by Tom Wood
Week 3
The first two weeks of the trial had been taken up proving the crime had been committed and setting the scene. The evidence presented had all been available for the 2007 trial but much of it hadn’t been presented to the court at that time. Week 3 of the prosecution case opened with new evidence. Scientists from Cellmark described the results of new examination of the ligatures used to bind and kill Christine. MiniFiler, the new technique for detecting and enhancing degraded DNA samples, had found traces of Sinclair’s and Hamilton’s – not full profiles but indicators of their presence. In the case of Helen’s ligatures the evidence was far stronger. On the pants used to gag her were detected strong traces of Sinclair’s DNA. It was a billion to one chance against it being anyone else’s. And so it went on. The DNA traces found on articles of the clothing used to bind and kill both girls were positive matches for Sinclair and Hamilton, along with the expected traces of the girls themselves. Despite rigorous cross examination the expert witnesses could not be shaken.
Up till now defence QC Ian Duguid had ably picked round the edges of the Crown case, trying to plant what doubt he could in the minds of the jury – but he had to do more. And now he did. At the latest possible stage a forty-seven-page defence document was lodged setting out forensic opinion that contradicted the Crown’s experts. Remarkably it also laid out what appeared to be Sinclair’s recollection of what happened. Breaking his silence of thirty-seven years, he said that he had met the girls the night they were murdered, that he and his brother-in-law Gordon Hamilton had driven them to nearby Holyrood Park where they had had consensual sex, after which he had been driven by Hamilton to East Lothian and dropped off to go fishing, leaving the girls with Hamilton. It was an incredible version of events, but also a high-risk strategy, as it laid the way open to cross-examination by the Lord Advocate.
It was also, however, a foreseeable tactic. Sinclair had remained silent in the past and during the early part of this trial, undoubtedly hoping that some legal technicality might bring it to a halt as it had in 2007. This time, however, there was to be no such escape. Sinclair had lodged special defences, and for them to succeed he had to justify them.
The right of the defence to reveal evidence during a trial at the last moment is one of the inequalities of the justice system. In contrast, the Crown must give notice and full disclosure of all the prosecution evidence well in advance. This allows the preparation of a defence tailored to focus on any perceived prosecution weakness.
The trial was adjourned for twenty-four hours to allow the Crown to study this new evidence, which could have had serious implications were it not for the fact that crucial new evidence from the Cellmark experts was about to be presented to the jury.
The newest, most important forensic evidence began with an exhaustive introduction to the expertise of the key witness from Cellmark and an explanation of the technology involved. This was vital, as it was an area of evidence that the defence would scrutinise very closely. Although the company was at the cutting edge of the development of DNA science, many of its techniques, although fully evaluated, were new to the Scottish courts. The defence had to create in the minds of the jury doubt regarding Cellmark’s credibility. Knowing this, the Lord Advocate spent hours building a picture of the reliability and international reputation of the work of Cellmark and their main witness, Geraldine Davidson.
The main focus of the Cellmark examination was the ligatures used to bind and kill Helen and Christine, the key elements in proving that Sinclair murdered them. Regardless of how far-fetched Sinclair’s claim of consensual sex was, this claim had to be destroyed. Whilst traces of Sinclair’s semen and DNA could be explained, albeit improbably, on the intimate swabs taken from the girls, their presence on the ligatures, particularly where they had been tied during the act of murder, would tell a different story.
Like all scientists, Geraldine Davidson chose her words carefully, all her conclusions were clearly explained, all her estimates conservative and reasonable. Traces of Hamilton and Sinclair had once again been found on the intimate swabs but no traces of semen had been found on Christine’s pants. This meant that if Sinclair was to be believed, seventeen-year-old Christine had not put her pants back on after having consensual sex with him and Hamilton before being driven twenty miles to East Lothian. It seems a small point but it didn’t ring true. It was contrary to human behaviour. It didn’t add up and the jury knew it.
The difference between an Investigative Forensic Scientist and an Examining Scientist is important. While the traditional examining scientist subjects evidence to examination and identifies its components, the investigative scientist seeks not only to identify the components but to explain how the material got there and in what circumstances. The interpretation of the DNA on the ligatures was crucial to the case against Angus Sinclair. Traces of his DNA, together with that of Gordon Hamilton, had been found inside the knots. We had known there were traces when we analysed them for the 2007 trial. Now with improved technology and techniques the profiles were stronger and the inference was clear. The DNA of Sinclair could only have been left when the knots were tied during the act of murder.
The evidence from Geraldine Davidson was painstakingly thorough. Each part of the ligatures was examined separately in minute detail for both semen and other cellular DNA. Each result was interpreted and probabilities calculated. Statistical evidence demonstrated that the probability that the DNA had come from Sinclair and Hamilton was millions to one.
By the end of the third week of the trial, the court had witnessed a masterclass in the presentation of the evidence in chief by the Lord Advocate and of the giving of evidence by an expert witness. It was painstaking, comprehensive, meticulous and conclusive.
