Scandalous

Tomorrow is Mother’s Day. With a cruel irony – cruel because 20-year-old Lynette White was denied the chance of motherhood that she desired – her murderer becomes eligible to apply for parole after a serving a paltry thirteen years. Twenty-eight years ago on Saint Valentine’s Day Lynette was the victim of what was then the most brutal murder of its type in Welsh history. She was stabbed over fifty times. Her throat was slit more than once. Her murderer continued stabbing her as she lay dying, or even dead.

Tomorrow, of all days, Jeffrey Gafoor, her self-confessed sole killer, completes the excessively lenient tariff that was imposed on him by Mr Justice (Sir John) Royce almost ten years ago. It was a tariff strewn with error, but there’s none as blind as those who refuse to see.

Verging on the sadistic?

When giving his reasons for imposing the tariff, Royce said that Lynette’s murder, “verged on the sadistic”. Lloyd Paris – brother of Tony, who was one of three men wrongly convicted of Lynette’s murder in 1990 – disagrees. “I would say the man was wrong”, he said. “It is sadistic. Well, that was the most sadistic thing that ever happened around me”.

Is there any doubt that it was sadistic? Not for Lloyd Paris.

“Totally, you know. He [Gafoor] says something like, ‘I can remember stabbing her a few times, but I can’t remember the rest. It’s all a haze’. Well he should be able to. Someone should be showing him the facts of what he done, so it’s not a haze no more, so when he starts quoting things, he can say, ‘Yeah, it was a haze but I’ve been told that this was the damage’”.

And he’s not alone in thinking that Lynette’s murder was sadistic. There’s not much that surprises the Western Mail’s Chief Reporter, Martin Shipton, but this does. “Well I don’t know what his perception of the threshold of sadism is, but mine certainly, it would seem, isn’t lower than his” Shipton said with incredulity at the suggestion that it could be seen as anything other than sadistic.

Consequences

It had a considerable effect. If Lynette’s murder had been termed sadistic, the starting point could have been thirty years rather than the fifteen that Royce decided was appropriate.

“Well that’s obviously made a considerable difference, though I’m not clear why he has come to that conclusion, because obviously fifty stab wounds is much more than would be required to kill someone”, Shipton said. “Well that’s a considerable difference clearly. I suppose the prospect this man could be out after fifteen years is quite disturbing given the level of violence that was involved in the crime”.

Lloyd Paris goes further. “That’s where he should have started – simple as”, he said. “It is sadistic. It don’t verge on nothing, you know. The damage done to that poor girl was horrific, so how he could say it verges on sadistic is a joke”.

And there were other problems too. Lynette’s murder was exceptionally brutal. However, there was another serious aggravating circumstance – one that Royce viewed as the most important. Gafoor had allowed five innocent men to go to prison for a total of sixteen years for a crime that he knew he had committed on his own. The tariff should fit the crimes and in this case it plainly did not.

Having set his starting point at fifteen years Royce thought that he could only allow a third for aggravating circumstances. With that starting point he had to include both the brutality of Lynette’s murder and allowing the innocent to suffer in the aggravating circumstances. Five years for both of those aggravating circumstances? “No”, an outraged Lloyd Paris said. “No. Five years is not enough”. It is hard to disagree, especially as Royce only allowed four and a half for both.

Limits

Max Hill QC suggests that there was no limit on Royce regarding aggravating circumstances. “It [a document published by the Sentencing Council] makes it clear that the Coroners and Justice Act, which is the vehicle for this, expects courts to sentence according to the guidelines, but if the court is satisfied that it’s according to the interests of justice to do so, that court can do so and that to me is a clear signal that if there is an unusual feature in a case, which might be an unusual feature that mitigates downwards or an unusual feature that aggravates upwards, every judge has the ability to take that into account and to act on it”, Hill said.

“And so, just before we get into any detail, if you are sentencing someone whose been proven on scientific evidence to be guilty of a serious crime and you are told that there was an earlier prosecution, which led to conviction at a time when the real culprit was living in this jurisdiction and, as it were, did nothing to come forward or to assist, the sentencing judge on being told that, is entitled, using the interests of justice safety valve, to say, ‘Well that is a unique feature of this case and I don’t need anything in black and white in my guidelines to tell me that I can treat that as an aggravating feature’”, he continued, but that was not the issue – the amount was.

After he had taken mitigation into account, Royce decided that the very serious aggravating circumstances only outweighed mitigation by a year. “No, it don’t reflect the enormity”, Lloyd Paris says. “It don’t reflect anything. One year is nothing”.

