Pre-ordering Now
It will contain new revelations on the failure to utilise forensic pathology and other sciences and investigative techniques correctly. It will contain important information on how the integrated approach to the investigation of homicides can prevent injustices, and deliver justice. Over a decade after this approach was adopted, it is amazing how little is known about it. It is the standard that investigations should be held to.

We plan to launch this book early in February 2017. Meanwhile, it can be pre-ordered through this site now. Details of its content will be published soon. The price is £12.50 (p&p is separate – £5.00 in UK, £7.50 in European countries, £10-15 in rest of the world).

Register an order on this page. An invoice will confirm the order (pay through options on site or by bacs). Interest can be shown on our facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/fittedinproject/ and also on Twitter: @fittedin1 and through the comments section.

Further information will be posted in due course.

Anniversary

Thirteen years ago today Jeffrey Gafoor made history. Gafoor pleaded guilty to the murder of Lynette White. She was the victim of what was then (February 14th 1988) the most brutal murder of its type in Welsh history. Faced with overwhelming evidence Gafoor admitted that he had murdered Lynette. He had provided samples for DNA testing before attempting to take his own life in February 2003. Police officers from the Lynette White Inquiry Phase II saved his life.

Phase II was one of the best investigations ever. Led by Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin O’Neill, these officers and the forensic scientists, did a fantastic job. They knew that finding the real killer would come at a huge price to the force. No British police force had ever resolved a miscarriage of justice by convicting the real killer in the DNA age. Any force that did so knew that it would unleash a can of worms, the like of which British policing had never faced before. But still, they investigated doggedly and continued until they made history by bringing Gafoor to justice.

A Colossal Error

And then that storm was unleashed. Phase III investigated what went wrong – who was responsible for one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice ever. Thirty-four people were arrested and interviewed under caution on suspicion of offences including conspiring to pervert the course of justice and perjury. Twenty of them were police officers and 13 were told that they would face trial, along with two civilian witnesses.

But before they faced trial three of the alleged eye-witnesses were tried for perjury and conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Mr Justice (Sir David) Maddison ruled that they could not claim duress, as the law demanded that they must retract immediately, but to whom – police officers, the courts? Who? How could they be expected the courts or police after what they had gone through?

Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday (the New Cardiff Three) were convicted – rightly as the law said, but wrongly according to justice and conscience. The court accepted that they had told the lies they were forced to tell and then they were prosecuted for telling them. They were each sentenced to 18 months in prison. This was and remains a huge injustice – the law could not have acted more inappropriately, but worse would soon follow.

Travesty

With 13 police officers and two witnesses due to face trial it was decided that eight former officers, including Graham Mouncher and Richard Powell and the witnesses Ian Massey and Violet Perriam would face trial first. The trial began in 2011. I was due to be a witness against Massey. Nicholas Dean QC and his prosecution team ensured that I would miss virtually all the trial for no good reason – actually there was a very good reason.

We were not meant to see what was unfolding. It would take a very long time to unravel, but unravel it would. The trial collapsed on largely spurious grounds. Disclosure was not what it should have been – that is unarguable, but whose fault is that? The straw that broke the camel’s back was the failure to disclose some documents – copies actually. The originals had been retained, and copies were taken.

The copies were meaningless. It was believed that they had been destroyed – evidence to that effect was given, but it was not true. A month after the sensational collapse of the trial the supposedly destroyed documents were discovered in the very boxes that they had been sent to police by the IPCC.

Unlawful

I had been kept out of the trial until it was far too late – we believe that was their intention all along. South Wales Police chose to cooperate with HMCPSI and the IPCC, both of whom were investigating aspects of the collapse of the trial. The terms of reference established that neither process was worth cooperating with as they would not establish why a notorious miscarriage of justice had been allowed to occur.

I chose not to cooperate and demanded the return of my work product, which was mine alone, as was the copyright on it. The Professional Standards Department unlawfully seized my work and distributed to others against my wishes in flagrant disregard of my rights and copyright.

