Russell Bishop murder trial: everything said by the prosecution on the morning of day 2

Mr Altman said: 80. At 5pm on October 10, the day the two girls were found dead in Wild Park, Brighton, Mark Baynes, a police photographer, arrived at the scene and, wearing a forensic oversuit and carrying his camera equipment, walked and then scrambled up the steep grassy bank into the wooded area leading to where the girls were, before finding their location to the left of the path. He recalled that the undergrowth was so dense it was like crawling under a table to get to it. There, effectively in night-time conditions, although there was some ambient light and, using a flash gun, he took a series of photographs of the approach to the scene and then the scene itself containing the bodies of the two girls. Mr Baynes recalls also there was no other way into the den. Dr Isaac, a police doctor, attended the crime scene and between 5.45 and 6pm conducted a brief examination of the bodies, although he recalls it being impossible to get close to them. He was, however, able to see that both girls were clothed and had signs of injuries to the face and neck areas.

A consultant forensic pathologist, Dr Iain West (who has since passed away) attended the scene at about 6.30pm. He saw that Nicola was lying on her back at the opening to the clearing, near to an elder tree. Her left arm was by her side. Her right arm was flexed across her chest. She appeared to be fully clothed. By her left hand, there lay articles of clothing including a pair of pants. (These turned out to be Karen’s green top (EWR/10) and her knickers (EWR/9).) Dr West saw that Karen was lying face down and at right angles to Nicola. She was towards the farthest end of the clearing. Her right arm was extended over Nicola’s body and her head rested on her own right arm and Nicola’s abdomen. Her left arm was extended at right angles to her body. He observed that she was not wearing pants but otherwise seemed to be fully clothed.

There were visible bruises around both of the girls’ necks.

A little later, a Scenes of Crime Officer, Edward Redman, recovered Karen’s knickers(EWR/9)and her green sweatshirt (EWR/10) both of which he took from under Nicola’s hand. He measured the distance from the left turn on the path to the location of the bodies as 22 feet. He

saw that there was no direct view of the bodies from the main path owing to the vegetation. Mr Redman also took a number of samples of fibres snagged on the surrounding vegetation (EWR/5-8).

Geoffrey Caswell, the defendant’s near neighbour, had not seen the defendant all day on Thursday 9 October. In the early evening of Friday 10 October 1986, however, Mr Caswell was outside his address with his wife and father-in-law when the defendant walked over to them. He said that he had been one of four people who had found the missing girls’ bodies. Mr Caswell recalled him saying that the three others who found the girls were his “mates”. He also told Mr Caswell that he had got an article of clothing from the parents and had given it to his dog who had sniffed out the children.

Mr Caswell thought the defendant seemed grief-stricken. If he did appear to be grief-stricken, then he was play acting. He also described the defendant as quiet and that he seemed to be preoccupied.

Mr Caswell recalls asking the defendant if the girls had been badly injured, to which the defendant replied they did not appear to be. But he also said that the girls were lying across each other and that it was a sight that he would never forget. He also claimed that he had felt for a pulse on one of the girls, but he did not elaborate.

Some days later, the defendant spoke to Michael Evans about finding the bodies. Michael Evans sprayed cars with the defendant and had helped him with the respray of a Mini car Mr Caswell had bought for his daughter (I shall come back to this). Michael Evans was also a good friend of the defendant. Mr Evans asked him if he had been upset about finding the bodies and, in stark relief to the grief-stricken impression Mr Caswell had gained from him on 10 October,

the defendant told his friend that it did not bother him at all. Mr Evans also asked him how and where they were found, to which the defendant answered, “One was lying on her back and the other one was lying across the other one’s stomach”. He added, “One had blood coming from the corner of her mouth”.

The prosecution suggests that the only way the defendant could have known the detail of the girls’ positions in relation to each other was not because he saw it at the time of finding, but quite simply because that is how he left them, having killed them. At this stage, the defendant had made no mention of foam or froth coming from the mouth of either girl. You will see that that was later to change.

At 7 o’clock that Friday evening, police went to the defendant’s home address. The door was answered by Jenny Johnson who said that the defendant was not home, but she believed him to be at a pub called The Hikers Rest in Coldean Lane. The police found him there in the bar and told him that they wanted to speak to him again and to take a further statement concerning his presence in the park when the bodies were found.

