There was no reason why Foyle should have examined the body. Cause of death wasn't the issue; it was time of death that was in dispute. Stamp had alibis for June 1 and 2-Wynne had taken a two-day "sickie" in order to "make him look for a job"-and June 3 was his first opportunity to visit Grace. Nevertheless, even had the defense insisted on their own postmortem, which was their right, it wouldn't have been helpful.
The significant factors in establishing time of death-ambient temperature, rigor mortis, algor mortis (body temperature), livor mortis (settling of the blood), autolysis and putrefaction (indicators of decomposition)-are useful only when the body is first examined, not after a week's refrigeration. Nor was there any reason to assume Studeley's data was wrong. An important fact brought out at the trial was the reference to "pervasive staining and bloating" of the abdomen. If, as Foyle claimed, this was more consistent with three to four days of decomposition, then the algor-mortis readings were important (After death, body temperature cools until it reaches the level of its surroundings. This process takes between eight and twelve hours on the skin, and twenty-four to thirty-six hours in the center of the body. Once putrefaction begins-about two days after death-the temperature rises again due to the metabolic activity of bacteria.) and may explain why he was confident Grace had died "much earlier." In simple terms, if hourly readings showed an increase, then Grace's body had already cooled to the ambient temperature and was on the rise again.
Without more information, we can only guess what the debate was about, but the fact that it took place at all does seem to indicate the data was open to interpretation.
Who Killed Grace Jefferies? And Why?
Despite prosecution claims that Stamp rifled his grandmother's drawers for money, or set out to pretend someone else had, there's no evidence that Grace had anything worth stealing. Wynne thought she "kept some cash in a shoe box," but couldn't suggest anything else that might have been stolen. The obvious person to ask was Stamp himself, since he knew Grace's house better than anyone, but as he was the main suspect, asking him was never in the cards.
The house was described as "vandalized" and a brief description was given by the policeman who broke in through the front door.
"'I knew something was wrong when I saw the downstairs rooms. The place was a mess. Everything was broken: chairs, mirrors, even the plants had been torn out of their pots. It looked as if a kid had had a tantrum. I became alarmed when I saw blood on the stairs'" (The Times, Monday, April 12,1971).
The prosecution alleged that Stamp lost his temper and started breaking things, and when his grandmother remonstrated with him he pursued her upstairs with a carving knife from the kitchen. But if Stamp was innocent, then what does the destruction in the house tell us? Was it done for fun? Out of frustration? Anger? What kind of person vandalizes other people's property?
Research suggests he will be a young male with a history of truancy who associates with other delinquent youngsters. He will be living in a family with multiple problems, where there is little or no discipline and negligible supervision. Among his character traits will be aggressiveness, impulsiveness, self-centeredness, an inability to see another's point of view and a lack of forward thinking, all of which will make it difficult for him to understand the consequences of his actions and lead him to act on emotion and whim.
This is reflected in the policeman's remark: "It looked as if a kid had had a tantrum." Stamp certainly conformed to one of the above rules. He was a persistent truant, but he displayed the opposite character traits to a delinquent. He was too frightened to go out, too conscious of other people's opinions to forget his deformity, too aware of the consequences of his actions to attempt dating. Indeed, his vandalism was directed against himself. The more likely scenario if he'd killed his grandmother was that the police would have found two bodies when they broke in: Grace with a slit throat; Howard with multiple cuts on his arms before a last remorseful slice to his wrist brought peace.
Both prosecution and defense agreed that someone with frizzy or kinked ginger hair took a bath after the murder. The defense drew similarities between Wynne's hair and her son's hair not to suggest that Wynne murdered Grace but to demonstrate that hair was an unreliable method of identification in 1970 (Since DNA fingerprinting was introduced in 1987 it has become one of the most reliable methods.). If either Grace or Wynne had had siblings, it would be tempting to look in their direction, but Wynne was an only child and there is no record that Grace had brothers or sisters. The kinked gene may have come from Wynne's unknown father, but any links with him seem to have been severed very quickly and it's unlikely that he or his subsequent children would have sought out Grace to murder her.
