When, in 2009, Brian Thornton, senior lecturer in journalism at Winchester University, took an interest in the case, Dai Morris’ luck appeared to have taken a turn for the better. Thornton, who is closely involved with the Winchester Innocence Project,* obtained Morris’ case files from his former solicitors and started working through them with his students. What he has discovered so far is little short of astounding.
In forensic tests carried out at the crime scene, Thornton’s team discovered documents that showed DNA had been discovered at 9 Kelvin Road. Male DNA was found in a number of locations throughout the property; also on the murder weapon, the two spent matches used to start the fires, the silver watch placed on Mandy Power’s wrist, and even on the clothes she was wearing at the time she was attacked and killed. Furthermore, basic-level DNA testing indicated that all the items revealed traces of cells with the male, Y chromosome, though none of the DNA found matched that of Dai Morris.
The scene of crimes officer consulted by the author was right when she said, ‘in a crime of this brutality “Tracking down and eliminating every bit of biological debris left behind would have been impossible, even for the cleverest criminal”.’ This dispels completely any notion put forward by South Wales Police that Morris had wiped away all traces of his DNA and fingerprints, or that he was forensically aware.
A more advanced test, known as Y-STR analysis, was, astonishingly, never carried out, even though this would have confirmed conclusively whether or not DNA found on the items came from Dai Morris. Instead, items that did not reveal male DNA were subjected to Y-STR analysis which, inevitably, revealed nothing at all.
The Y-STR analysis, which would have conclusively eliminated or incriminated Morris, could and should have been carried out immediately after his arrest. Yet not only was the test not carried out, but the very existence of the discovery of male DNA discovered in 9 Kelvin Road not belonging to Morris was never even mentioned at either of his trials.
What might the effect have been upon either of the Swansea or Newport Crown Court juries in 2002 and then again in 2006, had they been made aware of this crucial piece of evidence? Male DNA was found all over the crime scene, and even on the murder weapon itself, but none of it belonged to Dai Morris. Would they have twice brought in a guilty verdict, or might this evidence have introduced an element of doubt leading to Morris’ acquittal? South Wales Police had this evidence in its possession within three weeks of the murders and they knew its likely effect upon a jury. But they were determined to convict, and it was no doubt for this reason that they chose not to reveal its existence.
Morris’ case for innocence is reinforced by his insistence to his legal team that he be given the conclusive Y-STR test because he insists he has nothing to fear.
Three weeks after the murders, when addressing reporters, Martin Lloyd-Evans told them: ‘the killer may have been male or female, and that more than one person could have been involved.’ Forensic scientist Claire Galbraith also expressed her opinion that the killings ‘might have involved more than one attacker. Since the killer took the precaution of wearing a sock over at least one hand whilst wielding the murder weapon, it is clear that he or she was aware of the type of incriminating evidence which might be found, leading to their identity becoming known. Why, then, was male DNA found on so many items including matches, the silver watch and the murder weapon? Was it because the murderer had decided to set fire to the house and assumed that all trace evidence – DNA and fingerprints – would be destroyed? Or could it be that the DNA belonged to an accomplice? This second person, a man, may have helped out with the clean-up operation, and might have been confident that fire would cover all evidence remaining, or he was not forensically aware, or he was simply careless? Only further investigation on this point will tell.
Another significant discovery made by Brian Thornton and his team was that the police had tampered with evidence from the police HOLMES database (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System). This is an information technology system used mainly in the investigation of major crimes, such as rape, grievous bodily harm (GBH) and murder. He discovered that the text from several thousand pages of records emanating from HOLMES, some containing crucial information, had been cut and pasted into Notepad (a Microsoft application) where they could be – and were subsequently – altered.
One such document – Message 23 – was entered into the HOLMES system the day after the murders. It came into the murder inquiry incident room from a detective and read as follows: ‘I’ve just been contacted by an informant [David ‘Pancho’ Powell] who stated that he knew Mandy Power and she was gay and she has been drinking in Farmers PH [public house] Clydach. Informant stated three weeks ago he overheard conversation Mandy was having with 2 females who stated that her and her kids had been threatened by her current lover’s husband who was a police officer.’
The informant Powell, a neighbour of Mandy Power, later gave another statement in which he said: ‘I questioned her as to the threats and she said… “This person has threatened to do us in”. She definitely said “Do us in”. I took that to mean to beat her and her daughters up. I advised her about going to the police, but she stated “I can’t”. Mandy then went on to explain that she was involved in a relationship with another woman and that it was this woman’s partner who made the threats.’
But the cut and pasted version of Message 23 – known as Action 92 – stated: ‘source of information stating that Mandy Power [was] being threatened’. It did not identify the person making the threats, nor give the reason why they were made.
The recent discovery of this evidence suggested that not only was the man on trial innocent, but that South Wales Police knew from the outset that he was.
The results of Brian Thornton’s five-year investigation and incredible findings were publicised by journalist David Rose in The Mail on Sunday on 23 November 2014.† The article provoked a storm of protest at the police handling of the case and, as a result, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) agreed to launch an investigation into the claims. Their investigation – which was said to be fast-tracked – took over two years to complete. It concluded on 30 June 2017 when Morris’ lawyers were given provisional notice that his case was unlikely to be sent for appeal on the existing evidence, and that it was ‘not suitable for hearing’. A CCRC spokesman made it clear that this was not a final decision.
But this surprising turn of events is not necessarily the end of the line. Morris’ lawyers were given two months to submit further information if they think it may influence the decision of the CCRC, although this period of time may be extended.
Whichever course his lawyers choose to take, whether it be acquiescence to the decision of the CCRC, which seems unlikely, or to continue with the fight, one thing remains certain: Dai Morris will continue to protest his innocence.
As this account of the murder investigation shows, the evidence in favour of the defence is convincing, and the case for a miscarriage of justice is overwhelming. Meanwhile, Dai Morris, now 55, waits patiently in prison, hoping that one day his freedom will be granted. But prisoners who refuse to admit their guilt are punished for it. They serve longer prison terms and receive fewer privileges, less time out of their cells, fewer visits from family, reduced or no daily access to the gym. The prison service states ‘minimisation of offending and denial of offending are good indicators of continuing risk,’ so prisoners lose their parole opportunities also, with no expectation or hope of early release.
The pressure on an innocent prisoner to admit guilt is enormous, yet this is the stony path that Dai Morris has chosen. He says: I’ll stay here for the rest of my life, if that’s what it takes, because I will not admit to something I didn’t do.’
In his closing address to the jury at the Swansea Crown Court trial in 2002, Peter Rouch QC memorably told them: ‘Some cases cry out for a motive, they scream out for a motive, and this is one of them.’ But the case of David George Morris is far more than that. His is a case that screams out for justice.
Notes
* A BA Journalism student organisation at Winchester University which investigates alleged cases of wrongful imprisonment and, where appropriate, seeks to overturn convictions. See: www.innocencenetwork.org.uk
† www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2845510/Who-REALLY-murdered-married-WPC-s-lesbian-lover.html