The justification supplied a year late did not apply to me. Naturally the IPCC – itself an interested party and therefore not an impartial arbiter upheld the ludicrous justification – one that applied to criminal suspects not cooperating witnesses. Both HMCPSI and the IPCC failed miserably to explain why this appalling miscarriage of justice had occurred – inevitable really – as neither was concerned with that and nor was the Home Secretary, Theresa May. Her concern was to avoid a public inquiry.

Squaring the Circle

As early as the first week of the 2011 Police Corruption Trial it became obvious that the prosecution was lacklustre – notwithstanding that the prosecution team could talk a good talk. The defence case was a tried and tested method in such cases – deny that there had ever been a miscarriage of justice. The Cardiff Five were guilty, they claimed. But what about the DNA? What about Gafoor’s guilty plea? What about his insistence that he had acted alone?

Simple. None of that mattered. All that counted were his inconsistent accounts. He could only remember inflicting ten or twelve stab wounds and not the throat ones. So what? Well that meant it was possible that there was more than one attack. “Technically”, Angela Gallup said – the scientific equivalent of ‘and I can’t rule out the possibility that pigs could fly either!’

There was forensic pathology evidence and blood distribution pattern evidence that had an important story to tell. Lynette’s murder was never consistent with five killers and two witnesses charging around the crime-scene in darkness without leaving any trace of themselves or interfering with any of the evidence in the flat.

It simply flew in the face of any notion of logic.

The Final Insults

It served well in 2011 – so well that it was trotted out again in the compensation case in 2015. And as in 2015 the witnesses that could demolish this outrageous hypothesis were never called. We will be publishing Trials and Tribulations – Innocence Matters? soon. The aim is to reassert the truth – the Cardiff Five are, as they always were, totally innocent of any involvement in the murder of Lynette White, even though it is too late to matter to Yusef Abdullahi and Ronnie Actie.

Meanwhile, Gafoor had received a very lenient tariff in 2005 – just 12 years and 8 months, 13 years in reality once remand was taken into account. Consequently, Gafoor is now eligible to apply for release on parole. We will be publishing Bad Form – How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent soon to illustrate the grave flaws with the tariff system – one that sees no problem with treating the truly guilty more leniently than the innocent for the same crime. As Lloyd Paris – Tony’s brother – said, “Things are back to front!”

Significance

Today, the real and sole murderer of 20-year-old Lynette White, becomes eligible to apply for parole. Jeffrey Gafoor admits that he alone is responsible. In the early hours of Saint Valentine’s Day 1988, Lynette was stabbed over fifty times. Her throat was slit. Still Gafoor continued his vicious attack. He stabbed her breasts and chest repeatedly – at least half of the offensive injuries were to that area of her body. The attack continued after she was dead or dying. The brutality obviously went far beyond what was required to kill her. It was cruel and in my view torture. Gafoor has never explained why Lynette suffered this horrific fate. And he has not explained why he stayed silent while five innocent men stood trial for a crime he admits he committed on his own.

The Cardiff Five ((Yusef Abdullahi, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) were charged with Lynette’s murder in December 1988. Almost two years later the Actie cousins were acquitted and the Cardiff Three were wrongfully convicted. It is now acknowledged to be one of Britain’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. It was quite obviously a sexually motivated homicide, even if that was not the label in use in the 1980s and ’90s.

Professor Dave Barclay conducted a review of the scientific evidence, which led t the vindication of the Cardiff Five and a measure of actual justice for the memory of Lynette White. He explains the significance of the crime being a sexually motivated homicide. “All but a very few are on the breasts, but sheʼs had her neck cut as well and wrists and so on”, he said. “Thereʼs a slash across the face. Itʼs a sexually motivated homicide – full stop. [I]tʼs a sexually motivated homicide and donʼt forget those stab wounds are through the puffa jacket and clothing and yet theyʼre still, theyʼre all concentrated on the breasts. Itʼs a single male sexually motivated homicide” [my emphasis].

