A Passion for Poison

by Carol Ann Lee

  In due course, Graham’s second probation officer, Susan Vidal, contacted the principal probation officer herself, expressing the muted view that more information in Graham’s case would indeed have been helpful prior to working with him and making suggestions for improvement in the future. ‘Broadmoor seemed to occupy a rather remote position in the total picture,’ she wrote. ‘Having said that, I must say that I would not have hesitated to contact Dr Udwin at Broadmoor if Mr Young’s behaviour had given me cause for concern.’652

  At the Hemel Hempstead Magistrates’ Court on 22 March 1972, Graham was committed for trial. He had been held on Brixton prison’s sick wing for several weeks, where Dr Peter Scott kept him under observation. John Pickworth of Lloyd & Steel solicitors visited him regularly, imparting the news that Hertfordshire constabulary had constructed a formidable case against him. Graham seemed unperturbed, as he did when he stood in the dock at the Magistrates’ Court while the charges were read out followed by a list of 75 witnesses for the prosecution. Of this, 35 witnesses were ordered to attend the trial, and the remaining 40 bound over. The fact that John Walker, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, had tried to prevent their names being read out in court was a measure of the nervousness with which the Home Office viewed the case. Mr Lewis Dean, the magistrate, overruled the request.

  Graham’s sister and cousin attended the committal, sitting side by side for support. The two young women were both mothers now: Winifred had two daughters and Sandra two sons. Much to the surprise of the police officer accompanying him, Graham broke down completely when he saw them; the officer remarked that it was the first time he had shown any sort of emotion. Winifred took home some of Graham’s shirts to wash, returning them a fortnight later when they met again in Brixton prison. He told her that many of the prison rules were nonsensical; he was not permitted a tie, gloves or belt because he was deemed a suicide risk, and could understand the logic in that with regards to the tie and belt, but what was he supposed to do with the gloves – strangle himself?

  Graham’s most frequent visitor at Brixton remained his solicitor, John Pickworth. As Hertfordshire police had suspected, Graham was determined to seek maximum publicity by pleading not guilty to each charge at trial. This would be his big moment, particularly when he appeared as the only witness for the defence. The eyes of court and country – and to some extent the rest of the world – would alight on him as he took his place in history as an eminent poisoner. Aware that his background would give the press a field day, he knew and welcomed the headlines that were to come. His attitude drove his solicitor to distraction; John Pickworth pleaded with Graham to let him handle matters differently, but without success. Finding a suitable QC to defend Graham under those circumstances was no easy task and, as a result, the trial was postponed twice. Finally, a date was set: 19 June 1972. Just a few days beforehand, Pickworth secured the services of Sir Arthur Irvine, QC, who had acted as Solicitor General for England and Wales for the last three years of Harold Wilson’s government. Mr Freddie Beazley would assist as his junior.

  Graham remained convinced that he would walk free from court and chafed against the tedium of life in prison, writing to his sister: ‘I attempt to circumvent it by reading or playing chess against myself. The latter is a somewhat schizophrenic exercise, calling for almost superhuman detachment, but at least I have the consolation that I invariably win! At present I exist in a sort of limbo, my remands having finished and my trial yet to come. I can imagine how anxious you are to see the whole thing finished with. I, too, wish to see the end of this unfortunate episode. I trust that it will end in victory – the alternative would be the finish of me.’653

  Further evidence of Graham’s troubled mental state was presented by Dr Peter Scott, who examined him on 18 April to ascertain whether he was fit to stand trial. Much of Scott’s report is familiar territory, but there are some fresh insights. Noting Graham was ‘always neatly dressed’ and physically ‘normal’, albeit with bad teeth and red marks on his upper arms (‘said to be sulphuric acid burns’), Scott documented Graham’s regret at never having married, continuing:

  He has exceptional ability to hide or deny sympathy and affection so that he tends to be described as ‘devoid of feelings’; he gives the impression of having to force himself to be callous and hard. He says that he is ‘sombre’ in all his tastes and that gaiety embarrasses him. He shows a very strong tenacity of purpose and rigidity of character, but is not obsessional. He recognises a ‘streak of arrogance’ in himself. He tends to drink fairly heavily and to inhale ether for its interesting effects. He has a fantasy of having sufficient money to own a fast car and to live in a large, secluded Gothic house, where he could pursue his studies and thus gain power over people.654

  Scott went on to describe him as:

  cooperative, never challenging authority, nor trying to manipulate people, though sometimes insistently demanding. He is in excellent touch with reality and shows no disorder of perception, except that very occasionally, at times of particular stress he suddenly feels ‘detached’, as though looking in on himself (a not uncommon phenomenon occurring widely in psychiatric patients and normal people). He shows a dry sense of humour, and has been observed to show anger, despair, self-criticism and to weep, quite appropriately. He seems reluctant to be friendly and, if he becomes so, seems to make a conscious effort to withdraw again. Similarly, he will sometimes express remorse or affection and show considerable insight into his own personality but next time he is seen it has all been withdrawn. Throughout the great stress of this long remand he has always maintained his innocence in regard to the current charges. He has not shown any disorder of thought; he has not been hallucinating and there are no paranoid or depressive delusions. He has expressed hopelessness and failure and has felt ‘I might as well be dead.’ He has been a considerable worry lest he should kill himself and will continue to be a risk in this respect.655

