While the outcome of the trial was greeted with delight and relief in some quarters, it was met with suspicion and outright hostility in others. The jury’s unanimous verdict did little to stifle speculation that someone other than Dai Morris was responsible for the murders. In particular, attention focused on the supposed forensic clean-up operation in which, it was alleged, Morris had wiped away all trace of his DNA and fingerprints.
The people of Clydach had followed the case keenly, and were both stunned and confused by the verdict. Repeating what many others were thinking, one local person told the South Wales Evening Post: ‘There was conflicting evidence and I was rather surprised by the verdict. He lied and lied, and there was the evidence of the necklace, but there was no evidence against him.’
Other villagers held similar views on the judgment. Roger Simmonds of Ffynnon Wen, Clydach commented: ‘I am not totally convinced. I think there is a lot of things we don’t know. It’s purely hearsay.’ Another villager told reporters: ‘I don’t think we know everything about the case and are not in a position to pass judgment.’ One man who had known Morris since his schooldays said, ‘… there was no way he was intelligent enough to clean up the crime scene.’ Clydach resident Emma Gribble said: ‘Everyone is saying it should not end here. I hope it does go on because I am sure there is more to it. This is not going to be the end.’
Emma Gribble was right. This was the start of a four-year campaign by Morris’ family and their supporters to have the guilty verdict overturned. On Monday, 1 July, just three days after the guilty verdict was delivered, Wendy Morris, former wife of Dai Morris and mother of his three children, launched a petition to clear his name. Speaking to reporters at her home in Penlan, Swansea, she confidently declared: ‘He is not a murderer. I am absolutely positive. I’ve seen him in drink and drugs and he is not that sort of person.’ She told the media gathered at her home that she, her family and friends had ‘raised a 200-signature petition asking for a retrial. We’ve already got 200 signatures on the petition and we’re not going to give up to prove he is innocent.’
Some took the protest even further, and voiced their disgust that the Lewises had not been convicted. Protest banners with the slogan ‘Killer Walks Free’ were hung from bridges over busy main roads in Dyfatty and Ravenhill in Swansea. Posters protesting Morris’ innocence were affixed to lampposts; graffiti were painted on walls to garner support for a second trial, and a website was launched which gave further details about the appeal.
Wendy Morris’ campaign for a second trial continued to gather momentum. It gained supporters from outside the family who visited pubs in Clydach to collect more signatures. The petition now had the names of 350 supporters. Speaking on behalf of the community, Councillor Sylvia Lewis said Morris’ supporters had no business being in Clydach, describing their visit as an ‘insult’ to the families of the victims. She told reporters: ‘It is sad they were in this village trying to drum up support – stay away from Clydach. Let us get back on track. They were apparently on licensed premises, looking for people who had had a drink, asking them to sign a petition. It is an insult to everyone living in the village.’
After two councillors received several complaints about the protest, council workmen in Swansea were ordered to remove the offending banners from the bridges over the main roads. In direct response to the ‘Dai Morris is Innocent’ campaign, some Clydach residents started their own poster campaign called ‘Support for the Victims’ Families’, but it was short-lived and quickly died out.
Swansea Valley Councillor Ioan Richard, speaking on 9 July 2002, called for an end to the campaign. He said: ‘If the Morris family are blinded with family loyalty to attempt to go to an appeal, then I respect their emotions. But I ask them to leave it to the lawyers and not to gossip, banners and lies. Sadly, there are far too many people out there talking about this case when they have no idea of what happened in the trial or what has gone on in this village. Two neighbours fled away from living in the village in fear of their lives after crossing Morris. And a third was absolutely desperate for a transfer away from Morris. I know, because as a councillor I helped them fill in housing transfer application forms to the council. The reasons given were absolute terror of Morris’ frenzied temper. People were regularly complaining of his intimidatory attitude and of the occasions when his coldness would erupt into a red-hot frenzy of violence. I can sympathise a little bit with Morris’ close family, as the relatives of mass murderers can go into denial. But disgusting gossip is splitting the community of Clydach.’
Councillor Richard was clearly keen to see a troublemaker off the streets, and was not open to the possibility that Morris had been sent to prison as a result of an unsafe conviction.
And yet, regardless of the notable lack of hard evidence presented at the trial by the prosecution, and a divergence of opinion among members of the public regarding Dai Morris’ guilt, the fact remains that he was convicted of the murders by the unanimous decision of a jury of his peers – a randomly selected group, comprising eleven ordinary citizens, sworn to do their duty – upon hearing all the evidence presented to them in court over a period of almost three months. If they were satisfied that Dai Morris was guilty of the crimes, why were so many other people uneasy about the verdict?
A close examination of witness statements shows that the story Morris eventually told about his relationship with Mandy Power had not been developed and refined throughout the investigation. It was virtually identical to the account he gave to Eric Williams on the day after the murders. Morris’ story about his sexual relationship with Mandy Power and his explanation as to how the broken gold neck-chain came to be in her home at the time of killings never changed significantly from day one.
Many people felt that the decision of the jury was inconsistent with the evidence presented at the trial. There was something that didn’t quite add up. There were just too many unanswered questions and the shadow of doubt continued to hang over the jury’s decision like a dark cloud. These questions were, and still are, the subject of discussion in pubs and clubs throughout Wales, and remain unanswered to this day. Some of these questions are as follows:
1. What was contained in the forensic report delivered to Detective Superintendent Martyn Lloyd-Evans three weeks after the murders which he was so reluctant to make public, and which gave rise to speculation that the murderer was ‘forensically aware’?
2. Had Dai Morris really wiped away all traces of his DNA and fingerprints at the crime scene, or was he simply never there?
3. Where was Detective Inspector Stuart Lewis between midnight and 3.00 a.m. on the morning of the murders? Why did he leave Kelvin Road so soon after arriving and to whom did he speak in his untraceable telephone call from Morriston Police Station?
4. Why did Detective Superintendent Martyn Lloyd-Evans fail to release Nicola Williams’ e-fit image for more than a year? This image resembled South Wales Police officers Stephen Lewis and Stuart Lewis.
5. Why did South Wales Police arrange for Stephen Lewis to participate in the video identity parade when the man in Nicola Williams’ e-fit image looked more like Stuart Lewis, who had no alibi for the time of the murders?
6. Why were South Wales Police so reluctant to act against the Lewises? It took them more than a year after the killings before the three were arrested, yet much of the evidence gathered in the first few weeks of the investigation appeared to implicate them in the crime.
7. What was in prosecuting counsel’s advice, leading to the Lewises’ release, which was never made available to the defence, despite protocols on disclosure that it should have been?
8. Why did the prosecution insist that Mandy Power was the first victim to be killed when the best forensic evidence suggested that she was not?
9. How did a forensic examination of the gold neck-chain reveal a microscopic speck of green paint but, allegedly, no DNA?
10. Were South Wales Police completely honest in the course of their investigation, or were they holding back certain facts?
These are just some of the questions that have been discussed for well over a decade and a half and have yet to be satisfactorily answered.