So why the emphasis? Sexually motivated homicides are almost always committed by one man acting on his own, like Gafoor. Sometimes two vicious people combine and encourage each other to commit such crimes. Barclay and others cannot provide a single example in all the annals of crime where a murder like this was committed by five men, who made accomplices of two other sex workers, but let them live after committing such an evil crime. And all of this was allegedly done without leaving any trace, tying them to the scene or victim in total darkness. Sadly, Barclay has never given evidence about all this and more. So what would he have said if he had been given the chance? “Interestingly I give evidence more in Holland and places like that where they seem quite happy to have people give an overview”, he said. “I would have said whereʼs the evidence for any of that bullshit? I might even have said that in court”.

Evidence-led

Barclay demonstrated that the crime-scene evidence, forensic pathology, forensic psychology and blood distribution pattern was only consistent with one explanation. Lynette was murdered by one person acting on his own. That person, by his own admission and guilty plea – and evidence – was Jeffrey Charles Gafoor. For at least nine months the investigation followed the credible evidence – the crime-scene and forensic science wasn’t lying, but the original investigation took a diversion. It derailed the inquiry.

“[I]f you have two possibilities, you need very persuasive evidence to go for the least likely, so youʼve got a single male arguing with a prostitute over a deal and thatʼs what the scientist thought for nine months, or youʼve got this thing where Angela Psaila, [Mark] Grommek, at least and maybe somebody else and the five accused are all tearing round this room, sawing at peopleʼs necks and trying to cut their hands – stuff like this”, Barclay says.

“Angela Psailaʼs supposed to be asked to cut the neck or hands, I canʼt remember, or the wrist, so thatʼs so inherently improbable on every possible level: psychologically, practically and just they couldnʼt do it in that dark room without leaving footwear and finger-marks in blood and if you actually consider something I did after I totalled up the number of people that were supposed to have held the bloody knife”, he continues. “Thatʼs four people, so there are four people with blood on their hands and theyʼre going out without leaving finger-marks in blood or whatever, so I think that was a major thing. Occamʼs Razor is a thing that we use a lot in forensic science, ʻin all probability, the simplest explanation is the correct oneʼ, and you have to be really sure that the simplest explanation isnʼt correct and that was something that was not done either”.

The Cost of Silence

The methods that Barclay used in his review and subsequent work on this case were available in the 1980s and ’90s. There was no reason for this miscarriage of justice to be allowed to occur. Jeffrey Gafoor was the one person who knew for certain that not only were the Cardiff Five innocent, but that they were suffering a grave injustice for his crime. He chose to stay silent and let their lives be destroyed Ronnie Actie and Yusef Abdullahi both died before reaching fifty. John Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris still endure the unjustifiable whispering campaigns in a case that disgraces justice. Meanwhile, the real killer, becomes eligible to apply for parole today after completing a tariff that was incorrectly applied and failed miserably to reflect the crimes Gafoor committed.

There is no excuse for the lives of the Cardiff Five and their families to have been wrecked. There is no excuse for Lynette’s family to have been denied justice for so long. While Gafoor is not responsible for justice miscarrying, his cowardly decision to refuse to take any responsibility for his crime when it mattered destroyed several lives. Do the courses and rehabilitative exercises that he experiences in prison to prepare him for parole bear this in mind? If not, why not? The real and sole killer received an inappropriately lenient tariff that further insults all the victims of this tawdry injustice – one that simply won’t go away until justice is allowed to reign once and for all.

Not Worthy

Neil Sayers’ case was one of those that were not deemed worthy of further investigation by the CCRC. The disgraced forensic pathologist Dr Michael Heath was the Crown’s expert against him. Despite their conclusions there are important causes for concern over Heath’s involvement in Sayers’ case that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) did not consider in David Jessel’s review.

In April 1999 Sayers was convicted with Graham Wallis of the May 1998 murder of his friend Russell Crookes. Wallis pleaded guilty, but blamed Sayers for the murder. Leading solicitor Steven Bird represents Sayers now and the CCRC informed him that the review of Heath’s cases had special regard for cases in which medical evidence was critical to the conviction, which did not apply to Sayers’ case and that Sayers’ previous application to the CCRC only argued that there was no forensic evidence linking him to the crime itself and that consequently the CCRC thought that any challenge to Heath’s evidence in Sayers’ case would be incorrect.

