Jenny Nicholl Murder Trial
The trial of David Hodgson, who is accused of killing teenager Jenny Nicholl. David Hodgson, 47, of Olav Road, Richmond, denies murdering the 19-year-old in June 2005.
VIDEO
* Detective Superintendent Sue Cross speaks outside court
* Brian and Ann Nicholl speak outside court
* Reporter Joe Willis looks back over the investigation.
CASE CLOSED
Jenny killer jailed for 18 year minimum
 |
| Murder victim: Jenny Nicholl |
THE killer of Jenny Nicholl was today jailed for a minimum of 18 years after a judge told him he had shown "not the slightest regret or remorse" to the teenager's family.
Mr Justice Openshaw branded 48-year-old David Hodgson a murderer and a liar as he imposed a mandatory life sentence on the married father-of-two at Teesside Crown Court.
The judge said Hodgson, an unemployed landscape gardener, had lied to police during the lengthy investigation and to the jury during his dramatic five-week trial.
Mr Justice Openshaw told Hodgson his cruel concealment of Jenny's body had deprived her family of the opportunity of laying her to rest and prolonged their anguish.
Jenny went missing after leaving her family home in Richmond, North Yorkshire, on June 30, 2005, after telling her mother she was staying out for the night.
It emerged during the trial that Hodgson had also gone out for the night, and told his family he was going camping.
The teenager's sudden disappearance was treated as a missing person inquiry for months before detectives suspected her lover was lying about his relationship with her.
Hodgson was originally arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, but was later charged with murder after more evidence was amassed.
 |
| David Hodgson |
Police discovered that text messages had been sent from Jenny's mobile phone to her friends and her father from the borders on days when Hodgson hired cars.
They also found some of the teenager's belongings on a tip in a plantation where they felt they could prove Jenny and Hodgson had spent nights out camping.
The hillside areas overlooking Richmond were well-known to Hodgson and his older brother, Robert, and they erected had man-made hides and huts there.
The prosecution claimed Hodgson was an intensely jealous man who was angry about Jenny's blossoming relationship with his brother in the months before her disappearance.
It is suspected that he killed her - possibly after a row - on the evening she went missing, but police were never able to pinpoint a crime scene despite a huge investigation.
Numerous searches were carried out in the hills and fields above Richmond, but other than some of Jenny's personal belongings, no trace of her has been found.
Four people told the jury that they had seen the teenager after she vanished, but prosecutor James Goss said they were either mistaken about the dates or who they had spotted.
At the height of the two-and-a-half-year inquiry, more than 50 officers worked on the case, including detectives, Crime Scene Investigators,
specialist searchers and community police teams.
| "I do not doubt that the thought that she is lying somewhere up on the moors will continue to inflict further pain on her long-suffering family. The defendant has shown not the slightest regret or remorse." | | Mr Justice Openshaw |
|
More than 6,500 documents were generated, more than 2,700 people were spoken to, and almost 1,500 statements taken while searches covering 7,800 hectares were carried out in and around the Richmond and Catterick area.
Hodgson, of Olav Road, Richmond, who denied murder, claimed Jenny had run away from home to escape her abusive father and had been in touch since she vanished.
But the jury of six men and six women rejected his claims, which were later branded "ludicrous and vile" by Jenny's parents, and "a devious and elaborate deceit" by the judge.
The judge said: "The defendant's concealment of her body has prolonged the anguish and agony of her family and friends as they waited for news of her fate.
"After he killed her, the defendant retained her mobile phone and on two separate days he sent bogus text messages from her mobile phone - as if from her - first to her friends and then to her father, cruelly pretending that she was still alive and that she had just run away.
"He was, of course, intending, thereby, to prevent the missing person inquiry turning into a murder investigation.
"Naturally, her family found any slight hope that the messages might be genuine and so their uncertainty extended from weeks to months until the gradual realisation that she must be dead and then that she had been murdered.
"Even now, they have been denied such solace as can be found from a funeral and from providing for her a decent, dignified and reverent disposal of her remains as they wish.
"I do not doubt that the thought that she is lying somewhere up on the moors will continue to inflict further pain on her long-suffering family. The defendant has shown not the slightest regret or remorse."
He added that the evidence which suggested Hodgson killed shopworker Jenny on the night they both went out camping was "entirely overwhelming".
The judge said: "Where he has hidden and disposed of the body only the defendant knows, because on these matters he has remained silent.
