by Robert Green
With the jury back, Webster was called. As the coat was held up, he explained it had been deliberately cut down the back during the post mortem. We presumed this was to avoid touching the buttons. If so, who did them up? Were they checked for fingerprints? No such questions were asked. Initially he had found six holes in the fabric: one on the right sleeve and five at the front around the bottom button in the right number and area to match the stab wounds. However, closer examination more recently showed three of the cuts did not even go through the inner lining of the coat. To complicate things further, he also found about half a dozen small cuts in the lining that did not touch the coat fabric, for which he had no explanation.
Webster said the coat could have been lying open or hitched up when the injuries were inflicted, or it had not been worn at all during the attack. This made the prosecution case absurd. It inferred that the panicking teenager, after carrying out the stabbing, had bothered to button it up. Could one explanation be that the cuts in the main coat fabric that did not even go through the inner lining had been done in a hurry afterwards as part of the cover-up?
Webster had found cuts in Hilda’s rainbow-striped cardigan, aubergine jumper, vest and slip that corresponded with the stab wounds on the body. He also discovered cuts in the skirt but, significantly, did not mention whether these matched the knife wounds.
He was asked why he thought the skirt was not on the body. He said it could have been taken off by someone or by Hilda due to hypothermia, which in its advanced stages dilates blood vessels in the body’s extremities, making the body feel hot. And the suspender belt? He replied that, as it was designed to stay on, it must have been removed deliberately, although it may have come off during dragging. Thus expert opinion had finally discredited the idea of Hilda losing her clothing while crawling around. Webster clearly realised it would be unlikely for the skirt – and impossible for the suspender belt, supposedly attached to the stockings – to have come off by crawling or been removed by Hilda.
When the court adjourned, Kate, delighted that several of her earlier questions about the clothing had been discussed openly in court, seized her first opportunity to examine Hilda’s clothes. She asked the bemused exhibits officer for a closer look before they were taken away. The suspender belt, which looked home made, was frayed and torn, and the clasps were fastened. The officer said that was how it was found in the copse. He also confirmed the skirt was found zipped up and inside out. This ruled out the possibility that it had been pulled off by the attacker or taken off by Hilda – unless either of them had then zipped it up again. None of these deductions, or their implications, was raised by either side.
Webster told the court he found only two traces of semen, both aspermic. An extremely small amount was on the front of the slip on the body. Though rain could have washed some of it away, there was still nowhere near enough semen for a full ejaculation. The other positive result came from a handkerchief stained with Hilda’s blood found in the back spare bedroom, but it could not be matched with anyone’s DNA. Again the quantity was negligible. No sperm was present, for which Webster gave no explanation.
For the next two days the trial covered the evidence found at Ravenscroft. Retired PC Edmond Lane recalled his visits, which confirmed he noticed very little and had no sense of urgency.
The court was shown the inside of the house on the large screens via excerpts from the police video. More evidence about its condition came from people who first went inside on the Saturday morning. Latham read statement excerpts from housekeeper Mrs Latter and gardener David Williams – but not those of either Brian George or his wife, who had insisted the telephone had been carefully disconnected. Both could have been called as witnesses. Latham did not mention Mrs Latter was unable to positively identify the handbags on the table, and was sure Hilda’s current bag was missing. Nor did Mrs Latter recognise the Totes rain hat found in the hedge.
Regarding the state of the telephone in the kitchen, Latham pointed out in the police video how ‘the white cables have been cut. The white telephone wire was originally stapled along the edge of the timber work. Plastic staples have moved onto the floor in front of the chest of drawers.’ This was why he read out only short extracts from the two statements made by Christopher Mileham, the telephone engineer. As with Brian George, Mileham could have been cross-examined over the disturbing anomalies about the telephone; but the defence chose not to challenge this. Was this because Andrew George would later claim he pulled out the phone when he heard it ring – despite the fact that Mileham confirmed the bell circuit was disabled, so would not have rung?
The prosecution failed to find any convincing evidence that Andrew George could drive. Successive witnesses were called who knew him at Besford House in Shrewsbury in March 1984. Only one of them said he could – although, under cross-examination, he had trouble distinguishing between Andrew and Adrian. None of the others ever saw him driving. Latham did not ask Andrew’s former partner.
Having established that George had lived with her for six years from 1997-2003, Barker asked her: ‘When you got together you had to get a person to drive you because neither of you could drive?’ ‘Yes.’ She confirmed George bought a very old Metro car for £200 for her to learn to drive. She eventually passed the test, whereas he did not even have lessons.
Later I found further corroboration of George’s lack of driving ability from another Besford House boy. A few months after Hilda’s murder, Andrew and Adrian George went with him and two others in a stolen car to Torquay. When the driver became angry and left the car, Andrew tried to move it. He failed because he could not work the clutch and accelerator together.
More problems arose for the prosecution from witness descriptions of the defendant as a 16-year-old. Most agreed he was strong, but he was also ‘small but wiry’, and ‘there was not much of him’. Another former worker at Besford House recalled he was short, slim and looked very young for his age. Nevertheless, when forensic expert Michael Appleby presented the DNA evidence matching Andrew George with seminal fluid on Hilda’s slip, it seemed compelling. The chance of it being from anyone else was a billion to one.
