PEOPLE living in the Gillam Street area of Worcester when three children were murdered in 1973 say the killer should "die behind bars".
David McGreavy, dubbed the 'Monster of Worcester' after murdering three children and impaling their bodies on railings in the city is being considered for a release from prison, it has been confirmed.
McGreavy slaughtered Paul Ralph, four, and his sisters Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha in their Worcester home more than 40 years ago.
Paul had been strangled, Dawn was found with her throat cut, and Samantha died from a compound fracture to the skull.
McGreavy, a family friend and lodger, then impaled their mutilated bodies on the spiked garden railings of a house in Gillam Street, Rainbow Hill.
He was jailed for life in 1973 but is now being considered for parole.
Judy Lessemun had recently moved to a house on the corner of Vigornia Avenue and Gillam Street with her husband Roger at the time of the murders.
She said: "We hadn't long been married. I was walking up the road and I got stopped by police and they said: 'You can't go up that way'.
"Everybody was just in shock. To kill innocent children is bad enough but to hang them on the railings in the back garden for anybody to see - it was traumatic.
"It was very upsetting. I know everybody round here was absolutely devastated."
"I think it [McGreavy getting released] is disgusting because I have always said life for a life, so he should have had three life sentences.
"I'm sorry, but he should die behind bars or a mental hospital for him to go into."
Karen Robinson was born in Gillam Street and was around seven years old at the time of the murders.
She said: "It is just shocking. It is just a horrendous crime that he committed, three very young children.
"I do not think he should be released."
The mother of the murdered children has said dying in prison would be "too much of a luxury" for McGreavy.
Dorothy Urry, 65, says there should be "no question" about ever setting him free.
"What can I say? Everything I say doesn't do any good anyway," she said.
"I've wrote to the Parole Board, I done all I can do. They shouldn't even be considering it. He hasn't done his time and that's all there is to it."
She added: "I just feel that if I knew that they were going to release him, on the day that they release him, if I knew what prison he was in I would be waiting at the bloody gate and I would kill the bastard. I'm just so angry.
"This has been going on for the last seven or eight years - I've got to fight every year to keep him in prison.
"Why should I have to keep fighting? There should be no question about keeping him in. He should be left in there until he bloody dies and even that's too much of a luxury for him."
The Parole Board has confirmed that McGreavy's case is under consideration.
A spokesman added: "We can confirm that a panel of the Parole Board is currently considering the parole review for David McGreavy.
"At this time, we have not received the panel's decision. We are unable to comment further on the details of this case."
McGreavy, aged 21 at the time, had been a lodger at the home of Clive and Dorothy Ralph in March 1973 and the couple had left him to babysit on the night of the murders.
Returning home just before midnight, the couple discovered the house in a mess and blood everywhere.
Then, at 1.20am, a police officer found the bodies of the three children impaled on some metal-spiked garden railings between gardens.
Police found McGreavy at 3.05am in nearby Lansdowne Road. He was interviewed in a police car and then taken to a police station.
He was later sentenced to life imprisonment.
Speaking to the Worcester News in 2013, 40 years after McGreavy was sentenced, Worcester's MP Robin Walker said: "It’s one of those cases people feel extremely strongly about, given it is such a hideous crime.
"It is one of those cases where people feel life should mean life."
HOW THE HORROR UNFOLDED IN APRIL 1973:
DAVID McGreavy became a lodger at the home of Clive and Dorothy Ralph in March 1973 after getting to know Mr Ralph at the Vauxhall public house, where they both drank.
The incident started the night before the murders, on Thursday, April 12. McGreavy had been left in charge of the three children - Paul, aged four, Dawn, aged two, and Samantha, nine months.
Mr and Mrs Ralph returned home just before midnight to be told by McGreavy that Samantha had been hurt and was bleeding from the mouth.
When they looked at her, they found her right eye bloodshot and her cheek bruised. Her right arm also appeared to be injured because she could not use it properly.
At McGreavy's court case it was learned that the next morning, on Friday 13, Mrs Ralph took the little girl to hospital because of her injuries. A doctor thought Samantha might have been subjected to some ill-treatment at home, and wrote a query on his report.
But a second doctor, who did not have any suspicions, and did not read the notes, sent the toddler back home.
That night, according to what the judge read in court, Mrs Ralph went to work and McGreavy went to the pub.
Mr Ralph also left the house after putting the children to bed and went to collect his wife from work, but first went to get McGreavy to take him home to babysit.
The couple returned home just before midnight and discovered the house in a mess and blood everywhere.
At 1.20am, a police officer found the bodies of the three children impaled on some metal-spiked garden railings between gardens.
Police found McGreavy at 3.05am in nearby Lansdowne Road. He was interviewed in a police car and then taken to a police station.
The next afternoon he began to cry and put his head between his knees. He said: "It was me, it wasn't me. She wouldn't stop crying. I put my hand across her face and carried on from there."
The judge in the case, Mr Justice Ashworth, said at the time: "There is only one sentence I can pass, and that is life imprisonment.
"But in this case, so appalling to the Crown, and in the public interest so grave as to risk any repetition, I recommend the sentence should not elapse before 20 years."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel