The Pembrokeshire Murders: Catching the Bullseye Killer

by Steve Wilkins

  In the process of moving bodies around in the scene it is highly likely Cooper would have become blood stained, particularly on the front of his legs or trousers. If he were to go into Pembroke Main Street in the middle of summer covered in blood he would have aroused suspicions. The clean shorts belonging to Gwenda Dixon provided him with a change of clothing. He had kept them after the murders and again this fitted with a man hell-bent on control. Every time he wore them it took him back to that time and place on the coastal path. Now I am not a man who believes in the supernatural or anything of that nature, but I did ask myself, for a moment, if Peter and Gwenda weren’t having the last say from their resting place and providing me with all the evidence I needed.

  That was to be the final piece in what was now a very complicated jigsaw. It was heads down now for our day in court and I was very happy with our case. Cooper’s position was becoming more clear. He had employed a number of experts to review the forensic evidence, ballistics, fibres, and DNA, and a locksmith to look at the Norton Farm key. They were also exploring a theory that the blood on the shorts was a result of the rehydration of dry blood. In essence they were suggesting that a dry flake of Peter Dixon’s blood had found its way into the open bag containing the shorts and been rehydrated with water. I was now very pleased that we had taken the decision to document the recovery of all exhibits and to record what other material was next to them. In doing so we could show that no blood exhibits had been anywhere near the shorts. Phil Avenell was also confident he could respond to such a suggestion in court. I was happy that we could negate any challenge to the forensic evidence; the continuity and integrity schedules had been reviewed by LGC Forensics and had described our handling of material as ‘meticulous’.

  What was more concerning to me was that the Huntsman trial appeared to be the real focus of the defence. They were concentrating on this conviction in an effort to distance Cooper from the gun PH/2. It appeared that the new and additional forensic evidence strengthening that conviction had completely escaped them and their focus was on the identification evidence from the victim of the Sardis robbery, Sheila Clark. She had given a description of the man who attacked her in her home. She described him as agile and young. It has to be remembered that she based this on a masked man who moved quickly and was nimble on his feet. She would not have been able to tell how old he was and it was simply an impression based on what she saw.

  The identification issue was not the real concern. Mr Elias feared that the defence were going to try to re-run the Huntsman trial by calling witnesses from that case, thirteen years after the conviction. We would be in the ridiculous situation of having to effectively reconvict him of those crimes before moving onto the Ottawa offences. The provisions of Bad Character Evidence allow the Crown to show a jury that a career criminal or repeat offender is more likely to be guilty of an offence because in essence they always display a particular behaviour when they offend. In order to allow this evidence the Crown must satisfy the trial judge that the Bad Character Evidence is relevant and admissible. This happens at a separate hearing before a judge where the prosecution and the defence put forward their case. I cannot believe that the Law Lords who drafted this law intended it to allow career criminals to re-run previous convictions and re-call witnesses, and worse than that, the victims of their crimes. My fear is that rape victims could be called on again and again by a serial offender in contested cases, sometimes years after they have moved on from their ordeal. This is an issue I would later take up with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer.

  This issue was heard before the trial judge, Justice Griffith Williams, and in a 27-page ruling he found in favour of the Crown. We all thought this was a sensible decision. Not long after, Cooper and his legal team successfully appealed the judgement and he was now able to call witnesses from the Huntsman trial, including the Sardis robbery victim Sheila Clark. On reflection this was probably the safest decision the Appeal Court could make. Not allowing it would probably give grounds for Cooper to appeal should we gain a conviction. The ruling did not make our job any easier: we would now be trying a case with four murders, five robberies, a rape, an indecent assault and thirty house burglaries. On occasion I had to remind myself which case I was actually heading up.

  The months passed, as did potential trial dates. The main delays were now down to the defence. It was clear that their experts were having difficulty in finding problems with the key forensic evidence. All of the case papers and documents for disclosure were set out at Pier House and the team had a detailed floor plan and register of what was where. I had invited the defence to bring a team and go through disclosure and I would make officers available to assist and also to facilitate scene visits. The defence put four days aside for the disclosure process but they gave up after just two. They came expecting to find gaps and holes in our evidence and in fact found the opposite. They were faced with a highly professional and slick team who could put their hands on any requested documents in just seconds; disclosure would never raise its head again.

  The trial was now set for Spring 2011, and this would not be changed. Glyn was doing a fantastic job preparing the court presentation and opening with Gerard Elias QC. It was superb in its simplicity; all of the relevant experts had agreed its content and, best of all, the defence were also happy with it. In fact Mr Mark Evans QC, Counsel for the Defence, would himself use it as part of his case. I have no doubt that if I had outsourced this work it would have cost in excess of £150,000.