Miscategorised

But these are far from the only errors of judgement to plague this case. Lynette had not been raped, or sexually assaulted and she was fully clothed, yet this was 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”, Barclay explains. “Thereʼs a slash across the face. Itʼs a sexually motivated homicide – full stop”.

Could there be any doubt? Not according to Barclay and he should know. He has conducted several reviews of homicides, including Lynette’s. “No there cannot be and I use it in my lectures to forensic psychology students and as soon as I say, what sort of murder is this and as soon as I show the picture without the puffa jacket, itʼs 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”.

So was it sadistic? “Well it is quite sadistic doing that sort of stuff”, he said. “No, itʼs a sexually motivated homicide. Sexually motivated homicides are not necessarily sadistic”. Although he would not necessarily use the term sadistic, this was the missing link – this showed that the violence suffered by Lynette was indeed sexually motivated and that should have been considered. The judge mentioned that twenty-five wounds were to her breasts, but tellingly he does not describe it as a sexually motivated homicide, which begs the question, why wasn’t he told that by the prosecution?

Further Error

Having set his starting point at fifteen years, Royce detailed how the policy at the relevant time was to start at twelve years. He felt bound to do the same, but was he? Two other murders that occurred in Cardiff – both sexually motivated and I would say sadistic suggest otherwise. Geraldine Palk was the victim of an even more brutal murder than Lynette in December 1990. Her murderer, Mark Hampson was brought to justice around the same time as Gafoor.

And in 1996 Karen Skipper was murdered. Her estranged husband Phillip was rightly acquitted in 1997. Her real murderer, John Pope, was convicted of her murder in 2009 and again at retrial in 2011. Lady Justice (Dame Heather) Hallett chose a starting point of fifteen years for Hampson. Mr Justices (Sir Nigel) Davis and (Sir Roderick) Evans selected a starting point of fifteen years for Pope. Davis, Evans and Hallett stuck to fifteen years. Either they are wrong or Royce was. There appear to be several grounds to appeal against the leniency of Gafoor’s tariff, but that was not done at the time.

Adding insult to injury, Gafoor appears to have received a very lenient tariff and even that was applied wrongly. At least two of the innocent Cardiff Three, the late Yusef Abdullahi and Tony Paris received harsher tariffs for the same crime. Gafoor could show remorse, do all the courses and progress towards parole in a system designed to help rehabilitate him, while the Cardiff Three could not without admitting a lie that would have prevented their eventual vindication. And now the real killer becomes eligible to apply for parole on Mother’s Day.

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.

The Rules of the Game

The family of murder victim Karen Skipper took a long time to accept that her deceased husband Phillip was innocent, but they are now convinced and share the outrage of his family, which includes the mother of his daughter as well. They all believe that, rather than observing the trial of her murderer, John Pope, they were forced to endure yet another trial of Mr Skipper – a man who could not defend himself and whose rights and reputation were given no legal protections at all.

They are further aggrieved that this time Pope’s retrial occurred without any safeguard at all of Mr Skipper’s right to be presumed innocent. Mr Pope, through his counsel, Mark Evans QC, was given carte blanche to put Mr Skipper on trial yet again, only he could use so-called evidence that had been ruled inadmissible during Mr Skipper’s trial in 1997.

The families of Karen Skipper and Phillip Skipper are united in their disbelief that the criminal justice system tolerated this. They say that relying on old evidence that had failed to convince the jury first time round and incredible new evidence that should have been laughed out of court meant that there was no burden of proof on his accusers – Mr Popeʼs defence. Where, they ask was the respect for their human rights? Where, in fact, was respect for the law?

The roles appeared to have been somewhat reversed. Prosecuting QC, Ian Murphy, was bound by the rules of evidence and Mr Popeʼs right to be presumed innocent and he observed his burden scrupulously. Mr Evans effectively was prosecuting Mr Skipper, but there were no rules governing what he could say and do.

Scrupulously Unfair

The judge, Mr Justice (Sir Roderick) Evans, bent over backwards to accommodate Mr Pope – even giving a bad character direction on Mr Skipper despite the lack of convictions justifying it. Pope was allowed to sit back while his QC prosecuted Skipper with no constraints. Phillip Skipper could not defend himself from the character assassination and nobody represented his interests, even though it was in the interests of the prosecution of Pope to do so.

This was a shocking abuse of the law and raises the question of why the system did not provide lawyers to represent the rights of the families of Phillip Skipper and Karen too. It got far worse. Mr Evans had even suggested that if the jury thought that it could have been Mr Skipper, then they should acquit his client. That outraged miscarriage of justice survivor Michael O’Brien.

