In his final speech, Mr Bowes said that although the jury had been bombarded with a barrage of scientific evidence from ‘just about every forensic technique that exists, in the end this is a very straightforward case. Danilo Restivo is the man who killed Heather Barnett.
‘You may think the defendant was evasive in the extreme and suffered from selective memory loss. There were some things he simply could not remember and others that he would remember very clearly.’
Restivo, he said, had ‘stalked and selected and preyed’, in both England and Italy, to feed his fetish for surreptitiously cutting women’s hair in public places. ‘The same person killed both women and that was the defendant. There were not two random killers.’
Restivo’s explanations relating to the two murders ‘ranged from the absolutely absurd to the ridiculous,’ he argued. And Restivo’s behaviour at Throop Mill in 2004, when under police surveillance as he allegedly spied on women, while in possession of a knife and scissors, was ‘thoroughly sinister, whether he was reliving or rehearsing.’
By 2002, nine years after Elisa’s death, Restivo was lusting to kill again. Forensically aware, all his criminal deeds were methodically planned, said Mr Bowes. ‘The defendant’s approach all along when questioned is that either he can’t remember, or he lies, or he comes up with a ridiculous explanation. He has told lie after lie, but his lies have found him out. There is a reason that all the evidence points to him – it is because it is him.’
Mr Jeremy conceded that his client was ‘a liar and a deeply unattractive oddity’, but that did not make him a killer.
The police had Restivo fingered as the perpetrator years ago and, from then on, according to Mr Jeremy, ‘it was just a matter of amassing the evidence over time’. But this was a dangerous game, he warned. ‘That is the danger of collecting the evidence to fit a theory of guilt.’
Because Restivo had lived most of his adult life as a murder suspect – firstly for the Elisa Claps killing and then for the mutilation of Heather Barnett – this could explain his paranoia complex and ‘victim status’, he reasoned. ‘This is a highly unusual case in which a defendant is charged with the murder of one person but the jury hears evidence of a second murder,’ he said.
The jury had laughed at Restivo when he gave evidence and Mr Jeremy agreed that their mockery was understandable because he had ‘self-destructed’. ‘The jury might come to the conclusion that there was something childlike in Restivo’s conduct, blaming illness for many of his problems and telling lies, often changing his story and exchanging one lie for an even worse one.’
Mr Jeremy accused his opposite number, Mr Bowes, of over-elaborating the evidence. He urged the jury to err on the side of caution, especially DNA evidence recovered from the green towel in Heather Barnett’s flat.
‘You have heard no evidence of violence in his [Restivo’s] history that comes close to identifying him as a murderer. You will make a human judgement of him from his time in the witness box. If you are sure it is him, then you have promised to convict. If you are less than sure, then you have promised to acquit.’
Having a hair-cutting fetish did not make Restivo a killer, he stressed.
In his summing up, the judge, Mr Justice Burnett, told the jury that the evidence relating to Elisa Claps’s murder was relevant to the Heather Barnett crime. The cutting of hair and bras, and the unzipping of trousers and the placement of the victims’ hands amounted to a ‘signature or hallmark of the killer,’ he said. ‘Both bodies had been arranged in a strikingly similar way.’ Cutting people’s hair against their wishes was certainly a crime of assault.
Reminding the jurors of their duty, the judge said it was their decision – and theirs alone – to decide which evidence to accept and what to reject.
Restivo’s marathon stay in the witness box spanned four days ‘and he failed to focus on questions asked of him,’ said the judge. ‘His answers were contradictory and even preposterous, something acknowledged by Mr Jeremy [Restivo’s own counsel]. But he implored the jurors not to ‘throw up their hands in horror and to reject out of hand’ Restivo’s defence. Many of the witnesses, including Restivo, were trying to recall events of many years ago.
‘Murder, mutilation and children coming home to find their mother that way are bound to generate strong feelings, but you must leave emotion aside and make a dispassionate assessment,’ said the judge. ‘You are not bound to accept the arguments of counsels, but you mustn’t speculate.’ He underscored the importance of never forgetting that the burden of proof rested with the prosecution. ‘The defence has to prove nothing. The prosecution must make you sure. If they don’t, then you must acquit.’
