The Sublime and the Absurd

By Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (March 31^st 2025)

Exasperation

Lynette White was just 20-years-old when she was murdered in the early hours of St Valentine’s Day 1988. Jeffrey Gafoor, then 22, had been looking for the services of a sex-worker. Lynette, who dreamed of a different life, wanted to become a mother – she never got the chance, because Gafoor wanted cheap and unprotected sex without even agreeing the price for it. He chose Lynette to service his wants without caring what she had agreed to. She accompanied him to the flat in Butetown that she used for that purpose. It was the last journey of her life.

Gafoor, who had no criminal record at all at the time, let alone anything that would ring alarm bells, also had no history of mental illness. However, he slit her throat to the spine and inflicted 50 offensive wounds, half of which were to her breasts and chest area – there were a further three which were nearby – when she would not provide him with more than had been agreed to. That is the irresistible conclusion to be drawn from his own account.

This was undoubtedly a sexually-motivated murder. It should have resulted in either a 30-year starting point, or the brutality and sexual conduct of the murder should have meant several years were added to the tariff in aggravating factors for these aspects of the murder.

Mr Justice (Sir John) Royce thought that this crime “verged on the sadistic.” He was wrong. It met all the characteristics of sadism – look up the dictionary definition and decide for yourselves.

But instead of receiving a tariff that fitted the facts of the crime, regardless of the other gross element of it (see below), Gafoor received a tariff so lenient it was actually lower than the tariff imposed on two innocent men for the same crime – a meagre 13 years (once the 4 months he served on remand is taken into account).

Inspired and Brilliant

Gafoor had cut himself (on his dominant hand) when he murdered Lynette – it is not unusual that multiple stabbings result in the killer cutting the hand holding the knife during the stabbing. Gafoor was no exception to this rule. His blood had been deposited in various locations in the flat.

Several samples, some of which had been preserved but not tested, were still available for testing using the sensitive and discriminating DNA testing system, which was crucial to solving this case. The most important of these samples was a bloodstain that had dripped down the wall to where the skirting board and wall met.

It had been painted over in July 1988 as the flat was deemed to have become a health hazard. That preserved the blood and therefore the DNA until the paint was carefully scraped away and the material below it was DNA tested. Prior to that other samples, known to have been shed by the murderer, among others, had been collected and stored first. Then, they were DNA tested and yielded a DNA profile. This meant that the police had the DNA of the killer, which was compared to the DNA obtained from other samples. This showed that there were other bloodstained samples which had been shed by the killer, but they did not have the identity of that man at that stage.

They already had the blood shed by the killer, which was known to be a rare combination of blood groups – those samples were retested using the DNA testing system SGM+ (Second Generation Multiplex Plus), which tested at ten genes and amelogenin, which could detect the male Y-chromosome.

Armed with the knowledge that they had the DNA profile of the killer and that killer possessed the male chromosome, they could compare results with previously untested samples and even identify other samples to test. They did both, finding the killer’s DNA on some previously untested samples and the further one that they located through validated forensic science means.

A Very Unpredictable Murderer

Suffice to say, police had the DNA of the killer and a compelling case against the killer of Lynette White, whoever that was. Time was running out for the killer, but he had an unexpected trump card. Jeffrey Gafoor was no ordinary killer – his DNA profile was not on the National DNA Database. The conventional wisdom of how such killers behaved did not apply to Gafoor. It would take excellent detective work to catch Gafoor and it received it.

The killer’s DNA profile contained an allele in an unusual position for that gene (band in the DNA profile) which was a major clue. It eliminated 99% of people on the National DNA Database on its own. Detective Constable Paul Williams conducted further research. He examined the results at 8 and then 14 alleles – there were 70 results, none of which were a full match, but one stood out. They had not found the killer – yet – but they had found the family to which he belonged.

The net was tightening and before long they had found Gafoor. Despite saying, “Haven’t you already got someone for that?” and trying to establish an explanation for his DNA being at the crime-scene – he claimed falsely that they had had sex and that was why his DNA would be there. In fact, all he achieved was to ring alarm bells – the police knew that material the killer had shed was not semen; it was blood, so they knew that Gafoor was one to watch carefully and they did. He gave them a sample for testing and set about buying paracetamol for a suicide attempt.

Police knew that Gafoor was attempting to commit suicide, so they knocked his front door in and had him taken to hospital. On his way to hospital in an ambulance, he admitted that he had killed Lynette. His admissions, and even more so, the DNA and investigative evidence meant Gafoor’s days of freedom were numbered if he survived his suicide attempt which he did.

Absurd

Once Gafoor had recovered from his paracetamol overdose, he was deemed fit to be interviewed, but chose not to answer police’s questions during interviews. He was entitled to find out how strong the evidence against him was before he decided whether to give an account or not, and what his plea would be.

Prisoners can be rewarded for swift guilty pleas with a reduction in the tariff – Gafoor was – but was this plea of guilty swift enough and did Gafoor have any realistic alternative? The case against him was overwhelming. There was no answer to the DNA under the paint – that all but proved his guilt on his own. So, should that have earned any kind of reward as giving a reduction in the prison term to be served in such circumstances all but told criminals to take their chances?

Why should any killer come forward early if they would not only be treated leniently but also be rewarded as well if they waited until they were brought to justice? Gafoor did just that and he was rewarded with a lenient tariff that included a reduction in the tariff for pleading guilty 15 years after the horrific crime and several years after allowing the innocent to suffer greatly for his crime, and after the evidence of his guilt was shown to be overwhelming. Why should he or any killer be rewarded for that?