Gladys Hammond

At the recent sentencing of the SHAC 7 the alleged theft of Gladys Hammond’s body from her grave was mentioned yet again despite having nothing to do with the SHAC campaign. The constant 'resurrection' of Gladys is clearly 'used' to convey to the public that all animal rights campaigners are callous fanatics. While most of the media have mentioned the grave-theft at one time or another none of them have made any effort whatsoever to authenticate the story.

The Alleged Grave-Theft

Allegedly it all began on the 6th October 2004 when the Staffordshire police would have you believe that two protesters visited the quiet countryside village of Yoxall in Staffordshire at the dead of night, armed with one fold-up spade, to steal Gladys Hammond from her grave. Anyone who has visited Yoxall will know that the graveyard is completely surrounded by houses. A female OAP was then said to have travelled some distance with the corpse before carrying it (dressed in a pink shroud) up four flights of stairs to the flat she shared with her Jack Russell, who was very partial to a bone ! Nineteen months later, in May 2006, Gladys Hammond was supposedly found on Cannock Chase.

Contradictions in the Alleged Grave Theft

1. An 84 year old was said to have noticed the “disturbed” grave whilst police photographs showed a professionally dug grave with precise sides and corners.
2. The vicar said the plaque was on the coffin lid whereas police photographs showed the plaque lying on the soil nearby and there was no coffin lid.
3. Police said bones were left at the grave which was a contradiction to what Janet Palmer (Gladys Hammond's daughter) said. She stated she “was relieved that her mother's body had been kept intact”.
4. Police said the gravestone was “smashed” yet police photographs clearly showed Gladys Hammond's name on the complete gravestone.
5. The Forestry Commission reported the corpse could only have lain where it was found for a very short time whereas the police stated it had been there for a considerable length of time.

The OAP

The OAP was subsequently arrested on 1 December 2004 at 08.20hrs. She was totally unaware that her arrest had been headline news on the local news stations at 08.00hrs. As she was escorted from her flat by 3 detectives there were 6 police officers with large boxes waiting on the stairs to search her flat and seize her property. She was taken to the police station and questioned on and off throughout the day. The 6 officers found no trace of Gladys in the flat and the OAP was released without charge later that evening. The next day, despite making international media headlines as a grave-robber and named as a defendant in the High Court Application to ban all protests at the guinea-pig farm, the Judge allowed the OAP to continue her protests !

When the OAP eventually learned that the witness who had identified her as a “5’10” male with not dark hair seen standing as lookout at Yoxall cemetery in mid September 2004” and later changed her description to a “5’4” female with no hair” was the Rev. Jenny Lister vicar of Yoxall she couldn’t understand why a vicar would blatantly lie about her until she received a cutting from the local paper through the post which told of the arrest and charging of the Rev. Peter Lister (Jenny’s husband) for sexually abusing a 14 year old boy some years previously. She immediately thought what a great incentive for the vicar to lie if she could “do a deal” with the CPS to incriminate the OAP if they dropped the sexual abuse charge against her husband. This is exactly what the CPS did at his trial in Northumbria in 2005. Would vicars lie ? Well Jenny Lister certainly lied because the OAP had never visited Yoxall cemetery. Peter Lister also lied because the OAP has since met the person he sexually abused which means the two vicars have got away with horrific crimes whilst being aided and abetted by the Staffordshire police and the CPS. Meanwhile the OAP's solicitors have been refused the legal aid she needs in order to clear her name because the Legal Funding Commission “do not consider her case to be in the public's interests”.