The trial of Connor Chapman over the murder of Elle Edwards has continued for a third week at Liverpool Crown Court.
The 26-year-old beautician was shot dead outside the Lighthouse pub in Wallasey, Wirral, on Christmas Eve last year. Five other men - Kieran Salkeld, Jake Duffy, Harry Loughran, Liam Carr and Nicholas Speed - were also struck by gunfire and injured.
Chapman, of Houghton Road in Woodchurch, denies being the gunman or murdering Elle. The 23-year-old has also pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder of Salkeld and Duffy, wounding with intent against Mr Loughran and Mr Carr, assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Mr Speed and possession of a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life.
Alongside him in the dock is 20-year-old Thomas Waring, of Private Drive in Barnston, who denies possession of a prohibited weapon and assisting an offender. This is a summary of what was heard during the third week of the trial.
READ MORE: Everything heard by the jury during second week of Elle Edwards murder trial
Day 10 - Monday, June 26
The jury heard at the start of the third week that part of the "prosecution case theory" is that a series of calls were made by a woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, to a man, who also cannot be named, who in turn attempted to contact Chapman following a dispute inside the Lighthouse pub involving Salkeld. She had a number of drinks poured over her head as part of a row which related to her ex-boyfriend at around 7.36pm.
Mark Rhind, KC, defending Chapman, questioned Detective Constable Steve Duke about the significance of the calls made by the woman, suggesting there was "no evidence" she and his client "knew of each other's existence". The officer agreed there was no evidence of a "direct link", but pointed out that the woman had made calls to a man who also attempted to contact the alleged gunman.
She eventually left the pub at 9.05pm and called 999 to make a complaint about her former partner. CCTV showed her walking straight past the stolen Mercedes used by the killer, which lurked outside the pub for around three hours before the shooting.
Mr Rhind said: "There’s no suggestion she acknowledges anyone. She’s saying she can’t take any more.
"She’s had about 10 drinks poured over her head and she’s claiming it’s harassment. She’s not blaming Kieron Salkeld or Jake Duffy for what happened.
"She’s ringing 999 saying she wants to make a statement about her partner, who she blames for having drinks poured over her head. In fact, there were two further calls to the police that night about this complaint - it follows, doesn’t it, that whatever happened, whatever she spoke to (the man who cannot be identified) about, her complaint that night was not about Salkeld or Duffy?"
DC Duke responded "yes, that’s right". Mr Rhind continued: "It would be unfair to take from this that she deliberately disclosed anything to anyone?"
At that point, trial judge Mr Justice Goose interjected and suggested that Mr Rhind's point should be expressed in closing speeches rather than in questions to the witness.
Day 11 - Tuesday, June 27
Detective Sergeant Peter Cietak, of Merseyside Police's major crime unit, told the jury police had seized around 1,400 hours of CCTV footage as part of the investigation into Elle's murder. He was questioned over a disputed piece of footage seized from a camera facing Chapman's house.
Officers examined the recording from between 7.32pm on Christmas Eve, when he returned to his home from a shopping trip in Manchester, to the time he allegedly left for the Lighthouse pub just over an hour later. The camera, which was located around 100m away on the opposite side of a duel carriageway, showed a distant view of the living room window and front door area of the house.
The prosecution had initially suggested that a figure they claim is Chapman left the property at 8.44pm, walked around the back of the row of houses and drove towards Wallasey in a stolen black Mercedes, parked nearby. However, his legal team noticed that the figure seen at 8.44pm had in fact walked from further up Houghton Road and passing his address from right to left rather than appearing to exit from inside the property.
In response, the prosecution and Merseyside Police investigators reviewed the footage last week and accepted the point. However, detectives also noticed another figure appear in front of the property at 8.31pm, heading from left to right, which had not been spotted before the opening of the trial. DS Cietak confirmed the prosecution position is now that Chapman left his home at 8.31pm, walked off camera for 12 minutes, and then returned before driving to Wallasey.
Mr Rhind suggested this was a "significant change" in the prosecution case. Questioning DS Cietak, he said: "Six months after the offence, five and a half months after Connor Chapman’s arrest, a long time after the footage was reviewed and two weeks into the trial, it may be the prosecution were wrong all along?”
Trial judge Mr Justice Goose interjected and suggested he may like to "rephrase" the question. Mr Rhind then stated: "Was the prosecution case, for many months, Connor Chapman came out his house for the first time at 20.44?
"The case is now that he came out 12 minutes earlier, went down the road and came back up. Let’s be frank, that was us who reported that to you.
"We were giving you notice of what we’d seen. Obviously, you realise that was potentially an important issue?"
DS Cietak replied: “It is a key piece of footage and clearly that had not featured in the schedule prepared. If one sighting of a black mark had been seen we wanted to be sure we’ve not spotted any others."
Mr Rhind suggested that enhancing and zooming in on the footage could distort images if done in the wrong way as a previous expert witness, Tessa Macklam, had explained. He said an expert instructed by the defence to examine the footage concluded it was "equally probable" that the figure at 8.31pm left Chapman's home rather than not, asking: "Does that make you hesitate about your conclusions at all?”
