13pm: Joseph Nee is recorded on CCTV at Screwfix with Timothy Naylor.
4:45pm: Cashman leaves Kevin Dunn's address on Finch Lane and drives towards Mr Naylor's address, turning left onto Kingsheath Avenue.
5:15pm: Cashman drives past Mr Naylor's address on Finch Lane heading towards Yew Tree Lane.
5:20pm: Cashman arrives home in Grenadier Drive. Over the past two hours, dubbed 'Journey one' by the prosecution, Cashman went past (or had a view of) Mr Naylor's Finch Lane home on six occasions.
6:42pm: Cashman leaves his home in Grenadier Drive: His Berlingo van is observed on East Prescot Road.
7:03pm: Cashman drives onto Finch Road, which "afforded him a clear view" of Mr Naylor's house on Finch Lane. Nee's van is still not there. Cashman then drives a "circuitous route" in the area before ending up outside Kevin Dunn's address opposite Mr Naylor's.
7:09pm: Cashman gets out of his van outside Kevin Dunn's address, wearing grey tracksuit bottoms and grey trainers. He stays in the house for around six minutes before getting back in the van.
7:16pm: Cashman drives along Finch Lane past Dovecot Labour Club and past Timothy Naylor's house. Nee's van is still not there.
7:27pm: Cashman arrives back home at Grenadier Drive. During the course of the past 40 minutes, dubbed Journey Two, Cashman has passed or had a view of Timothy Naylor's address on four separate occasions. Nee's van was not there on any of them.
7:53pm: Joseph Nee's van pulls up outside Timothy Naylor's home in time for Manchester United vs Liverpool, due to kick off at 8pm.
8:04pm: Cashman leaves his home in Grenadier Drive and drives past Mr Naylor's house on Finch Lane. Nee's van was parked outside at this point.
8:12pm: Cashman drives onto Snowberry Road, where he remains for around six minutes.
8:19pm: Cashman's van is back on Finch Lane, travelling in the direction of Kingsheath Avenue. He turns up Berryford Road. Nee's van would have been visible outside Timothy Naylor's house.
8:22pm: Cashman returns home to Grenadier Drive. The prosecution said this is "game on". During Journey three, Cashman passed or had a view of Nee's van on two occasions.
8:30pm: After eight minutes, Cashman again leaves his home on Grenadier Drive in his van, heading towards Finch Lane, before turning right onto Ruscombe Road in the direction of Kingsheath Avenue.
8:35pm: After driving along Kingsheath Avenue, Cashman stops near to the junction with Finch Lane and speaks to two women walking along. Nee's van was visible outside Mr Naylor's house from that point.
8:39pm: Cashman arrives at Kevin Dunn's address on Mab Lane. Cashman went to his sister Coleen's home on Mab Lane after this, staying there for 21 minutes before leaving and parking up on Aspes Road at 8.59pm.
8:59pm: Cashman leaves Mab Lane in all black clothing - his "murder clothes" - and drives towards Aspes Road via Princess Drive and Yew Tree Lane. His van pulls up at the side of the road on Aspes Road. This is the last point that Cashman accepted he is the man shown in the footage. It is after this point that he denies being the man the prosecution have presented to the jury in CCTV footage. Video from then onwards shows a man walking along Finch Lane in the direction of Yew Tree Cemetery.
(Note: The blue lines between two locations on the following are AI generated. They do not necessarily represent the route actually taken by a person on foot or in a vehicle.)
He claims to have been with Nicholas Hale in Strawberry road at the time of the shooting. This would have involved a walk of 0.7 of a mile from where he parked his van, as follows:
9:00pm: Cashman walks along Finch Lane in the direction of Yew Tree Cemetery. (Is it significant, following a tip off, police later did a search for weapons at the cemetry without success?)
9:21pm: Cashman walks back along Finch Lane in the direction of Kingsheath Avenue. He is now "lying in wait" for Joseph Nee armed with two guns, the prosecution allege.
9:52pm: The Manchester United vs Liverpool match ends. One of the men watching football at Mr Naylor's house on Finch Lane, Paul Abraham, says he is leaving, and Joseph Nee says he will walk down with him.
10pm to 10:11pm: Mr Nee and Mr Abraham are walking along Kingsheath Avenue, on the left hand side of the road. A loud bang rings out, followed by a second. Mr Abraham runs away, but Mr Nee is struck in the midriff by a 9mm bullet and stumbles to the ground. CCTV shows the gunman standing over Mr Nee as he tries to scramble to his feet, and there is a third loud bang. The prosecution case was that the 9mm handgun probably malfunctioned at this point, giving Nee the chance to get to his feet and run towards the Korbel house further along Kingsheath Avenue.
Afterwards, the gunman was caught on CCTV running between houses on Finch Lane
"The gunman was next seen on Finch Lane at 22:02 when he ran between two houses through an entry. Mr Suggitt said: "That person runs from Finch Lane onto Berryford Road and then we see that person on Standedge Way. Mr Suggitt said he was not seen again after crossing the road.before turning into Berryford Road
then continuing onto cul-de-sac Standedge Way.
"We don't see that person return from Standedge Way, nor do we see them enter Berryford Road, therefore we know that person has garden-hopped from Standedge Way to Princess Drive. At 22:06 the man, dressed in black with reflective markings on his trousers, walked across Princess Drive. She phones Paul Russell to come and collect Cashman at about 10.30 pm.
(22:11pm: PC Daniel Cooper and PC Claire Metcalf arrive on the scene. Olivia is rushed to Alder Hey Children's Hospital where her death is confirmed.
22:17pm: The Audi Q3 pulls up outside the emergency department of Whiston Hospital. CCTV shows the men inside carry a seemingly unconscious Joseph Nee to hospital entrance.)
22:45pm: Russell and Cashman leave girl friend's house. Cashman was dropped off on Aspes Road, near where he had parked his white Citroen Berlingo van.
23:45pm: Arrives back at his home at Grenadier Drive after having made several stops at properties in the area. (No information on where those stops were or what they were for but it does seem a little strange after committing a murder?)
The following map shows the relationship of Snowberry Road, where Cashman claims to have been at the time of the shooting and where it took place and where Nicholas McHale was later attacked at home.
The prosecutor suggested Cashman had "left in a hurry" and was in the Cheshire town to "put himself out of the way." Jurors heard clothing worn by Cashman on CCTV footage recovered from the Runcorn property showed "similarities" to clothing that was worn by the gunman on August 22.
Clothes given to him after the shooting were recovered from the home of his sister, Coleen Cashman, on Mab Lane - where they were found inside a cardboard box which had contained a child's pram. Mr McLachlan said the jogging bottoms contained the DNA of both Thomas Cashman and Paul Russell, and there were two particles of gunshot residue on the right leg matching the same type found at the Korbel family home.
The ex-lover's damning evidence
However hard evidence linking him to the crime appears thin and was largely on the basis on the statements of an ex-girl friend and her partner - a Paul Russell (41) - who was himself later sentenced to 22 months for assisting an offender. These individuals were also said to be involved in the distribution of illegal drugs.
Cashman claimed the claims made by this ex-lover were made out of malice and greed. He suggested the female wanted to get back at him for being jilted and to claim the reward whilst her current boyfriend and Cashman associate Russell wanted to avoid paying back the £25,000 he owed. We still do not know it the reward has been paid and if so to whom. If true, it would seriously undermine their testimony, which was absolutely key to the prosecution's case.
The court heard the witness admitted telling "little white lies" to police. In her first two interviws she did not mention Cashman's name or his visit "because she was scared sh**less". The barrister questioned her truthfulness and honesty, pointing out that even after becoming aware of Olivia's death she went to the gym and had her nails manicured.
Further Cashman claimed in the the witness box that he had received the incriminating clothing at an earlier date, following a sexual encounter with the woman and that this came after she had been one of the first people on the scene of another shooting, in which a man was injured. An unfortunate coincidence that the details of which were not revealed.
Cashman's ex-girl friend and now partner of Russell, whose name has been withheld for safety reasons, told the police and court that Cashman had come to her house immediately after the shooting and that she had overheard him saying to an accomplice he had “done Joey”. He also asked for a change of clothes before leaving a few hours later with Russell who she had called by mobile phone. The call was apparently validated by police.Mr Cooper highlighted a WhatsApp message she sent to a friend which referenced her being "on the bones of my a***." She also confirmed she had been in debt for £2,500 to Riverside housing association for rent. Mr Cooper suggested: "You were in severe financial difficulty?”The witness replied: “It was just the rent, I was paying that back. I was actually stable."
Woman: The court was then played a video interview with a woman who described having an on-off affair with Thomas Cashman. She cannot be named for legal reasons, but told detectives he had said "he wanted to get them before they got him" on the night Olivia was shot dead.