“I don’t know how they can get away with saying those words to the jury and why the judge didn’t step in because it’s already been established in a court of law that Mr Skipper was acquitted and under European law, it says once you’re acquitted, you’re entitled to the presumption of innocence, so how they’ve managed to get away with this defence”? said O’Brien.

Mr Murphy could have done so far more robustly. After all, it was in his interests to prove Mr Skipper innocent, as that would have cut the ground out from beneath the deplorable defence tactics. Sadly, this appears to be a trend in such prosecutions – nobody represents the rights of the wrongly accused.

“Well it more than beggars belief. It just makes you angry, you know, the fact that a man who can’t defend himself”, Mr O’Brien continued. “That’s like picking on a vulnerable person and this is picking on someone who can’t defend himself and it’s the same principle behind it and it shouldn’t have been allowed”.

Inadmissible evidence and also the quite frankly ludicrous evidence of Pauline Horton masqueraded as ʻproofʼ of Skipperʼs guilt. The Crown could never have prosecuted such a shoddy case, so why was a defence lawyer allowed to do so by the back door?

“Well I think we’ve got to define what significant new evidence is”, O’Brien says. “Let me put it clearly, unless there is DNA or something of that calibre, or somebody who can describe them to a tee who didn’t know the person who had done the crime, but if they’re too scared to come forward where you can actually prove there was no collusion, then you shouldn’t be allowed to produce this kind of evidence and blame other people as the defence, because that is just attacking somebody’s innocence again”.

O’Brien is outraged. “I think that goes against everything that the court says the innocent person is entitled to and which an acquitted person is entitled to – the presumption of innocence – and I think the only reason why Pope’s defence has got away with this is because they know they have legal privilege”, he says. “They know they are supposed to go on the facts. What evidence is there that Phillip Skipper has done this crime? It should never have arisen a second time, but they’ve done it. It has to be stopped”.

And there’s another issue. Why did the prosecution fail to demonstrate Mr Skipper’s innocence when the evidence to do so had been there all along?

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=1040 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=1040#comments Mon, 06 Apr 2015 12:56:20 +0000 http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=1040 Read more]]> Fitted In – An Integrated Approach[1]

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.

Disbelief

The failure to investigate, let alone prosecute in miscarriage of justice cases is striking. Mervyn ‘Tex’ Ritter expressed disbelief that appeal judges believed him after an unsuccessful appeal by the Bridgewater Four. Despite their exoneration in 1997 there was no prosecution of Ritter or police officers despite compelling Esda (Electrostatic depression analysis) evidence.

The late Gary Mills and Tony Poole’s case is even more disturbing. Despite clear findings of wrong-doing by police officers by two sets of appeal judges, a Lord Chief Justice, a libel trial jury and the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) justice has been denied.

Serious allegations of malpractice including perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice have never been adequately investigated by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) or the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), let alone considered by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Despite a witness being allowed to lie in his statements to police Paul White has never been investigated for perjury, let alone brought to trial.

Grudging

However, witnesses who claim police malpractice can find themselves charged and condemned. Almost 20 years ago Kevin Sarbutts was jailed for three years for perjury. In 1990 he admitted lying at the trial and second trial of Alban Turner, which resulted in Turner’s wrongful conviction.

Turner was freed on appeal in 1990, but grudgingly by the Court of Appeal, which referred the papers on Sarbutts to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Lord Lane said that it was ʻequally wickedʼ to lie to jail an innocent man or to free a guilty man.

Sarbuttsʼ trial dealt with his allegations of police brutality and misconduct – no charges were brought in relation to Turner. With echoes of the Cardiff Five witnesses’ trial, Sarbutts was treated leniently by His Honour Judge Brian Smedley after a request from the jury for that.

Vindication

Even vindication doesn’t result in investigations, let alone prosecutions. Over a decade after the late Phillip Skipper stood trial for the murder of his estranged wife Karen – a crime committed by John Pope – a witness came forward with a cock and bull story. Pauline Horton claimed that she saw Phillip follow his wife on that fatal night just after she left to walk the dogs.

It allegedly broke Skipper’s alibi and saw him wrongly accused by Pope’s defence at his 2010 appeal and in his subsequent retrial. Her own evidence established that she had a restricted view and could only have seen them in darkness for seconds. There has been no investigation of her claims.

Striking

“Perjury strikes at the heart of the criminal justice system”, said Mr Justice (Sir David) Maddison, when he jailed Learnne Vilday, Angela Psaila and Mark Grommek for 18 months in 2008. Vilday et al had been subjected to conduct that was “unacceptable in a civilised society,” Maddison said.

