Cooper was then questioned about his knowledge of the Dixons and the Little Haven area. He indicated that he had seen the pictures of the couple during the investigation but did not know them. He went to great lengths to distance himself from the coastal path area and Talbeny Church, which over looked the murder scene.
Cooper was then questioned about his wedding ring. He indicated that he had hardly worn it after an accident on an oil rig, and that he could not remember what it was like. He said he had taken it off and put it in a trinket box in his house. He even mocked the officers by suggesting they probably still had the ring. His voice was uncomfortable and Gareth Rees pushed him by asking him to describe it. Cooper was uneasy. Then, out of the blue, he volunteered that he had handled stolen jewellery and sold it in Pembroke. Why was he doing this? As we listened in the monitoring room it became clear: he thought we had Peter Dixon’s wedding ring and that we were about to confront him with it. This was a man who had been interviewed more than forty times before and had admitted nothing, and yet here he was volunteering that he had been handling stolen property. He knew that if Gareth did produce the ring he could suggest that it had been stolen by someone else and only sold by him. Again he was trying to get his alibi and explanation in first. Little did he know how useful this tactic would prove to us. We had done our homework and officers had recovered from a jewellers shop on Main Street in Pembroke copies of the receipts given to Cooper for a wedding ring he had sold at the time of the Dixons murder.
POLICE: I’m going to show you some receipts now John.
COOPER: Yeah.
POLICE: First receipt I’m showing you is a copy of exhibit RTS/1 which is from a receipt book, and the number is 468 dated the 5th of July, 1989 with the name J. COOPER, 34 St Marys Park, Jordanston, Neyland. 22 carat wed on the top and there’s a signature J.W. COOPER on the bottom. Can you see that?
COOPER: Yes I can see that, yeah.
POLICE: Can you confirm whether or not that’s your signature at the bottom?
COOPER: Yes, that looks like my signature. I will add my son was very good at doing my signature as our cheque books will, my wife could confirm but, but I’m not saying that doesn’t belong, I would accept that that’s my until its proved any different, okay yeah, yeah.
POLICE: And the question is on the 5th of July, 1989 were you the person who sold a ring to the jewellers?
COOPER: Long time ago, long time ago. I will, I’ve already said I used to sell to a guy in Main Street, Pembroke and I bought and sold all my life. Always have done.
POLICE: The second item I’m going to show you is a second receipt, Police Reference number RTS which is dated the 17th of January, 1990 which is receipt number 524 and at the top is S Gold, again with the signature at the bottom which appears to be J. COOPER. Can you see that there?
COOPER: In 1990. We didn’t live in The Beeches in 1990. That would be very, very suspect and do you know why? Where’s the ‘W’? Where’s the ‘W’?
POLICE: And you’re pointing out you didn’t live in The Beeches.
COOPER: No.
POLICE: And for the benefit it says J. COOPER, The Beeches, Brickhirst Road, Johnston.
COOPER: Yeah, and it’s a place not. It’s not. It’s Brickhurst Park Road. Can I see that again?
POLICE: Yes certainly. I’m handing it back to John. So what you’re saying, you normally dealt with Mr Waters.
COOPER: Normally. Normally.
POLICE: In the same street.
COOPER: Yeah. If this was me this was very odd.
POLICE: Can you explain any reason why you’d go to another jeweller in the same street.
COOPER: Maybe if he was shut. That would be a reason but, it would be such an isolated occasion, its hard to remember. Yeah.
POLICE: And obviously you have stated categorically that you sold your wedding ring at that time.
COOPER: I can’t remember. I may have sold my wedding ring. I don’t know.
POLICE: Can you explain or give a reason as to why you’d sell your wedding ring at that time.
COOPER: I would never wear my wedding ring. I never wore my wedding ring since about ’69. I can’t understand why I would sell my wedding ring.
The next interview commenced at 6.52 p.m. on Friday 4 July.
POLICE: I understand that before we start questioning you may have some matters you’d like to bring to our attention.
