Following a short break, it was Joel Bennathan’s turn to address the jury, and his style could not have been more different. Both he and Altman are eminent Queen’s Counsels who have fought their way to the top of their profession, and deservedly so. Both will have cut their teeth in lower courts working their way up to be entitled to practise in the highest courts, and highest-profile cases, in the land.
But, as with any individual, they have each found a manner which suits them. Neither is right or wrong, they just differ. I have to say that personally I found Mr Altman’s methodical and thorough walk through the evidence slightly more palatable than Mr Bennathan’s almost matey approach with the jury. His job was to cast doubt and he needed to be less forensic in his approach but, with the families in the courtroom, I found some of his oratory a little uncomfortable. He knew the prosecution case was powerful – the Court of Appeal would never have allowed us to be here if it was not. He also knew he had little to offer at this stage but question marks.
He highlighted some oddities about some of the witnesses. Mrs ‘White’ was a defence witness in 1987 and now she appeared for the prosecution – on both occasions too scared to reveal her name. Dr Peabody was pinned up against a wall by a policeman. The last thing Marion Stevenson wanted to do was to help Bishop. Kevin Rowland had changed his account.
He asked the jury why it was that prosecution witnesses were allowed to differ in timing and accounts as it was all so long ago, but when Bishop did so that made him a murderer? If Bishop was telling the truth, Bennathan reminded the jury, a big chunk of the prosecution case would fall away.
He turned to the Pinto. He said the evidence pointed to it being freshly dropped when the CB radio friends saw it at half past midnight. So, he asked, when was it dropped? Where had it been for four and a half hours? ‘And who cares if there’s ivy on it?’ I was sure the families cared. He then highlighted what he saw as anomalies between the volume of fibre and paint on various items of clothing, maintaining that – contrary to Mr Altman’s assessment – that pointed straight to inadvertent transfer.
He moved to the apparently damning DNA evidence – minute mixed profiles, only some of which would have come from Bishop. He referred to the evidence of Kit Bentham and Ros Hammond as ‘bland assurances that just don’t hold water’. Among all the opportunities and unanswered questions, the QC highlighted one which I thought was compelling. Given the killer wore the Pinto when he murdered the girls, why was their DNA not found on it?
As Bishop had done in his interview, Bennathan mentioned Eddie Redman’s evidence in the 1987 trial that, he said, included an admission that he had examined the Pinto and the girls’ clothing in such a way that they could have cross-contaminated one another.
Finally, he turned to the video. Standing by Marion Stevenson’s account he reminded the jury that DS Swan, who denied being told, had lost his job for lying. He wondered aloud too why officers had asked witnesses throughout the investigation about their knowledge of pornography if no one knew about the tape. He repeated in some detail the defence’s case that Barrie was violent, that he had a video camera and of his missing hour.
He ended as all defence closing statements end. ‘If someone else could have committed these murders, the case ends there. You have to look at it all together. You have to be sure. It’s like crossing a bridge where the planks are mouldy and you are not sure. Don’t cross the bridge unless you are sure, even if the tour guide, Mr Altman, assures you that you can ignore the faulty planks. You have to be sure.’