by Chris Clark
DS McAnespie: ‘She wasn’t willing to go and you abducted her, you’ve crossed that line, fantasy one minute, then reality kicks in. You put her in the van and you have to restrain her. She doesn’t want to go with you, she’s not willing, why would she be? … Her bike was on the road and you think to yourself, If I leave that bike on the road someone’s going to come along and see it, so you get out and throw it over the hedge.’
Black: ‘No.’
DS McAnespie: ‘And you think, Right, where do I go, and then you remember McKee’s Dam.’
Black: ‘No.’
DS McAnespie: ‘You go to McKee’s Dam, she’s got a ligature round her neck, so possibly by that stage she’s possibly even unconscious … and she was sexually assaulted.’
Black: ‘No.’
DS McAnespie: ‘Then you have the problem: What am I going to do with the body? There’s one thing you could do, and you’re at McKee’s Dam and you put her into the water … You couldn’t have cared less. Is that right?’
Black: ‘No. I didn’t even know of the existence of McKee’s Dam.’
The court then heard once again from retired Detective Chief Inspector Stephen Clarke, the prosecution’s last witness.
Mr Clarke informed the jury that he had reviewed all child murders in Northern Ireland from over the last forty years and, using four points of reference, compared them with the crimes Robert Black had been convicted of committing. The four points were as follows:
1. The victim was a pre-pubescent girl.
2. The victim was abducted from a public place.
3. The victim was murdered.
4. The victim was taken away in some form of transport.
‘There was only one case that fitted the four criteria and that was the case of the abduction and murder of Jennifer Cardy,’ he asserted.
Toby Hedworth, QC for the Crown, asked Mr Clarke if he would confirm to the court that the Jennifer Cardy case was the only such child murder in Northern Ireland in the forty years since 1972 that matched the criteria linked with Robert Black’s method of operation. Turning to address the judge, Mr Justice Ronald Weatherup, Mr Clarke confirmed: ‘Yes, My Lord, the case is unique.’
Mr Clarke then added, ‘The Jennifer Cardy case is also the only case that has never been detected.’
The defence opened their case with junior counsel Paddy Taggart informing the jury and court that Mr Black would not be taking the witness stand to defend himself. ‘Mr Black will not be giving evidence,’ he said.
Mr Justice Weatherup then asked the defence team if Mr Black was aware that the jury was entitled to draw an inference from the accused not taking the stand. Black’s defence counsel David Spens, QC confirmed for the jury that Black was aware of it.
* * *
The defence team laid out their case on day seventeen of the trial, Thursday, 20 October. They called a lone witness and put their case to the jury. Dr Christopher Milroy, an expert forensic pathologist, gave evidence via video link from Malaysia, where he was on a lecture tour. In his evidence he said that the internal marks found on Jennifer’s body were not necessarily proof that she was the victim of a sexual assault.
‘It is significant there was no injury,’ he said.
This attempt by the defence team to cast reasonable doubt on there having been a sexual motive for Jennifer’s abduction and murder – and that it therefore could not be compared with the three murders for which Black was convicted in 1994 – was efficiently countered by the Crown during cross-examination, when Mr Hedworth, QC asked Dr Milroy if it was the case that sexual assault could be committed and not always leave marks or visible injuries. Dr Milroy agreed that it was, stating that it depended on the severity of the sexual assault. He also accepted that an injury could have been missed at the original post-mortem examination, techniques used at the time having been significantly different from modern ones.
‘If you have the body of a young girl who is abducted in circumstances where there is no ransom note, one of the starting points surely would be, has this girl been sexually assaulted?’ Mr Hedworth suggested.
The debate then focused on the stain found on Jennifer’s underwear. The prosecution said that an experienced forensic pathologist had visually identified the stain as blood back in the 1981 autopsy. Dr Milroy stated, however, that it did not prove the stain was definitely blood, pointing out that a visual analysis was not as efficient as a scientific one; only a scientific test could have proved what the stain was. He added that decomposition fluids could have caused the staining.
