The Pembrokeshire Murders: Catching the Bullseye Killer

by Steve Wilkins

  On 12 May 2009 Lynne Harries and I visited all of the victims of the Milford Haven attack and informed them that Cooper was to be arrested the next day. It was more difficult than I had anticipated. The prospect of them going to court had a significant impact and they were caught between two emotions, one of relief that he had been identified and one of total horror at the thought of facing him in a courtroom. I knew that there would have to be significant support provided to them after he was arrested. That night I sat at home going over the plans and wondering what the next day would bring. I then sent the following message to all of the Ottawa team, one that I had on my office wall, one that I believed in very deeply. “There is no greater responsibility or duty placed on a human being than to investigate the circumstances of the death of another human being. That responsibility has been placed on us and in discharging it to the very best of our ability, we will do so without fear or favour in pursuit of justice.”

  At 7 a.m. on 13 May 2009, I briefed the arrest team at Haverfordwest Police Station. I had decided that Lynne Harries and Glyn Johnson would arrest him; it was only right that it fell to them following three years of extraordinary hard work. Ready for action they left quickly with their back-up team and made their way to Letterston. At 8 a.m. I briefed the search team who would comb his home and car for evidence. I was particularly interested in documentation relevant to the investigation and any evidence of his continuing gambling habit or use of pornography. Glan Thomas briefed the forensic teams in line with our agreed strategy. It was now a waiting game. A control room was set up in the police station which involved a link to the HOLMES computer system and speed typists to make a contemporaneous record of any interviews with Cooper. Detailed briefings had been prepared for Cooper’s legal team and we sat in the control room with DS Gareth (Rambo) Rees and DC Louise Harries and went over our plans. They were clear and focused, and I had total confidence in them. I could sense their desire to get Cooper into the interview room.

  The radio crackled and it was clear that Cooper had left his house on foot, making his way to the local paper shop. This was the signal for Lynne and Glyn to position themselves so as to intercept him as he reached the shop. The radio went quiet, then suddenly burst into life, “Arrest team with subject now… he’s kicked off.” Cooper emerged at the side of the local paper shop where he was confronted by Lynne and Glyn, they informed him that he was under arrest and took hold of an arm each. Cooper was clearly not impressed and dragged them both off towards his house, Lynne and Glyn dangling from each arm. It showed us all that Cooper was a very fit, strong man, even though he was in his sixties. In his prime he must have been a real handful. Fortunately support was close at hand and officers came from all directions and finally, shouting and struggling, Cooper was placed under arrest. While all of this was going on a man walked up to the paper shop, tied his dog to a post and went in and bought his daily paper. The same man then walked out of the shop, untied his dog and nonchalantly walked off past all the commotion without giving it a second glance.

  Cooper was now under arrest and he was taken before the custody officer at Haverfordwest Police Station, booked in and placed in a cell. He chose to use the same firm of solicitors from Nottingham but while we waited for his brief to arrive the custody clock was ticking. We had an initial twenty-four hours to interview him; this could be extended by a further twelve hours by a Superintendent before we would need to take him before a magistrate for a warrant of further detention, which could give us another thirty-six hours. Cooper had intimated to the custody sergeant that his lawyer intended to travel down overnight ready to begin the next morning. In certain circumstances the police can object, and get alternative legal advice for a prisoner if it will cause an unnecessary delay to proceedings, but I wanted to avoid this at all cost. It was important that Cooper had the legal representation of his choice, otherwise this could give him an excuse to play up. With this in mind I spoke to his solicitor and pointed out the gravity of the situation and the need to attend without delay. Thankfully she understood and hotfooted it to Pembrokeshire. I then received news which chilled me to the bone. Whilst searching his car the team had found a length of rope, a pair of woollen gloves, records of his betting, and they discovered that he had ordered an ordinance survey map of South Pembrokeshire. To me it was just a matter of time before he returned to his murderous ways.

  ‘Charge Him With the Lot’

  THE STAGE WAS NOW SET for the interview team to confront Cooper with the forensic evidence. At the end of the questioning and after the final challenge interview I would be seeking agreement from the CPS to charge Cooper with a number of the Ottawa offences if not all of them.

