Satish Sekar holds a BA Hons. degree in Sociology. A freelance journalist since 1990, his work has appeared in The Guardian and The Independent and has been used by television and radio stations throughout England and Wales. The Lynette White/Cardiff Three case was the first case he worked on; since then, he has worked on several cases, many of which have succeeded. Currently, Mr. Sekar is working on a paper on DNA databasing.  Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry is his first book; it may be obtained by writing to Mr. Sekar. See Archives for other articles by Mr. Sekar. Direct correspondence to Satish Sekar or to editor@lifeloom.com. The Price of Justice – Part One: The Case of Neil Sayers

Introduction:

            It is difficult to establish precisely what happened on the night of May 13th-14th 1998. A young man, Russell Crookes - a student at Hadlow Agricultural College - was never seen alive after that night. His ‘best’ friends Neil Sayers and Graham Wallis - also students at the college - would admit to being the last people to see Russell alive. Nearly two weeks later Crookes’ mutilated, partially burned and decomposing body would be discovered in a shallow grave in woods that belonged to the college.

            According to the first accounts of both Wallis and Sayers, the three young men had gone out after dusk on May 13th to different woods that were also owned by the college as they had often done before. This time they were keen to avoid a ball at the college. They said that they stayed there hanging out together until well after the ball had ended. Both Sayers and Wallis then said that after an argument they all returned to their student accommodation at Hadlow Agricultural College. At about 4.00 in the morning they saw the lights go on in Crookes’ room. They never saw him alive again. Nor did anyone else. For seven years Sayers has never deviated from that account. The same cannot be said for Wallis.

            But these were friendships that would prove the adage: with friends like these who needs enemies? Either, both Sayers and Wallis cynically betrayed Crookes’ friendship at the cost of his life, or Wallis maliciously betrayed both his so-called friends, killing one and framing the other for the murder.

            Two days after Crookes’ disappearance a missing person’s inquiry initiated by Crookes’ father Malcolm began. Both Sayers and Wallis took part in searches and appealed for Crookes’ safe return in the media. Both participating in the searches and the appeals for Crookes’ safe return would later be used as evidence of Sayers’ hypocrisy and lies. It is beyond the scope of this article to examine all the evidence that was presented to the jury at Maidstone Crown Court in 1999. The aim of this article is to examine the scientific evidence in this case. That includes what the jury was told and also what it was not informed about. It will also demonstrate how evidence that could have been important was missed and outline some possibilities for retrieving the situation even now.

The Murder Inquiry Begins:

            In the morning of May 26th 1998 Graham Hilton was walking his dog. He saw human remains buried in a shallow grave in a depression. He went home and called the police. The copse that contained the grave would come to be referred to as Scene One. The cadaver was teeming with maggots – an issue we shall return to later. It had been partially burned and it had been mutilated. There was also decomposition damage. Two hundred metres away, across a field, was another woods of significance. Referred to as Scene Two, this was where the murder occurred and also the unsuccessful attempt to destroy the body by burning it.

            The remains would be identified as those of Russell Crookes through DNA testing. This consisted of testing the toothbrush from his room and obtaining that of his parents and brother. DNA was subsequently obtained from the body and compared with those samples. It established that subject to a random match statistic of 1:23 million, the remains were those of Russell Crookes. Fingerprints taken from the body were matched with prints from items in Crookes’ room as well. The inquiry proceeded on the basis that the remains that had been discovered in the makeshift grave were indeed those of Russell Crookes.

            Sayers and Wallis were the last people to admit to having seen Crookes alive. It was natural that the murder inquiry would begin with them. Both Sayers and Wallis were arrested the day after the body was discovered. Wallis quickly confessed, but it was more an accusation against Sayers than an admission of his own guilt. Wallis’ credibility was clearly going to be an important issue at trial. This was acknowledged by lead counsel for the Crown, Charles Miskin QC in his opening address to the jury at Sayers’ trial. It was a case where some scientific evidence was obtained, but there were other validated techniques that were never utilised. Perhaps difficulties in the adversarial system could explain why some of that evidence was not obtained, but the result was that evidence that could have resolved important issues was never obtained.

            Budgetary concerns may also have played a part in the police’s failure to secure such evidence. In 1998 it was not standard practice for experts to do anything more than follow the instructions that they were given by police. Now experts would suggest other courses of action that may assist. This is a development that must be welcomed. It should also be pointed out that while seven years may not seem like a long time, in terms of recent developments in forensic science it is almost an entirely different era. As will be shown below reconstructing the fire was difficult, but possible in 1998. In 2005 it is still difficult, but not as difficult and it would now involve techniques that were not available at the time. This is a key issue as it was in practice the only means of testing Wallis’ account of the fire against scientific evidence. Today this would involve new evidence that could not have been obtained back in 1998, but it would be quite wrong to presume that it was not possible to obtain useful evidence from a reconstruction in 1998.

            But these problems were not confined to fire-related issues. There were other techniques such as forensic entomology that was not allowed realise their potential as neither Kent Police, nor Sayers’ defence lawyers at trial saw fit to instruct a forensic entomologist. This was a major failing as in 1998 entomology offered the best prospect of establishing the post-mortem interval. Nevertheless, the decision on whether to instruct such an expert was a matter for Kent Police to decide.

Operational Independence and the Use of Forensic Science:

            Once it was established that a crime had been committed Kent Police began their investigation of the murder of Russell Crookes. They had operational control over the conduct of the investigation and decide not only which scientific techniques they want to utilise if any, but also whether to seek expert advice on which techniques could assist their enquiries. The police cannot be compelled to conduct every test possible to test their own case. Nor should they be. If such a requirement existed the financial burden would be onerous and the workload for forensic scientists would become impossible to cope with. It would also be of limited if any importance in many cases. Consequently, it would be an unjustifiable waste of public resources in such cases. And it would mean that other priorities for policing would be deprived of the resources needed to tackle those priorities. Clearly, hard decisions on which tests if any should be conducted and which items require testing have to be taken. These decisions have to be made on a case-by-case, sample-by-sample basis, but in cases where such testing could resolve important issues there ought to be a mechanism to ensure that such tests are conducted either by the police or by the defence.

            The alternative is for the truth to fall between the two stools of prosecution and defence convenience in circumstances where the jury could have been provided with evidence that would have assisted their deliberations. The case of Neil Sayers appears to be one that could have benefited from various scientific techniques, but neither Kent Police, nor his defence lawyers at trial obtained such evidence let alone utilised it. And this in a case where it should have been obvious that forensic science had an important part to play, or rather, should have done.

            However, police have access to expert advice to ensure that investigative opportunities are not missed. As we shall see there were many opportunities to test the veracity of Graham Wallis. Kent Police did not take them, although they may not have been aware of the possibilities. This is a pity as the National Crime and Operations Faculty (NCOF) was established in 1995 after a recommendation in the Byford Report into failings in the case of the Yorkshire Ripper. It exists as a central support to police to help ensure that they do not miss investigative opportunities. This case was exactly the sort of crime that it was set up for. Consequently, the NCOF could have advised them of techniques that could have assisted them if any. Had they consulted the NCOF, the decision on whether to take that advice would still have been made by the police. They had nothing to lose and possibly much to gain by consulting the NCOF. Sadly they chose not to do so and possible investigative opportunities were lost. That is a great pity.

            It was not the police’s job to test Wallis’ account until they proved Sayers innocent or guilty beyond any doubt. They had to investigate the crime and supply the evidence to the Crown who had to prove Sayers’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was their choice on whether to use techniques such as forensic entomology or seek advice from the NCOF on which techniques could assist. They chose to proceed without such advice. That is their right, but it begs the question of why they would choose to do without such advice when the NCOF was specifically established to assist in complicated cases such as this? The Crown’s case relied on the evidence of Graham Wallis. There was other circumstantial evidence against Sayers, but the scientific evidence was not as unequivocal as the jury were led to believe.

The Only Physical Evidence Against Sayers:

            DNA evidence was obtained from the front of the right sleeve of Sayers’ jacket, although only one area tested yielded a DNA profile, using Second Generation Multiplex (SGM) [see footnote 1] Short Tandem Repeats (STR) typing, the DNA testing system then in use. There was staining, presumed to be blood, towards the cuff. It was said to be airborne staining rather than smeared staining. Sayers used it as a work jacket. It was tested for peroxidase-like activity - used as a presumptive test for blood. The results were positive. It was then DNA tested. The results indicated that DNA consistent with that of Russell Crookes was on the sleeve. This was the only direct scientific evidence against Sayers. But it was far from damning. The Crown’s case was that it proved that Crookes’ blood had been discovered on Sayers’ jacket, but as will be shown shortly this was not accurate. Yet, even if it was true, this was not damning, as the shedding of blood cannot be timed by scientific methods. And there were other interpretations that were equally consistent with the results obtained.

            The samples had not been tested to establish whether the peroxidase-like activity came from blood and if it did, that the blood was human. Despite the availability of tests that could resolve both issues those tests were not conducted. Sayers and Crookes often used to engage in play-fights that involved putting each other in headlocks. This was consistent with Crookes’ saliva having been on the right sleeve towards the cuff. That could account for the discovery of Crookes’ DNA on the jacket, but what about the positive reaction for peroxidase-like activity?

