< 1> Thursday, 7th May 1998< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Just before we start, it had been< 3> hoped that Mr Duwayne Brooks might be here today in< 4> order to assist the Inquiry, but at present he is not< 5> available. I say no more than that. We hope very< 6> much he will be contacted and that he will be able to< 7> come exactly as and when his advisers can arrange his< 8> presence here by contact with the administration or< 9> with our solicitors and an announcement will be made<10> when he comes as to how his evidence will be<11> presented to the Inquiry. Thank you very much.<12> MISS WEEKES: Thank you very much, sir. If I may<13> continue with the witness, Mr Wain.<14> <ADRIAN WAIN, (Continued)<15> <EXAMINED BY MISS WEEKES<16> Q. Can I just mention, whilst Mr Wain is getting<17> himself comfortable, perhaps if you can bring out the<18> notes which you will need. I ought to indicate that<19> he very kindly left me his files last night. We were<20> able to go through it and I have extracted, I hope, a<21> number of useful notes Mr Wain referred to<22> yesterday. You and your advisors have copies and all<23> parties have copies.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. If they need to be<25> referred to again they are available.

. P-4254 WAIN

< 1> MISS WEEKES: Exactly. It has been paginated and one< 2> or two parties, I know, may want to refer to it. I< 3> am going to use that document because it helps if< 4> Mr Wain does not have to fish through his file every< 5> time.< 6> In front of you you will see a bundle of< 7> documents that looks like that. I am going to refer< 8> to that and if anyone wants to look at the original< 9> they will. There is also a very helpful exhibits<10> list which was prepared by Linda Dann and that might<11> be useful to parties when we talk about exhibits.<12> There is a list of them, who found them, where they<13> were found, and what they are, because exhibits are<14> always referred to by an exhibit number and one does<15> not always remember the number.<16> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.<17> MISS WEEKES: Could I please, Mr Wain, go back, if I<18> may, to matters which I raised with you yesterday and<19> we ended off by talking about fibres?<20> A. Yes, that's correct.<21> Q. I had raised with you, and we ought to bring up<22> on the screen so we can refresh out memory of it,<23> your statement of 8th June 1994 and it was<24> (MET00760336). You will recall that on page 337, at<25> the top of the page, I had dealt with your

. P-4255 WAIN

< 1> conclusions that you did not attach any significance< 2> to the fibres whatsoever that related to the jacket< 3> of Dobson?< 4> A. Yes. Yes, that sentence is also qualified on< 5> their own. I can attach no significance to these< 6> fibres.< 7> Q. Just before coming back to that, because I think< 8> you ought to be given a chance to explain that, could< 9> I just refer to a number of your notes that deal with<10> the question of fibres and, indeed, the reference to<11> what the Senior Investigating Officer Weeden<12> instructed you about fibres. You were very helpfully<13> referred to something yesterday. Sir, if we could<14> turn, please, to the new bundle which is before you,<15> and it is page 15 in the right-hand corner, and it is<16> the top of that page. Do you have that please,<17> Mr Wain?<18> A. Yes, I do.<19> Q. Thank you. Just so it is clear as to the point<20> that I am referring to, yesterday you had written a<21> note indicating that it would have been difficult to<22> trace fibres and there was a degree of reluctance,<23> but you did agree to continue testing for fibres?<24> A. Yes, that's correct.<25> Q. Then immediately, almost before you sent the

. P-4256 WAIN

< 1> letter, an instruction came from Mr Weeden?< 2> A. Yes, that's correct.< 3> Q. Can we read what that says so we are clear about< 4> it:< 5> "DC Crane rang. Message from Superintendent< 6> Weeden. Everything that can be done should be done< 7> regardless of my letter."< 8> You put: "(I hadn't sent it yet)".< 9> How did he know about the letter? Presumably,<10> because DC Kant told him?<11> A. Yes. I had obviously discussed it with DC Crane<12> and said that I was writing such a letter.<13> Q. Right. "Agreed to arrange for Chepstone PCR<14> ASAP"?<15> A. That is Chepstow, a laboratory in South Wales.<16> Q. PCR means what?<17> A. It is preliminary (?) chain reaction. That's<18> what it stands for. It is a form of DNA typing that<19> was around in 1993.<20> Q. So that was going to be done and was it done?<21> A. Yes, it was.<22> Q. Thank you very much. Can I again, just dealing<23> with this bundle, just try and make it clearer as to<24> when the fibre examination began, because I<25> appreciate you gave priority to blood analysis?

. P-4257 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes, that's correct.< 2> Q. Did the Senior Investigating Officer direct you< 3> that you should give priority to blood as opposed to< 4> fibre?< 5> A. No, that would have been something that I< 6> decided for myself. It would be usual practice in< 7> such a case to look for blood first and then fibres.< 8> Q. That is in your professional experience you< 9> decided that, and nobody disagreed, obviously?<10> A. No.<11> Q. Can I just summarise because we need not go<12> through the documents. We know that there was an<13> arrest of a number of prime suspects. There were a<14> number of suspects but these were the prime suspects<15> on 7th May 1993?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. We know from documents that you referred to<18> yesterday that you began to receive a number of items<19> between May and June, yes?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. And that you began with a priority of blood?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. The items that we have referred to in the<24> letter -- can we go back to it please -- which is<25> (MET00760336), and if we move down to the bottom of

. P-4258 WAIN

< 1> that page, we see, for example, the reference LH5 and< 2> DC6, and if we go over the page, the conclusions< 3> raised there. What has occurred is that you have< 4> taken fibres from the jacket of Stephen Lawrence?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. You then took fibres from an item of clothing< 7> from Dobson?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Which is LH5?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. You also took fibres from an item of clothing<12> from the man Norris, DC6?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. And you found a fibre from the Lawrence jacket<15> that matched a fibre from the Dobson jacket?<16> A. Yes, that's correct.<17> Q. You found a fibre from the Lawrence jacket that<18> matched a fibre from the Norris jacket?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. You relate these conclusions in June 1994?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. So I take it that it was not too soon before<23> this letter was written that you did, in fact, find<24> these fibres?<25> A. Yes, it would have been some time previous to

. P-4259 WAIN

< 1> June '94.< 2> Q. A long time after 22nd April 1993 when the< 3> murder occurred?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. I appreciate that you had a lot to do and that< 6> blood was the priority and it is also fair to say< 7> that you had conducted other fibre examinations< 8> earlier before June '94?< 9> A. Yes, and fibres work in itself is very<10> time-consuming and very painstaking work.<11> Q. But the reality is this was the first movement<12> on any sort of findings in June 1994?<13> A. Yes, I believe so.<14> Q. Can I just, again for completeness on this<15> particular issue of fibres, move forward, if I may,<16> to a statement that you make about this on 25th<17> August 1995. So we are moving forward a year. It is<18> (PCA00390220). Just so it is easier to follow, I<19> want to stick with the issue of fibres for the<20> moment, because I appreciate you did a number of<21> other things.<22> Can we go, please, to page 222. I want to read<23> a paragraph of what you say about this same fibre<24> from LH5:<25> "A single white polyester fibre was also found

. P-4260 WAIN

< 1> in the right-hand bag that had the same microscopic< 2> characteristics as those from LH5 of the jacket. As< 3> this fibre is white, no further relevant tests could< 4> be carried out."< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. More importantly following on:< 7> "Amongst the extraneous fibres removed from< 8> this item was one grey cotton fibre that had the same< 9> microscopic and dye characteristics as those from<10> LH5, the jacket"?<11> A. Yes, and we are talking about Lawrence's jacket.<12> Q. Yes.<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. This is quite important, and we can read this<15> and perhaps leave it there:<16> "Evaluation conclusions: where fibres are found<17> to match the component fibres of a garment this does<18> not mean that they necessarily came from that<19> garment. They could have come from another garment<20> of the same type or another source of similar<21> fibres. Therefore, in my opinion, there is weak<22> support for the assertion that the two brown, wool<23> fibres" -- then you refer to another exhibit which I<24> am not dealing with at the moment, then you say this:<25> "There is weak support for the assertion that