Week 4
The prosecution case was concluded by scientist Andrew Davidson, an expert in his own right and the corroborating witness for all his wife’s Geraldine’s findings and conclusions. Like her, he carefully explained their findings and, most importantly, their interpretations.
Week 5
Now it was now time for the defence. Their proposition was that Helen and Christine, two young and sexually inexperienced teenagers who had been out with friends on a Saturday night and had been drinking, but were by no means drunk, had gone off with two much older men they had met just a few hours before. A short time later, in the confines of a small caravanette, both had willingly engaged in vaginal and anal sex with Sinclair and Hamilton, after which they had not put back on their underwear. They had then allowed themselves to be driven miles out of the city where they were last seen fit and well in the company of Gordon Hamilton, who drove off with them in Sinclair’s caravanette after leaving Sinclair to go fishing in the pitch-black autumn night. Even if you knew nothing of the characters of Helen and Christine – even if you knew nothing of Sinclair, Hamilton or fishing, it was all ridiculous. None of it rang true.
If this was not preposterous enough, there was another factor that underlined the unlikeliness of this sequence of events. Sinclair always took a great pride in his cars – in fact it was the only thing he would speak about in the long 2004 police interviews. The Toyota caravanette he owned at the time of the murders was his pride and joy. The idea that Sinclair would give his precious vehicle to Hamilton, known to be a heavy drinker and undoubtedly under the influence that evening, was as unlikely as the rest of his ‘recollections’ of that night.
On day one of the defence case there was a bombshell, when Sinclair elected to give evidence on his own behalf. It was incredible, as he had remained silent during all his police interviews. He had never taken the risk of giving evidence on his own behalf, and in doing so now forfeited the right of silence and opened himself to cross examination. He may have believed he had nothing to lose – after all his silence had made no difference during the trial for the murder of Mary Gallagher. Or perhaps he thought he could spin it so that his dead co-accused could take the blame. After all, the whole court had listened to foren
sic evidence which showed Hamilton’s DNA was found in greater quantities than his. Those of us who knew Sinclair would have betted against him giving evidence on his own behalf would have been wrong.
The defence led Sinclair in his description of the events of the night Helen and Christine were murdered. Now it was time for cross-examination by the Lord Advocate, who obviously relished the opportunity. Sinclair began slowly and cautiously, answering simply ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to Frank Mulholland’s questions in order not to refer to anything that might incriminate him. It was a high-risk strategy; the Lord Advocate was an experienced prosecutor. But whilst there were dangers for Sinclair, so were there also for the prosecution. The Lord Advocate had to be careful to make no reference to Sinclair’s past or the 2007 trial. To do so would have jeopardised the trial on the grounds of procedural irregularity.
But in the end the problems were all Sinclair’s, and started early in the cross examination. The post mortem reports showed clear signs of sexual force on Helen and Christine, injuries inconsistent with consensual sex but entirely consistent with rape. His responses became mumbled when the awkward questions came and the absurdity of his version of events was laid bare. His account of his fishing trip was riddled with inconsistency, and as the questions from the Lord Advocate became more probing he was led away from his prepared mental script, instead showing a total lack of empathy for his victims. He admitted he wasn’t sure if the girls had consented to sex, and that he had regarded them simply as sexual objects. He accepted that his account of events seemed ludicrous, but when Frank Mulholland repeatedly asked him to accept responsibility for the murder of Helen and Christine he refused to do so. He came across as cold, callous, detached. Perhaps this was a result of his having been institutionalised for so many years; it was more likely, however, that the jury was simply getting a glimpse of the real Angus Sinclair.
At the end of the fifth week, the prosecution and defence closed their cases. The prosecution had made a powerful forensic case linking Sinclair and Hamilton to the crimes. The defence had predictably attacked the scientific evidence, and Sinclair had himself spoken; an unexpected turn of events and one which did him no favours. For those of us who had lived with the case for so long it all seemed clear cut, but of course we couldn’t see into the minds of the jury, who knew nothing of Sinclair’s dreadful past. Juries are always unpredictable, so the closing speeches of the Lord Advocate and the defence QC would be critical. Depending on the skill of the speaker, these speeches are sometimes what turns a trial one way or the other.
The Lord Advocate opened by setting our one last time the circumstances of Helen and Christine’s deaths. He reminded the jury that justice in Scotland has no ‘sell by date’ and that their job was to reach a verdict based on the evidence alone. The prosecution case was then summarised carefully with the key events presented in chronological order – the World’s End pub, the last sightings by the High Street beat policeman, the sightings of a caravanette in the Bents Car Park, Longniddry. Then came the graphic descriptions of the finding of the bodies, the deposition sites and the causes of death. Points of law were covered and the definition of murder explained. Then the full weight of the forensic evidence was underlined and contrasted with Sinclair’s recollection of events. There was a final reminder of the strength of the case against Sinclair and Hamilton, and although long dead, Hamilton’s role was important – both he and Sinclair had acted in concert, and in doing so were equally guilty.