  The jury visit in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire would take place over two days, and would cause considerable disruption to traffic and the local community. The planning needed to be meticulous and local officers Inspector Gareth Thomas and Sergeant Martin Vaughan developed an excellent and detailed plan, which again would showcase the professionalism of our staff. This was supported by an equally detailed press strategy developed by Rhian Davies-Moore and her team. The press issues were significant; they wanted as much access to the jury visit and locations as possible. They also wanted pre-trial briefings and press packs and continued access to material during the trial process. The response was comprehensive and would include a password access system to Dyfed Powys Police website allowing them to download photographs during the trial process. As an SIO, it was very comforting to know that once plans were agreed I had people who would deliver them to a very high standard.

  One of the issues we needed to address was the ability of witnesses to refresh their memory regarding statements and documents some of them had made some twenty-five years previously. The defence agreed to the process and a procession of retired officers and other witnesses did so under controlled conditions. All police witnesses were reminded of court etiquette in a written note. This included their mode of dress and the fact that they should travel to and from court alone and under no circumstances discuss the case or their evidence with other officers. I wanted to ensure that the jury and defence saw a highly professional outfit and could make their own judgement. This was difficult when it came to the retired officers as the court resembled a reunion on occasion, with officers seeing each other again for the first time in years, and we had to sometimes remind them of where they were.

  Just weeks before the trial came the saddest of news. Maria, one of the victims from Milford Haven had passed away. It devastated the team. Of all of the victims Maria appeared to have been affected the most and had been constantly in bad health since that night. It was a travesty that she would never see her tormentor standing in the dock. Maria’s death had the opposite effect on Jayne and Susan, who appeared to strengthen in their resolve to face Cooper and achieve justice for them all; I was immensely impressed by their courage.

  The Ottawa team were now involved in the final preparations and were working closely with the legal team. The incident room was full of large maps and boxes of jury photographs and files. Mark Roach and Olly James had hand made large orange markers, which resembled twenty-foot lollipops. T
hese would be placed in the hedge rows to mark the location of key exhibits for the jury who would be bussed to various locations at which they could see the geography of Cooper’s offending. The markers were simple and highly effective. In fact, so much so, that I was concerned that they might disrupt shipping in the Milford Haven waterway! As the trial date loomed the incident room was moved to a small police room in Swansea Crown Court and set out in the cramped conditions. It was 21 March 2011, the day before the trial, and the team were remarkably composed. That night I sat at home and events of the last five years flashed through my mind; the team coming together at Fishguard, the hours of discussion about ‘what might have happened’ and the years of frustration. As I did, a smile came over my face and I knew I could not have asked for a better team. In the end we had spent close to £1.5 million on forensics, but we could justify every single penny. That night I slept well.

  Day of Reckoning

  IT WAS THE FIRST DAY of the trial. Five years of detailed planning, investigation, inspirational forensic work and plenty of optimism had gone into building the case against John William Cooper. It was now up to a jury to determine his guilt or innocence by due process of law at the Crown Court of Swansea. The adversarial trial of case number T20097163 of four murders, a rape, indecent assault and five attempted robberies would reverberate around the wood panelled walls of Courtroom One for ten weeks. A pool of more than 100 potential jurors had been slimmed down to 51; a larger number was needed because of the estimated length of the case and its complexity. On March 22 the jury of twelve was sworn in as the bespectacled Cooper looked on from the dock whilst holding on to his folder of papers, something that would become a feature of his daily routine.

  The arena was now set for the battle to take place between two equal parties: the prosecution which attempts to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and the defence which seeks to undermine the prosecution’s case and to create reasonable doubt. In essence it is a definition that has always troubled me: the task of the defence is not to prove the innocence of the defendant but to prevent the prosecution from proving guilt.

  Our ‘champion’ was leading criminal barrister Gerard Elias QC. He had vast experience and gravitas, a Roman virtue that would soon be evident to all who saw him in action. He was a real gentleman who shared my love of cricket, and seeing him in court in his robes was like watching a sporting icon walking into a room of adoring fans. Collaborating with him was his son David Elias and senior Crown advocate Mike Jones: they made a formidable team. Their combatant, defence counsel Mark Evans QC, was a recorder on the Wales and Chester circuit. Alistair Munt, a tall and very pleasant man who was a specialist criminal and military defence barrister, supported him.

  The trial judge, Justice John Griffith Williams, was a Justice of the High Court and a remarkable character. He took his place at the head of the court on a raised platform where he was able to cast his eye over the proceedings. A cry from the usher, ‘Court rise’, would see everyone rush to their feet as he entered, bedecked in his red robes. Woe betide if you failed to show your subjection to the court by not standing for the judge, his knowing look would cut you to the quick.

  Witness protocol would unfortunately deny me access to the courtroom whilst the prosecution case was being heard. It was standard practice but I made sure the team gave me a full briefing afterwards. Mr Elias QC poignantly delivered the prosecution opening, illustrated by Glyn Johnson’s superb presentation. This also afforded Glyn the opportunity to sit at the front of the court for the entire ten weeks, sandwiched between counsel and the judge; it must have been a daunting prospect as he operated the presentation for both the prosecution and defence. At times he would have to anticipate where they were going next to allow the technology to catch up.

