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.

Important

“The science is important”, said Mark Evans QC in his closing argument on behalf of John Pope, in his retrial for the murder of a 34 year-old Karen Skipper. “That’s why you have the experts. It is important you understand the purpose of it and the limits of it. As far as science is concerned, you can take it from them. What deductions you make, is entirely for you. Where they and I part company is where they cease to talk about science and resort to amateur sleuthing”.

He criticised forensic scientist Michael Appleby in particular. Mr Evans said that Mr Appleby was emphatic that the blood-stain on Mrs Skipper’s knickers was wet and not dilute. “That’s important”, Mr Evans said, “as that is based on his observations. How could it not be diluted? We know that the clothes were damp from a heavy dew that night”.

Rehydrated

Mr Evans advised the jury to apply their common sense to all of the evidence. “When it comes to looking at dew and its effect on clothes, you know better than anyone”, he said. He pointed out that both the pocket of the jeans and the knickers which contained the blood-stains were exposed to the elements. “How could they not be dilute?” he asked before informing the court that the scientists said they were not.

Mr Evans conceded that the older the stains were the harder it is to rehydrate. He conceded that liquid would leach out. He questioned the size of both stains that had been reported. Every attempt to photograph the blood-stain on the knickers failed, but fluorescence would be obtained when exposed to different types of light. He suggested that there was fluorescence and that it was consistent with a smaller stain on the knickers that liquid (blood) had leached out from. This, he suggested, was evidence of rehydrated blood.

“The prosecution case is that it was deposited in attack, but in all probability it will be damp already”, Mr Evans said. He told the jury that the effects of leaching of fresh blood would have been noted and mentioned by the scientists. They did not. “Doesn’t it point to stain being much older?” Mr Evans asked. “Some diluting effect was inescapable [but] they will not accept it; did not see it”.

As Good as Any Other

Mr Evans told the jury that when Mr Pope was interviewed by police in 2007 he was told there was forensic evidence linking him to the murder of Karen Skipper, but nothing specific. That Mr Evans said, meant that Mr Pope, a man of limited intelligence, had to guess correctly that it was blood and concoct an explanation of it on the spot.

He told the jury that hands go into pockets at an angle and that the position that it landed in was consistent with Mr Pope’s account. [Nigel] Hodge and [Gillian] Leak had, said Mr Evans, accepted that the two spots will have coincided, but could only have done so when the jeans are being worn and done up and therefore, if the two spots had coincided at same time, the “only possibility is through the pocket and that is exactly what Mr Pope says”.

Mr Evans told the jury that if a blood-stained hand had been inserted in the pocket, then it would be elsewhere, but we are talking about tiny amount of blood. He invited the jury not to reject Mr Pope’s explanation of the earlier encounter with Mrs Skipper and how his blood could have got onto her clothing. “We can’t say, ʻthis is what happened’, all we can do is point out the possibilities”. He invited the jury to put their hands in their pocket. “Why can’t it be done?” he asked. He suggested that a tissue is like a sponge that could absorb blood and expunge it if pressure was applied and then soak it up again. When that process is finished, Mr Evans argued, more blood would be on the outside than the inside. Mr Pope’s account was he submitted, therefore, a perfectly credible explanation.

“Mr Murphy [Ian Murphy QC – the prosecutor] is quite wrong when he submitted that consensus of scientists is that you can consider this as incredible”, said Mr Evans. If something can happen, he suggested then, sometimes, invariably it will. “If the potential is there, the possibility is clearly there. They [the prosecution] have to prove that it did not happen in this case”.

Mr Evans insisted that the reconstruction conducted by Mrs Leak showed that it was possible for the jeans and knickers to have touched each other, thereby accounting for both stains. “Anything’s possible”, said Mr Evans, who insisted that it was for the prosecution to prove that it did not happen. “The point I made was for that to have happened by pure accident, both garments, both spots had to touch each other”. He told the jury that the opportunity existed. The jeans and knickers had been packaged together while damp with the belt. They had been taken out to retrieve the belt, which had been taken out before they were repacked. This, Mr Evans suggested, provided ample opportunity contact and therefore transfer. “The odds of it happening in that way are, I suggest, pretty high”, said Mr Evans.

He then highlighted what he contended was a real problem with the direct contact theory. He told the court that the jury had been assured that both blood-stains were direct contact stains from a pin-prick of blood, but while one was a smear the other was not. That, he suggested, was a real problem. The stain on the knickers had been produced by a wiping action that left no blood on the ridge, but on the pocket-lining it was a smear. “Ask yourselves how can it be that there is a wiping action with smearing on knickers, but with pocket, the same action, but no smear?” said Mr Evans. “There is a basic inconsistency”. He pointed out that anyone depositing the stains in the way the scientists and Mr Murphy had claimed would have had to remove the shoes, belt and trousers before getting access to the knickers. “Where’s the rest of the blood?” Mr Evans asked. “[It’s] extraordinary that there is no blood, you may think”.

Other Possibilities

“There are other possibilities in this case which you have to take on board and for this reason: if Phillip Skipper was the killer, then the blood-stains on the clothing doesn’t matter, does it?” said Mr Evans. “If you think Phillip Skipper could have been the killer, then that’s the end of it”.

Mr Evans detailed the circumstantial case against Mr Skipper that included the apparent lack of interest he had shown in the whereabouts of Mrs Skipper after she went out with the dogs that night. “So where does all this point you?” asked Mr Evans. “The prosecution tell you John Pope’s story is lie after after lie, but could a man like Pope really have made all of that up on the spur of the moment? We suggest, not in a million years. At the end of the day, you have to be sure that all of the other explanations fail and it must have been John Pope. Can you possibly do that in this case?”

Dog’s Breakfast

“You don’t get a pin prick of blood from a dog-bite”, Mr Evans told the jury. “If that dog [Samson] had attacked, you would not get a pin prick of blood”. Mr Evans reminded the jury that there was plenty of evidence that Samson in particular was fiercely protective of Karen Skipper. Mr Skipper, he reminded them, had suggested that the killer must have been known to her [he had mentioned Jimmy Turner and the man known as Steve in that context] or that there had been two killers.

While the prosecution dismissed Mr Pope’s explanation of the blood-stains as a “complete fantasy”, Mr Evans said that it had “the ring of truth about it”. Mr Pope did not know what forensic evidence the police had linking him to the murder when he was questioned. It could have been anything, Mr Evans said, but he gives them an account that explained bloodstains being found. Mr Murphy had previously told the jury that Mr Pope knew that it was blood because he had attacked Karen Skipper and been bitten by one of her dogs. He had then transposed that event to an invented incident three weeks earlier.

