Crime Scene Investigator

by Paul Millen

  Dick’s problem was much more immediate. He didn’t want to lose the media attention and the opportunity to find a witness with events fresh in their minds, and without such a witness we were unlikely to ever get to the laboratory comparison stage. Therefore I took the step of once again opening the exhibit bags and recovering what I could for future examination. This was a compromise as a laboratory search would be much more detailed but would take time we didn’t have.

  The items were opened for the recording of the show the following day and viewed on TV within a few days.

  Nothing much happened but Dick got lots of calls. The gloves were identified as those issued to members of the British Army and referred to as ‘Northern Ireland Gloves’ by those in the know. The numbers ‘588’ in the gloves, it was suggested, referred to the last few numbers of a soldier’s warrant number. Dick had a bit to go on there.

  No witnesses came forward to immediately identify the ‘Manto’ jacket and the trail ran a bit cold over the later months. But Dick never gave up.

  One afternoon a few months later, Dick informed me that he was going to arrest two young men in connection with the robbery. I dug out my report and made a note of the things we should look for to connect a suspect with the robbery. I knew Dick would have retained my thoughts and advice on this from the original investigation, but I wanted to be thorough.

  The Yale key might fit one of the suspects’ front door locks. If it did we should photograph the door in its position before seizing the door, complete with flat number and lock in place. This was to prevent any defence lawyer suggesting that we had switched the lock; I was beginning to get wise about such allegations.

  I also suggested that we should take dental impressions from the suspects. I had a few forensic dentist contacts and I made the necessary calls to get one on standby for the day of the arrest and search.

  So a few mornings later we converged at Romford Police Station shortly after five am for a briefing with local officers.

  Two teams set out, one to each of the addresses of the two suspects. I went to one, armed with the key. Shortly after the occupants, politely and without fuss, opened the door to the first address, the premises were secured by armed officers and I removed the Yale key from its bag and, in Dick’s presence, tried it in the lock. The barrel turned with reassuring ease. It fitted. Cinderella, you will go to the ball, I thought.

  In the coming hours the door was photographed removed and then replaced, free of charge, courtesy of the Metropolitan Police. In the next months the significance of the key and lock would be investigated to identify the number of combinations and the probability of one particular key fitting an individual lock. For the moment it was, of course, promising that the key opened the door.

  Back at the police station it was time to take the dental impressions. First, we had to seek the consent of the suspects and also get the authority of a police superintendent. The former was remarkably easy. The suspects had been dealt with courteously but the request took them by surprise. One detective remarked that they probably expected the police to knock their teeth out and were relieved we only wanted to take impressions.

  My call to the London Hospital Medical School a few days earlier had intended to instruct Bernard Sims, the renowned forensic odontologist. Such was the emerging demand for this science (mainly in the area of disaster victim identification), that he designed and delivered a course in Forensic Dentistry. So it was one of his graduates, Luigi Ciapperelli, who came on this occasion.

  Luigi looked at the Curtis key and confirmed that it was a bite mark and he set about obtaining the dental impressions from the two suspects. Enquiries which Dick later made revealed that of the two men arrested, Saul and Fowler, only Fowler held a driving licence. Not that having a driving licence had anything to do with it – many people drive cars without licences. The fact was that Saul couldn’t drive. We made a point of not telling Ciapperelli this as it was irrelevant to his examination and we wanted his opinion based solely on the marks evidence and not clouded by other issues.

  In the weeks that followed I had meetings with Luigi about the bite marks. I also took him to meet Pam Hamer, a forensic chemist at the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, and discussed with them both the bite mark and striation evidence. Luigi had already made some examination of the dental impressions taken from Saul and Fowler. Pam Hamer was interested in the striations but the marks were very small. Any meaningful comparison would have to consider the angle and direction of the marks, if this evidence was to be useful and a potential match found. In the end it was clear that Luigi thought there was enough detail in the spatial arrangement of the marks on the key itself for a meaningful comparison to be made. He had noticed something I had not. Although there were striations emerging from the marks, there were indentations relating to the spatial arrangements and shapes of the tip of the teeth which could help identify the donor.

  A few weeks later I got a call from Luigi. Having completed his work and undertaken quality checks with his colleagues at the London Hospital regarding his methodology, he was sure that only the teeth of Fowler could have made the marks on the key. His statement arrived. It appears that the dentistry (that is the spatial shape and arrangement of our teeth) is unique and there was enough information within the mark to match the specific dentistry of Fowler.

  That was good news for the investigation but more was to follow. Dick had come across Saul when he was investigating the source of the gloves I had found in the alleyway. They were indeed military issue and the number did refer to the last three digits of a soldier’s warrant number. When Dick traced all soldiers whose warrant numbers ended in 588 he got a tidy list. None of them, however, could he implicate in the robbery. But one of these soldiers had had his gloves stolen. This seemed to be going nowhere until Saul’s name came to his attention and Dick realised that Saul had been discharged from the Army and had served in the same regiment as the soldier who had lost his gloves.