COOPER: Yes yes I do, I do. A bit embarrassed but there we are. The mind goes blank, the mind goes blank. Yes in relation to two photostats that you showed me of transactions.
POLICE: Yes.
COOPER: Right, I’m still not sure whether I carried out those transactions, but it was not normal. I usually dealt with Mr Waters. It’s not impossible that I didn’t because as I explained earlier, I’ve been buying and selling things since I was on the site in 1979, 1980, sovereign rings and things like that so it is a possibility. One thing I can categorically say: the ring is not mine, not. I’m adamant that ring is not mine, I can’t be so certain that I didn’t sell it but it is definitely not mine. I had my ring for my wife’s 25th anniversary because I wore it, I actually wore it. And that also coincides with my daughter’s wedding, so I know; I believe I wore it for a few weeks before my daughter’s wedding. Well our 25th anniversary is within days and weeks after it, so I’m pretty sure that I had my ring in 1991. Right now, I can’t be so sure that I didn’t sell that man that ring and that scrap gold. I can’t, it’s not usual and I might add that most of the stuff I was selling then was not stolen stuff, it was stuff I was buying when I was out at darts. If somebody wanted to sell that sovereign to me I would buy it and try and make a profit on it. The only stolen stuff I was selling knowingly was ’92 onwards. So I still find it unusual the form of the two receipts, there’s still something that’s not right but I can’t say it wasn’t me. Not my ring. My ring I had in 1991 definite. My ring, and my ring was a sunburst, you know what a sunburst is on the top.
POLICE: Right.
COOPER: It was a very distinctive, I don’t know, it was a sunburst.
Cooper had suddenly remembered details of when he had worn his ring. He knew the significance of the transaction on 5 July, 1989, the day the bodies were found. He knew that the jewellers shop in Pembroke was fifty yards away from the NatWest cash point used by the murderer twice on 29 June 1989. It also showed that he was comfortable committing a criminal act in Pembroke and comfortable telling us.
The interview then proceeded to the murders themselves and Cooper was given an opportunity to comment on each aspect of the murder scene and on the theft of Peter Dixon’s wedding ring. Cooper gave short negative responses to all questions regarding the murders but I was satisfied that the exchange over the sale of the wedding ring had hurt him. He was starting to realise that we had done our homework.
Cooper was then asked a series of questions relating to the use of Peter Dixon’s cash card at the NatWest Bank in Pembroke, Carmarthen and Haverfordwest. The geography was significant. The offender, when he left the scene, had almost passed Milford Haven on his way to Pembroke but hadn’t taken any cash. This was strange. Could it be that Cooper was well known in Milford Haven and stopping there would have been too risky? The sequence of withdrawals again indicated a local man because after Pembroke the offender travelled thirty miles east to Carmarthen only to return west the following day, to use the card, for the last time just after 7 a.m. in Haverfordwest. We knew from Huntsman that Cooper had been found in possession of property from a burglary in 1985. Amongst the stolen items was a National Westminster Bank cash card and chequebook. A cheque was cashed at a jewellery stall at Carew Market, just outside Pembroke. Of great interest to us was an attempt to use the card at the NatWest cash point in Haverfordwest at just after 7 a.m. in the morning following the burglary, the inference being this: if Cooper committed that burglary he had used the same cashpoint at a similar time in the morning to when he used the Peter Dixon’s card. The problem was that he had no
t been charged with this burglary and therefore I could not use it in his bad character interview.
POLICE: We now move onto the usage of the Dixons’ bank card okay? The cash card which went missing from Peter Dixon was used at 13.36 hours on the 29th of June within hours of the murders at the NatWest Bank in Pembroke Dock. Explain whether you were the person responsible for using the card at that location at that time.
COOPER: No it wasn’t me.
POLICE: Tell me whether you know where NatWest Bank in Pembroke is.
COOPER: Not really no.
Cooper went on to deny making any of the further cash withdrawals that were made with Peter Dixon’s card. He was then shown a photograph of exhibit JAW/106, the rope used to tie up Peter.