He was taken to Brighton Police Station to be interviewed. He repeated his account of his movements on the Thursday afternoon. He told the police officers that he had been in Newick Road in order to speak to someone about car repairs or car spray work on his mother’s car. He said because this man was not around he went to 26 Newick Road (the Fellows house where Dougie Judd was lodging) and knocked on the door which was answered by a little child he believed to be female, but he said he was unable to help with her identity. He told the officers that they would have to speak to Marion Stevenson or Tracy Cox about that as they were with him at the time. He said he thought Susan Fellows had shouted that Judd was not in. He said he had then arranged to meet Marion Stevenson at 6 o’clock that evening at her home at 19 Barcombe Road and he had left her and Tracy Cox to go to speak to the man in Newick Road about his mother’s car.

89. He said he then walked home and, as he did so, he saw the park keeper and Nicola and Karen playing on the tree, as he had said before. He repeated his account of his conversation with the

park keeper and then crossing the road to go to the newsagent for a newspaper for which he had no money. He said he had re-crossed Lewes Road to the Wild Park side close to the park

entrance and walked home, giving details of the route home that he said he took. The route he said he took was down Lewes Road on the park side, then turning right by Moulsecoomb Library to Moulsecoomb Railway Station, then going under what he described as the bridge and up into Hollingdean and then home. The route he was describing meant he walked under the viaduct and then into and along the footpath leading into Hollingdean by the piece of land where the Pinto sweatshirt had been found early on the Friday morning. Of course, at this time the defendant did not know that the Pinto had been found and so he had no reason to concern himself about the route he took back.

The defendant went on to tell the police that when he got in no one was home; he said he cooked himself a meal and he did the washing. He said he had been doing his own washing for the past few weeks after an argument with Jenny. He was asked why he did his washing on this night; he said it needed doing and he had nothing else to do. He said he could not remember what time he got in but that it was fairly light outside. He told the officers that he stayed in all evening and that Jenny Johnson got in at about 8 to 8.30pm from her job as a cleaner at American Express.

In relation to events on that Friday, he said he walked Jenny to a bus stop in Barcombe Road and then he and the dog went to the Fellows home to see if Judd was in. He saw that a uniformed police officer was present and there he discovered Judd was not in. Then he went to  Moulsecoomb police box to volunteer his services as a dog tracker but the police, he said, did not appear interested. While there he said he bumped into Marion Stevenson and another girl and they went off to Wild Park where he tried to work his dog in the area where he had last seen the girls. While doing that he said he bumped into Susan Fellows and told her about his intention to work the dog and that he needed an article of clothing and she suggested a white jacket her daughter wore to school. So, he said he went off to 26 Newick Road to get the coat and left. (He later corrected the person he saw as Michelle Hadaway although he did not correct the house number.) He said he returned to the police box where it was arranged that a policeman accompany him. (This was PC Markham.) By chance he said he also met Dougie Judd at the police box and together all three went off to where he had last seen the girls. He told the officers that he gave the coat to the dog to pick up the scent and it went through the woods and up the steps near “Highlands” (if this was his error, he meant Highfields; the steps were a reference to Jacobs Ladder). But here, according to him, the dog seemed to lose the scent.

He said they returned to the park where the policeman went on his way. Here, close to the pavilion, he said he saw Susan Fellows once again (later correcting this to Michelle Hadaway), when a friend of Judd’s drove down the track. From there, he together with Judd and Susan Fellows were driven by Judd’s friend to Ditchling Beacon to further the search and then on to 49 Acres between the golf course and Highfields.

He described how they had returned to the park, where Judd had seen some friends at the top of the steps and he had called out to them. Then he recalled seeing a policeman smoking in the woods which they had made some quip about. (This was PC Smith.) He added they had a short conversation and then Judd left them to go home. The defendant said he then decided to join the friends Judd had called out to, who he knew by sight but not by name. (This was a reference

to Kevin Rowland and Matthew Marchant.) As he walked up the steps to join them, he heard someone shouting, “We’ve found them!” He said he ran towards the pavilion and then into the woods, where he saw another man who said he did not know whether they were asleep or dead.

He said he saw the two girls huddled together; Nicky (as he called her) was, he said, lying on her back and Karen’s head was resting on Nicky’s stomach. He said that he went to them, felt the pulse of each girl on their neck and felt that they were cold and stiff and obviously dead.

The defendant then added some very important further detail. He said that he saw blood coloured foam on Nicky’s lips. This account was put into a formal witness statement and was signed by the defendant. This process was completed at 11 o’clock that Friday night.

As I have said before, there is simply no possibility that the defendant could have been in possession of the detail of the precise situation and positioning of the girls and the foam on Nicola’s lips unless he had seen it with his own eyes from very close. The difficulty is he just could not have seen, far less done, what he claims at the time of the finding as he did not get close enough to see it with such detail. That leaves only one possibility: he was able to describe what he did because that is how he left those two little girls, having killed and sexually assaulted them.