. P-4261 WAIN

< 1> the single, grey cotton and white" -- sorry.< 2> "There is very weak support for the assertion< 3> that the single, grey cotton and white polyester< 4> fibre that were recovered from the Lawrence jacket< 5> and right-hand bag came from items LH5, the< 6> jacket."< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. A slip. It was not deliberate. Your opinion< 9> was "very weak support"?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. It is true to say yesterday you accepted that<12> your first view was there would be almost no point<13> conducting fibre analysis moved on and it moved on to<14> this point when you had then conducted it and you<15> came to a conclusion about the fibre that you were<16> able to find from the Lawrence jacket and certainly<17> one of the suspects?<18> A. Yes. When I said there was no point, what I was<19> getting to was, as I explained yesterday, due to the<20> circumstances of the assault, the chance of getting<21> useful evidence, and by useful evidence I mean<22> evidence that is going to ultimately lead to a<23> conviction is slim.<24> Q. Can I ask you about timing whilst we were<25> dealing with the question of fibres, and I put it, I

. P-4262 WAIN

< 1> hope, briefly into its historical context. When the< 2> arrest was. We know when the clothing was< 3> submitted. When you got it and when you made a final< 4> finding. Timing in all investigations are of the< 5> essence, are they not?< 6> A. Yes, I agree.< 7> Q. The reality is that forensic examination is< 8> extremely time-consuming and one does the best you< 9> can?<10> A. Yes, it can be time-consuming, yes.<11> Q. There was some delay, of course, before you got<12> to the question of the comparison of fibres found<13> from the Lawrence jacket to those on, for example,<14> the Dobson suspect jacket.<15> A. A delay in as much as we were looking at other<16> items as well and, of course, we have a time delay<17> leading up to finding those fibres, yes.<18> Q. It is clearly of some advantage, how much I<19> cannot say, but it is of some advantage that the<20> sooner one is able to conduct these examinations and<21> come to a finding?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. So there would have been a greater advantage if<24> at some time in 1993 one was able to produce the very<25> findings that you did produce but not until 1994?

. P-4263 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes but as I explained yesterday, I have to< 2> prioritise my examination. Fibres recovery was not a< 3> high priority in the initial stages. Therefore, I< 4> went on to carry out other examinations and then, of< 5> course, when I do start the fibres work that does< 6> take considerable time to carry out.< 7> Q. You will be asked about this I am sure but< 8> during the time of the second investigation towards< 9> the private prosecution, there was a good deal of<10> discussion with the team of police officers and<11> lawyers about going back over your original tests and<12> finding?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. You clearly reconsidered the whole aspect of<15> fibres then?<16> A. Yes, I did.<17> Q. And did a lot more work as a result of those<18> discussions?<19> A. I did some more work, yes.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: The only positive conclusions in<21> respect of fibres were one very weak connection and<22> one weak connection and no other connections of<23> anything at all with the suspects?<24> A. That's correct, yes.<25> MISS WEEKES: Can I just indicate for the purposes of

. P-4264 WAIN

< 1> others who represent different parties. You have< 2> kept very good records of all your statements,< 3> findings and telephone calls?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. Within a number of files which you have brought< 6> with you to court?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Whenever you took an item from a suspect or from< 9> indeed, the deceased Stephen Lawrence, you will have<10> a taken a photograph of it?<11> A. Usually, yes.<12> Q. To show what it was. We can see at the back of<13> this bundle, sir, pages 20 and 19 is on page the<14> photograph of the tissue KC1?<15> THE CHAIRMAN: We stop at 18.<16> MISS WEEKES: I am sorry, you should have been given<17> -- can I pass this to the witness. (Handed). I<18> apologise for that, sir. If you look at the back<19> there is the photograph of KCR1?<20> A. This ends at 18 as well.<21> Q. I think you will remember it. KCR1 is the<22> photograph you took of the tissue, if I hold it up?<23> A. Yes, KCR 1, yes I am familiar with that.<24> Q. The front, on page 19 for those of you who have<25> it, is the notes of precisely the examination that

. P-4265 WAIN

< 1> was indeed carried out?< 2> A. I could probably refer to my original notes.< 3> Q. That is all right. Can I read it out and do< 4> take it from me that I read it exactly as it is< 5> written. I just thought I would flag this up because< 6> of discussions we had yesterday about the test and< 7> reference made by another witness, Mr Crane, about< 8> what tests were conducted on the tissues: "There was< 9> a KMT test on this tissue", which is KCR, can I hand<10> it to you so you can see what it is. (Handed)?<11> A. That is actually KM positive.<12> Q. Can you tell us what that is it may be<13> important?<14> A. The KM test is a presumptive test for blood as<15> you heard from DC Crane yesterday.<16> Q. That was carried out on that tissue?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. We know there was two. What was the date of<19> that examination?<20> A. 22nd August 1995.<21> Q. And it showed positive?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. Which means, it is obvious but can we have it<24> for the transcript?<25> A. It appeared to be bloodstained and it gave a KM

. P-4266 WAIN

< 1> positive reaction, so in my opinion it was blood.< 2> Q. Thank you very much. This point finally, if I< 3> may: you had a number of discussions with an expert< 4> instructed on behalf of the solicitor for the< 5> Stephen Lawrence family. Her name was Angela Gallup?< 6> A. Yes, that's correct.< 7> Q. You will remember her very well, no doubt,< 8> having spoken to her on a number of occasions?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. You and her consulted quite a lot about the<11> additional investigations that were requested to be<12> carried out by the Stephen Lawrence family?<13> A. Yes, we did.<14> Q. Essentially -- and those who would wish to ask<15> you about it can -- both of you did not differ in<16> your conclusions. Is that right?<17> A. That's correct, yes.<18> Q. And in one particular important similarity could<19> you tell us what that was, for example, as to fibres?<20> A. The conclusion about the fibres, I believe that<21> Dr Gallup was more or less in agreement with my<22> opinion about them.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you.<24> MISS WEEKES: And as to blood?<25> A. Again, she agreed with my findings. I believe

. P-4267 WAIN

< 1> she re-examined a lot of the clothing that I had< 2> already examined and agreed with my findings about< 3> the bloodstaining or absence of it.< 4> MISS WEEKES: Thank you very much, there may be some< 5> more questions.< 6> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MANSFIELD< 7> Q. Mr Wain, as you know I appear for< 8> Mr and Mrs Lawrence and again I would like, for ease< 9> of reference, to do the matter chronologically and I<10> want to bring out various strands. First of all, I<11> think you will agree that in general terms the<12> benefits of a forensic analysis, forensic science<13> analysis, depends very much on timing, the word that<14> has already been used, time is of the essence, is it<15> not?<16> A. Yes, in general terms.<17> Q. Because the longer the delay between an incident<18> and the recovery of items for comparison, the less<19> effective it is going to be?<20> A. Yes, I agree with that.<21> Q. On the question of timing: is it right, looking<22> at your notes this morning and also the laboratory<23> submission forms that we have, that the first contact<24> the police made with you, any police officer made<25> with you was the 28th April. Is that right?

. P-4268 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes, that is the date of the first submission of< 2> items.< 3> Q. Can we put it this way therefore. Before the< 4> 28th, no police officer had telephoned you either< 5> through DC Crane or anyone else saying: "Look, we< 6> have a really serious problem here. We know or we< 7> think we know who did it, but..." I will not go into< 8> the reasons they may suggest they had for< 9> delaying. "... are we right in believing that if we<10> delay it won't make any difference to what forensic<11> is left?" Did any officer ever ask you that?<12> A. They wouldn't have asked me. I, as a biologist,<13> wouldn't have been given the case until it arrived at<14> the laboratory. In fact, I was given the case on<15> 4th May.<16> Q. So if they wanted advice, in other words, to<17> confirm or deny the proposition that once the weekend<18> was over it wasn't going to make any difference to<19> the forensic evidence, if they wanted advice on that<20> would they get through to you before the 4th May or<21> would they get through to somebody else?<22> A. Generally somebody else.<23> Q. Who would that be?<24> A. A laboratory sergeant could advise them. A<25> laboratory liaison sergeant.

. P-4269 WAIN

< 1> Q. Who would be stationed at the laboratory or on< 2> the police division?< 3> A. Generally on the police station division.< 4> Q. Dealing with this police division, do you know< 5> who the laboratory liaison officer was?< 6> A. I understand it was Sergeant Turnbull.< 7> Q. Sergeant Turnbull?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. So far as you are aware before you came into the<10> case, as it were, after the 28th April, had there<11> been any contact between the police and the<12> laboratory liaison officer on this topic?<13> A. I am not aware of any contact.<14> Q. You are not aware of any. If you had been asked<15> indirectly, supposing just for the scenario that a<16> senior officer gets in contract with the laboratory<17> liaison officer who gets in contact with you, if you<18> had been asked about the question of delay would it<19> be fair to say you would have said the sooner you are<20> able to obtain garments for blood and fibre and hair<21> analysis the better, would that not be the general<22> advice?<23> A. Garments from suspects, yes.<24> Q. That is the point I am making?<25> A. Yes, generally speaking.