Disputed

“My son is innocent,” said Richard Sayers, “but he has remained in prison for almost nine years, maintaining his innocence throughout that time. The CCRC has said that they had special regard for cases where medical evidence was critical to the conviction. Neil’s case does not fit that criterion, but there are still issues that deserve to be investigated.”

Dr Heath took maggot samples from the body, but those maggots were not examined for five years. It remains unclear if Heath even advised police to consult an experienced forensic entomologist. The maggots represented the best possibility of establishing when death occurred – a vital issue in the case. Dr Heath also implied that the partial burning of the body was the result of an intense fire. Intense compared to what? There is considerable evidence to suggest that this was not an intense fire and that Heath’s conclusions led to errors in the interpretation of fire-related evidence, which was another issue of vital importance in this case. Heath’s role in these aspects of Sayers’ case was never considered in the review.

Sayers’ mother Angela shared her husband’s concerns. “We strongly believe that more extensive investigation of the pathology-related issues could discredit Wallis’ claims,” says Mrs Sayers. “By not looking into all of those issues in my son’s case, the CCRC are causing innocent people like my Neil, to remain behind bars when thorough investigation of these issues could prove his innocence and this may have happened in other cases as well.”

A previous application to the CCRC by solicitors who no longer act for Sayers failed to highlight scientific issues that legal experts say are at the heart of Sayers’ case. “It has been explained to us by experts that the scientific issues in Neil Sayers’ case have not been investigated as they could and should have been,” said Trevor Vallens, Vice-Chair of Kent Against Injustice (KAI), a campaigning group that supports the families of prisoners protesting their innocence.

Interest

His case has also attracted the interest of Dr Michael Naughton, a lecturer at Bristol University who founded the Innocence Network UK and the first innocence project in the UK. “If the complaints made by Neil Sayers’ parents are correct, it seems that the CCRC may have been premature in its decision not to investigate Dr Heath’s involvement in Sayers’ case more fully,” said Dr Naughton. “If the CCRC truly wanted to act in the interests of justice, a wider interrogation of other available scientific evidence would have been appropriate before reaching its conclusions.”

KAI has supported Sayers’ family for several years. “As a result of what the experts have told us, we believe that Dr Heath’s conduct effectively prevented Neil from proving his innocence, because it prevented adequate use of other scientific techniques that may have provided vital evidence for him,” said Mr Vallens, but Sayers’ case is not the only case involving Heath that KAI campaigns about.

It also supports Michael Stone who was convicted of the 1996 murders of Lyn and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie Russell. Stone has always protested his innocence. His case arrived at the CCRC just as the Heath investigation was winding down. It was wrongly reported in some media that it would be one of the cases to be investigated further.

“The case against Mick has collapsed,” said Stone’s sister, Barbara, “but even if the CCRC had considered his case in their review of Heath, it would have been rejected because Heath’s evidence against him was not critical. However, if it can be relied on that would support our belief that his DNA should have been found on the bootlace if he was guilty.”

Stone’s DNA has not been found on any items from the crime scene and nor have his fingerprints, yet both DNA profiles and fingerprints have been discovered on vital samples from the crime scene, which remain to be identified.

Concerns

The Attorney General recently declined to investigate all of Heath’s cases as he thought the CCRC’s investigation would suffice. Only cases where medical evidence was critical to the conviction were given special regard in determining which cases should be looked into further. Why?

“If the complaints made by the families of Michael Stone and Neil Sayers are justified, then the CCRC’s review appears to be extremely limited,” said Dr Naughton. “There is other evidence in both cases, but there are also good reasons to question the truthfulness of that evidence as well. This may have happened in other cases too and the CCRC could be responsible for leaving potentially innocent people in prison.”

There are other reasons to examine Heath’s involvement in these cases as well. “We had hoped that the CCRC’s review of Dr Heath’s conduct would help to prove the innocence of Michael and Neil,” said Mr Vallens. “There were two previous cases in Kent where courts rejected Heath’s evidence, yet the CCRC will not confirm if they considered the impact of those cases on Neil and Michael’s cases. Why not?”

