The Pembrokeshire Murders: Catching the Bullseye Killer

by Steve Wilkins

  Following the interviews at Ammanford I held a debrief with Lynne Harries, Glyn Johnson and Gareth Rees. I couldn’t help thinking that after our broadcast Cooper’s chosen reading in prison was all about DNA cases. It was clear to all of us that Cooper believed we had more evidence than we actually had, and in responding to certain questions he had revealed where he was vulnerable. As we sat and talked it through a number of clear examples jumped out at us.

  Cooper had initially indicated that he only knew the Thomases in passing and had nothing to do with them. In reality he knew them well; he lived only a few hundred yards away and had worked on their land and bought grain from Richard Thomas. Mr Thomas had indicated to one of his farm hands that he feared Cooper and had asked him to stand nearby whenever Cooper was at Scoveston Park. Cooper had tried to buy land from Richard Thomas using Florence Evans as a ‘go between’. Cooper couldn’t remember visiting Scoveston Park but when it was clear that we had evidence to the contrary he remembered going there and looking in the outbuildings. Cooper remembered that Richard Thomas had an old Rover car and that he had helped to load it with beer from Flo Evans. This involved him touching the vehicle and doors. Cooper suggested he would probably have a number of keys in his famous key bucket that would fit the Rover car. Other keys found in his cess-pit fitted he locks of houses burgled in the area. Property stolen from them was found at Cooper’s house and the homes of family members. Cooper said he had been given the items as gifts. I believed that he collected mementos from his crimes; items that would take him back in his mind’s eye so that he could relive the control he had had over his victims. Cooper admitted visiting Norton Farm which belonged to Richard and Helen Thomas. Richard had visited the house on the day of his murder. A key to an internal door from Norton Farm was found during the search of Cooper’s home. Pre-war cardboard-finished shotgun cartridges were found under the duck run at Cooper’s address during the Huntsman searches; identical cartridges had been found in the larder at Scoveston Park. Then there was the cartridge box with handwriting on it similar to that of Helen Thomas. He explained that he had attended local shooting events where the locals would swap ammunition. We now knew that Cooper had persuaded his family to tell the police that they were all at home together on the night of the Scoveston murders. This was untrue. Furthermore around the time of the murders one of his family could remember him coming home in the dark sweating, as if he had been running, and that his hair was flat to his head as if he had been wearing some kind of a hat. He went to the bathroom to wash and told the same family member to say if asked that they had been at home together all night.

  Cooper had denied any contact with the Little Haven area only to later admit he used to fish off the coast and sell mackerel from Little Haven and Broad Haven slipway. Other evidence clearly showed that he visited the area regularly with his family. Cooper had sold a man’s gold wedding ring on 5 July 1989 in a jewellers shop in Pembroke having initially indicated that it was his own. The jeweller was fifty yards away from the NatWest cash point used by the murderer on 29 June 1989. When shown a separate receipt detailing another transaction for a ring marked as scrap gold he admitted that the transaction on 5 July was not related to the sale of his own ring. Most surprisingly he admitted handling stolen jewellery, which was in total contrast to his usual protestations of innocence. Peter Dixon’s twenty-two carat gold wedding ring had been removed from his finger, and we felt that Cooper believed that we had recovered it and if produced he could explain that he had only handled it and that it must have come from someone else. Unfortunately we did not have the ring but it was another telling disclosure. Cooper collected and disposed of ropes in connection with his boat. If his or anyone else’s DNA was on a rope it could easily be explained. Cooper also indicated that at or about the time of the Dixons murder he used to cycle in the Milford Haven area and that he had altered the handlebars on the cycle to make them straighter and more traditional. This would explain any evidence from locals suggesting he had a similar bicycle at the time. We knew that on 19 July 1989, three weeks after the murders, Cooper went to see his doctor complaining of fractured ribs. Tim Dixon was convinced that his father would have fought back during the attack. Could Cooper’s injury have been inflicted during the struggle?