DS Cietak responded: "No, not really. In analysing everything again, we looked at the entire period of footage from when Connor Chapman returns from Manchester to the point the figure walks around the back gets in the car and goes off.
"I looked specifically at that bright window and the other lights in the vicinity. The only occasions when we see a black shape, anything similar to what you’ve illustrated, are at the times he returns from Manchester and when the figure is walking round the back - there are no times in between we see similar markings.”
Mr Rhind suggested the footage was "not of high enough quality to be sure of anything you are pointing out to us". DS Cietak replied: "I agree that this is footage in the distance, however the shapes that we’ve pointed out are undeniable.
"They also differ to anything else in the in between that we see. For me, it does carry some significance."
Chapman was then called to give evidence from the witness box on Tuesday afternoon at the beginning of his defence case. On the stand, he admitted that he "wasn't the best person" after amassing a string of convictions as a juvenile and a young adult.
However, he said he had "definitely calmed down" after his last spell behind bars - during which time his first child was born. But his involvement in crime continued, having also been part of a team of burglars who carried out a break-in which is said to have been a "precursor event" leading up to the fatal shooting.
Wearing a white shirt and light grey tie with his long brown hair tied up in a bun, the defendant was flanked by two security guards with Elle's family sat only a few feet behind him in the public gallery as he addressed the jury. Chapman denied being part of an "organised crime group", with the prosecution having alleged that "wholly innocent" Ms Edwards' death followed a series of "tit for tat" incidents between feuding groups from the Woodchurch and Beechwood estates.
When Mr Rhind asked him to "describe his behaviour when you were a teenager", he replied: "I wasn’t the best person. I committed crimes when I was younger, yeah."
Mr Rhind asked: "There’s a lot of room between not being the best and being the worst. Did you commit crimes regularly?"
Chapman said: "Petty crimes, yeah. When I was younger.
"When I was younger, I was served with an order not to be on the estate because of people hanging around. I kept breaching it, kept going on the estate."
Mr Rhind then read out a series of charges found on his criminal record. These included shoplifting, burglary, section 47 assault, possession of an offensive weapon, threatening behaviour, being found on enclosed premises, being carried in a stolen car, breaching a conditional discharge, using a vehicle without insurance, driving without a licence, theft of a motor vehicle, possession of cocaine, breaching a criminal behaviour order, breaching the peace, possession of cannabis, possession of a knife, failing to surrender to custody, aggravated vehicle taking, dangerous driving and failing to comply with a community order.
The defence silk said of this: "You say not the best, that’s perhaps an understated way of describing that record. How often would you be getting into trouble with the police?"
Chapman responded: "Regularly, it was quite regular yeah. Probably from 2019, I was in custody more than I was out of custody yeah.”
Mr Rhind asked: "Did you, in late 2022 and early 2023, consider you’d changed a bit?"
Chapman said: “Definitely calmed down yeah. It’s a bit hard to.
"There’s evidence to suggest I hadn’t. But from the way I was acting in the past, yeah definitely."
He sighed and added: "Everything had changed really. I was allowed back on the estate.
"That wasn’t really a problem. I’d had me daughter, in February 2022 she was born.
"I was in custody. I got locked up two months before the birth."
Chapman, who has become a father for a second time since being remanded into custody again, also said he had spent "the last four Christmases" prior to 2022 in jail. Mr Rhind continued: "You say you were a different person, but you were still involved in criminality.
"Why were you still involved in crime? How and why?"
He said of this: "I got released from custody in June or July. At that point, I’d had my daughter.
"I was fed up with my whole life, it has just been in custody or on the run from custody. I’d had my daughter while I was in custody.
"It had a big effect on me, so I wanted to change the way I was living. I knew that I didn’t want to go back to custody.
"I’d done enough time in custody for general petty crimes. I got out, tried to sort my life out.
"It just didn’t go the way I planned. Cos in the past I’ve give meself a certain, like you’ve read me offences that I’ve committed.
"A lot of people don’t agree with the way I have been as a person. I got a job when I got out, and it didn’t work out for whatever reason."
Chapman said he had been given the keys to his house on Houghton Road around August 2022 and "had bills to pay", but was unemployed. He told the court: "Family did help me out, but I couldn’t just live off other people.
"I tried to get a job. It didn’t work out for whatever reason and I just went back to doing what I knew best, selling drugs."
Chapman said that he had been involved in dealing cocaine "by myself" at a "very, very low level". This would see him buy half an ounce of the class A drug for "550, 600 pounds", which he would then sell onwards in 32 separate deals - earning him "around £400 a week".
He also said that a man called Curtis Byrne had recruited him to become involved in a burglary which occurred on Thirlmere Drive in Noctorum in November last year, in which two electric bikes were stolen, recalling: "Curtis had just messaged me and asked me if I wanted to go. He said what he assumed is gonna be there and I went with him."
Day 12 - Wednesday, June 27
Under continued questioning Mr Rhind, Chapman claimed a man he had known for around six months made arrangements to use the Mercedes - which he described as a "pool car" shared between several people - that evening. He said the vehicle was "usually" used for selling drugs.