  When I had heard the name ‘Saul’, as we were briefed by Dick at Romford Police Station on the morning of his arrest, his name seemed familiar to me, but I couldn’t remember why. It wasn’t until some weeks later that I suspected that I had dealt with him before and found time to do something about it. I pulled out all my reports and flicked through them all.

  There it was. Many, many months before, Saul had been arrested by another detective in the office, also for an armed robbery offence. It wasn’t a promising investigation. The officer in that case had come to me late, the offence was already old. He had arrested the suspect and seized his clothing. There was one big problem. The getaway car had been recovered, but it had not been initially linked to this robbery and had been restored to the owners many miles away in the heart of Essex. The family had been using the car for a week.

  Once again, listening to the saying ‘if you don’t look you won’t find’, I agreed with the officer to drive to Essex. I contacted the owner of the car and arranged to examine it at their house. The examination wasn’t very fruitful. But I did recover some fibres and some finger marks. All the finger marks were later found to belong to the owner and family members. Given the seriousness of the offence I also prepared a laboratory submission with all these details. Submitting the seized clothing of Saul (who I had not seen) and the fibres I had recovered from the cars, I was not surprised when the scientist stated that the fibres of the clothing were too common for any meaningful comparison. The items were collected and, with no evidence in the case, the clothing was returned to the suspect and any prospect of charges dropped.

  When I looked closely at the laboratory submission I noticed that a ‘blue jacket’ had been taken from Saul on that first occasion but it had been returned to him when the case was dropped. I thought the unthinkable. What were the chances of the denim ‘Manto’ jacket which I had recovered from the alleyway being the ‘blue jacket’ previously taken from Saul and returned to him before this latest robbery occurred.


  Having worked as a member of the scientific staff at the Forensic Science Laboratory for three years I knew that whoever had examined the jacket taken from Saul would have some specific notes about it and this would include any labels. I excitedly called the laboratory and was put through to Dr De Souza, a forensic biologist. When I explained my enquiry and asked if she could identify the jacket from its labels she went to get the file and called me back within a few minutes. I was particularly interested to know if the jacket had a manufacturer’s label bearing the name ‘Manto’. There was silence as she read her notes and then she said, ‘Yes, it is a Manto jacket.’ I could hardly confine my excitement. I then asked if I brought a jacket which I suspected of being the same one, could she identify it from her description, the labels and her notes. From my own training at the laboratory I knew that was likely to be so. What she then said stunned me. ‘I can do better than that.’ She went on. ‘I cut and removed a small square control sample from under the arm and it is retained on the file.’ If I had the jacket, the small square would physically fit back in the hole which was made.

  I ran around the Flying Squad office like a headless chicken. I spoke to the officer in the Saul case and probably made no sense whatever to him.

  Contacting the property officer at the office, I quickly booked out the Manto jacket in its sealed bag and went straight to the laboratory. I don’t remember the journey but when I arrived I was taken to a small examination room. A crowd of scientists from the biology section had heard the story and assembled at a suitable distance. Dr De Souza opened the bag on a carefully prepared bench. Removing the small square control sample from a plastic bag attached to the file, she lifted the arm of the jacket and offered it up to a small hole. It fitted perfectly. There was wild excitement and applause.

  I was pleased but Dick was ecstatic. The jacket could be directly linked to Saul. It is strange that I didn’t notice the hole under the sleeve when I first inspected it, but even if I had it wouldn’t have meant anything to me. The jacket had been paraded on TV to identify its owner, but we had the answer. It was only because I was a common factor in both cases and kept accurate and comprehensive notes that the link was made.

  At the trial, the fact that the jacket had been seized in another investigation was carefully introduced so as not to prejudice the case against Saul. We referred to the jacket being seized on another occasion. The evidence that the jacket discarded at the alley belonged to Saul and the key in the pocket fitted his front door was successfully introduced.

  The fun wasn’t over yet. The introduction of the bite-mark evidence against Fowler met with interest in the first few days of the trial. I had suggested to Dick that he might want to speak to the defence and see if they intended to examine the marks independently. We were pretty confident about the evidence and didn’t want the usual scrum and confusion on the first day of the trial as often occurs if the defence team realises that there is some scientific evidence they should get checked out independently. If the evidence was sound, and we believed it to be so, it would withstand the rigorous testing by the defence. The best interest of justice and the trial process would be preserved.

  Predictably, on the first day of the trial we were informed that the defence were organising their own examination. I was happy to facilitate the examinations and Luigi Ciapperelli gave his full support. The forensic dentistry field is still a small one and Luigi knew the expert instructed by the defence.

  The trial was held at Court Number 19 at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey in the City of London. It is the smallest court in the building and I understand it was converted from an office to provide an additional court. By comparison to the other courtrooms it’s a cupboard and is sometimes referred to as such.