“Where does all the scientific evidence take you?” asked Mr Evans. “You can’t be sure of very much at all, save it (bloodstains) was there. The prosecution has to prove Mr Pope’s explanation has to be wrong. It’s as good as any other”.

Consequences

He had previously said that there were no consequences for Phillip Skipper if the jury thought it might be him and that there were none for Richard Mead either, but it was a different story for Mr Pope. “Remember, the consequences are serious”, said Mr Evans. “He has already been through one trial and an appeal process. It is so important that you get this right. If you think the forensic evidence was flawed, then convicting him on that basis would be wrong”.

The Honourable Mr Justice (Sir Roderick) Evans KT is summing-up. The jury is expected to be asked to begin considering their verdict on Friday. John Pope denies murdering 34 year-old Karen Skipper, whose body was discovered submerged in the River Ely in the morning of March 10^th 1996.

Guarantees

The families of murder victim Karen Skipper and her estranged husband Phillip who stood trial wrongly for her murder want a guarantee from the Secretary of State (Minister) of Justice that in the absence of compelling new evidence such as DNA, acquittals must be respected. They claim that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could never have charged Mr Skipper, if he had been alive, on such evidence as Mark Evans QC allowed to use, especially as there was DNA evidence implicating another man, Evans’ client, so why was the defence allowed to do it without requiring a proof of guilt?

The victms’ families are shocked and disappointed that the criminal justice system allowed them to be victimised again with such poor quality evidence. A prison informer, Paul James had claimed at Mr Skipper’s trial in 1997 that Skipper admitted accompanying Mrs Skipper to Birdies Field that fateful night, but James refused to co-operate when called by Pope’s defence.

“I know that he [Mr Skipper] is dead and can’t defend himself,” James said, before the defence abandoned the attempt to get evidence from him and relied on statements he had made previously, along with evidence from earlier trials.

Quality

The quality of evidence did not improve. Mr Skipper’s neighbour, Pauline Horton, came forward after 13 years, claiming that she saw Mr Skipper following his wife towards Birdies Field in Cardiff on her last walk. She insisted that she was afraid of the Hell’s Angels, but neither Mr Skipper nor his friend David Davies were Hell’s Angels.

Horton accepted that both Mr Davies and Skipper had been perfectly nice to her. At best, she was, as prosecuting counsel Ian Murphy QC, had suggested, mistaken, but she would not countenance her evidence being rejected. “Don’t you call me a liar!” she told Mr Murphy angrily, but her evidence did not stand up. Perhaps there was a more sinister explanation of her evidence than Murphy suggested.

Scientifically Ludicrous

DNA from blood-staining on intimate areas of Mrs Skipper’s clothing linked Mr Pope, not Mr Skipper, to the crime. Mr Evans had claimed that the blood-stains had rehydrated from dew overnight and given the impression of fresh blood despite four scientists agreeing that direct contact was the most likely explanation and that rehydrated blood appears different from fresh blood.

Mr Pope’s explanation that Mrs Skipper’s dog bit him three weeks earlier after he removed a thorn from its paw and that Mrs Skipper had given him a tissue and transferred the blood to her pocket was rejected by the jury. It was a fanciful explanation and one that was flatly contradicted by the science.

Obscene

Mr Skipper had been eliminated as the source of that blood on the jeans fifteen years ago. At the time the prosecution claimed that it was not important. They had little choice as the prosecution was dead in the water if that evidence was acknowledged for what it was – proof of innocence. The prosecution in 1997 chose to ignore or minimise the importance of that evidence, which was seized on by Mr Pope’s QC, Mark Evans.

But the blood-staining was on intimate parts of Mrs Skipper’s clothing and was therefore quite obviously significant. It was clearly very inconvenient in the prosecution of Phillip Skipper.

If the significance of those blood-stains had been fully appreciated during the original investigation in 1996 or during Mr Skipper’s trial in 1997, it would have been crystal clear that Mr Skipper was innocent. That in turn would have ended his ordeal promptly and prevented a deplorable defence from being gifted to an unscrupulous man.

Nevertheless, Mr Pope was allowed to ignore Mr Skipper’s acquittal and accuse him twice more without any standard of proof.

“It should not be allowed”, said miscarriage of justice survivor Michael O’Brien. “A similar thing happened to me after I won my appeal. Phillip Skipper was entitled to be presumed innocent after his acquittal. Only compelling new evidence like DNA should allow an accusation like that against a person who has been acquitted or had their conviction quashed”.

Mr Justice (Sir Nigel) Davis at least had the good grace to stress that it was owed to the memory of Phillip Skipper to acknowledge his innocence.

Disgraceful

Neil Sayers had been shamefully let down. The 19 year-old student at Hadlow Agricultural College in Kent was left to pay the price for his lack of knowledge of forensic entomology. The life cycles of insects was crucially important to his chance of justice as that was the only possibility in the circumstances of this case to establish the post-mortem-interval, which would show when the relevant event to the body took place – either a range of when death occurred or, in this case, when the attempt to partially burn the body of Russell Crookes took place.

Crookes had been missing for almost two weeks. His mutilated, partially burned, maggot-infested body was discovered in a waterlogged grave in a copse run by Hadlow Agricultural College. Graham Wallis could be tied to the crime in various ways, but he took the chance to shift blame onto Sayers. Either Sayers is guilty and is therefore a vicious murderer and callous liar, or he is the victim of a cruel miscarriage of justice.

Forensic science offered the best chance to resolve whether Wallis was telling the truth, or cynically inserted an innocent man – supposedly a friend – into his account, to cover up his own responsibility for the murder of Russell Crookes. Sayers’ defence team performed abysmally. Evidence proving that Wallis had lied repeatedly was ignored, even the indisputable scientific variety. They ignored evidence that could have proved that Wallis had lied about when the fire occurred, even though that would have opened the door to destroying Wallis’ credibility.

A First Bite

Sayers knows that the criminal justice system does not permit him to have a second bite of the cherry, but he didn’t get a first bite. Wallis insisted that they had tried to burn the body of Russell Crookes immediately after he was killed, but this was hard to believe, because there had been several visits to that site in the days following Crookes’ disappearance.

According to Charles Miskin QC’s case the scorch-pattern and fire-related debris had been there on every one of these visits and been missed by all of them. It seemed very unlikely, but Sayers’ lawyers had failed to call evidence regarding the fire-site at the trial. He would not get a second chance. The same could have been argued regarding the maggots too, but Sayers was fortunate. Legal aid was granted once Kent Police confirmed that some maggots had been located.

