‘I’m listening.’
Jackson shook her head. ‘I’m a bog standard locum, not a specialist in forensic psychology.’
‘If there’s anything bog standard about you, then I’m in the wrong bloody job,’ said Jones sarcastically. ‘It’s your impressions I’m after, Doctor, not a thesis on sociopathy.’
Jackson grinned. ‘I might do that rather better.’ She raised her hands in a pacific gesture. ‘OK, OK!’ She thought for a moment. ‘The obvious trigger is that he kept rejecting her . . . but she was also excited by having a man helpless. She used the stun gun on him twice before, so she clearly enjoyed the power it gave her.’
‘He should have left her after the first occasion.’
‘Do you think Charles doesn’t know that? Everything’s so damned easy with hindsight. He’s extremely ignorant about women. The only thing his upbringing taught him was not to get into arguments with them . . . and nothing could have suited Jen’s personality better. In some ways he was the perfect partner for her.’
‘Would she have recognized that?’
Jackson shrugged. ‘Probably. I suspect her feelings for him were a lot stronger than he realized.’
‘So why attack him in the way she did?’
‘During the stun gun episode? Because he’d given her her marching orders and she wasn’t prepared to accept them.’
Jones looked sceptical. ‘And she thought ramming a knobkerrie up his backside would persuade him to change his mind?’
‘She was angry and she wanted to hurt him. Logic goes out the window when a red mist descends.’ Jackson shrugged again at Jones’s expression. ‘Look, what the hell do I know? Maybe Charles is right and her fantasies are all about humiliation.’
There was a short silence.
‘The two views aren’t mutually exclusive,’ said Beale. ‘Rage usually takes the form of putting an opponent down . . . either verbally or physically.’
‘So why didn’t she go the whole hog with the lieutenant when she had him at her mercy?’ Jones asked. ‘Why let him live?’
‘Because she loved him,’ said Jackson. ‘The dynamics of domestic abuse are as much about powerful attachment as they are about control and manipulation.’
‘You seem very convinced Jen’s feelings were genuine. Does the lieutenant agree with you?’
‘No. He thinks she saw him as a meal ticket.’
‘Why doesn’t that persuade you?’
‘Because Charles was the one who cooled. He wanted an equal partner – the opposite of what he perceived his parents’ relationship to be – and he started to lose interest when he realized how demanding Jen was. That’s when her aggression surfaced. She was more intent on keeping him than he was on staying.’
‘Perhaps her real character only came out after she had a ring on her finger,’ said Beale.
Jackson nodded. ‘That, too . . . and the drugs wouldn’t have helped. It’s possible she made an attempt to kick her habit at the start of the relationship, then slipped back when she began to understand the reality of a soldier’s life. Charles being away for long stretches of time wouldn’t have suited a woman who craves constant attention. I’m sure her visit to Birmingham was about proving to him that he couldn’t live without her. She must have believed it herself or she wouldn’t have gone. I can’t imagine hatred was the response she was expecting.’
‘He demonstrated hatred when he raped her,’ Jones pointed out.
‘You and I might think so, but I doubt Jen would. It was a sex act and that’s an area she knows well. You need to put yourself in her mindset. She’s beautiful and desirable and Charles showed he still wanted her. He wouldn’t have been able to achieve an erection otherwise.’
‘He said he paid for it.’
‘That doesn’t make her any less desirable. Some men will have paid a lot more to sleep with her.’
‘Not recently,’ said Beale. ‘We can find only one agency still advertising her through their website and they’ve had no requests for her for weeks. Word gets round, apparently, and she has a bad reputation with clients. Light-fingered and not compliant enough.’
Jackson frowned. ‘Charles said he saw her with a Japanese.’
‘We did, too . . . probably the same one . . . but it’s almost certainly a private arrangement, a man who’s employed her before. We think most of her work is coming that way at the moment. Her drug dealer says her earning capacity has taken a dive in the last six months.’
