The Pembrokeshire Murders: Catching the Bullseye Killer

by Steve Wilkins

  ‘Let’s Get Him Talking’

  IT WAS TEN YEARS since Cooper had first been confronted with the accusation that he had been responsible for the murders. The interview had taken place during Huntsman, but had been very brief and Cooper had heard nothing since. I had made a point during the television appeal on ITV of directing my comments to him. “I believe that forensic science will have a significant say in the outcome of this investigation,” I predicted, and I hoped he would hear those words. The incredible advances in DNA have been well publicised in the media and during the broadcast on ITV I had reminded the audience, and Cooper, that on a national basis all successful cold case reviews had been detected by forensic science.

  It was clear that the broadcast had an impact on the viewers. Within hours members of the public had contacted us and even my mother had been approached with information. While at the hairdressers, another customer who knew I was her son told her she had seen the man in the artist’s impression on the day the Dixons’ cash card was used in Pembroke. She had never come forward because she saw that other people had seen him and did not think her sighting was significant. A team was dispatched to see her immediately and she made a full statement: I had little doubt she had seen the man. She described walking along the coast path near Pembroke Dock with her son and pet dog. Walking the other way she saw a scruffy unshaven man pushing a bicycle and wearing shorts. He was carrying something over his shoulder secured by a strap or lanyard. As he walked towards them her pet dog started to bark at the man. She then described how he gave them a look that almost turned her to stone, his eyes were piercing but he said nothing and carried on walking. She was so frightened by his stare that she immediately went home with her son and locked the door. This sighting triggered the question of identification. We had a number of witnesses who had seen the man at various locations, and in particular at the cashpoint. I could put together an album of images including a passport photograph taken of Cooper around the late 80s. Rules of evidence tell me that I should not consider photographs if the suspect is readily available to put in and identification parade, which of course he was. His appearance had significantly changed though, and any identification either way would be of little value. After further discussions with Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Maggie Hughes, I was happy not to go down this route, although it had been fascinating to see that even after eighteen years there were still new witnesses coming forward.

  The forensic strategy was now focused on those exhibits that we felt had the most potential for the DNA-enhancing Mini Filer technique. Glan Thomas concentrated on the ropes recovered from the crime scenes and from Cooper’s house, together with the stained, pre-war cartridge. The Forensic Management Group chaired by DCS Steve Mears was now well established and working well. Steve was able to probe some of the decision-making from an objective viewpoint. One exhibit of particular interest was a pair of shorts that had been recovered from Cooper’s home during the Huntsman searches. They were found in a drawer in his bedroom and were described as khaki shorts (Police exhibit number AJM/ 165). Could they be similar to those pictured in the artist’s impression? The forensic spreadsheets were now a work of art. Glyn Johnson and Lynne Harries had developed a process which would later be identified as national best practice. We were able to view electronically all recovered exhibits, photographs and original documents from the comfort of an office in Headquarters. When we viewed the original photographs of the shorts, the disappointment was tangible. They looked more like blue/green silk shorts and nothing like the khaki shorts from the artist’s impression. The style was similar, but the colour was not and we were of the opinion that they were of little value to the case.

  As we stared at the pictures, Glan Thomas looked puzzled. “What’s troubling you Glan, you look unhappy?” I said. Glan knew his stuff and he was clearly less than convinced by our conclusion. “Well boss, I have seen AJM/165 and they look nothing like the colour they are in the photo.” Glan now had our full attention. “You have to be careful if you make decisions based on the original photographs,” he said, “the colour can be distorted by the quality of lighting and skill of the photographer.” By now we were hanging on his every word. “AJM 165 are khaki shorts, I am sure of it and I can show you accurate photographs,” Glan soon returned to the meeting with new photographs, and they were indeed khaki and very similar in style to the artist’s impression if not a little shorter. He showed us photographs of the shorts taken under a range of different lighting conditions and they all looked different in colour. The decision was now an easy one to make. “Send them off for blood and DNA trace evidence right now,” I insisted. Little did we know how important this decision would be. The experience also ensured that we would never make a decision based on original photographs of an exhibit; something we have shared nationally with our police colleagues.

  We were now celebrating our second Christmas together and had organised a number of team building events, but 2007 had come and gone without a forensic breakthrough and it was tough. In early 2008 the Mini Filer forensic technique was validated, allowing us to concentrate on a hand full of exhibits that had shown promise, including the ropes and dirty old cartridge from under Cooper’s duck run. The ropes were also subject to a separate strategy looking at knot evidence and forensics. The rope used to tie Peter Dixon’s hands behind his back had a slipknot and looped end, but apart from that it was very nondescript. It appeared that the offender had slipped the loop over one of his wrists, tightening it before wrapping the rope around both wrists to secure him. Ropes recovered from Cooper’s home had a similar set up but were not of any evidential value; it was still interesting though.