Some had been routinely thrown away. Imagine throwing away half a cloth that had smeared blood on it before having it DNA tested and storing the rest in a fridge or cupboard at a police station for five years. Change cloth for maggots and that’s what happened here. It should never be allowed to happen again. This was vital evidence and it should have been treated with the respect due to a forensic science and evidence.

Belated Tests

Sadly the fixed sample, rather than the sample to be reared, had been thrown away. They would have been better as the time the precise time they died was known, which would have meant that a more accurate post-mortem-interval could have been calculated. The ʻreared’ maggots still existed; they were located in a fridge at a police station. They were brought to Dr Martin Hall’s laboratory at the National History Museum and tested by both Hall and his independent German colleague Dr Mark Benecke.

For five years the maggots had been prevented from telling their story, even though they were the only scientific way of establishing when the body suffered a significant event, which was either when death occurred if they had survived the attempt to burn the body, or when that attempt took place if they hadn’t. Unfortunately, Michael Heath’s error over the extent of fire-damage caused further problems and that would require a small fortune to put right.

Inadequate Representation

Russell Crookes was a student at Hadlow Agricultural College in Kent when he went missing in May 1998. His partially burned, mutilated and maggot-infested body was discovered nearly two weeks later.  It was an awful crime – of that there is no doubt. His murderer(s) deserved to be punished severely.

He had last been seen in the company of fellow students Neil Sayers and Graham Wallis. They soon emerged as the prime suspects – the only ones Kent Police investigated. Sayers protested his innocence, but Wallis confessed, although his confession was that he was there while Sayers did everything. It was more accusation than confession. Sayers’ solicitor at trial, Ian Reed, failed to grasp the significance of forensic science in this case.

He did not even notice the maggots, let alone understand their potential. The entomological evidence only had a chance of emerging for one reason. I knew that they should have been sent to a forensic entomologist and insisted on knowing what had happened to them, because if they existed, they could still be tested, even then, five years later.

Wasted Opportunities

Reed completely wasted the opportunity and the pathologist instructed by him, Peter Jerreat, failed to inform him as well, but Jerreat was the wrong choice. Reed’s firm Berry and Berry knew all about Michael Heath’s dubious pathology. The firm had done an excellent job of representing Craig Kerwin a year before Sayers’ arrest. They knew that Heath’s methods were suspect and which forensic pathologists should have been instructed. Reed made a mess of the opportunity.

The pathology-related issues were of great significance. That would have been realised if it had been investigated properly at the time. It wasn’t, but that could and should occur later this year, more than a decade after Heath made a mess of his case.

Sayers’ case is unique as the man who prosecuted him, Charles Miskin QC, relied on Heath as a credible expert, but subsequently turned the tables on Heath. Miskin represented the Pathology Delivery Board in the tribunal that it brought against Heath.

Miskin demolished Heath’s credibility without grasping the importance of pathology-related issues that were actually vital to Sayers’ case. Meanwhile, Sayers remains in prison waiting for a competent review of Heath’s pathology, which David Jessel failed to provide when the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) reviewed its cases that Heath was involved in.

Weak

Reed’s successor, Kevin Hansford, was even worse, regarding the maggots. Despite being made aware of them and their significance, he insisted on wasting months refusing to ask the police if they existed because he decided that they would not still be available five years on. That was not his job and he was wrong anyway.

He had been asked by Sayers – instructed actually – to enquire about them, but could not be bothered. He expected the CCRC to investigate everything that he put to them, yet refused to investigate. His submissions were utterly inadequate to put it mildly. Forensic science, let alone entomology, was not even mentioned in a case that could and should have become Britain’s genuine CSI if either he or Reed had done their jobs adequately. Unsurprisingly, Hansford’s weak application was rejected. If I had received such an application I’d have rejected it too.

Despite the rejection of his application, Hansford continued to refuse to ask the police if the maggots existed. Patience ran out and he was replaced by a solicitor prepared to ask the question, Jane Hickman. She didn’t think they would exist either, but unlike Hansford, she was prepared to ask the question and was happy to be proved wrong. Some maggots were located and provided to experts instructed by Hickman.

Legal aid was granted to have the maggots examined by Dr Martin Hall and a second expert, Dr Mark Benecke was independently instructed as well. Sadly, Heath’s wretched pathology loomed large still, as his report resulted in an error in the instructions, due his insistence on using misleading terminology that was unsupported by the evidence. The consequences of this error have never been redressed and probably never will be.

Lax Procedures

The families of a murder victim and her late former husband – he was wrongly accused of that crime fifteen years ago – joined forces to slam what they believe are lax procedures at a recent trial. They claim that Phillip Skipper was wrongly accused all over again at the retrial of former labourer John Pope – that it was more like Mr Skipper that was on trial than Mr Pope.

Mr Skipper was not alive to defend his reputation. Mr Pope was found guilty of the murder of Karen Skipper for the second time last week. He had been convicted of the murder in February 2009, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction last year and ordered a retrial. Its judgement still has not been published.¹

The Presumption of Innocence?

Mrs Skipperʼs body was discovered in the River Ely in Cardiff on the morning of March 10th 1996. A year later her estranged husband Phillip who died of cancer in 2004 was acquitted of her murder. According to the criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence was never taken away from Phillip Skipper. The Fitted-In Project followed the case carefully. It was after all Walesʼ second vindication case in the DNA age.

To the disgust of the families of Mrs Skipper and Mr Skipper, Popeʼs defence QC Mark Evans turned it into Mr Skipperʼs third trial. Having attended this trial, we agree that it was hard if not impossible to spot any evidence of Mr Skipper being presumed innocent.

We are surprised that despite the European Convention of Human Rights being incorporated into UK law in 1998, the Article 8 Right to Family Life of Mr Skipper’s family was paid such scant regard. Similarly, Mrs Skipper’s family’s rights were not defended either. This is applied in the setting of the tariff too.

Lip Service

The families insist that there was no presumption of innocence for Mr Skipper despite his acquittal, but the coalition government says there is no problem.

“It has long been an important feature of our criminal justice system that a person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty”, said the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lord (Tom) McNally. “A person found not guilty is to be treated as innocent, as too is a person whose conviction has been quashed on appeal”.

Fine words, but the treatment of Mr Skipperʼs memory in this trial shows that the practice is vastly different. Mark Evans QC lost no opportunity to accuse Mr Skipper of his estranged wifeʼs murder, using evidence that had been rejected by the jury that tried and acquitted Mr Skipper and evidence that was inadmissible against him in that trial.