More likely, Stamp was the victim of malign coincidence. Ginger hair is a characteristic shared by a significant number of British people and is frequently kinked-it appears to be one of its properties. Some past and present celebrities who've had it are Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I, Vincent Van Gogh, Ginger Baker, Art Garfunkel, Bette Midler, Mick Hucknall. To recognize how such a coincidence might happen, it's important to recall the words of Professor Simpson: "Identical hairs are not compelling evidence like fingerprints, for they carry so much less detail."
In the end, the most convincing evidence for Stamp's innocence of this crime are the pristine bath taps and the bloodstained gloves in the litter bin. These point unfailingly to someone else being in Grace's house. The gloves were used to search her drawers, vandalize her house and take up a knife to stab her, and the taps had to be cleaned because her murderer removed the gloves when he got into the bath.
The prosecution painted Howard Stamp as an angry young man of low intelligence who erupted one day in a fit of violence against the loving grandmother who protected him. In order to get away with it he donned a pair of gloves, took a bath, wiped his fingerprints from the taps but failed to remove them from any other surface. Why? His prints were found elsewhere in the bathroom, even on the lavatory seat, but if, in the wake of the crime, he recognized that to leave them on the bath taps would be harmful, why go on to insist that he'd never used the bath? His detractors would argue that he wasn't bright enough to do anything else. Having confessed to everything at the beginning, he then rushed to denial. Indeed, the prosecution inferred that his denial was a tacit admission of guilt.
"In his summing-up, Robert Tring ... drew the jury's attention to the evidence from the bathtub. The defendant claims he never used it,' he said, 'yet we have shown that he did. You must ask yourselves why he lied when only a guilty man would have been afraid to admit he'd taken a bath in Grace Jefferies' house'" (Daily Telegraph, Friday, April 16,1971).
Unfortunately for Stamp the jury accepted this at face value instead of questioning why, if he was willing to say his confession had been coerced, he wasn't equally willing to "remember" a recent bath. While it would have been wrong for his barrister to suggest such a thing, there is no doubt Fanshaw would have discussed the evidential conflicts his client faced in such a way that the implications were clear. "My job would be a great deal easier if you'd used your grandma's tub, Howard. Are you sure you never did?" Wouldn't a guilty man have jumped at a way out?
In light of the Evans, Bentley, Kiszko and Downing miscarriages of justice, it's impossible to examine Stamp's case without having similar misgivings. He was an immature man with learning difficulties who was convicted on a retracted confession and disputed evidence. It's arguable if he even understood the case against him, let alone had the clarity of thought to present a viable defense.
Less than three years after his trial Howard Stamp was dead, driven to suicide by loneliness and despair. In his comparatively short life he had been teased and bullied for his harelip, mocked for his stupidity, accused and convicted of murdering the one person who protected him, then abandoned to fend for himself in the harsh environment of prison. Most would say it was a fitting punishment if he had murdered his grandmother. All would raise their hands in horror if DNA evidence proved tomor
row that he did not. (Anyone who has information relating to the murder of Grace Jefferies and/or the conviction of Howard Stamp can contact Dr. Jonathan Hughes, c/o Spicer & Hardy, Authors'Agents, 25 Blundell St., London W4 9TP.)
Appendix
When I consulted Michael Williams, professor of behavioral science at Durham University, he suggested a profile of Grace Jefferies' murderer. "I have drawn some general conclusions, based on limited facts. Normally, I would visit the scene and study all available evidence. This is clearly impossible when the event happened thirty years ago, therefore much of this offender profile is informed guesswork. Victim-profiling has gained in importance in the last decade since it was recognized that a victim's pattern of behavior can also give clues to his/her murderer. Without more information about Grace Jefferies' character and lifestyle, my deductions are again guesswork."