After the interview formalities were over, the defendant spoke to the officers in which he intimated he was worried because he believed he was suspected of the murders. He was taken home and during the course of the journey he again intimated he was the number 1 suspect.

The police assured him that if he could supply an alibi or corroborate his movements for the previous evening that would help him. He said he had switched on the TV when he got home on the Thursday but had paid no particular interest to it. He said he had no callers that night and could think of no one that could help.

Let me tell you now just a little about what happened to the exhibits recovered during the course of the post mortem examinations. They were labelled (IEW/1-62) and sealed in separate

containers immediately after the examinations and they were taken to the Scenes of Crime store at Brighton Police Station. On Monday 13 October 1986, several of the exhibits were delivered to the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory at Aldermaston (‘HOFSL’) and those

remaining were transferred to the Major Incident Room Exhibits Store.

Because Dr West is deceased, Dr Nathaniel Cary, also a consultant forensic pathologist, was asked to look at the material including Dr West’s reports, photographs and the video-recording of the post mortem examinations. Dr Cary agrees with Dr West’s findings as to the cause of

death in both cases and his other findings and he is of the opinion that the external and internal findings in relation to the neck in both cases are typical of those seen in manual strangulation where compression is achieved by the use of one or both hands. The degree of force required

was, he says, moderate or more, using a three-point scale of mild, moderate and severe.

Nothing suggested more than one offender was involved in the sexual assault or the strangulation of both. Dr Cary’s view was that as a matter of common sense it was likely that

the girls were asphyxiated and sexually assaulted sequentially, but there was nothing to indicate

in what order. There was nothing to suggest either girl had been bound as a means of subduing them and so compliance could have been achieved through threat or fear. However, in Nicola’s case the bruising over the left cheek was consistent with a moderate force fist blow (moderate being the second level of force on Dr Cary’s three-point scale) and it provided evidence of a physical assault other than through compression of the neck and gripping.

On Saturday 11 October 1986, parents of the two little girls went to the mortuary to identify their bodies.

On that same Saturday, police officers went to the crime scene together with Dr Anthony Peabody, a forensic scientist who would later provide expert reports in the case and give evidence at the original trial in 1987. We intend calling him to give evidence to you in this trial but let me make it clear to you that the prosecution is not relying on him as an expert witness as such, as things have moved on substantially in the 30 or so years since his examinations.

Indeed, Roy Green, who is a senior scientist (more about whom later), will be giving expert evidence to you covering a range of scientific disciplines. He has not only been through Dr Peabody’s work, but has re-evaluated and updated it using modern scientific techniques and understanding and will also be telling you about scientific results from work that Dr Peabody did not perform as the sensitive technology used today was not then available. Dr Peabody, who retired as a forensic scientist in 2007, will give evidence aided by the notes and reports he made at the time about the examinations he conducted in 1986 and 1987.

When he attended the scene on Saturday 11 October, Dr Peabody was wearing a protective blue boiler suit (AJP/12). He noted that the area was deep in undergrowth of ivy, brambles, elder and other vegetation. Access to it was up a steeply inclined slope. He described the area where the bodies were found as a den, which was a hollowed-out area within the undergrowth that surrounded it with boughs and branches forming a roof. He found an abundance of ivy in the den, at its entrance and in the approaches to it. He recovered a number of snagged fibres and hairs at the scene (AJP/1-11 (which includes a fibre we will return to (AJP/9), which was a fibre found snagged on vegetation at the crime scene)).

The following month, on Saturday 8 November 1986, Mr Redman went to the area of Moulsecoomb railway station where he took various samples of ivy and bramble (EWR/115-119) and then he returned to the murder scene where he also took samples of ivy and bramble. I shall have to return to this.

Let me now tell you something about the defendant and cars he was linked with. The reason I am telling you about them is because in 1986 an HOFSL scientist was asked to see if there were matches between paint found on the Pinto sweatshirt (DE/1) and between paint found on a pair of trousers (JNJ/1) Jenny Johnson was to hand to the police and the paint sampled from those cars. I have told you that in 1986 the defendant owned a Ford Escort, MGX 681P, which he told the park keeper on Thursday 9 October had broken down “up Coldean Lane”. George Feast, a near neighbour of the defendant’s, had seen the defendant driving that Ford Escort, as he recalled it, either on Wednesday 8 or Thursday 9 October at the very time it broke down and he saw the

defendant park it. However, it had not broken down in Coldean Lane as the defendant told Mr Dadswell but further south in Ditchling Road, close to the Old Army Records Office.