This was a thinly disguised prosecution of a man who could no longer defend himself – a prosecution that had no burden of proof and for whom there appeared to be no rules on the admissibility of evidence.

There was absolutely no presumption of innocence for Mr Skipper and no thought was spared for the feelings of his child – still a young teenager. The quality of the so-called evidence used in this back-door prosecution of Phillip Skipper was woeful. There ought to be rules governing such tactics and consequences for such conduct.

1 The judgement was published subsequently: The Editor.

Satish Sekar explains the case to Colombia’s finest forensic scientists.

Despicable

John Pope was a suspect originally in the murder of Karen Skipper, which occurred in Cardiff in March 1996. He was eliminated, incorrectly as it turned out. Sadly the late Phillip Skipper stood trial for a crime that he did not commit the following year. An inquiry by West Midlands Police concluded that the decision to prosecute Skipper was justified. It certainly was not. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) should not have allowed it to come to trial.

The scientific evidence was not allowed to speak as it could and should have. Blood-staining in an intimate area of the victim’s clothing established his innocence through forensic science techniques that were available at the time. DNA testing established that it was not his blood, nor that of his estranged wife Karen.

That should have eliminated Skipper from police enquiries, but desperate times called for desperate measures. A ludicrous explanation was advanced – one that hinged on Mrs Skipper never having washed resold jeans that she bought at a market several weeks previously. Phillip Skipper was rightly acquitted, but the damage had been done, despite the absence of both smoke and fire.

Remorseless

Nevertheless, his memory – he died of cancer aged just 48 – was put on trial again three times. It was Pope’s DNA and his explanation of the transfer of blood that he claimed caused that positive DNA identification stretched credibility. Was it possible? Yes. Was it likely? No.

Pope never took responsibility for Karen Skipper’s murder. That’s his right, but blaming an innocent man who could not defend himself three times was reprehensible to put it mildly. And after being found guilty again his QC Mark Evans put forward mitigation on his behalf – the closest that Pope ever came to accepting responsibility.

Shamefully, the tariff was exactly the same as before, but there was no recognition from the court of the ordeal of Phillip Skipper and his family, not even the acknowledgement of his innocence that the first trial judge Mr Justice (Sir Nigel) Davis had given. Why not? Instead, the second trial’s judge, Mr Justice (Sir Roderick) Evans had decided to give the jury a bad character warning about Skipper even though he had no relevant convictions.

After Jeffrey Gafoor was brought to justice for the murder of Lynette White, allowing the innocent to suffer for your crime was supposed to be taken into account. In fact, it has never happened – an appalling message to give to killers as it tells them that there are no consequences for allowing the innocent to go to jail for their crimes.

A Total Disgrace

The Fitted-In Journal covered Pope’s retrial last year (2011) – many other mainstream media did not – and at least some of those that did simply didn’t get it. Another miscarriage of justice was unfolding before our eyes, but few media were interested in it. They still aren’t even though this case bears all the hallmarks of a serious travesty of justice and wrecked lives – many of them.

Karen Skipper’s family had been cruelly deceived. They had originally thought that ‘Ginger’ (Skipper’s nickname), was guilty and after having let him into their family, they hated him with a passion. Skipper died young of stomach cancer, maintain his innocence to the end. They were wrong about him and accept that now, but where are they supposed to put their guilt now? How are they to come to terms with having hated an innocent man?

Neither Victim Support, nor the Miscarriages of Justice Support Service visited either Skipper family – Philip’s or Karen’s – to assist them through a very difficult process that they had to endure thrice with a fourth likely should Pope appeal. That included a girl who had been forced to hear about her deceased father being wrongly accused of murder three times while barely in her teens. Her mother could have painted a different picture of Mr Skipper than the one that emerged at trial, but the court never heard from the mother of his child.

Meanwhile, Pope’s defence could hurl any mud, however nonsensical, with no controls, while they effectively prosecuted Phillip Skipper once more, but without a burden of proof. There was no representation for Phillip Skipper’s estate, or his family, let alone redress. Why not? There was clear and unequivocal scientific evidence that he was innocent.

Outrage

Pope’s defence even demanded an acquittal for their client if the jury thought that Skipper might have done it. Had the Crown tried to prosecute Skipper on such evidence, it is inconceivable that the Court of Appeal would have given permission for double jeopardy to be set aside.

It was a rehash of the original Skipper trial, including evidence the original prosecutor thought not worthy to put before the jury, a ‘new’ witness whose account beggared belief and there was DNA against someone else – a suspect who had occurred in the original inquiry – Pope. Why was this allowed?

The CPS could not hope to bring such a prosecution to trial now, so why was Pope’s defence allowed to do so? There was outrage aplenty for Bob Dowler when convicted serial killer Levi Bellfield tried to point a finger at him and rightly so, but where is the outrage for Phillip Skipper, who had no opportunity to even defend himself and where is the outrage for his daughter?

Obligations

It was apparently a matter of pride for South Wales Police to put right what they got wrong in the Lynette White Inquiry. They failed to do so, but in the Karen Skipper Inquiry, they refused to even try. Why were they allowed to get away with that?

Where was the outrage for Karen Skipper and her family? Where was the outrage for Phillip Skipper and his family? And where is society’s outrage? Why do we tolerate millions of pounds of our resources being thrown away without consequences or even accountability in cases such as this?

Where is the investigation of the Karen Skipper Inquiry to establish how the wrong man originally stood trial and if any errors occurred that could have prevented repetition? In 2009 after Pope’s original conviction I asked South Wales Police to investigate what went wrong. They refused. The result was a colossal waste of public resources, time and unnecessary suffering imposed on a young girl who deserved far better. She still does.

Two trials and an appeal later, there is no excuse for failing to investigate this and other vindication cases thoroughly, but there is one vital lesson to emerge from the Lynette White Inquiry Police Corruption Trial. South Wales Police and the criminal justice system cannot be trusted to put right what they got wrong.

1 This article was originally published in the Fitted-In Journal, which was sadly destroyed by hackers and is no longer available. The content of this article is relevant to some of our projects – hence our republication of it. Satish Sekar is the author of Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry (The Fitted In Project, 1998).This article was uploaded onto this site after the publication of his second book on the Lynette White Inquiry. The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt was subsequently published by Waterside Press in 2012.

The Colombian scientists listening with disbelief at how the injustice suffered by the Skippers occurred.