. P-4270 WAIN

< 1> Q. Generally speaking the longer you delay the< 2> greater the risk that trace elements, that is blood,< 3> fibre, hair, body samples, saliva and so on would< 4> disappear?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Or get transferred to other garments which have< 7> nothing to do with it?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Coming to the position where you do have your<10> first involvement some time after the 28th April. I<11> want for these purposes if I may, because it is a<12> little easier to deal with it, there is a laboratory<13> submission form -- I wonder Grace if you could put<14> that up. It is (MET00780099). I want to run through<15> some items and ask whether in fact these were<16> examined at some stage or another. I deal with the<17> first one at the top and the venue. There is a<18> little preamble to this. So far as traces of blood<19> are concerned, clearly it is necessary to assess<20> whether you are likely to find any blood on clothing<21> in terms of whether there was any blood emanating<22> from the victim at the scene. I mean, if there is<23> not very much coming from the scene then the<24> likelihood of finding some on clothing associated<25> with suspects is reduced. Do you follow, that is the

. P-4271 WAIN

< 1> point?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. As far as this scene is concerned, that is the< 4> scene at which -- did you appreciate there were, in< 5> fact, two scenes; one where he was stabbed and< 6> another where he fell?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. You knew that?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. Right. You will see that the first venue is on<11> the top there, Well Hall Road junction with<12> Dickson Road. You were aware, were you not, that in<13> fact this is not a case where there was no blood at<14> all at the scene of the stabbing because the clothing<15> was too thick or anything like that. You were aware<16> that there was blood at the scene of the stabbing,<17> were you not?<18> A. If that is where the blood swab was talking from<19> then, yes, I was.<20> Q. That is where it says it was?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. Does it not?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. I appreciate, of course, the officer who took<25> it, Mr Turnbull, the Sergeant who you just talked

. P-4272 WAIN

< 1> about could be wrong but nobody has challenged that< 2> he took it from the junction, do you follow?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. If we go back to (MET00760078), the previous< 5> page and just scroll up please, that passage there,< 6> if you see there is a sentence in the middle of that< 7> first paragraph under the circumstances which says:< 8> "Search of the scene revealed a pool of blood at the< 9> road where the victim subsequently collapsed and then<10> just before that a pool of blood at the junction of<11> Dickson Road and Well Hall Road"?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. So there were pools of blood at both the venues?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. That is what you were being told?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. It tends to suggest, I do not put it higher,<18> that there was blood coming from the body from very<19> near the beginning of the incident?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. And, in fact, it is not stated there but we have<22> heard in evidence that one of the earliest officers<23> to arrive on the scene was able to discover the scene<24> of the stabbing by tracing a trail of blood from<25> where he fell all the way back down to this junction,

. P-4273 WAIN

< 1> did you know that?< 2> A. No I didn't know that.< 3> Q. That is uncontested that that is what he did.< 4> Can we go back to (MET00760099), the blood swab RT1< 5> which was taken from the road, was that analysed?< 6> A. No it was not.< 7> Q. Is there a reason why that was never analysed?< 8> A. Well, I assumed that that would be Lawrence's< 9> blood and I believe that to be a reasonable<10> assumption.<11> Q. I will come to it. The reason for submission<12> was for grouping, was it not?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Did you tell the officer you were not going to<15> group that for the reason you have just given?<16> A. Probably not, no.<17> Q. In fact, therefore, is the position to this day<18> it has never been grouped?<19> A. That's correct.<20> Q. One of the possibilities here is, can I can ask<21> you this in general terms, if there has been a<22> stabbing sometimes the perpetrator in the process --<23> and may I put again a context -- we know there were<24> at least two stab wounds that caused incision of main<25> arteries in this case, you are aware of that too?

. P-4274 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Two major stabbings. Whether it is the same< 3> knife one does not know, it may be the same one it is< 4> consistent with one knife or it could be two< 5> individuals with knives that are very similar, do you< 6> follow?< 7> A. The information I was given was he was stabbed< 8> by a single person with the same knife.< 9> Q. That is the overall inference but there is other<10> information to suggest it could be two individuals,<11> do you follow, but I am not going to quibble about<12> that. When there is a stabbing sometimes the<13> perpetrator accidentally in the flurry cuts him or<14> herself?<15> A. Sometimes, yes.<16> Q. So there is a possibility and of course in this<17> case, we will come to what you knew about the<18> incident in a moment, sometimes and certainly on the<19> face of it you were not to know whether this was one<20> of those sometimes cases or not, were you?<21> A. The information I had was that it was a quick<22> stab, stab, Lawrence went one way, the suspects, the<23> attackers went the other way.<24> Q. A lot of stabbing incidents often do, the actual<25> stabbing itself happens as many people say in a

. P-4275 WAIN

< 1> flash, does it not? Many of these incidents only< 2> occur within a few seconds, do they not?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. The actual wound is remarkably quick in the way< 5> a long life or a short life for that matter is< 6> extinguished in seconds, that is not uncommon, is it?< 7> A. No.< 8> Q. So far as this situation is concerned therefore,< 9> you took the view that in the early stages that<10> although it had been submitted for grouping you were<11> not going to group it. One appreciates that point in<12> relation to the next venue which is RT7 and RT8. I<13> want to, since we are dealing with RT numbers for a<14> moment, to ask you about some other RT numbers to see<15> whether, in fact, these were items that you were ever<16> asked to look at and certainly in these early days.<17> What is not on that list is a bag, a satchel. Now,<18> the satchel itself is RT3. Are you familiar with<19> this item?<20> A. Yes, I am, in as much that I know I have<21> discussed it in the past. I have never actually seen<22> it.<23> Q. You have never seen it. I would like, if you<24> would, please, be shown the photographs that we have<25> in this case. I do not know who has a spare copy.

. P-4276 WAIN

< 1> Do you have them? That is the photographs of the< 2> scene?< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: I am perfectly familiar with them.< 4> MR MANSFIELD: It is this one?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. It is photograph No 4 in the bundle that you< 7> have which shows a satchel. That was recovered from< 8> the scene by the same officer and, in fact, it is< 9> quite clear that he found it not that far away<10> because of the numbering, if for no other reason,<11> because it is RT3 and, in fact, in addition to it,<12> there is a strap that was separated RT4. Was that<13> ever submitted to you in this first period of time;<14> namely, from April the 28th through to the August<15> period? Were you ever asked to look at that?<16> A. No, not to my knowledge.<17> Q. If that had been -- no one is disputing that it<18> belonged to Stephen Lawrence -- if that had been upon<19> him when he was assaulted and then dropped by him, or<20> an assailant for that matter who may have grabbed it,<21> and dropped on a pavement nearby that could be very<22> important, could it not?<23> A. It is possible. It wouldn't have been a high<24> priority to examine, but it is possible, yes.<25> Q. One appreciates one has to prioritise, but it is

. P-4277 WAIN

< 1> something that needs to be looked at, is it not?< 2> A. Possibly.< 3> Q. I want to just examine this with you because if,< 4> in fact, one is looking for traces that might come< 5> from an assailant, not from Stephen, but traces from< 6> an assailant in terms of blood if the assailant< 7> himself has got cut, more particularly of course body< 8> tissue or hairs or fibres from the assailant could< 9> end up on a bag, could they not?<10> A. They could, yes.<11> Q. It is not uncommon, is it, for your laboratory<12> to find particularly on the straps of a bag, fibres<13> and hairs that may come from an assailant? That is<14> not uncommon, is it?<15> A. I have no personal experience of that, no.<16> Q. You do not have any personal experience, but<17> that is the sort of thing that could be found here?<18> A. If there was an allegation of the bag having<19> been grabbed by the suspects.<20> Q. But the whole point here is, do you follow, he<21> was carrying the bag. I will come to descriptions in<22> a minute. Did you ever ask the officer in this<23> case: "Look, I would like", I as the person<24> investigating as far as forensic is concerned, "I<25> would like to see the descriptions of this assault so

