Authors: Jill McGown
Howls of protest. A threat to clear the court if there were any more disturbances. Drummond didn’t look at the women who bayed for his blood, who thought that little whore was worth their sympathy. He had passed her in Anclwell Street, but he hadn’t recognized her, not then. He had when he had seen her close to. He’d seen her with Rosa.
“There is, therefore, no physical evidence of an assault. But what of the circumstantial evidence? The prosecution has made much of coincidence in this trial, but the coincidences are not confined to the defense. It was something of a coincidence, wasn’t it, that the alleged victim of this assault had been held by Malworth police for some hours that evening, arrested in the act of committing an offense for which she had many previous convictions, and was then released without charge in the early hours of the morning and allowed to walk home when a rapist was at large? Something of a coincidence that a police car was waiting just a few hundred yards up the road, and arrived on the scene of the alleged assault less than five minutes after it had begun? Something of a coincidence that the knife which was searched for that night should turn up next morning, but without any fingerprints on it? That it had been apparently immersed in water, which would have removed any other possible evidence of the use to which it had allegedly been put?
“It is clear from the evidence given by the alleged victim herself that the police gave her statement regarding the incident something of a rewrite; words and phrases which she demonstrably does not comprehend, never mind use, were to be found in that statement. And it is that same statement which contains the words and phrases alleged to have been used by Mr. Drummond to her. So how reliable is it? How much of what she says happened
did
happen, and how much was suggested to her by the questions she was asked? How many of her answers were improved upon as they were written down? She doesn’t know—she just ‘signed what they wrote down.’ The police are very well acquainted with Miss Benson—is it unfair to assume that they knew of her admitted illiteracy, knew that she would not
be able to read what had been written, chose not to read it aloud to her? Or is their apparent lack of knowledge of her difficulty with reading and writing just another coincidence?
“Perhaps you will feel that these coincidences could explain some of those objected to by the prosecution. Perhaps, if you examine Mr. Drummond’s account of that incident in the light of the possible explanation to
these
coincidences, you will find that it is Miss Benson’s behavior which seems odd, rather than my client’s. After all, if it was her intention all along to say that she had been sexually assaulted, to alert the police whom she knew to be close at hand, and to be found in circumstances which lent credence to allegations of sexual assault, then she wouldn’t ‘think to pull up her leggings,’ however much time she had had in which to do so, would she? And my client’s account of what passed between them begins to make much more sense.
“The police have
not
proved that the knife found at the scene was used in the alleged assault, and have not offered any other evidence to indicate that the defendant was carrying a knife or any other weapon at the time. The doctor who attended the alleged victim has agreed that what she took to be indications of violent sexual activity during her examination of the defendant were
more
likely to have been caused by the motorbike stunt riding that he had been performing earlier in the evening than by committing the sexual offense complained of. No evidence, therefore, has been offered which points to the minor injuries sustained by the two people involved as being there-suit of sexual violence, or which bears out the allegation of the use or threatened use of a knife.
“The prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe that now you have heard all the evidence you will agree with me that a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Drummond’s guilt does exist, and must be taken into consideration in your deliberations. I ask you to find Mr. Drummond not guilty of these charges.”
The judge looked up gravely at the jury when Harper had sat down, then sorted through his papers, referring to them now and then as he spoke to the jury, explaining the law with regard
to rape, sexual assault, grievous bodily harm, the lot. They were even blaming him for that stupid bitch topping herself.
“Rape trials are often attended by doubt,” he said. “In a great many cases, the doubt is as to whether or not the act
was
rape. A woman accuses a man of rape, the man says she consented, and the jury has to decide whether or not the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not. And that question, in essence, is indeed something to which you will have to address yourselves with regard to the alleged assault on Miss Benson on October twenty-eighth last year.
“But first, you must consider the charges arising from the first three assaults. In these instances, no doubt whatever exists as to the offenses themselves. As learned counsel have said, your job is to decide whether or not the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant, Colin Drummond, who committed them. And such a doubt may have presented considerable problems once upon a time, with no eye-witness identification, a failed attempt at voice identification, and what is little more than circumstantial evidence, albeit
strong
circumstantial evidence, to indicate the defendant’s guilt.
“Juries are, quite rightly, loath to convict on circumstantial evidence alone, however strong, and the defendant has offered an explanation for the circumstances of his arrest, for his attire, for his possession of these materials. You have heard evidence that Mr. Drummond habitually wore what he was wearing that night, with the exception of the mask. His explanation for wearing the mask, though bizarre, has been backed up by very distinguished medical opinion as to his emotional state. It is for you to decide whether or not you accept this evidence.
“But whether or not you accept it, it would not of itself point to his guilt or innocence, and that is where this powerful identification tool comes in. DNA profiling is, as you have heard, as certain a method of identification as we have ever had. More certain than voice identification or even than eye-witness identification. As certain, and more compelling, than fingerprint identification, DNA profiling removes the doubt that often presented itself in cases where identification was an issue. You
have heard from an expert witness that the odds are three million to one against the seminal fluid found at the scene of the second assault having originated from anyone other than the defendant; such odds surely take us well out of the realms of possibility, and even of probability; such odds amount to virtual certainty.
