Crime Scene Investigator

by Paul Millen

  Operation Standard now had a number of urgent priorities. The vehicles would require supervised removal to the police station and the prisoners would need to be examined. I briefed the local SOCOs and divided up the work.

  I was present when Barrett was examined. This took place before any interview. A police surgeon was called to take blood samples and he arrived promptly. As well as preparing bags and containers for the samples we would take, I had scanned the room for sharp objects. I had had a scare a few years before. In a similar situation, a suspect had noticed a kitchen knife left by a member of the custody staff after an inappropriate meal. The suspect made a move to grab the knife to aid his escape but was thwarted by a quick-thinking police officer. Barrett was brought into the examination room by a police custody officer and stood with his back to the examination couch. I was busy, carefully writing down the doctor’s extremely long and unusual name when I heard the doctor say, ‘What samples do you want?’ Still concentrating on writing the doctor’s name, I gathered my thoughts. Before I could speak, I heard Barrett’s gravely voice confidently reply, ‘Oh the usual, blood, urine, saliva, hair samples.’ Instead of addressing his question to Kevin, the doctor had asked Barrett. When I looked up I realised why he had made the mistake. Barrett was dressed in a smart shirt and tie. Kevin was dressed in blue jeans and T-shirt. Given Barrett’s smart appearance the doctor had assumed that he was the detective and Kevin was the man in custody. Stunned for a moment, I intervened and told the doctor the error of his ways. Barrett had seized and capitalised on the moment even though he could not possibly profit from such an action. Once I had pointed out the mistake to the flustered doctor, we all laughed at the humour of the situation. It demonstrated Barrett’s calm and cheekiness in the most serious of situations for him. It underlined to me the fact that although Barrett was in custody and going nowhere, he was nevertheless still extremely alert and a very formidable adversary.

  The examination was thorough and conducted in an atmosphere of cooperation by Barrett. He consented to all the samples, although he could have refused some. Blood and saliva samples were taken for grouping (DNA technology had yet to be used in forensic science at that time), blood and urine for drugs and alcohol, to determine the physical state of the suspect. Hair combings and hair samples were taken for hair and fibre examinations. All of Barrett’s outer clothing was taken.

  The episode in the examination room was an insight into Barrett’s considerable knowledge, and it was pretty accurate. He had gone through every criminal academy on offer. Although his knowledge was good he had made mistakes, not least being caught. He had left clues which would link him to previous offences that we were investigating.

  It was over the next few hours that Barrett surveyed his situation. He was, after all, a former supergrass and his time in prison, which was likely to be lengthy, would be more unpleasant (if that were possible) and dangerous. He would be segregated from the main prison population with the sex offenders, but his life could be in danger and he knew it.

  Croke appeared to be the mastermind, but he was by, comparison, of relative good character previously. So, if anyone was expected to roll over, it would be him. In any event it was Barrett who quickly offered to turn informant, to the surprise of Kevin Shapland and Detective Sergeant Dick Kirby. If Kevin was the best detective I have ever worked with, Dick was a strong contender for the runner-up slot. Dick was a cunning and shrewd craftsman. It was he who paved the way for Barrett to be accepted as a supergrass for the second time. This was no mean feat and involved taking a ‘without prejudice’ statement, which Barrett was told would never have seen the light of day again if the Director of Public Prosecutions had rejected his offer to inform.

  The statement was accepted and Barrett knew that the court would learn of his cooperation and he could fall on their mercy.

  The investigation in hand was not about mercy for Barrett, but rather truth. There was a lot of work for me to do. Not least the completion of the vehicle examination and the collation of all the exhibits which had been recovered. I elected to stay in Milton Keynes for a few days rather than spend a couple of hours driving each day in the heavy traffic back to London. I was put up in a pleasant guest room on one of the upper floors of the police station. The station was new and had three major incident suites which were put at our disposal. The scenes of crime suite boasted a group of spacious rooms, including office, examination room and photographic studio. It occurred to me that they were expecting a lot of trouble in the future. The facilities made the job much easier.

  We already suspected the team of involvement in at least four offences. Barrett quickly told us of another seven offences, making a total of eleven major armed robberies.

  Within a few days, Barrett was taken to the secret and secure location in east London which would be his home for over a year until the trial a long way in the future. The investigation team would also be based there.

  The issue of corroboration came up almost immediately. An initial statement was taken from Barrett outlining the extent of the gang’s activity. A meeting was called by Detective Inspector Ken Grange, who had been given the overall responsibility for the investigation. Present were a team of about eight officers, myself and a typist. The team would remain together until the trial, although I still had to undertake my normal duties back at the main office on other investigations.

