‘Job done, I see,’ said Irene, raising her eyes to the jury and sitting down.
Baron lowered his glasses on his nose to stare critically at Irene before excusing the witness, but said nothing.
Daniel noticed that she was breathing hard when she sat down. He watched the gentle swell of her chest. He stared at her for a few moments hoping that she would turn to him, but she did not.
In the afternoon, scenes of crime officers then testified to the evidence that had been recovered from the crime scene: the brick and blood-soaked foliage.
‘Let us be very clear,’ Irene said in cross-examination. ‘You did not find a single fingerprint at the crime scene?’
‘Well, we found some partial prints but these were not identifiable.’
‘To clarify, you did not find a single viable fingerprint at the crime scene?’
‘Correct.’
‘What about on the murder weapon? Did you get a print from the brick?’
‘No, but that is not surprising considering the nature of the surface …’
‘I will thank you to answer yes or no.’
‘No.’
After the scenes of crime officer left the stand, there was a break and then the Crown’s expert forensic scientist was called: Harry Watson.
Jones stood up and asked Watson to confirm his name and title and state his qualifications. Watson listed them: Bachelor of Arts from Nottingham, a chartered biologist and a member of the Institute of Biology. He had attended basic and advanced bloodstain pattern analysis courses held in the United States of America and was a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts. Watson described his experience as being mainly in the area of biological aspects of forensic science, such as body fluids, hairs and fibres.
Daniel could sense that Sebastian was bored. It had been a long afternoon, but this evidence was key to the Crown’s case and Daniel was hoping that Irene would be able to undermine it.
‘Which particular items did you analyse?’ Jones asked.
‘Mainly the clothes of the victim and the clothes of the defendant.’ Watson was about fifty and filled out his suit. He sat rigid, with tight lips as he waited on the next question.
‘And what did you find?’
‘The defendant’s jeans were taken into evidence on a search of the home. A concentration of fibres was found on the inner thigh area of the jeans. The fibres were positively matched with fibres from the trousers of the victim. Blood spatter was also identified on the defendant’s shoes, jeans and T-shirt. This blood was positively identified as belonging to the victim.’
‘How would you describe the blood pattern found on the defendant’s clothes?’
‘The stains found on the T-shirt were expirated blood – that’s blood blown out of the nose, mouth or a wound as a result of air pressure which is the propelling force.’
‘What sort of injuries to a victim would cause this kind of blood spatter on the defendant?’
‘The blood spatter is consistent with facial trauma – a violent assault to the face or nose, with the victim then blowing blood on to the attacker.’
Shocked murmurs rippled through the courtroom.
‘So Sebastian Croll was spattered with the victim’s expirated blood. Was there anything else about the blood on the defendant’s clothes which indicated that he had been involved in a violent incident with the deceased?’
‘In addition to the expirated blood found on the defendant’s T-shirt there was contact staining on the jeans and shoes, which suggested that the defendant had been in close proximity to the deceased at the time of the fatal assault. There was also a small amount of blood on the sole of the defendant’s shoe.’
‘What might the blood on the sole indicate?’
‘Well, this may have occurred as a result of standing in the victim’s blood, after the assault had taken place.’
‘Was there any forensic evidence which suggested that the violent incident had taken place where the body was discovered?’
‘Yes, the soiling on the knees of the defendant’s jeans and the bottom area of the victim’s trousers was consistent with the leaves and dirt found at the crime scene.’
‘Was any other biological material from the victim recovered from the defendant?’
‘Well, yes, the defendant’s skin was found under the victim’s fingernails and there were scratches on the defendant’s arms and neck.’
‘So Ben had tried to fight Sebastian off and scratched him in the process?’
‘That is how it appeared.’
Gordon Jones took his seat, as Irene Clarke rose.
‘Mr Watson,’ said Irene, not looking at the witness but instead consulting her notes, ‘when did you join the Home Office Forensic Science Service?’
Mr Watson straightened his tie then replied: ‘Just over thirty years ago.’
‘Thirty years. My! Quite a wealth of experience. You joined in 1979, is that correct?’
‘Yes.’
‘And in those thirty-one years of service, can you tell us how many cases you worked on?’
‘I have no way to tell without checking my records.’
‘Estimate for us – what would it be: thirty, a hundred, more than five hundred – how many, roughly?’
Irene was leaning forward on her lectern, shoulders near her ears. Daniel thought she looked like a girl leaning out of a window watching a parade.
‘In thirty-one years, I would say I have been directly involved in hundreds of cases, maybe less but maybe more than five hundred.’
‘And how many trials have you given evidence at in your thirty-one years of service?’
‘Over a hundred, I’m sure.’
‘Two hundred and seventy three, to be exact. You are indeed an expert witness. Tell me, in those two hundred and seventy-three cases, how many times have you given evidence for the defence?’
‘My evidence is impartial and I have no bias towards defence or prosecution.’
‘Of course. Let me clarify: in how many of your two hundred and seventy-three trials have you given evidence as a witness called by the prosecution?’
‘Most.’
‘Most. Would you hazard a guess at how many?’
‘Maybe two thirds?’