  The interviews were to be videotaped and streamed to a monitoring room where a speed typist and I would record the key points. I would also be able to ask for further research on any issues arising so that the interviewers had, at their fingertips, all the information they needed. They had planned and rehearsed for this moment many times over and they were without doubt the most prepared interviewing team I have known in my long service. The operations room was a tense place. The press were already onto the fact that a significant police incident was unfolding in Letterston and their interest was gaining momentum. The danger is to say nothing and risk the media running off in all directions looking for the story or a new angle. My view is that it’s better to work with them and give them what they want, within the rules of engagement, and let them know when they can have an update. By now journalists were calling on Cooper’s neighbours and asking them about him. It came as no surprise that he was seen as a quiet and polite man who even asked some elderly residents if he could do some gardening work for them. If this had happened I could not begin to think of the possible outcome.

  I sat with the interview team and went over the plans. It was clear that the strategy was ambitious and I was not sure we would have the time to fit it all in. It was unlikely that I would get a warrant of further detention because we had previously interviewed him at length, and it would be difficult to put a case to a magistrate that we needed more time. We adapted our strategy accordingly and a detailed disclosure document was prepared for Cooper’s solicitor laying out the forensic evidence. Gareth Rees and Louise Harries were now in the driving seat and at last the interviews were about to begin. On 13 May 2009 at 20.09, Cooper was interviewed about gloves, including the single glove BB/109 found in a hedgerow near to his house and a pair of gloves AJM/60 found in his kitchen. This is a short extract from that interview:

  POLICE: In 1998 a number of gloves were recovered from your home address okay. For example we recovered a black woollen glove, AJM/267; a pair of navy coloured woollen quilted gloves, AJM/268; a blue woollen glove, AJM/270; a damaged dark coloured glove with only the cuff remaining, AJM/378; another glove AJM/383, one blue material glove with fingers torn off; JAL/48 a right handed workman’s glove; BB/109 which is the one in the field; and I’ve also a pair of navy coloured gloves which are woollen or cloth material which are insulated, AJM/60.

  COOPER: The gloves wearer in our family was my son Adrian for his motorbikes.

  POLICE: Okay ,and what about the workman gloves then?

  COOPER: I’ve already said I very rarely used gloves at work, they get in my way.

  POLICE: You say that Adrian used to own gloves for the motorbike. What type of gloves would Adrian…?

  COOPER: He used to wear all sorts, wool ones, leather ones.

  POLICE: Right, okay, and in relation to his gloves, would you on occasions use his gloves?

  COOPER: I very rarely used gloves, I find them cumbersome but they were all round the place, in the caravan, in the bedrooms, everywhere.

  POLICE: And I have to ask you John, in relation to previous matters where you were charged with burglaries and other offences, did you used to take gloves with you?

  COOPER: I didn’t do those burglaries, whether you believe it or not, or a robbery.

  POLICE: You can see I’ve go
t to ask you the questions.

  COOPER: Yeah, you keep asking them.

  POLICE: In relation to gloves and the issue of the fibres have you any further questions?

  COOPER: I have not, no.

  POLICE: At this stage I’ve no further questions in relation to what we’ve discussed so far, yeah? What we’ll do tomorrow John is we’ll go through some clothing recovered at your home address, particularly the ones pertinent to the artist’s impression.

  COOPER: Artist’s impression.

  POLICE: The artist’s impression, I said at the start of the interview.

  COOPER: Oh yes I understand, yeah.

  POLICE: And again we’ve got to ask you questions in relation to that okay? So at this stage I have no further questions, is there anything you’d like to say at this stage?

  COOPER: Yes, as I said before I wasn’t the only liver in the 34 St Marys Park, I wasn’t the only one staying there, look at the history of St Marys Park, and especially Adrian Cooper.

