{"id":2490,"date":"2024-12-30T11:52:46","date_gmt":"2024-12-30T11:52:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/?p=2490"},"modified":"2025-09-30T18:49:15","modified_gmt":"2025-09-30T18:49:15","slug":"lynettes-law-part-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/2024\/12\/30\/lynettes-law-part-one\/","title":{"rendered":"Lynette\u2019s Law (Part One)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Satish Sekar<\/a>[i]<\/a> \u00a9 Satish Sekar (December 30th<\/sup> 2024)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Badly Served<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Few victims have been as badly served by the criminal justice system as Lynette White and the Cardiff Five. I first became involved in the Lynette White and Cardiff Five case in February 1991 around 3 years after the 20-year-old sex worker[1]<\/a> was the victim of what was the most brutal sexually-motivated homicide of its type that Wales had ever seen at that time \u2013 her throat had been slit to the spine. She had been stabbed over 50 times \u2013 over half of which were to her breasts or nearby region. It was undoubtedly a sexually-motivated murder and a particularly sadistic one at that. I mention that because the judge at Jeffrey Gafoor\u2019s trial \u2013 he pleaded guilty at an appearance in July 2003 \u2013 Mr Justice Royce said, \u2018It verged on the sadistic.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It did not ‘verge on the sadistic;’ it was sadistic \u2013 the dictionary definition of sadism is clear \u2013 but even if it fell short of that definition, it clearly involved sexual conduct. Gafoor\u2019s explanation for the murder, which is the point of this article and demand for Lynette\u2019s Law, makes that crystal clear. He claimed that he wanted his \u00a330.00 back so he could find a sex-worker who would give him unprotected sex. Lynette, according to him, was murdered for insisting on him using a condom and refusing to give him his money back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He pulled a knife on her and used it to savage effect. This meant that he had committed the murder in the course of an armed robbery \u2013 at the very least, that was his intent. So, according to Gafoor, Lynette was murdered in that atrocious fashion because she refused to give him back his \u00a330.00. He claims that he left the scene of the atrocity without the money. Both of these factors alone meant that he should have been awarded a 30-years starting point. That would have reflected what this man did to Lynette, but still it would not have taken the ordeal of the Cardiff Five into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Notorious Miscarriage of Justice<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Christmas approached in 1988, five men were remanded to prison to face trial for Lynette\u2019s murder, but Yusef Abdullahi, the cousins, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris were undoubtedly innocent. That was obvious \u2013 the indisputable evidence made that clear, but two years and two trials later the Cardiff Three (the Acties were acquitted) were convicted. Almost four years after their arrest the Cardiff Three were freed on appeal. That left the Lynette White Inquiry in limbo. South Wales Police strongly implied that they had arrested the right men and that the Court of Appeal had robbed them and Lynette\u2019s family of justice. In fact, it was Lynette’s family and the Cardiff Five and their families who had been robbed of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The
Demonstration to free the Cardiff 3, led by Lloyd Paris, Tony’s brother <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This was one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in British history, but it would take two reopened inquiries and a welcome change in mindset in South Wales Police to deliver justice. The Cardiff Five were innocent \u2013 they always were. Angels they were not, but that is not the point. The indisputable scientific evidence was finally allowed to speak without manipulation. Forensic science cannot lie, but sadly, humans can when it is interpreted wrongly. In this case the misinterpretation of the forensic science evidence was gross \u2013 the miscarriage of justice required it as this occurred at the dawn of the DNA age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DNA testing was in its infancy \u2013 it was not ready to make the vital contribution yet. By 1999 the case was reopened and the forensic scientist Dave Barclay, then at the National Crime Faculty, reviewed the scientific evidence. Barclay said that the original case-scenario presented at trial was \u2018absolutely ludicrous.\u2019 He concluded that there was no evidence whatsoever that five men and some witnesses had committed such a crime without leaving so much as a single cell of their DNA behind, and crucially without interfering with the plethora of scientific evidence in the flat or showing any attempt to do so. By 1999 DNA testing systems had caught up with requirements of cases like this. Several items were DNA tested using the new system SGM+ (Second Generation Multiplex Plus), which was both considerably more sensitive and discriminating than previous systems and provided a vital clue \u2013 they had the DNA of a person of very great interest. It later emerged that this was undoubtedly the DNA of the real killer of Lynette White.