            The particular test used – Kastle/Meyer Reagent testing – is known to produce false positives because it detects peroxidase-like activity rather than blood. Certain plants and other substances produce positive reactions, although the strength of the reactions is an indicator as to whether the substance is likely to be blood. Nevertheless a haemochromogen test could have established whether the material was blood or not. Consequently, although it may be unlikely, the possibility that the results of the peroxidase-like activity test and DNA testing can be explained as a mixture of a substance producing a false positive and Crookes’ saliva has never been eliminated. It should never have come to this.

            Furthermore, the possibility that animal blood and Crookes’ saliva mixing could explain the results is even more interesting as it would explain the strength of the reactions in the Kastle/Meyer Reagent test as well. Human specific probes were used in the DNA testing. It is possible that animal DNA was present but wasn’t detected during the test. The absence of a peak indicating animal DNA means nothing more than that it was not detected, not that it had never been there. It is possible to resolve these issues even now with animal specific DNA testing, or by precipitin tests, which are species specific. This could and should have been done in 1998.

            In the course of work on farms Sayers came into contact with injured animals and had to dispose of the carcasses of some small animals and birds. Consequently, this might well have been an important avenue for his defence to thoroughly research. As with much else they failed to do so despite instructing an expert to consider related issues. Their expert could also have been asked to consider whether the distribution pattern of the substances that gave a positive reaction for peroxidase-like activity was consistent with carrying injured or deceased animals or birds. Sadly, Dr. James Walker, a DNA expert instructed by Sayers’ defence lawyers at trial, was never asked to consider these issues, even though he hinted at this possibility in his report.

            Dr. Walker conducted his own DNA test on the relevant area of the sleeve. It confirmed the results obtained by the police’s DNA expert, Valerie Tomlinson. Walker pointed out that the DNA result could have been caused by saliva and that other alleged blood staining on the jacket could have been animal blood. But further tests were not carried out. He presumed that tests to establish whether the staining was blood and if so whether it was human had been carried out. Since Sayers’ conviction it has been established that the tests to confirm that it was blood staining and that such staining was human in origin had not been carried out by experts instructed by Kent Police. Sadly Sayers’ defence lawyers did not pursue the matter to establish this, let alone get such tests conducted. They also chose not to call Dr. Walker. Consequently, a potentially useful line of enquiry was not pursued. It would also have been possible to investigate the saliva issue by conducting a test for amylase such as the Phadebas test. Sadly neither police, nor Sayers’ defence did so. The jury was not informed that the Crown had failed to establish that the staining on Sayers’ jacket was Russell Crookes blood, or that it was human blood, or that it was blood at all in circumstances where it was both easy to resolve and relatively cheap.

            These issues could and arguably should have been resolved at trial. At the very least it suggests that the Crown placed too much emphasis on the significance of the DNA evidence and Sayers’ defence lawyers allowed them to do so in circumstances where it was known that other possible explanations for the blood evidence existed. Either the Crown or defence could have had the samples tested further to establish whether saliva was present or whether blood was present and if so, whether that blood was human. Neither the police nor Sayers’ defence saw fit to do so at trial. It is possible that both preferred to thrive in the area of uncertainty left by incomplete testing. The Crown could imply that blood belonging to Crookes had been found on Sayers’ jacket and the defence could argue otherwise without the jury knowing that further tests could have resolved the issues. It appears that the truth has fallen between the needs of Crown and defence not to disprove their own hypothesis, although Sayers’ defence failed to pursue their hypothesis effectively.

            Dr. Walker had indicated the possibility of animal blood, but he was not called to give evidence, as one of the Crown’s forensic scientists acknowledged the possibility. However, Sayers’ defence failed to present evidence that he had contact with the blood of various animals and birds. They also failed to present evidence of the headlocks that could have explained the presence of saliva in the relevant place. Such evidence could have established that there was a realistic possibility that animal blood and Crookes’ saliva had mixed. That could have been argued without conducting the tests that could have resolved the issue, if uncertainty was preferred.

            However, there ought to be a way to ensure that juries are presented with all the evidence they require to reach true verdicts. If trials are to become a search for the truth, then this type of uncertainty should not and must not be tolerated, especially as it could have been resolved both easily and cheaply by either the police or Sayers’ defence. It still can.

            Sayers’ lawyers had the opportunity to present this issue far more effectively at trial. Dr. Walker could have been asked how the results could be explained, and having been alerted to the issue of whether confirmation tests had been done Sayers’ defence could have sought clarification. If they had done so, they would have discovered that the Crown could not prove that Crookes’ blood was on Sayers’ jacket, as they could not prove that it was blood, let alone human blood.

            Sayers’ current defence lawyers [footnote 2] intend to have the samples tested again to resolve these issues. Unfortunately it is unlikely that amylase would be detected on the sample now even if it had been there in May 1998, meaning that it may not be possible to establish whether saliva had been on the jacket. Nevertheless, there is still a chance and such tests could be conducted even now. This could establish if there was saliva on the sleeve of that jacket, although the test is relatively insensitive and interpretation of the results might depend on the shape of any stain - the saliva test itself cannot distinguish between Sayers’ own saliva and that of Crookes.

            Yet there is even more compelling evidence that could have been obtained from Sayers’ jacket - evidence that sadly never saw the light of day in Maidstone Crown Court. The murder of Russell Crookes was a violent and cowardly act that involved more than twenty stab wounds. The Crown’s case was that Sayers was wearing that jacket. It had not been cleaned, yet scientific evidence established that there were only a few small spots of possible blood staining on the right sleeve. If Sayers was wearing that jacket and was as guilty as Wallis claimed it would have been heavily blood stained. This suggests that either Sayers was guilty but not wearing that jacket, which would render the blood staining evidence on the sleeve worthless, or he was involved but not as involved as Wallis claimed, which would cast doubt upon Wallis’ veracity, or he was not involved in the murder at all. All three possibilities cast doubt upon Wallis’ veracity. Consequently, it beggars belief that Sayers original lawyers failed to secure the services of blood spatter and distribution pattern expert. Such evidence should have been a vital component of Sayers’ defence. Such expertise can still be obtained even now.

            There is therefore no unequivocal evidence other than Wallis’ testimony linking Sayers to the murder of Russell Crookes. Nor is there unequivocal scientific evidence tying Sayers to any of the acts that followed it.

            There is also the possibility of securing new evidence that could not have been obtained in 1998. All the items that were subjected to DNA testing at that time were tested using SGM STR typing, the system that was then in use. Some of these items failed to yield useful results. SGM+ is both more sensitive and more discriminating. And should that fail Low Copy Number procedures could be tried. It is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that were those items to be tested using the most sophisticated techniques now available that they would yield useful results. Any items identified as worthy of further testing could easily be tested now.

            But there were examples where scientific evidence was available to test Wallis’ account. And his account failed the test miserably. The most obvious example of this is that Wallis’ account of the mutilation bears no resemblance to what actually happened.

The Mutilation:

            Wallis did not like giving details of this. His first accounts to police were plainly false as he claimed that a leg had fallen off in the fire and an arm had come off when Sayers tried to hide the body after the fire. Dr. Michael Heath – the pathologist instructed by the police – conducted the post-mortem examination in the night of May 26th 1998. It proved that a heavy but moderately sharp implement had severed every limb. All of Crookes’ limbs and his face were mutilated through bone. The right leg was never recovered. The mutilation occurred after the partial burning of the body as the severance points were not burned across the plane of the mutilation. It was clear that the mutilation was deliberate. The discovery of bone fragments at the burn-site (Scene Two) that formed a mechanical fit with the remains in Scene One indicate that at least the facial mutilation occurred at the burn-site.

            Furthermore, Wallis’ own account shows that at least one leg and one arm were mutilated at the fire-site. The pathological evidence proves that all limbs were deliberately mutilated. By Wallis’ account an arm and a leg had fallen off or come off at the fire-site. This establishes that separation from the body occurred at Scene Two, but it also shows that scientific evidence disproves Wallis’ account of how it occurred. Wallis also says that they were moved to the grave separately from the rest of the body. By this account they must have been severed at the fire-site. Yet when Wallis talks about mutilation at all he implies that Sayers did it while the body was in the grave at Scene One. As the grave was waterlogged – it was below the water table – it was unlikely that sufficient force to cause mutilation to limbs could have been achieved in that manner. Wallis does not even claim to have seen the mutilation occur. Sadly, the discrepancies in Wallis’ account were not pursued either by investigating officers, nor Sayers’ defence.

            Even without expert testimony Wallis’ accounts of the mutilation did not bear scrutiny, yet expert testimony could have assisted the jury. Neither Heath nor Jerreat were asked to comment on whether Wallis’ accounts of the murder, burning of the body and mutilation was consistent with the pathological evidence. This is a pity. Had they been asked to do so a means of testing Wallis’ veracity would have presented itself.

