Beyond Innocence (24 page)

Turning to the defence, Judge Martin Russell addressed his remarks specifically to the doctor, Peter Woods, saying, “Let there be no doubt in your mind whatsoever, if you can show this court, together with medical evidence, that there has been some improvement in the condition of your charge, then I shall be more than happy to review or even rescind my decision.”

Jerome Jerome looked at his client and smiled briefly saying, “Well there you are Mr. Harris. This means, I come down here one week from today, and eventually if there’s not been any improvement, the judge signs the order, and the hospital have to comply with the wishes of the court and yourself. I trust for your sake you’ve made the right decision, because if the roles were reversed, I don’t think I would have had the bottle for it. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not criticizing you, or your motives, I am merely reiterating what the judge said earlier.”

Timothy Harris merely nodded, and they left the court together engaged in earnest conversation.

In the Appeal Court things were not going too well for the defence. After the lunch recess, and much spirited argument, their lordships ruled the new evidence was admissible. Sir Gordon Nuttall-Jones had just finished his questions to the forensic expert, Professor Guy Whittingham, and now it was the turn for the defence.

Irene began her cross examination without any hesitation.

“Tell me, Mr Whittingham, how sure can we be that the forensic evidence is correct, and is it not at all possible for this evidence to be flawed in any way because this clothing, or those extracts from the clothing, have been stored for a considerable length of time? In addition, surely some contamination was bound to have occurred when the Wilson girl, together with her clothing, was immersed in water at the quarry. With regard to Angela Clarkson, her body and clothing, were left in a ditch exposed to all the elements, and we know there was at least one torrential downpour before her body was discovered.”

“Yes, I agree,” countered the professor, “I can assure this court that the samples have been stored under clinical laboratory conditions, and, although I did find some sign of deterioration in the samples available to me, I didn’t find the deterioration to be a significant factor due to any exposure with water. With regard to the Clarkson woman, although the clothing had been exposed to the elements, after analysis and comparison, the only conclusion I could come to was that these samples matched the sample I had tested originally in the Clarkson case. And that matching sample could only have come from Thompson.”

“That may all be very well, Professor, but this sample, as you said, was obtained from clothing, which doesn’t prove Thompson killed the girls now, does it?”

Before he could answer, there came the all too familiar voice of Sir Gordon crying out, “objection, your lordships, what my learned colleague is forgetting is this definitely proves he was present at the scene.”

Lord Stanhope agreed with this, and motioned to Irene to continue. Irene knew that the appeal was as good as lost, but she was determined not to give in without a fight. Although there was still the defence expert to call, she felt there was very little else which could be achieved by doing so. He had already informed the defence team he would not be able to disprove the claims of the prosecution that the samples were from Thompson. All he could hope to do was throw some doubt in the minds of the judges, concerning the contamination of the samples. It was then her eyes caught her own notes which she had scribbled during the address made by the prosecution. For a moment she couldn’t continue as she read, then reread, the words she had written. “It was just as though he had confessed,” these words went over and over in her mind, together with the ruling in the Hurst case under Article Six of The Human Rights Act. She became acutely aware that the judges were anxiously waiting for her to continue as these thoughts rapidly crossed her mind then a plan of attack presented itself to her.

She allowed herself one last quick glance at her notes before continuing, “One final thing professor before you go, did I and their lordships, hear you correctly just then, when you said the sample you tested came from the sample provided by my client in the original murder enquiry into the Clarkson case?”

Full of his own sense of importance, and quite convinced his evidence was irrefutable he answered, “Yes, that is most definitely correct. I used the same readings from that sample against the samples obtained from the clothing of the deceased women.”

“And tell me, professor, were these new readings identical to the readings you obtained before?” She enquired.

Still full of his own belief and importance, the professor replied, “Well they were certainly close enough for me to say they came from the same person, and that person has been identified as Harry Thompson.”

“So professor, we are again talking about 300 million to one are we?”