"No doubt, he buried her somewhere in the woods or threw her body down one of the many potholes or mineshafts which are found throughout Swaledale."
Jamie Hill, QC, defending told the court: "Given the stance he has maintained throughout the trial, and continues to maintain, it would be inappropriate for me to say anything about the offence itself."
11:31am Wednesday 20th February 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Me, catterick garrison on 12:00pm Wed 20 Feb 08
Now the suspect has been charged, heres hoping they find Jenny and she can at least be laid to rest.
The Northern Echo's coverage of this story has been outstanding.
Now the suspect has been charged, heres hoping they find Jenny and she can at least be laid to rest.
The Northern Echo's coverage of this story has been outstanding.
Posted by: Matt, Darlington on 2:07pm Wed 20 Feb 08
18 years for murder is a disgrace, He should die in prison,
This country is a joke.
18 years for murder is a disgrace, He should die in prison,
This country is a joke.
Posted by: Bryn, Richmond on 3:00pm Wed 20 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Matt[/bold] wrote:
18 years for murder is a disgrace, He should die in prison, This country is a joke.[/quote] I agree it isn't long enough in this case - but remember that it's 18 years UNTIL HE CAN APPLY FOR PAROLE. He's not guaranteed to be paroled even after 18 years. If he still shows no remorse, and still hasn't identified where here body is, a parole board may rightly conclude that he should not be released.
Matt wrote:
18 years for murder is a disgrace, He should die in prison, This country is a joke.
I agree it isn't long enough in this case - but remember that it's 18 years UNTIL HE CAN APPLY FOR PAROLE. He's not guaranteed to be paroled even after 18 years. If he still shows no remorse, and still hasn't identified where here body is, a parole board may rightly conclude that he should not be released.
Posted by: kayleigh on 3:44pm Wed 20 Feb 08
lets hope he never gets released. just hope now jenny can be found and laid to rest
lets hope he never gets released. just hope now jenny can be found and laid to rest
Posted by: mally, Darlington on 5:52pm Wed 20 Feb 08
18 years is his tarriff. Presently prioners are succcessfully sueing the Home Office for keeping them over tarriff and The European Courts are backing them. If we align with Europe over the next decade then all life sentences will end at the 12 year mark. I wouldn't sleep easily as a juror - the chances of four people all identifying a person after their death must be very high! Too high I fear for a judge to disregard.
18 years is his tarriff. Presently prioners are succcessfully sueing the Home Office for keeping them over tarriff and The European Courts are backing them. If we align with Europe over the next decade then all life sentences will end at the 12 year mark. I wouldn't sleep easily as a juror - the chances of four people all identifying a person after their death must be very high! Too high I fear for a judge to disregard.
Posted by: NUFC Fan, Darlo on 6:04pm Wed 20 Feb 08
18 years - how old will he be when he gets out?
18 years - how old will he be when he gets out?
Posted by: NUFC Fan, Darlo on 6:06pm Wed 20 Feb 08
I've just noticed the story says he's 48 at present, that means he'll be 66 by the time he's released (unless someone gets to him first!).
I've just noticed the story says he's 48 at present, that means he'll be 66 by the time he's released (unless someone gets to him first!).
Posted by: tas, catterick on 6:45pm Wed 20 Feb 08
[quote][bold]mally[/bold] wrote:
18 years is his tarriff. Presently prioners are succcessfully sueing the Home Office for keeping them over tarriff and The European Courts are backing them. If we align with Europe over the next decade then all life sentences will end at the 12 year mark. I wouldn't sleep easily as a juror - the chances of four people all identifying a person after their death must be very high! Too high I fear for a judge to disregard.[/quote] after following this trial avidly, i must say that i agree with your comment about not sleeping easy as a juror.
mally wrote:
18 years is his tarriff. Presently prioners are succcessfully sueing the Home Office for keeping them over tarriff and The European Courts are backing them. If we align with Europe over the next decade then all life sentences will end at the 12 year mark. I wouldn't sleep easily as a juror - the chances of four people all identifying a person after their death must be very high! Too high I fear for a judge to disregard.
after following this trial avidly, i must say that i agree with your comment about not sleeping easy as a juror.
Posted by: rozanne, richmond on 7:32pm Wed 20 Feb 08
i quite agree with what mally said from darlington let us also remember he is a married man with 2 daughters what a life sentence they are going through along with jennys parents God hold these two families together rozanne from richmond
i quite agree with what mally said from darlington let us also remember he is a married man with 2 daughters what a life sentence they are going through along with jennys parents God hold these two families together rozanne from richmond
Posted by: matthew, darlington on 8:17pm Wed 20 Feb 08
Whilst I think it is highly likely the defendant is guilty, I, if I were a juror at the trial, could not find him guilty as the evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the killer.