126. On 25 October 1986, the defendant arranged for the Ford Escort to be picked up by J. Hazell Autos of Shoreham-by-Sea. He told Mr Hazell, the proprietor, that he had a Mark II Escort that

was broken down in Ditchling Road. Mr Hazell went to 17 Stephens Road where he met the defendant and drove him to the car, which was now parked in Warleigh Road, facing into Ditchling Road. They agreed on £30 for Mr Hazell to take the car away for scrap. Over the following days Mr Hazell removed parts from it that he wanted, including doors, the bonnet

and a wing.

There are two other cars associated with the defendant: a Mini, UMC 993M, and a red Ford Cortina, XMC 403T. The Mini is important because the paint used to respray it provides one of several reasons for linking the defendant to the Pinto sweatshirt (DE/1) and the Pinto sweatshirt to the murdered girls.

As for the Ford Cortina, in March 1986, the defendant advertised the sale of a red Ford Cortina Mark IV 2000 GL, XMC 403T, in The Evening Argus newspaper and he sold it to Owen Waters, who was a lorry driver for Blue Circle Cement based at its Shoreham works in Upper Beeding, who saw the advertisement.

Several months later, in August 1986, the defendant offered to help Mr Caswell, his neighbour in Stephens Road, by spraying a Mini, UMC 993M, he had bought for his daughter.

The defendant told Mr Caswell that he was an experienced sprayer and so Mr Caswell allowed him to do it. Mr Caswell bought the paint, the colour of which was damask red. He had also bought

another shade of red at the same time. This was known as Venetian red. Mr Caswell decided to give the defendant, because he knew it to be the colour the defendant had used to spray his Ford Escort.

The defendant took the Mini away, saying his mate had a lock-up garage. He returned the car to Mr Caswell on 27 August 1986. When he did so, the defendant was with another man, his friend, Michael Evans. Both men were dressed in jeans and sweaters, which were covered in

paint. They had paint on their hands and on the sleeves and cuffs of their clothing. They had used Mr Evans’ spray equipment to spray the car. Mr Caswell gave the defendant the can of Venetian red he had bought and paid him for the job. His daughter, Shirley Caswell, took the car to Kidderminster where she lived on Sunday 7 September 1986. Since owning the car, she had not had any work done on the body, although her father had cut back and resprayed the front nearside wing after the defendant had sprayed it.

At 10.50am on 31 October, police visited 17 Stephens Road, the defendant’s home address, and, as I have just indicated, there Jenny Johnson located a pair of trousers (JNJ/1) with paint on them, which she handed to the police. The prosecution suggests these were the defendant’s trousers.

At 10pm later that same day, Mr Redman, the Scenes of Crime Officer and other police officers returned to 17 Stephens Road, where Mr Redman carried out an examination of the premises.

During the course of his examination, he noticed a spray gun in the kitchen larder cupboard. It was on the top shelf of the larder. It had an aluminium paint container attached. In an outhouse of the address, officers also noticed an unopened tin of new and unopened Valentine Spragloss

Venetian red paint and a tin of turtle wax polish. During a short conversation, the defendant was asked if the Venetian red paint had been the paint he had used on the Ford Escort. He said it had not been and that he had used ordinary household paint mixed with thinners.

A few days later, on 5 November 1986, police officers visited Hazell’s Autos in Shoreham-bySea, where they were able to recover the offside front wing, the bonnet and the radiator grill bearing the registration plate from the defendant’s Ford Escort, MGX 681P (JEH/4-7). Samples

were also taken from the paintwork (SJF/52-67).

On the very next day, 6 November 1986, police officers took samples from the paintwork of the Mini, UMC 993M, (RT/1-15) at Shirley Caswell’s home in Kidderminster.

Then on 7 November 1986, Mr Redman and police officers again visited 17 Stephens Road to seize the spray gun and the tin of paint they had seen there on 31 October. However, by this time both items had disappeared from the address. The paint on the doors of the outhouses was examined. All, except the outhouse door for 17 Stephens Road, had been painted red to waist height and there were substantial amounts of paint on the outhouse doors. Samples of the paint were taken (EWR/77-82 (from numbers 15, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27)). At the same time, a number of fibre samples was also taken from items found in the bedroom - socks (EWR/86 and 87), two sweaters (EWR/90 and 104) and two T-shirts (EWR/98 and 100); and a tin of turtle wax polish was recovered from the outhouse to number 17 (EWR/108).