Appleby said he also examined a knotted, torn and threadbare ironing board cover found on the bed in the small back bedroom. DNA analysis came up with genetic material from more than three people, including an extremely rare sample that appeared in only one in 12,000 of the population. This particular DNA was found in Andrew George as well as his mother, Dorothy and Adrian – but not his older brother Stephen.
The court listened to several hours of discussion between Latham, Appleby and Roger Ide, an expert on knots. The prosecution tried to establish that George had used the cover to restrain Hilda, perhaps tying her wrists to the broken baluster – but they were not tight enough. No straightforward explanation emerged; and no one raised the fact that Mrs Latter had told the police she did not recognise the cover. She suspected it had come from a drawer where old bandages and rags were kept.
One reason the prosecution could have devoted so much time to this was the tenuous DNA link to Andrew George through his mother but which apparently eliminated his brother Stephen. However, the cover was ruled out as a restraint and could not be linked to the broken baluster. The overall effect was further confusion.
The next prosecution witness was retired Detective Sergeant John Ingham. On 28 March 1984, while working on Hilda’s case, he had interviewed George, who had just been arrested for a shotgun burglary in Shrewsbury.
Ingham confirmed that George had immediately admitted this burglary, whereupon the detective quizzed the teenager about Hilda’s murder. Latham read out George’s statement about what he did that day and what he wore, including Doc Martens boots. Ingham had followed this up at Besford House, and established that George did not then possess any trainers. This undermined the police case that the trainer print found at the scene had been left by Hilda’s killer.
Barker then cross-examined Ingham, who agreed George had no
t fitted the description of the suspect in the Hilda case. ‘Yes, his general demeanour, his fingerprints were negative, his shoes were negative…’
During Ingham’s testimony, it emerged via a question from the jury that Latham had been reading from a typed copy of the relevant handwritten statements. Ingham’s cross-examination unwittingly revealed that in Latham’s copy George’s age had been changed from 16 to ‘over 18’; he had grown from 5 feet 2½ inches to 5 feet 3 inches; and his hair colour had changed from dark brown to black. A juror had alerted the judge to these discrepancies, because the jury had been reading the original handwritten statements. After scrutinising both versions, Wakerley himself pointed out the age change, adding that there were ‘many differences’ between the original and the copy. He queried how this had happened. Latham replied that the typist might have created these ‘minor differences’ when transcribing the original statements onto computer.
Our suspicions deepened after the following extraordinary exchange.
Barker: ‘You had a desk diary and a notebook, and you handed them in when complete?’
Ingham: ‘They were retained for a period of time because it was a murder investigation… My diaries were placed in a safe, tied with the name Hilda Murrell on top… expecting today to be able to stand before you. However, they have been weeded and destroyed, after the Northumbria Report came out.’ [This had been in May 1985.]
Wakerley interjected sharply: ‘You said “weeded”?’
Ingham: ‘Yes, my Lord.’
A fingerprint expert said 20 sets of prints were found in the house. Advances in analysis left no doubt that two came from Andrew George. A partial palm print was discovered on the underside of the downstairs toilet seat. His fingerprint was found on a box for buttons in the large guest bedroom. No categoric forensic evidence linked him to the small back bedroom where the sexual assault was alleged to have occurred.
Why did Barker not use this opportunity to cross-examine his independent fingerprint expert following his unopposed challenge in the abuse of process hearing? He could have asked why the fingerprints were not used to identify Andrew George in 1984, as they were sufficiently detailed for this. What if the police had done this a week after Hilda’s murder? The implications for me and the case were huge.
The court heard that of all the other prints, only six could be traced to people who were known to Hilda. So, with two identified as George’s, who did the other 12 prints come from? Again, the question was not asked.
Keith Barnett took the stand as a footprint specialist who had examined shoe marks found in Ravenscroft. Although the sole impressions were incomplete, matching trainer prints were discovered on the tiled floor of the kitchen, two of them close to the phone and one under a chair – which would have had to be moved first. Another partial print was found in the doorway of Hilda’s bedroom.
Barker reminded Barnett that in 1984 the police were confident the prints had come from a size 8 or 9 Romanian-made Gola trainer, with a distinctive sole pattern. Yet the defendant’s feet were size 6, and he had no trainers. Now no one was sure about anything on this issue. Casts of a trainer footprint, mentioned in the 2002 police press release announcing the cold case review, had since ‘gone missing’.
Barnett said he could no longer specify the size. However, when questioned about a photograph of the footprint under the kitchen chair, he admitted: ‘What you are seeing there is a series of U shapes typical of Doc Martens boots, fairly often worn by police officers at the time – or anyone…’
Although the issue of the running man was covered cursorily, both sides seemed keen to dismiss him. Originally central to the investigation, had the runner lost his importance because he bore no resemblance to Andrew or Stephen George? At the time Stephen was also small, shorter and even younger-looking than Andrew.