            During his opening address Miskin referred to shovels, which were readily available in a shed. He claimed that one of these had been used to dig the grave, was then washed and returned. It was also an implement that would have been consistent with the mutilation. While knives, which obviously had not been used for that purpose, were tested by tool mark analysis, none of the shovels were tested at all. Had they been tested for peroxidase-like activity, bone tissue and then DNA, the weapon used to cause the mutilation may have been discovered. Wallis also claims that Sayers told him that he had used a spade to sever the limbs. Despite taking possession of three yellow-handled spades, the police never had them tested for traces of Russell Crookes’ flesh and bone. Had a spade been used to sever the limbs considerable force would be required and body tissues such as fat, muscle, bone spicules and marrow would undoubtedly have been projected around the scene and onto the clothing and footwear of the person wielding the spade. There is no evidence of such tissues on Sayers’ clothing, yet his defence lawyers were not only silent on these points, but also failed to secure the relevant expertise. This could have been done in 1998. It can still be done if those tools and Sayers’ clothing are available for testing. Nevertheless, the issue of mutilation was important for other reasons.

The Lone Killer Hypothesis:

            The Crown’s case was that two people were required to commit the crime and move the body. Wallis claimed that Sayers stabbed Crookes repeatedly while he was on the ground, while he attempted to stab Crookes in the head at Sayers’ instigation, but must have missed, as there was no blood on his knife. As with much else Wallis minimises or eliminates his own involvement at Sayers’ expense.

            After initially claiming falsely that a leg had just fallen off during the fire, he claims that an arm just fell off when Sayers was hiding the body, before the evidence that mutilation occurred had to be confronted, so he claims it must have been done by Sayers with the body in the grave. He also says that an arm and a leg were moved to the grave separately from the rest of the body. This is a point of vital importance as will be shown below. Apart from moving a shovelful of earth the grave is dug by Sayers according to Wallis.

            The fire-site is on an incline. Miskin emphasised Crookes’ measurements to the jury, quoting his mother’s account that he was six foot tall, weighing fourteen stones – just over eighty-nine kilograms. He pointed out the difficulty in one person moving such a body. But was it really that difficult to do? It would have involved moving the remains up the incline at the fire-site, over or under the barbed wire fence and across a field measuring about two hundred metres to the makeshift grave. But Miskin had made a crucial error in his presentation – an error that would pass without comment by Sayers’ defence. The remains weighed nothing like fourteen stones when they were moved.

            Even according to Wallis’ account the body had been partially burned by then. Dr. Heath described the fire-damage as extensive, although this would later be questioned. There was undoubtedly burn-damage. Dr. Heath establishes that the facial mutilation occurred at the fire-site. More significantly Wallis’ account clearly establishes that an arm and a leg had come apart from the body at the fire-site. There is no doubt that all limbs had been severed through bone and that this mutilation was deliberate. Nevertheless, Wallis’ account establishes that at least one arm and a leg were severed at the fire-site. And one leg was never recovered. Wallis is never asked to explain this. He simply says that the rest of the mutilation occurred with the body in the grave at Sayers’ hands.

            He gives no explanation as to why the mutilation occurred. It makes no sense for any of the mutilation to have occurred in the grave and there were practical difficulties with any attempt to do so. The severed part of his right arm was placed next to the body, from head to left shoulder, in the grave, but the right leg was missing. Why if the mutilation of the right leg occurred in the grave, was it not found there? Wallis does not answer the question of when the right leg was disposed of, nor where it was.

            Why would anyone take the trouble of carrying the rest of the body to the grave in order to mutilate it once it was there? It made no sense, but there are practical reasons for mutilation at the fire-site. The facial mutilation is to prevent recognition; the rest is to facilitate easier moving of the body. If two killers were involved, why would this matter? It would however, make it easier for one person to move the remains. From Wallis’ account an arm and leg were taken to the grave on a separate trip from the rest of the body. Why? If two people were involved the remains and severed limbs could all have been moved at the same time. The post-mortem photographs establish that all limbs had been severed through bone. Without the severed limbs – by Wallis’ account at least an arm and leg had come off at the fire-site – the rest of the body weighed nowhere near the fourteen stones quoted by Miskin, especially if the right leg was already missing as well. And the possibility that the other arm had been severed there has never been conclusively eliminated. If all the mutilation occurred at the fire-site, moving the remainder of the body was a task that could easily be accomplished by one man even if it required two trips to move the limbs as well.

            Plastic webbing was used to transport the body according to Wallis. The body minus the severed parts of the limbs was not so heavy that one person could not move it up the copse to the edge of the field and then drag it under the wire and across the field wrapped by the plastic webbing. In fact, one person could probably have carried the remains from the fire-site all the way to the grave. One person could easily dig the makeshift grave and put the remains into it. In short, contrary to Miskin’s bold assertion, one person could have done everything and that person may well have been Graham Wallis rather than Neil Sayers. Wallis’ own account establishes this as he claims that virtually everything was done by Sayers. Sayers’ defence lawyers never investigated the possibility that one man could have moved the body on his own. In fact, they allowed the inaccurate description of the weight of the body to give the jury the impression that it was impossible. Consequently, inaccurate evidence resulted in the jury receiving the clear impression that two men must have been involved in moving the body. That impression would have implicated Sayers as he consistently maintained that he was not involved at all. And if the jury thought that he had been caught out lying about that, then he could easily be lying about the rest.

            But there is other evidence indicating that only one person was involved. And it comes from Wallis himself. A recurrent theme in his interviews is that his involvement is minimal or non-existent while that of Sayers is substantial and pivotal. But as the forensic linguist, Dr. William Thompson says: “If Sayers could do all this on his own, then so could Wallis.”

            And now the one thing that suggested two people were required, the weight, is not as clear as had been thought. This could easily have been tested through reconstruction. It can still be done. Sadly, Sayers’ defence lawyers at trial accepted Miskin’s assertion that two people had to have been involved and did not even challenge the fact that the description given by Crookes’ mother no longer applied to the remains that were moved from the fire-site to the grave. This was a serious failing by Sayers’ defence lawyers at trial that may well have resulted in the jury erroneously concluding that two men must have been involved. But they were not alone. This argument ought to have been academic. Dr. Heath ought to have weighed the remains of the trunk and limbs during his post-mortem examination. There is no evidence that he did so. As such the best opportunity to establish the actual weight of the remains moved from fire-site to grave was missed.

            Dr. Heath’s failure to weigh the remains is even more baffling in this context. Nevertheless, it should not have come to this. Wallis claimed that the body had been dragged across the field. There is no evidence that this occurred. Nor was it looked for. Traces of dragging a body, albeit not one that weighed fourteen stones, may have been detectable from examination and analysis of the field, even thirteen days later. However, it should be remembered that as the field was accessible to the public such evidence might have been obscured. The story of the maggots is altogether different.

The Entomological Evidence:

            Forensic entomology is a validated scientific method that has been used in many cases to enable investigators to estimate a period of when a significant event, usually death, occurred. Establishing the species of maggots obtained from a crime scene can be achieved by rearing maggots to adulthood or examination of the maggots. Rearing the maggots is particularly useful as it enables timings to be established by calculation of the life cycle of the relevant species, taking into account environmental conditions that affect the rate of development of the maggots. This allows entomologists to calculate the post-mortem-interval. Knowledge of environmental conditions experienced by the cadaver and the rate of development of particular species allows entomologists to calculate a range of when the body experienced significant events such as death.

            Shortly after the body of Russell Crookes was discovered and photographed in the grave samples of maggots were taken from the rib-cage area of the remains. The first sample was quickly fixed in formalin, as was proper and handed to a Scene of Crimes Officer (SOCO). A ‘live’ sample was taken from the same area and given to the officer. Rather than rear this sample, thereby enabling an experienced forensic entomologist to estimate the post-mortem interval, it was put in the fridge in a container with some liver. Without regular observation the maggots died without establishing the evidence that they could have given. This was unfortunate to put it mildly, but not necessarily catastrophic. The sample that had been fixed in formalin was still available for examination. Sadly this did not occur – a decision that would prove to have dire consequences.

            Under ideal circumstances experienced forensic entomologists should take entomological samples. Due to expert availability that may not always be possible. However, information is readily available on how to collect samples and what data should be collected. This includes ambient temperatures, the temperature of the maggot mass, between the body and earth and below the body, among other environmental data. Dr. Heath did none of this. Nor did anyone else. If Kent Police decided to pursue the entomological evidence properly there were already problems, albeit not insurmountable ones. While it should be remembered that standards have advanced since 1998 the optimum conditions for the collection, transportation and storage of entomological samples were known and widely published even in 1998. Sadly that did not occur in Sayers’ case.

            A decision was taken that the entomological evidence was expendable. After all the police had Wallis’ confession. But when the maggots were taken it could not have been known if a confession would be obtained or not. After all, neither Wallis, nor Sayers had been arrested at that time. The entomological evidence could have been vital, but it had already been compromised. Neither the police nor Sayers’ defence had these samples, or the ones taken during the post-mortem examination analysed at the time of the trial even though they may have provided scientific evidence regarding the post-mortem interval. Perhaps it was assumed that the timing would not be an issue - a dangerous assumption.

