Extraordinary Last week an extraordinary case entered its final phase. John Pope was convicted of murdering a 34, year-old woman who had been walking her dogs in the Ely side of Birdies Field in Cardiff just before midnight on March 9th 1996. He had denied murdering Karen Skipper ever since he was first questioned about it fifteen years ago. Mrs Skipper's hands were tied behind her back with her dogs' leads and a chain and she she was left to drown.
Her estranged husband – they were trying to reconcile – Phillip stood trial and was acquitted in March 1997. The case against Mr Skipper, better known as Ginger due to the colour of his hair, was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the case for his innocence became substantially stronger, or rather it should have done after his death from cancer at the age of 48.
South Wales Police made a breakthrough that changed the course of the case and vindicated Mr Skipper. Two bloodstains on her clothing revealed their secrets after more than a decade. In 1996 a small blood-stain was found on the pocket lining of Mrs Skipper's jeans on the side closest to her thigh. Another stain was missed for years, but located later by Michael Appleby, a forensic scientist, whose expertise included DNA and the interpretation of it. DNA testing had been tried in 1996, but it had yet to achieve the sensitivity and discrimination power it has now. Back then, it could do little more than eliminate Mr Skipper and the victim too. That should have been devastating to the case brought against Mr Skipper. Instead, its significance was denied – a decision that opened the door to an outrageous assault on his innocence.
Proved Innocent? The location of the one known blood-stain at that time was very important, even in 1996, or rather it should have been. If it had been deposited by direct contact as the scientists later suggested was the most likely explanation, then it was obviously important. It meant that whoever deposited that blood had contact with an intimate area of those jeans. That required an explanation, as DNA had excluded Mr Skipper and also James Turner, her boyfriend.
Small amounts of blood dries quickly. This strongly suggested that the blood-stain on the pocket-lining on the side closest to Mrs Skipper's thing had been left there by the murderer. This was certainly the case theory at first, but an inconvenient result changed that. It did not match Phillip Skipper. That required an explanation. Consequently, the case-theory was adapted. The blood-stain was no longer significant. Police investigated several leads as they tried to track down everyone who had had contact with the jeans – an impossible task.
Nevertheless, they tracked the jeans, discovering that Mrs Skipper had bought them from Splott Market. They failed to track everyone who had access to it, but it should not have mattered. Common sense was loudly proclaiming Mr Skipper innocent, but not being listened to. Mrs Skipper was known to be a clean person, yet the police believed at the time that the blood could have been deposited there before she bought them.
There was an obvious flaw with this explanation. It meant that from the time she bought those jeans at the market, she never washed them at all until she was murdered. Police knew the date she bought them and therefore the time they must have remained unwashed according to their case-hypothesis. It was hardly likely. Had that been realised during the investigation that resulted in Mr Skipper faced trial, a miscarriage of justice in the making may have been prevented.
Instead Mr Skipper went to an early grave, protesting his innocence to his dying breath. He never lived to see Mr Pope arrested, let alone convicted twice. Despite this the trial that just ended in Newport seemed more like the third trial of Phillip Skipper than the retrial of John Pope. |