Convicted murderer makes third appeal

Tuesday 24 May 2022

A 59-year-old man currently serving a life sentence for killing his former lover is seeking to appeal his conviction for a third time, arguing that none of the evidence heard in his previous trials “confirms when or how she died”.

Jamie Lee Warn continues to deny the murder of 37-year-old Zsuzsanna Besenyei, whose body was found at Stinky Bay on 16 May 2018.

Warn was first found guilty of murdering Ms Besenyei in a two-week Royal Court trial in 2019, then at a retrial in 2020.

He once again appealed against his conviction, and was granted another retrial by the Court of Appeal. His second trial took place in July 2021, where the majority of the jury found him guilty of murder.

Representing himself in front of the Court of Appeal yesterday, Warn’s main argument for applying for permission to appeal his conviction was that there is no evidence of when or how Ms Besenyei died. 

He explained that both pathologists in the case recorded the cause of death as unascertained in their post-mortems and that “no medical expert in this case can confirm that she died on Thursday 10 May 2018”. 

The pathologists were also unable to say how long Ms Besenyei was in the water for, or whether she was dead or alive when she entered the water.

Warn suggested that the “jury were left to speculate how the deceased died and what caused her death” as there was no identifiable act found to have caused her death.

Pictured: Jamie Lee Warn represented himself in front of the Court of Appeal.

The only injuries found on Ms Besenyei’s body were small injuries and bruises that could be explained by being washed up on a beach and scraped on sand and shingle. There was no large injury that could’ve caused her death, no signs of prolonged unconsciousness before death, and no defensive injuries. 

Warn suggested that a conviction of murder was therefore not possible, as there was no unlawful act which could be identified to have caused her death.

Warn also argued that there was no firm evidence to suggest that there had been a body held in the boot of his car. 

The pathologist in the previous trial had presented evidence that Ms Besenyei’s body had been lying on a hard surface and it was suggested that this hard surface was the boot of Warn’s car. 

However, Warn argued that this could have been any hard surface, and that there was no forensic evidence such as hair and skin fibres that prove that there had been a body in his boot.

The defendant also questioned the reliability of the CCTV footage that was presented at trial, which showed images from Checkers and First Tower Car Park.

Despite the two locations being a fair distance away, the timings on the CCTV footage are near-identical. “How can a person be in two different places at the same time?” Warn asked.

Warn also argued that a telecommunications schedule presented in court shows that he couldn’t have had Ms Besenyei’s phone as had been claimed by the prosecution, as his phone and her phone were connected to different masts at similar times.

Warn also questioned whether Ms Besenyei’s body should have been released back to her family so soon, arguing that both pathologists were still waiting for reports and it was therefore still an ongoing investigation when she was cremated.

Warn raised further issues around whether he had received a “fair trial”, suggesting that witnesses were not given clear directions by the trial judge. 

In addition, he suggested that the commissioner's statement to the jury that "if at the end of the day, you have not reached a verdict, then the defendant would be discharged from the convictions” could have placed unduly pressure on the jury to rush their decision-making.

He also argued that there was evidence in the court transcript of discussions taking place while he, as the defendant, was not in the room. 

Pictured: Zsuzsanna Besenyei was 37 years old when she died.

The prosecution case, presented by Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, suggested that many of Warn’s contentions could be easily explained.

Advocate Thomas explained that the issue of the mobile phone signals and the interaction between the two masts had been covered before the jury in the previous trial by an expert mobile phone data analyst. 

He explained that “the point Mr Warn makes is explicable when one understands how connections with 3G cell are made, compared to connections with 4G cell.” 

While 3G connections pinpoint the exact time the phone connection is made, 4G connections only show a window of time within which the phone connection was used.

Advocate Thomas then drew attention to two pinpoints on 3G masts which showed Warn’s phone and Besenyei’s phone in the same location, alongside CCTV of what was said to be the defendant coming out of a shop covered by this mast. He also emphasised moments in which the two phone signals travelled together.

Addressing Warn’s concerns about how soon Ms Besenyei’s body had been released back to her family, Advocate Thomas confirmed that the conclusions of the two autopsies “had the same conclusions, perhaps with different emphasis.” 

He said: “Both pathologists wrote to the Deputy Viscount saying that they felt that the body did not need further investigation, but the brain and the larynx were retained for further expert examination.”

Advocate Thomas concluded by addressing Warn’s queries about the CCTV timings. He agreed that the two different CCTV timings do not exactly line up, but suggested that this was because the two CCTV images are from different systems which are not aligned to the exact same time. Therefore, slight time discrepancies are not surprising.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Mr George Bompas, and Sir Wyn Williams – the latter of whom appeared via video link – decided to take time to consider the arguments made, and informed Warn that he will hear the result of his application for leave to appeal conviction in due course.