  As we sat and talked these issues through there was one more very important disclosure that stunned us into silence, followed by a moment of realisation. Cooper was questioned about guns; in particular about the PH/2 gun abandoned following the Sardis armed robbery. The weapon was a sawn-off double- barrelled shotgun which had a short rope lanyard attached to the stock and barrel. Cooper had been convicted of this offence and was nearing the end of his sentence and yet he had gone to great lengths to suggest that he had handled the gun during the Huntsman trial. Now a decade on, while he was being questioned, the interviewing officers noticed that he had written on his pad the words, ‘Sardis gun, Judge Moreton destruction-order!’ Following the Huntsman trial Judge Moreton had in indeed given an order for the weapon to be destroyed but unbeknown to Cooper this had not been carried out. Why was Cooper now so concerned about a gun and a crime for which he had nearly served his sentence? It was a moment of epiphany! This had to be the murder weapon for at least one of the double killings, and probably both if it had once belonged to Richard Thomas. We knew that Cooper had previously stolen shotguns from houses and we knew that Richard Thomas possessed at least one shotgun, but none had been recovered from Scoveston Park.

  While trying to be clever, Cooper,was in fact telling us where to look for clues and we knew only the killer could have such knowledge. I was now absolutely convinced that Cooper had murdered four people. This was a turning point for me; if we didn’t get further forensic evidence we would prepare a case based on what we had, supported by bad character and circumstantial evidence. It was therefore essential that I went through a linking process to show that the same person committed the crimes, I could then overlay his previous history of offending onto the Ottawa crimes.

  I knew that the CPS at this early stage were not overly impressed with the prospect of including the Milford Haven robbery and rape offence on the same indictment as four murders but I was determined to keep it in, knowing both its geographical and behavioural value to the case. The scene of the attack was within sight of Scoveston Park and contained so many elements of the Dixons murder. We needed to persuade the CPS. Less than a week later we met Tom Atherton from the CPS to brief him on the interview and the emerging issues. As usual Tom played devil’s advocate, asking probing and difficult questions with his glasses perched on the end of his nose. As time went on he was slowly coming around to our view, but still had reservations regarding the value of the Milford Haven offence. At the conclusion of the meeting it was agreed that we would submit an advice file to the CPS for consideration by both them and Gerard Elias QC. One question from Tom was important: he asked me how many other offenders we had in the system that were similar to Cooper. I didn’t know, but could see that potentially this would negate any bad character evidence if the defence could show there were other people like Cooper living in the local community.

  The way forward was now clear: we needed to continue with the forensic review and the submissions to scientists and experts. It was also essential to identify usable evidence from Operation Huntsman and Operation Ottawa and have our forensic assessments independently reviewed by the NPIA. Cooper’s interviews had to be thoroughly assessed and we needed expert opinion on the geographical and behavioural elements of the offences. It was also now our intention to strip out all of the behavioural characteristics from Ottawa before overlaying the behaviour displayed by Cooper in his Huntsman convictions. What would it tell us?

  In view of Tom’s comments we needed to consider all previous suspects and persons of interest for the murders and sex attack. We needed to know exactly who had not been eliminated and secure their recent offending history. We also need to know whether the crime wave had stopped once Cooper was
jailed in 1998. Last, but not least, we needed a presentation for Gerard Elias and the CPS. There was a lot to do. This work would require additional analytical and research resources from the Force. As always I had total support from the Gold Group and my senior management colleagues. We were also starting to outgrow the accommodation at Fishguard Port office and were looking for new premises. There was a possibility that we could use the top floor of Pembroke Dock Police Station but unfortunately this housed the cherished snooker table that had stood proudly in a room next to the kitchen area for as long as anyone could remember. The room would need to be cleared and HOLMES terminals fitted to make it a fully functional incident room; so for now we remained at Fishguard.

