Mackenzie had instructed Swift to look relaxed in his suit which he attempted to do with moderate success. He moved across the court to the witness stand with as much reverence as an undertaker approaching a coffin at the end of a service. Albeit an undertaker from a very fashionable funeral directors. On account of his size the barrister had asked him to sit throughout his testimony, as he thought his height might be a distraction for the jury.
‘Dr Swift, what is your role in Avon and Somerset Police?’ the barrister began.
‘I’m a forensic investigator,’ he replied.
‘Any particular field of expertise?’
‘Several,’ came the deadpan response. This caused Mackenzie to giggle involuntarily, earning her a withering look from Warner, which in turn made her even happier.
‘Does that include analysis of CCTV footage?’
‘It does. But in this case as there has been no claim of digital manipulation or interference of the footage my remit was purely geometrical analysis.’
‘Can you explain to the jury what that means?’
‘It means I analysed the footage together with the geography of the immediate location to ascertain as accurately as possible what happened.’
‘Perhaps you could lead us through it in some detail?’
‘Of course.’
The footage was replayed on several monitors in the courtroom. Swift controlled it with a remote control given to him by an usher.
‘As you can see, the defendant comes out of his barn with a bag which he places on the rear seat of the car. He then stops and looks up at the cottage.’
‘When you say “up”, where do you mean?’
‘He’s looking at the upper part of the cottage.’
He then brought up various stills with lines of sight drawn on them.
‘As you can see from the calculations the defendant is looking at the top of the cottage.’
‘So, you would say, in your expert opinion, that he is not looking at the end of the path as the prosecution claims.’
‘Definitely not. The angle is completely wrong for that. His face would be angled further right in the picture, to his left.’
‘So, you would dispute the prosecution’s claim that the victim came to the end of the cottage path to shout at the defendant?’ the barrister asked.
‘That is out of my remit. What I can tell you categorically is that the defendant never looked at the end of the path at any moment for the duration of the footage.’
‘Perhaps the victim appeared at an upstairs window.’
‘There are no upstairs windows on that side of the cottage.’
‘But something happened that made him look up?’
‘That’s one interpretation, yes.’
The barrister turned to the jury.
‘I would suggest that Dr Swift’s observations and technical analysis contradict the prosecution’s claim that the defendant was reacting to something shouted at him by the victim at the end of the cottage path. That what actually happened was entirely in line with the defendant’s claim. That he heard a commotion upstairs in the cottage, thereby attracting his attention. Dr Swift, from the timings stamped on the footage, how long would you say the defendant was in the victim’s cottage?’ the barrister asked.
‘He was inside the cottage for roughly thirty-one seconds.’
‘Thirty-one seconds,’ the barrister said, turning to the jury. ‘That’s just half a minute in which, according to the prosecution, to go inside, presumably look for the victim downstairs if he was at the end of the path, realise he has to be upstairs, find him, have an altercation with him, see the chisel, pick it up and stab the victim in the chest. Watch as he falls down the stairs, then run out of the front door, not the back door which was nearer, drop the chisel in the garden and get back to the car.’
‘But the fact is he came out of the back door. Had he used the front door coming from the front garden, he would be entering the camera’s field of vision from the right. As it is he reappears almost directly below the camera which is mounted directly above the back door,’ Swift concluded.
‘Indeed. Thank you for that further detail. But going back to the period of thirty-one seconds. Is it really long enough to go in as I described, look for the victim, find him upstairs, stab him, watch him fall down the stairs, then climb over him and leave the cottage? Or is it more likely to be just enough time for the defendant to go into the cottage, discover the victim’s body at the bottom of the stairs, feel his pulse, ascertain he was dead and leave?’
He posed this question to the jury, some of whom made notes.
‘Dr Swift,’ the defence barrister continued, ‘in your role as forensic investigator, did you attend the scene?’
‘I did.’
‘And did you examine the body?’
‘I did.’
‘Just for clarity: although you observed the wounds they are not within your remit. Is that correct?’
‘Yes, that is the job of the forensic pathologist whom I work alongside. My work with the body was to examine it for any trace elements, any evidence such as cloth fragments, blood, DNA.’
‘And what did you find?’
‘On the body?’
‘Yes.’