On the same day control paint samples were taken from the red Ford Cortina, XMC 403T, at Brighton Police Station (EWR/110-114) and a week later, on 14 November 1986, a police officer went to the car park of the Blue Circle Cement Company in Upper Beeding, where yet

further samples of paint were taken from various locations on the red Ford Cortina, XMC 403T (SJF/71-82). On the next day, police recovered a spray can from 19 Medmerry Hill, the home address of Michael Evans (JSM/2).

CLOTHING

Not unnaturally, in the course of the original investigation people were asked by the police about the kind of clothing they had seen the defendant wearing. They were interested to see if anyone had seen him wearing the Pinto sweatshirt (DE/1). Of course, what people can recall about the defendant’s clothing is only one part of the evidence overall. Where the Pinto is concerned the prosecution rely on scientific evidence that links this defendant to that Pinto sweatshirt and his home environment and the scientific evidence that links that Pinto sweatshirt to the murder of these two girls.

Michael Evans, the defendant’s good friend, was asked about the defendant’s clothing in November 1986, when he said he had noticed him wearing a light blue sweatshirt with a name on one side of the chest. He described the sweatshirt as being more of a greyish blue, which looked like it had been washed a lot. He recalled the writing on the chest was white. All of that fits the description of the Pinto sweatshirt.

In December 1986, Mr Evans was shown the actual Pinto sweatshirt (DE/1). He said that he recognised it as being similar to the sweatshirts that he had seen the defendant wearing in the past. He said the red paint marks on the front and sleeve of the Pinto was similar to the red

paint they had used to spray the defendant’s Ford Escort. He added that he had seen the defendant wearing a number of sweatshirts with writing on the front in the past but could not recall what the writing was on any of them. But he told the police that the sweatshirt he had described before (greyish blue, white writing on the chest) was not the one the police had shown him.

Michelle Hadaway (Karen’s mother) recalled the defendant was generally scruffy and usually wore a dirty light greyish blue sweatshirt, which she recalled had marks on it from where he fiddled about with his cars. She recalled he also wore a grey body warmer and a blue grey

“flecky” crew neck jumper.

When the defendant came to Susan Fellows’ door around 4pm on Thursday 9 October Michelle recalled the defendant wearing a light grey/blue “flecky” jumper, by which she said she meant it had a diagonal line across it in the material. He was also wearing dark grey-flecked trousers.

Susan (Nicola’s mother) recalled the defendant wearing a mid-blue, round-necked pullover and a pair of grey fluffy trousers with white stripes at this time.

As for Marion Stevenson, both Michelle Hadaway and Susan Fellows recalled that on the afternoon of Thursday 9 October 1986 Marion Stevenson had been wearing what Michelle called a green velour skirt and top. Susan recalled it bore white stripes on the right arm and was an outfit Marion often wore. On 3 November 1986, DCs Pettit and Ormsby went to 19 Barcombe Road, Marion Stevenson’s home address. On their arrival, Marion Stevenson was in fact wearing a suit that matched the description of the suit both mothers had given and so she went upstairs to get changed and the police took it away. The top and the skirt were placed into separate paper bags, then packed into individual, sealed bags and taken to Brighton Police Station (RJP/1 and 2).

OTHER ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT

What else did the defendant have to say about these events in addition to what I have already told you?

On Sunday 12 October 1986, police attended 46 Coldean Lane, the defendant’s parents’ address. There they spoke to the defendant, although the police officers who attended the

address did not then appreciate who they were speaking to. They were there asking after a man called Ted Dawes who was known to live at the address occasionally. The defendant said Dawes was not in, that he was a bit of a wild man and that he slept in the woods. He then added

that he was keen for the police to see Dawes because he was, said the defendant, his alibi and would clear his name. The police officers asked who he was. It was then the defendant identified himself as Russell Bishop.The defendant was questioned again on Wednesday 15 October 1986 at his home address when the police also took samples of the dog’s hair (DJP/1-3). He was then invited to Brighton Police

Station for further questioning, which he agreed to do. Before going there, the police first stopped at Wild Park and asked him to identify where he had seen the girls playing on the tree, where he was when he saw them, where he had seen PC Smith smoking on Friday 10 October, the track he had followed with his dog and the point on the steps (Jacobs Ladder) where they had come out on to. These were marked on to a map (DPJ/8).

At Brighton Police Station, the defendant was asked to go through events he had previously described. He was asked whether he could recall on his walk home waving to anyone. (The police were testing Kevin Doyle’s account of seeing the defendant wave at him.) After giving it some thought, the defendant insisted that that had been the Saturday (11 October) not the Thursday night. He said he did not even know Kevin and Mark Doyle although he said he had heard their last name.