The most controversial witness could only be referred to in court as Mr A. His identity had to be protected because he had been an informer for Staffordshire Police. Despite his sharp suit, West Mercia Police knew he was an unreliable witness with previous convictions for arson, criminal damage, assault and theft. However, they badly needed his help.
Mr A was in Blakenhurst Prison in 2003 when he met Andrew George on remand. They were in separate cells in the same wing where Mr A was a cleaner and also claimed to be a ‘listener’ trained by the Samaritans. This proved to be a lie. Was he sent in to get George to talk? Were the police now relying on cell block confessions, after rejecting Trina Guthrie’s inconvenient information from at least two prisoners about Hilda’s murder?
Mr A gained some trust with George. He claimed George initially told him the murder was linked to MI5, the Belgrano and Greenpeace. Three agents were involved who had been watching the house for some time because the owner was suspected of possessing papers about the Belgrano. For this, he was dubbed ‘George the Spy’.
George then allegedly started giving a different version of events. He had been taking amphetamines and inhaling gas when he went into the house to search for drug money and was confronted by an elderly woman. He tied her up with a scarf or scarves, using a technique he had seen in a film about the SAS. He apparently gave Mr A details about taking a can of lager, using the toilet and finding between £30 and £50 in a handbag. In another conversation, a struggle was mentioned which resulted in the baluster being broken.
According to Mr A, George left the house to get help from one of his ‘brothers’ who turned up later with a car. He put the woman in her own car, which he found difficult to drive. He tried to reach a place he called ‘the death slide’, a spot on Haughmond Hill where he used to play games with others from Besford House. He was followed by the other car, driven by someone referred to as ‘brother’, which could have been either a friend or one of his brothers. After crashing the car, George walked the woman through fields into a wood where he and his brother stabbed her. They left in the second car and returned to the house and searched it more thoroughly.
Despite these wildly fluctuating and extremely far-fetched stories, Mr A consistently talked about others being involved. Mr A came up with the names of two accomplices nicknamed ‘Cock-eye’ and ‘Laney’, who were known to be friends of Andrew. However, both were short and scrawny youths too, nothing like the witnessed driver.
Barker’s cross-examination of Mr A brought a surprising revelation. He told the court that a set of witness statements, which had been given to Andrew George, had been stolen from his cell. According to Barker, details of the case were ‘common knowledge’ within the prison. It was also suggested Mr A had books about the case, obtained from the prison library after asking another prisoner to order them for him. Barker accused him of providing information based only on his research and lies.
The defence devoted most of a day to demolishing the character and reliability of Mr A. Three Staffordshire police officers who had used him in other investigations, were called to give their opinions. None of them now trusted the man. Inconsistencies made one detective increasingly suspicious that Mr A was ‘running with the hare and the hounds’ and deliberately passing on false information. He wrote a report, based on five years’ involvement with the informant, warning West Mercia Police: ‘Mr A was extremely unreliable and dangerous’. Another officer described Mr A as violent, untrustworthy, and ‘lies at any opportunity’.
Latham admitted in court he was relying on Mr A’s evidence. This demonstrated the weakness of the case against George. The prosecution could only prove he was in Ravenscroft, not what he did there or why. There was no evidence to place him in the car or the copse, apart from the seminal fluid on Hilda’s slip, which allegedly got there in the house. The prosecution relied on the testimony of a violent criminal known to be a liar, who was being investigated for perverting the course of justice.
Barker’s first witness was Andrew George, who outlined his upbringing in local authority care. He remembered being placed with foster parents, but he was mostly ‘being shoved from home to home’. He on
ly had one brief childhood memory of his mother.
On 21 March 1984, George recalled a chance meeting with his older brother Stephen in Shrewsbury. ‘Mooching around’, they found a footpath which took them into Sutton Road past Ravenscroft, where they spotted an open door.
George said he was probably first to enter the house. He started searching for money when he heard a woman shouting: ‘What are you doing in my house?’ He went to investigate and found Stephen with his arm around the woman’s neck and demanding money. He said his brother dragged the woman, still shouting and struggling, upstairs.
When asked how he reacted, he said he did not know what to think and carried on his search of the downstairs rooms. A couple of minutes later he looked up towards the landing and saw Stephen and Hilda: she was putting up a fight. He thought Stephen kicked and broke the baluster.
The defendant said Hilda was then forced into the bedroom at the top of stairs. When he went into the room, Hilda was lying on the bed. Stephen was on top of her ‘doing unsavoury things’, trying to rape her. He said Hilda was not tied up and he did not remember seeing an ironing board cover.
According to George, his brother tried to make him have sex with his victim. ‘He started playing with me – getting the thing out and wanking me off.’ Asked if he ejaculated, he replied: ‘I wouldn’t like to say, sir.’ He said Stephen had tried to masturbate him on previous occasions when they were with foster parents and later when his brother had his own flat.
Apparently, Stephen dragged Hilda out of the room, down the stairs and out of the house. Left alone, Andrew resumed his search and found between £30 and £40, at some point taking a can of lager, and went to the toilet. He claimed both he and his brother were wearing gloves. When asked how he had left fingerprints inside the house, he thought there may have been holes in them.