            The ‘live’ sample of maggots taken from the rib cage was still available for testing in January 2003. It was made available to the experienced forensic entomologists, Dr. Mark Benecke and Dr. Martin Hall. Each maggot – only eight of them remained for analysis – resembled rust flakes and was in a very poor condition. Somewhat bizarrely, given the decision to retain these maggots, the ‘formalin fixed’ sample had been thrown away. This meant that it was impossible to establish their size upon discovery of the body. No photographs could resolve this issue.

            The species was established as the bluebottle Calliphora Vomitoria. The maggots had developed to the stage where they were between the changes from second instar to middle third instar. This left a wide range for the post-mortem interval that did not contradict Wallis’ account. However, the opinions of Benecke and Hall did not support Wallis either. They had to work with the average of average temperatures from a nearby meteorological office rather than more accurate estimates of the temperatures experienced by the body that could have been established through data-logging experiments. Such experiments can still be conducted and could affect the conclusions of Benecke and Hall. And this is not all. Benecke and Hall were asked to comment on whether maggots could have survived an intense fire. They replied that they could not have survived such a fire. This was a point of great importance as their examination of the maggots ruled out a fire after May 19th. But if the fire was not as intense as had been thought and maggots could have survived the fire after all, the fire cannot be dated. This issue will be considered in detail later.

            It is unclear what has happened to the maggots taken in the mortuary. There is no evidence that they were ever analysed. If they can be located, they may still be of use in this inquiry, especially the fixed sample. They may also assist in establishing the precise size of the maggots at a fixed point in time. This would enable Benecke and Hall to provide a more accurate post-mortem interval than they were able to through no fault of their own. Suffice to say, the treatment of the maggots in this case left more than a little to be desired. And the problems for forensic entomology began with the practices of Dr. Michael Heath.

Forensic Pathology and Fire Issues:

            Dr. Heath visited the gravesite and subsequently produced a statement detailing his work and conclusions. He describes multiple stab wounds to the chest area, which would have damaged at least some of the major structures there, such as heart, left lung or great vessels, if not all, and that such damage would contribute to death if not treated. Furthermore he says that despite soft tissue damage, if five stab wounds to the right lung had occurred while Crookes was alive, they would have contributed to his death. He also mentions a stab wound that penetrated the skull that would have caused death if Crookes had been alive when it was inflicted. Heath was unable to unequivocally establish how many knives were used in the attack on Crookes as despite differences in the length of the cuts, Heath could not establish the depth of the wounds and was unable to establish if the weapon had penetrated the entire length of its shaft. Consequently, he could not exclude the possibility that only one knife had been used.

            Heath describes the fire-damage as, ‘extensive.’ He refers to heat damage to all organs and describes it as, ‘pronounced’ in the liver. His description of the left femur was that it showed partial burning of the fractured end of the bone. He also refers to charring adjacent to bone at severance points. Nevertheless, had the mutilation occurred before the fire or even during it burn-damage and possibly charring would have occurred across the plane of the severed bone. Neither Heath nor Dr. Peter Jerreat, the pathologist instructed by Sayers’ defence lawyers at trial, say that this occurred. It is therefore safe to conclude that all of the mutilation occurred after the fire as Heath does.

            Heath concluded that a heavy, but moderately sharp implement, had caused the mutilation. This was inconsistent with Wallis’ accounts, both of limbs falling off during the fire, or coming off while the body was being moved after the fire and mutilation occurring while the body was in the waterlogged grave. It suggests that Wallis’ accounts of the mutilation cannot be reconciled to the evidence produced by forensic pathology, but neither Heath nor Jerreat were asked to comment on this.

            But Heath’s statement is illuminating for its omissions. While he cannot be faulted for failing to answer a question he was not asked, there were glaring flaws in his practice. The issue of his treatment of the maggots has been detailed above, but there is arguably a worse failing: his statement is conspicuous by its absence of any reference to the weight of the remains. Weighing remains is considered by many forensic pathologists to be standard procedure in forensic pathology and is normally referred to in the statements of such experts. Such information could have proved useful in assessing the extent of fire-damage. Weighing the other leg and adding its weight to the weight of the remains of the body could have redressed the effect of the missing leg, at least approximately. Jerreat does not do so either, but he had been denied access to some samples from the body such as the left shoulder blade during his post-mortem examination, which occurred after Heath had revisited the body to take further samples. This meant that the first post-mortem examination conducted by a defence expert was the third to take place in this case. It was therefore of limited use. This was not Jerreat’s fault. Nor was it Heath’s fault as he was merely following the instructions he had been given. Dr. Vesna Djurovic conducted a further post-mortem examination on behalf of Wallis. She was unable to reach any firm conclusions. This is no reflection on her abilities.

            The fact that defence post-mortem examinations were the third and fourth in this case meant that they were considerably disadvantaged as cadavers are affected by freezing and thawing out for examination. Obviously an expert instructed by the police will conduct the first post-mortem examination. As any defendant is unlikely to have been arrested at that stage it is now policy for a second post-mortem examination to be carried out on behalf of any putative defendant, but that was not the case in 1998. The present system relies on crucially the competence of the original pathologist. Had the original post-mortem examination been done correctly then the defence lawyers would have had access to maggots taken from the cadaver at a fixed point in time close to the discovery of the body. That could have prevented the difficulties faced by Dr. Benecke and Dr. Hall in the present case and resulted in important evidence being established – evidence that could have drastically changed the course of this case.

            It also clear from Jerreat’s statement that he had not been afforded the courtesy of access to Heath’s statement, or it had not been made available. For example, Jerreat refers to the left shoulder blade being missing. In fact, it wasn’t. Heath had taken it from the body at another examination and given it to a SOCO. A tool mark expert in an attempt to determine which knife had caused that injury later examined it. There may not have been any sinister intent in Heath’s failure to make his findings available to Jerreat, but better communication could have prevented the waste of Jerreat’s time and resources.

Both Heath and Jerreat refer to Crookes as ‘well nourished.’ The absence of such data has left comparison to post-mortem photographs and reports as the only means of comparing Wallis’ account of the murder, mutilation and burning with the evidence offered by forensic pathology. It should not have come to this.

            A forensic pathologist with experience of fire-damage best considers such issues. If Heath’s expertise and ability were not sufficient, Kent Police could have consulted the NCOF. Sadly they did not. As will be shown below the comments of their fire expert, Patricia Rapley may have convinced them that there was little point pursuing this line of enquiry. It prevented police from testing Wallis’ account as rigorously as it could have been tested. That is not their fault. Sayers’ defence have no such excuse. They instructed a forensic pathologist, but failed to ask the pertinent question of whether Wallis’ account was consistent with the pathological evidence. They also failed to expose the inconsistencies in Wallis account regarding the mutilation in cross-examination and in their closing address to the jury.
.
Best Defence:

            While Kent Police can not be compelled to consult the NCOF nor have tests conducted, Sayers’ defence lawyers at trial had the opportunity to investigate whether his protestation of innocence had merit or not. Sayers had given instructions to his solicitor. He insisted that he was innocent and trusted his lawyers to prove it. Sayers was neither a legal expert, nor up to speed in developments in forensic science. He was a teenager with better things to occupy his thoughts. He did not know that scientifically validated techniques were available to test Wallis’ veracity, nor did he have any reason to think that he would need to know such information. He trusted his lawyers to secure whatever scientific evidence could have assisted him, but most lawyers are not fully conversant with the latest scientific techniques as well. Perhaps Sayers’ lawyers at his 1999 trial were also unaware of the possibilities afforded them by forensic science, or they did not know where to look.

            Sayers’ lawyers had to oppose the case presented by the Crown. However, despite numerous possibilities that will be detailed below Sayers’ lawyers did not contradict that case as effectively as Sayers had a right to expect. For example, they allowed the Crown to present inaccuracies as fact without correction and failed to present any scientific aspect of his case adequately to the jury. They may not have been aware of the full range of possibilities available to them, nor known whom to turn to, but some aspects of their preparation defy explanation. The police had instructed Patricia Rapley – a fire expert. Her findings loomed large over this inquiry even though she did not give evidence. The jury were informed of some of her findings which were not contested by Sayers’ defence. But how could Sayers’ lawyers have challenged this evidence? They did not instruct a fire expert of their own to consider the fire-related issues. Lawyers could not be expected to understand the intricacies of the scientific evidence relating to fire-related issues. Nor can they be expected to know what it is possible to establish regarding fires with current techniques. That is precisely why they needed an experienced expert to consider these issues and advise them on what if anything could be done to counter the fire-related aspects of this case. While they too have to work within financial constraints Neil Sayers was entitled to the best defence possible.

Taxation Without Representation:

            Neil Sayers was represented by the duty solicitor upon arrest. His case was handled by Ian Reed. There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that duty solicitors are too closely linked to the police. The police’s interests are quite obviously separate and opposed to those of the defendant. In many of the miscarriage of justice cases the conduct of original lawyers has been questionable. For example, Stephen Miller of Cardiff Three fame was ‘bullied and hectored’ according to the late Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth at their appeal. The solicitor who sat through the interviews repeatedly failed to intervene or was fobbed off when he weakly attempted to intervene. His presence in the interviews was a positive disservice to his client as legally Miller’s rights had been protected.