. P-4278 WAIN

< 1> that I can weigh up what is important and what is< 2> not?< 3> A. No, I didn't.< 4> Q. So you have never seen the statements of what is< 5> alleged to have happened in the street?< 6> A. I have seen Duwayne Brooks' statements.< 7> Q. Yes. That is the only one?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Because one of the factors that you describe in<10> prioritising is that the contact was minimal in this<11> case?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. That is only based on what Brooks himself saw or<14> did not see?<15> A. And what I was told by the police.<16> Q. What you were told by the police is on that<17> first page, you see, and it does not tell you -- may<18> I go back to this (00760098). All it says is in the<19> first line there that he was accosted by a group of<20> six, one of whom was seen to strike the victim, but<21> it does not tell you much about the definition of<22> accost. It does not tell you the nature of how he<23> was accosted or anything, does it? In fact, it seems<24> to suggest that he falls to the ground, the youths<25> made off, the victim regained his feet. It does not

. P-4279 WAIN

< 1> tell you the nature of the assault, other than he was< 2> accosted and there was a blow at that stage described< 3> as a metal bar or piece of wood?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. The fact is that so far as the satchel is< 6> concerned and that particular object, it was -- you< 7> were really never told about it?< 8> A. No, not until '95. I think.< 9> Q. Not until '95 and then there were discussions<10> where they went with Angela Gallup and others<11> about ----<12> A. Yes, Angela Gallup and DC Crane.<13> Q. Can I move on: besides the satchel and the<14> strap, there is yet another item that was found in<15> the vicinity, and we have heard a lot about it in the<16> case in other contexts, but they were found, and so I<17> can make it clear, these were found not far away from<18> this satchel. The item I am talking about is RT6.<19> It is not on the list on (00760099). RT6 -- going<20> back to the list of what was submitted then -- is a<21> pair of gloves. These are not attributable, these<22> gloves, to Stephen Lawrence; do you follow?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. Were you ever asked to examine the gloves?<25> A. No, again, I discussed this in '95, I think.

. P-4280 WAIN

< 1> Q. I appreciate in '95 when, if I can put it< 2> generally, there is a request to review the whole< 3> case again and start again?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. You agree that was the object. However, before< 6> '95 no-one had said to you: "Look, near the scene of< 7> the assault was a satchel and strap and near the< 8> satchel and the strap were a pair of gloves." You< 9> did not know that?<10> A. No.<11> Q. No. The gloves would have been of interest in<12> '93, would they not?<13> A. According to my discussions in '95, the gloves<14> were found at the place where Stephen collapsed and<15> not where he was attacked.<16> Q. Well, the suggestion is that the gloves -- he<17> collapsed in Well Hall Road, further up the road but,<18> in fact so it can be clear to you, the suggestion<19> about the finding of these items, that is 3 and 4,<20> and in addition the gloves, is that they were outside<21> number 290 Well Hall Road; do you follow, 290?<22> A. Is there a map?<23> Q. There is, but it is (PCA00430257). Could that<24> come up. The place where he collapsed, that is<25> Stephen collapsed, is a roundabout 316, 318, 320,

. P-4281 WAIN

< 1> which is on the right-hand side of this plan. Do you< 2> see the number there?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. It is opposite Downman Road?< 5> A. Right, yes.< 6> Q. Did you ever have a plan like this?< 7> A. No.< 8> Q. I am trying not to be critical. It is easy< 9> after the event, I appreciate that, and it may be<10> that this is what we have to inquire into: what has<11> gone wrong here and why you were not given certain<12> information. That is where we understand he<13> collapsed. There is no issue about that. Do you<14> follow? If you cast your eye to the left on this<15> plan towards the words "Well Hall Road", where it<16> says 190 it should read 290. It is a mistake. Do<17> you see?<18> A. Yes.<19> THE CHAIRMAN: It does read 290.<20> MR MANSFIELD: That is where -- in other words, it is<21> not where he fell at all. It is between the mouth of<22> Dickson Road, probably about halfway, between the<23> mouth of Dickson Road and where he fell.<24> A. I didn't know that.<25> Q. You did not know that?

. P-4282 WAIN

< 1> A. No.< 2> Q. The gloves could, and everything is on a "could"< 3> basis, nothing can be absolute in this business, but< 4> the gloves could have been important in the early< 5> days in case they might have had fibres on them from< 6> a perpetrator?< 7> A. If there is any suggestion that the gloves could< 8> have come from the attackers then, yes, they are< 9> vitally important.<10> Q. Would you stand back for a minute. Often<11> eyewitnesses do not see whether people were wearing<12> gloves, do they?<13> A. No.<14> Q. Realistically?<15> A. No.<16> Q. One of the ways, and you appreciate in a case<17> like this, that is a night-time attack in which it is<18> unlikely that people are going to have clear vision<19> of every detail, forensic science comes into its own,<20> does it not?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. Because the one thing we are looking for here is<23> some forensic science link between the scene of the<24> attack, possible suspects, and the victim. This is<25> really what we are looking for if you cannot find

. P-4283 WAIN

< 1> eyewitnesses?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. There is not going to be much else?< 4> A. Of course.< 5> Q. It is unlikely people are going to be walking< 6> into police stations and confessing to this,< 7> realistically; do you follow?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Therefore, you do not wait until there is a<10> suggestion that there were gloves. That would help.<11> Of course, one of the ways you might link the gloves,<12> if they do, is of course finding fibres, for example,<13> or hairs and DNA analysis which link the gloves with<14> the perpetrators. That would be very important,<15> would it not?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. Yes. In addition to, therefore, the bag and the<18> strap were not mentioned to you, nor were they<19> submitted; the gloves were not submitted and you did<20> not know anything about those at the time; in<21> addition to that, there was put over Stephen just<22> prior to his being taken away to hospital, there is a<23> suggestion that a blanket was provided by a passerby<24> -- I think it is PC Geddis or Mr Geddis who was off<25> duty -- and put over Stephen Lawrence while he is on

. P-4284 WAIN

< 1> the pavement?< 2> A. Yes, I found out about that recently.< 3> Q. So that was something else you did not know< 4> about at the time. That may be an oversight.< 5> However, that could also be important, could it not?< 6> A. Well, that would have been secondary transfer of< 7> fibres possibly from the suspects onto Lawrence and< 8> then onto the blanket.< 9> Q. In dealing with fibres generally, of course one<10> can have a chain, if you like, of causation which<11> goes from the original garment to another garment to<12> another garment to another garment and the transfer<13> is not, as it were, a process to infinity but there<14> can be secondary, tertiary and so on?<15> A. Yes. Generally speaking, with each transfer the<16> number of fibres gets fewer.<17> Q. In a sense fibre evidence often does no more<18> than provide the possibility, no greater really?<19> A. Often, yes.<20> Q. Possibilities of association?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. It is extremely rare that you are able to say<23> "that fibre came from that garment"?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. So, therefore, as you put it at one stage in one

. P-4285 WAIN

< 1> of your letters on their own, they may not add up to< 2> very much, but the more fibres you have that relate< 3> to a particular garment in the first place and, of< 4> course, the context of the garment in the case as a< 5> whole and other evidence, you begin to see a< 6> different case emerging. Do you agree?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. May I then just as it were go back to< 9> (00760099). The list that relates to Stephen<10> himself, in other words, the clothing and the<11> packaging and so on, it is clear that when they were<12> originally submitted that the officer was suggesting<13> that there should be an examination for fibres, that<14> is of Stephen's clothing?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. What I want to ask you is that when you got that<17> clothing at the beginning, did you in fact examine it<18> then to see what fibres were present ready for a<19> later comparison or did you leave it?<20> A. As part of the examination for blood or before<21> we examined the items for blood, we removed<22> extraneous fibres. At that stage we didn't actually<23> look at those extraneous fibres.<24> Q. So there is a removal of fibres at this point?<25> A. Yes.

. P-4286 WAIN

< 1> Q. Somewhere round end of April beginning of May or< 2> whenever you did it?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. I am not concerned about precisely when. Could< 5> we have the next page, (00760100). This is where we< 6> have the bags from the two hands and the nail< 7> clippings which were later to provide some further< 8> evidence. The column headed reason for submission< 9> says: "Retention"?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. What was intended to convey to you from that,<12> that they would not be examined or they were merely<13> to be kept by you. What does it convey to you?<14> A. To me that means not to be examined at present,<15> possibly to be examined in the future and for them to<16> be retained at the laboratory in the meantime.<17> Q. The position is that prior to 1995, is this<18> fair, those items, the bags and the nail clippings<19> and so on were not examined themselves, in other<20> words, to see whether there were within the context<21> of what had been taken from the left hand or the<22> right-hand any fibres or hairs that might relate to<23> this case?<24> A. That's correct.<25> Q. Was that your decision not to do that?