  Lynne Harries was in contact with LGC forensics on a daily basis and it was becoming clear that Mini Filer was not enhancing any previously raised profiles and the dirty brown stain on the cartridge had not tested positive for blood. Other key exhibits had revealed nothing to suggest they had been in contact with the murder victims or the youngsters involved in the Milford Haven sex assaults. They were extensively examined but to no avail. The khaki shorts had been tested for blood but with a negative result; the sawn-off shotgun and lanyard PH/2 and PH/2A, discarded by Cooper after the Sardis robbery, had also been tested for blood and DNA, again with a negative result. At this stage fifty-six significant exhibits had been identified, twenty-eight had been forensically assessed, and of these eight had undergone the Mini Filer process without success. The forensic costs were already over £160,000 and it seemed we were back to square one.

  The team were clearly disappointed and I needed to pick them up and re-focus their efforts. With the excellent individuals I had working for me it was not difficult. We went out for lunch together, followed by a brainstorming session in the briefing room at Fishguard Port Office. Without exception we shared the view that as long as we kept faith in our process of recovery, assessment and submission something would come good. We believed the evidence was there, we just needed to find it. Lynne however was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the forensic support from some experts. He felt that it was the Ottawa team suggesting examinations rather than the specialists. I felt LGC were in an awkward position because the Forensic Science Service had been heavily criticised in police circles and so new forensic providers, like LGC, were understandably trying to maintain independence and impartiality. It was a fine balance, but Lynne had a point and I needed to keep an eye on it.

  We were now entering the spring of 2008 and Cooper would be eligible for parole in September. I wanted to interview his close and extended family to unpick Cooper’s complex life, explore his bad character and the circumstantial evidence. I needed to get the interview team back together to prepare. As ever DCC Andy Edwards and the Chief Officers were very supportive through the Gold Group. As long as I justified any additional resources, I knew that I had the full support of the Force and Police Authority.

  Colin Clarke had considered the strategy for the interviews with both witne
sses and the suspect. His documentation was detailed and high quality and placed witnesses in certain categories, which would dictate how they would be dealt with. Everyone from hostile witnesses to vulnerable adults and children had to be considered and an appropriate strategy developed. Members of Cooper’s immediate family would be key witnesses and needed their own specific strategies

  Constantly ticking in the background, like a grandfather clock, were the preparations for Cooper’ release. The MAPPA team required information about his background to inform their decision-making but there was a risk of duplication and, more importantly, I needed to maintain a sterile corridor between the two processes to avoid any conflict of interest. The interview team was reconvened by May 2008 and started its detailed preparations. At the same time I needed to consider the impact of Cooper’s previous interview and arrest in 1998 for both double murders. Potentially, Cooper’s time in custody back then could reduce the interview time available to me this time around, unless I could produce fresh evidence that wasn’t available to the Huntsman team. I didn’t want to be in a position that we had interviewed him only to find I had fallen foul of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the interviews were inadmissible in court. CPS lawyer Maggie Hughes knew the case intimately, as she had been involved in providing advice to the Huntsman team. Maggie was greatly admired in police circles in Pembrokeshire: she was an awesome force in court and was a highly professional, committed lawyer. I asked Maggie to consider the issues I was facing and she responded quickly. Case law was unclear, but she was of the opinion that there was unlikely to be any major consequences from interviewing Cooper whilst he was still in custody as the provisions of PACE were designed to ensure police questioning was carried out fairly and expeditiously, in order to secure an individual’s release as soon as possible. The position would have been different if he was not already in prison.

  I now needed to get a view from the CPS Complex Case Unit on the bad character, similar fact, and circumstantial evidence. It was time to reveal our hand to them. It was arranged for us to present our case so far to the CPS at Police Headquarters in Carmarthen. Little did I know that this would be the start of a fantastic partnership that would become the cornerstone of our success. Jim Brisbane was the new Branch Crown Prosecutor. He was a very gently spoken Scotsman who had transferred to the area with a fantastic reputation for being a very helpful and practical man, and I was not disappointed. Tom Atherton, Head of The Complex Case Unit, was a proud Lancashire man and I would come to like him immensely, as would my team. Suzanne Thomas was a lawyer from the same unit and would be assisting any case preparation. She was a very sharp woman who would remain with the team until the very end.

