The role of the SIO is amongst the hardest in the UK police service. The senior investigating officer is responsible for the sound, professional investigation of major crimes such as murder and bringing the guilty to court. That in itself is hard enough, but they also have to manage the resources of the investigation, in particular the cost. I always found this an incredibly difficult conflict of responsibilities with huge potential for allegations of corner cutting and failing to fully investigate.
It is the nature of policing in the UK that detectives develop and rise, some to lofty ranks, and there is a steady and constant turnover at the top. When you have been around for some time and move on you often hear that a former colleague, one you knew when they were young, is now the senior detective and running the show. Life at the top is short as retirement quickly approaches and allows for the promotion of those below. Such is the cycle. A lot of talent is lost.
It is easy to remember colleagues as they were in their youth, rather than see what they have learned and become in the intervening years. Many may think of me that way. But I like to think we are all wiser, more mature and, above all, more experienced.
Brian Woodfield, in 1993 a detective chief inspector with Surrey Police, was one such colleague who rose, rightly, to the top of his trade. I didn’t know him as a young officer although I heard stories about him. Like all of us, Brian was from humble hard-working stock. His mentor at the time I knew him was Pat Crossan, a detective superintendent and very much from the same school. Both had a steely, determined approach. Brian appeared a little less caring than Pat. It often strikes me that there is a loftiness, an arrogance, in some officers, but it is really the air of authority which the police officer, and more importantly, the detective must display to get to the truth. With Pat Crossan and Brian Woodfield that shield hid a deeply compassionate and practical side. These men would do their job and ensure that everyone around did theirs.
Brian strongly led his investigations and there were times when I had to advise caution or restraint. He always listened, and then he made his mind up, after all it was his investigation, he was in charge. When a key piece of evidence was found during a scene investigation he would shout, ‘Get it down the lab!’ It became quite a catch phrase. He even let slip that once, in the middle of the night, he woke up shouting it out aloud, to the dismay of his wife. He was passionate about his work and I liked that.
It was, however, something else which Brian said which has stuck with me. He regularly used just two words, which are the finest I have heard any investigator use. They were polite and targeted. He would say, ‘Show me.’ He would use them in investigations and they became particularly important when reviewing the work or cases of others.
In late August 1993, I was on a visit to the police National Training Centre for Scientific Support to Crime Investigation (NTCSSCI) in Durham, when I got a call from the east Surrey division. It was from Danny Finnerty, who was the duty crime scene manager. Danny was from the other side of the county and had taken the first call to this incident. The body of a man, naked and covered in a white powder, had been found. Danny was a very talented and capable professional, but he was under pressure from the officer in the case, Detective Chief Inspector Brian Woodfield. I often thought that I must have worked with a more professional and demanding detective than him, but I would have trouble remembering when. Until I remembered Pat Crossan of course.
Brian was directing the investigation at the scene with Danny struggling to assert his professional knowledge on the management of the scene. The role of the crime scene manager was very much in its evolution at that time, and there was no way Brian Woodfield wasn’t going to control every aspect of the case, especially the scene. I didn’t want that situation to change. After all the buck stops with the SIO. But with a little delegation on his part, I knew that his lot would be easier and he would get the answers he wanted.
In later years, it was conceivable that highly motivated, dynamic and capable SIOs such as Brian Woodfield would be kept out of the scene for much, if not all, of the time it was being examined. It is not a situation I support. Whereas the scene can be photographed and videoed, the presence of the SIO is important for them to understand the dynamics and layout of the scene from a first-hand perspective.
Certainly the practice had improved from when detectives would go into the scene unprotected and then call for the scenes of crime personnel. By this time we had persuaded them to withhold the presence of any detective officer until a path had been cleared from the outer cordon to the body. Usually only one detective (the SIO) would enter at that time with the pathologist.
In all cases it is important for a medical practitioner, with the skills and authority to determine and confirm that the deceased is, in fact, dead, to attend. Confirming a time at which life is no longer present is a matter of coroner law. I never wasted a moment in allowing a doctor into the scene where this was in any doubt. In those cases I would ensure that the doctor was quickly briefed to certify death with as little disturbance as possible and dispatch them inside unimpeded. It would then be necessary to deal with any aspect of their contamination of the scene or vice versa. I felt that if I was not sure the victim was dead any delay could cause a seriously injured victim to die when they could have been saved. I would have felt responsible if a victim had died on the way to the hospital, and I would have been heavily criticised by the coroner. My view was not always readily accepted by those embryo crime scene managers who I taught much later at NTCSSCI Durham, but I remain convinced of it to this day.
Later still, the presence of any officer, specialist scientist, medical or other expert would be based on a need identified as the investigation and scene examination developed. The scene would be managed by a crime scene manager whose responsibility came from the SIO.
Back at this scene Danny had done an excellent job by ignoring the obvious route in and out of the scene, preferring instead to cut a new path through some undisturbed vegetation straight to the body. It allowed the obvious and likely route of the offender to be examined at a more steady and professional pace.