‘Not quite, Mr Watson. In two hundred and seventy three trials you have been cited as a witness for the defence only three times. Three times in thirty years. Do you find that surprising?’
‘A little, I would have expected a few more.’
‘I see. A few more. Regarding your qualifications, I see that you have a Bachelor of Arts from Nottingham … Economics. Do you find economics useful in your current field?’
‘I have since become a chartered biologist.’
‘I see. You have testified that there were fibres from Ben Stokes’s jeans on the defendant’s clothing. Tell me, would we not expect that two boys – neighbours – who played together might have fibres of each other’s clothes on their person as a result of normal play?’
‘It is possible, yes.’
‘Similarly, the defensive scratches on the defendant and the skin under the victim’s nails – these could have been the result of normal rough-and-tumble play between two schoolboys, could it not?’
‘It is possible.’
‘And you have also stated that the blood on Sebastian’s clothing was expirated. You testified that this was consistent with a blow to the nose or the face. Correct?’
‘Yes.’
‘The defendant made a statement to the effect that the victim fell and hit his nose while they were together, causing it to bleed severely. My client has stated that he leaned over the victim to inspect the injury. Tell us, is it possible that transfer of the identified expirated blood could have occurred under these more benign circumstances?’
‘The blood spatter is consistent with force, and I consider this to be the more likely cause, but it is possible that the expirated blood transfer could have been the result of t
he accidental injury you describe.’
‘One more thing,’ said Irene. ‘The blood on the defendant’s clothing – expirated, contact staining and otherwise – is minimal, would you say?’
‘There is a modest amount of blood on the clothes.’
‘The blood transfer was clearly evident on forensic examination – but referring to the photographs on page twenty-three of the bundle, it is not clearly apparent to the naked eye.’
Sebastian watched, eyes wide. Daniel remembered watching friends’ children viewing video games: their stillness unnatural in ones so young. Now Sebastian’s attention was also unnatural. He pored over the photographs of the blood spatter on the soiled clothing.
‘The blood spots were apparent to the naked eye, but they were not so large or significant as to be clearly identified as blood.’
‘I see. Thank you for that clarification, Mr Watson … With a severe injury of this type – blunt force trauma to the face – obviously carried out with the assailant in close proximity to the victim, would we not expect the attacker to be … covered in blood?’
Watson shifted in his seat. Daniel watched him. His ruddy facial colouring suggested that he was quick to anger.
The witness cleared his throat. ‘The type of injury would be consistent with significant loss of blood and we would expect significant transfer of blood on to the attacker.’
‘Typically, with this type of blunt force trauma, would you have expected the expirated blood and contact staining to be significantly more than the localised staining found on the defendant’s clothing?’
‘We have to remember the position of the body and the fact that most of the damage was done by internal bleeding … ’
‘I see,’ said Irene. ‘But you did just say that you would expect significant transfer of blood, nevertheless?’
Again Watson cleared his throat. He looked around the courtroom as if for help. Jones was staring at him, his chin pinched between two fingers.
‘Mr Watson, is it not the case that we would have expected the attacker’s clothes to be covered in blood with this type of injury?’
‘Typically, we would have expected a greater amount of contact staining, or airborne transfer of blood.’
‘Thank you, Mr Watson.’
The cross-examination had gone so well that Irene decided not to call the defence’s forensic scientist when the defence began. This turning of the Crown scientist to the defence’s benefit was more powerful.
The week closed with the Crown’s pathologist, Jill Gault. When she took the witness box, she was as warm and reassuring as she had seemed to Daniel in her office overlooking St James’s Park. She was tall, in boots and a grey suit. She looked like the kind of person who went rowing on weekends, untroubled by the knowledge of how – exactly – a child’s skull had been crushed.
‘Dr Gault, you conducted a postmortem on the victim, Benjamin Stokes?’ Jones began.
‘Yes, that’s correct.’
‘Can you tell us the conclusion that you came to about the cause of death?’
‘Cause of death was acute subdural haematoma, consistent with blunt force trauma – caused by a blow to the front right side of the skull.’
‘And, in layman’s terms, Dr Gault, how would you describe a subdural haematoma?’
‘Well, it is basically bleeding in the brain, causing increasing pressure on the brain which, if not treated, will result in brain death.’
A model of the brain and the injury described was projected for the jury, to show the exact location of the wound. There was a photograph in the jury bundle of Ben Stokes’s face. Sebastian studied it, then leaned to whisper into Daniel’s ear: ‘Why is his other eye not shut? When you’re dead, don’t your eyes close?’ Daniel felt the boy’s balmy fingers on his hand. He leaned down to hush him.
‘Dr Gault, did you determine the instrument that caused this fatal blow to the head?’
‘The injury was consistent with blunt force – the murder weapon would therefore have been a blunt, heavy object. A brick was recovered from the scene and small pieces of brick were retrieved from the facial injury.’
The clerk brought an exhibit bag and a brick enclosed in cellophane was shown to the jury.
‘This brick was found at the crime scene and we have heard evidence to confirm that the victim’s blood, brain matter, skin and hair were identified on its surface. Did you find the shape and size of this brick consistent with the injuries sustained by the victim?’