The witness alleged that Cashman appeared in her bedroom without warning on the night of the murder, waking her up. She said: "I was in my room, I must have dozed off around 8.30pm. "All I remember was just being tapped on the leg a couple of times. I was just waking up from it."I could just hear ‘it’s Tommy, it’s Tommy’ in me room. I was like is this a nightmare, or is this a dream?"The woman told detectives Cashman was wearing a T-shirt, boxer shorts and socks and was asking her to get him a "pair of pants". She said: "It was pitch black. "I followed him down the stairs. I’d gone downstairs and I couldn’t understand what he was saying, he was stuttering.“Something like someone was coming for him, he had a source who told him someone was sitting him off. He wanted to do him before he did him."The woman said Cashman told her: “I didn’t know where else to go. But I trust you.”When probed on the comments by detectives, she said: "Joey was sitting him off. A source has told him Joey was sitting him off and they were looking for him.
"They were checking his whereabouts. He wanted to get them first."I said how do you trust that source? 'He’s good', he said to me."The court heard the woman phoned a man she knew called Paul Russell, despite Cashman telling her "no-one can know I'm here". She told detectives Mr Russell arrived and the two men were talking outside.
She said: "I asked him where he’d been and he said he went to drop the bits off before he came my house. I honestly believe it was the guns yeah.“I know he wouldn’t have came to my house with them. Bits or stuff, it was one of them words."I just went quiet, I was just cold. I didn’t know what to say to him, I really didn’t.
“They both [Cashman and Russell] built a spliff - [Russell said] 'lad don’t want to hear it don’t tell me nothing'.
"'Joey’ was said at the front door. ‘Lad, I’ve done Joey, I’ve done Joey’ or, I dunno, it was something along them lines - as he was outside in the front garden.“He was very nervous, I never seen him like that. I felt like there was something wrong."
The woman said Cashman allegedly left a bundle of black clothing by a washing machine in her house. She said: "I was devastated the fact that piece of s*** never took them clothes with him.
"He’s jeopardised everyone’s life just to save his own back. It’s really done my head in."The woman said Cashman had left clothing by her washing machine on the night of the shooting and she had given him an Under Armour t-shirt and joggers to wear. She added: "I never see Tommy wearing Under Armour.
The ex-lover was afforded protection, anonymity and probably a new identity and location at public expense. It is not clear whether Russell was afforded the same consideration, despite being in jail. They are therefore untraceable, uncontactable and their version of events unchallengable.
Reservations.
Soon after the trial ended I wrote an article (See: https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=cashman ) expressing reservations about the conviction of Cashman, reservations, which if anything have been strengthened by the 'fly-on the wall' documentary. Perhaps I am naive to take that view in the light of his reputation and track record. Some, including the police think he was not averse in using firearms to protect principally his £5000 per week cannabis 'business'.
In saying this I cast no aspersions on the motivation or actions of the investigating police officers or film makers. It may well be that Cashman got his just deserts but justice demands we maintain an objective view of emotive topics and of the process applied to deprive individuals of their liberty for the crimes they are alleged to have committed.
The criminal justice system, despite all its safeguards to protect the innocent, is not infallible, and the past is littered with miscarriages of justice too numerous to mention. In this instance was Cashman justly convicted? Did he in fact fire the shots that wounded two people and killed Olivia?
Refusal to attend sentencing.
Much has been made by family, police, government and press, of Cashman's refusal to attend his sentencing. He has been portrayed as cowardly and disrespectful. Cashman gave as his reason, "the trial had become a circus" (whatever he meant by that) influenced it is said by him hearing the prosecution team singing "We Are The Champions" after the verdicts had been reached!
At the time the judge had no power to demand his appearance but she made clear her sentencing was unaffected by his non-attendance.
This has been portrayed as 'cowardly', and the family launched a campaign to change the law, supported by the government. Although the election resulted in a postponement of the intended legislation, labelled 'Olivia's Law' in her memory, the new Labour Government has promised to reintroduce it. https://hellorayo.co.uk/hits-radio/liverpool/news/chancellor-olivias-law-within-next-year/
Cashman's claim of innocence.
Of course it is not unusual for criminals to obfuscate, remain silent or deny they are guilty - when in fact they are. Being a convincing liar is probably one of the most important attributes for someone intent on defying the law but I must admit I found Cashman's denials somewhat convincing - adamant and consistent from first to last. Are his claims to have been 'stitched up' believable?
From the very first interaction with the police, only a few days after the shooting, whilst being arrested by a fully armed swat team, he adamantly and consistently claimed he had nothing to do with the attempted murder of Nee or the actual murder of Olivia.
"You stupid c***s, youse are stitching me up for whatever it is - what's it for? "What have I done? Go on." When Cashman was informed he was being arrested on suspicion of murder, he responded: "What are youse on about, murder? I haven't committed no offence what youse are talking about, youse are mad."
Once taken into custody, he continued: "That's a load of bulls***. Everything that said is a load of s*** and I've done nothing, it's nothing to do with me."
He made no attempt to resist arrest and was shown in the film whilst on his belly on the floor being roughly hand-cuffed, something to the effect of,
"Go easy, I'm not resisting one little bit." Adding, "What have I done?" And when told, "What are youse on about, murder? I haven't committed no offence what youse are talking about, youse are mad." Once taken into custody, he continued: "That's a load of bulls*** "
Under interview, Cashman told detectives: "Well, I’m doing a prepared statement here. What I’d like to say is I’ve got no involvement at all in any of these crimes that you’re putting forward towards me, nothing whatsoever. I live in the area, brought up in the area - whatever the reasons, I’ve been round the area, but I haven’t committed no offence. Got no problem with any of the people you’ve just mentioned, and for the rest of the tape I’m going no comment."
"But I’m just stating clear that I have got no involvement in any of the crimes that youse are putting forward to me in any whatsoever, nothing to do with me. So for the rest of this tape, I am going no comment."
The veracity and reliability of the word of a criminal charged with a serious offence is obviously questionable, but this does not mean it can be dismissed out of hand, particularly if other factors tend to corroborate the denial.
Cashman's refusal to attend the sentencing was consistent with his assertion throughout the prosecution process, that he was unconnected to the crime. He stated it boldly when first arrested by armed officers, displaying no resistance. He repeated it when first taken to the police station.
He repeated it in the cell and again whilst being interviewed under caution and when arrested a second time after being bailed. He asserted his innocence several times whilst actually being charged as follows (from the film):
DS Baker: "Thomas Cashman, I've come to charge you. Ok?" Cashman, protests: "You're charging someone who's innocent. I've done nothing wrong."
DS Baker continues: "Ok. I'm gonna charge you with the following offence. On the 22nd of August at Kingsheath Avenue, Liverpool, Merseyside, you murdered Olivia Pratt-Korbel."
Cashman replies "I didn't, no I didn't". After being charged with the attempted murder of Joseph Nee and Cheryl Korbel, he adds: "No, I didn't. I didn't do none of them offences." DS Baker, in turn, looks him dead in the eye for one final time and says, "We will see you in court". Cashman responds: "Yeah, we will. To clear my name."
At no time during the trial did he change his plea, despite the possible sentencing advantage this may have earned.
Of course all his denials could have been bravado and bare-faced lies, and Cashman may be just a very good and determined actor to save his own skin but his position remained consistent throughout and seemed to me to have a ring of truth about it.The possibility exists he was telling the truth and he was not in fact the shooter that night. If so there has been a serious miscarriage of justice.
Is there anything that might support Cashman's claim of innocence?
His case would have been much strengthened if when initially interviewed he had provided a full and frank account of his actions, particularly on the night in question. Instead, apart from an flat denial, he chose a 'no comment' response to all the questions put to him. As the formal caution warns, this can and probably was, given adverse inference at the trial.
If as he insisted he was not the killer, it was incumbant upon him to give a detailed and convincing explanation as to where he was and what he was doing at the critical timespan - namely 9.0 pm and 10 pm. This he apparently failed to do to the satisfaction of the jury.
Nee and companion Abraham
We are told Nee was with another man named as Paul Abraham (41) when he was attacked, who ran off. A report by the BBC of the police interview of Paul Abraham shown to the jury (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64901584 ) was as follows:
"He said that soon after he and Nee had left a friend's house that evening they heard loud bangs. "Both of us ran. One must have got Joey. He fell over. I don't even know when he got shot, he just fell. As he rolled over I just basically jumped over him and went through a gate."
Mr Abraham said he saw Mr Nee continue running up the street, and the attacker, with two hands on what he thought was a gun, walking up the road. "As I was going up the entry [Mr Nee] was saying 'please don't', I heard him shouting 'please, don't'."
Mr Abraham said he thought he heard two further bangs as he jumped over fences of back gardens to get away. "I was basically just running for my life", he said.
We should note that at no stage does Mr Abraham appear to recognise or identify Cashman as the shooter.
Alibi and attack on McHale
At trial Cashman claimed the explanation for his multiple movements in the vicinity of the shooting was in connection with his drug enterprise and where he either grew or stashed his cannabis, although he refused to give details of addresses and individuals.
He claimed at the time of the shooting he was counting money at the house of Nicholas McHale in Snowberry Road. McHale at trial confirmed this alibi but it was rejected by the jury.