]]> https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?feed=rss2&p=1192 4 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=1037 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=1037#comments Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:36:17 +0000 http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=1037 Read more]]> Fitted In – An Integrated Approach
by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (June 1st 2011)
Cyclone of Injustice – Joyce Gilchrist
Joyce Gilchrist was once fêted – the go to analyst, but there was a hidden story. Gilchrist swept through Oklahomaʼs criminal justice system – a cyclone of injustice – leaving a trail of devastated lives in her wake. This included victims of miscarriages of justice and the original crimes too as well as the people of Oklahoma whose interests were betrayed by Gilchristʼs failures.
Among the cases that she got horribly wrong was that of Jeffrey Todd Pierce. He was convicted of rape, largely due to evidence manipulated by Gilchrist. Pierce had a strong alibi and no previous convictions. He lost fifteen years of his life for a rape he did not commit. There is no doubt that he is innocent as the real rapist Omer May Jnr. was identified by DNA testing, but May has not and never will be charged with the vicious offence that he committed.
Why? Because the statute of limitations ran out while Pierce was wrongly incarcerated. That is obscene. There should be no statute of limitations on justice, especially when it expired due to the criminal justice system persecuting an innocent man. Whether it takes days, years, decades, or even centuries, there should never be a statute of limitations of any kind on the search for justice.

Appalling

This is not the only vindication case involving Gilchrist. Even now, after her appalling practices were exposed at the cost of her job and others their liberty – possibly lives even – Gilchrist sees herself as the victim, outrageously claiming that she is being punished for alleging sexual discrimination, rather than her practices, which were hopeless at best and more likely corrupt.

Even the vindication of people like Pierce did nothing to chasten Gilchrist, let alone convince her that she was wrong. As with Michael Heath in Britain, the investigation into her practices slammed the lid shut on a scandal of epidemic proportions, especially regarding those who had already been executed.
Gilchrist could not have thrived in the grey areas of disclosure had there been an integrated approach between the forensic sciences and the judicial processes. Oklahoma put funds aside for DNA testing in the wake of the Gilchrist Affair, but the fallout was controlled, meaning a perfect opportunity to deliver important changes to the system that could have prevented repetition was needlessly lost.
The use of Police Laboratories is a case in point. There is no doubt whose side scientists working in those labs were on and were meant to be on. And that creates the conditions where ʻscientistsʼ like Gilchrist can operate, but Gilchrist did not function in a vacuum.

Culpable
The criminal justice system of Oklahoma is culpable too. Colleagues that opposed her were marginalised and accused of professional jealousy. Meanwhile, prosecutors loved her and senior jurists defended her tooth and nail. She flourished through this dark alliance of injustice.
She wrecked many lives with impunity and the system tolerated it and encouraged it even by failing to heed the warning signs repeatedly. At least eleven sentenced to death in her cases were executed.
Some were freed from Death Row, but the Gilchrist Scandal demonstrates the need for eternal vigilance throughout the forensic science and legal communities. Sadly, there are some experts who not only cannot be relied on to tell the truth, but are also not deterred from shoddy practices even with lives at stake.
Despicable
The death penalty has gone in Britain, but powers of life and death remain. Nothing illustrates this better than cases where there is no doubt about innocence because no crime occurred, or the real perpetrator was caught and convicted, or identified if dead. It does not even require a trial to ruin lives. For example the tragic story of Jaycee Lee Dugard claimed another victim.
Her step-father Carl Probyn witnessed the then 11-year-old girl being kidnapped by two people near her home in Lake Tahoe, California on June 10th 1991. Nancy Garrido bundled Jaycee into the car that Probyn described, while her husband Phillip, a registered sex offender, drove the car.
School-children witnessed the kidnapping too. Probyn gave chase on a bicycle, but could not keep up with the kidnappers. After an eighteen year ordeal Jaycee was found alive on August 26th 2009, having been kept captive by the fiendish couple for almost two decades. Her eighteen year disappearance had been resolved, but the girlʼs childhood had been stolen.
Garrido had repeatedly raped her and Nancy was culpable too. Jaycee had two daughters by him, both the result of the rape of a minor. The girls were told that Jaycee was their sister. They know the appalling truth now. The Garridos pleaded guilty to kidnapping and sexually assaulting Dugard on April 28th 2011.
Investigative opportunities were missed and vital time was wasted, investigating Probyn, whose marriage to Jayceeʼs mother Terry was destroyed by the kidnap and suspicion directed at Probyn, who was not only innocent, but had provided solid investigative leads.
Consequently, Probyn is a victim of this disgraceful case too – nowhere near the same extent as Jaycee and her daughters – but a victim nevertheless. He was never charged, let alone wrongfully convicted or charged, but such accusations are soul-destroying.
There was smoke – hot air actually – but no fire there, although the suspicion still managed to burn Probyn, who lost his marriage and family to it.
The State of California let them all, especially Jaycee, down appallingly. She has been compensated and is trying to rebuild her life, but nothing can ever compensate her for that ordeal, or for the failed opportunities to rescue her.
Garrido was a convicted rapist and subject to probation visits and from police over the eighteen years. He had pleaded guilty to several counts of kidnap and rape and was jailed for 431 years on June 2nd 2011. His wife got 36 years to life, agreeing to waive appeal rights.
While the overwhelming measure of sympathy and support must go to Jaycee, her mother, daughters, biological father and Probyn are victims too.
Vindicated
Horrid as it undoubtedly was to be wrongly suspected of involvement in such an offence as the kidnap of Jaycee Lee Dugard, it doesnʼt and cannot compare to actual incarceration for crimes committed by others. There are, according to the Innocence Project, over a hundred cases in the USA where the real perpetrator has been identified after a miscarriage of justice.
The American definition is however inadequate in our opinion as it does not include people like Probyn, but we have clearer examples that illustrate the point. There is no doubt about the vindication cases, yet there are no investigations of what went wrong – no attempt to understand how justice miscarried and why.
Not even attempts to establish if forensic science could have prevented it with one exception in Britain. But the USA is not alone. It has happened in Canada; it has occurred in Australia and New Zealand too and even in the Netherlands. Spain has suffered it too. Even China, Hungary, Belarus, Russia and a strange one in South Africa too have experienced them. And let us not forget the bizarre ones in  Pakistan and Uganda  – miscarriages of justice where the supposed murder victim turned up alive and well.
Absurd
This does not mention jurisdictions where the supposedly deceased people turned up alive and well later. Mpagi Edward Edmary spent eighteen long years on Death Row in Uganda for a murder he not only did not commit, but for a crime that did not happen. His cousin, Fred Masembe died on Death Row awaiting execution for this non-crime, untreated as he was there to be killed – an innocent man!
Meanwhile, George William Wandyake was alive and well, and even thought to have attended their trial. Why did the Ugandan authorities not demand proof that Wandyake was dead before trying, let alone convicting, innocent men of murder? Where was the compelling medical evidence justifying this prosecution?
It disgraces every concept of justice that this shambolic prosecution was allowed to pollute a court of law. It is also interesting that in all the discussion of human rights abuses in China, not a word is spent on vindication, despite a few cases where cases were solved by confessions secured by beating suspects until they confessed.
Notorious
A notorious double murder of police officers – they were executed – was solved in this manner. The defendant showed his injuries to the judge. He was sentenced to death, but it was suspended later.
Du Peiwu could easily have rotted in a Chinese prison for a crime he did not commit, but for sheer luck. The real perpetrators were arrested on other matters and confessed to the crime that Du had been convicted of.
It was a shocking miscarriage of justice in every way, especially regarding its victim. The man police officers tortured into confessing to a crime he did not commit was no ordinary victim of injustice. Du Peiwu was a fellow police officer, but that didnʼt save him.
Tolerating Injustice
There are other extraordinary cases of vindication in that jurisdiction too. If ever a criminal justice system cried out for an integrated approach between forensic sciences, investigative methods and court procedures, surely it was China.
These injustices were secured through torture, but let us not cast the first stone against China until we address the glaring flaws in our own system. We have tolerated rendition and the abuse of our citizens in the name of the ʻWar on Terrorʼ, while condemning other governments over their records.
By what right can we condemn other governments while tolerating these abuses and others that are ignored, undiagnosed even – abuses that shame and disgrace our society? We permit undeniably innocent people who have been wronged in our name to be treated shamefully.
Let us remember Jaycee Lee Dugard and her family. They were betrayed by their own criminal justice system. No compensation can ever make amends. $20m does not return her stolen life and innocence to her.
It does not justify the failure to protect them – rights they had every right to expect and demand. Compensation does not, or at least should not, cater for their care needs. The psychological damage that has been done to them all needs to be addressed at state expense.
They were failed by the system that had a duty to protect them, so it owes each of them restitution to the lives that were stolen from them. And that duty extends to other innocent victims of injustice, especially the vindicated and that should begin here.

Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (June 1st 2011)

Discretion and Valour

Of the seven vindication cases in Britain four of them are no longer eligible for compensation or after-care and it is too late to help a fifth, who would have qualified.[2] The abolition of the Discretionary Scheme for compensation in 2006 denies anyone whose conviction is quashed too soon eligibility for compensation. The current government endorsed that shameful decision.[3]

“The discretionary compensation scheme was abolished on 19 April 2006 by the then Home Secretary and the coalition Government have no plans to reintroduce it,” Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lord (Thomas) McNally replied to a written question from Lord (John) Laird earlier this year.[4]

“We will continue to consider applications for compensation under the statutory scheme, Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which fully meets our international obligations.”

Scandalous

That means that some people who have been vindicated would be excluded if their cases were to happen now, but compensation is only part of the problem. There is an even bigger scandal over the provision of care or restoration.
A ludicrous error passed unnoticed nearly a decade ago. The Home Office recognised that victims of miscarriages of justice required and deserved assistance to rebuild their lives. It established a Working Group to consider the issue and establish such a scheme. It was given terms of reference and so was Peter Shore (not the former MP of that name), the Consultant that it hired to conduct a scoping study.
Shore failed to execute those terms of reference adequately and recommended a scheme that excluded the vast majority of victims of miscarriages of justice. Only Sean Hodgson is alive and eligible for the scheme operated by the MJSS, which begs the question, what use is it if it excludes the demonstrably innocent?[5]

To its shame and disgrace it failed to highlight the obvious injustice of its remit excluding among others Colin Stagg. There is plenty of shame and disgrace to go round over this and that includes mainstream media.

Plain Wrong

The term injustice is grossly inadequate to describe the suffering that Stagg and others like him went through. If he is not the victim of a miscarriage of a justice, the term has no meaning. Stagg is entitled to more than just compensation for what happened to him.
He did not ask for what happened to him to occur and is in no way responsible for the incompetence and unethical practices that ruined his life. He will always be identifiable as the suspect in the Rachel Nickell case regardless of his proven innocence.
At last he has now received apologies for what he went through, but the state has an obligation to restore him to the life that he should have had if that miscarriage of justice had not happened to him. That has not happened and the coalition government has no intention of ensuring that it does. In fact, its ministers donʼt even know its own policy.
“The Ministry of Justice funds the Miscarriage of Justice Support Service (MJSS) to help those who have had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal,” McNally replied to Laird. “The MJSS provides help with issues such as healthcare, accommodation, finance and relationships. The MJSSʼ funding has recently been extended for a further year to March 2012 and the Ministry of Justice is working with it to improve the support they provide.”

Disgraceful

First of all, the MJSS does not provide help to those who have had their convictions quashed on appeal – it only provides that limited assistance to a tiny minority of such people. It shamefully reneged on a commitment to help Tony Paris and Yusef Abdullahi eight years ago to protect its funding, which included their wages.
The fact remains that there are several victims of miscarriages of justice who receive no help at all from the MJSS. If McNally is unaware of this, he ought to be ashamed of himself. The MJSS had the opportunity to help and improve the so-called service it provides eight years ago. It chose to sacrifice the interests of the undeniably innocent to protect its wages, claiming it was to protect its funding.
That disgraceful decision helped to cost lives. At least three vindicated people died without living to fifty without receiving any help whatsoever from the MJSS or the Ministry of Justice. Neither can ever make amends.

Exclusion Ordered

The original defendants in the Damilola Taylor case are at least still alive, but they receive no help from the MJSS. They were children when it happened; they had criminal records and were far from angels. So what!
They did not kill Taylor and they did not ask to be wrongly accused of a crime that shocked the nation. They have been compensated now after a long and hard battle and even that is resented. Why?
Where is the anger at the shoddy investigation that secured abysmal evidence from the child witness referred to as ʻBromleyʼ? Where is the anger at the utter incompetence of Sian Hedges that resulted in the wrongful release of the Preddie brothers (Ricky and Danny)?
The outrage at the size of the award given to two brothers (not the Preddies) is totally misplaced. They deserve compensation – at least that amount, but the size of the award given to Taylorʼs family is insulting. That should be addressed by increasing the award made to Taylorʼs family, not by attacking the award made to boys who stood trial when they should not have.