For a guilty verdict, the jury had to be confident that ‘three elements’ had been substantiated: (1) that Restivo was the perpetrator; (2) he was acting unlawfully; (3) at the time, he intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm.
To kill lawfully, the perpetrator would have needed to be acting in self-defence, which, said the judge, could be excluded because of the ferocity of the crime and the obvious intent to kill. ‘The only issue to be considered is whether it was the defendant who killed,’ he said.
Much of the evidence was circumstantial, which, said the judge, ‘can be powerful but needs careful examination.’ There was DNA evidence to incriminate Restivo, particularly on the green towel. The bloodstained trainers were within the size-range known to have been worn by the killer, who almost certainly changed his clothes before leaving Heather Barnett’s flat. Restivo was caught changing clothes at Throop Mill, while in possession of a knife very similar to the one used to mutilate Heather. Computer experts demonstrated that Restivo was not at the NACRO centre when he claimed to have been – crucial to his alibi.
If the eye-witness Claire George could be believed, Restivo was seen approaching Capstone Road at 9.20am, just before Heather was murdered, when Restivo insisted he was a few miles away on his NACRO course.
There was a striking similarity between the two murders, with both bodies arranged identically. There was no disputing that Restivo’s DNA was on Elisa’s clothing, but there was a dispute between expert forensic witnesses whether it was saliva or blood. Whichever, the defence maintained that it had been deposited innocently and not while a crime was being perpetrated.
Although convicted in Italy for perjury over Elisa’s murder, in a trial that lasted a month, Restivo claimed that he had been wrongfully convicted.
‘The prosecution says to believe Restivo’s account of his involvement with Elisa on the day she disappeared, she would have to have left the church after meeting Restivo, only to return to the same church a few minutes later with another man, without being seen outside by the people waiting for her.
‘It is also the prosecution case that nine years and 1,000 miles are connected by the hair-cutting fetish. You are entitled to consider all the evidence surrounding both murders. If you look at the whole of the evidence, the only conclusion must be that one person committed both crimes. Was it the defendant or some other person?’
The judge ruled that if the jurors were not certain that Restivo had killed Elisa Claps, then they should disregard all of that evidence and concentrate only on the Heather Barnett issue. This would entail even discounting Restivo’s conviction in Italy.
‘Being a proven liar did not automatically mean that Restivo was also lying when he declared that he was not a murderer,’ said the judge. ‘People lie for different reasons – sometimes to try to emphasise their innocence or perhaps to save themselves from embarrassment. There are also many reasons why a person presents a false alibi. But if there is fabrication without an innocent explanation, then it supports the prosecution case. But a lie can be told to avoid the shame of disgraceful behaviour.’
Mr Justice Burnett advised the jury to apply ‘special caution’ when evaluating evidence of identification, referring specifically to the CCTV footage that appeared to show Restivo approaching the vicinity of Heather Barnett’s home on the morning of the murder. The footage did not reveal the man’s face and witness Claire George made the positive ID merely from the man’s walk and mannerisms. Mrs George had seen Restivo many times in the chemist shop where she worked in Charminster Road, Bournemouth. The judge appealed to the jury to bear in mind the grainy quality of the film. The clip was short and disjointed, and the witness had seen it only once, when it was shown on the Crimewatch programme. ‘Honest witnesses have been known to be mistaken,’ he cautioned.
However, he did say, ‘You may think the defendant lies when it suits him or to fit a story.’
The summing up lasted more than five hours and it was just before 11.00am on the Wednesday of the seventh week that the jurors were finally sent out to consider their verdict.
Five hours later, just before 4.00pm, the jury returned a unanimous ‘guilty’ verdict to an eerily hushed courtroom, where emotions seemed to have been contained and were only released minutes later outside, where the mood was more of relief than of vengeful triumph. Leaving the court huddled together, bonded in grief that had miraculously strengthened them for so many years, rather than weakening them, members of Heather’s family sobbed silently. Daughter Caitlin had been there every day of the trial, saying afterwards, ‘I had to be there for my mum. That day when we came home to such horror has changed me for ever. It’s hard for me to trust people. I was never like this before. My mum was a wonderful, trusting, laughing, friendly person.’