Witness attacked
On the 7th August, 2023 Nicholas McHale, who gave evidence in support of Cashman at trial, was severely injured, after masked men forced his door open at Snowberry Road and struck him in the head several times. He received cuts to the back of his head and was taken to hospital but was subsequently discharged. Police have failed to identify who ordered and/or carried it out.
It begs the question as to whether those who attacked Nee attacked McHale or whether it was in retribution for supporting a killer? Alternatively was it to dissuade him from saying any more about the true killer of Olivia or the gang behind him? You decide. What is clear, with Cashman in gaol, it positively could not have been him and other potential killers connected to the case are still out there.
Mistaken identity and wrongful convictions
Certainly cases too numerous to mention, warn us that mistaken identity and wrongful conviction are very real possibilities.
When an individual has undergone the criminal process and been convicted by a jury of murder - particularly when the victim is an innocent child - those who are prepared to cast doubt on it will be few and far between, such is the grief and animosity that has been created.
There will be no accolades for those who question a guilty verdict. There is only approbrium for those accused of heinous crimes, whether or not they are actually guilty of them.
However his claim of non-involvement in the killing of Olivia needs to be set against the evidence that convicted him. By any judgment it appears to be weak and largely circumstantial. This is not just my opinion but a general one by the reporters I have read. There are factors that undermine crucial evidence, whilst others that tend to support his contention of innocence.
There are manifold reasons why it might be convenient to blame, prosecute and convict the wrong man for a serious crime. The simplist and most obvious is that in the absence of evidence that would likely convict the true offender, another target is chosen who can be made to fit the bill, particularly if that individual is judged deserving on other accounts.
Such a person is unlikely to be 'squeeky clean' and may even have a connection to the crime by virtue of his location, associations or activities, but is never the less not responsible for it or guilty of it. If he has a track record of petty or more serious crime so much the better, as his credibility will always be compromised and subject to doubt.
As made clear in the statutory caution, his silence is likely to be taken as an indication of guilt, whilst reason for it is never revealed. Criminals do not want to 'snitch' on others whatever the crime, as they know the consequences of it, either inside or outside prison. But their reasons may also be more laudible than just self interest.
They may well be concerned about protecting those close to them who would also be vulnerable if they told what they knew, implicating others. There may also be 'insurance payments' for keeping 'shum'. Criminals actually pay their colleagues for owning up to crimes they did not commit - a form of illegal insurance and compensation! The police can be amenable to this system of 'taking other offences into consideration' as a way of helping their crime clear-up statistics.
But there are other powerful reasons why the wrong man may be blamed.
There are over six thousand suicides a year. There are upwards of 600 murders and countless criminal assaults. Fatal 'accidents' at home, at work, on the road and elsewhere, often involving criminal negligence or recklessness, run into tens of thousands, yet only a handful of these are given full blown media inquiry or attention.
When this happens public bodies and particularly the police, come under a lot of pressure 'to get results', whilst the others receive relatively little attention at all. This inherent imbalance can sway the process and lead to the wrong people being convicted.
Getting a conviction for a high-profile crime, even if it is of the wrong man, has administrative, professional and reputational advantages. The public anger is assuaged; careers are enhanced; the police look good; and a crime 'is put to bed'.
Of course the down-side if the wrong person is convicted is that the police wind up the investigation, the real circumstances are never revealed and the true perpatrators - either the hired killer or the organisation behind him - are never pursued and remain on the loose to carry on as before.
In the world of organised crime and the policing of it, an even more sinister regime where informers need to be protected and/or where certain known criminals, for whatever reason, remain untouchable. In the present instance it does seem strange that the individuals most likely on past record to have wanted Nee killed do not appear in the chosen narrative or investigation.
We should not be so naive to exclude the possibilty that in a multi-million pound drugs trade, some policemen corruptly benefit and are thereby compromised or that witnesses might come under pressure from both sides, to implicate the innocent to protect the guilty. Not that I am suggesting this did happen here.
Intended target.
It is generally agreed that Olivia Pratt-Korbel was not the intended target of the shooting. That does not make her death any less tragic but it needs to be born in mind.
The real target was someone by the name of Joseph Nee (35) Nee is central to the whole affair. He was, for whatever unrevealed drug-related reason, the target of the shooting and a principal victim, yet very strangely the charges were only loosely framed around him and he was not called at the trial. The judge even refused to allow the defence barrister to enter police investigation material relating to him!
Cashman was finally charged with murder, the attempted murder of Joseph Nee, wounding with intent and two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, but there appears to have been a concerted effort on the part of police and prosecutors to keep Nee out of the picture.
The jury did not hear any evidence from Nee about why he was targeted. Nor did the jury hear any evidence of what motivated Cashman to allegedly take out his fellow drug dealer. Significantly Nee also refused to implicate Cashman.
Subsequently a notorious Liverpool ex-convict, with intimate knowledge of the drug scene, called Darren Gee (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reairSX2-Wk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlEE_KoOTo ), has suggested Cashman had targeted Nee because he had robbed valuable cannabis crops from houses. It is hard to know what weight to attach to this theory, although Nee was known as a prolific burglar and thief, which may give credibility to it. Similarly it is puzzling why Cashman's barrister did not call Nee as a witness.
Despite knowing Cashman well, at no stage did Nee identify Cashman as his attacker. In fact when interviewed in hospital, Nee refused to implicate anyone. Presumably this was based on a pragmatic assessment of the risk to himself if he did. In interviews, Detective Superintendant Baker expressed regret he wasn't more forthcoming and helpful.
However by the same token, he failed to exhonerate Cashman. Was he under police pressure not to, or was it from fear of reprials if he did? It is hard not to see ominous aspects to this apparent protection of Nee from cross examination. The only reason I can think of, is that it was considered it would likely undermine the case against Cashman if questioned.
Cashman and Nee were friends?
Rather than being a competitor and enemy worthy of death, Cashman claimed he was a friend of Nee and had never had any cause of disagreement with him. This crucial claim, that would if true, remove any motivation on Cashman's part, seems not to have pursued at the trial. In the absence of Nee it certainly could not be tested.
But conversely and perhaps more importantly, others were shown to have a greater motivation than Cashman to either seriously injure or kill Nee. Nee had, as we will see, a long track record of crime and of being an assassination target.
More details about Joseph Nee.
Although incredibly obscured from the trial process, Nee was central to the whole tragic event. It should be noted he made no effort to assist the the police with their investigation or provide any background to it. Significantly, though being familiar with Cashman and intimately close during the attack, he gave neither a positive identification of him or implicated him in any way. How can this not be regarded as supportive of Cashman's claim to innocence? Following his recovery he was recalled to prison.
When he was attacked he was walking with a friend man was identified as Paul Abraham. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAdlSffzSmk )
But following the attack it seems friends were immediately on scene to convey him to hospital in an Audi car. The way in which he was immediately carried from the house by helpers has not been explained. None of these individuals appear to have been identified or called as witnesses. This is yet another gap in the evidence and story line. It is rather miraculous how he survived - less likely if he had had to wait for an ambulance. The part the Korbel's played in his survival - if any - has not been revealed. It is a blank slate.
It is said he ran to the Korbel's house because he saw the door open. It is not clear whether he barged in or was let in; where he went in the house; how he left it; and how his friends knew where he was. Was he given first aid before he left and if so by whom? Importantly did he choose that house just from luck or did he choose it because he knew the occupants and knew he could gain sanctuary and assisstance there? His actual intended destination as he walked down the street with a companion, has not been revealed. In fact, none of these important aspects have been clarified.
Leaving aside these unanswered questions, Nee's criminal history seems to put Cashman's into the shade. Nee has a long and serious criminal record. There have been numerous previous attempts on his life and none of them appears to have involved Cashman. He also has a criminal brother gaoled for violent offences. These facts are highly relevant to the last attack, as it proves he had long-standing enemies - other than Cashman - who wished to do him harm.
Nee's crime record
As a young man he was already engaged in serious inner city heroin-related crime ECHO reports from 2009, The gang was led by known hardman Brian “Big Show” Siner, who received a 14-year sentence at Liverpool Crown Court.
2009 Nee, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison for drug supply offences.
2011 Nee was jailed for a year in 2011 for perverting the course of justice in relation to a gang of violent burglars, including his brother, Jason Nee, who threatened victims in their own home with weapons.
2018 Nee was jailed again for 45 months for burglary and dangerous driving, after leading Cheshire Police on a high-speed chase.
2018 Nee was shot at in March by an unknown assailant.
2022 On August 8th 2022, two weeks before Olivia's death, a gunman fired at him using the same model of gun he was shot with on the night of the 22nd! The fact that Cashman was not a suspect in that attack (or was he?) is highly significant for obvious reasons: somebody else had possession of, and had used the murder weapon, and it must have changed hands if Cashman was to use it only two weeks later. No one seems to have been arrested or charged for the earlier event.
