Russell Bishop trial: Convicted paedophile refuses to keep giving evidence after being questioned over his 'sexual interest in children'
As Russell Bishop repeatedly denied a sexual interest in children, he was confronted with explicit letters sent to a 13-year-old girl from prison
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
A convicted sex attacker has refused to continue giving evidence halfway through a cross-examination in which he admitted indecently assaulting a seven-year-old girl “to belittle and shame her”.
Russell Bishop, 52, is being tried for a second time for the 1986 “Babes in the Wood” murders of nine-year-olds Karen Hadaway and Nicola Fellows. They were found in woods in Brighton after being strangled and sexually assaulted.
On Monday, Bishop repeatedly denied a sexual interest in children, while being confronted with a series of prison letters sent to a 13-year-old girl in which he allegedly propositioned her.
After repeatedly clashing with prosecutor Brian Altman QC during a morning of cross-examination, Bishop did not enter the witness box after the lunchtime adjournment.
Mr Justice Sweeney told the jury: “You will observe immediately that Mr Bishop is in the dock not the witness box. That is because he has declined to give any further evidence.”
Bishop was convicted for the 1990 attack on the seven-year-old and has spent the last 28 years as a category A prisoner.
Three years earlier, he was acquitted of killing Karen and Nicola after a trial at Lewes Crown Court in 1987.
He is now being tried at the Old Bailey after new DNA evidence came to light.
Seeking to explain to the jury why he had abducted a seven-year-old girl, driven her to remote woodland, strangled and indecently assaulted her, Bishop claimed his crime had not been sexually motivated.
He said he had partly been motivated by revenge after being subjected to a three-year “hate campaign” following his acquittal, which had rendered him “mentally unstable”.
He added that on 4 February 1990, when he saw the girl, he had been in a furious temper having injured himself trying to fix his car, and he had mistakenly thought the child had said something to him.
Denying a sexual motive, Bishop said he had abducted and sexually assaulted the girl “to belittle and shame her because I was bloody angry at her and everyone who had done wrong to me”.
The court also heard that Bishop had previously explained the attack by saying he had no sexual interest in children, but having faced three years of accusations that he was a paedophile attacker, he had thought, “I might as well do it”.
Bishop told the Old Bailey jury: “I did have them kind of thoughts.”
He added: “It could have been anyone. Through the psychological trauma of the hate campaign and what everyone else was saying, it came out in that behaviour.”
Mr Altman QC told him: “This is all rubbish. This is all lies. You attacked that young girl because you had a sexual interest in children.
“You are portraying yourself as a victim. This offence was all about sexual gratification and you are a paedophile.”
Bishop denied he was a paedophile. He claimed semen had been found on the girl’s vest only because it had been transferred there from a used pair of tracksuit trousers which were in the boot of his car when he threw the child in there.
When the prosecutor asked him about why he had stripped the girl naked, Bishop protested that he had already been convicted of the 1990 offence and appealed to the judge, saying: “What am I on trial for here? Is this legal?”
Mr Justice Sweeney told him it was.
Mr Altman continued to suggest to Bishop that he had a sexual interest in children. He cited letters that Bishop had written to a 13-year-old girl in the spring of 1987 while on remand awaiting trial for the murders of Karen Hadaway and Nicola Fellows.
The prosecutor highlighted one letter that read: “When I get out, I think you know what we will end up doing.”
Mr Altman asked: “You were suggesting sex?”
Bishop replied: “I don’t know, and if I did, I wouldn’t tell you.”
In the same letter, Mr Altman said, Bishop had written: “Don’t give this letter to no one, not to your mum, not to anyone ... You will have to go on the pill. You will have to get rid of this page [of the letter] now, so no one will know.”
In March 1987, the prosecutor added, Bishop had written to the girl: “How old are you baby, hee hee. It don’t matter … I just hope you can handle it because I am a man, not a boy.”
And on 3 April 1987, the court heard, Bishop thanked the girl for the photos she had sent and wrote: “I still say you won’t handle 12 inches … I will show you all about it.”
Mr Altman asked: “Twelve inches of what, Mr Bishop.”
He answered: “It speaks for itself, doesn’t it?”
Bishop said he had simply been reacting to what the girl had written. He repeatedly insisted he had thought the girl was 15 and would be 16 by the time he left prison, adding that he stopped writing to the girl once he knew her real age.
Mr Altman, however, told the defendant he must have known the girl’s age all along, because he had met her while living in the same B&B as her in 1984.
In one letter, Mr Altman said, Bishop had written: “In the B&B was the first time and it’s gone from there. You were 11 years old there.”
He suggested to Bishop that he had only written about the girl soon turning 16 as a precaution in case someone read his letters.
Mr Altman said: “You knew she was 11 years old in that B&B. It’s now March 1987. You couldn’t possibly have believed she would soon be 16.”
Bishop replied: “No, I disagree.” Denying the murders of the two nine-year-olds, he told the court: “I haven’t killed anyone.”
The trial continues.