When discussing Jennifer’s cause of death, Dr Milroy said he believed that the state of Jennifer’s lungs at the autopsy would support death by either drowning or asphyxiation. David Spens, for the defence, then asked Dr Milroy which of the two he believed was the more likely cause.
‘Probably more likely than not it was drowning. I don’t think you can express a strong preference for one or the other,’ answered Dr Milroy, who also said that he believed that ‘in all likelihood’ Jennifer had had some sort of ligature wrapped around her neck.
With the conclusion of Dr Milroy’s evidence the defence had completed their case – in just under two hours. The next stage of the trial was for both the prosecution and defence lawyers to begin their closing statements – summing up their case to the jury.
* * *
On day eighteen of the trial, Friday 21 October, Toby Hedworth, QC for the prosecution, was first to speak. He delivered a strong and confident closing statement, choosing Black’s refusal to give evidence as his point of departure.
‘There is one absolutely central and fundamental witness that I, on behalf of the prosecution, would have liked to have asked some questions. Questions to assist you in your careful and thorough and fair examination of this case,’ he declared. ‘But strangely, this witness is not dead. He is not infirm. He is not unable to come to court. He has in fact been here in the centre of this court for the duration of the trial. But he has quite deliberately chosen not to walk the few short paces from the dock to the witness box, take the oath, look you in the eye and answer these charges. You may ask yourselves why. Because, ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution would have some questions for Robert Black. Questions that, because he is guilty, he knows he cannot answer.’
During this verbal challenge Robert Black remained sitting in the dock with headphones on and wearing an expression that was the same as it had been for the majority of the trial – unruffled, impassive, indifferent, displaying no emotion. He would yawn occasionally, perhaps to show his lack of concern or interest in the events taking place in front of him.
Mr Hedworth then spoke of how Jennifer’s murder whilst unique in Northern Ireland criminal terms, became part of a pattern when put into a wider British context alongside Robert Black’s known crimes. Jennifer’s killing displayed Black’s hallmark and signature. ‘In Northern Ireland Jennifer Cardy stands alone – she is unique. No one here does that sort of thing. But Robert Black does. And Robert Black was here on that day.’
A recap of the crimes for which Robert Black was convicted in 1994 followed: the murders of eleven-year-old Susan Maxwell from the Scottish borders in 1982, five-year-old Caroline Hogg from Edinburgh in 1983, ten-year-old Sarah Harper from Morley in Leeds; and the attempted abduction of fifteen-year-old Teresa Thornhill in Nottingham in 1988. The three murder victims were all found in areas adjoining lay-bys, like Jennifer Cardy. As Mr Hedworth outlined Black’s crimes, including his arrest in 1990 for the Stow abduction, a juror broke down in tears at the harrowing details, prompting Mr Justice Weatherup to grant her wish for a break, and the court rose for a five-minute period.
When court resumed Mr Hedworth stated: ‘That Robert Black was the abductor and murderer of Jennifer Cardy we submit you can and should have no doubt.’
He then went over the thirteen distinct similarities between Jennifer Cardy’s murder and the six crimes of a similar nature that Black had committed whilst employed as a PDS van dr
iver of which he had already been convicted:
Each victim was abducted at a time when Robert Black was in the area in connection with his employment driving his PDS van. This is really evidence of opportunity.
Each victim was pre-pubescent except fifteen-year-old Teresa Thornhill, who looked younger, as in eleven or twelve.
Each offence was committed during the school holidays.
Each victim was abducted from a public place.
Each victim was wearing white socks.
In each case, a vehicle was used to carry the victim away.
Each victim was carried in the direction of Robert Black’s return to London.
Each victim was sexually assaulted or, we can infer, was to be sexually assaulted. In this case, this was disputed by the defence.
Each victim was killed except for the girls in Stow and Nottingham who were rescued.
None of the victims was grossly injured.