So that's at least three convictions for serious drug offences and violence plus at least two previous attempts on his life - three in all ! And in the attempt two weeks prior to Korbel shooting, with the same model gun as in the latest attack. We do not know the circumstances of that one but presumably the police do. No one appears to have been interviewed in connection with it. If Cashman remained on speaking terms and wasn't the gunman in that instance, isn't it less likely he was gunman in the second?
From all this we can reasonably conclude Nee was a fairly hardened criminal, who had enemies so serious, that multiple attempts had been made on his life. If Cashman was in the frame, isn't it surprising he hadn't already been targetted by police? And conversely if he hadn't been been the possessor of that gun and responsible for the previous attack, is it likely he was responsible for the latest one?
The approach taken to the previous incidents by the police appears questionable: speaking previously to the ECHO, Merseyside Police said while they have received intelligence, any theory would be “speculation”, and, in the words of Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Baker, who features on Merseyside Detectives, "we may never know" for sure (if Cashman had been involved in these previous incidents).
Cashman himself tried to claim he was "friends" with the Nee family. He told the jury: "No, I never had problems with the Nee family ever." That of course could have been corroborated by the Nee, but wasn't. Conversely no evidence was presented by the prosecution that contradicted it. There seems to have been assumptions of motive without proving any!
A more likely Nee adversary?
Previous recent gun incidents in the area
Below are listed fourteen fatal or potentially fatal, targeted shooting, sometimes killing or injuring an unintended victim, all within the Liverpool vicinity or connected to drug supply to it, within the only the last nine months! There is clearly no shortage of guns on the city's streets or the miscreants prepared to use them.
Wednesday, July 17 2024: Mr Rikki Berry, (36) known as "Nuggy", was shot dead outside a house on Quarryside Drive in Kirkby shortly after 6.30pm on Officers attended the scene . "It initially appears to have been a targeted shooting, carried out in broad daylight in view of witnesses. On Friday, 26 July, detectives charged Adam Williams, of Kirkby, with murder. Twelve more people were arrested in connection with the investigation.
Thursday, July 26 2024 A teenager was arrested after a gun, bullets and drugs were found by police officers in Islington, Liverpool yesterday and arrested an 18-year-old man.
Thursday, July 25 2024 Pinfold Lane, Scarisbrick, at 4.55pm on Thomas Olverson, 75, shot dead. A 29-year-old man from Scarisbrick, who police say was known to the farmer, was arrested on suspicion of murder,
Monday, July 22 2024 A man in his 40s was shot in the leg on Boxwood Gardens, St Helens, at around 10.30pm. Detectives said they believe the man was targeted by a group of three men, motive currently unknown.
Saturday June 29 2024 police descended at night on Lucerne Road Seacombe after receiving reports a man had been shot in the leg just before 11.20pm.
Sunday, June 23. 2024 Ellis Cox, 19, was fatally shot on the Liver Industrial Estate in Aintree. Two further arrests have been made in connection with the murder.
May 29. 2024 Kingsland High Street in Hackney, London, at around 9.20pm a nine-year-old girl was shot and remains in hospital. Three men, aged 26, 37, and 42, sitting outside the restaurant were also injured.The shooting related to Merseyside cocaine ring worth a potential £4bn. The Bombacilar mob has developed a fearsome reputation and is run by the Baybasin brothers, who are simply referred to in criminal circles as "The Family". The organisation, which has controlled significant parts of the criminal underworld in Britain and Europe, https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/intended-target-shooting-injured-girl-29303267
Three incidents: A 21-year-old man from Liverpool has now been arrested on suspicion of three counts of possession with a firearm with intent to endanger life.
As follows
1. Friday, December 22 2023 First incident on Alvina Lane in Kirkby at 7.50pm on , following reports of shots being fired. Once police arrived at the scene they found a number of shots were fired towards the front door of a home.
2. Friday, January 26. 2024 Second incident. Merseyside Police deployed armed officers to an address in Eaton Road, West Derby at 9.25pm after receiving reports of gunshots being fired at the house. Officers believe the incident was targeted and a man in his 20s inside sustained a minor injury to his foot.
3. Friday, February 2, 2024 Merseyside Police were called to a third incident on Henlow Avenue in Kirkby at around 7pm following a report of a non-injury firearm discharge inside a property.
Tuesday March 25th 10.05pm reports of shots being fired at New Chester Road in New Ferry Kai Buckney, 19, of Cecil Road, New Ferry, and Obakeng Sithole, 19, of St David Road, Eastham, were both charged with the following five fire arm offences
Thursday, February 8 2024 Lenny Scott 33-year-old dad-of-three was shot outside a gym on Peel Road in Skelmersdale. Detectives have now charged Elias Morgan (25/11/1989), of Highgate Street, Liverpool and Anthony Cleary (24/02/1996), of Smithdown Lane, Liverpool with his murder.
January 3 2024 Leslie Garrett 49 of Ternhall Road in Fazakerley, fired multiple shots outside the Croxteth picture house moments after he had attempted to rob Sangha's off-licence on nearby Lower House Lane, where he discharged a single gunshot into a Perspex sheet by the counter.
December 24th 2022 Elle Edwards 26 was shot dead outside the Lighthouse Pub in Wallasey Village shortly before midnight. Her killer, low-level cocaine dealer Connor Chapman, had been attempting to kill two men from a rival gang, Kieran Salkeld and Jake Duffy.
As can be seen, Liverpool is now rife with gun crime and murders, many of which are unsolved and the perpatrators unidentified and uncharged. Sadly with proliferation of illegal drugs and the huge sums of money to be made by those that control it, it is becoming increasingly common in all urban areas. Clearly as far as Liverpool is concerned, there is no shortage of people willing and able to kill, either for revenge or control or to collect the bounty offered for the deed.
Further contra-indications of Cashman's guilt.
Video likeness
The man filmed
Most people have heard of different body-types: ecto-morphs; endo-morphs; and meso-morphs with their congruent personality traits after Sheldon. This is a cartoon version. They may be simlified to 'slim', 'muscular' and 'rounded'.
Spoken words overheard.
Mrs Korbel - Olivia's mother - claimed she over-heard what was said by Nee as he was being attacked in the road. Despite the surprising nature of the claim given the distance, darkness, gunshots and other extraneous noises, it was accepted as accurate by the police, so I suppose we must accept it too.
As we have already noted, despite being well known to one another in the local drug-dealing community, there is no reported indication of recognition by Nee of Cashman as the shooter. No reference to a surname or nick-name that might have been expected. Indeed no indication then or since by Nee that it was Cashman who was so up close and personal and trying to kill him!
Even immediately following the event, when he was questioned in his hospital bed by police he claimed he had "No idea who the shooter was". Would he have said this if he had recognised Cashman? The following is verbatim reporting from the trial itself:
"Nee himself told police he did not know who shot him. He did mention his “little argument” with Lee Hickman and spoke of others he had fallen out with, at one stage saying “It could have been anyone”. But Justice Yip ruled: “Mr Nee has given varying accounts at different times. At no stage has he positively asserted that he knows who shot him..."Is this the explanation for the extraordinary way Nee was excluded from the trial?
"Please lad don't!"
But that is not all. Mrs Korbel's evidence was, "I realised at that point it was gunshots, because it looked like the other one was running after him. So I run back in the house and I heard him saying 'please lad, don't' and I shut the door quick. He was trying to push it open. I tried my best to keep it shut until I got shot."
Another witness, Lisa Boylan, described seeing the gunman chasing Nee. She said: “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing".
"I heard the lad in grey shouting, 'Don’t lad, don’t lad. Don’t’."Within a second I heard a further three gunshots coming from inside the address. Me and Libby quickly drove away. The whole incident lasted approximately 90 seconds from first hearing the gunshot to going into the house. I think there must have been seven shots fired in total."
Ms Korbel recalled hearing Nee shouting "please lad, don't", before hearing a second gunshot. The jury heard he "fell through" the door and was "slumped" in the hallway. Speaking through tears, the mother-of-three, said:
"I tried to keep hold of the door, I was just screaming, screaming to go away and then I heard the gunshot and I realised, because I felt it hit my hand. I couldn't keep the door shut because it wasn't locked, and with my hand I couldn't keep it shut, so I let it go and I think at the same time I heard the baby [Olivia] speak and that's when I turned round and I spotted her sat at the bottom of the stairs. I leant over her and like held her to the left, I just huddled over."
Ms Korbel said her son Ryan helped her to carry Olivia up the stairs and she shouted for a towel to stop the bleeding. "Ryan turned round and said to me 'Mum, I can't do this' so I tried to move the baby again up to the top of the stairs. I heard the lad downstairs shouting 'please lad, don't' and I heard another gunshot."
Ms Chloe Korbel recalled hearing Nee shouting "please lad, don't" before hearing a second gunshot.
Ryan Korbel: "My mum and the fella who I believe was Joseph Nee then got the door shut, but because the latch was shut it wasn’t closed properly. I seen an arm come round the door, a black handgun. Another shot went off, it could have been another two. I can’t remember. A car come speeding down the road, a big black SUV. I didn’t know what was going on, whether they’d come to finish him off or what.
