After reading statements from Nicola’s head teacher about the incident in the office and the great-grandmother about her broken nose – both of the actual people had sadly died – the defence closed what I regarded as a pretty flimsy case.
That was not the end of the evidence, however. A little-known stage of the court process is the prosecution’s right to call witnesses to rebut the defence case.
DS Phil Swan had interviewed both Bishop and Stevenson. Shortly after the 1987 interview, he and another officer had been required to resign from the force due to a number of charges that they neglected their duty and committed ‘falsehoods’. This related to their use of a police vehicle during another case and whether it was authorized. He knew, when he walked into court to refute Marion’s assertion that she had told him of the video tape, his past would come back to bite him.
Prosecution junior counsel Alison Morgan covered his fall from grace before the defence could. On the point at issue he firmly dismissed any suggestion he knew of the allegations against Barrie before he read them in the News of the World.
Bennathan could not shake him, despite trying to link his misconduct to his reliability as a witness.
‘Mr Swan. Let’s be clear about why you left the police. You were found guilty of three neglects of duty and five falsehoods. You were required to resign as alternative to dismissal. That’s correct, isn’t it?’ Bennathan asked.
‘Yes, I was found guilty and required to resign,’ Swan replied.
‘Was a recording device put on the Stevensons’ phone behind Marion’s back?’
‘Yes, but with her parents’ permission.’
‘Was Bishop’s flat bugged?’
‘Not that I am aware of.’
‘Was he under surveillance?’
‘Not that I’m aware of.’
‘You had a junior officer with you when a statement was taken from Marion Stevenson, didn’t you?’
‘Yes, WDC King.’
‘Did you suggest the defendant’s flat was bugged?’
‘No, she said it.’
‘Is this a falsehood and you’ve tweaked it?’
‘Absolutely not.’
‘She told you about Barrie Fellows watching a video of a man having sex with Nicola, didn’t she?’
‘No, absolutely not.’
He delved into other parts of the investigation, expecting Swan to know details of surveillance and the rationale behind passages in some witness statements referring to pornography, but he made little headway.
The last live witness was a very impressive former family liaison officer, Sonia Clark. She came with no baggage and was resolute that, despite what had been alleged elsewhere, she knew nothing of the video so could not have told Susan Fellows as had been mooted. She was utterly convincing when she said she would have been horrified had she known and would have referred the matter straight to a senior manager.
To wrap up nearly seven weeks of evidence, Morgan read statements from DS Swan’s colleague, WDC King, who had supported her sergeant regarding Marion never mentioning the video and Barrie’s brother denying he had called a senior police officer saying Barrie owned a video camera.
With that, late in the afternoon of Wednesday 28 November, and with legal matters to deal with in the meantime, the judge adjourned the trial until the following Monday when closing speeches would commence. We had no idea that we would never see one key person – the defendant – in court again.