The Devil's Garden (23 page)

Outlining the minutiae of how the National Crime Faculty operated, Napper stressed that officers learn as much from failure as success. 'With a combination of the rise of DNA, forensics and the NCF,' he wrote, 'senior officers increasingly saw an opportunity to have a completely fresh look at some older unsolved crimes. Prior to this, all unsolved crimes were retained by the police force that had primacy for the crime. The chief constables had absolute control, and were in some instances understandably reluctant to share with the outside world what they may have considered to be "failures".'

Napper moved to the problems initially encountered by the first cold-case reviews. In hindsight, he sighs, these problems would mirror the attitude he encountered in Western Australia after this paper was submitted. 'Many detectives felt affronted by the inclusion of an outside team,' he wrote. 'Some had strong suspects for their crimes and tried to steer the review team down a particular line of investigation . . .' In order to progress, four unbreakable rules were laid down. These rules would need to be addressed before the NCF would agree to conduct a cold-case review.

First, the chief constable would invite the NCF to conduct the review. Second, every skerrick of material held in connection with the investigation would be made available to the review team. Third, the forensic science laboratories handling exhibits for the case would be prepared to hand them over. Fourth, all costs would be carried by the chief constable's policing authority.

Admitting his knowledge of the Claremont case was limited to media speculation and general talk, under the heading 'Macro taskforce' he wrote, 'My strong belief is that a comprehensive "cold-case review" should now be considered. With the improvements in forensic technology and the number of investigators and experts around the world skilled in these types of reviews, it would be possible to put together a formidable team to assist the West Australian Police Service. These forums have proven to be one of the most powerful investigative tools in the world. Clearly it is absolutely essential that the WA Police Service is supportive of such a review. This is not about criticising a police service who have had to cope with a very complex and difficult investigation. Rather it is about supporting the police service . . .'

Napper suggested other independent and highly experienced investigators who could be brought in to help, including criminal and geographic profilers, pathologists, general forensic experts and forensic archaeologists. The names forwarded included those who had worked on the macabre 'Cannibal' case in Germany, in which a man advertised – and found – another man willing to be killed and eaten, and the infamous OJ Simpson murder case. Napper noted that Dr David Barclay, a pre-eminent forensic expert with the National Crime Faculty in Britain, whom he holds in high esteem, had already advised on selected parts of the Macro investigation. For this reason, Napper opined that it may be beneficial to 'consult with someone else, fresh to the case'. This advice was ignored. Dr Barclay was used.

'From what I know of the Macro case,' Napper continued, 'it is highly probable the police are dealing with sexually motivated homicides involving a predatory offender. It will be essential to include other investigators skilled in this type of crime. The thinking, background and hunting pattern of these types of killers have been extensively studied elsewhere in the world.' Three criminal profilers' names were forwarded. None was used.

Napper spelled out his working knowledge of geographic profilers. 'Any case involving multiple crime scenes such as abduction and murder requires interpretation by a geo-graphic profiler. The possible identification of "comfort zones" and "anchor points" has proved crucial in other investigations around the world. It enables investigators to focus their geographic attention onto suspects by their use of such things as the transport system and topography of the area.' Amongst the three names listed were men with years of experience in dealing with serial rapists. None was used.

Napper also stressed the importance of using the expertise of a forensic archaeologist. 'With one of the Claremont victims still missing, there is a possibility the body is buried in the bush. In addition, if a review turns up another suspect and the possibility of other concealed bodies, the advice of a forensic archaeologist will be invaluable. He/she would work in conjunction with the geographic profiler to narrow down a possible search area. Methods of searching, from cadaver dogs to ground-penetrating radar, are available. This method, together with triangulisation of mobile phone aerials, has proved very successful in the past.' The name of a forensic archaeologist who had worked on the Rose and Fred West case in Gloucester, England, with great success was put forward.

No archaeologist was used in the review.

Of the 12 names Napper nominated, only one – forensic expert Dr Malcolm Boots, whose role was to examine body fluids, hair fibres, DNA and interpretation of crime-scene evidence – was used.