Ms Cowhig, who was also in the Korbel family home when Olivia was shot, said in her statement "I remember a male trying to push against the door trying to get inside. Cheryl was using her full body weight trying to shut it. He managed to get in the hallway and was laid on his side. Cheryl was shouting get the f*** out."
So from these eye witness accounts at trial, we may conclude that Nee either pushed his way into the hall or was allowed in. That the gunman first shot through the door but then managed to get his arm and gun around the door to fire a further shot. That when the gunman ran off, Nee somehow managed to get out onto the the step and then into the road, where he was almost immediately picked up by three men in an SUV and taken to hospital. This prompt action almost undoubtedly saved his life. Why the SUV arrived so quickly is another question. Presumably they were summoned by mobile phone by somebody intimately connected to the incident?
Note the words, "Please lad don't" ! Cashman was a mature man of thirty-three. This suggests to me that Nee appreciated, despite the mask worn by the attacker, that he was dealing with a youth, not a mature man. I think the published video supports this contention.
He runs like a supple young man and what is more, the whole attack suggests amateurism, incompetence and recklessness, more akin to a feckless young man than an old skilled one.
If this was an assassination attempt, it was outrageously botched. There is every reason to believe, someone in the drug world, either by bribery or coertion, had employed a young and inexperienced person to carry out the attempt and he had panicked in the process. The important boundary of shooting into a domestic house was crossed, another indication of incompetence.
Evidence of fire arms expert (Liverpool Echo report)
Firearms expert Andre de Villiers Horne said two shots were fired in "quick succession" before a third shot was fired five seconds later. Mr de Villiers Horne said of the third shot, it impacted with the wall below the bay window of a property and shattered into fragments. He said: "The bullet had probably missed Joseph Nee but I cannot exclude the possibility it may have caused a graze wound. The cartridge case of the bullet, thought to be from a self-loading pistol, was never recovered."
The jury were told the bullet that caused the fatal injury to Olivia was thought to be from a different gun, a revolver. Mr de Villiers Horne told the jury: "It is possible that the 9mm pistol used by the gunman may have malfunctioned during an apparent struggle preceding or during the third discharge. For that reason the cartridge case was not ejected as you would normally expect. What we now have is the gun malfunctioned, the cartridge case had been discharged, hadn't been ejected, was still located within the gun. A bullet was also recovered from the inside of the front door of Olivia's home. It was evident from gunshot residue marks on door that the gun had been discharged in very close proximity, if not touching the internal surface of door," he said.
Presumably this was when he forced his hand and arm around the door of the fifth and final shot that lodged itself in the internal door frame.
Did anyone else have reason to attack Nee?
If this was the first time Nee had been attacked or if there were not others in the drugs world with reason or track record of such a thing, the likelihood Cashman did it might be stronger but that is clearly not the case. As we have seen Nee had been attacked before without it being linked to Cashman or any individual identified; Cashman claimed to be on good terms with Nee, a suggestion never denied by Nee; no motive was ever provided why Cashman wanted to kill Nee; but other individuals were suggested who clearly did have the necessary background.
The jury was told Nee and his family “had their enemies” and there had been an attempt to shoot him two weeks before Olivia’s death, with the same pistol used by Cashman. Yet Cashman had never been questioned in connection with that. The jury heard Nee was also shot at in March 2018 and again there was no suggestion Cashman was responsible. Police were told Nee was considered “a rat” who “generally made enemies”. Professor John Cooper, KC, defending Cashman, said in his closing speech “there were others who wanted him dead”Nee mentioned his “little argument” with Lee Hickman and spoke of others he had fallen out with, at one stage saying “It could have been anyone”. But Justice Yip ruled: “Mr Nee has given varying accounts at different times. At no stage has he positively asserted that he knows who shot him..."
"The statements made by Joseph Nee about the possible involvement of others are vague and speculative. They do not provide any evidence that someone other than the defendant was the gunman. In the circumstances, the evidence of things said by Joseph Nee does not have any real probative value.”
The very real possibility of someone other than Cashman having the animus, motivation, track record or opportunity to do the shooting was not even considered by judge or jury. Only the person suggested by the police was allowed to be in the frame.
Evidence ruled out Barry, Fitzgibbon, and Zeisz as suspects.
Loitering man caught on camera.
In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that the police published video of a man loitering in the vicinity at the time in question. It appears he didn't come forwardand was unidentified. Given the circumstances it is reasonable to assume he was connected to the shooting. It is clear he is not Cashman and no link was made to him. It supports the suggestion that persons the criminal fraternity other than Cashman, set up and carried out the ambush of Nee (and his companion).
Lack of hard evidence linking Cashman to the attack
Clothes
Presumably the police had access to Nee's clothes. Was it forensically examined? It seems it revealed no DNA or other evidence linking Cashman to him. There seems to have been nothing at the scene that could link him.
Then there was Cashman's clothes themselves about which there was confusing evidence.
The implicating female witness - kept anonymous - said he had removed them and was only in boxer shorts when he appeared in her bedroom! This suggests he had already disposed of them or were they recovered? So how do the track suit bottoms with alleged gun shot residue fit the picture? If he had disposed of the garments he had warn as she alleged, then the gun shot residue ones, even if true, could not have been relevant to the shooting in question but some other unidentified one.
Alternatively his friend Russell supplied replacement clothes and took charge of the contaminated ones - if they were. Somehow or other they found their way to Cashman's sister it is alleged. If so why were they not properly disposed of? And why and when did Russell take them to Cashman's sister?
As always there appears to be a lot of vagueness about how he got to the house, how he entered it, where he actually took his clothes off, who provided him with fresh clothing, who took charge of the 'contaminated' clothes and what happened to them.
So if Cashman was the shooter, had he got rid of the clothes he was wearing or not? The evidence appears to be conflicting. Despite being arrested fairly swiftly after his ex-girl friend and her current boyfriend implicated him, there appears to be not a scrap of DNA evidence from his clothes or possessions linking him to Nee, whose blood would have presumably have contaminated it.
WIKIPEDIA reports the matter as follows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Olivia_Pratt-Korbel#:~:text=Thomas%20Edward%20Cashman%20is%20an,previous%20convictions%20for%2033%20offences ) "There was independent evidence to corroborate her account, as the clothes she said she gave to Cashman were then recovered hidden inside a pram box in Cashman's sister's home with his DNA on them, and gunshot residue was found on the leg of the tracksuit bottoms."Cashman acknowledged he had been in the area that day as a 'drug-dealer', but denied that he was the gunman.
Weapons
Puzzling and intriguing issues are also raised when we come to the topic of the weapons used and bullets fired - a .38 revolver - that was used to kill Olivia. The other gun, a Glock-type self-loading 9mm pistol.
I have read newspaper reports that refer to only one gun being used but the accepted version appears to be one gunman, two guns. As reported here (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64965613) "the jury at Manchester Crown Court has heard two weapons may (my highlight) have been used throughout the incident on 22 August. 'May' of course introduces an element of doubt, which is surprising given the sophisticated forensic facilities available.
The Guardian reported as follows: "DCS Mark Kameen said investigators had been working with forensic experts and the National Ballistic Intelligence Service (Nabis). “I can now confirm that there were two guns used during this attack. I believe that the gunman brought both of these weapons with him and that they were still with him when he callously ran away from Olivia’s house. I want to know where those guns are now.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/two-guns-used-olivia-pratt-korbel-shooting-police-say
So the police believe the attacker carried two weapons which raises questions. The grainy video appears to show him shooting with the gun in his right hand so where was the other? He would surely not have been carrying a revolver in track suit bottoms? And where are the guns when he is filmed running away? There seems to be no sign of them? Perhaps both were concealed in his 'puffa' jacket, or had been dropped or had been taken by someone else?
A month later the Independent reports the guns had been identified but not located despite a search of Cashman's location. (https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/updated-sentence-thomas-cashman-guilty-murder-nine-year-old-olivia-pratt)
But Wikipedia says the guns were found at his premises referencing (33) this official CPS Press Release. I quote:
"The attacker had fired two guns that night against Nee, and Cashman was found to have two guns at his address, a 9mm calibre self-loading pistol and a 0.3 calibre revolver.[33] One of these guns was found by police to have been linked to two previous shootings in the area, one of which involved a previous attempt to kill Nee only two weeks prior to Pratt-Korbel's murder, for which Cashman was already considered a suspect."
However the DPP press release does not say that. In fact it says (to quote) "Cashman was arrested on 29 September 2022 and was charged with Olivia’s murder. He was also charged with the attempted murder of Joseph Nee, wounding of Cheryl Korbel with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm and two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, namely a 9mm calibre self-loading pistol and a 0.3 calibre revolver."
