Convicted Killer Admits Confession Based on Double Jeopardy Belief

A convicted murderer has acknowledged to a Parole Board panel that he confessed to killing a woman because he believed he was protected from retrial by the double jeopardy law. In 1989, William Dunlop strangled 22-year-old Julie Hogg and concealed her body under a bath at her residence in Billingham, County Durham. Despite this, juries twice acquitted him. His confession to a prison guard occurred in 1999. However, he could only face renewed prosecution after Ms Hogg’s family successfully advocated for a change in the law. Consequently, he received a life sentence with a minimum term of 17 years in 2006. Dunlop had initially sought full release from incarceration. Nevertheless, upon learning that professionals were advising only a transfer to open prison conditions, he modified his application. During the second day of the partially public Parole Board hearing, the 61-year-old Dunlop stated that his confession was motivated solely by “selfish” reasons, rather than a desire to assist Ms Hogg’s family. The hearing is taking place at an undisclosed prison and is being transmitted to the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where Ms Hogg’s mother, Ann Ming, and son, Kevin Hogg, are observing the proceedings. Dunlop, who had previously informed the panel that he was a “violent” and “hideous” individual, driven by alcohol and anger at the time of Ms Hogg’s murder, expressed that he was “not comfortable” with the “monster” he once was. He commenced the hearing by offering an apology for his “defensive” demeanor on the preceding day, when discussing past offenses such as violent abuse of girlfriends and a “murderous attack” on a love rival using a baseball bat. His confessions to a prison guard were made while he was serving a seven-year sentence for that particular assault. “My confessing was a purely selfish thing,” he stated, further explaining that he had “wrongly” believed confessing would “free” him, enable him to move forward, and “get help for the violence going on in my head.” He was questioned regarding whether he made the admission with the knowledge that he was protected from further prosecution following his previous acquittals. “Yeah,” Dunlop responded, but also noted that he was aware it constituted perjury, for which he was later imprisoned. He informed the panel that he attempted to involve another individual because his thoughts were solely focused on himself. When queried about his ability to lie for such an extended period concerning the murder, Dunlop replied: “With great difficulty.” He acknowledged the characterization of himself as an “able liar” but assured the panel that he had participated in treatment and exerted effort “above and beyond” to “show who I am now” and “how I have moved away from it.” He explained that his violent behavior stemmed from rejection, humiliation, and wounded pride, and that he “never dealt with life’s problems,” adding: “From an early age [violence] was what I knew best.” Dunlop stated that Ms Hogg’s killing was related to “pride” and his feeling of being “humiliated in front of people,” and he conceded that, had he been released from prison in the early 2000s, it was a “possibility” he might have committed further murders. When questioned about his feelings regarding his crimes, Dunlop’s voice began to falter, and he conveyed to the panel: “I’m struggling to hold it together.” He asserted that at the time, he was “not a nice person,” but claimed the panel “wouldn’t believe how far I have moved from violence.” “I wish I had never created all [those] victims but I did,” Dunlop remarked. He confessed that there was a “sexual element” to Ms Hogg’s murder and that he felt disgusted by it. Asked what he would communicate to Ms Hogg’s family currently, he expressed a desire to apologize to them for all “these years and the years to come.” “I know it’s of little consequence but I do regret what I have done to them,” Dunlop stated, further mentioning that his anger “destroyed so many lives” and that Ms Hogg was a “lovely” and “really witty” woman. He also affirmed that he harbored no animosity towards Ms Hogg’s family and had no desire to rekindle past relationships, as his violence had “destroyed them beyond all repair.” The Parole Board will issue a recommendation concerning Dunlop, but the ultimate decision rests with the secretary of state. A panel in 2022 had recommended his transfer to an open prison, but this request was denied. Dunlop informed the current panel that he initially felt anger at the refusal but swiftly shifted his focus to planning his progress and submitting a new application, adding: “I can accept rejection now.” He indicated that the potential “risks” associated with his presence in the community centered on forming relationships, which he would avoid, maintaining a “check on emotions,” and substance misuse. He stated that he has abstained from alcohol since 1997. Dunlop mentioned that he had been advised that, if released into the community, he would need to “reign in how open and honest I am talking to people” regarding subjects such as emotions. He asserted that he had transitioned from being an “angry man.” Dunlop conveyed that he was happier as a positive individual and had been “shown a different way of dealing with things.” A psychologist, who conducted 21 hours of assessment on Dunlop, informed the panel that she considered his transformation to be sincere and that he had been “open and honest.” She stated that a challenging childhood was “no excuse” for his behavior but did provide an explanation for his aggression, deceitfulness, and how he “viewed the world as a very hostile place,” adding that he became proficient in violence, which allowed him to “fit in” with others in his life. The psychologist also noted that he was motivated by “problematic core beliefs,” including a fear of rejection and a lack of control, but that he had since completed numerous intensive programs and therapy courses to alter his thought patterns. Dunlop’s community offender manager, who had collaborated with him for four years, stated that he had completed all available work in prison, and the “next step” to assess “how honest and open” he truly was would involve placing him in open conditions, which offer a “safety net.” She expressed her belief that Dunlop “genuinely felt” he was reformed, but cautioned that until he encountered new, challenging situations, it would be impossible to ascertain the full extent of his transformation. She further mentioned that Dunlop’s conduct in prison over the last ten years had been “exemplary.” The hearing remains ongoing.