In all cases, except for Teresa Thornhill in Nottingham who escaped, there is evidence of disturbance of clothing. It was so in this case. As well as the possibilities of interference with the underwear there were some buttons missing from Jennifer’s cardigan.
In all cases, except for the girl in Nottingham who escaped, and Sarah Harper, who was disposed of not far from one, a lay-by was involved.
Sarah Harper like Jennifer Cardy had been placed in water.
Mr Hedworth continued: ‘Jennifer Cardy’s killing can be properly described as unique. And accordingly you may think a case set aside from all others in Northern Ireland. But it’s not unique when added to what has happened in Great Britain where a tiny number of other offences are comparable. The abductions and murders of Susan Maxwell, Caroline Hogg and Sarah Jane Harper are comparable because they were all committed by the same man – this defendant Robert Black.
‘Comparable because the stealing of young Jennifer from the roadside as she cycled to Aghalee, her murder and the dumping of her body in McKee’s Dam had about it so many matching features to the other cases that … it bears Robert Black’s signature and demonstrates that it was he who committed these offences. There is a strange paradox to Mr Black. He doesn’t want to face the truth but equally he likes to talk, almost in a sense of boasting. He is arrogant. He enjoys control and talking about what he does as long as it doesn’t lead to consequences.’
Mr Hedworth then reminded the jury of the 2005 interview between Black and Detective Constable Pamela Simpson, and how Black perversely told her that he was enjoying watching her struggle. Mr Hedworth then added:
‘When he can wriggle he will. But ultimately he has to play almost a game of cat and mouse with the officers and he talks in more and more detail of the so-called fantasy. We say this was no fantasy, this was a re-telling of what he had done.’
In concluding, the QC said the prosecution were certain that Black was in Northern Ireland on the day of the murder, and the evidence displayed during the trial proved it:
‘Robert Black was available to and, we submit, did, abduct Jennifer Cardy and then did what he liked to do to little girls before discarding her, by now to him a useless body.’
As Toby Hedworth sat down on that Friday afternoon, his closing statement delivered and the case for the Crown summed up, the judge called an end to the day’s proceedings, saying that the court would sit again on Monday when the defence team would deliver their closing statements to the jury.
* * *
Monday arrived, 24 October and day nineteen of the trial. Senior defence counsel David Spens, QC immediately went after the prosecution’s claim that Robert Black was in Northern Ireland on the day of the murder, saying that they had failed to prove that was the case. As Andy and Pat Cardy and Jennifer’s older brother Mark looked on from the public gallery, Mr Spens explained:
‘The prosecution has simply failed to prove their case against Mr Black, they have failed to prove he was in Northern Ireland on August 12th, 1981, and in particular in Newry. Opportunity is the key in this case. On this the prosecution case is weak, flimsy and ultimately unsatisfactory. It has cracks that cannot be papered over.’
The defence counsel then called Black’s so-called confession worthless, as he made it under a false impression of where one of the receipts was issued.
Mr Spens then laid out the differences as the defence saw it between Jennifer’s murder and Black’s other known past crimes, in an attempt to counter the Crown’s list of similarities between the two.
He talked about how Jennifer had not been wearing a skirt or dress like all Black’s other known victims and the fact that Jennifer was still wearing her shoes when discovered: ‘Missing shoes were a tell-tale sign that he had been at the scene of a crime. The shoes were always removed.’ He added that whereas Black’s other known victims had been gagged, there was no sign that Jennifer had been.
Mr Spens then addressed the emotional nature of the trial. ‘It must be very difficult for Jennifer Cardy’s parents to relive all of this. You would have the utmost sympathy for her family and at the same time you would have absolutely no sympathy for Mr Black. Sympathy can play no part in your deliberations,’ he said to the jury. ‘You must assess the evidence coolly, calmly and dispassionately. Maybe some, or all, of you would like to convict him because of what you know about him. But,’ he pressed his point, ‘you don’t decide verdicts on emotion; sympathy can play no part.’
