The terms of reference of the review were: to conduct a review of the forensic examination of evidence conducted by the FSS during the Damilola Taylor Inquiry; to establish an agreed set of facts and time-line of the FSS examination of this evidence and to make recommendations to the Home Secretary on whether re-examination of forensic evidence in other comparable cases is required. It was also tasked to make recommendations to both the Home Secretary and board of the FSS on whether changes are required to its examination procedures, recruitment, training and management of forensic scientists by the FSS. Finally it had the power to make whatever recommendations it deems necessary on the future role of the Forensic Regulator in overseeing applicable standards to all suppliers of forensic services to the criminal justice system within the UK.

However, the “independent” review did not specifically investigate whether Hedges committed perjury in the trial earlier this year that resulted in the acquittal of Hassan Jihad on all charges and the Preddie brothers of murder and robbery. It is also unsatisfactory as it does not view the case as an integrated whole. The Sentamu Inquiry looked at the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in isolation and this did the same regarding the scientific evidence. The review did not consider how the Damilola Taylor Inquiry was mishandled in the first place. Hedges’ error does not explain how the innocent original defendants were allowed to stand trial in 2002. Despite being obliged to deliver best value, neither the Metropolitan police, nor its police authority have any plans for an inquiry into what went wrong – errors that almost derailed justice permanently. We should be told how relying on a clearly unreliable witness (Bromley) without testing how such a witness would stand up to cross-examination delivers best value to the public, rather than placing an inexcusable drain on public resources that could have been put to far better use.

There seems to be no interest to establish what went wrong in the original investigation beyond the scientific evidence. Had wrongful convictions been obtained in the original trial through highly dubious methods – which included sending a round robin invitation to inmates at Feltham Young Offenders Institution to make incriminating remarks about the defendants that might be used to convict them – there would have been no cold case review which discovered Hedges’ error and the truly guilty Preddie brothers would never have been brought to justice.

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar January 19th 2009

“It’s not just the investigative process,” says Professor Dave Barclay, the former Head of Physical Evidence at the National Crime Faculty. “You need equality of arms between defence and prosecution as well. Otherwise the police know that nobody is going to challenge them adequately. We have moved on, but only in the last ten years, or maybe last five years. I think our investigative procedures in the UK are fantastic compared to other places now.”

Barclay lectures in forensic science at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen and is an honorary lecturer at Hull University as well. He spent nine years at Crime Faculty and played an important role in making legal history in Britain when he reviewed the physical evidence in the Lynette White Inquiry as part of a cold case review by South Wales police’s pioneering unit to investigate unsolved and unresolved homicides that was established in June 1999. Barclay reconstructed the exit route of the murderer more than a decade afterwards by going through the flat blind-folded – the murder occurred at night in a flat that was unlit. Everywhere that he touched was observed and blood that yielded the DNA profile of the real murderer was recovered. He also identified where to look for blood that was discovered under paint in the murder room nearly fifteen years after Ms White was murdered. In July 2003 Jeffrey Gafoor pleaded guilty to the horrific murder. Five innocent men had spent a total of sixteen years in prison for this crime. It was the first miscarriage of justice in Britain to be resolved by the conviction of the real perpetrator. “All investigations need to be looked at in an integrated manner,” says Professor Barclay. “It isn’t just DNA. You need an overview of the whole case. Lynette’s case was a good example of this.”

All cases are important to him and he tends to remember the names of the victims, rather than perpetrators. “There is no difference at all between a high profile case and a lower profile one,” he says. “To those involved cases have exactly the same profile.” Nevertheless, there have been high profile cases that he was involved in. The controversial case of Michael Stone, convicted of the 1996 murders of Lin and Megan Russell and attempted murder of Josie Russell in Chillenden, Kent, is one he remembers. “We did a complete overview [at Crime Faculty],” he says. “That was a really high profile case that was undetected after six months. We did a complete review. We had access to all the papers. Effectively we try and think about how it can be investigated from scratch. We look for things from the area to see if they had missed a link. We deliberately ask not to be told who the suspects are. When we have done that we produce a list of recommendations and things that could be done. We make recommendations which we present to the force and they go away and think about it.”

Stone’s defence team was unaware of the involvement of Crime Faculty. “We had no idea about this review,” said Stone’s sister Barbara. “It should have been disclosed then, but wasn’t. It might have opened up new lines of inquiry. We want it disclosed immediately.”

Despite his retirement from Crime Faculty in 2005, he still gets asked to conduct reviews and not just in Britain. He helped to expose a notorious miscarriage of justice in Western Australia – the case of Andrew Mallard who was wrongfully convicted of the 1994 murder of Pamela Lawrence in her jewellery shop in Perth. “I was asked to review the case in 2006 after Mallard was released on technical grounds,” says Barclay. “I started work on the weekend and by Monday evening I had come to the conclusion that a) Mallard wasn’t guilty and b) the evidence on which he was convicted was fatally flawed, both in logic and in its interpretation. I was very unhappy about this.”