‘There were two bite wounds to the victim’s legs.’
‘These were later identified as dog bites, is that correct?’
‘Yes.’
‘Did you examine the bites?’
‘I did not. That was done by the forensic pathologist, Dr Clare Hawkins, who found some hair as well as DNA from saliva.’
‘And what did that evidence tell you?’
‘The hairs and saliva were both canine. From the DNA we were able to specify the breed. The dog, and the evidence suggests there was just the one, that bit the victim was a Rhodesian Ridgeback.’
This caused a slight murmur in the courtroom.
‘I see, and of course we are all aware,’ the barrister said for the benefit of the murmurers, ‘that the defendant is the owner of two such dogs.’
‘That is correct.’
‘Could I take you back to the CCTV footage?’
‘Of course.’
‘Could you go back to the moment the defendant walks from the car into the cottage?’
Swift did so, the image appearing on the various monitors.
‘Are you able to zoom in on the back of the vehicle? Specifically, the luggage compartment.’
‘I can.’
Swift zoomed in on the footage till he reached a silhouette of two dogs’ heads looking over the back seat of the car from the luggage compartment.
‘And what can we see there, Dr Swift?’
‘The defendant’s dogs in the car.’
‘Are you sure?’
‘Yes, you can tell from their large floppy ears which is characteristic of the breed,’ Swift replied.
‘Where they remain for the entire time the car was parked on its return. Just to clarify, they were also in the car upon its return.’
‘Yes.’
‘So, we can safely conclude from that, that the defendant’s dogs didn’t bite the victim that night?’
‘We can.’
‘Let me save my learned friend the bother of remembering to ask the next question. Could the dogs have bitten the victim at another time, say earlier the same day?’
‘It would be possible, had the forensic pathologist not determined that the bites were inflicted on the victim at the same time as the stab wound and the skull fracture.’
‘You also examined the victim’s dog.’
‘Ricky, yes.’
‘Why was that?’
‘He had some blood on his teeth. Not his blood nor his owner’s blood. It was canine blood.’
‘Dare I ask whether you know which breed?’
‘It was a Rhodesian Ridgeback and the DNA was a match for the canine saliva found on the victim.’
‘So, we’re back with the Rhodesian Ridgebacks?’
‘We are. But not the defendant’s.’
‘Go on.’
‘A vet drew blood samples from both of the defendant’s dogs. Neither of them are a match.’
The barrister paused, as if surprised by this information although he was obviously familiar with it, to ensure it had truly sunk in with the jury.
‘What does this mean?’
‘It means another dog attacked the victim at the time of his murder.’
‘Another dog, belonging to someone else?’ the barrister asked for the sake of clarity.
‘Unless the defendant owns a third dog of the same breed we don’t know about.’
‘He does not. So, the dog belongs to someone else. Someone else other than the defendant who was in the cottage that night. The actual murderer.’
Warner looked a little shell-shocked.
‘Did you check any of this with Swift?’ Carson hissed at Warner.
‘Which?’
‘Well, the footage for a start.’
‘No,’ he said almost inaudibly. But the barrister wasn’t finished yet.
‘One further question if I may, Dr Swift?’
‘Of course,’ replied Swift all the more genially having noticed Carson’s snatched exchange with Warner.
‘The murder weapon,’ the barrister stated.
‘The chisel?’ asked Swift.
‘Yes. I believe you found traces of the defendant’s DNA on the chisel.’
‘That’s correct.’
‘Which is hardly surprising as it’s been established that it was his chisel that he’d misplaced.’
‘Yes.’
‘Was there any other evidence on the chisel?’
‘Yes, a partial fingerprint.’
‘The victim, or the defendant’s wife perhaps?’ enquired the brief.
‘No. Neither were a match. It’s an, as yet, unidentified third party.’
‘Perhaps the owner of the unidentified dog,’ the barrister suggested to the jury.
The existence of this print had of course been disclosed to the prosecution who obviously didn’t want it brought up. The defence had bided their time and, judging by the look on the faces of some of the jurors, had done so to good effect.
The defence rested its case and the court adjourned for closing statements in the morning. Carson turned once again to Warner.
‘Were you aware of the partial print?’ he asked.
But Warner didn’t answer. He just got up and left the courtroom.