‘Yes, the contours of the brick match those of the wound exactly.’
Again, a model was used to show the fit of the brick in the wound.
Sebastian turned to Daniel and smiled. ‘That’s the actual brick,’ he whispered with honeyed breath.
Daniel nodded, a hand held out to hush him.
The pictures of Ben Stokes’s mutilated face flashed on the screens, which were provided for judge, jurors and counsel but invisible to the gallery. The child’s left eye was open – as Sebastian had noted – white and clear; the right reminded Daniel of a smashed bird’s egg. Jurors recoiled. Judge Philip Baron considered his screen impassively. Daniel studied the older man’s face, the weight of his skin pulling his mouth down. Jill Gault used a laser to indicate the point of impact and spoke of the force necessary to create such damage to skull and cheekbone.
‘And were you able to establish the time of death, Dr Gault?’ Gordon Jones continued, his pen stabbing into his folder.
‘Yes, approximately six forty-five in the evening on Sunday 8 August.’
‘And would that rule out an attack earlier in the day, for example, in the afternoon at either two or even four o’clock, when the defendant was last seen fighting with the victim?’
‘Not at all. With acute subdural haematoma, it is possible only to approximate the time of death, not time of injury. The nature of this injury is such that death may occur shortly after injury, or following a period of hours. Haemorrhaging causes pressure on the brain but it can be anything from minutes to hours before it becomes fatal.’
‘So, Ben may have died some hours after he was struck in the face with the brick, is that correct?’
‘Yes, that is correct.’
‘Might he have been conscious during this period?’
‘It is highly unlikely … but possible.’
‘Possible. Thank you, Dr Gault.’
Judge Baron cleared his throat noisily and leaned into his microphone.
‘In view of the hour, I think this may be a convenient time for a break.’ He turned at the hip, swivelling his robes and jowly face towards the jury. ‘Time to slope off and get a cup of coffee. I remind you not to discuss this case outside your number.’
All rise.
Daniel stayed until Sebastian was escorted downstairs, then stepped outside. He put his hands in his pockets as he watched the people in the ornate, painted hallways of the Central Criminal Court: shoals of lost souls shuffling with grief and poverty and ill fortune. Happiness and misery were decided here, not found. He felt desolate, another of the lost souls that reeled in its spaces, and took his phone out and called Cunningham. He was with a client, so Daniel left a message asking for information on the sale of Minnie’s house.
He felt a touch on his shoulder. It was Irene.
‘Everything OK?’
‘Sure – why do you ask?’
‘Every time I looked at you in there, you were frowning.’
‘Looking at me a lot, were you?’ he flirted, although he realised the mood wasn’t right.
She tapped him punitively on the arm with her pen. ‘What’s worrying you?’
‘Did you see the jury’s faces when those pictures were shown?’
‘I know, but we’re going to prove that Sebastian is not responsible.’
‘And Jones asking if Ben could still have been conscious for the possible hours before he died. God.’ Daniel shook his head but Irene placed a hand on his forearm. He felt the warmth of her.
&
nbsp; ‘Don’t lose faith,’ she whispered.
‘Not in you,’ he said as she turned from him and headed back to court.
‘Dr Gault, you described subdural haematoma as “bleeding in the brain”,’ Irene asked in cross-examination. ‘So we would expect the blood loss to be substantial?’
‘Well, blood collects in the brain as a result of trauma. With any subdural haematoma, tiny veins between the surface of the brain and its outer covering, the dura, stretch and tear, allowing blood to collect. It is this pressure that causes death.’
‘Thank you for that clarification, Doctor. But tell us, with this type of blunt force facial trauma, would you expect that an attacker would be … spattered with the blood of the victim as a result of the assault?’
‘Yes, it is likely that a facial trauma of this nature would have caused significant blood spatter on to the perpetrator.’
Irene paused and nodded. Daniel watched her melon-seed face tilt, considering.
‘One final question – how much does a brick weigh, Dr Gault?’
‘Excuse me?’
‘A brick, your average brick, like the brick in evidence, how much does it weigh?’
‘I would say about four pounds.’
‘So tell us, Doctor, in your opinion what kind of strength or force would be needed in order to inflict the injuries which Benjamin Stokes sustained, bearing in mind the weight of the murder weapon?’
‘Quite significant force.’
‘Would you imagine that the necessary force could have been produced by an eleven-year-old boy – particularly one of the defendant’s small stature?’
Dr Gault shifted in her seat. She glanced in Sebastian’s direction and Daniel noticed that Sebastian met her gaze.
‘No, I would have imagined that the necessary force was more consistent with an adult assailant … but having said that … Someone of smaller stature, or indeed a child, might have been able to inflict these injuries if the victim was below the assailant, allowing the force of gravity to compensate for lack of physical force.’
‘I see.’ Judge Baron nodded. ‘I see. Do you have any further questions, Miss Clarke?’
‘It is your expert medical opinion, Dr Gault, that a child would have difficulty in inflicting these injuries because of the weight of the murder weapon?’
Guilty One Page 28