. P-4287 WAIN

< 1> A. Partly my decision, yes, I had to take part< 2> responsibility for that. They were never discussed< 3> as far as I am aware until 1995 but obviously I knew< 4> of their existence, so I could have suggested to< 5> examine them. I saw no reason to at that stage.< 6> Q. Except you are being asked, how long have you< 7> been in the Forensic Science Service by this stage?< 8> A. I have been there since 1983, so ten years.< 9> Q. And the search for body and clothing trace is<10> something you have done many times before?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. And looking at traces that come from the victim<13> could be the most important source, could it not, of<14> material that could link therefore to the scene of<15> the crime and to possible perpetrator?<16> A. I have to restrict my examinations to what is<17> realistically going to provide useful evidence in all<18> my cases, not just this one.<19> Q. I appreciate that but you have been asked to do<20> this?<21> A. I haven't been asked to do the bags and the<22> hands and the nail clippings.<23> Q. Just because you have not been asked does not<24> mean you cannot exercise forensic judgment of your<25> own, does it?

. P-4288 WAIN

< 1> A. No.< 2> Q. Do you not recognise that that was -- I am not< 3> going to put it higher, mistakes are made all the< 4> time, but it was a bit of an oversight not to look --< 5> at least at that stage since you were taking fibres< 6> off the clothing at that stage for later comparison< 7> -- at least inside the bags to see whether there< 8> were hairs or fibres in there ready for later< 9> comparison. Do you not think it was a little bit of<10> an oversight?<11> A. No, I don't.<12> Q. So if it happened again you would do exactly the<13> same, would you?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. I must suggest to you that it is unfortunate<16> that you are not prepared to see -- you appreciate<17> the point?<18> A. Yes, but if I could make a point.<19> Q. Certainly.<20> A. Having looked at them in '95, the findings that<21> we got provided a weak link.<22> Q. The whole point, Mr Wain, as part of a<23> kaleidoscopic picture or more global picture of a<24> case they cannot prove somebody did it all they ever<25> do is contribute towards circumstances which tend to

. P-4289 WAIN

< 1> suggest, that is the height of it, is it not?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Right. So that the further fibres and in fact< 4> there were more fibres relating to the same jacket,< 5> were there not?< 6> A. One grey cotton and one polyester.< 7> Q. Were you ever told the significance of that< 8> jacket?< 9> A. I understand that it was or matched the<10> description given by a witness.<11> Q. The witness' whose statement you had read?<12> A. Which witness?<13> Q. How many witness statements have you read in<14> this case?<15> A. Duwayne Brooks.<16> Q. He had a description, I do not expect you to<17> remember now but that is the one that has a<18> description of clothing?<19> A. Yes, okay.<20> Q. Do you now recognise, I am going to ask you<21> again, do you now recognise that if you are getting a<22> number of different fibres from the same garment,<23> which may match a description given by an eyewitness,<24> that could be very important, could it not?<25> A. Yes, but I didn't have a number of different

. P-4290 WAIN

< 1> fibres in the same garment, did I.< 2> Q. That is how we end up. LH5 you have more than< 3> one, do you not?< 4> A. I have one grey cotton and one colourless< 5> polyester.< 6> Q. Which provides an association?< 7> A. Very weak, yes.< 8> Q. I do not need to have it reemphasised "very< 9> weak", we appreciate it is very weak, that has been<10> your assessment from the beginning. But that was an<11> assessment which you could have come to, had you<12> bothered to open up the bags, you could have come to<13> that at least at a very early stage, could you not?<14> A. I could, yes, but I would emphasise that the<15> bags, even if I had examined them in '93, they would<16> not have been a high priority and I would have had to<17> have done other items first so they would have been<18> some way down the line.<19> Q. I am not disputing that you have to prioritise<20> and you went for blood first, that is understandable,<21> but in 1993 before August when the case was dropped,<22> for example, you could have made an initial<23> assessment of a weak or very weak connection with one<24> of the individuals, Mr Dobson, because we have in<25> addition, which you are probably unaware of,

. P-4291 WAIN

< 1> surveillance evidence of Mr Dobson showing him< 2> getting into the same car as various other< 3> individuals, there is lots of other evidence that you< 4> did not know about?< 5> A. I doubt very much whether I would have had time,< 6> even if I had examined these bags at an earlier stage< 7> before August, whether I would have had time to get< 8> those findings before August.< 9> Q. You certainly had one finding on LH5 before<10> August?<11> THE CHAIRMAN: We have the point about this,<12> Mr Mansfield. Were you going to call this witness at<13> the private prosecution?<14> MR MANSFIELD: Yes. May I make it plain so far as<15> the forensic science is concerned we had as he has<16> already said Dr Gallup who accepted his valuation of<17> what there was in 1995.<18> THE CHAIRMAN: I understand, thank you.<19> MR MANSFIELD: I hope that the Inquiry is concerned<20> with this area, namely, what else could have been<21> done in 1993 at the point at which it is suggested<22> things went seriously wrong.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.<24> MR MANSFIELD: There is one other item on (00760100)<25> and that is hair. Do you see there is hair there?

. P-4292 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. I am going to deal with this globally, I do not< 3> think you have been asked about this before. At any< 4> stage in the April to August period or thereafter for< 5> that matter but particularly that period, were you< 6> asked to do a search for hairs and their transference< 7> either way. In other words, the possibility of< 8> Stephen Lawrence's hair ending up on garments from< 9> the suspects or hair from the suspects ending up on<10> Stephen Lawrence?<11> A. No, I did not, that is not something I<12> considered. I could explain why.<13> Q. Yes certainly you should, yes.<14> A. In terms of evidential strength certainly in<15> 1993 I would put blood at the top because we can do<16> DNA typing, blood grouping etc and fibres second and<17> hairs third. So hairs would have been a very very<18> low priority indeed.<19> Q. Yes. But once again I appreciate the<20> prioritisation of everything but it is the<21> combination of them?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. That is often a conclusion you come to, it is<24> the combination of different fibres and hairs and so<25> on in relation to particular garment?

. P-4293 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. But in fact although you may have put it as a< 3> low priority, if I may put it this way, it has fallen< 4> off the graph all together, it is just not used?< 5> A. It has not been done, no.< 6> Q. There is now, I appreciate things move on a bit,< 7> there is now DNA process which links to hair and< 8> follicles and so on, is there not?< 9> A. DNA typing has moved on an awful lot since 1993.<10> Q. I just want to return to the question of, since<11> you prioritised blood because fibres and hairs in the<12> background another global question. Can we now get<13> another laboratory form please which is the one<14> relating to the first arrest which is (MET00760102).<15> You will see there, this is a laboratory form, I will<16> give you an example, 102 Bournbrook, that is the<17> Acourts address and there is a list of things there.<18> Trainers, boots, shoes and so on, a shoulder<19> holster. You see the list. Again, I want to do this<20> globally. Did you at any stage examine any footwear,<21> I appreciate you have put blood top of the list, but<22> did you examine the footwear for other forms of trace<23> element that may have come from the incident?<24> A. No, I don't believe I did.<25> Q. So no footwear in this case whether it is Dobson

. P-4294 WAIN

< 1> or anybody else for that matter, no footwear in this< 2> case from suspects as you understood it, was ever< 3> examined by you for hairs, fibres, skin tissue, etc?< 4> A. No.< 5> Q. And the reason?< 6> A. I don't believe it is normal practice to do that< 7> unless there is an allegation of kicking or something< 8> to that effect.< 9> Q. Right, now I want you to bear with me because<10> the one statement you had read was Mr Brooks. I am<11> not going to ask you to look at that again, unless<12> you would like to. I am only dealing with the<13> passages dealing with the incident and the forensic<14> science examination that arose then. Do you want to<15> see the Brooks statement again or can you remember<16> it?<17> A. I probably can't remember it but if you want to<18> read passages out I am prepared to accept that what<19> you read is correct.<20> Q. I will do it in order so you have the whole<21> context. Could I have (PCA00380030). You will see<22> towards the bottom: "I would describe..." do you see<23> that sentence, "...them as having converged on him<24> and then he describes the one in on front reached<25> into his jacket, took object out, the youth raised

. P-4295 WAIN

< 1> his arm in the air, see an object similar size to< 2> around his back, seemed to focus on this man alone.< 3> Can't remember what the rest of the group were< 4> doing. He raised his hand over his head, I saw him< 5> strike a blow downwards and so on, I am not sure< 6> where the blow landed I saw Stephen fall to the< 7> ground. I started to run backwards as I did the group< 8> of youths started running down Dickson Road." Then< 9> he deals on the following page with Stephen getting<10> up.<11> So his focus had been primarily the activities<12> of one person. Do you follow?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. But it is quite clear other things must have<15> been going on?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. I would like you now to see (PCA00380061). This<18> is somebody who was at the bus stop who, in fact, is<19> known as Joseph Shepherd. He hears something said to<20> Stephen Lawrence, that is a third of the way down and<21> they he has in the middle of this page the word -- I<22> am sorry it is not paragraphed -- "suddenly" do you<23> see it right in the middle of the screen at the<24> moment?<25> A. Yes.