As the verdict was read out, Restivo remained as implacable as he had done from the beginning, standing like a statue.
The judge, maintaining the imperturbable serenity and quiet dignity that he had brought to the trial from day one, quietly thanked the jury for ‘the care’ they had taken and told the jurors that they would be welcome to return the following morning to see and hear sentence being passed.
Outside the court, Supt Mark Cooper said, ‘The conviction of Danilo Restivo comes at the end of a very complex and challenging investigation for Dorset Police that was continuous over an eight-and-a-half-year period. The 12 November 2002 was a very dark day for many people following the brutal murder of Heather Barnett, not least for her family and particularly her children.
‘This was a truly horrendous and distressing murder that took away a person who was very special to so many people. When he took Heather Barnett’s life, he took a large part of many other lives.
‘I believe that this dangerous predator had watched over Heather for some time and carefully planned this horrendous crime.
‘Despite his guilt, Restivo never moved away from his house that looked out on to Heather’s property and, perhaps most chilling of all, he even consoled her two children that afternoon following his cold and calculated actions.’
Dorset’s Crown Prosecutor, Alastair Nisbet, said, ‘The Crown Prosecution Service would like to thank the witnesses who came to the court to give evidence in the course of the trial, including other women whose hair Danilo Restivo had cut without consent, and other members of the public and expert scientific witnesses.
‘Our thoughts are with Heather’s children and her wider family. I hope that this conviction brings some small measure of comfort.’
Heather’s sister, Denise Le Voir, paid her tribute:
Over the eight long years waiting for someone to be charged with Heather’s murder, our greatest fear was that the killer would murder someone else. It is now obvious that Dorset Police shared that concern and we are grateful to the many officers who carefully monitored Restivo’s whereabouts and activity, hour after tedious hour to keep women and young girls in the Bournemouth area safe.
As new tests became available, they were used and new research flowed from the work. We are grateful to the many forensic scientists who have helped to solve the case, including all the backroom staff whose careful work on thousands of tests was represented by the experts who gave evidence in court. And I praise the jurors for having seen through the tissue of self-serving lies from Danilo Restivo.
Heather loved her children very much. She would have been horrified at the cruel and callous way Danilo Restivo designed her murder and mutilation so that her children had to find her body on return from school. She was kind and honest with strong ethical principles which she passed on to her children, Terry and Caitlin. She always worked very hard at whatever she did and built up a business on word of mouth and reputation.
Heather was feisty, had a deep laugh and a wicked sense of humour. Right from the start of the investigation, we were warned by the police that the killer was forensically aware and it was going to take more than Agatha Christie to sole this mystery.
The years since November 2002 have been difficult. But it has also been a time that has brought out the best in countless people, strangers and friends alike. We see ourselves as survivors, not victims, of Danilo Restivo and look forward to continuing our lives safe in the knowledge that this man will be kept away from the public for many years.
Heather was known to her friends as ‘Bunny’. Her father, Denis, a wartime pilot Squadron Leader, sported a large handlebar moustache, a trademark of fighter pilots in those Battle-of-Britain days. Heather was musical and sang in her church choir, often performing solos. The whole family was popular locally because Heather, sister Denise and brothers Jeremy and Ben took part in local pantomimes, with mother Janet cast as principal boy.
A lover of animals, which probably explained her many excursions into the countryside, Heather briefly worked in a veterinary surgery and then in southern France as an au pair. Her one unfulfilled ambition had been to visit New York and see a hit musical on Broadway. But on her return from France, she worked variously as a waitress and in a jeweller’s shop before retraining as a seamstress, which had always been her forte.
During the investigation, the police collected more than 700 statements, 6,200 exhibits and 7,300 documents. During much of the time, the case leader was Det Supt Phil James, until his retirement in 2007, when he was succeeded by his deputy, Mark Cooper. Supt James, like Caitlin, was in court every day. ‘The pressure is always there in a case like this and you can’t help but become emotionally involved because of the circumstances, particularly what was done to Heather and the fact that the children found her,’ he said. ‘Even when I retired, it is still with you.’