POLICE: Evidence from the crime scene has been obtained and I told you that they have been tied up yes, and that the rope on Peter Dixon had been left on his body okay? I’m going to show you a photograph contained in GBR/2 of the rope which is police reference JAW/106. Can you see that?
COOPER: Yes I can, yeah.
POLICE: Can you describe? I’m talking about the last but one picture in the album? Can you describe what you can visually see there?
COOPER: Yeah, well.
POLICE: Can you describe the rope to me?
COOPER: Black rope is it?
POLICE: Okay and also contained in that rope, can you see there’s a... Blue, it’s a dark coloured rope. Right, okay, and can you see in the bottom of the picture there’s a distinct loop?
COOPER: Yeah yeah.
POLICE: Tell me whether you are the person responsible for taking that rope to the scene.
COOPER: No it wasn’t me, no.
Cooper was questioned about any bikes he had owned before being shown the artist’s impression of the ‘Wild Man’ with a bike using the NatWest cash point early in the morning on 1 July 1989. This was the only artist’s impression released by DCS Clive Jones. I had spoken to Clive regarding this decision and his reasoning was sound and based on his vast experience. This was the only impression that he could confidently say was the offender, due to the time of the sighting. Cooper was then questioned in relation to the artist’s impression released in 1989 but denied it had any resemblance to him at that time. This was supported by the police officer DC Lyn Dudley who visited Cooper as part of the original investigation. He made a note on the action that Cooper did not resemble the artist’s impression. At this point we had nothing to challenge this position.
The next interview commenced at 10.22 a.m. on Saturday 5th July 2008. The purpose was to discuss sightings of people on the coastal path at the time of the murders. Cooper had other ideas. He had had time to think and needed to explain his ownership of bicycles.
POLICE: Okay, before we start looking and asking you about various sightings of people in the area, is there anything from yesterday’s interview that you’d like to bring to my attention, discuss or to clarify?
COOPER: Um yes there is.
POLICE: There is. Okay carry on then.
COOPER: I’m sorry to do it this way but when I go back to sort of a quiet room where I can think of things…
POLICE: Yes.
COOPER: You asked me a particular question yesterday about bikes.
POLICE: Yes.
COOPER: And my mind was a blank, I must apologise.
POLICE: Right.
COOPER: I can give you information of the bikes that I owned. I believe anyway.
POLICE: Right, okay.
COOPER: Shall I start?
POLICE: Yes, certainly.
COOPER: Up until 1979 we didn’t... we owned cars but I did have many many bikes living in Milford Haven. I used to take the kids for rides on them because I put children’s seats on them, so just 1979ish I had bikes in Milford Haven. After that time there’s only one bike that I could remember buying.
POLICE: Right.
COOPER: And it was for a particular reason, so that’s how it come to me. I don’t know the specific time but I can relate to it as when I was banned from driving on the road, so it was during that period I purchased a push bike.
POLICE: Right.
COOPER: It was a drop handled sports type bike.
POLICE: Yeah.
COOPER: And I purchased it from Honeyborough roundabout industrial estate and the reason was to commute between St Marys Park and the place I was building in Johnston called The Beeches.
POLICE: Right.
COOPER: Sometime while I was using the bike I modified it by changing the seat because it was too uncomfortable, and the handlebars.
POLICE: Right.
COOPER: Put different ones on. The bike was a bit of a family joke really, they used to call it my exercise or fitness bike or words to that description, and as I say I used to commute every day from St Marys Park to The Beeches to do work, to save my wife on the road and she had other things to do. I’m trying to remember as much as I can about it. When I got my licence back I stopped using it and it was at The Beeches in various sheds and what have you and I believe the bike didn’t come back to St Marys Park with us.
POLICE: Right.
COOPER: And I believe I bought it to Merlins Bridge tip with a trailer load of different sorts of rubbish that I brought there. It’s a council tip which you can bring your rubbish to and I made a couple of journeys to there with the tractor and trailer ,and I believe it went there in quite a rusty state at the time. But I used it for commuting and when I didn’t have a licence.
