You can plan a murder, stay 100 miles away while your partner pulls the trigger, and still get 30 years behind bars. That is the cold reality facing Rachel Fulstow.
When Michael Hillier shot Liam Smith in the face and doused his body in sulphuric acid outside his Wigan home in November 2022, Fulstow wasn't anywhere near the crime scene. She was at home in York. Yet, a Manchester crown court jury found her just as guilty of murder as the man who held the weapon.
Journalist Layla Wright recently brought this dark, messy case back into the spotlight with a BBC documentary. It focuses heavily on a controversial legal weapon used by British prosecutors: joint enterprise. The case forces us to confront a terrifying question. How much shared knowledge makes you a murderer?
The Anatomy of a Shared Plot
The prosecution didn't need to prove Fulstow held the shotgun. They proved she helped orchestrate the hit.
In 2019, Fulstow went on a Tinder date with Liam Smith, a 38-year-old father of two. She later claimed this encounter involved non-consensual sex. Fast forward to 2022, Fulstow was dating Michael Hillier, a drug dealer from Sheffield. When Fulstow told Hillier about the alleged assault, the couple decided to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
Greater Manchester Police detectives unpicked a ten-month digital trail showing that this wasn't a sudden outburst of rage. It was a cold, calculated operation. Fulstow ran internet searches for Liam Smith's business and home address. She looked up the phrase "what is premeditated." She searched for the specific Mitsubishi Shogun vehicles Hillier intended to use and even checked how long it takes to completely burn a car to destroy evidence.
While Fulstow dug up the data, Hillier prepared the physical assault. He bought guns online and practiced his aim by shooting in his cellar. Three weeks before the killing, Hillier carried out hostile reconnaissance at Smith’s address, sitting in a vehicle with cloned license plates.
On November 24, 2022, Hillier waited for ten hours outside Smith's house in Shevington. Wearing a high-visibility jacket and a head torch, he lured Smith outside, shot him at point-blank range, and poured sulphuric acid and soda crystals over his body.
The Flaw in the Silent Partner Defense
Fulstow claimed she didn't know Hillier was actually going to kill Smith. She argued that she was terrified of Hillier, describing him as an abusive partner who exercised extreme coercive control over her life. Her defense team argued that looking things up on the internet doesn't equate to pulling a trigger.
The jury didn't buy it. Under the joint enterprise doctrine, if you assist or encourage a crime knowing what the outcome could be, you bear the same legal weight as the principal offender.
Even CPS prosecutors involved in the documentary admitted there was no explicit text message where Fulstow ordered Hillier to kill Smith. She never explicitly said she wanted him dead. But her digital footprints proved she handed Hillier the metaphorical map. You don't look up the legal definition of premeditation or how to properly incinerate a getaway car if you think your boyfriend is just going to have a stern chat with your ex.
What happened after the murder sealed her fate. Instead of going to the police, Fulstow went on holiday to Jamaica with Hillier just days after Liam Smith was killed. She acted normal, kept the secret, and lied to the police during her initial interviews. That behavior led to an additional conviction for perverting the course of justice.
Why Joint Enterprise Stirs Total Chaos in the Legal System
This case sits right at the center of an intense legal debate. Critics of joint enterprise, like the campaign group JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association), argue that the law sweeps up people who are merely associated with bad actors without having real culpability.
The Rachel Fulstow verdict is a textbook example of how far prosecutors can stretch this net. It shows that physical absence provides zero legal protection.
If you provide critical information, research the victim, and plan the logistics, the law views you as the architect. Hillier received a minimum of 33 years. Fulstow received 30. That three-year difference is tiny when you consider she never touched the acid or the gun.
Guarding Your Own Footprint
This verdict sets a massive precedent for the digital age. Your search history is no longer just private curiosity; it is a legally binding blueprint of your intentions.
If you ever find yourself entangled in a situation where someone close to you is threatening violence or planning a criminal act, you need to understand your legal boundaries immediately.
- Distance means nothing: Being in a different city or state won't protect you if you helped supply addresses, maps, or logistics.
- Silence is complicity: If you learn about a violent crime after the fact and help cover it up, use asset resources to hide the perpetrator, or lie to investigators, you can easily be dragged into a full murder charge under joint enterprise or face severe time for perverting the course of justice.
- Document the coercion early: If you are genuinely being controlled or threatened by a partner to help them commit a crime, you must find a way to flag this to external professionals or authorities before the act occurs. Once a body is found, claiming "he made me do it" rarely stands up against months of coordinated internet searches.
The brutal reality of the Liam Smith murder is that a family lost a father, a son, and a brother to vigilante violence. For Fulstow, her digital trail permanently linked her to that violence, proving that the law cares far more about your shared intent than your physical coordinates.
