
Crack addict is charged over prison murder of notorious child sex killer
By Stephen Wright and Christian Gysin
A crack addict prisoner has today been charged over the murder of another notorious child sex killer.
Damien Fowkes, 35, was arrested after Colin Hatch was allegedly taken hostage and strangled by a fellow inmate at the maximum security Full Sutton prison near York on Tuesday night.
Police said that Hatch, who was serving life for the appalling sex murder of seven year old Sean Williams, was strangled to death.
The young boy was snatched after going for a bike ride on a summer’s evening in 1993.

Damian Fowkes, left, has been held over the killing of paedophile murderer Colin Hatch, right
Last night the dead boy’s mother said her ex-husband, John Williams, was ‘ecstatic’ over the killing and told her: ‘Justice had finally been done.’
Lynn Williams, 53, said she felt ‘numb’ over the death.
Fowkes is alleged to have taken Hatch hostage for up to an hour before killing him with a ligature in a barricaded cell.
He will appear before magistrates in Beverley, East Yorkshire, by video-link tomorrow, Humberside Police said.
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke ordered an urgent inquiry into the death on the vulnerable prisoners’ wing at Full Sutton prison near York on Tuesday night.
Fowkes, a convicted robber, was transferred there last year from Frankland jail in Durham, another of Britain’s most secure prisons.
The prison inquiry will focus on how Fowkes ended up on the same wing as another reviled paedophile.
One senior source said: ‘It beggars belief that someone who has a burning hatred of paedophiles could be housed in the same wing as someone like Hatch.’ Police confirmed a 35-year-old prisoner had been arrested on suspicion of murder.

Murdered: Seven-year-old Sean Williams
Hatch, 38, was serving life for the murder of Sean in North London in 1993, while on parole for a previous child sex attack. He had a string of convictions for assaulting young boys when he was locked up in January 1994.
Jailing Hatch, Judge Nina Lowry said he was ‘highly dangerous’ and told him it was not possible to envisage a time when he could be released safely.
Sentencing him at the Old Bailey, the judge said: ‘In my judgment, you should never be released back into the community while there remains the slightest danger you will reoffend.’
Unemployed Hatch, then 21, smirked when he heard the verdict. Two years previously, he was jailed for three years for assaulting a boy of eight in almost identical circumstances.
His lawyer warned he could kill when he was released.
Within 11 weeks of being paroled in April 1993, Hatch fulfilled that chilling prediction.
Sean was abducted, sexually assaulted and choked to death after Hatch lured him to his tower block home in Norfolk Close, Finchley, North London.
A postman discovered the youngster’s body taped up in bin liners and dumped in a lift.
Last night the woman who Fowkes married in 2005, Julie Christie, claimed not to know of his murder arrest.
Before slamming the door, Miss Christie, 39, claimed they had split up. The couple had a daughter in 1998.
Fowkes’s mother, Jayne White, could not be reached for comment at her home nearby.
Since the Huntley incident, several social networking tribute pages have been set up ‘in honor’ of Fowkes, praising him for the attack.
Fowkes is due to stand trial for attempted murder at Newcastle Crown Court in July. At a previous hearing, he pleaded not guilty to both charges.
‘I’m numb’ says murdered boy’s mother
The mother of the seven-year-old boy murdered by Colin Hatch said she was ‘numbed’ by the news of the killer’s death.
Lynn Williams last saw son Sean as he sped off for a bike ride near his home just before 6pm on July 19, 1993. He had shouted: ‘Love you, Mum’ before cycling away.
Just 15 minutes later, he was snatched by Hatch.
‘Hearing the news that Hatch had been murdered himself brought back all the memories,’ Mrs Williams, 53, said last night. ‘I feel just numb at the moment – it feels just like the day Sean died and I have just been going through everything in my mind.
‘I don’t feel pleased about what has happened to Hatch. He has died leaving so many questions unanswered. What I do feel, though, is that perhaps his family will begin to understand what dealing with grief is all about.’
Mrs Williams, a carer who was recently made redundant, added that she was ‘appalled’ that news of Hatch’s death came from her ex-husband rather than the authorities.
‘I could have turned on the television myself and that would have been a hell of a shock.

Anguish: The funeral of seven-year-old Sean Williams. His parents John and Lynne Williams follow the coffin
‘My former husband John rang when he saw the news on TV and it’s fair to say that both he and my daughter Sarah were ecstatic at the news. John said justice had finally been done after 18 years.’
Mrs Williams, who lives with a new partner in Friern Barnet, North London, added: ‘I did ask the authorities if I could visit Hatch to talk to him. There were things I wanted to know – for instance, why there were certain bruises on Sean’s body.
‘I have always wanted to know exactly what happened once he got Sean in that flat because over the years I have had nightmares about what might or might not have been done to my son.’
Mrs Williams added: ‘I am really the only member of the family who still goes to visit Sean. I went to see him this morning and told him what had happened with Hatch.’
The Prison Service contacted Mrs Williams at 5pm, seven hours after the story broke.
This s real life drama … amazing situation … different people might hold different judgements over this … and people debate over human rights a lot these days …
Human rights – Oh, how we love those two words … but what is it? this so called “right” anyway? according to the law … it says:
Article 2: Right to life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary.
- in defense of any person from unlawful violence.
- in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.
- in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
oh but … it also says:
Article 6: The right to a fair and public hearing
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
Well … now I’m seriously confused … now according to the law … who has violated whose rights here??
Everyone, irrelevant to their deeds … have ‘rights’ … hence protected by the law … a criminal as same as a low abiding human? … really? oh wow …
If by giving only a “life sentence “to a person (an animal sort, who’s been born in the form of a human) who destroyed an innocent life … a defenseless little child … justifying ‘his ‘human rights, haven’t’ the law fail miserably here?
I do think so …
law surely has stolen the justice away from a poor little boy … and of his parents …
Now … there’s this other felon ….what about him?? Has he done the correct thing, taking law in to his hands? has he given the due justice to Sean and his parents? … on behalf of the law? …
not that I approve of his fabulous life style … but I’d say … yes …
By saying this … I dont declare ‘eye for an eye’ … all I ‘m saying is … verdict by law isn’t accurate … always … in the public eyes …
Would I become a criminal? for voicing my strong opinions? … certainly not … you see I’m protected by ‘Human rights‘ too…
why … I’m allowed to hold my opinion as per another act
“Freedom of Expression” …
as it says :
Article 10: Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
alas … my freedom … how wonderful!