            The evidence which resulted in the quashing of the convictions of the Cardiff Three had been available throughout the legal process. Miller’s interviews had been tape-recorded. Amazingly, the section of Miller’s seventh interview that so offended the appeal judges had not been played to the second trial judge, Mr. Justice Leonard at the admissibility hearing. Even more astonishing was the decision of Miller’s lawyers, led by Roger Frisby QC, not to argue that Miller had been bullied. Miller’s case is now one of the standard texts on oppression in a police station. His case is rare in that the Court of Appeal gave him a second bite of the cherry and allowed him to use evidence that had been available but not used by his defence lawyers at his 1990 trial. In Miller’s case Frisby had failed to advance what was clearly an arguable defence. The appeal judges gave him a second chance.

            But Miller is the exception that proves the rule. Usually defendants do not get that second chance. Through no fault of his own, Miller was not capable of being responsible for the conduct of his defence. He had the IQ of an eleven-year-old child and was highly suggestible as well. The law holds defendants responsible for the conduct of their defence. They instruct their lawyers. Consequently, the buck stops with them. In effect the law expects clients such as Miller to be as competent in running their defence as Michael Mansfield QC, or the renowned solicitor Gareth Peirce, both of whom were integrally involved in Miller’s successful appeal. Such expectations are absurd. But Miller is far from alone. Is it any more reasonable to expect a nineteen-year-old to be able to assume responsibility for the conduct of his defence? Sayers did not suffer the same problems as Miller, but in some ways his plight is worse.

            It is easier to understand why Miller would not be capable of defending his interests, especially when it required standing up to professional and experienced lawyers who knew the law far better than he, than a person of average intelligence like Sayers. But is it realistic to expect even ordinary people to stand up to their lawyers and demand what they think they require?

            Neil Sayers relied on Ian Reed to prepare his case for trial and ensure that Brian Higgs QC was armed with the material he required to oppose the case presented by Miskin. This was a case where forensic science ought to have made a telling contribution and it was a case where a diligent lawyer could have made their name. Sayers trusted his lawyers to defend his interests. He gave them instructions as best he could. He trusted that they had his best interests at heart and were competent enough to do so.

            Sayers’ family were advised by others that this was a big case where reputations could be made. They followed advice regarding the importance of high quality representation and acted upon a recommendation. The solicitor they went to gave them good advice and agreed to take the case if instructed by Neil, who agreed to go with that solicitor. Reed visited Neil in prison and persuaded him to remain with him. Sayers did so in writing. It is a decision that Neil Sayers bitterly regrets - and with good reason.

            Reed did not instruct an enquiry agent to investigate Wallis’ background and history. He did not seek expert testimony on police procedures to ensure that the investigation met the highest standards demanded by the law. Reed did not instruct a forensic linguist to examine Wallis’ claims for inconsistencies, which were legion. As will be shown below there were several areas of the case that would have benefited from instructing experienced forensic scientists. Reed instructed a forensic pathologist and a DNA expert, but important investigative opportunities were missed despite the DNA expert raising an important line of enquiry. Sadly, Dr. James Walker was never asked to expand on this intriguing possibility, let alone give evidence about it.

            The jury that convicted Neil Sayers did so in ignorance of evidence that may have affected their deliberations. And Miskin had told them things as fact without challenge that were inaccurate. But this information was available to Sayers’ defence lawyers at trial, or could have been obtained with due diligence. Sayers would not be allowed a second bite of the cherry. There are sound legal reasons for refusing defendants the opportunity to call evidence that could have been obtained previously. The trial process would never end if this was allowed to occur without testing the merit of evidence the jury did not hear, but no defendant should be deprived of an arguable defence in circumstances such as this. There were validated scientific techniques that ought to have been allowed to speak. Some of this evidence could have been obtained quite easily. The law holds Sayers alone responsible for the failure to obtain this evidence. There must be a better way.

            Shortly after his conviction Sayers’ family enquired about an appeal, arguing that evidence could have been presented to the jury that would have undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Reed asked Higgs to advise on the possibility of an appeal based on this evidence. They were informed that there were no grounds of appeal. With that Reed and Higgs bowed out of the case. Neither Sayers, nor his family were satisfied, but they had no idea what to do, or who to go to. A couple of months later Kevin Hansford was recommended to them. He took the case and tried to prepare an appeal. This was based on complaints made by Sayers and his family regarding inaccuracies in the Crown’s case and witnesses who had not been called but could have disproved aspects of the Crown’s case. In December 1999 Mr. Justice Aikens refused leave to appeal, arguing that much of this evidence had been available previously and/or it was not sufficient to render the conviction unsafe. Incredibly the appeal grounds hardly mentioned the scientific issues. A complaint was made regarding the DNA evidence, but it was rejected on the grounds that the judge had not mischaracterised the evidence and there had been no complaint about the way Mr. Justice Newman had summed up about it from Miskin or Higgs. But why would Higgs have complained? He did not have access to the material that could and eventually would be the basis of a complaint regarding the presentation of DNA evidence. Reed had failed to secure the evidence that could and should have been the basis of a sound complaint about the DNA evidence. Sadly Hansford also failed to secure this evidence.

            Shortly afterwards Sayers’ family paid a barrister to advise on the prospects of an appeal. They were advised to preserve their position pending new evidence. And so Hansford began preparing an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Again scientific evidence was conspicuous by its absence. Around this time I became interested in this case. I noticed that maggots had been collected by Dr. Heath. Fortunately for Sayers I already knew about forensic entomology. I knew that if they still existed it was possible even then to get the maggots examined and possibly establish important evidence. Hansford did not believe that the maggots still existed and would not ask if they did. He would be proved wrong.

            Eventually the esteemed criminal appeal solicitor Jane Hickman took Sayers’ case. She was, however, limited in what she could do by the constraints of the appeal process. She knew that Sayers would not be allowed to reargue his trial as it should have been argued in 1999, but her involvement marked the beginning of interest in the scientific aspects of this case that had been silenced thus far. She enquired about whether the maggots still existed and if they would be made available for examination if they did. They did and were. Sadly they were not able to make the contribution that they could have done if they had been examined earlier. Nevertheless, the Legal Services Commission released the funds for Hickman to instruct Dr. Martin Hall. Dr. Mark Benecke was also instructed. The entomology evidence could have been adduced far earlier with due diligence. The fact that Hickman secured funding to do so establishes that it was accepted that the entomological evidence was capable of persuading the appeal court to intervene as it could have affected a material issue - timing of events by establishing the post-mortem-interval which could potentially have disproved Wallis’ account.

            And then there is the DNA and presumptive testing issues. Hickman has secured approval for funding to conduct the tests that could resolve the issue of whether animal blood could have mixed with Crookes’ saliva. Again this could have been obtained with due diligence by either Reed or Hansford. And then there is the question of the fire-related issues. Is it possible for Sayers to have had the quality of defence that he was entitled to at trial or during the appeal process without the aid of an experienced fire expert?

Wallis’ Account of the Fire:
Height and Duration of the Fire:

            During his interviews with Kent Police Wallis gives an account of the fire. One of these accounts is supplied to Rapley. She says, “Mr. Wallis said that the flames were approximately 120cm high at that time. Photographs…show a tree with what may possibly be fire-damage to a similar height.” Other evidence established that the tree had indeed been subjected to fire-damage, but that damage had occurred before Crookes was murdered. As such, there is no evidence capable of supporting Wallis’ account regarding the height of the flames. Nevertheless, Wallis has indicated that the flames were four feet tall at one point. Wallis also indicated the height of the pyre as sixty centimetres high. He also describes previous actions relating to hiding a bottle of Pagan Brand barbecue lighter fluid in the copse where the murder and partial burning of the body would take place. Furthermore, he says that a quantity of wood had been obtained from Scene One and put in the field between the two copses the night prior to the murder.

            Wallis goes on to say that the fire had been going for about an hour at 2.45 a.m. and ended at almost dawn. In fact Wallis’ accounts to police regarding the timings of the fire are contradictory. He clearly states the murder occurred half an hour after the ball at Hadlow Agricultural College ended. It took five minutes. A further five minutes was required to fetch the wood. This was necessary because the fire was dying down. If true it suggests that the original pyre had all but burnt out, meaning that the pyre which was used to partially burn the body of Russell Crookes had to be built from almost nothing. It was then sprayed with Pagan Brand barbecue lighter fluid and left to catch for five minutes. It required a further twenty-five minutes to retrieve the body and flip it onto the pyre. More barbecue lighter fluid was put onto the wood and body. However, Wallis gives police two different times for the end of the ball: 11.30 p.m. and 1.00 a.m.

            And neither of these times appears consistent with the account given to Rapley, at least in terms of burning the body. If the ball ended at 11.30, that would mean that the burning of the body began at 12.40 a.m., not the 1.45 that Rapley was led to believe. And if it ended at 1.00, then the burning of the body began at 2.10. This issue could have been easily resolved by checking exactly when the ball ended. But this suggests yet another time. The disc jockey was contracted until 12.00 a.m. That would suggest that the music would have stopped around midnight. Given the fact that Wallis’ timings are contradictory and that the last timing comes from independent evidence, it is more likely to be accurate. At the very least the 11.30 timing can be discounted. If the ball ended at 12.00 that would mean that the burning of the body began at around 1.10 a.m. Rapley was not supplied with this information. Given that Wallis times events from the end of the ball it is unfortunate that the precise time it ended was not established by either Kent Police, nor Sayers’ defence lawyers, as this would have assisted in providing a more accurate duration of the fire based on Wallis’ account, but supported by independent evidence.