Napper is now, according to WA police, persona non grata. 'I am dead in the water in Western Australia because I was prepared to listen to people who alleged they had been victims of miscarriages of justice. I was totally unaware at first of the "closed shop" mentality of the WA police. Even
talking
to people who claimed miscarriages had occurred barred me from the mythical police club. The attitude was: how dare I have a mind of my own and make my own decisions? In hind-sight, I now realise they were terrified of the skeletons in the cupboards that modern DNA technology could expose. I was seen as the trailblazer of DNA in Australia, and if they couldn't control me, there was a danger that my new tactics could expose them. At least they got that bit right!'

Napper recognises that the culture in WA is very different to the UK. 'There, you are invited to help and be part of the team. Here, it's a "them" and "us" scenario. The attitude is, if they can't solve this, no one can.' Napper leans against his desk and peers intently at me. 'The saddest thing about all this is, they haven't solved the Claremont case. This is about power and ego blocking receptiveness to new techniques. And that's a tragedy.'

The whole point about crime investigation, he says, is being courageous enough to admit when you may have got it wrong. He recounts the story of a case he worked on in the UK 15 years ago. 'The police got a match through DNA and rang me. "Was I close?" I asked them, and they laughed. "Nah, you got nowhere near it! This guy was a serial rapist and traditional policing methods would never have got him." When we started working the DNA database, we discovered so many serial offenders travel around. But in Australia, the technology of DNA is still not linked up across the states. This, in a country that has such an itinerant population, where people think nothing of jumping in a ute and driving thousands of kilometres across the country.'

Napper counts the cases he has worked on that have high-lighted miscarriages of justice in Western Australia, including Beamish, Christie and Mallard. 'All these cases exposed appallingly bad investigation techniques. As a result, some people in the WA police force would like to see me on a slow boat to China with no return ticket. Their lack of understanding of modern forensic and investigation methods puts them at least 20 years behind the culture I came from.'

He is amazed, too, at the lack of financial accountability in the WA police force. 'In Britain, we have a system called Midas where every cent spent on an investigation is accounted for. Rates of pay for officers, overtime, travel – every cent. Here, it's a financial bottomless pit. Ask how much the Claremont investigation has cost, down to the last dollar and cent, and see if someone can answer you. I bet they can't.'

Napper is right. When I ask Detective Senior-Sergeant Anthony Lee the question, I am met with a general, vague answer. He doesn't know, he says, waving his hand in a figure-8 pattern through the air as he speaks. I would need to ask someone else that question. But who?

Napper remembers being astonished that the day Rory Christie gave evidence at the first trial, numerous detectives turned up at court. 'There was no reason for them to be there, other than the sheer weight of numbers to put pressure on Christie. It is doubtful they all had the day off work, so how much did it cost to have them there, off their shifts? Without being able to see the figures, the short answer to that is – a helluva lot of taxpayers' money.'

Napper says all the serial killers he has met have one thing in common. 'They can't switch on and off like a light switch. They've got what I call a disease: they can't stop. They can change modus operandi, they can change the way they operate, but they cannot
stop
. Whoever took Sarah Spiers, Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon was at the top of his form, operating at peak performance. Like an athlete in training for the Olympics. To actually have the nerve to go into an area, single the young women out, take them away and get away with it – he's not going to stop. He loves his work.'

'How long does it take to reach that peak performance?'

'How long does it take a sportsman to get there – five years, ten? And therein lies the clue. The answer to Claremont is in the precursor crimes that this person has committed. Instead of going to the day that the individuals disappeared, investigators should go back just before that. He – or they – wouldn't have just hit that area. He would have done his homework, he would have been down there before. It could be something as simple as a speeding ticket, a traffic accident, but he would have been there. He would know the way in and the way out. He could live there, be working there, just moved in there, socialising there. Look hard: he will be there somewhere, before that first girl went missing.'

