How far we have come, how far we must continue to go. The exploits so carefully detailed in the pages that follow explore the drive, determination, skill and tenacity of those detectives at the forefront of recent policing history.
Far, because predominantly men with little resource to science used witness testimony, detailed questioning, reason and deduction to bring murderers to justice. They were at the forefront of their craft. Far also, because they paved the way for their skills to spread and develop as new scientific tools aided their task. The practice of investigation is much smarter now, much more disciplined, but that is progress. Science is a tool, it is not the solution on its own.
So this tradition of male detectives from Scotland Yard has given way to skilled detectives throughout the land and beyond. Joined by female detectives and supported by a range of experts, both police and civilian, sometimes employed by the police organisation, but often not. The situation we see today might to some be barely recognizable from that of less than 100 years ago. But that is not the case, and there is a lot we should remember and learn from those early pioneers. The tools available to investigate murder might have changed and continue to develop, but they are useless without the ability to question, probe and challenge.
When I was asked by Dick Kirby to provide a foreword for this book, I considered it an honour and duty. The request in itself was an indication of how far we (yes, we) have come since the first episodes described in the early chapters.
I first met the author over thirty years ago, when I was posted as civilian Scenes of Crime Officer to the Flying Squad, where he was a very active detective sergeant. Over a period of four or so years I supported him and many other fine colleagues. Supported is an important description, because I did not work for him but for the investigations he was charged with undertaking. Truth needs to talk to power sometimes and disappoint an established view. A true detective seeks the truth as lines of enquiry close and focus towards not only that which can be eliminated but that which can be proved with strength. Dick Kirby exemplified all the fine attributes of the detectives he describes in this book. Thoroughness, determination, guile and a sense of responsibility were the tools used to bring those who committed the most serious of crimes to justice; his descriptions are often expressed in language for its purpose and of its time. I challenge anyone not to be moved by the scene faced and the response given by Jack Capstick, when confronted with the savage murder of a child. The motivation to bring the perpetrator to justice was not coloured by emotion, but driven by duty. The duty is to our system of justice, but the victim is never forgotten.
The scientific tools these early pioneers had were extremely limited. But even thirty years ago, pre-DNA technology, just, it wasn’t really much different. In the early 1980s there was a much greater range of scientific tools than in the past, and they were gallantly applied. They were nothing compared to the discriminatory tools available today. Things such as DNA, light sources for the recovery of evidence, digital, mobile phone photography and CCTV were but dreams then. What would Jack Capstick have given for such tools? He had fingerprint technology, but even that was in its infancy. Fingerprints at the Yard were the domain solely of police detectives. It would be a few years before civilian experts were trained. So there was a temptation for the few experts in one field to dabble in others. Such was the pressure to seek confirmation of a view, often disguised, rather than answers. The pathologist, Spilsbury or Simpson, might be asked to comment on fibres or foot or shoe marks, but the good doctor might not be the right expert, not then and certainly not by today’s standards without specific expertise.The fingerprint expert Detective Inspector Fred Cherrill asked to examine handwriting is most likely stretching his actual expertise rather than applying it. Later in my career, and as a Scientific Support Manager for a provincial force and one who was responsible for commissioning external experts, I would have prevented such practice, save for safeguards. An expert must have an understanding of their limitations and those of the subject they study. In essence, they must understand what they don’t know.
Although perhaps outside the scope of this book, but alluded to, is how the Met has developed its own organisational teams in more recent times. The fact that Geoff Parratt successfully led the investigation teams in over eighty murders in London is not only a personal testament but an organizational one in the face of such demand.
So the men and women of the Yard are still needed to apply their expertise in distant lands and situations where the tools are not available locally. But their ‘murder bag’ really contains a lot more and is replicated throughout the UK.
The availability of such resources comes at a time when pressures are put on the financial use of them, the volume of available material and the recruitment, development and retention of sound investigators. Once the chain is broken, the opportunity to pass on such important skills is lost.
So we must not forget but celebrate the investigative and detective skills that the Yard’s Murder Squad demonstrated and are so eloquently described here. Progress is only progress if those charged with the responsibility to investigate continue to apply the same skills developed, honed and supported by the science available for their task.