The man does have very good grounds for an appeal, and as other readers have noted I wouldnt be sleeping entirely well if I were one of the jurors at the trial.
With regards to what the other reader mentioned about prisoners sueing the home office / prison board if there tariff is breached, lets remember these people are [bold]CRIMINALS[/bold] and Europe or no europe (no europe if i had my way, but different argument altogether) common sense will hopefully win out.
Whilst I think it is highly likely the defendant is guilty, I, if I were a juror at the trial, could not find him guilty as the evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the killer.
The man does have very good grounds for an appeal, and as other readers have noted I wouldnt be sleeping entirely well if I were one of the jurors at the trial.
With regards to what the other reader mentioned about prisoners sueing the home office / prison board if there tariff is breached, lets remember these people are
CRIMINALS and Europe or no europe (no europe if i had my way, but different argument altogether) common sense will hopefully win out.
Posted by: Charlotte, Richmond, North Yorks on 11:55pm Wed 20 Feb 08
I must also agree with the majority of comments. Whatever the truth is, how could a jury find him guilty on the evidence presented? If the same jury judge the possible trial of the parents of Madeleine McCann with all the associated DNA evidence and inconsistant alibies etc they would be guilty...yet the British national newspapers say the evidence against them is flimsy at best and their status as suspects should be removed, and in England the case would never come to trial! I am not suggesting Hodgson is not guilty but the evidence presented in court, and read in this paper, leaves serious doubts about the conviction.
I must also agree with the majority of comments. Whatever the truth is, how could a jury find him guilty on the evidence presented? If the same jury judge the possible trial of the parents of Madeleine McCann with all the associated DNA evidence and inconsistant alibies etc they would be guilty...yet the British national newspapers say the evidence against them is flimsy at best and their status as suspects should be removed, and in England the case would never come to trial! I am not suggesting Hodgson is not guilty but the evidence presented in court, and read in this paper, leaves serious doubts about the conviction.
Posted by: Toby winkle, teesside on 12:26am Thu 21 Feb 08
Its all very very sad indeed. I just can not for the life of me get my head round the fact that there is NO body and NO confesion and still a man is found guilty of murder. What if she turns up next week ? 4 people say they saw her after the so called murder...........You have got to feel for her Mum & Dad.
Its all very very sad indeed. I just can not for the life of me get my head round the fact that there is NO body and NO confesion and still a man is found guilty of murder. What if she turns up next week ? 4 people say they saw her after the so called murder...........You have got to feel for her Mum & Dad.
Posted by: klm, n/ayc on 8:17am Thu 21 Feb 08
I agree with each and everyone of you, i feel for both families, having a teenage daughter myself i too would want to know what had happened to my daughter, but i would prefer to know the truth. I believe a life for a life but in this case no one is 110% sure that a life has been taken.
I agree with each and everyone of you, i feel for both families, having a teenage daughter myself i too would want to know what had happened to my daughter, but i would prefer to know the truth. I believe a life for a life but in this case no one is 110% sure that a life has been taken.
Posted by: Pete, Ripon on 9:58am Thu 21 Feb 08
Very easy to criticise the jurors but they have listened to 6 weeks of evidence, as opposed to the rest of us who have picked up the highlights from the paper.
There were 100's of sightings of Peter Tobin's victims until they were found dead in his garden last year. Many probably well-intentioned but simply wrong. 4 witness sightings does not prove the man's innocence.
Very easy to criticise the jurors but they have listened to 6 weeks of evidence, as opposed to the rest of us who have picked up the highlights from the paper.
There were 100's of sightings of Peter Tobin's victims until they were found dead in his garden last year. Many probably well-intentioned but simply wrong. 4 witness sightings does not prove the man's innocence.
Posted by: mikey, London on 10:42am Thu 21 Feb 08
The comments about "Europe" are all wrong. People would be well advised to first learn the distinction between the European Court of Human Rights and The European Court of Justice. The former is completely separate from the European Union and has been bold in reinforcing the many rights people in this country take for granted. Such comments as above simply compound the view that most people in this region are ignorant.