Track Record

Two of the eight proven cases were ones that had been referred back for appeal by the CCRC. In his book Trial and Error, Jessel strongly criticised the standard of Heath’s work in Sheila Bowler’s case. Mrs Bowler was subsequently acquitted after a retrial. The murder convictions of Victor Boreman, Malcolm Byrne and Michael Byrne were quashed as Heath’s tribunal opened due to the poor quality of Heath’s work. It had been referred back for appeal by the CCRC for that reason. “All of Heath’s cases should be investigated thoroughly,” said Boreman. “I cannot understand why the CCRC will not confirm if their investigation of Heath looked at the facts of my case and how similar they might have been to other cases when considering which cases should be looked into further.

Meanwhile, there has been no investigation of whether the facts of the other proven cases could have provided grounds of appeal in the forty-six cases that were not deemed worthy of further investigation as a result of the CCRC’s review of Heath’s involvement in those cases.

“If true, it is alarming that eight proven cases which go beyond professional disagreement were not looked into by the CCRC,” said Dr Naughton. “It is at least possible that of the cases that the CCRC, allegedly, decided did not require further examination at least one of them has similar facts to one or more of the eight proven cases, rather than to Fraser or Puaca. As such, it is possible that potentially innocent people are languishing in prison because the CCRC’s investigation did not consider the impact of those cases. If they have considered them specifically, they should simply say so. We had to set up the Innocence Network UK because the CCRC does not investigate the possibility of innocence properly. The way they are claimed to have handled the Heath investigation shows why Innocence Projects are necessary. No stone should be left unturned in the pursuit of justice.”

Disgraced

Disgraced expert witness Dr Michael Heath resigned as a Home Office pathologist two years ago. This followed a finding against him at the first Home Office Advisory Board tribunal into the competence of an experienced forensic pathologist, which led to a review of his involvement in several cases. But the then Attorney General chose not to conduct a thorough investigation of his previous cases and left it to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

This was unsatisfactory for a number of reasons: the review was conducted by a journalist who had become a Commissioner of the CCRC, David Jessel, rather than an experienced forensic pathologist or even a panel of such qualified experts and it did not look into cases that may have been wrongly classified by Heath as not being homicides.

This was the only examination of Heath’s work despite the finding against him, which includes by media. We find this disturbing because the full extent and consequences of errors made by Heath have not been subjected to adequate scrutiny – the tribunal only dealt with two cases: Kenneth Fraser and Steven Puaca – and Jessel’s review did not look into other proven examples of the poor quality of Heath’s work, claiming that it started from the belief that Heath was thoroughly discredited.

Unacceptable Standards

Although there is no doubt that Heath’s work was of an unacceptably low standard, such reviews do not and cannot redress the balance, because they ignore the possibility of similar fact errors that resemble other proven cases rather than Fraser or Puaca. It also completely ignored forensic pathology-related issues that could have helped to prove the innocence of people seeking to appeal. Such factors were not considered during the review or subsequently, and the failure to consider them could cause further delays in proving innocence.

“The Commission is considering the implications of the recent finding by the Home Office Advisory Board against Dr Michael Heath,” said Boris Worral, then Head of Communications at the CCRC. “This involves looking at the small number of current cases under review by the Commission as well as revisiting a number of previous applications in which Dr Heath features. A Commissioner, David Jessel, is co-ordinating the Commission’s response to this issue.”

In October 2006 the CCRC confirmed that eight cases – three under review at the time, and five previous cases – would be looked at again ‘in the light of the Home Office decision on Heath.’ However, the failure to stop Heath earlier is disturbing, as evidence of his shoddy work had been available and ignored for years.

Proven

Dr Heath took years to achieve membership of the Royal College of Pathologists because he repeatedly failed his exams. His work has been criticised by pathologists, lawyers or judges in at least eight cases other than those of Fraser and Puaca – the two that featured in the tribunal. Inquest verdicts were overturned: convictions were quashed and acquittals secured because courts could not have believed Heath’s evidence.