. P-4296 WAIN

< 1> Q. "Suddenly the white youths charged towards< 2> Lawrence and his friend. The white youths were< 3> shouting and cheering at the black youths who didn't< 4> have a chance to run away. The youths grabbed hold< 5> of Lawrence and his friend." Do you see that?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Just if we pause there, that is quite< 8> important. He may be wrong of course, but that is< 9> how he describes it. You were never told about that;<10> is that right?<11> A. No, in fact I now remember I did have a brief at<12> these very recently.<13> Q. Recently, yes, it may be since the event you<14> have, but at the time you see descriptions of<15> eyewitness can be important in making realistic<16> assessments of what you should look at?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Because somebody who is a victim may not<19> remember everything because they are a victim?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. If this happened, the white youths grabbed hold<22> of Lawrence and his friend, we now need to extend the<23> ambit of any search for blood, fibres and so on to<24> Duwayne Brooks himself -- may do?<25> A. Possibly, yes. Again, I would have done

. P-4297 WAIN

< 1> Lawrence's clothing first and then Duwayne Brooks'.< 2> Q. I do appreciate you cannot do everything on the< 3> bench at the same time. You have to do something and< 4> then the next thing and then the next thing. But you< 5> have to consider that at some stage Duwayne Brooks< 6> comes into this equation?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. In your case Duwayne Brooks never did come into< 9> the equation, did he?<10> A. No, he didn't.<11> Q. Whose decision was that?<12> A. The police. Duwayne Brooks' clothing was never<13> discussed as far as I am aware.<14> Q. The one person whose clothing they knew, besides<15> the victim, Stephen Lawrence, the immediate victim,<16> was the next victim, Duwayne Brooks. They had his<17> clothes because he was still wearing them when he<18> went to the police station to make the statement that<19> you read?<20> A. Yes. All the information I've had is that<21> Dwayne Brooks had no contact with the attackers.<22> Q. You see that may not be right. I know Duwayne<23> Brooks himself may say, I do not know, he may say in<24> written form there was no contact, but there is a<25> witness and people can be wrong, can they not?

. P-4298 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Can I just go on:< 3> "They began punching and kicking them."< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. Do you see that?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. That is important, is it not?< 8> A. It is, yes.< 9> Q. "The black youth", it goes on. Run your eye<10> down:<11> "The group of white youths were stood in the<12> roadway punching Lawrence and kicking him." You see<13> that is towards the bottom.<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. Do you see:<16> "The group of white youths were stood in the<17> roadway punching Lawrence and kicking him"?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. I want to return to this question of the shoes.<20> Trainers particularly are a very fertile repository<21> of blood, fibres, hair and tissue, are they not?<22> A. Depends entirely on the shoe and the nature of<23> the attack.<24> Q. Of course, but the places on a trainer, whether<25> they be seams or in the soles of the feet depending

. P-4299 WAIN

< 1> on obviously what the sole is made of, but trainers< 2> have many recesses into which these items can be< 3> deposited?< 4> A. That is possible, yes.< 5> Q. And short of actually putting them in the< 6> washing machine, which is what I understand some of< 7> the younger generation do, chuck them straight into< 8> the washing machine, short of that, if they do not< 9> clean them or wash them for weeks on end, which many<10> do not, these particles will remain?<11> A. That is possible, yes.<12> Q. So even in that case, even receiving trainers<13> and shoes two weeks later, there is still a<14> possibility that those shoes might contain these<15> items?<16> A. Well, they were examined for blood.<17> Q. I appreciate that, but they are not examined, as<18> you have said, for anything else?<19> A. Well, they weren't examined specifically for<20> anything else. They certainly weren't examined for<21> fibres. Had any hairs, in particular, been stuck in<22> crevices they would have been removed.<23> Q. Is there any record of you looking for hairs or<24> finding any?<25> A. I don't think we would have specifically looked

. P-4300 WAIN

< 1> for hairs.< 2> Q. No, you did not. Once again, I realise these< 3> are very small points but when you have perhaps the< 4> possibility of material on trainers and you have the< 5> possibility of material on clothing you are beginning< 6> to build the bigger picture, are you not?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. I think, just to be clear, this statement of< 9> Joseph Shepherd's you may have seen since, but at the<10> time nobody ever indicated to you there had been any<11> kicking; is that fair?<12> A. No. That is fair, yes.<13> Q. That is fair. I would like you to see another<14> statement and see whether this is something you<15> heard. This is Mr Westbrook. He has given evidence,<16> but this is a statement he made at the time,<17> (PCA00380079). I will just go straight to the<18> passage, which is (00380082), is where he describes.<19> You will see he talks about a collision, do you see:<20> "The black boys and these white men collided in<21> the junction of Dickson Road, virtually in the<22> middle. One of the black boys was slightly in<23> front. The white boys surrounded the two black boys<24> in a group. They herded round them. The black boy<25> at the front stopped."

. P-4301 WAIN

< 1> The inference here is that this is Duwayne< 2> Brooks; do you follow?< 3> "Like he had been pulled, but he broke loose< 4> and carried on running towards the bus stop."< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. That is an impression. Again, the suggestion by< 7> a second witness is that Brooks was handled in some< 8> way or another; do you follow?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. But you did not know that?<11> A. No.<12> Q. As he got to the bus stop he turned round. Then<13> if you look further down the page:<14> "This boy running towards me was not<15> obstructed. His friend had been surrounded. I saw<16> the black boy fall to the ground. The white boys, by<17> weight of number, had forced him down. He was<18> surrounded by them and he went down. I didn't see<19> any blows. The white boys were leaning over him as<20> he went down and he went down on his back", and so<21> on.<22> I quote a bit over the page. Page 83 it is:<23> "He was swallowed up by the weight of<24> numbers."<25> The basic point here is you are beginning to get

. P-4302 WAIN

< 1> from the statements, are you not, a quick incident< 2> undoubtedly but one in which there almost certainly< 3> was contact between one or more of the assailants and< 4> one or more of the victims?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Now, would you look finally at Alexandra Marie.< 7> She is also at the bus stop (PCA00380263). At the< 8> bottom of this page there is a sentence:< 9> "I could see" -- it is just there -- "I could<10> see the young black boy with the shaven hair", do you<11> follow that?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. "He was stretched out on the ground. A group of<14> white men were next to him, but on the roundabout<15> side. They appeared to be holding him and at the<16> same time kicking him while he seemed to be trying to<17> protect himself from them by moving. He did not<18> return their blows", and so on.<19> So this is another witness who is talking about<20> kicking and contact?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. If you had had all this information, either in<23> statement form or in a properly constructed<24> laboratory liaison report form, you might have taken<25> some rather different decisions about what you needed

. P-4303 WAIN

< 1> to examine, might you not?< 2> A. That is possible, yes.< 3> Q. Therefore, one of the most important things is,< 4> do you agree, that those who submit items from scenes< 5> of crime have to be "1", properly trained, do they< 6> not?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. If they are in any doubt they ought to liaise< 9> with the laboratory about what the demands of the<10> laboratory might be and the criteria?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. And that is not a difficult process?<13> A. No.<14> Q. And when they submit the items if they are not<15> going to speak to you in person they have to give you<16> as full a report about the background as they can?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. And it is not unknown, is it, in case an officer<19> may feel he cannot summarise it properly to submit<20> with the form copies of statements of people who have<21> witnessed whatever it is that has happened to take<22> place?<23> A. Yes, this does happen.<24> Q. That happens. Has there been in this case a<25> re-examination of laboratory protocols and procedures

. P-4304 WAIN

< 1> at all?< 2> A. No, not to my knowledge.< 3> Q. With regard to the submission of items and< 4> information gathering and so on?< 5> A. No.< 6> Q. Whose responsibility would it be to suggest any< 7> re-appraisal or a view of procedures?< 8> A. Currently it would lie with the chief scientist,< 9> I would guess.<10> Q. And that is?<11> A. Dr Bob Bramley. If I might explain: he is the<12> chief scientist for the Forensic Science Service. In<13> 1993 I was working for the Metropolitan Police at the<14> Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory,<15> which now does not exist in that it merged with the<16> Forensic Science Service in 1996.<17> MR MANSFIELD: I have no other questions.<18> THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will take a break now,<19> Mr Gompertz.<20> MR GOMPERTZ: Certainly. I welcome your guidance<21> with this witness as to whether I should go next or<22> whether I should go last. He is an expert witness,<23> of course, on the other hand, you know ----<24> THE CHAIRMAN: I think probably you go last. Does<25> anybody else intend to question this witness?