‘Then perhaps Charles is right. He’s convinced the only reason Jen went to the hospital was to get her hands on his disability compensation.’
‘Why doesn’t that persuade you?’ Jones asked again.
‘It might have done if she’d turned up in sackcloth and ashes with tears running down her cheeks, begging for a second chance. Instead, she came as her favourite fantasy, even to the extent of wearing the same outfit she wore the day she used the stun gun on him.’ Jackson arched a rueful eyebrow. ‘And the knobkerrie wasn’t the worst of Charles’s problems, you know. For most of the time, she was holding a bread knife to his penis and threatening to castrate him.’
‘Go on.’
‘The only meaning I can take from that is that Jen thought Charles had been as excited by her dominatrix act as she was.’
Jones smiled cynically. ‘That’s a big leap of imagination.’
‘I’m not saying it’s rational, Superintendent. I’m saying it’s what an intensely egotistical woman might think.’
‘Yet according to Dr Campbell, Jen told Charles’s psychiatrist in Birmingham that she hoped his amnesia covered the end of the relationship. She sent him a series of love letters that didn’t even mention the rape, let alone how close he came to castration.’
‘But he didn’t read them and he didn’t reply.’
‘So?’
Jackson shrugged again. ‘If you were Jen what would you take from that?’
‘That the letters never reached Charles.’
Jackson nodded. ‘And what do you take from the fact that the contents were anodyne and only mentioned how good the relationship was?’
‘That she hoped he’d forgotten?’
‘Or she was afraid a nurse would have to read them to him because she didn’t know what his injuries were.’ She paused. ‘The more interesting question is why Charles was willing to hand them unopened to his psychiatrist when he was so resistant to revealing anything about the relationship.’
‘Go on.’
‘He knew Jen would do what his parents have done all his life . . . keep their secrets under wraps. He prefers it like that. The only way he knows how to deal with pain is to absorb it.’ She sighed. ‘He’s said all along you were out to crucify him . . . and that’s what you’ll be doing if you force him into court to support a prosecution. He’s carrying too much baggage to cope with having all this dragged into a public arena.’
Jones shook his head. ‘You underestimate him, Doctor. If I’ve learned anything about the lieutenant in the last few days, it’s that he’s a great deal more determined to face his fears than you and I are.’
METROPOLITAN
POLICE
INTERNAL MEMO To: ACC Clifford Golding From: Det Supt Brian Jones Date: 20 August 2007 Subject: Interview procedure
Sir,
Re Concerns expressed by Jennifer Morley’s legal representative
Please find attached a copy of Morley’s custody record, showing that she was charged well within the 36-hour time-limit allowed under PACE.
In the view of the interviewing officers and myself, the ‘breakdowns’ cited by Morley’s legal representative were determined attempts to run down the detention clock. Morley employed fainting spells, panic attacks and constant requests for healthcare assistance to disrupt her interviews. Despite these delays, she was charged at 11.45 on Friday, 17 August 2007, with the murders of Harry Peel and Kevin Atkins, making a detention time of 32 hours and 15 minutes. She appeared before magistrates three hours later and
was remanded to HMP Holloway.
The custody officer is entirely satisfied that we had reasonable grounds for detaining Morley, and that all interviews were conducted in accordance with Codes of Practice. She was allowed several rest periods, including a sleep break, and was given appropriate assistance and monitoring at all times together with regular offers of food and beverages. Most of these were declined. A copy of her custody record was made available to her legal representative.
The following is a brief summary of events
DI Beale and DC Khan pursued a line of questioning, proposed by James Steele (psychologist), which was designed to persuade Morley that she had control of the interview. As Steele predicted, this led her to offer easily disputed alibis about where she was and who she was with over the murder weekends. In the first two cases (Peel & Britton), she claimed to have been in London in the company of Lt Charles Acland; in the third (Atkins), to have been in a hotel in Birmingham, following a visit to Lt Acland in hospital.