Were the weapons charges in fact based on an assumption he had possesed them on the basis of the forensic evidence, without actually locating them? This certainly seems to be the case because on the 27th September the Liverpool Echo reports, "The hunt for the guns used in the shooting of Olivia Pratt-Korbel remains ongoing after the search of a cemetery drew a blank." https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hunt-olivia-pratt-korbel-murder-25118396
On the 22.9.2022, based on information received, an unsuccessful search of Yew Tree Cemetary, Notty Ash was carried out. On the 26.10.2022 St Helens Star (https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/23079908.gun-found-cemetery-not-linked-murder-olivia-pratt-korbel/) reported a Glock 9mm hand gun in a bag had been discovered at the West Derby Cemetary but any connection to the Korbel killing had been ruled out.
However it proves that by that date, well after Cashman had been charged with the offence of possession of the guns, they had still not been located. The Wikipedia entry is therefore, as far as I can see, misleading, and the evidential support for the charge weak to say the least.
CONCLUSION
1.Thomas Cashman may well have been the murderer of Olivia Korbel and the attempted murder of Joseph Nee on the night of the 22nd August, 2022, but by common agreement, the evidence for it was sparse. Some might think the high standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' had not been reached but that was not the opinion of the ten men and two women of the jury, who heard the evidence and the main participants in person, who found him guilty on all counts.
2. So why should I, a distant observer, totally unconnected to the case other than being human and part of this body politic, have the temerity to express doubts in the jury's considered decision?
3. To say the evidence against him was 'thin' is an understatement. There was no clear identification. There was no clear motive. There was virtually no forensic evidence, such as biological or chemical residues, linking him to the shooting and the track-suit results were tenuous to say the least. Although well known by the victim Nee, he was unable, or declined, to say it was Cashman. Not only was none of Nee's DNA found on Cashman, perhaps more importantly despite their intimate struggle, nothing of Cashman's on Nee - not even apparently gun residue despite shots fired. (Surely examination of Nee's clothing had not been over-looked?)
4. Needless to say the presumed weapons were never located, the conviction in relation to them was tentative. The female witness suggested that Russell had disposed of 'the bits', meaning the guns, but if he was first called at 10.30 pm and had not met Cashman before, this would be impossible. Without the guns there could be no firm link to Cashman. There was no theory to explain what the 'running man' - if indeed that was the gun man - had done with them.
5. The failure to call Nee, who was the primary target, to give evidence by either the prosecution or defence, is a very puzzling feature. It can only be interpreted as a serious weakness in the prosecution's case against Cashman.
6. Cashman was convicted on essentially two strands of rather flimsey evidence. The first was the account of his anonymised ex-lover, somewhat corroborated by her present one Paul Russell. The second was a compilation of video camera footage showing Cashman's movements prior to the attack, that the prosecution argued proved intention, planning and execution of the deed. However both of these main planks were seriously compromised but obviously not sufficiently in the mind of the jury, to achieve 'reasonable doubt' that Cashman was in fact the murderer.
7. The woman, who's identity is now protected, was cross examined at length and revealed a very firey and vociferous character, being asked by the judge on several occasions to, "calm down". She was not averse to expressing invective, personal details about Cashman's character and sexual performance, well spliced with well known expletives. In short, even on paper, she does not come across as having a high moral tone.
8. But there are far more serious reasons to doubt the integrity and reliability of her evidence.
9. First, as Cashman claimed, there was clear animus against him, born of the fact that their relationship over months had floundered. There was a suggestion of being pregnant by him and written evidence that she intended to ruin him, as he had her. This alone should mean her evidence against him, should be treated with caution.
10. However there are more serious reservations. It was admitted when first interviewed by police she lied on at least two occasions, refusing even to mention Cashman visiting her that night. Not it would seem, until she was presented both with stick and carrot, did she 'change her tune', and produce the story she did.
11. 'The stick' was clearly the likelihood of being implicated in the murder of Olivia and treated as an 'accessory after the fact' - or even before it! This held out the very real possibility apart from the social opprobrium, of a long period of incarceration.
12. 'The carrot' was the opportunity to avoid prosecution completely for her part in the affair - as was what in fact happened - and even qualify herself for any reward that was subsequently offered for information received. This was initially £50,000, raised to £200,000 because the emotional nature of the case and the publicity it attracted. She has denied the reward was a factor, but only time will tell if it is in fact awarded to her.
13. She was lauded by police for her bravery and moral principles for coming forward but these were somewhat tarnished when it was revealed that after she became aware that Cashman had killed Olivia, she visited the gym and had her nails treated, failing to inform the police at all untill she and Russell were arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender.
14. Then there are problems with the actual version of events she described that Cashman claimed in the witness box were "all lies". (Unfortunately for him, he seems not to have come up with a credible alternative version - at least I can find no record of it if he did)
15. First, is it realistic she was in bed fast asleep at ten o'clock or that he woke her having already removed all his clothes other than his boxer shorts? For this to be credible either he had a key to access the house or the back door was unlocked as was claimed. Would she in such an area susceptible to violent crime and burglary have gone to bed without first locking the doors? Or did she in fact let him in?
16. Was there access to the back door or did it involve 'fence jumping' as was claimed. And how do we reconcile Cashman's claim there was no video of him there, with the police claim they see him crossing Pricess Road about 10 pm? The only support for her story the police could produce was that she rang Russell at the time stated (10.30 pm) but this of itself did not implicate Cashman. It conceivably could have been for another matter entirely.
17. Then there is the serious problem of over-hearing Cashman admit that "he had done Joey". This she said was when they were both in the front garden. Is it likely they would have discussed such a sensitive matter outside? And if out front and driven away from there, why no evidence of Russell's vehicle, with Cashman inside, leaving?
18. The woman's evidence of the clothes Cashman was wearing is problematic on several counts. First if she is to be believed, he took them off before he woke her up by touching on the leg, so his movements hadn't already alerted her. She appears to express no surprise finding an unexpected, unannounced man upstairs in her house. She says she followed him downstairs and was annoyed to find his clothes by the washing machine but she does not attempt to wash them. She provides him with Russell's replacement clothes.
19. Russell takes the originals to Cashman's friend's house in Snowberry Road whilst the replacement clothes are taken at some point, presumably by Russell to Cashman's sister's house in Mab Lane, where they are later found with minute traces of Cashman's blood and two grains of gunpower residue.
20. If it was Cashman's replacement clothes found at his sisters, any evidential findings could not be applied to Cashman (as they were) because of course they were Russell's clothes, not Cashman's. The forensics if reliable, would implicate Russell in the shooting not Cashman.
21. The situation is further complicated by the fact that only two days later, Cashman is caught on camera wearing identical clothing, suggesting either these were replacements or he had never removed them in the first place.
22. Added altogether, unless viable explanations are found, it makes the central witness's evidence highly suspect and hardly worth consideration.
23. The second main strand of the case was provided by the CCTV evidence yet this also throws up problems. The lead detective described the running man as 'about 5' 7" and slim'. In the video he appears young and athletic. It is hard to match this with the rather portly shape of Cashman at 5' 8". No effort was made to compare their running style. If the running man was the gunman, as the police contend, it is hard not to conclude this was someone other than Cashman! Alternatively can the video be relied upon as genuine and unmanipulated? The Guadian image of what appears to be a backpack not seen on other footage and the way in which it is intentioally blurred certainly raises questions.
24. There are multiple witness reports saying that Nee called the attacker "lad". He definitely didn't recognise or call him 'Tommy' or 'Cashman', despite knowing him well. Cashman claims he had no 'beef' with Nee which is not contradicted by Nee himself. Indeed he (Cashman) had had a friendly visit to Nee's parent's home only the day before. This linked to the fact there had been multiple attempts on Nee's life previously with known, identified enemies, tends to point away fron Cashman as the suspect.
25. Finally I am left wondering if the overwhelming desire to convict someone for this horrenous act, outweigh the obligation to convict the right one? END
NOTES AND PHOTO IMAGES
Earlier shootings. (Liverpool Echo report)
A gun used on the night Olivia Pratt-Korbel was murdered was used in two other shootings in Merseyside, police have revealed.
Detectives are still searching for the two firearms that were used on the night the nine-year-old was fatally shot. Both guns have been identified by police, including the murder weapon - a .38 revolver - that was used to kill Olivia. The other gun, a Glock-type self-loading 9mm pistol, was fired three times at Joseph Nee by Olivia's killer as he entered Kingsheath Avenue on August 22. The revolver was then discharged twice, with one of those bullets fatally wounding the little girl.Police confirmed the Glock gun has been used in two other shootings on Merseyside over the last two and a half years, the Liverpool Echo reports. Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Kameen said during this time the Glock, also known as Linked Series 179, has 'exclusively been used in Dovecot'. January 27, 2020 - Wimbourne Close
The Glock was first used in Wimbourne Close, Dovecot, on 27 January 2020. Police were called to the cul-de-sac at around 8.50pm after reports of gunfire. A 19-year-old man was targeted during the incident and shot in the torso. Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Kameen said: "Furthermore, and in shocking similarity to the circumstances leading to Olivia’s murder, one of the bullets also went through the front door of a house of an innocent member of the community.