  I know that he and counsel had worked tirelessly to ensure that as Mr Elias QC chronicled the horrific circumstances of the case, all the key points were illustrated on the fifteen screens in the courtroom. I had total faith in Glyn but I often considered what might happen if the computer broke down or the screens went blank. I did get some reassurance from his response, “Don’t worry boss I’ve got it all backed up.” Whatever that meant.

  The opening went like clockwork in front of a packed court and press box. The IT worked and it was clear that Mr Elias had performed to the very best of his ability. This was to be his last case and it could not have been a better one to go out on. We had got past the first hurdle. Glyn came back into the police room at the end of the opening statement and I shook his hand. “Well done mate, a fantastic piece of work, thank you,” I said. The defence opened their case, telling the jury that they would hear evidence that they would be able to cast doubt on. The battle lines were set and one by one the witnesses started to filter into the box. All appeared to be going well, until we were informed that the judge had halted the trial after a note had been passed to him by a member of the jury.

  After a few nail biting hours sitting in our drab little side room we discovered that a member of the jury was a former Scenes of Crime Officer with another police force. “How can this be?” echoed around the corridors of the court. “Surely this would have been disclosed prior to the selection process…heads will roll!” I am glad to say the fault lay in the internal court process of the court, not with us. The jury was discharged and the process of reselection started again. Glyn at this point had the look on his face of a rabbit just before a ferret grabs it; he was getting reassurance and counselling from Mr Elias: “Don’t worry Mr Johnson, I once had to do an opening four times.” Needless to say the second opening in front of a new jury went like clockwork, having benefited from the unexpected rehearsal. We went home that night to review the fruits of our labour as the information hit the national news. “A 66 year old grandfather used cold and calculating violence to carry out two of the most infamous double murders in Welsh history, a jury was told today,” was the headline.

  “This was not a man fleeing to Cardiff or the big smoke of London,” was the quote used from Mr Elias. “These two double killings amounted to merciless executions for pitifully small gain,” reported the television news.

  The following day our drab little room was stacked top to bottom with files which represented a mere fraction of the two million documents that formed the case. Two small tables housed Lynne and Glyn together with the kettle and the cake and biscuits, which cost me a fortune over the ten weeks. I found a little shop near to the court, owned by a very pleasant and jolly gentleman. After three weeks, he would greet me with, “Hello Mr Wilkins, good day in court? I have your usual ready to go”.

  As the trial played out in chronological order, the events at Scoveston Park became the focus and former DC Frederick Henry Hunter was invited to the intimidating 4 foot square witness box. I would describe Fred as a younger version of the late Eric Morecambe and equally as funny, except today his humour went out of the window as he was asked to relive his memories of twenty-six years before, when he assisted the undertaker in removing the remains of Richard Thomas from the ruins of Scoveston Park.

  “Mr Hunter did you sit in the front or back of the hearse?” Mr Evans, the defence barrister, asked. “In the front M’Lord, the coffin was in the back,” replied Fred. “Yes, yes I’m aware of that,” replied Mr Evans abruptly. “So you were in the front, was there a glass partition between you and the coffin?” “I believe so M’Lord, as I banged my head on it when I got in,” described Fred. Our assumption from Mr Evans’ obscure line of questioning was that, as expected, he was attempting to explore the avenue of forensic contamination. In other words could Fred’s contact with the deceased in 1985 have facilitated the movement of fibres? Fred was released from the box but would have to return later in the trial because his thirty years of service meant he had worked on other parts of the case.

  At the time of the first murders Don Evans was a Superintendent and Sub Divisional Commander of Preseli Division, as it was then called. He was next to give evidence and was
a softly spoken gentleman who had been the first senior officer to attend the Scoveston Park scene. His account took the jury to the heart of the crime and as he described the finding of Richard’s body, pictures of the burnt remains were displayed on the screens. It was a sobering moment for the jury.

  Later that afternoon one of the exhibits officers from Scoveston, ex-Constable David Morgan, caused our very own exhibits officer Neville Evans to have a panic attack as the wrong map of the scene was unfolded. It was Neville’s mission every day to ensure that the relevant exhibits were present in Court. You would see him in the morning like a squirrel gathering nuts; only today one of his nuts was missing. After a number of these occasions he affectionately became known as ‘Swinging Doors Evans’, as this would be the last thing you heard as he scampered from the court to recover the necessary exhibits.

  The second week brought an increased pressure on the team as the facts of the coastal path murders were disclosed in the presence of the Dixon family. It is harrowing enough for a court to listen to the appaling details but to know that the family of the victims were also listening is tough. I had spent many hours talking them through what they were likely to face. I didn’t want them hearing something in court for the first time. The evidence began with the account of ex-police constable Mike Callas, a dog handler for most of his career. He described the moment he discovered the Dixons’ bodies on the coastal path on 4 July 1989. “I was led to the bodies by the smell of death,” Mr Callas explained.