“It is true that the defendant had been assaulted by a police officer, and was treated with less regard than the law expects after his arrest, so you may accept that his confession was obtained in less than ideal circumstances. You may hear the tape of the confession, if you think that this will help in your deliberations. And if you feel that the defendant’s explanation of the detail contained in that confession is believable, that he was capable of piecing together the snippets of information given to him by detectives and gleaned from newspapers in order to produce an entirely accurate account of three assaults of which he had no personal knowledge, that the wording of the confession was such as would have been used by someone making it in fear of physical retribution, that you can safely ignore the overwhelming odds against the DNA belonging to anyone else, and that this represents a
reasonable
doubt, then you must find him not guilty.
“If, however, you feel that the prosecution has produced compelling circumstantial evidence in the form of the detail surrounding the defendant’s arrest, backed up by a full confession which bears out all three victims’ evidence of the modus operandi, plus almost unassailable corroborating identification evidence in the form of a DNA match, and no such doubt exists in your minds, then you must find him guilty of all the charges pertaining to these three assaults.
“But whatever decisions you come to regarding the charges arising from the first three assaults, you must consider the charges arising from the fourth in the light of the facts concerning it, and the evidence presented on it, and it alone.
“The allegation by the prosecution is that Miss Benson was sexually assaulted at knife-point, and that a threat was issued to ensure that she would comply with the defendant’s wishes.
You have heard evidence that the young woman made an immediate complaint of anal assault, and that her subsequent medical examination revealed bruising which indicated recent sexual activity of this specific nature. The fact that her injuries were not serious is of no moment; it is not necessary to cause injury to be guilty of serious sexual assault. You have heard that the defendant was apprehended running away from the scene, and that he was wearing a full face-mask and clothing which matched the description given by recent victims of rape, and riding a motorbike which also matched the description given by one victim. You have also heard the defendant’s confession to this assault.
“The defense maintains that Miss Benson was merely plying her trade, and that she maliciously accused the defendant of sexual assault. You have heard that the alleged victim lived as a squatter in an empty flat, the entrance to which was reached by the very alleyway into which she alleges she was manhandled. You have been told by the alleged victim herself that she knew the defendant, and knew him to be what she calls a ‘punter,’ in other words a possible customer for her services. And you have heard medical evidence which states that the particular sexual activity which took place was one to which the alleged victim was not unaccustomed. It has been demonstrated that the statement given by her to the police was not entirely verbatim, and she has admitted that she is not a fluent reader, and merely signed what she was given to sign.
“The decision must be yours. You are the sole judge of the facts, and you may feel that the prosecution have brought a case against the defendant which the defense has failed to answer, in which case you must find him guilty. But you may feel that these facts, taken together, constitute a reasonable doubt as to what exactly went on that night, and if you do, then the benefit of that doubt must be given to the defendant, and you must acquit.”
Colin stopped listening when he got to that bit, and started telling the jury what they had to do. Unless he had the most perverse jury in the history of the legal system, he was going to
be found guilty on the first three, whatever they did about the last one. And he couldn’t see that it mattered.
It took the jury less than two hours. Guilty, on the first twelve counts, not guilty on the last three. Harper was pleased with that; Colin couldn’t see why.
The judge called him an evil predator, an outrage to society, a public menace that had to be removed from the path of civilized people, and Colin was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he serve at least ten years before being considered for parole. The women in the gallery cheered, as he had predicted, and he gave them the finger.
The DNA had sunk them, Harper had said, but he had told Colin not to despair, that he would go on looking for Rosa. Colin hadn’t been able to believe that Rosa was still eluding everyone, but she was, and for months he lived in hope of a breakthrough.
But the months had moved agonizingly slowly, and imprisonment, even in a Youth Detention Center, had gone from being frightening and alien to humiliating and soul-destroying as he had learned that he must survive it at any price; the price had been his submission to it and those who ran it, on either side of the locked doors. Then, it had become the bleak, unending norm. The visits from his parents had gone from dreaded interludes to welcome, even vital, breaks from routine, and his hopes of Rosa had dwindled.
Then one day, Harper had come to see him. He had grounds for an appeal, he had said. Not Rosa. Something about the presentation of evidence, about the DNA. He had read something that had made him realize that the prosecution had made mistakes that could turn things Colin’s way without Rosa.
Various experts had had to be lined up, but Harper had lodged an appeal. And twelve months later, which Harper had assured Colin was good going, though it didn’t seem like it when you were celebrating your twenty-first birthday in a prison cell, the case had reached the Court of Appeal, amid huge publicity. Colin hadn’t dared hope. He had just watched.
Harper had appealed on four grounds. The first was that the
DNA scientist had usurped the jury’s function when he had said that the semen originated from Colin. He should only have said that the DNA profile matched Colin’s; it was up to the jury to decide if that meant the semen was his. As it was they had been told categorically that it was, by an expert witness.
The second was that the judge had compounded that error, giving the jury little choice but to find him guilty when he repeated this statement in his summing-up.
Thirdly, Harper had found other experts to point out that the likelihood of an accidental match of three million to one was not “unassailable,” and did not “amount to virtual certainty,” which was what the judge had said. Ten other men from a population of thirty million could have produced that profile, and they were more, not less, likely to originate in the same area, because of blood relationships going back beyond anyone’s memory. And that DNA profiling in general, far from being infallible, was capable of error. How the tests were conducted was important, and how the comparisons were made. And there was evidence to suggest that accidental matches were much more frequent than previously thought.
And fourth, the method of arriving at three million to one was not universally accepted as accurate. More experts had given evidence, showing how if you added up the sums differently, you came out with something more like three hundred thousand to one. That way, a hundred other men could have produced the same profile.