  Dick advised that a detailed separate statement be taken from Barrett for each offence. Corroboration was a key issue from the very beginning. The disrepute into which the supergrass system had fallen was the result of previous supergrasses making up stories to please their interrogators. That could not happen here. It was at that point that someone suggested that Barrett should tell us where we could find forensic and other evidence. It may have been that some of the detectives present were giving Barrett credit for his forensic knowledge or awareness. The incident in the examination room at Milton Keynes was fresh in their minds. I was deeply unhappy with this approach. He would be leading us and that was not good as far as I was concerned. I felt it wasn’t just about corroborating the offences themselves. I thought it was important to corroborate as much as possible of what Barrett told us, however trivial. This would ensure that the whole of Barrett’s story was accurate. This was accepted and it would be my role primarily to look at the detailed statements, seek corroboration from whatever had been recovered in the previous investigations and undertake or arrange further examinations if they were necessary. The eleven offences covered six police force areas going back four years. Around £1.4 million had been stolen and a lot of innocent victims assaulted and terrorised in the process.

  A long and detailed statement was obtained for each offence. One of the investigation team was designated to ensure that all the case papers and exhibits were obtained from the police force concerned.

  Detective Constable Ray Bennett was given the job of exhibits officer, the task of controlling all the exhibits. Apart from the original exhibit numbers, an additional identification serial number was added to indicate in which offence the item was recovered. This would ensure that where numbers were similar or duplicated, they would be easily referred to and understood.

  The integrity of the items was paramount. Without this any further examinations would be impossible. So the condition in which each item was received and how it was packaged, labelled and sealed was examined.

  In only one case did the items reach us in an unsealed condition and without clear documentation, which meant that we could not undertake further comparison. The integrity of the items had been breached possibly by ongoing inspection by the original investigators after the first laboratory examinations. I could not tell if we even had the original items as they were not sealed, even though they matched the documented descriptions. Someone had decided that the sealing, labelling and integrity of the items were no longer an issue. They were wrong. The items had not been destroyed as at the conclusion of an investigation. The fact that we f
ound them in a police property store showed that the case had not been closed. This was a shame but equally a fact. It is not uncommon for the integrity of items to be neglected after a long period of time, once it is felt that the detailed forensic examinations have been completed. The fact is that they are really never complete and items should be sealed and accompanied by a complete record of their opening and examination until the time they are destroyed.

  The examination of Emerald could have taken months and could have been without a clear purpose. So a strategy was adopted which meant that there would be a comprehensive search but the scene would be left as intact as possible. This meant that return visits could be made as more information from Barrett came to light. Police would remain in control of the premises for some weeks as it was technically a continuing search.

  Emerald was a bungalow with a big garden and an exterior garage. A large quantity of material was recovered in the search. Each piece was described, documented, labelled and sealed whilst its potential was evaluated.

  Once all the initial searches had been completed, the core group of the team sat down with the exhibit registers for each offence and search. The group included the senior investigator, his deputy, other detectives, the exhibits officer and me. Every statement had to be read and understood to identify potential areas of evidence and corroboration. Every single item of the many hundreds we had collected together was considered in turn. Each item was evaluated. I asked the question, ‘What could this item be examined for to prove or disprove the allegations made?’ The answers ranged from finding the offenders’ finger marks on a surface, to which they did not have legitimate access, to establishing that wires cut at the crime scene were cut by a pair of wire-cutters found at a suspect’s address. Often items would require a sequence of examinations, such as the wire-cutters for cutting marks, paint and fingerprints. So from scene, suspect, vehicle or suspect’s address the contribution of every item to the case was considered. This was a mammoth task. It meant that nothing was missed. Every piece of intelligence and evidence could be recovered from all the items based on what we knew and what we suspected. Even at this relatively early stage we recognised that whatever answers we received from the laboratory examinations, there was likelihood that they would promote further questions. That was our hope and it is what investigation is all about.

  Some questions were independent of the supergrass’s insight. They were things we would have done routinely. In the search of Emerald a quantity of cutting implements, including wire-cutters, were recovered. Detailed examination of one of many revealed that it had been used to cut the perimeter fence wire at the Armaguard scene in Essex. The wig which Croke had been wearing at the time of his arrest contained fibres from a mask which had been dropped at Armaguard. A pot of adhesive recovered from Emerald was of identical composition to that used on the Armaguard ‘bomb’ device. A piece of cloth torn from a garment, complete with stitching of a different colour, found at Emerald matched a piece left inside the device recovered at the Cross and Herbert scene. The battery cover to the scanning device found at Armaguard fitted a scanner with a missing battery cover found at Emerald.

  This evidence alone would have built a strong enough case against the gang for the Cross and Herbert and the Armaguard robberies. But there were other offences. This time Barrett would play his part.