His main concern was that Restivo would strike again because James believed that he was a serial killer in the making. ‘It meant at times we had to have him under surveillance 24 hours a day and we had to ensure we had him under control,’ he said after the trial.
Supt James also revealed that he had warned Restivo’s wife several times that she was in danger. After that, she ‘pretty much made sure he did not go out alone, which made our job a bit easier.’ Restivo kept applying for jobs at hospitals in the south of England and the police had to keep intervening, warning of the risks. Eventually, Restivo found employment as a dental technician.
During the trial, there were several telling moments outside the court. After concluding his opening address to the jury, Mr Bowes went into a huddle with his team and police officers and said, rubbing his hands, ‘The jury are locked into this. They are focussed. They get it.’ And just before Mr Jeremy went into court to start the case for the defence, he muttered to a trainee barrister, ‘You will never see a day in court like this again.’
One of the public misunderstandings during the long and complex investigation was why it took until 2008 for the skin-flakes from the green towel in Heather’s flat to be matched to Restivo’s DNA with a 57,000:1 chance of an error. Repeated forensic tests had been conducted on the towel, but it was not until 2008 that forensic scientists had the technique to make the discovery. This was one of the innovative breakthroughs which had been alluded to by Denise Le Voir.
Italian TV journalist Pierangelo Maurizio had been a close observer of the Restivo case right from the day Elisa Claps disappeared. ‘You have to understand the capacity of Danilo Restivo for lying,’ he said. ‘He’s so quiet, so inoffensive, but a criminal who is very able, very clever, very careful. He takes the view that he can kill and then play a game with the police – catch me if you can.’
The brother of Elisa Claps said, ‘In Italy, there were so many things that didn’t work,’ he claimed. ‘The courts didn’t investigate Elisa’s disappearance properly. There are so many people responsible.
‘I have fought because I could not allow injustice. I hated him and I still hate him. Elisa is the last thing we think about before going to sleep and the first thing we think about in the morning. She was a very sweet girl, quite sensitive and maybe she trusted people too much and this is something we always told her not to do.
‘I wanted to stop Restivo harassing her but she didn’t want me to because she had sympathy for him. He couldn’t find friends.’
Restivo was charged with Elisa’s murder and is due to be extradited to Italy for preliminary court hearings in November 2011. But whatever the outcome in Italy, the deal was for him to be returned to the UK to serve his sentence for Heather’s murder, although at a later date an agreement might be reached for him to serve his time in a prison in his homeland.
Before passing sentence on the morning following the trial, Mr Bowes read this statement from Caitlin:
Words cannot really say what happened on 12 November 2002. I screamed out and Terry called 999. He said mum was dead but I could not take it in. My heart had been ripped out and it was months before I could accept she was dead.
We lived in a hotel for a while and then with friends and family, including Denise. I love my brother dearly and he took the role of my protector. My school was wonderful and they tried to help.
I want to be known for who I am, not the daughter of a murder victim. What happened forced me to grow up more quickly.
I will never get the chance to say I love her [Heather] or how I miss her. My home has been taken away and I’ve never been back.
I have chosen not to be a victim. I want my mum to be proud of me and Terry. If I had the power I would lock him [Restivo] away for the rest of his life. I came to court to see justice done.
The judge told Restivo that the evidence of guilt had been ‘overwhelming’. He continued, ‘The evidence proves without doubt that you murdered Elisa Claps as well. I approach the sentencing as if you have killed before. You went to Heather’s house to kill her and mutilate her. You cut her throat. You had a change of clothing to minimise forensic contamination.
‘You arranged the body in a very similar way to that of Elisa Claps. You cut Heather’s hair and left it, just like Elisa.
‘There is no doubt that your motivation was in part sexual. You set up an alibi in advance. Your alibi was demolished by the weight of evidence.
‘You knew two children would find the butchered body of their mother. “Inhuman depravity” is an apt description. You are a cold, depraved and calculating killer. You unleashed destructive forces on the whole family.’
And the judge’s final words to Restivo are an appropriate conclusion to this extraordinary but truly chilling insight into the darkest side of human nature: ‘In my judgement, there is no minimum term to be set. You will never be released. Take him down.’
As Mr Jeremy had said to his trainee, ‘You will never see a day like this in court again.’