On 3 June 1991, 21-year-old Alison Shaughnessy (née Blackmore; born 7 November 1969) was stabbed to death in the stairwell of her flat near Clapham Junction station.

A witness reported seeing two women running from Shaughnessy's building after the murder, and fingerprints found at the scene matched those of Michelle and her sister Lisa Taylor, who claimed never to have been there.

The Taylor sisters were found guilty of the murder in 1992, but one year later their convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal because the prosecution had failed to turn evidence over to the defence, and because the sensationalist media coverage may have influenced jurors.

[3] Among the guests at the wedding was Michelle Taylor, a work friend of John Shaughnessy, recorded on video being kissed by him on the cheek.

[1] In January 1991, John and Alison Shaughnessy moved to 41 Vardens Road in Battersea (about 400 metres/440 yards from Clapham Junction station).

[2] It appeared Alison had fought with her assailant after being attacked, and was still conscious when the killer inflicted another 24 wounds to the front of her body, cutting her neck and windpipe.

[2] On 24 July 1991, police searched Michelle's room at the Churchill Clinic, where they found a diary in which she recorded her daily thoughts about John and their secret relationship together.

[2] However, a friend of the Taylors named Jeanette Tapp came forward to tell police that she had been with the sisters at Churchill Clinic from 5:15 p.m. onwards, apparently giving them an alibi.

[14] Police believed that the Taylor sisters had left the Churchill Clinic at 4:00 p.m., before driving to Vardens Road and waiting for Alison to return home.

[1] They then sped off in their car, driving the 10 or 11-minute journey back to the Churchill Clinic, where they were sighted arriving at 6:00 p.m.[1] "I hate Alison, the unwashed bitch.

[1][7] The rarity of two young sisters being tried for the murder of a love rival brought the case huge public attention, and the trial was subject to heavy, and sensational, coverage in the press.

[15] It was pointed out in court that, when the Taylor sisters claimed to Tapp to have been waiting for her there since "just after five" that they were already creating an alibi for themselves before the murder had even been discovered at 8:30 p.m., and they were already trying to cover their tracks for the period around 5-6 p.m. when it was not yet known that was when Shaughnessy died.

[10] The final straw may have been, alleged the prosecution, when John told Michelle only days before the murder that he was planning to give up the flower arranging sessions he did with her every Monday, which was the only time they had together and when they invariably had sex.

[23] At the end of the trial, and after only five and a half hours of deliberation, the jury found the Taylor sisters guilty of murder by a unanimous verdict.

[1] There was some speculation after the trial that the killing could have been influenced by the 1987 film Fatal Attraction, in which a married man has a weekend affair with a woman who refuses to allow it to end and becomes obsessed with him.

[10][25] A number of journalists embarked on a campaign after the trial to try and free the Taylors, believing that the sisters' character showed they must be innocent.

[1] Bob Woffinden, an investigative journalist who campaigned to free prisoners he thought were wrongly imprisoned, such as James Hanratty (posthumously proven to have been guilty) and the killer of Helen McCourt, claimed they must be innocent because he posited that it was a highly unusual case and two women could not have carried out the murder.

[1] The Sun newspaper had printed a front-page photo that made John and Michelle's embrace at the wedding look like a mouth-to-mouth kiss.

[1] One of those who initially campaigned for the Taylors' release, Bernard O'Mahoney, later admitted he had intimidated witnesses to build up the defence case.

[21] For their appeal in 1993 their defence team found the initial informal notes made by an officer who had been speaking to the witness Dr Unsworth-White when he first reported his sighting of the two women coming out of the flat at 5:45 that afternoon.

[1] On these grounds, and after concluding that the press may have influenced the trial, the Court of Appeal acquitted the Taylor sisters and they were released after spending one year in prison.

[1] In July 1995, the Taylor sisters had an attempt to prosecute the newspapers involved in the case rejected by the High Court in London.

[32] In July 2000, it was revealed that the Taylors had instigated a compensation claim against police for their imprisonment after they were freed, but they then dropped it because a civil case investigation had begun to expose evidence that witnesses had been intimidated by their defence team.

[1] The police considered whether Michelle and Lisa Taylor could be charged with perjury or perverting the course of justice (they could not be re-charged with murder because of the double jeopardy laws in place at the time).

[34] In 2005 the law on double jeopardy was changed in England and Wales, allowing individuals (in certain circumstances) to be re-tried for crimes after a previous acquittal.

[39] The Blackmore family hoped that the Taylors could be re-tried for their daughter's murder, but the police informed them that this could not happen without any new evidence materialising.

In 2001, the case was highlighted as such when a trial of professional footballers Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer collapsed due to press and media intrusion.

[42] Defence lawyers argued at the time that this case demonstrated how the collusion of the press and the prosecution lead to inaccurate, incomplete and sensationalist journalism.

Headlines give prominence and weight to the Crown's case without question, but largely ignore or minimise the defence, they then disappear until the verdict, and then descend "like vultures".

The Sun newspaper issued a statement in defence of their coverage of the Taylor sisters murder trial: "Lord Justice McCowan accuses us of sensational reporting.