  Scott explained his clinical viewpoint:

  If convicted he will need long-term treatment in secure conditions. It is very difficult to know whether this would be most appropriately achieved in one of the special hospitals or in the prison system, bearing in mind that if within the prison system a transfer to a special hospital would be a possibility, whereas transfer in the reverse direction would not. There is the additional point that there may be some hostile reaction towards him from other patients within the special hospitals and that this might be less marked in prison; perhaps anticipating this, the defendant himself has told me that, if convicted, he would much prefer the prison system and does not think he could face a return to the special hospitals. In my opinion there would be a very much higher risk of suicide if he were transferred to a special hospital. If a hospital order were made and (as seems likely) the Health Authority decide that it would be unwise to return him to Broadmoor, then the remaining two special hospitals might be even less suitable for him than Broadmoor. For these reasons I would prefer him to be placed (if convicted) within the prison system. From the medico-legal point of view he would have known what he was doing and that it was wrong. He has a mental abnormality which substantially diminishes his responsibility but does not fall within the definition of psychopathic disorder in terms of the Mental Health Act 1959. He is likely to be fit to plead and to stand his trial.656

  One week after Dr Scott had compiled his report on Graham’s mental health, Chief Superintendent Harvey wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding a troubling exchange involving Graham in Brixton. A solicitor acting for a felon named Leon Carlton had written to Harvey, stating that his client had some information to pass on regarding Graham. Harvey agreed to meet Carlton, who was married with children and in his mid-30s. A club owner and company director, he had been arrested in August 1971 with three other men, two of them brothers, all accused of running protection rackets and handing out punishment beatings. Harvey visited Carlton in his solicitor’s presence and listened as the prisoner described how h
e had arrived in the HMP Brixton hospital in February 1972, where he met Graham. They struck up a conversation and spoke on several occasions during exercise periods. Graham discussed his case, specifically referring to thallium, and spoke about medical matters.

  Carlton recalled: ‘He asked me about witnesses in my case and if there were any who were a nuisance to me. I told him that one or two were lying and he said he might be able to help me.’657 Carlton stated that Graham went on to explain ‘how thallium could be purchased from a chemist and warned me to avoid the chain chemists such as a Boots and go to an old established chemist who was more likely to have thallium in stock. He specifically warned me not to go to John Bell & Croyden but I had never heard of this firm and so it didn’t mean anything to me. He described how thallium came in the form of crystals which could be dissolved in water and then become odourless and tasteless.’658

  Claiming to be troubled that Graham ‘could kill innocent people’, Carlton asked him to write down the details of what he had told him regarding thallium.659 Graham did as he asked, and they continued to chat:

  On one occasion [Graham] told me that he went with the managing director of the firm he worked for to the funeral of one of the men he had poisoned. He said the man had been cremated and there was no hope of the police finding sufficient thallium in the body to prove murder. I asked him to explain this and was told that there could be thallium there, but by that time there would not be enough to show that he had given the man a fatal dose. At the same time he told me that the managing director was a capitalist pig and that he was lucky.660

  Carlton told Harvey that he had asked Graham whether he had meant to kill this man:

  Young laughed and said that he had but couldn’t get the opportunity. Another time he told me there was a bug going round where he worked and the symptoms were very similar to poisoning by thallium and he had been able to give people poison and it was thought that it was the bug. In connection with this, he made particular mention of poisoning somebody in a garden.661

  During his first meeting with Harvey, Carlton refused to make a written statement. He said that Detective Chief Superintendent Bert Wickstead of New Scotland Yard’s Serious Crime Squad had ‘got it in’ for him. Wickstead was then well known in London as the ‘Gangbuster’, having jailed several gangland bosses, but he was frequently accused – though never convicted – of malpractice. Carlton wanted Harvey to get Wickstead off his back, insisting that he was innocent of the charges against him and that he had been threatened by a gang, which made him want to turn Queen’s evidence. Harvey told him he would speak to Wickstead, certainly, but had no influence over him. Carlton seemed satisfied by this and asked, ‘I’ll be exercising with Young this afternoon; are there any particular points you want me to cover?’662 Harvey told him to keep his ears open.

  Harvey spoke to Wickstead that same day, relating the meeting with Carlton. For his part, Wickstead said he had no interest in Carlton as a witness, telling Harvey that he was an East End gangster whose crimes included bribery and impersonation of police officers. Harvey then informed the Director of Public Prosecutions about the entire affair. At the request of Carlton’s solicitor, he returned to Brixton for another meeting, accompanied by DCI Kirkpatrick. Carlton said he had decided to make a statement because Graham was ‘confident of an acquittal’ and the possibility of this disturbed him.663 Harvey then recorded Carlton’s statement and took possession of the piece of paper on which Graham had scribbled details pertaining to thallium acetate in his neat handwriting:

  Thallous Acetate: (pronounced thall-youss asset-ate)

  Description: white crystals, odourless, tasteless, colourless when dissolved in water.