Also, he gave further details about the washing he claimed to have done after he got home on Thursday 9 October. He said that when he got home he went to get some clean clothes as he had fallen into some dog’s mess and soiled his trousers. But because he could not find any

clean clothes he said he did his washing. He prepared a meal and after doing his washing he

had a bath, dressed in a dressing gown, sat down to read a paper and switched on the TV. He said Jenny had come in with Victor, the son, at between 8 and 8.30pm.

The police then went back over his movements on Friday 10 October. However, during this interview, when asked about the discovery of the bodies on the Friday, he flatly denied that he had gone into the area where the bodies were found. He was shown the notes from the previous interview and it was pointed out that he had said that he had checked for a pulse on the girls’ necks. He denied saying this, saying he intended to do this but had not in fact done so, and despite having signed a witness statement which included the statement of fact that he had felt for a pulse on their necks. When shown the passage in the witness statement, he claimed he did not realise it was in there and it had been a mistake. Pausing there, you may think that was some mistake to make. He read the witness statement and indeed the police officer’s notes of the interview and was asked why he had said those things when in fact he had not gone to the bodies at all. He then reversed what he was saying and said he had in fact felt for a pulse. Not surprisingly, he was asked why he had denied going to the bodies earlier in the interview. This, he said, was because he had been instructed by the police officer at the scene to keep away from them. He was quizzed further about his change of mind, which he did not answer. He was asked why he had said he had felt for a pulse when he had not done so. He could not answer and became agitated. He insisted that the truth was that he did not touch the bodies and said he had said what he had to feel important. He told the police that when he entered the woods he sat down with the other man and he could not see anything at first because the undergrowth

was so thick. But he said he looked into the cave and saw a head and then he had taken a closer look and saw two heads, but this was from a distance of three yards away from the bodies which was the closest he said he got to them. A witness statement of the interview was produced, the content of which the defendant agreed (BFE/7).

Two weeks later, on Friday 31 October 1986, at 8.20am, police revisited the defendant at his home address. He was taken to Brighton Police Station where he was taken through his witness statements and asked about points arising from them. He was asked about Mark Doyle’s account of seeing him on the evening of Thursday 9 October at about 6.30pm as he was being driven home. The defendant denied this, saying he was wrong and could not have seen him because he was home by then. He was asked about Kevin Doyle’s account of seeing him around the same time. His response was to say the girls were seen alive at that time and anyway Ted Dawes (who he referred to as his uncle) saw him at 5.45pm when he (the defendant) was on the bus. The defendant continued to say Kevin Doyle was mistaken and that incident had been on the following Saturday. As for Dawes’ whereabouts, the defendant told the police that he

had returned to America. The officers went over other aspects of his previous accounts including what he had said about the finding of the girls. He was asked about the time he had said in a witness statement that the girls were dead, that one was lying on the stomach of the other and one of them had blood-flecked foam on her mouth. He replied, “I thought one of them had what looked like blood there” adding, “Anyway I’ve explained in my statement why I said that.”

After further discussion, the police took the defendant to Woodside School Road to point out a triangular patch of grass where he claimed he had fallen in dog’s mess (AWL/3 photograph

He was asked which way he walked home from there and he indicated the footpath before the triangle of grass, under the bridge and up the path to Crespin Way, which is the very path along which the Pinto had been discarded.

Later that morning (still Friday 31 October), at a little after 11.30, the defendant was arrested on suspicion of the murders of Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway and he was cautioned. His response was to say, “No, no, it’s not me, f*** off, leave it out”. He was then interviewed under

caution at some length over Friday 31 October, Saturday 1 November and Sunday 2 November. Those interviews will be read or summarised to you later in the trial. I am not going to go through them all now but am being deliberately selective about what I summarise to you.

He was questioned about why he had not met Marion on the evening of Thursday 9 October.

You will recall he had previously said that he had an arrangement to meet her at 6pm. He told the police that he had not felt like it and he had wanted to smoke some blow that night on his own. He agreed he had not mentioned this before but explained that he did not wish to get done for it. He said this was his reason for going to Moulsecoomb that night. He was asked where he bought the dope. At first, he declined to say, saying he did not wish to get his supplier nicked.

He was reminded that he was in custody for murder which was more important. He then said that he had bought “the black” (as he called it) at 58 Ringmer Road from someone he called ‘Angie’. He said that he had got to the address at about 5.40pm, after seeing the girls in the park at 5.20. Then he said he went home.

