'We're murderers. Call the police': A baby-faced boy, 14, and his brother beheaded their hated stepfather, but was it revenge or desperation...and did they deserve their punishment?

Dozing on his sofa, the 54-year-old was stabbed more than 60 times, the wounds inflicted to his neck so severe that he was almost beheaded.

But as horrific as his death was, it was the identity of his killers that would send shockwaves through the local community and beyond.

Brothers Joshua and Jerome Ellis were aged 23 and just 14 when, armed with two kitchen knives, they launched their savage assault.

Their victim was no stranger to them – Mr Tulley was their mother’s partner and at the time they were all living together as a family.

Thirteen years have passed since the night that the painter and decorator met his bloody fate and yet this tragic case continues to fascinate.

This was never a traditional whodunnit – the brothers were arrested soon after and admitted carrying out the killing.

But both would subsequently claim that the circumstances that drove them to take Mr Tulley’s life meant that they were not murderers.

Pictured: 14-year-old Jerome Ellis. Their victim was no stranger to them – Mr Tulley was their mother’s partner and at the time they were all living together as a family

The Jury: 14 And On Trial For Murder, takes 12 ordinary men and women and films them as they reach their verdicts in a murder trial. Pictured: Oliver Shaw and James Desmier who play characters inspired by Jerome and Joshua

The picture painted in their subsequent trial was one of a deeply dysfunctional childhood during which they were neglected and threatened while their mother, Marie, was beaten and abused by Mr Tulley.

While the prosecution claimed the killing was a cold-blooded, calculated act of revenge, at their subsequent trial both boys pleaded not guilty to murder, claiming ‘loss of control’, a defence that, if accepted by the jury, would reduce the charge to manslaughter.

It was that element of the trial – as well as the age of Jerome – that has now seen the case feature in not one but two small-screen recreations.

In 2019 it was the inspiration behind Responsible Child, a 90-minute BBC dramatisation directed by BAFTA winner Nick Holt.

Now it can be revealed that the story of the Ellis brothers is once again back on television, this time on Channel 4.

The Jury: 14 And On Trial For Murder, takes 12 ordinary men and women and films them as they reach their verdicts in a murder trial.

Normally, jurors’ deliberations are shrouded in mystery and never publicly filmed, let alone broadcast. But the purpose of The Jury, which is now in its third series, is to grant viewers a warts-and-all view of the process by which people drawn from all walks of life are thrown together to reach a decision that will have life-changing ramifications.

What makes this televised social experiment all the more gripping is that the case is not a scripted television drama, but a real one - albeit with names, dates and locations changed.

Every detail of the court case played out by actors was taken from actual transcripts of the real hearing, at Guildford Crown Court in 2014.

Last year, the second series won a BAFTA for Best Reality and Constructed Factual Show, famously beating out the highly-rated second series of The Traitors.

Neil Tulley’s attackers clearly wanted him dead. Dozing on his sofa, the 54-year-old (pictured) was stabbed more than 60 times, the wounds inflicted to his neck so severe that he was almost beheaded

Brothers Joshua  (pictured) and Jerome Ellis were aged 23 and just 14 when, armed with two kitchen knives, they launched their savage assault

Thirteen years have passed since the night that the painter and decorator met his bloody fate and yet this tragic case continues to fascinate. Now it can be revealed that the story of the Ellis brothers is once again back on television, this time on Channel 4

While Channel 4 always decline to confirm details of the real case on which the show is based, The Daily Mail can reveal that the current series, which reaches its conclusion this Thursday, follows the Ellis brothers’ trial

While Channel 4 always decline to confirm details of the real case on which the show is based, The Daily Mail can reveal that the current series, which reached its conclusion this week, follows the Ellis brothers’ trial.

Sources say that ahead of its broadcast, relatives of those involved are forewarned.

But the programme’s past retellings of other crimes have not gone down well with those affected.

The first series featured the case of Thomas Crompton and his wife Angela Phillips who was killed in a brutal attack at the home they shared in Norfolk, in 2012.

He too was charged with murder only to also argue loss of control, with the real jury at his actual trial finding him guilty of manslaughter, after which he was jailed for seven-and-a-half years.

As one close relative observed of Channel 4’s repurposing of that case: ‘I didn’t want it made. This is the last thing we need. Everybody was beginning to rebuild their lives.’

No doubt similar emotions will be being experienced by those who have tried to move on from what happened to Mr Tulley at his home in Guildford, Surrey in 2013. Approached by the Daily Mail, his relatives as well as relatives of the brothers declined to comment.

But the Channel 4 recreation will doubtless have made difficult viewing, with not just the actions of the two killers, but the character of both Mr Tulley and the boys’ mother once again put under the microscope.

That Joshua and Jerome had a deeply troubled upbringing there can be little doubt.

The real jury heard of constant friction within the household between Mr Tulley, the brothers and their mother.

In January 2012, Jerome, the younger brother, had been living with his father, Gary Ellis, but was thrown out after he discovered he’d been sneaking off to visit his mother and older brother Joshua in secret.

With nowhere else to go, he went to his mother’s house, where she lived with Joshua, Mr Tulley and their three young children.

Mr Tulley was not keen on Jerome moving in, however, arguing there was no room for him in the small - frequently dirty and chaotically untidy - house. A fierce argument ensued.