Motes and Specks

Meanwhile, we allow the undeniably innocent to be treated in a fashion that shames each and every one of us. That mainstream media ignores this scandal disgraces them too. That governments of both political hues refuse to act to end this outrage betrays every concept of justice.
They go to war in foreign fields to defend human rights, yet these hypocrites tolerate and ignore the human rights abuses that they allow to occur right here in Britain. By what right do they dare to lecture others when this is how they allow people they know to be innocent beyond doubt to be treated? It appears they need considerable assistance to remove the enormous mote from their own eyes, while tackling specks in the eyes of others.

Progress

The Fitted-In Project led the way in highlighting the treatment of these victims and in one of the cases we helped fill the void caused by the betrayal of the innocent with the assistance of a remarkable advocate and champion of restorative justice, Roger Backhouse QC. He led the delivery of after-care in practice to his former client, Yusef Abdullahi, without which, shorn of help and hope, the prospect of recovery was bleak.
While Backhouse and others provided the assistance required to an undoubtedly innocent man, the government and MJSS ignored that manʼs needs and those of the majority of victims of miscarriages of justice.[6]

Even now eight years later, the government has no plans to right the wrong that allowed this shameful injustice to occur. Instead it will consult with the very organisation that betrayed the innocent to protect its funding – shameful!

The Effects of Vindication

Instead of consulting people that played no part in catering for the needs of the vindicated, even at the cost of consigning them to early graves, we call for meaningful research that will boost our understanding of a shamefully neglected group of victims of miscarriages of justice.
The psychological effects of vindication remain a mystery. The vindicated are no more innocent now than they always were. The difference is that now they are believed by all but those who refuse to see. But what about the effects on vindication? Has the very thing they craved actually damaged them?
For many years they suffered whispering campaigns, including among so-called friends and developed paranoid reactions to their own communities, wondering who believed them and who didnʼt. Friendships and other relationships broke down under the strain of the certainty they now have against their knowledge that they should have been believed and supported to the hilt earlier.

Justice Betrayed

Feeling hurt – betrayed even – by people they trusted, but whose support was not strong enough, the vindicated may need extra support, or at least understanding. That requires research and it must include the psychological effects of tariff abuse.
Some vindicated people have seen the truly guilty receive more lenient tariffs than they did. How can this be justified and what effect does it have on the mental well-being of the vindicated? There is not so much a dearth of research on this – it is virtually non-existent.
Tariff Reform and after-care, especially in relation to the vindicated, are the flagship projects of The Fitted-In Project. They even involve sport as a means to aid their recovery.
We believe that research is essential on both topics and we are conducting it, but there are areas that we cannot cover as efficiently as we would like, so we call on the Clinical Forensic and Legal Medicine Section of the Royal Society of Medicine, other organisations and individuals to join us in facilitating understanding of the psychological effects of vindication in terms of after-care needs and also tariff abuse through research. We hope that its members will research these issues, or facilitate research projects with us on these issues.
It is through knowledge that their needs can be addressed, but first they need to be understood – that is a task to be led by professionals in the field through rigorous research. It is in our opinion an essential tenet of another integrated approach – one that integrates the vindicated back into society and the life they should have had.

[1] An indication of the importance of an integrated approach can be seen in Equality of Arms, at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=690  for more on this case and others too.

[2]  Subsequently, a sixth who plainly was eligible has died, so it is too late for him too.

[3]  The current government has extended the attack on compensation to demand a standard that appears to demand that the wrongfully convicted must be exonerated – a standard that can prove impossible to meet unless the real perpetrator is brought to justice. Few independent observers believe that Barry George had anything to do with the murder of former gymnast and later television presenter, Jill Dando, but he has been denied compensation on the grounds of exoneration. This is grossly unfair as the criminal justice system rarely makes findings of innocence. A not guilty verdict includes both the innocent and also defendants who have not been proved guilty. The distinction is moot. Similarly convictions are quashed on appeal because they are unsafe. That includes both the innocent and appellants whose convictions were faulty. Again the distinction is moot as neither the trial nor appeal gives a finding of innocence, so how does a wrongfully accused prove that they have been exonerated and are therefore entitled to compensation?

[4] Please note that this was in 2011.

[5] That was correct when this presentation was given to a conference of medical practitioners, which included distinguished forensic pathologists.

[6]    See how we exposed this scandal in A Lack of Care at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=709 and Who Cared? at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=707

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (June 1st 2011)

Lectures

If we intend to keep handing out lectures on human rights to other governments, then we have to address our own failings. There are seven vindication cases in Britain in the DNA age. Two of them occurred in London, one in Hampshire, another in West Yorkshire, one near the border between Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire and the other two were in Wales.

For legal reasons the Welsh ones could not be detailed[2] – there were trials in progress in both cases. John Pope had won an appeal, which led to a retrial in Newport before Mr Justice Roderick Evans. I covered that trial. The other trial was the Lynette White Inquiry Police Corruption Trial.

Both Phillip Skipper and the Cardiff Five had been vindicated, but were still facing unwarranted accusations. Nevertheless, the effects still need to be addressed in all vindication cases.

Shameful

Stefan Kiszko is dead and so is his remarkable mother, Charlotte. Both went to their graves without receiving assistance to rebuild their lives or even compensation. By todayʼs provisions, Kiszko was entitled to both, but he was long dead.

He lost over sixteen years of his life for a crime he did not commit and it was patently obvious early in the Lesley Molseed Inquiry that Kiszko was innocent. He could not produce semen, but that was on her clothing and was therefore an early and important clue.

The late Jack Dibb was charged over the Kiszko case as was his then subordinate Dick Holland and a forensic scientist Ronald Outteridge. The charges were dropped by a magistrate after Dibbʼs death. Years later a hit on the National DNA Database resulted in the identification of Ronald Castree as the prime suspect.

Thirty-two years after Molseed was murdered Castree was convicted. He still protests his innocence, but the real victim of the miscarriage of justice is Kiszko. He was wrongly labelled a pervert for exposing himself to school-girls. It later emerged that this was the justification for suspecting him in the first place, but that accusation was false too.

Years later, with Kiszkoʼs life ruined, the girls admitted that they had lied about him for a laugh! This illustrates the dangers of relying on the uncorroborated claims of immature people. The wheels of justice began turning at break-neck speed as a result of that and the subsequent obsession with Kiszko.