  Together with Lynne Harries and Glyn Johnson I presented the case so far. It was a fascinating story with some very interesting circumstantial links, but it lacked the forensic golden nugget. Tom was the most challenging. In his opinion the first obstacle would be the severance argument. The case relied on keeping both double murders and the Milford Haven robbery and rape together as the behaviour and location of the Milford Haven offence pulled in the double murders. I was convinced that the murders were the bricks of the case but the Milford Haven attack was the mortar. Tom was of the view that we had an interesting case, but it would not get past severance and if they were split up the links would disappear. I feared this position but came to understand that it was Tom’s way to challenge us, and I would grow to love it. He would become the voice of reason on my shoulder. Together we would agree common ground or find an alternative route to take, based on sound professional considerations. “It’s an interesting case Steve,” he said, “and would be overwhelming if you had some forensics in the middle. Someone like Gerard Elias QC would love this. I might just speak to him early doors.” Tom was already thinking of who would be the best silk to prosecute for the Crown. Both the team and I needed this support.

  Cooper was now in a ‘Category C’ Prison and I needed to speak to the Head of Prison Security to make them aware that I would be looking to produce him from prison for interview. Following a letter to the governor, I had a personal meeting at Parc Prison in Bridgend and briefed them; this was simply out of courtesy to allow them to plan. I was not expecting what happened next. Within days Cooper was re-categorised to Category A and moved to the high security prison at Long Lartin. The full impact of this would not become clear until we developed our plans to produce Cooper for interview. It was less than helpful.

  June 30, 2008 was identified as the day Cooper would be brought from prison for interview, and I needed a detailed plan. At the same time I had to assess the disclosure tactics because there was a wealth of material to be considered by him and his legal advisor before the interview. My intention was to serve the disclosure material on them in advance for consideration so I could use his time with us to the maximum. I then had to submit a detailed report to the prison service to justify his production and interviews. It was at this stage that the impact of his re-categorisation as a Cat A prisoner hit home. He would need to be transferred to our force area with a full police escort with sirens and blue flashing lights, and we could not pre-warn him of his production for interview in case anyone attempted to help him escape. The fact that he had hardly received a visitor in ten years and had been moved to a lower category prison suggested this would be extremely unlikely, but it was a battle that I wasn’t going to win. The ruling now meant that I could not serve the advance disclosure on him until he arrived in our cells in Carmarthen and would consequently lose a significant amount of the potential time with him. His solicitor was from Nottingham and I could not inform her either until he asked for his brief to attend. I was less than impressed with HM Prison Service to say the least!

  It was like planning for D-Day. The custody plan was developed by Chief Inspector Peter Westlake and needed to factor in the following: accreditation of Ammanford Police Station to hold Category A prisoners, liaison with the Police Advisory Section in London to ensure compliance with Home Office guidelines, and liaison with CPS to comply with the provisions of PACE. We would also have to work closely with our legal advisor to ensure compliance with current legislation and be in contact with officers from Parc Prison in Bridgend and Long Lartin in Evesham. We would have to hire a suitable prisoner collection company to transport the inmate from prison to the police station and back. This required a blue light escort throughout the journey. Furthermore we would need to liaise with the Senior Clerk at Dyfed Powys Magistrates Court to consider the legal process during the periods of detention within police cells. In addition we would need all the relevant risk assessments and custody strategies to ensure the welfare and safety of the inmate and our police officers. Finally we would need a custody detention officer around the clock, including a dedicated duty Inspector based in Carmarthen for the purpose of daily reviews. The custody staff would need to be handpicked because I didn’t want anyone who might engage with him or react if he became obstructive, giving him an excuse to complain and waste valuable time. It was going to be quite an undertaking.

  For weeks I had discussed our approach for this interview with Lynne Harries, Glyn Johnson and Colin Clarke. I wanted Cooper to have a free, unchallenged introduction and get him speaking about his life, interests, business ventures and family life. The custody plan ensured that Cooper had nothing to complain about or distract him. Most importantly the interview team was ready and I had total faith in it. They had scrutinised the statements taken from Cooper’s family during the Huntsman investigation and further interviews that had revealed a fascinating but disturbing picture. Cooper was a man who could be a loving grandfather one moment and a violent abusive father the next. We had long stared at his photographs on the incident room wall. Now the time had come to face him in the flesh and we couldn’t wait.

  Facing the Man

  JUNE 30 2008 WAS A DAY that had been circled in red on the calendar. The police escort was dispatched to HMP Long Lartin to pick up C
ooper. The interview team had assembled at Ammanford to make last minute preparations. Cooper had used a firm of solicitors from Nottingham, when he appealed against his conviction for the 1996 Sardis armed robbery, and there was every indication that he would do the same this time.