He next reiterated the defence’s position that there was no evidence that Jennifer had been the victim of sexual abuse whereas there was evidence of sexual interference in relation to Black’s known victims. Mr Spens alluded to Professor Thomas Marshall’s claim earlier in the trial of feeling under pressure to alter the analysis of his 1981 findings. ‘Something about the prosecution case just does not feel right,’ he said.
‘What the prosecution are trying to do is fit a square peg – Mr Black – into a round hole – the circumstances of Jennifer Cardy’s murder. It doesn’t work.’
* * *
On day twenty of the trial, Tuesday, 25 October, the judge Mr Justice Ronald Weatherup addressed the jury. He reviewed all the evidence heard over the previous nineteen days, focusing on the evidence of Black being in Northern Ireland that day and having the opportunity to commit the crime; the witness testimony by the three expert forensic pathologists on the questions of Jennifer’s cause of death and whether or not she was the victim of sexual assault, and the bad character/similar fact evidence based on Black’s past convicted crimes and how they compared with the murder of Jennifer Cardy.
All the while, Jennifer’s parents Andy and Pat, her brothers Mark and Philip, and her sister Victoria sat in the public gallery and listened.
Summing up his directions to the jury when considering their deliberations on reaching a verdict, the judge instructed them to decide the case on the basis of evidence rather than on an emotion reaction.
‘All right-thinking people would be appalled at what they have heard,’ he said. ‘Those of you who have a daughter or a niece, or other young girl you know, would be appalled by what you have heard and would be concerned about what would happen – you of course would not want any children you know to be confronted by the defendant. You would have been totally outraged when told of his past convictions. You would of course want to throttle him or worse if he came anywhere near any member of your family. It’s understandable given what you know about him, emotions can run high. But I want you to stop, step back and take care and I want you to be careful about what you do. I want you to remember you have to judge on the basis of evidence. I don’t want you to consider the matter on the basis that he has been convicted of doing those things to young girls in England and Scotland, that means he’s done it here. You have to be satisfied about his responsibility for this particular offence and not judge him on the basis of what you know about him.’
Concluding, Mr Weatherup said: ‘You can’t help but feel sympathy for the family and victim in this case. Nevertheless you must look at th
e matter objectively and consider the evidence.’
That afternoon the jury of nine women and three men left the court and returned to their base to deliberate. On Wednesday afternoon Mr Justice Weatherup was informed that they had failed to reach a verdict. He was sympathetic and informed the jury that they could continue their discussions and deliberations the following morning, a Thursday. He added that they were under no time pressure to reach a verdict. It was 3.30 p.m. The Cardy family made their way home that night still not knowing if Robert Black would be found guilty of killing their daughter. They undoubtedly hoped the next day would provide them finally with an affirmative answer and subsequent justice.
* * *
On the morning of Thursday, 27 October, their second day of deliberation, the jury met again. By midday they had reached an agreed verdict. They had deliberated for a period of four hours and fifteen minutes in total over two days. As the courtroom filled, Mr Justice Ronald Weatherup made it clear he did not want any outbursts when the verdict was delivered. The jury foreman stood up and announced the verdict: ‘Guilty!’
A collective sigh of undeniable relief could be heard from the public gallery. Black simply sat there with not a flicker of emotion to indicate he cared about what was happening. Judge Weatherup then spoke to Black:
‘You’ve been convicted by a jury of murder. There’s only one sentence that will be imposed by law. That’s the sentence of life imprisonment. Accordingly I sentence you to life imprisonment.’
Turning to the guards, Judge Weatherup ordered: ‘Take him down please.’
At this point Pat Cardy broke down and wept as did a number of others present, an outpouring at the end of what had been perhaps the most emotional and distressing trial to have ever been heard in a Northern Ireland court.
The Cardy family then presented gifts to the prosecution team and in an extraordinary act of dignity and generosity of spirit embraced members of Black’s defence team in an expression of respect, concluding what had been clearly, for all involved, a very difficult trial.