  A meeting with Jonathan Smith and Des James from the NPIA was productive. After Lynne had raised some concerns I asked Des to secure some independent advice regarding the work being carried out by LGC. Jonathan agreed to review the process and was reasonably happy with the direction we were being given. At this stage I had concentrated on DNA trace evidence and steered clear of fibre evidence on the grounds of expense and on advice from the scientists. We now needed to establish what human and animal hair and fibre evidence was available as well as other opportunities such as paint and soil. I was also aware that in the US the FBI was developing new techniques to analyse body fluids.

  A bee in my bonnet was the profilers’ position on not giving evidence. Neil Traynor and Paul Lobbe had been recommended by the NPIA and were now producing fascinating evaluations of the geography of the offences and Cooper’s behaviour. I wanted them to go into the witness box, particularly Neil Traynor. I felt that geographical profiling had been around long enough for us to have nationally recognised experts who could give their opinion in court. Neil however was convinced that an analyst should give the evidence instead. In essence profilers help detectives by giving them broad parameters to work within while analysts deal in statistics. The profiler will tell you what kind of man might have committed a crime where as the analyst will tell you the likelihood of such a man being in a particular area. We had some healthy discussions about this difference of opinion but I was not going to get my way. We had some great analysts in the Force but none with great experience of giving this type of evidence. It was something I needed to consider.

  Work on the new accommodation at Pembroke Dock Police Station was under way. Lynne, Glyn and I now began the task of creating what became known as the ‘events matrix’. This would help me through the linking process. It was straightforward but time-consuming. Glyn created a spreadsheet which was projected onto the wall of the briefing room at Fishguard Port Office. Down the left hand side we included categories such as location, scene, victim(s), offender, property, violence, weapons and words used by the offender etc. We then started to populate the spreadsheet by including columns, with a short narrative which detailed the behaviour, scene and victim selection, allowing us to drill down into the detail of the crimes. The double murders and Milford Haven offences were colour coded. This enabled me to see similarities as we grew the events matrix. We locked ourselves in the room for days until we had completed the work, which was then presented to the rest of the team for comment.

  In creating the matrix I laid down some ground rules which reflected the ethos of the investigation. My mantra, ‘We only deal in fact’, created many lively and humorous moments in our deliberations. My view was that the matrix should only consist of those events that were factual and provable: this would require someone being prepared to go into the witness box and give evidence. This ensured that we did not allow opinion, assumption or legend to filter into the linking process. Glyn and Lynne were brilliant, and totally different, in their approach and interventions. We sat on old threadbare easy chairs in the briefing room clutching mugs of tea; mine was my beloved Everton mug. Lynne is a listener; he absorbs and then makes observations. Glyn is far more animated, if he sees something and doesn’t agree he will say so. The main areas of healthy debate revolved around the different views on what was fact and what was opinion or assumption. At one point Lynne Harries said, “Bloody hell boss, at this rate you will be retired before we finish this.” Eventually we completed the matrix. It was detailed and the colour coding allowed us to see instantly areas of commonality between them. When we overlaid the behaviour, geography and victim selection displayed by Cooper in his Huntsman convictions with the Ottawa offences the results were compelling. It was like inserting a hand into a glove. As I suspected it really highlighted the value and importance of the Milford Haven rape and robbery to the case. The SIO at the time of that attack was Aldwyn Jones, a sharp investigator and a very thorough man. His view was important to me. He believed that the attack on the children was a chance meeting with a man out in the fields, probably on his way home from planning another criminal enterprise. His route took him past Scoveston Park and by pure chance the children were playing in the field. When considering the Sardis robbery committed by Cooper the description of the attacker was identical and the use of the gun as a means of control plus the words used to control his victims were very similar. When we compared this with the Dixons murder the similarities were again striking: multiple victims, robbery and sexual assault and use of a double-barrelled sawn off shotgun. In the Milford attack the MO was identical but the number of youngsters probably explained why no one was murdered. I was also exploring the possibility of getting a mathematician to give the statistical probabilities of this kind of activity taking place in such a tight geographical location and it not being committed by the same person. In essence, how many gun-toting maniacs did we have roaming this part of North Pembrokeshire? The Milford Haven case had to be considered by Mr Elias and the CPS alongside the double murders. I just needed to persuade them.