  Cooper denied using gloves and again introduced his son Adrian without directly implicating him. The interview resumed the following morning at 9.05 a.m. Cooper was shown an album of photographs, which contained a picture of the shorts AJM/165. They were then compared with the shorts in the artist’s impression:

  POLICE: Um, we did discuss briefly shorts in your previous interview. I think we touched upon it, and we asked you if you owned a pair of khaki shorts and I think you replied no and you said that you owned possibly dark shorts.

  COOPER: My wife bought shorts and they’re usually dark or more sober colours.

  POLICE: What would you say is a more sober colour then?

  COOPER: Well your blacks or navys.

  POLICE: Right okay. Um, would you know where she got those shorts from?

  COOPER: Your normal shops or markets.

  POLICE: Right okay.

  COOPER: May I…?

  POLICE: Of course yeah.

  COOPER: Usually if I was wearing shorts I would be wearing sandals.

  POLICE: Not shorts and boots is what you’re…

  COOPER: There, I can’t remember ever, I don’t know but usually, shorts, sandals, always and no socks.

  POLICE: I think in the last interview you said that you wore shorts but not often, so what, where would you wear shorts?

  COOPER: Well summer weather, summer weather yeah.

  POLICE: Ok. Do you know how many pairs of shorts you had?

  COOPER: Oh…

  POLICE: Will talk specifically again later…

  COOPER: I would say maximum two or three pairs.

  POLICE: Okay, what about in 1998 then, how many shorts?

  COOPER: I’ve never own more than I think about two or three pair of shorts at any time.

  POLICE: Okay. Obviously clothing was recovered from your home address.

  COOPER: Certainly.

  POLICE: I’m showing John a photo album, can you see there’s a pair of shorts AJM/165?

  COOPER: Yeah.

  POLICE: Ok were they, are they your shorts?

  COOPER: Um, if they were in the house most probably yes.

  POLICE: Okay and do you know where those shorts are from?

  COOPER: Oh my wife usually bought those sort of things.

  POLICE: Okay. In relation to those shorts, you pointed earlier that the shorts in the artist’s impression…

  COOPER: Yeah.

  POLICE: Yeah, would you accept that those shorts resemble the shorts in the artist’s impression?

  COOPER: No not a bit, no.

  POLICE: Okay, have you ever seen the shorts in this photograph TWB/1 before?

  COOPER: I believe those are my bathers actually.

  POLICE: Okay. And just to confirm, during the search of your home address… Two pairs of shorts were recovered, a black pair of shorts and those shorts. They’re the only shorts.

  COOPER: That’s virtually what I said.

  POLICE: Ok. So do you accept that those short are yours?

  COOPER: Yes those might have been my bathers.

  POLICE: Your bathers, right. And where would you wear those?

  COOPER: On the beach.

  POLICE: Are there any other shorts or anything you wish to add or change in relation to shorts then?

  COOPER: Only to point out that those, those are long legged shorts.

  POLICE: Okay you’re pointing to the difference then, you say they’re not similar and that they’re longer on the artist’s impression.

  COOPER: Well those are short legged shorts, that’s long legged shorts.

  POLICE: Just to explain for people who obviously can’t see what’s taken place. You’re pointing at the photograph I’ve put back in the box.

  COOPER: Yes I’ll clear it…

  POLICE: Saying they are short.

  COOPER: The photograph is showing long, what I would call long legged shorts.

  POLICE: And by the photograph you’re pointing at the artist’s impression.

  COOPER: Yes.

  POLICE: So you’re, is it correct John you’re saying the artist’s impression has got long legged shorts.

  COOPER: I would call long legged shorts.

  POLICE: Yeah and that the photograph you saw of shorts, seized from your home address are short legged shorts.

  COOPER: Yeah bathing-type shorts.

  POLICE: And you’re saying that those are your bathers.

  COOPER: I would imagine so yes.

  POLICE: Can you just tell me these were recovered from your home address in 1998, and as I explained earlier during the course of searches, officers give them reference numbers okay, the reference number these shorts are AJM/165 which were again recovered from your home address from your bedroom in 1998, Okay. Can you tell me how long would you have owned those shorts?

  COOPER: Two or three years.