The decision about whether the incident looks like murder, an accident or suicide is not always easy and, in any event, requires investigation. The scene which confronted Danny Finnerty and Brian Woodfield was probably easy to judge but they took all the right steps. The body was that of a naked male lying in a clearing behind some bushes, ten yards from a country road. The body was covered in a fine white powder. It would be an understatement to say it looked suspicious. If it were a suicide it would be a bizarre one.
The police had been called to the scene by two men, working in a landfill site in Redhill. They had been working for a few days by the perimeter fence. On the day in question they had noticed a mound of white powder which had appeared on the other side of the fence. During a break they walked out of the gate, around to the country lane adjacent to the site. What they discovered there was the naked body of the deceased and the white powder covering him.
After securing a common approach path from the perimeter to the body, Iain West, a distinguished Home Office pathologist entered the scene with the SIO and CSM. The scene was extensively photographed. A sample of the powder was taken at Brian Woodfield’s request and immediately dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Aldermaston. Iain suggested the powder was lime as it had been in one of his first cases some thirty years before. The powder was confirmed as lime within a day. Brian Woodfield also ordered that soil samples should be taken from around the body. If he had a reason for this he didn’t explain it to Danny, who by then was doing as he was told. I later asked Danny Finnerty for what purpose they were taken, the reply being because the SIO had said so.
The post mortem revealed that the man had been stabbed. A tattoo on his body was recorded and circulated to police forces for comparison with missing persons reports. When an individual is reported missing by concerned relatives or friends it is normal to take a description which would include height, weight, hair, eye colour and any distinguishing features such as scars, birthmarks or tattoos. Other items such as the clothing they were wearing, along with any jewellery, may help their identification. The police record these details and circulate them to other stations and forces. Nowadays, obtaining a sample of potential DNA would be extremely useful. That would have to come from a hairbrush or wristband of a watch strap. That technology had yet to be invented in 1993. We had to rely on simpler methods to identify our victim but the tattoo gave us a great chance, provided that had been recorded somewhere. We were in luck. The victim was quickly identified as a man from south London who had been missing for four weeks.
Brian Woodfield rather cunningly and independently asked Iain West how long the victim had been dead. It was an interesting question to test the reliability of expert opinion and how that might appear in evidence. It was an open question so carefully delivered that the importance of the reply may have been overlooked by many, but not Brian. Iain’s reply was five weeks. Brian of course already knew by that stage that the victim had only been missing for four weeks. We would have to look at what Iain based his opinion on.
I returned to Surrey and reviewed the scene investigation with Martin Gaule (the crime scene manager for the east Surrey division which included the Redhill area), who had accompanied me to Durham.
A key investigative question emerged. It was, ‘How long has the deceased been there?’ The importance of this was to narrow down the investigation to a shorter period of time than the four weeks between him going missing and the discovery of his body. It might indicate a shorter time frame for potential witnesses to the dumping of the body and indicate for how long he was kept (dead or alive) at another or other locations. Two other things had also been determined. The first was that he had been dead for most, if not all, of the four weeks and he had not been killed here.
Other matters were also determined in the first few days of the investigation. The body had been covered in fifty-four kilogrammes of industrial-quality lime, calcium hydroxide (with traces of calcium carbonate), the sort used as in the farming industry. The deceased had also lost weight, some five or six kilogrammes at least since he went missing. In fact it was later suggested that the lime had probably drawn water from his body (and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to increase its mass), causing the deceased to lose weight after he was dead.
The problem remained. How could we determine how long the body had been at the scene? I suggested we might be able to determine how long the lime had been there by its effect on its surroundings. I assumed that the body and the lime were put there at the same time. It was a good assumption because although there had been a small amount of animal interest in the body, this was limited to an exposed area covered with only a thin layer of lime. Even this would have been bitter and unpleasant to the most determined fox looking for food. It remained an assumption, however, and so was documented as such as we pursued this line of enquiry. If that assumption proved to be wrong a later review would identify the error and allow further, more appropriate, investigations to be made. That was the purpose of recording the nature of the assumption.
We could also try entomology (the science of bugs and flies and the like). This can be used as a timeline by determining the age and development of bugs against known charts of rate of growth and temperature. Unfortunately, the lime not only deterred foxes but insects too. If it had been the intention of whoever dumped the body to use the lime to cause its rapid decay, it had quite the opposite effect. It prevented decomposition by deterring the natural course of nature and, in fact, preserved the body for us.
To confirm this and close it as a line of enquiry, I tried to contact the two leading experts in forensic entomology. It was August and they were both out of the country on holiday. I confirmed my approach by phone and followed it up with a statement to close that avenue when one had returned.
I reviewed the crime scene photos and began to think how we could determine the time presence of the lime. The first potential method was to determine the change in acidity of the soil, as lime is a strong alkali. I took advice from Pam Hamer, a forensic chemist and former colleague at the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory. I had a huge amount of respect for Pam and knew she would understand what I was trying to do. It would require core samples to a depth of one or two metres and a record of the rainfall over the past four weeks. It might not work but it was worth a try. I found a company that took core soil samples and arranged for them to visit the scene where they took a dozen or so samples from the area where the body was found and control samples from the surrounding area. It only cost some tens of pounds for all the samples, taken under the supervision of a crime scene manager and team to ensure the correct documentation and integrity of the sampling.