He asked for a fingerprint review, which resulted in a hit to convicted murderer Simon Rochford, then serving life imprisonment for murdering his girlfriend Brigitta Dickens in July 1994, just one month after the murder of Pamela Lawrence. Further evidence resulted in Rochford being interviewed over the murder of Mrs Lawrence. He made no admissions, but within thirty-six hours Rochford committed suicide. “The police and Attorney General [of Western Australia] have said that Andrew Mallard did not have anything to do with the murder and that the perpetrator was probably Simon Rochford, who would have been put before a court had he lived,” says Professor Barclay, who continues to provide an essential service in reviewing the importance of physical evidence in other cases in many jurisdictions.

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar January 26th 2009

The Price of Justice – Part One:

The Case of Neil Sayers

Introduction:

It is difficult to establish precisely what happened on the night of May 13th-14th 1998. A young man, Russell Crookes - a student at Hadlow Agricultural College - was never seen alive after that night. His ‘best’ friends Neil Sayers and Graham Wallis - also students at the college - would admit to being the last people to see Russell alive. Nearly two weeks later Crookes’ mutilated, partially burned and decomposing body would be discovered in a shallow grave in woods that belonged to the college.

According to the first accounts of both Wallis and Sayers, the three young men had gone out after dusk on May 13th to different woods that were also owned by the college as they had often done before. This time they were keen to avoid a ball at the college. They said that they stayed there hanging out together until well after the ball had ended. Both Sayers and Wallis then said that after an argument they all returned to their student accommodation at Hadlow Agricultural College. At about 4.00 in the morning they saw the lights go on in Crookes’ room. They never saw him alive again. Nor did anyone else. For seven years Sayers has never deviated from that account. The same cannot be said for Wallis.

But these were friendships that would prove the adage: with friends like these who needs enemies? Either, both Sayers and Wallis cynically betrayed Crookes’ friendship at the cost of his life, or Wallis maliciously betrayed both his so-called friends, killing one and framing the other for the murder.

Two days after Crookes’ disappearance a missing person’s inquiry initiated by Crookes’ father Malcolm began. Both Sayers and Wallis took part in searches and appealed for Crookes’ safe return in the media. Both participating in the searches and the appeals for Crookes’ safe return would later be used as evidence of Sayers’ hypocrisy and lies. It is beyond the scope of this article to examine all the evidence that was presented to the jury at Maidstone Crown Court in 1999. The aim of this article is to examine the scientific evidence in this case. That includes what the jury was told and also what it was not informed about. It will also demonstrate how evidence that could have been important was missed and outline some possibilities for retrieving the situation even now.

Introduction:

In 1987 Colin Pitchfork became the first criminal in the world to be convicted by DNA profiling. He was found guilty of two rapes and murders three years apart in Leicestershire, England. The victims, Dawn Ashworth and Linda Mann were both schoolgirls. Police conducted a DNA sweep of the area, but Pitchfork persuaded a friend to take the test for him. Initially he evaded capture, but was caught out when his friend mentioned it in a pub and the police were informed. Pitchfork eventually gave a sample for DNA profiling and this was matched to both offenses. Prior to Pitchfork's arrest the prime suspect, Richard Buckland had been charged with both rapes and murders, even though he had only confessed to one of the murders, but vehemently denied the other. This puzzled the police. They turned to Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys and his then revolutionary technique of Multi-Locus Probe (MLP) DNA profiling to resolve the conundrum. The technique proved that Buckland was innocent of all of the offenses, but that they were indeed linked. Buckland was the first person to be eliminated by DNA profiling. It should be remembered that without the crime scene samples being available for testing Jeffreys could not have demonstrated the capabilities of his technique. Professor Jeffreys' discovery revolutionized the fight against crime. DNA profiling would help to convict many criminals. It would also eliminate many more people from police inquiries. DNA profiling would become perhaps the most important weapon in the fight against crime. However, it is important to remember that it is just one of many techniques available to investigators. The increased use of DNA profiling, especially as advances were made in terms of discriminating power and sensitivity, resulted in greater understanding of the need to protect the integrity of crime scenes and samples obtained from them. DNA profiling is not the only technique to require the integrity of crime scenes to be guaranteed. Each and every development in forensic science depends upon meticulous respect for the integrity of the crime scene and careful observation and photographing of that scene before a single sample is collected. This includes establishing environmental conditions – something of vital importance in forensic entomology.

Careful attention must be paid during the collection of samples to prevent contamination of the evidence. It is necessary to scrupulously follow established procedures for collecting, packaging, storing and transportation of samples obtained from crime scenes. Observation of established procedures in such matters not only preserves the quality of the evidence, but can prevent accusations of malpractice. Respect for the integrity of crime scenes and the evidence obtained from them should be a fundamental tenet of any criminal justice system. Not only should there be stringent safeguards governing conduct at crime scenes, but the consequences for failing to meet these standards should be very high. The cases detailed below illustrate not only the problems that arise when crime scenes or samples obtained from them are not accorded the respect they deserve, but what is possible when they are treated with due respect.