Referring to the footage said to show Chapman leaving his home before the murder, Mr Rhind said: "The prosecution case is that man got into the car and drove straight to Wallasey, it was that man who was involved in the murder of Elle Edwards. Do you know if that is right or wrong?"
Chapman replied: “I don’t know whether it’s right or wrong. My personal opinion is it was never one person, just based on what I see.
"You see the person who comes to my house. You can see that, I wouldn’t suggest he’s wearing the same type of clothes as the person who does the shooting.
"It’s definitely not the same type of clothes. It’s just an opinion really, he definitely hasn’t got the same clothes on as the person who done the shooting.
"I find it pretty hard to believe it was one person who sat outside the pub for three and a bit hours on his own. To me it doesn’t make sense, but that is my opinion."
Chapman previously admitted a charge of handling stolen goods in relation to a black Mercedes A Class, which was driven from his home to the scene of the shooting by the perpetrator and then onwards to Private Drive. Mr Rhind asked him to give his explanation as to why he was involved in the burning out of this vehicle at a remote location in Frodsham on New Year's Eve.
He said: "I knew the car hadn’t been burnt out. I never took any precaution to not be forensically linked to that car.
"I spoke to someone who had been speaking to the person who come and collected the car. We're talking a week after the car had been involved.
"The car had been parked in the Lighthouse for three hours. It didn't make sense a week later that somebody would have that car.
"The car had been involved in a murder. I don’t think it takes a criminal to understand, the normal process would be you would just burn the car wouldn’t you?
"I decided to locate the person, locate the car and get it burnt. Tom had spoken to them.
"Thomas was having a party on New Year's Eve, and the person was meant to be going to Tom’s. There was a good few people going.
"It was somebody everyone hangs around, where most people go. It’s out the way."
Chapman claimed that the man had been planning to sell the Mercedes, adding: "I was the one who suggested that the car be burnt out. They wanted to sell it.
"He was going to let it die down and sell the car, it just leaves bread crumbs and tracing stuff back. We had a disagreement about it."
Mr Rhind asked what Chapman's "role" was, and he replied: "Literally just to pick him up and drop it off. There was only one way the car was going to get burnt out and that was if I was going to be involved in it."
When the defence silk quizzed his client on whether he had "physically" torched the car, he responded: "I did not put petrol on the car. No."
However, Chapman confessed to being present when the vehicle was set on fire. Mr Rhind continued: "Then where do you go?"
The defendant said: "From that point, I dropped the person off in Bromborough and I went back to Tom’s for 20 minutes. It must have been 20 minutes, half an hour."
Nigel Power KC, prosecuting, began cross-examining Chapman during the afternoon session. He read out a lengthy message published on his Facebook page on December 28, four days after the shooting.
The status said: "I don'tdo dis face book s*** bu some times some one needs to stand up and get d movement moven. Give a f*** wha eny one thinks of me postin this, s***s getn out of hand and no one needs dis in there life or to happen to there family.
"That's one thing we all have in common we all have family and this could of been enyones tragedy. It's not that deep it's not unstoppable.
"Some real petty s*** goin on out ere. Let's see who wants to stand up and b a man n make not just your own life bu every ones around u a little Easyer to live every day cuz enough is enough.
"No one needs dis s*** in there life. No one's a gangsta and no one's bad.
"It's just f***n stupid n pouintless and a waste of life. When ye sat in jail lookn 20 to life da s*** cuts deep believe me innocent or not SHARE n let's see wha happens cuz ino deep down no one wants dis n it can be squashed if the right ppl get involved."
The message had been posted in response to a status from a man called Jamie Duggan, who called for people to "put down these guns and knives". Chapman said of his own post: "I don’t believe I could have defused any situation.
"Jamie is a well-respected person off the Ford estate, not necessarily on the Woodchurch Estate. Alls it takes sometimes is two people to come together, sit down, speak."
Mr Power asked whether Chapman was a "person of influence", to which he replied: "I’ve grew up on the estate and I know a lot of people off there. I wouldn’t necessarily say I’m a person of influence, I’m just somebody off the estate."
The defendant said he wanted to help "by trying to be in the middle and mediate between people". Mr Power asked of this: "Who were you going to mediate between?"
Chapman responded: "Jamie is clearly a person."
Mr Power continued: "Who were you going to mediate for on the Woodchurch estate?"
He said: "There’s certain things the jury haven’t been told and it doesn’t need to be brought up."
Mr Power then asked: "Who were you going to mediate with?"
Chapman replied: “The people who were having a feud with people off the Ford. I’m not prepared to name them."
He later added: “I doubt that Facebook post is going to fool anybody if I’m the person you’re saying I am. There’s been no shootings since I’ve been in jail, so I must be the one doing the shootings - is that the suggestion?"
Day 13 - Thursday, June 28
After discussions with counsel in the absence of the jury, trial judge Mr Justice Goose made the decision that the case would not sit today. This was after unforeseen circumstances developed.
Friday, June 29
The trial did not sit today and had not been scheduled to. The case is due to resume on Monday.