The comments about "Europe" are all wrong. People would be well advised to first learn the distinction between the European Court of Human Rights and The European Court of Justice. The former is completely separate from the European Union and has been bold in reinforcing the many rights people in this country take for granted. Such comments as above simply compound the view that most people in this region are ignorant.
Posted by: mally, darlington in the north on 9:02pm Thu 21 Feb 08
I see. So prisoners aren't taking action against their tarriffs - I can provide a list. So Scotland is the same when it comes to treating lifers _ I think not. It must be great to live in London and not be ignorant like what we are up here.
I see. So prisoners aren't taking action against their tarriffs - I can provide a list. So Scotland is the same when it comes to treating lifers _ I think not. It must be great to live in London and not be ignorant like what we are up here.
Posted by: Matthew, Darlington on 7:37pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[bold]Such comments as above simply compound the view that most people in this region are ignorant.[/bold]
Nice one mate, well done, give yourself a blue ribbon and a pat on the back. Your comment is like saying all french people eat frogs legs, all german people have blond hair and all english people have bad teeth. How can you possiblt generalise a whole area as ignorant? There are ignorant people everywhere, and this has been evidenced by your truly pathetic post.
Again, congratulations.
Such comments as above simply compound the view that most people in this region are ignorant.
Nice one mate, well done, give yourself a blue ribbon and a pat on the back. Your comment is like saying all french people eat frogs legs, all german people have blond hair and all english people have bad teeth. How can you possiblt generalise a whole area as ignorant? There are ignorant people everywhere, and this has been evidenced by your truly pathetic post.
Again, congratulations.
Posted by: amazed, darlington on 9:53pm Wed 27 Feb 08
How can a jury be in 'no reasonable doubt' that he killed her - when there is no proof what-so-ever that she is actually dead? No body has been found - how can they convict someone of 'murder' when no body has been found - what if she's disappeared into the underworld of drugs and **** - quite easily done - and had no idea of whats gone on??. This is a ridiculous situation. The guy convicted must have been given plea deals or deals on his sentence - ie tell us where you've buried her and we may cut your sentence..if he's done it he had nothing to lose by telling where the body was cos he's going down anyway. just cos you're a totally jerk who takes sexual advantage of a young ( but legally of age) girl and covers your tracks for whatever reason, does NOT make you a killer.
I hope she walks off the bus in richmond town centre having come back from wherever she ran to and gives everyone a fright
How can a jury be in 'no reasonable doubt' that he killed her - when there is no proof what-so-ever that she is actually dead? No body has been found - how can they convict someone of 'murder' when no body has been found - what if she's disappeared into the underworld of drugs and **** - quite easily done - and had no idea of whats gone on??. This is a ridiculous situation. The guy convicted must have been given plea deals or deals on his sentence - ie tell us where you've buried her and we may cut your sentence..if he's done it he had nothing to lose by telling where the body was cos he's going down anyway. just cos you're a totally jerk who takes sexual advantage of a young ( but legally of age) girl and covers your tracks for whatever reason, does NOT make you a killer.
I hope she walks off the bus in richmond town centre having come back from wherever she ran to and gives everyone a fright
Posted by: N on 1:10pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Bryn[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Matt[/bold] wrote: 18 years for murder is a disgrace, He should die in prison, This country is a joke.[/quote] I agree it isn't long enough in this case - but remember that it's 18 years UNTIL HE CAN APPLY FOR PAROLE. He's not guaranteed to be paroled even after 18 years. If he still shows no remorse, and still hasn't identified where here body is, a parole board may rightly conclude that he should not be released.[/quote] [bold]bold[/bold] Why should the british tax payer have to support such filth in the prisons, let's do one thing the american way and bring back the death penalty... might get the **** hole talking ?? I am sick to death of seeing these deviants, perverts, murderers and theives given a little holiday to learn more tricks.... get rid of them and invest the honest persons wage on a better country.
Bryn wrote:
Matt wrote: 18 years for murder is a disgrace, He should die in prison, This country is a joke.
I agree it isn't long enough in this case - but remember that it's 18 years UNTIL HE CAN APPLY FOR PAROLE. He's not guaranteed to be paroled even after 18 years. If he still shows no remorse, and still hasn't identified where here body is, a parole board may rightly conclude that he should not be released.
Why should the british tax payer have to support such filth in the prisons, let's do one thing the american way and bring back the death penalty... might get the **** hole talking ?? I am sick to death of seeing these deviants, perverts, murderers and theives given a little holiday to learn more tricks.... get rid of them and invest the honest persons wage on a better country.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
Play video