  Fatal dose: 15gms (1/4 level teaspoonful).

  Produces symptoms of Landry’s Paralysis.

  Time of action: symptoms appear 24 to 48 hours after administration, death occurs within 7–10 days.

  Post-mortem appearances: multiple nervous inflammation consistent with Landry’s Paralysis.

  To obtain: purchasers should go to large retail chemist, representing himself as either: 1/ chemistry student or 2/ gemmologist. He should request chemist to order 25mgs of thallous acetate for him from Analar Dept of British Drug Houses Ltd. If asked for reason he should say that he requires it for 1/detections and estimation of metallic thallium or 2/ for making up into Leclerc’s Solution (used in gemmology). Having placed his order the purchaser should be prepared for a 1 to 2 week delay whilst chemist awaits delivery from BDH. Chemist will then request him to sign the poisons register before sale is effected. This is only a formality, the chemical will then be supplied to purchaser and the transaction is completed.

  Purchaser is advised to select old established firm as it is possible that the latter will already have thallium in stock. It is NOT advisable to use chain chemists, Boots, Co-op, etc., and John Bell & Croyden’s must NOT be approached.

  15gms of thallous acetate will dissolve in 1–2 drachms (teaspoonsful) water, forming a colourless, odourless and tasteless solution. It will not alter the taste or colour of spirits, tea, coffee, foodstuffs, etc.664

  Harvey contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions immediately to ask them to consider Carlton’s statement ‘worthy of credence’. Although most of it was already known to the Prosecution ‘none of it has been published in any manner which would make it accessible to Carlton’.665

  When Graham discovered that Carlton had spoken to Harvey and passed on the note, he was disgusted: ‘To me, the whole thing stank. I was sure it was a police set-up. I decided to play along with the idea and see if it was used in court.’666 It was also a means of allowing Carlton himself to be shown in a better light, which had the potential to be useful to him. During Graham’s trial, little was made of the incident. It became noteworthy only because Prosecutor John Leonard revealed a streak of sexism in telling the jury that the paper Graham had handed to Carlton ‘revealed that a quarter teaspoonful would dissolve in another teaspoonful of water to give a colourless, tasteless, odourless clear liquid. It said that thallium would not affect the taste of tea, coffee, wine or spirits. There, members of the jury, you have the recipe handed to a fellow prisoner in much the same way as your wife might hand over a cooking recipe to her friend.’667

  Carlton’s trial at the Old Bailey for conspiracies to cause grievous bodily harm, to blackmail and for running a long firm fraud concluded on 4 July 1972. Together with his co-accused, Phillip Jacobs and George Dixon, Leon Carlton was sentenced to 12 years in prison.668

  A meeting about Graham’s case and its implications had taken place at the Home Office in April. Those present included Sir Philip Allen, acting as chairman, and Sir George Godber, Chief Medical Officer, for the Home Office and Department of Health and Social Security, and Dr Patrick McGrath of Broadmoor. According to the minutes of the meeting, the discussion revolved mainly around damage-limitation measures. Dr Udwin, although not present, was not criticised: ‘It was recognisedthat, althoughtherehadbeenamistakeinclinicaljudgement, the opinion formed by the doctor was reasonable in relation to the facts then available to him’ and that ‘prognosis was especially difficult because the clinical history was in many respects unique’.669 In addition to considering what could be done ‘going forward’ to prevent a similar case happening, there was also some deliberation on Graham’s own future: ‘DHSS representatives and Dr McGrath expressed the view that it would be inappropriate for Young to be returned to Broadmoor on re-conviction, since on present information he appeared to be unlikely to benefit from further hospital treatment and he would be in danger from other patients there.’670 Whatever the outcome in court, the idea of Graham returning to Broadmoor was palatable to no one, including Graham himself.

  As the trial loomed, C3 were especially concerned about media interest in the case and the Home Office role. They had been contacted by Bernard Scarlet, chief crime reporter of the Press Association, who was compiling a ‘now it can be told’ background story on Graham for r
elease to newspapers and broadcasting outlets throughout the UK as soon as the verdict was passed. Scarlet warned that ‘the case is likely to raise some awkward questions for some government departments, including ourselves’. He had spoken to the management of Hadlands and informed C3 that ‘the firm are not “gunning” for anyone, although they naturally feel aggrieved at not being told in confidence about the true nature of Young’s medical history. Evidently they have a fairly good record of employing ex-prisoners and say that they might well have taken Young on anyway but of course they would have kept him under some kind of supervision.’671 Scarlet’s request was followed by numerous other enquiries, including one from the BBC, whose research assistant Angela Holdsworth was ‘preparing a documentary film on the problems of people leaving Broadmoor’.672 She intended to refer to Graham and hoped to be given access to medical reports from his earlier trial, along with the transcript. The Home Office politely declined to get involved with any media outlets, having enough to deal with in ongoing communications between themselves, Broadmoor, the department of employment and the probation service. Any observations about the case were kept strictly to themselves.