Next, the post mortem evidence was reviewed and presented by Dr Nat Carey as Dr West had since died. He confirmed all of his late colleague’s findings and added one crucial point of clarification. There was absolutely no evidence of Nicola having been sexually assaulted in the months prior to her death. Certainly nothing that would support Marion Stevenson’s allegation against Barrie and Dougie.
One of the many striking aspects of this trial was that none of the officers involved in the reinvestigation were ever called to give live evidence. Courts discourage calling witnesses just to make a point. It makes a ponderous process even slower, confuses juries and inconveniences the witnesses themselves. Where evidence can be produced in other ways – say through agreed facts, reading statements or showing video footage – then that is what happens.
In 1986 there was no technology to record interviews and it was only at the beginning of that year that contemporaneous notes were required when interviewing anyone under caution. This normally involved one officer posing questions while the other scribbled furiously, trying to capture every reply, every nuance, and every silence. It left little room for any spontaneity or tactical switching from one interviewer to another. Once over, all present, including the suspect, had the opportunity to read and sign the notes. But some suspects, including Bishop, preferred not to. This could present problems down the line if the accuracy was questioned, but at least they had the chance.
Witness interviews had even fewer safeguards. Often officers would scribble brief notes in their pocket book then translate them into a statement which would normally consist of just the highlights. Nowadays, interviews with suspects are video-recorded as are those involving significant witnesses. Bishop would have fallen into both categories at various times had the 1986 murders happened today.
This leaves no doubt as to the questions asked, the way in which they are put and any verbal or non-verbal aggression that might take place. There is no point in calling interviewers to justify whether or not they had questioned a suspect, or witness, fairly. You just play the tape.
Given the lack of technology during the original investigation, on the Monday of the fourth week of the trial, the first of a line of former officers called out of retirement appeared to answer for his actions thirty-two years previously.
Former DC Barry Evans has the striking look of a friendly grandfather more at home spoiling his grandkids on a day out to the zoo than browbeating young men in sweaty interview rooms. His mop of grey hair and piercing blue eyes set off his cheerfully chubby face which is seldom without his trademark smile.
When I first met Barry, he was a fraud squad officer, never happier than when poring over ledgers and spreadsheets in his quest to catch out some corrupt company director. So, when he was accused in this trial of bullying and cajoling Bishop into changing his story during his pre-arrest interviews, using his senior years to strong-arm him into telling the story the police wanted, I could not reconcile this with the Barry I knew.
He was probably chosen to speak to Bishop because of his gentle ways, not because he would push him back in a chair or seek to shock him with photos of the girls as was suggested. Barry also rebuffed the suggestion that when he asked Jenny Johnson to identify the Pinto sweatshirt, which she did, he removed it from the packaging. This was important to the defence in terms of cross-contamination as any suggestion that it could have picked up traces of Bishop from 17 Stephens Road during that visit would blow all the subsequent DNA findings out of the water.
Like other witnesses before and after, Barry stood up to the interrogation and stuck by his recollections of interviews undertaken properly and his fastidious handling of exhibits.
DC Dave Wilkinson was next up. I worked with him in Brighton CID in the early 1990s when he returned from his stint in the Regional Crime Squad. Unlike the stereotype of ‘squad types’, Dave was a calm grafter who very generously taught me and my fellow rookie detectives a lot about investigating top-tier villains. He shared his intimate knowledge of Brighton crime families thus lifting the veil from those who, until then, I assumed to be untouchable.
In October 1986, Dave arrested Bishop then, with DS Phil Swan, interviewed him over the days that followed. Having explained for the court the ancient art of contemporaneous note-taking, he became somewhat vulnerable under cross-examination.
Even the most adept secretary or journalist would struggle to swear that every word written over three days of interview was exactly as it had been spoken. It was generally accepted that the notes were, by and large, accurate.
The problem came when Dave was asked about the three hours of interview prior to the arrest. Seemingly no notes were made during this time even when they took Bishop out in the car to find where he had fallen in the dog faeces.
Dave Wilkinson’s statement of 20 November 1986 was the first time those conversations, covering the anomalies in the statements Bishop had provided to Barry Evans, were written down. Given these notes included direct quotes, Dave left himself vulnerable to challenge by not having anything more immediate to refer to.
Despite some uncomfortable moments though, Dave’s evidence survived intact and the case could move on.