  The close proximity of witness, presiding judge, counsel, jurors and defendant make it a very cosy environment. Not that cosy is a word that anyone would want to associate with a criminal trial.

  I gave my evidence and was allowed to sit in court and hear the evidence of Luigi. Forensic dentistry evidence is pretty rare in criminal cases and I was interested in seeing how this was delivered, to learn how it was presented and received. I also wanted to know if we could improve how such evidence was presented so that the jurors had the right information on which to make their decision. This was not to improperly influence their decision but to ensure that it was firmly presented in a fair and ethical way.

  Luigi gave a very studied and balanced view of the marks and the impressions he had taken from Saul and Fowler. He explained the development of teeth as we get older and referred to the specific dentistry of both defendants. With the aid of charts and diagrams he showed the spatial arrangement of Saul’s and Fowler’s teeth. He could quickly exclude Saul from making the marks. Referring to the shape of the marks of the individual teeth and their spatial arrangement, he stated that it was his conclusion that Fowler, and only Fowler, could have made these marks.

  From the beginning of Luigi’s evidence it was apparent that the defence were not going to call their own witness. This is their prerogative and can be for any number of reasons. One, and perhaps the most common, is that the defence expert agrees with the prosecution expert. Another is that, rather than counter the evidence in person, the defence expert remains in court whilst the prosecution expert gives their evidence. In this way the defence expert can advise defence counsel on questions to ask to test the evidence and the witness’s approach.

  During Luigi’s evidence the defence expert sat beside Fowler, explaining the evidence. By a series of movements using Luigi’s dental models the defence expert explained what it meant. A quizzical look came over Fowler’s face and I could see that he was asking his own expert what he thought. To this his own defence expert indicated that he too thought Fowler had made the mark. Suddenly Fowler lunged at his own expert and started wrestling with him. All hell seemed to break loose for a moment and the court was cleared. Calm was restored. The judge ordered a break; I mentioned to Dick what I had observed. What Dick did next was something I will never forget, and it was a lesson for me. Dick spoke to the prosecution counsel.

  After the break Luigi concluded his evidence, this time the defence expert was sitting next to counsel, most definitely out of Fowler’s reach.

  To the surprise of almost everyone in the court, the prosecution counsel asked for the next witness to be called. He called the defence expert! It is very unusual for a lawyer to call a witness whose evidence is not known and without a written report or statement. This could cause damage to his case. The defence were not calling their witness; his presence in court whilst Luigi had given his evidence had indicated that. The scuffle with the defendant indicated more still and so it looked like the prosecution were on to a sure thing.

  Sure enough, the evidence of the defence expert was quickly given, he agreed with the methodology of the prosecution and the identification which had been made. The defence expert also concluded that Fowler, and Fowler alone, had made the marks on the key.

  Afterwards, Dick reminded me that there is no possession in a witness. The truth is the truth after all. If a defence expert knows it and it is to the prosecution’s advantage and they know about it, then the witness can be called.

  At the conclusion of the trial, both men were convicted of armed robbery. Dick and I were both commended by the Commissioner. But I wore a smile of satisfaction for some time, not because two men were detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure, which is a sadness and reality of human life, but because I was trained to do a job and I was working as a member of a professional team.

  10. Eleven Fibres

  The elderly lady was terrified, she could not see her attacker, but she could see the large knife and hear his violent shouts.

  On an unremarkable morning, the peace of a local community was broken by a terrifying act of violence. A man walked into a bank in Debden High Street, grabbed an elderly woman from behind and held a long-bladed knife to her throat.

  He hurled thr
eats at the bank staff who, in response, handed over £4,000. This was an unusually high amount because, contrary to common belief, banks, especially small local branches, don’t hold much cash.

  The man was masked so no one got a really good look at his face, and his tracksuit hid his otherwise stocky build.

  The robber left the bank, and his terrified victim, and ran off down the high street and into a wooded park area. Police officers were quick to respond and the wood was sealed off. The police helicopter arrived quickly overhead but there was no sign of the suspect.

  Then, out of the far end of the wood, a jogger emerged. Dressed in running shorts and T-shirt he was sweaty and out of breath. All very normal perhaps, but not in the circumstances which had shattered the day’s peace. He was approached by the officers who were protecting the wide cordon and searching the wood. They were not happy with his account and he was arrested.

  Debden is a community on the border of London and the Essex countryside. Its high street provides for the sprawling leafy community. It had its own station, part of the London Underground network, and a quick link into the heart of the metropolis. The term underground station is a bit of a misnomer, the station and track are elevated high above the ground and passengers travel many miles into London before the tunnel disappears beneath the surface. It’s a quiet place and not used to such acts of violence and certainly not in broad daylight.

  Having heard the call on Channel 7, the Met’s main HQ crime radio channel. I made my way quickly to the scene. It would be possible that the local SOCO would get there before me but my interest heightened when I heard that a suspect had been arrested.