Napper concedes it is not easy to catch a serial killer. 'Whoever did this is not going to worry about being caught. He'd make sure he had current rego papers, good tyres, a clean car and is sober. If he's pulled up on a random breath test, he's going to know he's okay even if the body is in the boot. His sense of self-preservation is incredibly high. Some of these people are so damn good at what they do, they are streets ahead of the police and the best the police can hope for is a lucky break. The trick is in recognising when they have got one.' The killer would work on the 'least effort' principle. 'Once he has killed, he will take the body to a comfort zone where he knows they won't be disturbed, and dump it not very far from the track or road. There is no need to take the body any further. Once the death has occurred, whatever thrills the killer got out of it, it's over. He will not spend a lot of time obsessing over a dead body; he will simply cover and dispose of it. That's not to say that some don't return to the scene to play with the body later.'

Serial killers exist for four things: they need to eat, drink, have shelter and sexual satisfaction. Nothing else matters to them. They have absolutely no feelings at all for another human being. 'The important part of geographic profiling is where the two bodies were dumped. Not only does this killer have a vast knowledge of Claremont, he also knows the areas where the bodies were tossed. He would not have taken the bodies somewhere unless he felt safe and comfortable at that disposal site. Even though one girl was dumped north and the other south, there will be a very strong link with where Jane Rimmer was found at Wellard, and Ciara Glennon at Eglinton. Investigators shouldn't be just looking at the Claremont area before the first girl went missing; the disposal sites are just as important. There will be a combination in the killer's background that will link all the areas. And that's not an easy job for the police. The parameters have to be set, information picked over. They should start with motive. Is it sexual? Who do the police know who has ever been convicted of a minor sexual crime in Claremont or any of the other dumping sites? Go through the local court registers, back a few years and look at who has been picked up for flashing, indecent assault, loitering with intent – offences of that nature. One of the biggest precursors to sexual crimes is house burglary: testing their mettle to see how good they are, to see if they can get away with it. So look in the background for domestic burglary, theft, violence, sexual crimes. Start getting a list of people together who may fit that list. It's hard work, bloody hard work. But there is no safe shortcut.'

Napper recounts the story of Fred and Rosemary West, the foul House of Horrors case. Then working at the National Crime Faculty, he sat through a two-day debrief on the case where all the main players, including pathologists and senior investigators, shared the information they had gathered with representatives of every force in the UK. 'It was about sharing the lessons. A major one that arose was medical con-fidentiality. One of the party tricks that Fred and Rose perfected was, when their girls were old enough, they took them down to the cellar and sexually abused them. They liter-ally crucified them to the table, hammered holes in their hands to keep them still. These girls would eventually end up in hospitals around Gloucester to have all their injuries checked. They told doctors they had fallen over rusty nails, gave them any excuse at all but the truth. Rose had taken them in countless times, but because of medical confidentiality there was no back checking done. There was no sharing of information between hospitals. And so the Wests literally got away with murder, time and time again.

'The problem in Australia is lack of communication between police services. The DNA databases don't talk to each other. Timelines of individuals – where they have worked, where they have been, where they have lived – should be standard practice. Lay a template over a map of Australia and timeline the suspect's movements on the dates the offences occurred. Tie all the other information together and see what comes out. Chances are, when it is all sifted through, the identity of the Claremont serial killer could well become obvious.'

'But how,' I ask him, 'are we to know what police have and have not done?'

Napper frowns. 'With this highly furtive investigation and officers running around like secret squirrels, there is no way we, the public, can know anything with surety. And that's the problem. We have no comeback. We are told to sit back, let them do their work and to stop meddling in police business. But this attitude overlooks one bloody obvious point. They haven't got the Claremont serial killer. Whoever did it is still out there.'

And whoever is murdering prostitutes near Northbridge is, too. In April 2003 25-year-old street worker Darylyn Ugle's decomposing body was discovered by bushwalkers in a burnt-out tree trunk near a large weir north of Perth – some 60 kilometres south-east of Eglinton. An itinerant of Aboriginal descent, Ugle, though well known in the Northbridge area to other prostitutes and clients, was not reported missing. Hit with ferocious force by a blunt object, police admitted that while there was no real evidence to suggest the cases were linked, there could well be a connection between her murder and that of street worker Lisa Brown. And that connection was a serial killer who targeted the most vulnerable people in the community, next to children: prostitutes.