He added that on the way home he had rolled a joint in the public toilets by the police box and smoked it down the road. He was asked where he had the money for dope, given he had previously said he had no money to buy a local newspaper at the newsagent. He admitted that he had not gone to the newsagent after all and that that had been a lie. He claimed to have been indoors by 6.30pm.

In a later interview that same day, he denied owning a round neck, blue sweatshirt with the name Pinto on the chest. He was shown the Pinto sweatshirt labelled DE/1, which appeared to have red paint marks on it, but he denied that it was his. He agreed he had a pair of grey trousers in his wardrobe at home that he used for doing body repairs and rubbing down cars and that they had red paint marks on them from his red Ford Escort. Later still, he was asked about the

encounter at the Fellows home on the afternoon of the Thursday. He said he would have been

able to identify Nicola Fellows had she come to the door; and he denied the person who answered the door called Marion a “slag”. He said there was no verbal. He confirmed his route home took him past the railway station and the footpath into Crespin Way where the Pinto was found.

In further interviews on Saturday 1 November, he was told that Angie Cutting (his dealer) had no recollection of him coming to buy drugs on the Thursday. His answer to that was she obviously could not remember. He was asked why he had said to PC Smith on the Friday that he did not wish to find the bodies as that would look bad on him. He explained the remark by saying that as he was one of the last people to see the girls with the park keeper, it would not

look too good, but added he was with the policeman when they were found. He confirmed he had told a lie about touching the bodies to feel for a pulse. He said he got closer to the girls when he went into the woods, estimating he got within seven to eight feet. He said that he did want to get closer but the boys who were there with him prevented him from doing so. He accepted that when he had said he could see blood-flecked foam on Nicola’s mouth, that too was a lie. He accepted he could not see that at all. He said he had been guessing when he had said that before. He admitted that no one had told him this.

This detail was highly significant. He could never have guessed that Nicola’s mouth had foam on it from the effect of strangulation and he said no one else had told him that information. So, if he did not see it for himself after the finding of the girls and if he did not get it from anyone else, how did he know it? There is only one answer.

On Friday 21 November 1986, the defendant decided to pay the Fellows family home a visit where he spoke to Nicola’s father, Barrie Fellows. He denied being involved in the murders.

He said he had a conference with the press who were paying him and he was going to spend all the money they gave him on himself. He then changed that to say he was going to give it to a children’s charity. He added (untruthfully) that he had been cleared of the murders.

Mr Fellows asked him what he had actually been doing on Thursday 9 October 1986 and whether he had seen the girls. The defendant said, “I saw Karen and Nicola at half past five and the park keeper was somewhere near … I went over to Angie’s and bought some dope”.

He went on to say that an insurance man and woman had called at his flat at 6.30pm and had seen him at home, despite, you may remember, having told the police on the evening of Friday 10 October that he had no callers that night and could think of no one that could help establish his whereabouts.

The following day, Saturday 22 November, police officers attended the flat at 17 Stephens Road, where they saw the defendant. Also there at the time was Marion Stevenson. The

defendant had made an allegation of burglary at the flat and the police were there to take a statement from him about it. Suddenly, the defendant reached behind one officer who was sitting in an armchair and pulled out a blue sweatshirt from behind a cushion, saying, “I’m guarding this with my life. I don’t want the CID getting their hands on it … I’m sorry but this jumper proves my innocence. This is the jumper with the red paint on it that the Murder Squad say they have. I can prove this is the one”. This was a reference to what he had been asked about in interview in October. He then folded up the garment. One of the officers said they

knew nothing about it, to which the defendant replied, “Anyway, someone’s coming to collect it tonight”. The officers completed the defendant’s statement regarding his burglary allegation and, as they were leaving, the defendant added, “Will you tell the Murder Squad that I can

prove that I was at home at 6.30pm that night? I have some insurance men who will testify to that, so their witness couldn’t have seen me at the Wild Park”. The witness he was referring to was one or other of the Doyle brothers.

The story about an insurance man was itself a lie. Sydney Giles worked at the time for the

Reliance Mutual Assurance Company in Hove as an assistant manager. On 1 October 1986 he started collecting premiums in the Hollingdean area. Among the policyholders in that area was the Bishop family at 17 Stephens Road. The defendant was in arrears, so Mr Giles made a point of calling at various times as he was never able to catch them at home. He recalled only ever having one successful call at the address and that was on Thursday 30 October 1986 when a man he believed to be Bishop answered the door. Mr Giles told him who he was, but the man said it was nothing to do with him, that he gave his wife all his money and she paid the bills.