POLICE: Ok thank you. Can you describe the bike to me?
COOPER: I can’t even think what colour it is. I think there was red in the colour, I believe, I believe there was red in the colour but it was, it was a drop handled sports type bike but I did put, because I found the seat a bit uncomfortable and leaning over like that, multi speed, I put more comfortable handle bars on it. I must add I commuted daily between Milford, St Marys Park and The Beeches so I was a well known, who was well known because you have to go through Johnston to get to The Beeches from St Marys Park so everybody would have saw me you know, everybody knew me. And they knew I was banned so I was well known in the area.
POLICE: Okay, can you explain to me the reason that you changed the seat and the handlebars?
COOPER: They were too uncomfortable.
POLICE: Right
COOPER: Yeah much too uncomfortable.
POLICE: And in what way did you find them uncomfortable?
COOPER: The seat was too small on the racing bike, it was much too small and I put a large old fashioned type seat on it.
POLICE: And the handlebars.
COOPER: The handlebars, there again it was too uncomfortable for me and I bought, I put on handlebars that were more upright.
POLICE: Upright.
COOPER: Yeah more upright, so rather than being down, I was more upright.
POLICE: But in a number of sightings in and around the Pembrokeshire area which were relayed on Crimewatch... we’ve spoken about the sighting and the artist’s impression. There was also a sighting of a male person, sitting on a bike with upright handlebars with a younger male on a caravan site in the area not too far from Broad Haven. Can you tell me whether you were the person who was in that area during that time?
COOPER: No, it was wasn’t me.
POLICE: Can you explain whether you cycled in the North West Pembrokeshire area?
COOPER: No.
POLICE: During the summer of 1989. Can you tell me whether you cycled at all in the summer of 1989?
COOPER: I would say categorically no because it was a very busy time for us house hunting.
It was very clear that this interview was an attempt by Cooper to explain away any evidence or sightings of himself with a similar bike to the one in the artist’s impression. At 11.05 a.m. Saturday 5 July 2008 a further taped briefing concerning forensic disclosure was made to Cooper’s solicitors. A very important exhibit was the rope JAW/106 used to tie Peter Dixon’s wrists behind his back. The rope was still around hi
s wrists when the body was recovered. A general swab was taken from the rope and submitted for DNA analysis. The result of that analysis showed a partial profile with a total of five components; two confirmed and three unconfirmed. All five, if they originated from one source, did not feature in Peter or Gwenda Dixon’s profiles but did feature in Cooper’s. This on the face of it appeared to be interesting but was far from conclusive or anywhere near being our forensic golden nugget. The frequency of this result appearing in the general public is about one in every three hundred. It needed to be put to Cooper though, and we had to be very accurate and transparent in its evidential value. Cooper was questioned at length regarding his knowledge and possession of ropes. He went to great lengths to explain how he had sailed and fished around the coast collecting and sometimes discarding ropes of all shapes and sizes. Interestingly, and in keeping with his behaviour in the rest of the interview, he suddenly remembered he had fished and launched his boat off Broad Haven and Little Haven putting him in the vicinity of the scene. It was yet another attempt to explain away any incriminating forensic evidence we might have. Now though we had got the measure of Cooper.
A Shock in the Night
ON FRIDAY 11 JULY 2008, a week after we had interviewed Cooper, I called the management team together to discuss the interviews and to arrange a Gold Group meeting to brief the Deputy Chief Constable and the Police Authority. There was good feeling in the team; the interview process had gone very well. All the careful planning by Colin Clarke and his team had paid off. Although Cooper had not made any significant admissions, other than confessing to handling stolen jewellery, he had done the next best thing. He had talked and talked and tried to anticipate what evidence he thought we had and in doing so had given some interesting responses. We needed to dissect the interviews and understand what he was telling us.
The Pembrokeshire Murders: Catching the Bullseye Killer Page 14