Some of these cases occurred over a decade ago, including that of Craig Kerwin. In 1997 Kerwin was acquitted of the March 1996 ‘murder’ of 73-year-old Jocelyn Strutt in Southborough, Kent – a ‘crime’ that two forensic pathologists and the trial judge insist did not occur. Forensic pathologists Nat Cary and Vesna Djurović strongly disputed Heath’s view that a blow had caused a myocardial infarct to rupture. Djurović’s opinion stated that “there was no pathological evidence whatsoever, to suggest that Mrs Strutt suffered a ‘heavy’ blunt impact to the chest.” Dr Cary agreed with Djurović’s findings.

Obfuscation

“The assumption that Dr Heath was assessed only on his actions in the Fraser and Puaca cases is untrue,” said Fiona Hickman the CCRC’s Corporate Affairs and Complaints Manager. “The CCRC is in a position to assess very many of Dr Heath’s cases, and it has done so on the very wide basis that his professional judgment has been called into question. It would be wrong, however to assume that every case in which Dr Heath had played any part – either as defence or prosecution expert – was for that reason unsafe.” But nobody had suggested that.

The CCRC was asked to clarify specifically whether the facts of these eight proven cases, which we named specifically, had been considered when deciding which of the fifty-four cases at the CCRC that Heath was involved in should be looked at again.

“We cannot make it any plainer that we reviewed all the Heath cases on the grounds that his expertise could not be relied on,” said Ms Hickman. “It would matter not if he had been found derelict in ten, twenty or a thousand cases. His expertise would still be equally unreliable. We are still at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make.”

We are at a loss to understand how they could miss the obvious point that we made so thoroughly and persistently. It should not have been difficult to understand and it should not have been difficult to confirm or deny that the review had considered those cases, but it steadfastly refused to do that and still hasn’t. If the CCRC had not looked into the specific facts of the eight proven cases that we mentioned, how could it possibly know whether the facts of applications that it was considering bore similarity to one of those eight cases rather than Fraser or Puaca and consequently, how could it be sure that a jury, properly directed, would have reached the same verdict if they had known that Heath had said the same thing previously and not been believed?

The CCRC should be aware that similar fact is a validated legal principle that can affect the credibility of a witness, but that discrediting a witness in another case means nothing if it cannot be shown that it affects a similar issue in the case under consideration. In other words the starting point of believing that Heath was thoroughly discredited means nothing if the complaint relates to an issue that he has not been discredited over in a proven case.

It cannot be plainer and it is not the first time that the CCRC has chosen to ignore the point that was being made in order to answer one that had not been. David Jessel’s review of the fifty-four cases involving Heath that had applied to the CCRC did not consider pathology-related issues. We are concerned by this and will demonstrate the flaws in this approach with reference to the case of Neil Sayers – a young man who has spent all of his twenties in prison for a crime that adequately conducted forensic pathology may have helped to prove he did not commit.

Review?

Fed up of the failure to get justice or even an adequate review of the conduct of a disgraced pathologist, a prisoner maintaining his innocence, has demanded a review of his own. Neil Sayers was just a teenager when his friend Russell Crookes was repeatedly stabbed to death in a field near Hadlow College in Kent in May 1998. A year later Sayers was found guilty of the murder along with fellow student Graham Wallis, whose evidence sent Sayers to jail. Sayers has maintained his innocence ever since. His case was one of the cases reviewed by David Jessel for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), but Heath’s conduct was unusual in this case. His opinion that there was extensive fire-damage was contradicted by his own post-mortem examination.

After hearing that Heath was recently let off by the General Medical Council (GMC) Sayers has had enough. He is the first prisoner protesting his innocence to instruct his solicitor Steven Bird to apply for legal aid to instruct a forensic pathologist to review the pathology-related issues, including those that Jessel did not consider, regardless of the conclusions of the CCRC.

Bird hopes to instruct a forensic pathologist with experience of Heath’s work in the new year to review Heath’s conduct and the impact it had on the conclusions of other experts, particularly fire-related aspects of the case. Sayers maintains that it happened days after the prosecution claim it did and there is considerable evidence that was not heard by the jury to support his opinion. For example, there were statements of witnesses who did not see the scorch pattern and associated debris on three different searches of the area days after the Crown say the fire occurred. These statements languished in the unused material. Some of those witnesses gave evidence, but were not asked about the lack of scorch-pattern their visits. It was noticed on May 24th 1998 – two days before the body was discovered in nearby woods, but these statements were not disclosed for Sayers’ trial.