Police faced trial over it, but the trial collapsed in farcical circumstances in December 2011. Consequently, the three core-witnesses remain the only people convicted of helping to cause one of Britain’s most notorious miscarriages of justice.

Lynette White was brutally murdered in 1988 and five innocent men served a total of 16 years in jail for it. It remains the only miscarriage of justice case where witnesses were convicted of lying about victims of a miscarriage of justice since the notorious Ged Corley case.

Ludicrous

When sentencing the real murderer of Lynette White to life imprisonment in July 2003, Mr Justice (Sir John) Royce told Jeffrey Gafoor: “You allowed innocent men to go to prison for a crime that you knew you had committed.”

In October 2005 Royce gave his reasons for imposing the thirteen year tariff – the minimum that Gafoor must serve before he becomes eligible for release on parole – that included the four months that he served on remand before pleading guilty – although he stressed that it didn’t mean that Gafoor would be released that soon.

Nevertheless it was significantly less than the tariffs imposed on two of the entirely innocent Cardiff Three which were between fourteen and eighteen years.

Constraints

Royce believed that he was only allowed to add one third of his starting point (fifteen years) for aggravating circumstances. In this case they were the brutality of the crime and the fact that he had allowed innocent people to be convicted for his crime.

Royce added four years and six months for that. That is bizarre. Despite it being a particularly brutal crime and Gafoor allowing innocent men to suffer, Royce did not impose the maximum for aggravating circumstances. Why not?

He then gave Gafoor credit for an early guilty plea (he has to allow one sixth for that) and also for assisting the police with their current investigation into what went wrong. He deducted three years and six months for mitigation and because Gafoor was caught in 2003 Royce had to apply the law as it was then, which he thought meant that he had to add the amount to twelve years – the standard tariff at that time¹.

Consequently, Gafoor – the real murderer – received a significantly lower tariff than the innocent people he allowed to go to jail. The Cardiff Five served a total of sixteen years hard time in prison. There is a real possibility that the real murderer will serve less time in prison than the innocent men his silence allowed to be convicted. He becomes eligible to apply for parole in 2016.

Wrong

This is obscene and it sends out a message to killers that it is far better for them to allow the innocent to be convicted and do nothing than take responsibility for their crime. Previously, tariffs were determined by the Home Secretary, but after a challenge to the European Court of Human Rights, the court in Strasbourg ruled that the law had to be changed.

Ironically, a decision that gave the powers to set tariffs to judges deprived them of the very discretion they required to deliver justice based on the particular facts of individual cases. Mr Justice Royce found his hands firmly tied when he came to impose the tariff on Gafoor, or believed that they were. The law resulted in serious aggravating circumstances only outweighing comparatively trivial mitigating circumstances by just a year.

Favour

Meanwhile, the system is weighted further in Gafoor’s favour, as he can express remorse, attend the relevant courses and even use the fact that he assisted the inquiry into what went wrong in the original inquiry to support his parole application.

He can point to the fact that in almost eleven years before his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Lynette White he had not come to the attention of police. His only conviction was an assault on a colleague at work in 1992, which resulted in a non-custodial sentence.

An Insult

If Jeffrey Gafoor serves less time in prison than the innocent men he left to rot for his crime, it will be an insult to every concept of justice. It may be too late for the Cardiff Five, but there will be other cases of vindication where the same issues arise.

It is not too late to ensure that judges have the unfettered discretion to set appropriate tariffs in such cases that fit the individual circumstances of those cases. Perhaps it can’t help the Cardiff Five, but justice must surely reflect society’s disgust at criminals who not only commit terrible crimes but allow innocent people to pay the price of their crimes as well.

Anything less disgraces the very name of justice.

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. It was therefore obvious that the killer had shed his blood.

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 for several weeks. Phillip Skipper was rightly acquitted, but the damage had been done, despite the absence of both smoke and fire.

Double and Treble Jeopardy

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 stretched credibility. Was it possible? Yes. Was it likely? No. Pope never took responsibility. 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.

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. Why not? After Jeffrey Gafoor was brought to justice for the murder of Lynette White, real murderers allowing the innocent to suffer for their 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 – 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. A young girl had been forced to hear about her deceased father being wrongly accused of murder three times while barely in her teens.

Pope’s defence could hurl any mud, however nonsensical, with no controls, while the Crown could not. 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, yet this was never put before the jury. Why not?

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?

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 we 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.

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.