“Yes,” agreed the witness, “it has to be read in that context, although, to allow for the slight contamination of the samples taken from the clothing, I would reduce those odds somewhat, to…” for a brief moment he hesitated in order to reassess the odds, then he added, “say, 200 million to one.”

Now the knife was honed to perfection, and Irene was ready to plunge it straight in the jugular, “Surely Professor, that wasn’t the correct thing to do was it?

He frowned at her, and the question, before replying, “I’m afraid I don’t understand you. I can assure you, and this court, all the correct procedures and tests were properly conducted, and scientifically carried out.”

“No. They were not, professor!” she thundered, “These tests could not have been carried out properly, because in the first instance you should not have been in a position to compare those new tests with anything. My client’s sample, after comparison with Clarkson, was ordered to be destroyed along with the two hundred other samples which were given voluntarily at the start of this murder enquiry. If that had been done, you wouldn’t have a sample to compare it with. Perhaps you can tell this court why this sample was not destroyed?”

Although a little subdued, he was still quite composed as he replied, “At the time none of the samples were destroyed on the orders of the officers leading the murder enquiry so quite naturally I thought it quite in order to continue testing, especially when the new techniques came out. Throughout it all I kept the crown prosecution service well informed of all developments.”

Sir Gordon was on full alert and addressed the judges, “My lords, where on earth are we going here? It is painfully obvious that my learned friend is clutching at straws, does it make one jot of difference where the sample first came from, or, from where it was obtained? Surely, all that matters is a sample from Thompson, provided by Thompson, matched samples found at the scenes by the forensic team. The clothing exhibits have been shown to yourselves and you’ve been able to satisfy yourselves they had been properly tagged and recorded in evidence. What on earth will be proved or achieved if these samples are rejected and Thomson is asked to provide another one? The end result will be identical and it will show without a shadow of doubt that Thompson is the man.”

Irene was determined not to be outdone. Still visibly annoyed she countered this outburst by proclaiming, vehemently, “Your lordships, my learned colleague is overlooking a simple, but very fundamental point which is this. My client had a right to silence in a court of law, and that right has been denied to him because of the incorrect action of the prosecution in not destroying his voluntary sample. I would respectfully ask you to go back to the transcripts at the beginning of this hearing, where you will find my learned colleague saying to you, and I quote.” She paused for a moment to look at her notes, then she continued, “The results are so compelling it is as though Thompson is confessing his guilt. My client has never confessed his guilt, and I have witnesses here today to prove it, and this proves what I am saying. Under European law, my client has a right to silence which has now been denied to him. If you wish to study this for a while might I suggest you look at the recent verdict in the Hurst case which was before the European courts very recently on this very issue. Once again I must ask your lordships to reconsider your own decision to allow this evidence in court today.”

Announcing a short recess, their lordships withdrew to reconsider their decision. In the courtroom, the antagonism continued. Sir Gordon could hardly contain himself as he raged at Irene, “What on earth do you think you are playing at. Surely, your own common sense should tell you that you haven’t got a leg to stand on? Your man is as guilty as sin, and this evidence proves it. What difference does it make when, or where, the sample came from? All that really matters is that the sample is his, and it had been correctly obtained in the first place.

Although short in stature, Irene drew herself up to her full height of five feet two inches, and even though she could barely reach a couple of inches above his navel she was not deterred in the least as she launched into another onslaught. “Have you ever considered that, if suspects are denied their right to silence, it won’t be long before we’re back in the dark ages torturing people in order to obtain confessions.

“Don’t be ridiculous,” he angrily retorted, “the way you are going you are trying to pervert the course of justice. Anyway you won’t be allowed to get away with it as I am sure their lordships will reject your submission out of hand as well they should.”

The usher brought the arguments under control when he signalled to the court that their Lordships were about to return. Once Lord Stanhope was satisfied that his colleagues were comfortably seated he began, “We have discussed the point of law raised by Miss Yarwood for the defence, and, whilst we have to agree that it does indeed touch upon a new point of law, we are satisfied that it has no relevance here today. Therefore, we will allow this evidence to stand. He then nodded approvingly for Irene to continue.