He closed the door and Mr Giles left. Mr Giles did, however, recall calling on Thursday 9 ctober 1986 at about 4.30pm, but he got no reply at the address and gained the impression that no one was in, so he left a ‘Sorry you were out’ note 161. Another insurance agent to have dealings with the defendant was Andrew Longford who

worked for the Britannic Assurance Company in Brighton. One of the addresses he covered in

Stephens Road was number 17 and that was to collect money on an endowment policy in the name of Victor Roy Bishop, the defendant’s son. He called every Monday. He last collected money at the address on Monday 15 September 1986 and says that he certainly did not call on

Thursday 9 October, not least because he had the day off as his car was in for repairs.

162. At 10.05pm on Wednesday 3 December 1986, the defendant was rearrested on suspicion of the

murders of both girls. He was formally charged with both murders and replied, “I’m not guilty”.

Thirty years later, on Tuesday 10 May 2016, the defendant was rearrested on suspicion of the murders of the two girls on grounds of new evidence. He was cautioned but made no reply. Evidential swabs of DNA were taken from him (LB/1 and 2). He was then interviewed under caution over the course of that day. He denied being guilty of the murders and, in the main, he made no comment to the questions asked of him. However, he produced a prepared statement which was signed by him, in which he denied any involvement in the murders, adding he had been tried in 1987 and had been found not guilty.

EARLY HISTORY OF THE PINTO SWEATSHIRT (DE/1)

164. Before coming on to the scientific discoveries from the re-evaluation of work done in the past

and those newly made, let me tell you a little more about some of the early history of the movement of the Pinto sweatshirt (DE/1) because of its importance to the scientific findings

made from tapings taken from it in 1986. We last left the Pinto at Brighton Police Station, where, on Friday 10 October, Insp Verrion had put it, packaged, in the Exhibits Store, next to the Major Incident Room.

The following morning, at 11 o’clock on Saturday 11 October 1986, PC Barry Markham (not to be confused with PC Christopher Markham who had gone with the defendant on his apparent search with the dog in Wild Park the previous day) had taken over the Exhibits Store of this major incident. When he did so, he saw there was one item, the Pinto sweatshirt, still in its brown paper bag, which bore no exhibit label. He did not examine it closely as it was in the bag but waited for the exhibit label to arrive for it. However, by Wednesday 15 October 1986, it had still not arrived, so at 3.30pm that same day, PC Barry Markham took it to Scene of

Crime Officer, Edward Redman, for examination and he left it with him. PC Markham later identified the item he was talking about as DE/1.

Mr Redman then examined the sweatshirt at 3.30pm that same day (15 October). He found several stains on it as well as some holes. He carried out presumptive blood tests on some of the stains on the garment and noted there was a slight positive reaction.

Two weeks later, on Friday 31 October 1986, at 9.10am, Mr Redman handed the Pinto (DE/1) to DI Christopher Bentham who received it from him in the Scene Investigation Unit Forensic Room. DI Bentham saw that the Pinto was inside a paper bag, which was itself inside a second brown paper bag. In order to have photographs taken of it, DI Bentham removed the Pinto from its packaging and then supported it on card. He then placed it inside a clear polythene bag, which was sealed. He then handed it to the photographer, Mark Baynes, for photographs to be taken of it (MLB/9). Once they were completed, DI Bentham took back the Pinto and then fixed an exhibit label to it bearing the reference ‘DE/1’ and handed it to DC Barry Evans.

DI Bentham also kept the original two brown paper bags in which he had received the item from Mr Redman, which he exhibited with a reference bearing his initials, ‘CJB/1’. During the course of an interview of the defendant that day that started at 3.38pm, the defendant had been

shown the garment by DS Swan, one of the interviewing officers. Afterwards, DS Swan returned the Pinto to DI Bentham at around 3.50pm. The item, which remained sealed, was handed to PC Lee, a police motorcyclist, at 3.55pm that same day together with the original

paper bags (CJB/1) and the trousers handed to police by Jenny Johnson earlier that day (JNJ/1), all of which were separately sealed, to be taken to the HOFSL where they were received at 7pm that same day, Friday 31 October 1986.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN 1986 AND 1987

I am now going to come on to summarise to you the key scientific findings in the case from 1986 and 1987. You now know that significant items have undergone examination and analysis since 1986 to the present day. Science has moved on since 1986. As I have said, DNA profiling though available was in its infancy in 1986 and 1987 and did not form any part of the scientific analysis at the time. So, against that background, let me describe to you the examinations and key findings that took place in 1986 and 1987.