Sayers was also let down by his then lawyers from the firm of Berry and Berry. Just a year earlier they had represented burglar Craig Kerwin when he was charged over the death of pensioner Jocelyn Strutt at her home in Southborough, Kent. Only Heath maintained that Strutt had been murdered by being hit with a heavy instrument that fractured her ribs – actually she suffered from brittle bones and her ribs probably broke when she fell.

Two other forensic pathologists (Nat Cary and Vesna Djurović) disagreed with Heath and proved that Strutt’s death was of natural causes – the result of a myocardial infarct that ruptured and her ribs broke in the fall that followed that event. Despite this Sayers’ lawyers failed to investigate Heath’s conduct in other cases, which would have provided important material on Heath’s credibility. Over a decade later, Sayers wants that review and Bird will try to ensure that he gets that right after the CCRC’s review of Heath – the only review of the shamed expert’s cases since his spectacular fall from grace – failed to discover this material and how it could have affected Sayers’ case.

The Fall of the Disgraced Pathologist

Meanwhile, the disgraced pathologist continues to perform post-mortem examinations for coroners despite being forced to resign from the Register of Home Office Pathologists after a disciplinary tribunal found that he had slipped below the required standard over the deaths of Jacqueline Tindsley and Mary Ann Moore. Tindsley was found dead in her bed after her partner Steven Puaca raised the alarm in March 2002. Heath insisted that Puaca had smothered her, resulting in Puaca’s conviction later that year. He was cleared on appeal in 2005 after five forensic pathologists disagreed with Heath’s conclusions.

Moore was found dead at the bottom of the stairs of the house she shared with her partner Kenneth Fraser in May 2001. Heath wrongly insisted that her injuries were consistent with murder. Fraser was acquitted the following year. The evidence, as Heath now accepts, was consistent with an accidental fall down the stairs. Ironically, another Home Office forensic pathologist, Dr Peter Acland, was suspended in April by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) for making the opposite mistake.

Acland ruled the death of pensioner Mervin Fletcher at his home near Walsall in 2004 was due to head injuries caused by a fall induced by diabetes. He was wrong. Mustafa Abdullah was convicted of Fletcher’s murder in 2007 after using the victim’s cards to withdraw money from his account. The NPIA upheld nineteen of twenty-one charges against Dr Acland over his conduct in that case and suspended him from working for the police again. Heath no longer works as a forensic pathologist either, as he was forced to resign from the Register of Home Office Pathologists.

Tribunals

Three years ago a tribunal of the Advisory Board for Forensic Pathologists upheld twenty complaints against Heath over his handling of the deaths of Moore and Tindsley, so Heath resigned from the Register. It was not the end of his problems. Any case that he was involved in that the CCRC had been asked to consider – apart from ones that had resulted in successful appeals – was reviewed by their Commissioner Jessel, but the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith refused demands for a full investigation of all Heath’s cases. This summer the General Medical Council held a tribunal to decide whether Heath was fit to continue as a doctor due to his conduct over the deaths of Moore and Tindsley. It concluded that his remorse was genuine and there was no need for further punishment.

“During your career as a pathologist you have undertaken some 10,000 forensic pathology cases, of which none had been criticised prior to the two cases related to these proceedings, and none had been criticised since,” the panel said. This was quite simply not true.

Serious concerns about Heath’s competence were raised over a decade ago including the death of Stuart Lubbock in the entertainer, Michael Barrymore’s pool in March 2001. He took eleven years to become a Member of the Royal College of Pathologists. The reason – he repeatedly failed his exams. That emerged during cross examination in an inquest into another of Heath’s controversial cases (Ibrahima Sey).

Heath’s evidence has been found wanting in several cases both before and since the two cases that ended his career as a forensic pathologist as well.

Options

In October 2006 Jessel decided that only eight of fifty-four cases that had applied to them which involved Heath should be looked at again. It didn’t include Sayers’ case and three years on not one of those cases were referred back to the Court of Appeal on the basis of Heath’s evidence. Only Simon Hall’s conviction for the December 2001 murder of Joan Albert will be considered by the appeal court. Hall was convicted in 2003, but the CCRC referred it back on the basis of fibre evidence rather than Heath’s conduct.