Morley’s first fainting spell occurred after DI Beale showed her the register from Lt Acland’s base, and read parts of his statement, detailing her violence against him. Thereafter, the ‘breakdowns’ became more frequent as new evidence was disclosed. On the insistence of her legal representative, Morley was given time to recover after each occasion.
In her next interview, she denied assaulting Lt Acland and made counter-accusations that he’d brought the stun gun and the knobkerrie into the relationship in order to assault her. She portrayed herself as an abused ‘spouse’ with battered-wife syndrome. When asked if this had given her a fear of men, she agreed that it had, although she refused to comment on information retrieved from her computer that suggested a continued willingness to put herself in danger from men in the role of prostitute/escort. This information included the names and/or telephone numbers and addresses of Peel, Britton and Atkins.
Following a two-hour break at the request of her solicitor, she offered drug dependency as a reason for her prostitution. She further claimed that her victim status as an abused spouse had driven her to self-medicate on ‘uppers’ in order to treat her depression and low self-esteem. She blamed Lt Acland for her dependency, laying prolonged stress on his violent and jealous behaviour. As explanation for having Peel/Britton/Atkins’s contact details on her computer, she claimed to work part-time for a sex chat line.
On James Steele’s advice, DI Beale and DC Khan allowed these statements to go unchallenged and ‘rewarded’ Morley with an overnight sleep break. She was woken at 06.30 and given an opportunity to perform basic ablutions and apply make-up. Breakfast was offered, but declined.
Morley’s demeanour remained upbeat until she was shown the forensic evidence obtained from two different sets of clothing in her flat. Blood-spot DNA traces on a dark jacket, linking her to Atkins, and similar DNA traces on a pair of shoes, linking her to Peel. In addition, FSS made matches with fibres taken from a woollen scarf in Morley’s apartment to fibres found on Atkins’s premises.
After another ‘breakdown’ and a lengthy consultation with her legal representative, Morley admitted involvement in the deaths of Peel and Atkins. She offered self-defence and ‘battered-wife syndrome’ as justification, saying both men became aggressive under the influence of alcohol. She claimed to have lashed out in a panic with the first thing she could lay her hands on. In the case of Peel, a table lamp base. In the case of Atkins, an unopened bottle of wine.
Morley was then shown the hemp duffel bag and its contents and was asked to account for the stun gun and the knobkerrie. On the advice of her legal representative, she refused to answer further questions, and I took the decision to charge her with the murders of Peel and Atkins.
The detailed investigation of Morley’s property continues, and FSS are confident of linking her to Martin Britton’s premises and murder.
Three strands of hair found on the inside of the hemp bag have provided a DNA link with Morley, although this will certainly be contested in court. It is feasible, if unlikely, that Lt Acland carried them on his clothes for several months and transferred them unwittingly to the duffel.
The ongoing examinations of Morley’s computer and mobile telephone, also Peel’s and Britton’s phones, continue to produce evidence. Information retrieved and followed up to date shows that Morley had had previous contact with all three men.
Harry Peel in his role as taxi driver – Morley was an occasional customer.
Martin Britton through his partner, John Prentice –
Morley was commissioned for at least two photo-shoots of silk fashion in a chinoiserie room at the Britton/Prentice house. (Prentice said the slender Uma Thurman look suited his company’s designs.)
• Kevin Atkins as a builder – his company carried out maintenance work on Morley’s apartment block in 2004.
All contacts in Morley’s email folder and cell-phone address book are being traced and questioned. From interviews conducted so far, a picture is emerging of erratic behaviour over a period of years. Morley has had no contact with her family since punching and kicking her younger sister during an assault in 2001. Her mother admitted to being afraid of her.
Two ex-boyfriends, who dated Morley for less than a month each, have described stalker-type behaviour following breakup – threats, late-night visits, nuisance phone calls. A theatre company sacked her after two days for ‘anger issues’. Three escort agencies have taken her off their books because of client complaints.