Appalling

Kiszko was failed disgracefully by the criminal justice system. His defence layers knew about the semen issue, but failed to present evidence at his trial that would have cleared him beyond doubt. The consequences were dreadful. He was attacked in prison and damaged irreparably by his ordeal. He never recovered and never saw Castree brought to justice.

While his defence lawyers at trial must take the lionʼs share of the blame and deservedly too, the rest of the criminal justice is not blameless either. The evidence against Kiszko was hopeless.

He was a vulnerable man coerced by inadequate interviewing methods into confessing to a crime he did not commit. Progress has been made in this respect. Confessions, especially from such vulnerable people, are not treated as the Holy Grail they once were.

Such advances are signs of an integrated approach to evidence having been developed, but too late for Kiszko. If the scientific evidence had been handled in a competent manner, the truth could have emerged in time to prevent that tragedy occurring.

Sadly it is too late to do anything for Kiszko or his mother, but his experiences must be recalled with disgust and a determination to learn from them. Nothing resembling this must ever be allowed to happen again.

Investigative methods must be fully integrated with advances in science and also current forensic science techniques. Rules of evidence must be adapted too. For evidence of innocence to be available early in this process, yet take sixteen years to emerge, while an innocent manʼs life was destroyed, is utterly unacceptable.

Post-Conviction Relief

Sean Hodgson, at least is still alive and eligible for both compensation and the inadequate after-care provided by the government through the Miscarriages of Justice Support Service (MJSS),[3] a misnomer if ever there was one. Hodgson served nearly three decades in prison for the rape and murder of Teresa di Simone. David Lace was the real perpetrator. His post-conviction confession was found to be unreliable, yet discrepancies in Hodgsonʼs account and the lack of scientific evidence were discounted. His new lawyers were told that samples to test no longer existed, but eventually testable material was located and Hodgson was cleared. Vindication followed soon, as Laceʼs confession was tested against scientific evidence. His guilt was proved, but Lace was long dead. Hodgson qualifies for assistance from the MJSS and is eligible for compensation too. Of seven vindication cases in Britain, Hodgson alone is eligible for both and alive to claim it.

Britainʼs Supreme Court recently produced a definition of a miscarriage of justice with reference to a compensation claim by Andrew Adams, but regardless of it, many victims of miscarriages of justice including the vindicated remain excluded from eligibility for compensation and after-care too.[4] There is no doubt that Colin Stagg is and always was completely innocent of any involvement in the murder of Rachel Nickell. It is hard to find a more blinkered investigation than that one. The honey-trap was more in keeping with Cold War intrigue than legitimate investigation of crime, yet it was attempted. It was quite rightly thrown out by Mr Justice (Sir Harry) Ognall in 1994 after Stagg had been in prison on remand for the best part of a year.

Stagg emerged to a vitriolic whispering campaign, fuelled among others by disgruntled police officers who felt aggrieved that the evidence they had gathered was not accepted. The honey-trap officer, referred to as Lizzie James, was compensated before Stagg after it affected her career – she left the police and country too over it. There never was any credible evidence against Stagg; it had to be generated through those unethical methods. It also helped to end the career of Paul Britton; he deserved nothing less. Despite his efforts to distance himself from the scandal, he is not a victim in this and nor are the officers who allowed that honey-trap to proceed and nor is the CPS either.

An integrated approach to crime investigation could have prevented the whole fiasco from happening. Stagg was not a likely killer. There was nothing in his criminal record or character traits that justified suspecting him at all and there was no scientific evidence against him either. Meanwhile, the real killer, Robert Napper, should have emerged as a suspect far earlier and at least two lives could have been saved if a rape allegation had been investigated competently. DNA testing eventually resolved the case beyond doubt by conclusively linking Napper to Nickellʼs murder, but this was a catalogue of errors in both investigations and that continued after resolution too.

Stagg has been paid substantial compensation and rightly so, but were the same thing to happen now, he would not be eligible. That is shameful, but it is in some ways worse that he does not qualify for assistance to rebuild his life. Any definition of a miscarriage of justice that does not include Colin Stagg, is an affront to common sense and justice too and any scheme to assist victims of miscarriages of justice to recover from their ordeal that does not help him is a disgrace. But it does not stop there.

In 2006 four young men should have received an apology from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. A crass error by forensic scientist Sian Hedges was discovered during a review of the Damilola Taylor Inquiry. Original suspects Ricky and Danny Preddie had been eliminated due in part to the absence of blood evidence on their property. It later emerged that a training shoe belonging to Danny had clear traces of blood on it – the photograph proved it.[5] The blood was DNA tested and found to have been shed by Taylor. Fibre evidence also linked them to the 10 year-oldʼs death. The Preddie brothers changed their account of their movements as a result, but were convicted of manslaughter in August 2006.

Four years earlier four boys were acquitted by judge or jury. The case against them was a travesty. A witness referred to in court as Bromley was utterly unreliable to put it mildly, but there were other signs that something was badly wrong as well. A trawl of Feltham Young Offenders Institute produced so called evidence, some of which came from witnesses of the lowest possible order. Instead of helping those boys to rebuild their lives – one of them has been deported as a crime risk – they have been left to fend for themselves and are denied even an expression of regret, let alone apology. The effect the wrongful accusation of murdering Damilola has had on his life and subsequent conduct has not been considered on that decision or on the future. He is an adult now, living in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country that is far from stable and to which he has little or no connection to any more, as he left it aged nine.

[1] An indication of the importance of an integrated approach can be seen in Equality of Arms, at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=690  for more on this case and others too.

[2] This article was part of a presentation made at a conference to medical practitioners, which included forensic    pathologists, in 2011. At the time two trials were taking place – the Lynette White Police Inquiry Police Corruption Trial and the retrial of John Pope for the murder of Karen Skipper. Both of these re vindication cases and ones that FIP has taken an interest in. Pope was subsequently convicted. The Police Corruption Trial was halted on the orders of the judge, following serious failures by the prosecution. This is ironic as the CPS imposed conditions on others, especially myself and Fitted-In while displaying extremely shoddy standards itself, which should have led to serious consequences for it. This is one of the reasons we still demand a Truth and Justice Commission into the whole of this case, rather than the deeply flawed processes that have occurred so far.

[3] Hodgson died in October 2012, aged 61.

[4] The sadly defunct Fitted-In Journal covered this issue in A Deafening Silence. Regrettably other media, including the Guardian and New Statesman, insist on ignoring this scandal, while claiming that it is the type of story that is important to them. We will republish it soon.

[5] See The Partial Truth Truth – Errors of Judgement at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=743 for our coverage of this issue.