The Channel 4 recreation will doubtless have made difficult viewing, with not just the actions of the two killers, but the character of both Mr Tulley and the boys’ mother once again put under the microscope

Pictured: Jerome Ellis leaves Guildford Crown Court. In his evidence, Jerome told the court he was not thinking properly at the time of the killing and that the events were a blur

‘Josh and my mum were happy we were there but Neil didn’t want us to live there or to stay there,’ Jerome told the court. ‘He told my mother that we shouldn’t stay there.’

Jerome described how Mr Tulley went to the shed and fetched an axe, swinging it at Joshua and telling him he was going to kill him.

‘I was in the same room,’ said Jerome. ‘They were right there. I saw him try to kill my brother with an axe.’

The youngster described how his brother managed to block the weapon, grappling it from Mr Tulley’s grasp.

Mr Tulley was duly charged with attempted murder – but was acquitted.

To the boys’ horror, he returned to the house - first staying in a shed in the garden and then moving on to the sofa.

Jerome said he felt like they ‘were all in danger’ and that Mr Tulley was often drunk, aggressive and abusive to him, his brother and their mum.

As well as the incident with the axe, the court heard there was a history of abuse involving Mr Tulley and Marie.

In 2003 he received a 16-hour community punishment for common assault, while in 2009 he was handed a community punishment and a restraining order after he grabbed her around the neck and threatened to kill her.

In the months leading up to the fatal attack things did not improve. Teachers at Jerome’s school noticed he was going hungry and gave him food, as well as money for clothes.

The school also recorded that he was acting as a carer for his mother and his younger siblings.

Joshua, meanwhile, was said to have been suffering from depression and living as a virtual recluse in the attic.

In August 2013 matters came to a head. On the night in question Joshua came into his younger brother’s bedroom and told him what had happened during an argument between their mother and Mr Tulley.

Joshua was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years, meaning he is still in prison. Jerome was given a six-year sentence for manslaughter

Every detail of the court case played out by actors was taken from actual transcripts of the real hearing, at Guildford Crown Court in 2014

The jury on the Channel 4 version of the trial will deliver their verdicts this Thursday. Only after they do so will they be informed as to whether their decision matched that of the original jury

‘He told me he [Mr Tulley] said he was going to get his axe, after they had had an argument,’ said Jerome. ‘He told me that he was going to get the axe that he had in the shed.’

Jerome said that about a week earlier he had unscrewed the lock on the shed because he was worried about what was in there - and discovered the axe had been returned to Mr Tulley.

‘After Josh told me that Neil had done that, he told me we had to get him,’ said Jerome.

He said he agreed and that it seemed the only option because Mr Tulley was a threat to everyone in the family.

‘We went to the kitchen and we took two knives from the drawer and we attacked him,’ he told jurors.

The body was found the next day on the sofa with more than 60 knife wounds.

Afterwards, the brothers fled to a forest, still covered in Mr Tulley’s blood, where they planned to kill themselves, Jerome said.

They evaded police for several days before turning up in a churchyard a few miles away, where Joshua told a bell ringer, ‘We’re murderers,’ and asked him to contact the police.

They led police to the knives which they had buried in bags in a riverside nature reserve.

In his evidence, Jerome told the court he was not thinking properly at the time of the killing and that the events were a blur.

However, prosecution barrister Philip Katz put it to him that he could remember the events more clearly than he claimed.

‘Things were going from bad to worse in that house after [Mr Tulley’s] acquittal and I suggest that you were angry,’ he said. ‘An element of revenge was involved in what subsequently happened ... You must have realised, when you looked at him lying on the sofa like that, that actually he was no threat at all,’ he said.

‘Not at that specific moment, no,’ replied Jerome.

‘What, so you just went over and stuck the knife in him?’ asked Mr Katz.

Jerome said: ‘We just went and attacked him.’

Asked why the police were not called during the argument, the teenager replied: ‘We had tried the police before, he was acquitted and came back to the house and continued to be abusive. I wanted to protect my family and if that meant doing that [killing Mr Tulley] then that was the only option.’

Barristers for both brothers put forward the ‘loss of control’ defence but only Jerome gave evidence. The defence for Joshua also argued for diminished responsibility due to mental illness.

The jury convicted Joshua of murder – but cleared Jerome.

Joshua was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years, meaning he is still in prison. Jerome was given a six-year sentence for manslaughter.

Sentencing the younger brother, Judge Christopher Critchlow told him: ‘This case is unusual and difficult to categorise in my judgment but you never would have gone and done what you did but for your brother coming in to your room that night.’

He added that he hoped that Jerome might be able to turn his life around, stating: ‘Given your youth, this court hopes that whatever therapy or psychotherapy you receive will ensure that upon release you will be able to lead a normal life. You have ability and you should, with guidance and therapy, be able to do yourself justice in the course of time.’

It is understood that Jerome served three years in a Young Offenders Institution before being released on probation in 2017. Now 27, he is thought to now be living under a new identity and his whereabouts is unknown.

The jury on the Channel 4 version of the trial delivered their verdicts on Thursday.

They found the younger brother not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on the basis of loss of control. 

However, the jury on the show did not reach a verdict where at least ten of them agreed about the older sibling. They failed to come to a verdict.

Following their decisions the jury on the Channel 4 programme were informed as to whether their decision matched that of the original jury.  

A moment of drama, all be it one played out for ratings - rather than in real life.