  POLICE: Two or three years. Okay. And it’s quite important, do you remember where you got them from.

  COOPER: As I said before my wife most probably bought them for me.

  POLICE: Okay, so would you have owned those shorts in 1989 the year of the murders of Peter and Gwenda Dixon?

  COOPER: I would doubt it very much.

  POLICE: Okay, we’re talking now then, nine years before the date of recovery.

  COOPER: They wouldn’t have lasted that long.

  POLICE: Okay, thank you.

  In the interview Cooper accepted that the shorts were his, and confidently told the officers that they were shorter than those in the artist’s impression. His efforts to distance himself from certain exhibits were telling us exactly where to look. In the next interview the forensic evidence connecting him to the murders of Peter and Gwenda Dixon was put to him:

  POLICE: Okay John. I’ve interviewed you in 2008 and interviews here today, and the interview will be carried out in the same manner. Okay?

  COOPER: Yeah.

  POLICE: Before I start the interview, you’ve had a meeting or briefing with your solicitor in relation to the forensic disclosures being made.

  COOPER: Yes, yes.

  POLICE: Okay. Can we just clarify then, the previous interview you were shown a photograph of a pair of shorts.

  COOPER: Yes.

  POLICE: Which you identified as being your bathers.

  COOPER: Yes.

  POLICE: And we established they were recovered from your home address.

  COOPER: Yes.

  POLICE: And you said if they were recovered from your home address they’re probably yours.

  COOPER: Yes.

  POLICE: Is that still the case?

  COOPER: That’s still the case.

  POLICE: Okay. You’ve been interviewed by us in July 2008 in relation to the murders of Peter and Gwenda Dixon. Since that time further enquiries and forensic examinations have continued, and we need to discuss those results with you and give you an opportunity to give any explanation or comment you wish. A solicitor has been provided the interim forensic results for the examination of a pair of s
horts AJM/165 and you’ve confirmed that you’ve had the opportunity of discussing that matter with your solicitor?

  COOPER: Yes.

  POLICE: I must stress to you the forensic examinations of submitted items connected with this investigation are continuing. In light of the forensic result, is there anything now you wish to change or clarify from your previous interviews in respect of these offences?

  COOPER: Only I’m vague about the length of time I’ve owned any shorts. I do not know.

  POLICE: Okay.

  COOPER: I said two to three years, I don’t know how long I’ve had them. I would be surprised if they were nine years old.

  POLICE: You would be?

  COOPER: Very surprised.

  POLICE: Right, okay. We are carrying out enquiries to establish the origin of those shorts.

  COOPER: Yes.

  POLICE: For example, which country they were manufactured and which areas of the world they’ve been distributed in, yeah? And those enquiries are on-going with us. Can you confirm that you went to visit Lorna in America in 1979?

  COOPER: Um, I can confirm I went to visit her; I’m vague about the year.

  POLICE: Right, okay. So what period of time would you have been out to visit her?

  COOPER: I know we went in the 70s. I know we went in the early 70s, ’79 yeah. And I know we went after?

  POLICE: Okay. During those visits did you or Pat purchase any shorts in America?

  COOPER: Not that I can recollect.

  POLICE: You’re saying they were your bathers.

  COOPER: That’s right yes.

  POLICE: Okay. What size are you John?

  COOPER: Medium am I?

  POLICE: Okay. And when you’re saying they’re bathers, would you have worn them on holiday in America? Has any other person worn those shorts?

  COOPER: Probably.

  POLICE: Right, and who would that other person be?

  COOPER: My son.

  POLICE: If we have a look at the forensic results which we’ve received. Whilst examining the fibre tapings taken from the shorts AJM/165, which were recovered from your home address, they were looking for fibres similar to those from the Dixons’ scene. And they identified some small fragments of blood on one area of the tape from those of a full DNA profile matching Peter Dixon was obtained from one of those fragments. They’ve estimated the probability of obtaining that profile, the blood had come from someone other than, and unrelated to Peter Dixon, is less than 1 in 1 billion, okay. And do you appreciate the significance of that?