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barclay also recommended that other items which had not been examined previously but had been stored were tested. Some of them revealed the same DNA profile of interest, but the clincher came next. Barclay and later Angela Gallup, noticed that one drop of blood on a wall in the flat was the key \u2013 it was not Lynette\u2019s blood and was likely to have dripped down the wall to where the wall met the skirting board. In July 1988 the flat was painted over as a health hazard, which had the unforeseen effect of preserving the blood and DNA. They recommended gently scraping the paint off the blood and conducting DNA tests which yielded the same DNA profile of interest. There was no doubt that they had the DNA profile of the murderer of Lynette White. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the end of February 2003 Gafoor had been arrested \u2013 the police saved his life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Professor Dave Barclay<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

He pleaded guilty on July 4th<\/sup> 2003. There was no longer any credible doubt about the innocence of the Cardiff Five, but the damage done to them and their families was irreparable. And Lynette\u2019s family had suffered greatly too. Outrageously, despite a limited scheme of after-care nether the Cardiff Five, their families nor Lynette\u2019s qualified for it. Shamefully, the organisation charged to deliver after-care did nothing to champion their cause even though there was no longer any doubt that they were victims of miscarriages of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This should have opened the door to learning the lessons and correcting the errors that had occurred in this case and others. Instead, South Wales Police demanded control of the investigation into what went wrong and the body charged with overseeing control over policing, the now defunct IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) failed in its duty. It allowed South Wales Police to control the investigation \u2013 one that became a catastrophe, leaving undoubted victims on all sides deprived of answers and the cracks in the system that had enabled this mess were allowed to become chasms papered over until the next fiasco.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Few aspects of this atrocious injustice have ever been dealt with adequately. Instead, a system of justice and organisations that have repeatedly proved themselves unfit for purpose have been allowed to usurp control and find a way to turn what should have been a great victory into an unmitigated disaster time and time again. And now further insult has been piled on \u2013 Jeffrey Gafoor is about to be freed without having to tell the truth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone who believes that he murdered Lynette over \u00a330.00 must also believe that pigs can fly. And now he will be aided by the Parole Board to walk out of prison without providing an adequate explanation of why Lynette died, let alone in such an atrocious fashion. And we are supposed to believe that the Parole Board has adequately probed whether the public is likely to be safe if Gafoor is released without answering this question.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> I mention her occupation reluctantly \u2013 she was a young woman with potential whose life was brutally cut short. Unfortunately, her murderer, Jeffrey Gafoor, sought a sex-worker on February 13th<\/sup> 1988 and it was her misfortune that he chose her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> In Part Two, I will highlight further issues with both the tariff and parole system and indicate my plans for judicial review, leading to the novel solution to the failure of judges over tariffs and the Parole Board. Part Three will detail the solution of Lynette\u2019s Law and how it can ensure that victims get the answers that both sets of victims in the Lynette White Inquiry were denied \u2013 why she was murdered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[i]<\/a> Satish Sekar is the author of Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry<\/em> (1998), The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt 1st<\/sup> edition <\/em>(2012)and 2nd<\/sup> edition<\/em> (2017), Trials and Tribulations: Innocence Matter?<\/em> (2017) and Forensic Pathology: Preventing Wrongs<\/em> (2020). Bad Form: How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent<\/em> will be published in 2025.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Satish Sekar[i] \u00a9 Satish Sekar (December 30th 2024) Badly Served Few victims have been as badly served by the [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1793,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[101,129,103,105,828,824,107,108,337,42,111,115],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2490"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2490"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2490\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2510,"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2490\/revisions\/2510"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1793"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fittedin.org\/fittedinwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}