            Wallis is also vague regarding when the fire ended. He tells police that the fire lasted until almost dawn and that both he and Sayers waited in Scene One until 4.00 a.m. with Sayers checking the body periodically. They returned to Scene Two to find the fire was dying down. It was then doused with some orange juice. The fire-site was scuffed. Bloodstained vegetation was collected and moved, as were knives. And the body was hidden in stinging nettles at Scene Two after it had cooled sufficiently for Sayers to handle with his hands covered by a plastic bag. Wallis shows police where the body was hidden. Nevertheless, no vegetation was collected from that location. This is unfortunate, because that vegetation could have been tested for traces of the remains of Russell Crookes. Such testing could have confirmed or refuted Wallis’ account that the remains had been stored there after the fire. And two weeks after all this activity was alleged to have occurred physical signs of it should still have been obvious.

            According to Wallis’ account, after helping to clean up the scene of the crime, he returned to the college with Sayers by 4.30. From this account it is clear that Wallis thinks dawn to be just after four and that he doesn’t appear to have allowed sufficient time for the cleaning up of the scene. At that time he was not called on to be more specific regarding his chronology of events, yet during Sayers’ trial he provided more accurate evidence that enabled his account of the duration of the fire to be estimated.

            And Rapley was not told that Wallis’ opinion of almost dawn was just after 4.00 a.m. The issue of duration was a matter of considerable importance in terms of assessing the feasibility or lack thereof of reconstructing the fire to test Wallis’ account of the fire and the damage attributable to it.

            Suffice to say, there were opportunities to establish a reliable working estimate of the duration of the fire according to Wallis’ account of events that occurred that night, namely the end of the ball and when the lighting conditions described by Wallis happened for the night of May 13th-14th 1998. It may not be possible to establish the precise duration of the fire, but it was possible to provide a working estimate that would have enabled Wallis’ account to be tested. Sadly, the distinction was missed. The duration of the fire would prove to be an important issue. According to lighting conditions described by Wallis, the fire was extinguished between 4.09 and 4.15 that morning. These timings are based on the actual times that nautical and civil twilight and sunrise occurred in Hadlow in the morning of May 14th 1998. These timings indicate that from Wallis’ account the body of Russell Crookes was partially burned for between two hours and fifty-nine minutes or three hours and five minutes, based on the ball ending at midnight. Either Kent Police or Sayers’ defence lawyers could easily have established this in 1998. While it is not possible to know the precise duration of the fire, the duration indicated by Wallis’ evidence is known. But duration was only one of many factors of relevance to the investigation of fire-related issues in this case. It was also important to establish the dimensions of the pyre.

Isolating The Variables:
The Dimensions of the Pyre:

            In her statement Rapley quoted one of Wallis’ accounts to police indicating a pyre that was approximately 1.5 metres long, although she adds that it wasn’t clear. The pattern tailed away towards stinging nettles that were on the verge of the pattern. This suggests that it was possible that some of those plants had been consumed in the fire. If so, forensic botany could have had an important part to play in this case for reasons that will be detailed in the section on forensic botany. Wallis does not appear to have given any indication of the width of the pyre. This should not have mattered. The exact dimensions of the scorch-pattern could easily have been established by measuring it, but this did not occur.

            Even so, that should not have been the end of the story. Had Rapley or another expert visited the scene it would have been possible to calculate the dimensions of the scorch-pattern by taking photographs at the same angles as the original, while taking requisite measurements. These could then be compared to the original scorch-pattern photographs, enabling reasonable estimates of the dimensions of the scorch-pattern to be made. Rapley did not do so, nor did Kent police, and nor did Sayers’ defence. Consequently, a chance to establish important information – essential for consideration of whether the damage to the body was consistent with the way it was alleged to have been burned – was missed. This could have been done in 1998. It can still be done, but obviously it would require access to Scene Two - something Hadlow Agricultural College have refused to allow without a court order.

            However, establishing the precise height of the pyre is far more difficult as the wood had been burned away, but it is not necessary to know the precise height of the actual pyre to test Wallis’ account as he gives the height of the pyre. In videotaped interviews Wallis indicated that the pyre was about two foot high. Consequently, the pyre can be reconstructed to the dimensions indicated by the scorch-pattern and height indicated by Wallis. The precise measurements of the wood used, especially in terms of length cannot be established. The best that can be achieved is estimates, based on the wooden fire debris that has been recovered and analysis of the scorch-pattern. Analysis of the distribution of fire-damage to the body of Russell Crookes could indicate the shape of the pyre. Having established the shape of the pyre for reconstruction purposes, it would be necessary to establish the type of wood used in the fire and its size if possible.

Identification of the Type of Wood Used in the Pyre and Establishing its Size:

            An experienced forensic botanist could have considered some of the issues in this case. Such an expert could have taken relevant samples from the fire-site at the time. Sadly, Kent Police chose not to instruct such an expert. And nor did Sayers’ defence lawyers. Among the issues that such an expert could easily have resolved is the type of wood that was used in the fire by analysis of debris. This could have been done in 1998. It can still be done at least in respect of samples that were collected at the time if they have been retained. As will be shown below some samples were subject to analysis, but sadly they were not provided to a forensic botanist. Had this occurred potentially useful information could have been obtained that would have assisted any attempt at reconstruction as different types of wood burn differently. It may also have been possible for such an expert to establish the age of the wood, which may also lead to conclusions on how the wood would have burned.

            Some charred lumps had been recovered from the fire-site. They were not examined for their morphological characteristics in order to identify what they were, nor was chromatography, or spectroscopy, or microscopy used to identify what the lumps had been. Rapley burned a quantity of fuel tablets, including hexamine-wax, found in Sayers’ college address and compared the results to the charred lumps. The results indicated that the lumps had not originated from the fuel tablets belonging to Sayers. This established what the lumps had not been; it did not prove what they had been before the fire.

            However, it ought to be pointed out that this was what the police had asked her to consider. Were this case to occur today Rapley could have suggested other methods to identify what the lumps were, although the decision on whether to proceed with these methods would still be taken by the police. Those lumps could have been examined in 1998. Sadly neither the police nor Sayers’ lawyers chose to do so. If the lumps still exist, they can be examined to establish what they were. Other debris could be similarly examined.

            If the lumps turned out to have botanical origins they could also have assisted a forensic botanist to resolve some of the fire-related issues in this case. Wallis’ accounts indicate that the pyre was built from wood obtained from Scene One the previous night. A forensic botanist may have been able to establish whether that was the case or not, but this would depend on examination of botanical fire debris, which could be identified and then compared to the type of wood available from Scene One. But it is not necessary to focus exclusively on these lumps. There were several items of fire-related debris that had been collected from the fire-site. Many of these items were not examined or analysed. Establishing which types of wood had been used and if possible the shape, size and quantity that had been used could have provided important information that could have enabled further testing of Wallis’ account even in 1998, but this would require consulting an experienced forensic botanist. Sadly, neither Kent Police nor Sayers’ defence lawyers did so for the 1999 trial.

            The charred lumps are not the only items of debris that could be tested in this manner. The same SOCO who collected the charred lumps that were examined by Rapley also collected several items from the copse in which the fire occurred. These included three separate items that were described as ‘charred substance.’ And there were two items referred to as ‘bone and assorted debris.’ Another is referred to as ‘loose debris above hard packed soil layer.’ It is possible to establish exactly what these items of debris are if they still exist. If any of this debris was botanical in origin a forensic botanist could have examined them and identified them.

            None of these items were supplied to Rapley for examination. However, perhaps the most glaring omission of all was that ‘assorted charred wooden logs/fragments,’ had been collected from that copse, but had not been supplied to any expert for analysis. These items could have been subjected both to examination by an experienced forensic botanist and a fire expert such as Rapley in order to establish what these items were and if they had been subjected to an accelerant. Unfortunately this did not occur for Sayers’ trial. Nevertheless, if the items still exist this can be done now. And there is another technique that was not available in 1998 that could have an important part to play in this case, but more of that later.

            No attempt was made to reconstruct the fire as it actually happened. And rightly so. There are far too many variables that cannot be isolated. But this is the wrong approach. While it is plainly impossible to accurately reconstruct the actual fire in this case, that is the wrong question anyway. It has been shown that it was possible to establish the duration of the fire according to Wallis’ account. The dimensions and shape of the pyre could also have been established. And so could the type of wood used to construct the pyre. There were still many other variables to isolate, but difficulties notwithstanding, it may well have been possible to test Wallis’ account of the fire. Kent Police asked Rapley to do so, but as we shall see the answer that she gave was not as comprehensive as was possible or desirable.