"This attack could quite clearly have had far more dire consequences had someone been stood behind that door. This evidences the callous nature of those people in possession of this weapon. A 19-year-old man was targeted during the incident and shot in the torso. Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Kameen said: "Furthermore, and in shocking similarity to the circumstances leading to Olivia’s murder, one of the bullets also went through the front door of a house of an innocent member of the community.
"This attack could quite clearly have had far more dire consequences had someone been stood behind that door. This evidences the callous nature of those people in possession of this weapon. August 22 - Kingsheath Avenue
Just two weeks later, at 10pm on August 22, the Glock was fired three times on Kingsheath Avenue by Olivia's killer. The .38 revolver was then fired a further two times, with one of those bullets killing Olivia as she stood behind her mum, who was also injured.
There seems to have been nothing at the scene that could link him. How about bullet casings? Five shots were fired from two weapons. How many bullet or casings were recovered and were they checked for DNA and finger prints? The gun(s) had to have been loaded by someone? Are the police satisfied that both weapons were fired by the same person or could a second shooter have been involved. Of course neither weapon was recovered although one of them had been used in an earlier shooting which which no one had been charged.
Two weapons were apparently employed and fired with different bullets. They were Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/30/olivia-pratt-korbel-police-issue-warning-about-battlefield-weaponry-on-streets DCS Mark Kameen, the lead investigator on the Olivia Pratt-Korbel case, said Czech-manufactured Skorpion machine pistols were increasingly being used by criminals. Nine-year-old Olivia was not killed by a Skorpion – she was shot with a revolver that was never recovered – but three other people gunned down in Liverpool last year were. Like Olivia, at least two of these were not the intended target of the gunman. bbc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64965613 - The jury at Manchester Crown Court has heard two weapons may have been used throughout the incident on 22 August.
The court was shown CCTV of a man chasing Mr Nee and firing three shots in the street on Kingsheath Avenue just before 22:00 BST that night.
Firearms expert Andre de Villiers Horne said two shots were fired in "quick succession" before a third shot was fired five seconds later.
He said it was likely one of the first two shots perforated Mr Nee's lower abdomen.
manchester evening news https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/gun-used-olivia-pratt-korbels-25077878 - A gun used on the night Olivia Pratt-Korbel was murdered was used in two other shootings in Merseyside, police have revealed.
Detectives are still searching for the two firearms that were used on the night the nine-year-old was fatally shot. Both guns have been identified by police, including the murder weapon - a .38 revolver - that was used to kill Olivia. The other gun, a Glock-type self-loading 9mm pistol, was fired three times at Joseph Nee by Olivia's killer as he entered Kingsheath Avenue on August 22. The revolver was then discharged twice, with one of those bullets fatally wounding the little girl.Police confirmed the Glock gun has been used in two other shootings on Merseyside over the last two and a half years, the Liverpool Echo reports. Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Kameen said during this time the Glock, also known as Linked Series 179, has 'exclusively been used in Dovecot'. January 27, 2020 - Wimbourne Close
The Glock was first used in Wimbourne Close, Dovecot, on 27 January 2020. Police were called to the cul-de-sac at around 8.50pm after reports of gunfire. A 19-year-old man was targeted during the incident and shot in the torso. Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Kameen said: "Furthermore, and in shocking similarity to the circumstances leading to Olivia’s murder, one of the bullets also went through the front door of a house of an innocent member of the community.
"This attack could quite clearly have had far more dire consequences had someone been stood behind that door. This evidences the callous nature of those people in possession of this weapon. A 19-year-old man was targeted during the incident and shot in the torso. Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Kameen said: "Furthermore, and in shocking similarity to the circumstances leading to Olivia’s murder, one of the bullets also went through the front door of a house of an innocent member of the community.
"This attack could quite clearly have had far more dire consequences had someone been stood behind that door. This evidences the callous nature of those people in possession of this weapon. August 22 - Kingsheath Avenue
Just two weeks later, at 10pm on August 22, the Glock was fired three times on Kingsheath Avenue by Olivia's killer. The .38 revolver was then fired a further two times, with one of those bullets killing Olivia as she stood behind her mum, who was also injured.
Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/two-guns-used-olivia-pratt-korbel-shooting-police-say At a press conference on Thursday, DCS Mark Kameen said investigators had been working with forensic experts and the National Ballistic Intelligence Service (Nabis).
“I can now confirm that there were two guns used during this attack,” he said. “I believe at this time that the gunman brought both of these weapons with him and that they were still with him when he callously ran away from Olivia’s house. I want to know where those guns are now.” The gunman was wearing a black padded jacket, black balaclava with a peak and black gloves. He has been described as approximately 1.7 metres (5ft 7in) tall with a slim build.
Summing up Paul Russell's role in events, Liverpool Echo crime reporter Jonathan Humphries said: "Russell deserved his 22 month prison sentence. He helped a man he knew had shot and probably killed someone, although he did not know the victim was a child. Despite his dislike or even hatred of Cashman, the two clearly had a long association and on Cashman's evidence sold drugs together.
"But despite his considerable mistakes, he had no involvement in the planning or carrying out of the shooting. In the end, he did the right thing and without the evidence of him and his partner, a difficult investigation may have become impossible."
He said police wanted to trace a potential witness, who can be seen on CCTV footage standing on Finch Lane, near the junction with Kingsheath Avenue. (An image of the witness from CCTV. Photograph: Merseyside police)
It is claimed Nee had been at a friend’s watching football that evening and when he left the house Cashman, who had been lying in wait, chased him up Kingsheath Avenue. Nee was hit when the gunman fired three shots in the road. Further shots were fired by a second weapon (a revolver - the first was a
When Olivia’s mother Cheryl opened her front door to see what was happening, Nee ran into the family home. He was pursued by Cashman, who fired a bullet that went through the front door, through Ms Korbel’s hand and hit Olivia in the chest as she stood behind her mother.
After Cashman fled the scene, Nee managed to get outside the house where he was picked up by associates in a car and taken to Whiston Hospital, while Olivia lay bleeding. In March of this year, Nee was fined £60 after police found a bag of cannabis in his underwear.
Case turned on the evidence of Paul Russell and his lover https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/who-paul-russell-what-happened-29784383
Who is this young man? Clearly not Cashman.
Cheryl Korbel giving an interview to the police. Pictured with her right arm in plaster, having been shot herself during the horrific incident, she says: "We weren't sure whether it was fireworks or gunshots. I jumped up and went outside, and as I looked down the street to my left I just seen one fella running up towards me.
"I realised at that point it was gunshots, because it looked like the other one was running after him. So I run back in the house and I heard him saying 'please lad, don't' and I shut the door quick. He was trying to push it open. I tried my best to keep it shut until I got shot."
Joseph Nee, the intended target of the shooting which killed Olivia Pratt-Korbel, was never called as a witness during the trial and has never previously given any account of the incident publicly. However, during episode one, his version of events was aired for the first time.
This came via a third party, with one detective reporting during a police briefing that Nee was spoken to as he lay seriously injured in a hospital bed. This came after he had been driven to and carried into Whiston Hospital by his associates.
Of the visit, the officer said: "The first thing he asked me was 'is it true that the girl has died?'. I confirmed that with him, and he did start crying in his hospital bed.
"He stated that he was in the Bunker pub watching the Liverpool game, Man United. He said he left the pub after the game and just started making his way back towards his home address.
"Then, all of a sudden, he said he's felt an immediate pain through his entire body. He said he's run away and has made his way to the first thing he's saw, which was an open door just over the road.
"The person with the gun has continued to shoot at him and put his arm through the door and has shot. He states he's absolutely no idea who the shooter is, what it's over. He claims that he wants to help the investigation, but when I asked if he'll give me a statement as to what he's said he then refused, saying he doesn't want to be known as a grass or bring any retribution to his door."
It was heard during Cashman's trial that Nee in fact watched the football match at a friend's house on nearby Finch Lane rather than at the "Bunker", or Dovecot Labour Club.
This concerned an apparent exchange with a cyclist on Princess Drive in the aftermath of the attack. During a briefing, one officer said during a discussion with his colleagues: "CCTV examination has shown that, on the night in question, the gunman has made his way to the area of Princess Drive. What we know then is, he's contacted two men who are by the shops.
"These men make their way over to him. The gunman can be seen crouching down between two vehicles before crossing over Princess Drive. The males on the bikes cross over Princess Drive, clearly engage in some sort of conversation with the gunman and one of them returns in between the two vehicles where he spends about 20 seconds out of sight, off the bike and presumably on his hands and knees.
"He then re-emerges, crosses over the road and cycles down Princess Drive. We believe that he's taken the guns that were used in the murder of Olivia and moved them from the gunman in the area of Princess Drive and took them to a safehouse. These two weapons are probably the hottest property, in terms of criminal property, in the UK at this moment in time. This could be the single largest influencing factor in getting a conviction on this job."