This murder was an isolated event and not part of a series. As there was no evidence of a break-in, and Grace was described as "reclusive," it's reasonable to assume she knew her killer. This persuaded her to open her door. Because she was protective of her grandson, we can also assume she was protective of herself, which means her visitor was a regular caller or someone she recognized from the neighborhood. The murderer may not have intended to kill when he entered the house but, once inside, he lost his temper. He wreaked destruction out of frustration, possibly when he realized there was nothing worth stealing. Grace's speech impediment may have been the trigger for torture. He slashed at her to make her "talk" (either because it amused him or because he wanted her to tell him where her money was hidden). Oblivious both to the passage of time and the consequences of being caught on the premises, he took a bath to wash off her blood.
If we absolve Howard Stamp (Professor Williams added a caveat: "It was not unreasonable for the police to fix on Stamp as the prime suspect. He was Grace's only regular visitor, she thought of him as safe, he was frustrated with himself and his life and he was known to lose his temper. There remains a question mark over his guilt, although I agree with Jonathan Hughes that [1] the time frame appears to have been distorted and [2] Stamp would have reacted differently if he'd committed the murder.), then the crime took place earlier than midday on June 3,1970. This would expand the time frame during which the killer was able to operate.
A significant factor was the closing of the curtains, which suggests he was in the house during the hours of darkness and feared being seen. It also explains why he was able to come and go without being noticed. Nevertheless, Grace was unlikely to open her door after dark unless she thought her visitor was "safe," and this implies an accomplice, almost certainly a girl, who was known to Grace and had a good excuse for being there. If this girl stayed to witness the crime, it is certain she experienced the same terror that Grace experienced; if she left after her boyfriend gained entry, then she was easily persuaded of his innocence and/or terrified into silence. In either case, she would not have spoken to the police.
Significant features of the crime are: an expectation that there was something worth stealing; limited knowledge of forensic techniques (he left evidence of himself behind); sudden uncontrollable anger (he started destroying furniture); cruelty (he tortured his victim); a lack of forward thinking (he killed her regardless of the consequences); inexperience (he didn't expect to be covered in blood); no concern about being caught in the act (he took a bath afterward).
The killer was an immature person with a disorganized mind and anger/emotional problems. He may have been high on drugs, drink or glue. He believed Grace would be an easy "score" and was unnaturally confident about getting away with it. He was used to making threats-"land me in trouble and you're dead"-and he expected to be obeyed. This suggests a disdain for people in general, a disdain for the police in particular and a history of criminal behavior. There was no prior planning-he'd heard rumors that Grace kept cash in the house but he didn't bother to find out whether they were true. He was used to having his own way and became violent when he was thwarted.
Today he will be in his late forties and he may have a drinking or drug problem. He has, or had, ginger hair and will have spent time in prison. While in his teens he lived in or around Mullin Street in Highdown, Bournemouth. He was part of a deadbeat family who were disliked by their neighbors. He rarely attended school and regularly ran into trouble with the police. He was charismatic enough to attract a girlfriend (probably because he ran with a charismatic gang). He was the dominant partner in the relationship, although she was probably brighter. Because he is illiterate or semiliterate, he is unemployed or works as an unskilled laborer. He is easily roused to anger. If he lives with a partner and children they will be terrified of him; if he doesn't, then there are women and children in hiding who know him.
A selection of the 100-plus letters
received by Jonathan Hughes:
Tithe Cottage
West Staington
Dorset DT2 UVT
Sunday, August 12, 2001
Dear Dr. Hughes
I have just finished your book Disordered Minds. I was particularly interested by the chapter on the Grace Jefferies murder as my wife and I were living in Bournemouth at the time. As you know, it was a cause celebre which filled many column inches in the national press. Indeed nothing so dreadful had happened in the town since Neville Heath's atrocious murder of Doreen Marshall in 1946.