Frank Mulholland spoke for over an hour and concluded by reminding the jury of their duty:
It’s been thirty-seven years since Christine and Helen were murdered. But Christine’s mother and family are still here to see justice. Helen’s father and family are also all still here to see justice.
Despite the passing of so many years, this case has not been allowed to sit on a shelf and gather dust. The file has never been closed.
Instead, the items in this case – the girls’ clothes, the ligatures, samples taken from their bodies, even the soil from the field – have all been carefully preserved, returned to with each step forward in technology and science, until now, when using forensic tools such as Crime-lite, we can see the hidden evidential remains of that night in 1977.
What we see is Angus Sinclair and Gordon Hamilton all over the ligatures. Angus Sinclair, all over Helen’s coat.
We also see Sinclair in all the areas where we see Hamilton, bar one. And that is what this case is all about. Sinclair and Hamilton – together – beating, raping and then murdering the girls.
This new forensic evidence is added to all the other evidence I have discussed. The totality of this evidence is considerable, powerful and quite frankly overwhelming.
It exposes as a lie the incredible story put forward by the accused as to what he says happened that night, a story which on numerous occasions even he agreed sounded ridiculous.
The body of Prosecution evidence has not come from forensics alone. It has come from numerous sources – from the families of the girls, from friends of the girls, from police officers at the time, from acquaintances of the accused, from witnesses long since dead but whose statements remain for you to consider, from a knot expert, a dental expert, a soil expert and medical experts.
It is on the basis of all this evidence, powerful and overwhelming, that I invite you to find Angus Sinclair guilty of both charges.
It was a presentation of the highest quality.
The final defence speech to the jury was also expertly done. It concentrated on doubts about the forensic science, the passage of time, and the potential for contamination. The verdict was obvious: there wasn’t enough evidence and Sinclair should be acquitted.
Finally, on the last day of the trial, the judge, Lord Matthews, summed up the case in detail, highlighting the points of evidence in detail. It was a necessary end to any High Court trial.
On the Friday of the fifth week the jury retired to consider their verdict on the charges of murder and rape. As always there were three verdicts open to them – Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven, the last two amounting to the same – the acquittal of the accused.
Regardless of the strength of a case or the number of trials you have sat through, there is always a tension when a jury retires to reach its verdict. Sitting near me in the court just behind the families of Helen and Christine were Allan Jones and Andy Ritchie, two detectives I knew well and for whom this moment represented all they had worked for over twenty years. The jury took just two hours to deliver its verdict. By unanimous decision Sinclair was guilty on all counts.
The Lord Advocate moved for sentence, and at this point the jury learned of Sinclair’s past – the culpable homicide of Catherine Reehill, the rapes and sexual assaults on children and the murder of Mary Gallagher. It had obviously been a huge strain and some jury members wept quietly. After a brief pause Lord Matthews delivered a brief but devastating sentencing statement – Sinclair was an evil predator who had preyed on women and girls all his life. But despite the gravity of his crimes, the court could not deliver an indeterminate sentence, and a possible parole date had to be designated. The judge handed down a sentence of thirty-seven years, the longest determinate sentence ever passed and one which was chosen carefully – one year for every year that Helen’s and Christine’s families had suffered since that dreadful night in October 1977.
With a nod of the judge’s head Sinclair was taken down and the mood of the court immediately lifted. In an unprecedented gesture the Lord Advocate then publicly acknowledged the thousand officers who had investigated the case over the decades and named all the Senior Investigating Officers, including Allan Jones and myself. Finally, the judge thanked the jury and addressed Helen’s and Christine’s families.
No court proceedings could undo the damage or relieve the pain, he said, but he hoped the families could now begin to heal. He had been listening to a remembrance day service just a few days before and had been struck by the familiar words from Laurenc
e Binyan’s poem ‘The Fallen’, which we had all heard many times:
They grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
The packed court room emptied, and we quietly left, each with our own thoughts. A short time later Morain Scott, who had so often represented the Scott and Eadie families, spoke to the assembled media outside the court. Justice had finally been done for his beautiful daughter Helen and her friend. On her death bed he had promised Helen’s mother to get justice. He had kept his promise.
The trial of Her Majesty’s Advocate v Sinclair was over and at last, after the longest gap between crime and conviction in Scottish legal history, justice had been done. The carefully constructed case had proved overwhelmingly that Helen and Christine had been brutally raped and murdered by Angus Sinclair and his long dead brother-inlaw, Gordon Hamilton. It was the first case brought under the new double jeopardy legislation, and it had been the most complex forensic case ever brought before a Scottish court.
For Frank Mulholland and his team, led by the able Senior Procurator Fiscal, Deborah Demick, it was a huge success. In partnership with the police they had worked tirelessly to build the strongest of cases, and in doing so had demonstrated the Crown’s tenacity and sent a powerful message to the people of Scotland. Murder and rape were crimes that would be pursued to the end regardless of time, cost or legal obstacles.