As it happened we didn’t have to use the soil samples, though it had been prudent to quickly secure them. In my conversation with Pam Hamer, I had asked about the effect of lime (an agricultural chemical) on the vegetation. Neither of us knew where to start but came to the conclusion that the National Botanical Gardens at Kew was a good start. So that was my next port of call. Two or three calls followed as each person passed me on to someone else. My fifth call was to a gentleman at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods. He was a soil chemist although he preferred the title of agricultural engineer. The important thing was that his life’s work and expert subject was the effect of chemicals on vegetation. Bingo. By absolute chance he was based in Guildford, our county town, but he could have been anywhere in the country as far as I was concerned, I had found someone who could help us.
I carefully briefed him as to my position and responsibility and the question I needed to answer. Could he determine how long the lime had been there given the conditions I had described? In briefing someone who is an expert in a particular field but not accustomed to the demands, requirements and niceties of the criminal justice system it is important to lay out some ground rules for his protection and our integrity. I didn’t want him to stray off his subject and say things which he could not back up.
I did this by telling him the circumstances of the discovery of the body and the confidential nature of our enquiry. I gave him the results of the laboratory examination of the powder and its quantity. I informed him I could show him the scene photographs taken on the day the body was found and arrange for him to visit the scene which was by now a week old. I explained to him that I would like him to observe the photographs and interpret them for us if he could. How long had the lime had been there? If he could he would have to demonstrate on what basis he was making his observations and show any published scientific material which would support them. Wherever possible he should state what is fact and what is opinion based on his experience and expertise. I made notes of my briefing and arranged for Martin Gaule to take the scene photographs straight to him.
The reply and statement I got from Martin and our man was immediately encouraging. He described the four or so types of vegetation (grasses and ferns) surrounding the body and lime, each by their scientific name. He particularly noted one or two key types and suggested their documented growth rate. He then observed that the grasses on the edge of the lime were still depressed and suggested that the grasses had not regenerated and pushed through the lime in search of light. Based on this observation of the photograph and his knowledge it was his opinion that the lime had been there for no more than seven days.
This was a very good start. We had already whittled the time the body was dumped from four to one week. There was more to come.
Martin took our man to the scene with one of our forensic photographers. He surveyed the environment and confirmed the vegetation types. There were still some traces of the powder in the soil and grass. Now, based on this confirmation, and the regenerated growth that was now occurring at the scene, and on his observation and knowledge, it was his opinion that the lime had been there for no more than two days. This was a breakthrough.
It corroborated the observations of the two workmen, with some sound reproducible scientific evidence. It meant that investigators could target motorists who had travelled along the road in a two day period and who may have seen something suspicious. It meant that investigative time was not wasted trying to take statements from all the motorists who had driven that route in a four-week period. This line of enquiry had been useful and helped focus the investigation as it developed.
The overall investigation was soon transferred to the Metropolitan Police in London, based on rules agreed by chief police officers. It is governed by where the major part of the investigation lies. Although Surrey had the crime scene, it was in reality merely the dump site and that could have been anywhere. It was determined that the Met had the majority of the enquiries which had to be made based on the business and social affairs of the deceased.
I prepared a hand-over report for the SIO on all matters which the scientific support department had undertaken and then briefed my counterpart in London and the new SIO with Brian Woodfield.
Some years later, after lengthy extradition matters, a man stood trial for the murder. As for the lime and why the perpetrator(s) had used it, we never found out. It was probably a matter of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Lime had been used to cover bodies in plague pits in earlier centuries. Its purpose was to stop the spread of disease. Contrary to common belief it does not cause decomposition, but quite the opposite: it preserves the body by deterring the normal course of nature.
I also reflected on how we managed the investigation process. Did I use the scientific support staff to their best potential? These were still early days in the development of my management of the process and not just how we supported the investigation. Danny Finnerty had been the first crime scene manager to respond to the scene, but he was not a member of the local team. He dealt with the first few hours and in reality that seemed to be a good formula without having the local manager on call all the time. I was concerned that on my return to the county, I had asked Martin Gaule (the local CSM) to take over from Danny. I didn’t want Danny to feel that he was being replaced for some negative reason, which was not the case. Danny had done an excellent job, but I had to plan. I would have to learn how to get the best out of people and there is not only a need for continuity but also perhaps local knowledge, not least knowing the facilities and resources immediately to hand. In the future, as far as possible I would use the local team to respond and see a case through. Outsiders, particularly those on call, would be the first responders, but the local team with their relationship with local officers and detectives, I decided, would be best placed and motivated to see a case of local interest through. Keeping the local team out only demoralised the team. When a big case broke I would use outside personnel to fill in behind the local team for the day-to-day work, whilst they handled the big case.
Whilst I was busy with the nuts and bolts of supporting the investigation with the scientific team there was one aspect of the case which presented a wonderful opportunity and I offer it as a final reflection. It often amuses me. It is the only case I know of where the offenders themselves helped preserve the scene for the police.