. P-4305 WAIN

< 1> MR DOYLE: Yes.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: It will be Mr Doyle and then< 3> Mr Gompertz. Thank you very much. We will start< 4> again at 11.25.< 5> <(Short adjournment)< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Doyle?< 7> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR DOYLE< 8> Q. Mr Wain, I ask questions on behalf of the senior< 9> investigating officers. Can I deal firstly, please,<10> with your practice and, indeed, the practice of the<11> laboratory in 1993?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. Firstly, in terms of your approach to forensic<14> strategy, what items you are going to examine first,<15> which priority you may give, is that a matter that<16> you operate within guidelines given to you or is this<17> a matter for your own professional or collective<18> judgment within the laboratory?<19> A. It is generally a matter for my professional<20> judgment, experience and, you are right, collective<21> experience within the laboratory.<22> Q. That of course is a matter fully appreciated by<23> investigating officers?<24> A. Yes, I am sure.<25> Q. In any case where items are going to be

. P-4306 WAIN

< 1> submitted to your laboratory it is right, is it not,< 2> that you have to, effectively, devise a strategy for< 3> examination?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. Largely, that decision may be influenced by what< 6> you are asked to consider by the investigating< 7> officer?< 8> A. Yes, certainly.< 9> Q. Or certainly through his nominated exhibits<10> officer?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. But it is not a matter confined to that input<13> because plainly you as an expert have your own input<14> as well?<15> A. Yes, and I will obviously have my own views on<16> what to examine and what not to examine.<17> Q. And you, presumably, have a great deal to<18> contribute in advising the police as to the most<19> potentially fruitful examination strategy to adopt?<20> A. Yes, certainly.<21> Q. Can we have (MET00760099) on the screen,<22> please. This is a document that Mr Mansfield has<23> already put to you earlier this morning, but you can<24> see there the reasons given for submission in the<25> right-hand column?

. P-4307 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. As I understand your evidence, and by that I< 3> include of course, Mr Wain, the statements you have< 4> helpfully provided in this case?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. You do not criticise, do you, the reasons for< 7> submission as there indicated?< 8> A. No, I do not.< 9> Q. And, indeed, so far as those items that were<10> submitted for retention, that positively is a course<11> with which you concurred?<12> A. Yes, I agree with that.<13> Q. The purpose of retaining items in this way is<14> not to, as it were, throw them away from enquiry but<15> to preserve them for future analysis and comparison<16> should other material justify that course?<17> A. Yes, certainly.<18> Q. The laboratory has a constant task of monitoring<19> whether or not items retained have to be withdrawn<20> for comparison?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. That is something that you did in this case?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. Also, dealing with the question of how you<25> examine items, take for example trainers that come

. P-4308 WAIN

< 1> into your possession submitted to you for< 2> examination. You presumably are not simply going to< 3> confine your examination to what a police officer< 4> might have indicated might be an appropriate enquiry?< 5> A. No, certainly not.< 6> Q. Because you are the expert and he is not?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. So although you may be asked to examine a< 9> trainer for blood, you are in fact examining it for<10> everything visible that may be relevant?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. Or prove to be relevant?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. You gave, by way of example, hairs?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. And that was done in this case?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Do you accept this premise that although<19> ultimately you will not be dictated by requests for<20> examination but will exercise your own wider<21> expertise? You agree with that principle?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. That you would understand why police officers,<24> senior investigating officers would not without good<25> reason inundate you with matters for analysis?

. P-4309 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes, absolutely.< 2> Q. You would expect, would you not, firstly, for< 3> the senior investigating officers to discuss injuries< 4> and points of contact and possible weapons used with< 5> the pathologist?< 6> A. Certainly on the injuries side, yes.< 7> Q. I do not know whether you have seen the< 8> pathologist's report in this case?< 9> A. I believe I have seen a report by Dr Shepherd.<10> Q. Do you know when you saw that? Was that<11> sometime after your first involvement in this case,<12> or at the time?<13> A. It would have been sometime after the initial<14> involvement, certainly.<15> Q. It is just that you have been asked about<16> kicking and punching. You yourself had not seen the<17> injuries described?<18> A. No, I had not.<19> Q. Just dealing with your approach to the forensic<20> strategy in this case; is it right that you took into<21> account, I do not suggest this to be exhaustive, the<22> following matters: firstly, that the attack, however<23> horrific on Stephen Lawrence, was in fact brief?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Secondly, the quantity and layers of clothing

. P-4310 WAIN

< 1> that he was wearing when he was attacked?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Thirdly, that the contact between< 4> Stephen Lawrence and those items of clothing and any< 5> contact with his attacker or attackers was itself< 6> minimal?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. And, of course, importantly, in terms of items< 9> recovered from suspects addresses, uncertainty as to<10> whether in fact any of those items were worn at the<11> time of any attack?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. Taking into account those matters, particularly<14> the clothing that was worn and the speed of the<15> attack, did you conclude that you would not be<16> surprised if no blood had been transferred to his<17> attackers?<18> A. Yes, that's correct.<19> Q. Secondly, that any blood transferred to a knife<20> during the attack could well have been removed to<21> some extent, if not completely, by its withdrawals<22> through the layers of fabric?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. It would therefore follow, would it not, that<25> for there to be significant findings of blood, for

. P-4311 WAIN

< 1> example for analysis and grouping within the house of< 2> any suspect, yes?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. That this scenario made that highly probably?< 5> A. Yes, I believe that is highly unlikely.< 6> Q. Were you aware at the time that this analysis< 7> had already been considered and conveyed to the< 8> Senior Investigating Officer by Dr Shepherd, the< 9> pathologist?<10> A. No, I was not aware of that.<11> Q. In terms of how much blood to expect?<12> A. No, I was not aware of that.<13> Q. Because we are not talking about the seepage of<14> blood after the knife has been removed, we are<15> talking about traces of blood on the knife having<16> been removed?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. A completely different scenario?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. You, I think, examined in July 1993 or completed<21> by that time in July 1993, examination of 5 possible<22> weapons?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. And 27 separate items of clothing relating to<25> the suspects?

. P-4312 WAIN

< 1> A. Yes, that's correct.< 2> Q. We have already heard your findings in relation< 3> to that and I do not repeat it. But you agree with< 4> the decision in relation to the bags placed over< 5> Stephen Lawrence's hands they should be retained?< 6> A. Yes I agree with that.< 7> Q. Would it be your practice if you differed from< 8> any request to notify the Senior Investigating< 9> Officer or his Exhibits Officer of that fact?<10> A. Yes, certainly, I would telephone them and<11> discuss it with them.<12> Q. Therefore in the absence of any such approach<13> the Senior Investigating Officer and his Exhibits<14> Officer are to assume, are they not, that the<15> categories of items for submission are accurately<16> categorised by them?<17> A. I think that is reasonable, yes.<18> Q. Can I just deal with the envelopes from the<19> anonymous letters, PC1 and LD1. Decision was taken<20> in 1993 not to carry out any DNA or blood grouping on<21> the envelopes?<22> A. Yes, that's correct.<23> Q. Do I understand, Mr Wain, that in your expert<24> view that was the correct decision?<25> A. Yes I believe it was the correct decision at

. P-4313 WAIN

< 1> that time.< 2> Q. And at that time it was the correct decision, is< 3> it right, given the available information and the< 4> absence of a sample from the supposed author for< 5> comparison with any result?< 6> A. Yes and given the available techniques at that< 7> time.< 8> Q. And the scientific limitations as well?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. Policemen in 1993 could ask only to be told<11> "sorry cannot do"?<12> A. Well.<13> Q. "Cannot do" within certain limitations?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. I am not going to ask you about the gloves, I<16> suspect Mr Gompertz will, but I adopt because I know<17> what he is going to be put that an entirely false<18> premises has been put to you as to where those gloves<19> were found but Mr Gompertz can deal with that.<20> The blanket that was used to cover Mr Lawrence<21> at the scene, you only learned of that item recently,<22> is that right?<23> A. That's correct.<24> Q. But you have told my learned friend,<25> Mr Mansfield, that they would have been by way of