Police Testing of Wallis’ Account of the Fire:
Accelerant:

            According to Wallis’ account Pagan Brand barbecue lighter fluid was sprayed onto both the wood and the body as an accelerant. Scientific analysis could have established if an accelerant had been used at all. Such analysis could potentially have confirmed or refuted Wallis’ account that it had been used. Kent Police were clearly interested in establishing what accelerant if any was used in the fire. A sample of bloomed water from the grave was tested for the presence of an accelerant. None was found. Other samples, including fragments of clothing were tested without success. No scientific evidence was ever obtained proving that any accelerant, let alone barbecue lighter fluid, had been used, although that does not preclude the possibility that it had been. Unfortunately some of the samples that could potentially have resolved this issue were never analysed – a fact a review of the fire related evidence would quickly spot, but untrained eyes could easily miss. There were at least six items of clothing or footwear that had been subjected to fire, which had been collected, but were not supplied to Rapley for analysis. And there was the untested debris referred to in the previous section. Barbecue lighter fluid is not very volatile. It requires a wick such as clothing or wood to burn. Because of its low volatility there would be a good chance that some traces of it would have remained in wood or clothing after the fire.

            Despite the lack of scientific confirmation for the presence of an accelerant, Rapley opined that it could have been poured onto the body or wood and burned off. This was possible, but there was no evidence that it had occurred. Rapley’s results were more consistent with no accelerant having been used as they were with it having burned off, yet there is no mention of this possibility in her statement. Nor is there any mention of other techniques that could have resolved the issue of whether an accelerant was likely to have been used. While there were difficulties caused by the relevant items having been exposed to the elements for thirteen days there were techniques that may have been able to resolve this issue even in 1998. They still can, and there is a new technique that could resolve the issue even now - that of Professor Andrew Scott - which will be detailed later.

            With the exception of Professor Scott’s technique, Sayers’ defence at trial, led by Brian Higgs QC, could have raised these points at his trial, yet they did not secure the services of a fire expert to consider the fire-related issues and Rapley was not called as a witness due to Sayers’ defence lawyers not contesting her conclusions. Consequently, the jury were left ignorant of alternative explanations. It would not be the only time that this occurred during Sayers’ trial.

            And there was another means of possibly establishing if an accelerant had been used. In his opening address to the jury Miskin implied that a plastic bottle containing a yellow liquid had been the bottle in which the barbecue lighter fluid had been. The contents of that bottle smelled strongly of urine, but the SOCO who detailed that observation said that it had been mixed with something else. Somewhat strangely it appears that the contents of this bottle and the bottle itself were never tested for the presence of accelerants. Consequently, there was no evidence that this container had been the one in which the barbecue lighter fluid had been, in circumstances where a definitive answer could have been obtained. There is therefore no evidence that Pagan Brand barbecue lighter fluid had been used in the fire apart from Wallis’ testimony. Somewhat surprisingly Sayers’ defence appear to have allowed Miskin’s comment regarding the container to pass without even pointing out how easy it would have been to resolve the issue of the contents of that plastic bottle or instructing their own expert to conduct the test themselves. And there were other fire-related issues worthy of investigation.

            Rapley also failed to conduct any tests to establish the quantity of accelerant that would be required for it to have been detectable under such circumstances. Had this been done at the time, it may have been possible to resolve the issue of whether such an accelerant had been used at all. However, as we shall see there was potentially some scientific evidence indicating the use of an accelerant that had not been considered by Rapley despite having access to such evidence. Kent Police, however, may not have known of this. Had they consulted the NCOF a forensic pathologist with experience of fire-damaged cadavers could have considered whether there was any evidence indicating the presence of the wick-effect, although it ought to be remembered that in 1998 there were not many forensic pathologists with experience of fire-damaged cadavers as such cases were and remain rare - thankfully.

            Rapley says as follows: “Most commercially available barbecue lighter fluids are paraffins. Paraffin is a flammable liquid and an effective fire accelerant. However, it is not very volatile and requires a wick in order to burn. A porous substance such as wood or fabric may act as effective wick for paraffin.”

            According to Wallis, the fire involved a pyre made of wood and the body of Russell Crookes was dressed in summer clothes. This suggests that if barbecue lighter fluid had been used the wick-effect ought to have been observed. The wick-effect shows that in paraffin fuelled fires involving clothed bodies, the heat generated in the clothed area will be higher resulting in greater damage there. Charring to the back could be consistent with this. Sadly nobody was asked to comment on this possibility in this case.

The Extent of Fire-damage:

            Rapley had been asked to comment on whether the burning damage to Crookes’ body was consistent with the description of the way it had been alleged to have been burnt. Examination of the post-mortem photographs quickly shows that the body as a whole did not suffer extensive fire-damage. It was placed face down onto the fire. The most damage is to the front torso. Several organs showed signs of heat damage, including the brain. That the body had been partially burned was not in question; the extent of fire-damage was. And the question of whether such damage was consistent with the account of the fire given by Wallis was also germane to this inquiry.

            Sadly, no pathologist involved in this case was asked to consider this issue. Had they been asked to do so, they could have answered the highly important question posed by Kent police, or recommended other experts who could assist. Failing that Kent police could have consulted the NCOF. If that had happened in 1998 the whole course of this case might well have been drastically altered, as there was a technique that could have resolved these issues. Sadly Kent police did not consult the NCOF in this case.

            The post-mortem photographs appear inconsistent with the accounts given by Wallis. Nevertheless, in his opening address at Sayers’ trial Miskin would say, “It was evident that the body had been badly burned.” The relevant post-mortem photographs were available to Rapley. One of the things that she was asked to comment on was: ‘whether the burning damage to Mr Crookes body was consistent with the description of the way in which it was alleged to have been burnt.’ This was the most important question posed by Kent Police to Rapley. Sadly, it did not receive as thorough an answer as was possible.

            Rapley’s discussion of the issue of the burning of Crookes’ body stated the following: “The photographs…show that the body had been positioned with the head and front of the torso towards the source of heat. This is consistent with Wallis’ account that the body was face down on the bonfire. Because there has, for obvious reasons, been limited research concerning the burning of human bodies on bonfires, it is not possible to provide any reliable estimate of the time for which Mr Crookes’ body was on the fire.” Her conclusion on this point was that it was impossible to provide a reasonable estimate for the duration of the fire.

            Sadly, that was the wrong answer to the right question. Contrary to Rapley’s claims there was in fact a wealth of evidence on the burning of bodies on open wood pyres and bonfires. Many religions practice such cremations, some of which were interrupted by the weather and there was evidence from criminal cases which involved failed attempts to dispose of bodies by burning them. Consequently, consulting people with experience of such cremations could have yielded important data on size of wood and duration of such fires. Rapley did not do so. But even if it was not possible to provide an accurate estimate for the duration of that fire, it was possible to test whether the burning damage sustained by the cadaver was consistent with the way it was alleged to have been burnt – the actual question Rapley was asked to comment on. Furthermore, there was an issue that she had raised herself, but not considered in the context of burn-damage – namely the wick-effect. It could have been an important part of consideration of this question.

            The question posed to Rapley by Kent Police was an extremely important one. Her answer is misleading, as duration was not the most important issue in terms of testing whether the fire-damage to the body was consistent with the way it was alleged to have been burnt. It was not even a variable as it can be calculated from Wallis’ account. The most important point that Rapley fails to address was whether it was possible to reconstruct the fire based on Wallis’ account using techniques available in 1998? Yet there was evidence that indicated that the body of Russell Crookes had not been subjected to a fire of great intensity.

The Intensity of the Fire:

            In videotaped interviews Wallis indicated that the pyre was about two foot high and the flames were a further two-foot high. This implied an intense fire at its height that lasted about three hours. Dr. Heath, detailed heat damage to organs and described the fire-damage as ‘extensive.’ He also pointed out that the skin on the left foot, back and head was charred. Nevertheless, the post-mortem photographs suggest a different story. There is clearly burn damage and the front of the body has more extensive damage than the back, yet despite charring of skin they show raw flesh and body fat. According to Wallis’ account the flames would have engulfed the body, so why was some flesh raw after more than three hours? And why was body fat still visible rather than drip into the fire if the body had been engulfed in flames as Wallis’ account implied?

            Rapley quoted Wallis’ account of the fire. This had an unfortunate effect regarding the entomology as it implied that the fire had been an intense one that maggots could not have survived. Dr. Hall and Dr. Benecke were asked to comment on whether maggots could have survived an intense fire. They answered that maggots could not have survived such a fire. The Brazilian forensic entomologist Professor Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia concurred. They were quite right, but my question had misled them all and I had been misled by Rapley’s account. Consequently, their analysis of the entomological evidence proceeded on the basis that the maggots they examined had resulted from eggs that had been laid on the body after the body had been partially burned. The maggots that they examined had developed to such a stage that if they had been laid after the fire then the fire could not have occurred after May 19th, but if some of the maggots could have survived the fire, then no date of the fire can be ruled out. Hall and Benecke had also been asked to comment on whether the entomological evidence contradicted Wallis’ account. Based on their assessment that maggots could not have survived such a fire, they concluded that the entomological evidence could not refute Wallis’ account of when the fire occurred.

