The Mammoth Book of Unsolved Crimes Read Online Free PDF Page B

necessarily been deceitful but that “more serious offences do justify more unusual methods of investigation”. While the law permits evidence obtained by clandestine means to be given in evidence in certain circumstances, it stipulates that the information so obtained must be other than that discoverable by question and answer, in order to uphold the centuries-old common law which protects an individual from incriminating himself. In the Stagg/James relationship there was, however, no difference between asking questions and eliciting material designed to build up an incriminating psychological profile. Had the 700 pages of transcripted conversations and correspondence been allowed in evidence, it would have been the first time such evidence was presented in British criminal history. We now know that the judge did not allow it, because the suspect had clearly been manipulated with a view to inculpating himself, and that exculpatory material had been set aside. Mr Justice Ognall, a deeply experienced and splendidly sane Yorkshireman, is no friend to villains, but is even less an ally to subterfuge. The overriding demands of fairness in the justice system must prevail.
    What case did the Crown hope to present against Colin Stagg? There was no murder weapon, no motive, no evidence of previous personality disorder apart from one instance of indecent exposure, no forensic evidence to link him to the brutal murder of Rachel Nickell. The prosecution had three planks. First, Stagg had been on Wimbledon Common at the time of the offence (along with 500 other people). Second, that he had described the position of Rachel’s body (not accurately, as it turned out). Third, that his fantasies matched those to be expected according to the predictions of Paul Britton. When this last plank was disallowed, the first two diminished to invisibility, and the Crown had to concede they had no evidence at all. Hence the formal verdict of Not Guilty.
    Colin Stagg is perhaps a flawed character. He had some timid pornography in his flat, of the sort you may find on the top shelf at your newsagent’s, and he has a minor conviction on his record. But we must all, I think, be glad that he was not tried on evidence obtained by underhand methods, for it is a fundamental safeguard of the citizen against the State that such citizen retains the right not to incriminate himself. It is a basic right, at the very heart of our criminal justice system, and if it were diluted we should all have reason to feel less safe.
    This was the burden of the judge’s ruling. There was an additional danger to which he referred obliquely as “an even higher mountain to climb”, and that was the reliability of the “offender profile” which started it all. Had the police evidence been admitted before a jury, could not the defence have objected to Mr Britton’s inclusion as an “expert” witness in any case? Mr Justice Ognall gave several indications that he thought as much. He referred to the undercover operation as “fishing” for specific characteristics listed in Mr Britton’s “profile”, and depicted him at one point as the “puppet-master”. It was significant, he hinted, that little or no attention was paid to other letters which Stagg had written to a third woman, because they contained nothing to coincide with the personality postulated in the profile. Hence Mr Britton’s portrait of the hypothetical person responsible for Rachel’s murder took precedence over all else. If anything like this managed to seep into the system, any one of us facing charges might find ourselves judged according to the unsupported opinion of a person we had never met, and our denials held to corroborate our guilt (Britton had predicted that it would be part of the suspect’s personality to deny involvement with the crime).
    Mr Clegg submitted to the court that Britton’s technique was “inherently prone to error and had not been accepted by the scientific community”.