It leaves the wrongfully convicted little option but to try to instruct forensic pathologists themselves to review Heath’s work as Sayers has done. None of Acland’s cases have been reviewed either. In the absence of adequate reviews others will probably follow Sayers’ example. Despite the best efforts of the authorities this story will run and run.

Poisoned Chalice

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord [Igor] Judge, reserved judgement yesterday on the second appeal of Kenneth Noye. Clare Montgomery QC argued that crucial witnesses Alan Decabral, who was shot dead in 2000, and disgraced pathologist Michael Heath must now be seen as so unreliable that Noye’s conviction for the 1995 ‘road-rage’ killing of Stephen Cameron that it should be declared unsafe.

Montgomery told the judges that Heath had gone beyond the limits of forensic pathology in his evidence. Forensic pathologist Dr Nat Cary agreed, explaining that Heath’s methods for determining whether ‘considerable force’ had been used were unreliable. The knife probably did go in to the hilt, but that alone is not a good measure of force.

Nevertheless, Heath was now so discredited that following Cary’s opinion, which supported that of Peter Jerreat, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) referred the conviction back for appeal. Montgomery argued that Heath’s testimony was based on unscientific conclusions, and had undercut Noye’s claims of self-defence. She detailed evidence that supported his claim that the second stage of the confrontation on the slip road to Swanley off the M25, amounted to self-defence.

Self-Defence

Evidence showed that Noye had got the worst of the fight against Cameron and retreated, but brandished a knife. Montgomery went through the accounts of various eyewitnesses including Cameron’s partner Danielle Cable to show that Cameron came after Noye and that in this critical phase, even when brandishing the knife, Noye’s actions were consistent with self-defence.

Noye fled to Spain after the incident, but was extradited in 1998 after Cable was taken to view him and identified him. Noye was convicted two years later, when his claim of self-defence was rejected by the jury. Montgomery claimed that Decabral and Heath were instrumental in that verdict and that their evidence can no longer be trusted.

Decabral, the driver of a Rolls Royce, had a criminal past. His wife said he was a drug-dealer with debts. A previous appeal had established that this evidence affected his credibility, but not the safety of the conviction. Decabral had claimed that he saw Noye conceal the knife and lunge at Cameron, and say, ‘That sorted him out; you got yours mate.’ Montgomery pointed out that the other witnesses did not see this and that the injuries suffered by Cameron were consistent with Noye’s account.

Dr Cary explained that the injuries were likely to have been caused through a different mechanism of the confrontation than that favoured by the now thoroughly discredited Heath.

Discredited

Cary disagreed with Heath’s term ‘considerable force.’ Even accepting that the knife may have gone in to the hilt Cary says that is the wrong measure of force and that the damage done, especially to bone is a better indicator. Mark Ellison QC claimed that the Crown’s case did not depend on either witness and detailed the evidence of other witnesses that contradicted Noye’s account and suggested that Cary had a habit of countering Heath, which Cary denied.

Almost five years ago Heath faced a Home Office Forensic Pathology Advisory Board Tribunal due to complaints by colleagues over his methods and evidence in two cases – Kenneth Fraser and Steven Puaca. Despite his protests he was found wanting and resigned from the Home Office Register of Home Office Forensic Pathologists after losing the hearing.

Heath still conducts post-mortem examinations for Coroners, but is no longer an accredited forensic pathologist. The General Medical Council concluded that there was no need to punish him further by removing his licence to practice. Noye’s is only the second case that the CCRC referred back for appeal, based on his pathology evidence. Heath had been found to be dogmatic in his conclusions and reached conclusions outside the limits of forensic pathology in the tribunal in relation to Puaca. Mushtaq Ahmed made the same complaints to no avail last December.

Montgomery argued that the evidence given by both Decabral and Heath would have affected the way the jury viewed Noye’s claims of self-defence and that both are now so tainted that conviction is unsafe. Judgement was reserved in Noye’s appeal.