            And that seemed to be the end of the matter. It would later emerge that the question asked of Benecke and Hall had been the wrong one. They should have been asked whether any of the maggots could have survived the fire that occurred in this case. It had dire consequences, or rather it would have done had if Professor José Alfredo Piera y Pelliçer had not realised that not only had the wrong question been asked, but also that it was possible that some maggots had indeed survived the fire. If Piera’s hypothesis that some maggots could have survived the fire by sheltering in the thoracic box was correct, the possibility that Hall and Benecke had examined fire-surviving maggots could not be excluded and that in turn would mean that the entomological evidence could not exclude any date for the fire.

            Professor Piera had conducted experiments at his laboratory in Valencia that established that maggots could survive a fire. He examined the scorch-pattern photographs, Rapley’s report, post-mortem photographs and the reports of the forensic pathologists Heath and Jerreat. He produced an informé (Spanish equivalent of a statement) on the case. In December 2004 Professor Piera was shown further post-mortem photographs. These were the ones referred to by Rapley in her consideration of whether the burning damage to the body of Russell Crookes was consistent with the way in which it had been alleged to have been burnt. Piera argues that these photographs alone prove that this was not an intense fire. Piera’s analysis of this case will be detailed below. A forensic pathologist with experience of fire-damage and a forensic anthropologist could easily have offered expert opinion on this subject, as could an experienced fire investigator. In 1998 access to the body would have been possible. That option is no longer available.

            Professor Piera argued that the evidence showed that this was not an intense fire and that some maggots could have survived the fire by sheltering in the thoracic box. He conducted experiments on piglets to illustrate his point. After a series of such experiments in which he partially burned piglets and left them for flies to colonise and others where he left piglets out for colonisation and burnt them days later he showed that maggots could survive a fire. The question now was could they survive the fire in this case?

Reconstructing the Fire:

            As Rapley says there had been limited research regarding the burning of human bodies on bonfires, but that was not the end of the story. It was undoubtedly a difficult task to reconstruct the fire. There are several environmental factors that affect the behaviour of fires. Different types of wood burn in different ways. The humidity of the wood can affect fires. The size of the wood can have an effect. The size of the pyre is also important. And wind-speed and direction also affect the behaviour of flames. Accelerants also have an effect. Ambient temperature and relative humidity as well as rainfall could also have an effect.

            The interaction of all of these environmental conditions affect or may affect the behaviour of fires. Any reconstruction that occurs outdoors would involve some compromise as while similar conditions may occur it is extremely unlikely that the precise conditions would occur again naturally. Nevertheless, fires can and have been reconstructed before and such evidence is admissible. But could the fire in this case be reconstructed at all? Or could a fire be reconstructed according to Wallis’ account? And if so, could the damage observed in such reconstructions be compared to the damage sustained by the body of Russell Crookes?

Isolating The Remaining Variables:

            The duration of the fire has been calculated from Wallis’ account as being between two hours and fifty-nine minutes and three hours and five minutes. The dimensions of the scorch-pattern could easily have been identified. Visiting the fire-site and taking the necessary photographs and measurements to enable the dimensions of the scorch-pattern to be calculated can still establish it. Wallis’ account gives the height of the pyre as 60cm tall. Consequently the pyre should be built to the dimensions of the scorch-pattern and to a height of 60cm. If any type of wood could be identified as having been used in the pyre through analysis, the pyre should be built using that wood and if such techniques establish that different types of wood were used, then the pyre should be made up of those woods to the proportion indicated by the analysis of debris, especially the charred wooden logs/fragments. Alternatively it could be built of a mixture of the wood available from the gravesite – the place Wallis claims the wood used originated – to the proportion that it occurred in that copse. It would not be possible to establish the humidity of the wood, but establishing the relative humidity in the period leading up to the fire would establish whether the wood was likely to have been damp. Sadly, none of this occurred.

            And there is a control check provided by Wallis regarding the height of the flames. Wallis has indicated that the flames were four feet tall at one point. As such the height of flames could have been used as a control check that the reconstruction was consistent with Wallis’ account. It was even possible to determine environmental conditions such as wind-speed and direction as they affect the behaviour of flames. This could have been achieved using the scientifically validated technique of data-logging experiments at the fire-site at the relevant time of year which would establish the relationship between the site and the nearest meteorological office. Once that has been established an estimate can be calculated for both wind-speed and direction at the relevant time claimed by Wallis.

            Suffice to say, despite the difficulties it is possible to obtain reasonable estimates for the environmental conditions prevalent when Wallis claims the body of Russell Crookes was being burned. Consequently, while it is impossible to establish all of the variables that impacted on the actual fire that damaged the body of Russell Crookes, it is possible to isolate the variables according to Wallis’ account and build a pyre in accordance with his account. Reconstruction was therefore possible in 1998, but what could the burn-damage observed to the body of Russell Crookes be compared to?

Comparison of Burn-Damage:

            If reconstruction of the fire had been attempted in 1998 it would have had the significant advantage of allowing comparison of burn-damage from the reconstruction to the damage sustained by the body of Russell Crookes. That is no longer an option. The best that can be achieved is comparison with post-mortem photographs and the reports of the forensic pathologists. There was no data on burning human cadavers on bonfires available in 1998 and reconstruction experiments involving such burning in Britain was and remains unlawful. This meant that any reconstruction experiments could only be conducted using animal carcasses.

            Pig burning is a scientifically validated technique that could have resolved these issues through experimentation. It had been accepted in British courts before Sayers’ case. The results of such experiments could have been compared to the post-mortem photographs or body if it was still available. Such experimentation could have provided a far better answer to the question posed to Rapley despite the difficulties. The pig carcass could even have been left out in controlled conditions to factor in post-mortem decomposition and maggot activity.

            An expert in pig burning such as the American, Dr. John DeHaan, who has vast experience of burning clothed pigs, for fire reconstruction and teaching purposes, could have conducted the relevant experiments. It could still be done even now.

            Pig-burning experiments could also have taken the wick-effect into account by clothing the pigs during such experiments. The results could then have been compared to the damage sustained by the body. Pig-burning experimentation could have played a major part in this investigation. Sadly it was never given the chance.

            Nevertheless, there are obvious difficulties with pig burning, such as differences in fat content and skin. Despite these differences the technique could still have assisted, as issues of differences in fat content between humans and pigs can be taken into account. Now it would be possible to overcome those difficulties by conducting experiments at the Body Farm in Tennessee using human cadavers, providing bodies of similar size, weight and fat content to that of Crookes are available for the experiments.

New Techniques:
Microscopical Techniques:

            Despite the difficulty of isolating the variables it would have been possible to conduct pig-burning reconstruction experiments even in 1998. Since Sayers’ conviction forensic science has developed at a rapid rate. Consequently, pig-burning reconstructions could be attempted using techniques that are now available. For example, it is now possible to establish what temperature the fire reached to cause burn-damage to plant material such as wood by using microscopical techniques. Consequently, it is possible to establish if the charred lumps had been plant material and if so the temperature that was required to cause that level of alteration.

            Professor Andrew Scott’s technique establishes that botanical substances such as wood show increased reflectivity with increased temperature and will attain maximum reflectivity after certain duration and this will not change even if the substance is burned for twenty-four hours. This technique is able to establish the maximum reflectivity of substances from a given temperature of fire. Consequently, analysis of such material could indicate the presence of an accelerant if the reflectivity of the substance under examination is greater than occurs naturally as the fire would have been hotter.

            This could have been vital information in reconstructing the fire. Providing the debris still exists and is of plant origin this can still be done. This technique could also provide scientific evidence of whether an accelerant had been used, because if the temperature the botanical material has attained is greater than occurs in a fire without accelerant, then some type of accelerant must have been used.

            If they still exist they could be tested for the presence of an accelerant, be examined by a forensic botanist and be subjected to Professor Scott’s technique. This could establish whether different types of wood were used in the pyre and possibly the proportion of each type of wood and whether an accelerant was used. If it proves possible to establish this it would make reconstruction of the fire more accurate. Professor Scott’s technique was not available for use in forensic casework in 1998. As such any reconstruction of the fire in 1998 could not be as accurate as is possible today. However, there were opportunities to establish information using techniques then available that could have enabled reconstruction of the fire even in 1998. And this could have been very useful in answering the last question that Kent Police posed to Rapley regarding whether the burning damage to the body of Russell Crookes was consistent with Wallis’ account of how it was alleged to have been burnt. Professor Scott’s technique could also be used as a control mechanism regarding both temperature and possible use of accelerant. In short, it was possible to compare the burning damage to the body of Russell Crookes with Wallis’ account of how it was alleged to have happened by reconstruction experiments, difficulties notwithstanding. That is a pity. Professor Scott’s technique is not the only new technique that could be used to resolve some of the issues in this case.

Further Entomological Issues:

            In 2003 I had the good fortune to meet Professor Piera, a forensic entomologist who has developed a revolutionary technique. Piera’s conclusions are of great importance as there is independent evidence that suggests the fire occurred much later than Wallis claims. He artificially controls environmental conditions in a reconstruction chamber. A small pig is placed in the chamber. Computer technology allows Piera to control the environmental conditions, such as light, relative humidity and temperature. The more accurate the data prov