  About a month into the investigation a full picture of the allegations being made by Barrett was clear. Other suspects were implicated and areas for search identified. A detailed plan was drawn up of those who needed to be arrested and interviewed and where premises needed to be search for evidence. Extensive briefings were prepared and officers from all four Flying Squad branch offices around London called in to assist. Over a hundred and fifty officers converged on the north-east branch office at four am on the day of the searches. The five Squad SOCOs were there. Over twenty-four premises were to be searched simultaneously at six am. The briefings completed, the teams set out. The SOCOs were sent to the priority searches but were available to assist in any others should the need arise. By the end of that day hundreds of sealed items were deposited at the branch office. It would take me almost a year to work through and assess the entire potential evidence and arrange specialist examination at a forensic science laboratory.

  Items for fingerprint examination I would examine or submit to the Metropolitan Police Fingerprint Laboratory. Many of the armed robberies we were now reinvestigating had been examined at a range of forensic science laboratories. Predominantly, the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory and the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory in Huntingdon had received items from the original investigations. At least two of the cases had been examined by a particular senior scientist, Kevan Dunnicliff, at the Huntingdon laboratory. Kevan was a quiet, bespectacled, studious individual. In his presence there was no doubt that this precise man was an expert in his field. I knew the sheer volume of work I was giving him would be demanding on his time. In discussion with him it was clear he understood the nature of the corroborative task we were undertaking. There was pressure on me to submit the cases to the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory. It was geographically nearer to the new investigation team and our usual laboratory, but from an investigative point of view that was irrelevant. Most had been submitted to other Home Office forensic science laboratories and, more importantly, Armaguard had been sent to Kevan at Huntingdon. So it was my decision that all the items would be submitted there as Kevan had the most prior experience in the case. Nobody challenged this from within the investigation or in my professional chain of command. I arranged for Kevan to act as the lead scientist. As a forensic chemist he would have the main bulk of the work, particularly with the devices and components we had recovered. He would also call on the expert services of Mike Harris (a forensic biologist) and John Burns (a ballistics expert). The purpose of the examinations was made clear, establishing a link between suspect and scene or scene and scene. Kevan could coordinate this so that the best and most effective method of achieving our goals, if indeed there were links, could be made. The very nature of the task meant that there was a lot of cross-referencing and it would take time and resources. We all wanted to work as efficiently as possible. I made many trips to the laboratory to ensure Kevan, his team and the investigators back in London were kept up to date. The communication worked well and, although it took time, the case continued to build.

  Sometimes we got answers we were not expecting. An interesting line of enquiry had us all confused for a while. At the Armaguard scene a white Honda van had been seen by two of the witnesses. In an unprompted statement from Barrett he told of how he went with Croke to a lock-up private garage where a van had been stored for over a year before the robbery. He also stated that Croke had accidentally pulled the garage door over the van, causing the door to slam against the front of the vehicle. Croke had driven the van across to France on his way to Malta for a holiday, directly after the successful Armaguard robbery. The van had broken down en route, and he abandoned it and bought another car to complete his journey.

  Barrett had only visited the garage where the van was stored once. After some research it was found and I went there to undertake an examination. Enquiries locally revealed that it had been unused for some time. Opening the garage door it was found to be empty, apart from a pair of roof bars on the floor against the rear wall.

  I carefully examined the door of the garage with a good lamp. There, on a cross-member on the inside surface, I saw a flake of firmly fixed and embedded paint. It had remained stuck there; even Barrett wasn’t to know that. Measuring and recording it, I carefully removed the paint, placing it in a small sample container. I also took a control sample of the paint on the garage door so that this could be eliminated.

  I then turned my attention to the roof bars on the garage floor. Barrett hadn’t mentioned them at all. He may never have seen or noticed them. What was striking from the start was that the fixings were set to f
it a very small vehicle. Magnifying glass in hand, I carefully looked at the rusted grip end. I could see very small pieces of paint embedded there too. I could not see any real colour as the surface I was looking at was probably an undercoat. To remove them would be very difficult and potentially disastrous. So, having measured the gauge of the roof bar setting, I covered the grips with small plastic bags and taped along the shaft to secure and protect the grip ends.

  The dimensions at which the bars were set were the exact size to fit a Honda van of the type described. It was of a particularly narrow width as the van was really quite small. Kevan made a detailed microscopic examination of the grip ends of the bars which revealed fragments of vehicle paint. The layer structure (primer, undercoat and top-coat) was that of a Honda van and model of the period. But the top coat was yellow. This was not the manufacturer’s original finish and indicated that the vehicle from which it came had been resprayed. The witnesses had clearly described the small Honda van as white.