Because she had now moved the impetus of her examination away from the new forensic techniques, she decided that it would not be in the best interests of the defence to call Sir Martin Littlejohn at this stage and, after a brief discussion with this witness together with her legal team, she urged him to continue his own tests and experiments in an effort to find something which might be of some use at a later date.

She resumed her defence by calling Michael Mulrooney in order to question him about his interview with Bridget Riley. He was able to confirm the affidavit shown to the court had been sworn in his office, and that Bridget Riley also attested to the truth of the contents. After a brief examination by the prosecution, Lord Stanhope intervened again to say that he wanted a transcript of that evidence, and all subsequent evidence on the subject forwarding to the Home Secretary. He made it quite plain it would be up to that gentleman to institute further enquiries into the allegations.

Theresa O’Rourke followed the solicitor into the box and she gave her evidence in the same manner. Yet again, the proceedings were interrupted by Lord Chief Justice Stanhope reminding her in no uncertain manner that the repercussions for perjury were extremely severe. He went on to say that it was most likely she would be questioned further by the authorities on the questions of coercion and police irregularities, once this appeal had been heard.

Sir Gordon took an instant dislike to Theresa O’Rourke as a witness. It showed immediately in his demeanour and the sarcastic manner he put his questions to her. He asked her why she hadn’t volunteered to come to the aid of the defence with a similar statement when the trial took place.

In reply, Theresa told him that she was too afraid of that “bent copper,” Mr. West.

“Well now,” sneered the arrogant QC. “Your friend Bridget wasn’t afraid was she? Why did you think she came forward?” Without allowing her time to answer, he continued, “I’ll tell you why. She came forward to help Angela, your friend, who was so brutally murdered.”

“Bridget didn’t give evidence to help Angela or her memory or the police. I’m telling you Bridget gave that evidence because she was so afraid of that rotten copper stitching her up on a charge of possession, and her being sent back inside. That’s what we were both afraid of, and look what has happened to her now.” After this little outburst, Theresa glared at Sir Gordon. She was challenging him to speak ill of the dead and her departed friend if he dared.

“Come on now, Miss O’Rourke, are you seriously asking this court to believe that this detective has had something to do with the death of your friend? I have to tell you that that is a very serious allegation to make.”

Theresa looked long and hard at this sneering individual. She wished she could meet him on a cold dark night, thinking, ‘a good hard kick in the balls is what you need,’ before replying,”I am not saying that. All I am saying is that we were all afraid of this man, and we’d recently been to see a solicitor to make a complaint for wrongful arrest. My friend Bridget, and myself, were adamant this time he wasn’t going to get away with it. Now she’s gone and whilst I can’t say that he had anything to do with her death, you can’t stop me having my own suspicions.”

Lord Chief Justice Stanhope who had been making furious notes during this exchange, again intervened saying angrily, “Young woman, whatever suspicions you have concerning your late friend, or anybody else, please keep them to yourself or report them to the police. Kindly note, I will not have such baseless and completely groundless accusations, made in my court, especially when one is trying to involve the police. Do I make myself clear?”

“Perfectly your Honour,” she answered.

“You may step down now,” commanded Sir Gordon adding, “I have no further questions.”

Theresa left the court room deep in thought and wondering if she had done the right thing in coming here in the first place.

Royston Chambers stood in the witness box. Before Irene could begin, the senior judge delivered a severe admonishment to him, “My colleagues and I have studied your evidence in the trial very carefully and, before you give any evidence here today, we wish to impress upon you that you could well be facing serious trouble retracting your evidence from the original trial. By coming here today, you are telling this court that the evidence you gave before was nothing more than a figment of your own imagination, and you perjured yourself in giving that evidence. As a result, you could end up with an additional sentence to serve on top of the one you are currently serving. I trust these remarks are not lost on you, Chambers.”