A high percentage of the telephone numbers recorded in Morley’s computer have been disconnected. Three, including the ex-boyfriends, have been tracked through their servers and interviewed. All cite harassment from Morley as the reason for the disconnection. The third, who lives in Newcastle, admitted to using her services during a business trip to London. ‘I told her she wasn’t worth the money. She sent fifty obscene texts during the following two weeks.’
Despite Morley’s claim that it was Peel and Atkins who approached her ‘for sex’, there is no evidence to support this. Both men’s cell phones have listings for ‘Cass’ under a number that was discontinued around the time Morley met Lt Acland. We believe the initial contact came from Morley, either via a pay phone or by turning up ‘on spec’ at their houses, and that a need for money was the driving force. (Steele argues that Morley’s drug dependency/cravings would have become critical following the encounters with Lt Acland.)
If her intention had been to find a client for the evening, she may have tried other contacts before receiving a green light from her victims. (This might explain her use of a pay phone to avoid her name appearing and giving the recipient a chance to ignore the call.)
Steele’s theory is that all three murders were ‘opportunistic’ – i.e. various factors collided to create a ‘killing’ environment. He suggests the following scenario:
Morley was angry/destabilized by Lt Acland’s refusal to continue the relationship and/or support her financially.
If Morley was rejected by a number of potential clients, this would: a) frustrate her need for cash; b) fuel her anger; and c) persuade her to adopt a different approach.
Her first victim, Harry Peel, was easily accessible as a taxi driver and only accepted payment in cash. This would have been known to Morley. If her initial request was for his taxi service, he was unlikely to refuse her.
Her second victim, Martin Britton, was described by everyone who knew him as ‘courteous’. Britton’s brother believes Martin would have invited Morley in because of the connection with his partner. From her previous visits to the house, Morley may have known that the two men kept cash on the premises.
Morley’s third victim, Kevin Atkins, may be the only one who responded to an offer of sex. His ex-wife says, ‘He hated being on his own, particularly at weekends. We used to do things as a family and he missed that terribly.’ Atkins preferred to be paid in cash for ‘VAT and tax reasons’ and kept it in a ‘roll’ until he could get to a bank.
Despite inviting Mo
rley on to their premises, Steele believes all three men reacted negatively afterwards. Either by questioning the value she put on herself or by refusing requests for money.
Lt Acland’s evidence offers a pattern of how Morley uses a stun gun to exercise control. He was told he’d be allowed to recover as long as he followed her orders – ‘crawling naked round the floor pretending to be a dog’ – but any show of disobedience would result in another hit.
Lt Acland refused to comply, but it’s doubtful that less fit, older men would have been willing to do the same. They may also have believed that being instructed to dress in bathrobes and lie on their beds was merely a device to prevent them following her when she left.
Because her victims lived alone, there was no bar to Morley’s behaviour. She did what she did because she could.
Conclusion
My team and I have come to know Harry Peel, Martin Britton and Kevin Atkins during the months we’ve worked on their cases. These were good, decent men who deserve better than to allow their killer to plead self-defence or diminished responsibility.
All efforts are now being directed at proving that Morley’s motive was financial gain, and that she was prepared to murder her victims because they knew her and could identify her.
I trust this deals with your concerns.
Best wishes,
Detective Superintendent Brian Jones
Thirty-one
DAISY APPEARED QUIETLY in the open bedroom doorway and watched Acland pack his kitbag. Everything he owned was laid out neatly on the bed and, like others before her, she was struck by how little he had. To her, the most poignant articles were the single mess tin and mug which spoke of a life that wouldn’t be shared with anyone else.
She shifted her position slightly to draw attention to herself. ‘Jackson doesn’t want you to go,’ she murmured quietly to avoid her voice carrying downstairs, ‘but I don’t think she’ll tell you herself.’
‘Has she actually said that?’ Acland asked, folding a T-shirt.
‘Not in so many words . . . but I’m sure I’m right.’
Chameleon's Shadow Page 35