With respect, I cannot accept your proposition that Howard Stamp was innocent. My wife and I were personally acquainted with one of his schoolteachers at St. David's Primary School, and she said he was a "wrong-un" from the age of six. While I accept that this is hardly evidence of guilt, I do believe that teachers have a feel for these things.
I fear you have fallen into the fashionable trap of looking to excuse sin, either by laying the blame at someone else's door or by portraying the sinner as a victim of circumstance.
Yours sincerely
Brendan McConnell
Replied, asking for name of teacher. Followed up on 10/3/01 and 11/14/01.
No response.
The man you're looking for is Barty Morton. He's got red hair and lives at 3 Springhill Close, Christchurch, nr Bournemouth. He regularly beats his wife and kids.
Received on 9/15/01. No address or signature. Checked out Barry Morton-too young (2 yrs. old in 1970).
Bournemouth
Dear Dr. Hughes,
I was at school with Howard Stamp. He was bullied all the time. Not that he turned up very often. Sometimes his mother dragged him in by his ear when the school inspectors got on to her. She wasn't a nice woman, she was always hitting him. I felt badly about the way he was treated. He was called terrible names. Even the teachers were nasty to him. I never believed he killed his nan but I don't know who did.
Yours sincerely,
Jan
Unable to reply without a full name and address.
COUNCILLOR G. GARDENER
25 Mullin Street, Highdown, Bournemouth, Dorset BH15 6VX
Dr. Jonathan Hughes
c/o Spicer & Hardy Authors' Agents
25 Blundell Street
London W4 9TP
December 17, 2002
Dear Jonathan Hughes:
After hearing an interview with you on Radio 4 some weeks ago, I was prompted to buy your book Disordered Minds. You will have noted that I live in the street where Grace Jefferies was murdered although, as I'm sure you're aware, her house and the two on either side were pulled down in 1972 to make way for a block of flats. I moved here from London in 1985 and by then her story was forgotten. I became aware of it after a spate of burglaries in the area when a neighbor mentioned that she hadn't seen so many police since Grace's body was found. Naturally, I was curious and she gave me the details.
For over a century, Bournemouth has been depicted as a tranquil place of substantial villas, beautiful beaches and conservative (with both small and big Cs) inclinations, where the wealthy middle classes choose to retire. In some ways that is still what it repre
sents, but an influx of service industries-finance, insurance, tourism-plus the inauguration of the university in 1992 and the success of the international airport, has brought a multitude of job opportunities to the town. It is now regarded as one of the "buzz" cities on the south coast.
With that in mind, it's difficult to imagine the "ghetto" that Highdown was in the 1960s. Trapped between the borders of Poole and Bournemouth, it was a dumping ground for difficult families where two, and sometimes three, generations were dependent on the dole. Most lived in council accommodation, while the 35% who owned their homes were widows or retired couples surviving on small pensions. The crime rate was disproportionately high compared with more affluent wards, although it tended to be opportunist thieving from property and gratuitous vandalism rather than the mugging and stealing of cars which is prevalent in other cities today.
This may go some way to explaining the shock that local people experienced when Grace was murdered. There was always concern among homeowners about the "deadbeat" families on their doorsteps, but they had learned to lock their doors and protect their possessions. A "California-style" killing was a different matter altogether, particularly when the victim was a shy widow with few friends. You make some reference to that in the book, but by no means enough. The local panic engendered by press headlines on the Saturday after the body was found was enormous.
The police in all parts of Bournemouth were besieged by terrified women convinced they were going to be next. There was a mass exodus from Highdown as widowed ladies went to live with their sons or daughters rather than face a madman. Most remembered the murder of Doreen Marshall by Neville Heath, who was an early "serial killer." The convictions of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley for the Moors murders in April 1966 were still fresh in the mind. Charles Manson and his family were about to go on trial in America. It seemed as if the world was turning to multiple murder.
Disordered Minds Page 4