  On 8 August 2008 it was agreed that an initial advice file would be submitted to the CPS to be reviewed by Gerard Elias QC, to include the usable evidence, bad character and Cooper’s interviews. This would give an early assessment of the case but we were pretty certain that we would get the response, “Nice story, but where is the forensic evidence?”

  The geographical and behavioural assessments of Paul Lobbe and Neil Traynor supported my view; they clearly understood the importance of the Milford Haven offence. Having considered the events matrix and the profilers’ assessments I was happy that the offences were linked and made a policy decision to formally link them, which was ratified by the Gold Group. In reality it made little difference to the conduct of the investigation as I had always been investigating them together. The linking process became more and more relevant in my discussions with Mr Elias and the CPS, and also in my responses to the media. There is a nationally accepted linking process. It involves a presentation to an examining panel including chief officers; this normally takes place when there is more than one force involved. When agreed, a lead officer is identified to oversee the operation. In our case it was simple, all offences were committed in the Force area and I was already the officer in charge.

  The time had come for us to assess the service we were getting from the forensic scientists. Lynne had day-to-day contact with them and he was becoming ever more concerned with the changing role of certain staff within LGC. This included the departure of Maggie Boyce to another firm, Key Forensics, while being retained by LGC as a consultant for Operation Ottawa. How much time could she really dedicate to our case? Lynne also felt that LGC could be more innovative in their decision-making or when giving direction about which examinations to carry out.

  Operation Ottawa had been identified at the National Reviewers Conference as one of the most important cold case reviews in the UK. It had attracted funding from Operation Stealth, which had been set up nationally, to assist forces with such high profile cases. We were aware that members of LGC Forensics had also attended the conference and should have been fully aware of how important the case was. We needed to get around the table with LGC senior management and talk it through. On 8 August 2008 a meeting was held at Fishgu
ard Port Office. Lynne, Glyn and Glan Thomas were present while LGC had sent their big gun in the form of Angela Gallop. Dr Gallop was a very well known and experienced scientist with an international reputation. She was Director of Science and Innovation for LGC Forensics and was accompanied by Susie Delaney, LGC’s operations head for Pathology and Cold Case Reviews. I opened the meeting by giving a situation report and outlining our concerns. I then asked Dr Gallop directly where else I could go to get the forensic services that I felt the case deserved.

  Dr Gallop explained that following the DNA results obtained during the initial phases of submissions, it was felt that the areas of forensic examination should be expanded to include areas such as hairs (human and animal) and fibres. She clearly believed there were more opportunities to focus on items such as tapings and she said that LGC felt it had been constrained to DNA examinations by the review team. This needed to be challenged and I explained that we were only acting on their suggestions as experts. It was a watershed moment, and we decided that from there on we needed a more ‘innovative’ phase of examination, a more flexible approach and better communications. Dr Gallop stated that she intended expanding the teams of scientists to deal with this innovative phase. Leading LGC scientists Roger Robson and April Robson would look at fibre evidence and Phil Avenell would focus on DNA.

  The most interesting view put forward by LGC was the need to look at items from Cooper’s home environment not connected with the Huntsman offences, which might hold links to the Ottawa crimes. This would involve reviewing all items seized during the Huntsman searches and looking for potential links, in particular fibres and tape lifts that were retained by the FSS. Angela was a skilled negotiator and went to great lengths to reassure me that we were getting the very best service, detailing a number of successful high profile investigations in which LGC had played a leading role. What became clear to all of us was the total enthusiasm of Dr Gallop and this became very much her trademark. Up until this stage we had kept the scientists very much at arm’s length. It had been my decision, made because I wanted to create a clear firewall between the investigation team and the scientists. In talking with the LGC team it appeared that they had been just as frustrated as we were. In the end we had all benefited from this face-to-face discussion. Going forward I could still retain a firewall and they could maintain their independence while we could work together to have a better understanding of each other’s needs and capabilities. Without doubt this was a turning point in our relationship and would prove so in the investigation.