Over the course of episode three, the net closes in on Cashman after a witness comes forward to tell the police that he had visited her house immediately after the shooting and apparently confessed that he had "done Joey". This led to his arrest on his 34th birthday, September 4 2022, at a block of flats at the Decks in Runcorn.
He was however later released on bail under conditions which included a ban on entering Merseyside. But members of the community then reported to Merseyside Police that Cashman was seen cycling around the Dovecot area once at large again.
DS Baker saying: "Thomas Cashman, I've come to charge you. Ok?"
Cashman, wearing a grey t-shirt, protests: "You're charging someone who's innocent. I've done nothing wrong."
DS Baker then continues: "Ok. I'm gonna charge you with the following offence. On the 22nd of August at Kingsheath Avenue, Liverpool, Merseyside, you murdered Olivia Pratt-Korbel."
Cashman replies "I didn't, no I didn't". After being charged with the attempted murder of Joseph Nee and Cheryl Korbel, he adds: "No, I didn't. I didn't do none of them offences." DS Baker, in turn, looks him dead in the eye for one final time and says "we will see you in court". Cashman responds: "Yeah, we will. To clear my name."
Joseph Nee had a reputation as a career criminal around his local Dovecot area, but few would have expected the events of August 22 2022. In the mind of gangland assassin Thomas Cashman, Nee was supposed to die that night.
However, instead of Nee, Cashman murdered schoolgirl Olivia Pratt-Korbel when she ended up in his firing line following his horrific mission. As Cashman stood over a bleeding Nee, who begged him "Please lad, don't", his 9mm Glock self-loading pistol seemingly jammed giving the then 35-year-old a chance to scramble to his feet and escape.
However, Cashman's bullets had penetrated the front door of Olivia's house, with one passing through the hand of her mum Cheryl before hitting the nine-year-old girl. She died soon after in hospital of her injuries. Cashman's murderous intentions and the tragic consequences form part of a new documentary on Channel 4 called Merseyside Detectives.
The programme follows Merseyside Police's investigations into the high-profile murders of both Olivia and Ashley Dale - a 28-year-old council worker who was shot dead in a bungled assassination attempt. Both victims died in the same horrific week in August two years ago.
Part of the documentary follows the police investigations into murderous villain Cashman to try and understand why he targeted Nee. An ECHO exclusive following the conviction of Cashman, who was jailed for 42 years for Olivia's murder in March 2023, showed Nee had been the target of two previous assassination attempts.
But who was Joseph Nee? As a younger man, Nee was involved in a notorious criminal group that flooded the streets of Kensington with crack and heroin. According to ECHO reports from 2009, Nee was a “trusted foot-soldier” in an organisation that was “dripping in materialism”, spending the money on luxury flats, plasma screen TVs, high-end cars and wardrobes full of designer gear.
The gang was led by known hardman Brian “Big Show” Siner, who received a 14-year sentence at Liverpool Crown Court. Nee, then 23, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison for drug supply offences. He was jailed for a year in 2011 for perverting the course of justice in relation to a gang of violent burglars, including his brother, Jason Nee, who threatened victims in their own home with weapons.
In 2018, Nee was jailed again for 45 months for burglary and dangerous driving, after leading Cheshire Police on a high-speed chase. It is fair to say Nee’s lifestyle won him few friends. One source who lives in Dovecot and is familiar with both Cashman and Nee told the ECHO locals considered Nee "scum of the earth"
In some ways, Nee, "a man with his enemies", might consider himself unlucky. He is now remembered as the man who, inadvertently, brought death and devastation to the Korbel's family home. But in others, he is astonishingly fortunate. He was shot at in March 2018 by an unknown assailant.
Then, on August 8, two weeks before Olivia's death, a gunman fired at him using the same model of gun he was shot with on the night of the 22nd. Merseyside Police previously said they have not ruled Cashman out of being the shooter on that occasion, although he has not been charged.
However, during the trial of Cashman at Manchester Crown Court, the jury did not hear any evidence from Nee about why he was targeted. Nor did the jury hear any evidence of what motivated Cashman to take out his fellow drug dealer.
Speaking previously to the ECHO, Merseyside Police said while they have received intelligence any theory would be “speculation”, and, in the words of Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Baker, who features on Merseyside Detectives, "we may never know" for sure. Cashman himself tried to claim he was "friends" with the Nee family. He told the jury: "No, I never had problems with the Nee family ever."
What is not in dispute, however, is Nee’s propensity for making dangerous enemies. The jury was told “he had his enemies”, and as Professor John Cooper, KC, defending Cashman, said in his closing speech “there were others who wanted him dead”.
But more came out in the absence of the jury. Mr Cooper submitted an application to the court to admit information from Merseyside Police intelligence logs as evidence. He also applied for sections of Nee’s statement to be admitted, without Nee being called as a witness.
We heard that police were told Nee was considered “a rat” who “generally made enemies”. We also heard of a “feud” between the Nee family and the Hickman family, which contains several hardened criminals who are serving or who have served long prison sentences.
In a ruling delivered on the application, we heard how: “Material further supporting a feud between the Hickmans and the Nees, including details of a fight between Paul Hickman and Jason Nee (Joseph’s brother) in prison and a so-called straightener between Joseph Nee and Lee Hickman in a public house.”
The thrust of Mr Cooper’s application was to suggest that there were alternative suspects in the mix for Oliva’s killing, and he suggested to trial judge Mrs Justice Yip the defence should be able to argue that the police had prematurely “closed their minds” to the possibility of others being the gunman. But as Justice Yip ruled, the reality was that those names had been thoroughly checked out and their alibis held up to scrutiny.
Nee himself told police he did not know who shot him. He did mention his “little argument” with Lee Hickman and spoke of others he had fallen out with, at one stage saying “It could have been anyone”. But Justice Yip ruled: “Mr Nee has given varying accounts at different times. At no stage has he positively asserted that he knows who shot him...
"The statements made by Joseph Nee about the possible involvement of others are vague and speculative. They do not provide any evidence that someone other than the defendant was the gunman. In the circumstances, the evidence of things said by Joseph Nee does not have any real probative value.”
Following Olivia's murder, Nee was recalled to prison for breaching the conditions of his licence following his conviction for burglary and other offences in 2018. He was subsequently released in May last year. He was also imposed with a gang injunction upon his release, which saw him imposed with strict rules or face arrest.
The rules included not associating or communicating with certain people, not having more than one phone and sim card and not threatening violence against any person or property. Nee was back before the courts however in March this year where he received a fine after police found a bag of cannabis hidden in his underwear.
The defendant, who was shot in the midriff by Cashman, asked the judge if he could stand at one point during the hearing, saying he had "pains". Following his fine, he was told by Judge Louise Brandon: "I would keep your nose clean if I were you." END.
13.9.2024: FINAL THOUGHTS.
In reply to Nigel Glanvill: I wasn't sure at first and was a bit confused. All I knew was that the man seen running away in 'Finch Road' claimed to be Thomas Cashman didn't fit the body-type of the images of the Cashman being arrested. It was complicated by the fact that when I googled the topic it came up with "5' 8". However I soon learned I was being led astray to another person, but in the text I wrote 5' 8". More searching brought up other photos by which to compare with fixtures and people that suggested he was taller but I couldn't find any references to the height disparity in any of the paper reports despite its clear importance. I cannot believe this was accidental. The editors if they had wished could have made a headline of it: "Shooter described as 5' 7/8" and slim with body of an 18 year old but Cashman 6' and thich set". It is just one example of how the case was slanted by prosecution and media to convict SOMEBODY, such was the understandable outcry. But it's not justice unless you argue he had it coming for all his other alleged crimes, that have subsequently been allotted to him you notice. The forensic evidence was virtually nil - no Nee blood on his clothes, no Cashman DNA on Nee despite an intimate struggle. No weapons retrieved - where did they go? Nothing incriminating in any of the premises connected to him, other than some clothes at his sister's for which he had a credible explanation. Surely if he was a notorious gun handler they would have found them somewhere given that his arrest came only two days after the shooting? So as to his 6' height, this wasn't finally confirmed until I heard his barristers verbatim summing up that the press seems to have overlooked. As to the woman's statement to the contrary, was there ever such an unreliable witness who initially at two interviews, denied even knowing Cashman despite their two-year affair. Is it credible that she was sound asleep at only ten o'clock, and she went to bed with the back door unlocked or that he didn't wake he as a fumbled around the house 'removing his clothes'? There was no animus between Cashman and Nee and no motive. Indeed he was at the Knee family house only the day before and Nee did not implicate him. Clearly, the subject of previous deadly attacks, had enemies other than Cashman and a named family with the motive to kill him. The question is not only were the police 'stitching up' a known criminal to assuage the public/media clamour, but in a more sinister manner, actually protecting the family gang behind it for ulterior reasons? Of course with Cashman out of the way for 42 years, they are well and truly off the hook, whilst the true conspirators are at large as proved by the subsequent vicious attack on Cashman's alibi. Perhaps the Liverpool police should direct some attention into the financial status of all of its detectives and top brass? No shurely not?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.