. P-4314 WAIN

< 1> secondary transfer and the more transfers there are< 2> the less value in analysis, is that right?< 3> A. That's correct.< 4> Q. But in any event had that been submitted you< 5> would have had to have considered not only the< 6> question of secondary transfer but the extent to< 7> which any contamination from other parties at the< 8> scene may have rendered such a forensic analysis< 9> really very difficult and probably fruitless?<10> A. Yes, my primary worry about that blanket would<11> be the fact that it was secondary transfer that we<12> were dealing with and I wasn't expecting a lot of<13> fibres in the initial transfer.<14> Q. Therefore, any fibres transferred secondarily<15> would be even fewer?<16> A. Indeed so.<17> MR DOYLE: Thank you, Mr Wain.<18> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR GOMPERTZ<19> Q. Mr Wain, I think you were asked by letter to<20> attend this Inquiry to assist the Inquiry as a<21> witness, is that right?<22> A. That's correct.<23> Q. There was no suggestion in that letter that<24> there would be any criticism of yourself?<25> A. No, that's correct.

. P-4315 WAIN

< 1> Q. I do not know whether there is implicit in< 2> Mr Mansfield's questioning of you any criticism, but< 3> have you been served with any notice on behalf of< 4> Mr and Mrs Lawrence?< 5> A. No I have not.< 6> Q. You were, as you have indicated, to be a witness< 7> in the private prosecution?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. You have also indicated that you worked with<10> Dr Gallup when she was instructed on behalf of the<11> family; is that right?<12> A. Yes, that's correct.<13> Q. As you understand it -- we will hear from her of<14> course -- did she make any criticism of you and the<15> tasks which you had carried out, your prioritisation<16> of tasks, your findings or indeed anything else?<17> A. I believe she did not, no.<18> Q. We will look at one or two matters specifically<19> in a moment. Can we go back to the beginning, as it<20> were. You were asked by Mr Mansfield about what<21> senior investigating officers would do if they wanted<22> advice on forensic matters at an earlier stage of the<23> inquiry?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. You said that initially they would go to the

. P-4316 WAIN

< 1> police laboratory liaison sergeant on division?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. In this case we know that that was Detective< 4> Sergeant Turnbull?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Did you know that he had been called to the< 7> scene on the night of the murder?< 8> A. I became aware of that recently.< 9> Q. And indeed the RT exhibits which you were asked<10> about just now, they are his exhibits, are they not?<11> A. Yes, I realise that now.<12> Q. So at a very early stage, in fact as early as<13> possible I would suggest, the investigating officers,<14> be they described as senior or not at that stage,<15> were alive to the need to have someone skilled in<16> forensic matters attend the scene?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. While dealing with that matter, the other<19> proposition which was put to you at the beginning of<20> Mr Mansfield's cross-examination, that obviously the<21> sooner you recover items for forensic examination,<22> the better, because otherwise the evidence tends to<23> disappear. That is obviously something which is<24> known to any experienced detective, is it not?<25> A. I would expect so, yes.

. P-4317 WAIN

< 1> Q. So far as Detective Sergeant Turnbull is< 2> concerned, he seized a number of exhibits on the< 3> night in question. Perhaps we could have< 4> (PCA00390092) on the screen please, which is his< 5> statement, if we look at the top, made sometime later< 6> but he refers to Friday, 23rd April and he refers to< 7> taking possession of a number of items; and do you< 8> see in the middle of the page as it is presently on< 9> the screen, there is an address, "290 Well Hall<10> Road"?<11> A. Yes. I see that.<12> Q. And it reads, starting a bit higher up: "I took<13> possession of a black cross coloured satchel" and so<14> on "that is at the junction of Well Hall Road and<15> Dickson Road." And then some other items from the<16> pavement outside 290 Well Hall Road and then he goes<17> on: "I recovered a small battery, RT5, from the<18> pavement outside 318 Well Hall Road. I took<19> possession of a pair of blue woolen gloves, RT6, and<20> outside 320 Well Hall Road a blood swab and control."<21> Right?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. Looking at the statement for the moment he<24> appears to have passed on from 290 to either 318 or<25> 320. If we look at (PCA00160081) please, just go the

. P-4318 WAIN

< 1> other way a little bit please, Grace. Scroll up< 2> please?< 3> MR MANSFIELD: It is just the first entry which is< 4> the satchel and where he says here that it is found.< 5> MR GOMPERTZ: Yes, by all means. This is the< 6> property register or rather an extract from it and I< 7> think the satchel is, in fact, on the previous page.< 8> I am asked to deal with that, so can we go back one< 9> page. I think we may have to go back another one<10> because they are done in two halves. Can we go back<11> another page please. Scroll up please. There we<12> have it: "Item 21 one black cross coloured satchel<13> containing school books and pencils, RT3." There we<14> have it. "Dickson Road junction with Well Hall<15> Road"----<16> MR MANSFIELD: I very rarely interrupt. It is just<17> that my learned friend said there was a false premise<18> here. In my submission it is not a false premise.<19> The problem here is what is written in this book is<20> not exactly what he has put in his statement, he put<21> it "the junction with Well Hall" in his statement he<22> suggests it is outside 290. In my submission, it is<23> very unclear exactly where he did find it.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: What he said in his statement was that<25> the satchel was outside 290.

. P-4319 WAIN

< 1> MR MANSFIELD: Yes and what he is saying----< 2> MR GOMPERTZ: No.< 3> MR MANSFIELD: That is what he is saying in the< 4> statement "the satchel was outside 290". Here he is< 5> suggesting and the photographs suggest that the< 6> satchel is by a white line in the road. I did not< 7> put that because of the way he has worded his< 8> statement. If there is an issue here, I would ask< 9> that it be clarified either by the officer but there<10> is a difference between this book and the statement<11> and the photographs.<12> MR GOMPERTZ: I was not asking about the satchel.<13> The only point that I was seeking to clarify, I<14> accept immediately there are differences between the<15> statement and what appears in the property register,<16> what I was seeking to clarify is where the gloves<17> were found and if it is necessary for Sergeant<18> Turnbull to attend and deal with this matter then, of<19> course, he can do so.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: It is right that the statement showed<21> that the satchel was outside 290 for some reason,<22> whereas this book shows as to where it was likely to<23> have been at the junction of Dickson Road.<24> MR GOMPERTZ: Yes, it may be that if one looks at the<25> original that the punctuation has got in the wrong

. P-4320 WAIN

< 1> place.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: We can find that.< 3> MR GOMPERTZ: I do not want to speculate about it but< 4> we can have a look. (To the witness). If we can go< 5> back please to (PCA00160081) just deal with the< 6> gloves.< 7> THE CHAIRMAN: I thought that the evidence had been< 8> that it was there because the Taffes were asked about< 9> it too, but that may only be a deduction.<10> MR GOMPERTZ: The position on the statement is a<11> little bit ambiguous but if one looks at what is<12> recorded in the property register, which I agree was<13> not Sergeant Turnbull's document, one sees that what<14> is recorded is that the gloves were found outside 318<15> Well Hall Road, SE9 on the pavement.<16> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.<17> MR GOMPERTZ: So whether it is 290 or 318 it was not<18> that they were found, so far as we know, anywhere<19> near the actual attack?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. Did that have any bearing on whether they should<22> be examined as a matter of priority or not?<23> A. That was the substance of my discussion about<24> these items with DC Crane about the gloves, in<25> particular, was they were found where Lawrence

. P-4321 WAIN

< 1> collapsed and not where he was attacked.< 2> Q. So far as the prospect of finding any blood on< 3> the clothing of the attackers in this case, was it< 4> relevant that on the upper part of his body Stephen< 5> was wearing some five layers of clothing?< 6> A. Yes, that was relevant. Inevitably because it< 7> would take longer for the blood to come to the< 8> outside.< 9> Q. Was it in any way relevant that he had run a<10> considerable distance or not?<11> A. I understood he ran after he was attacked.<12> Q. Yes. That does not have any bearing on it at<13> all?<14> A. I don't believe so, no.<15> Q. Can I ask you about prioritisation and can we<16> have on the screen (LAW00130046), which is an<17> extract. Thank you very much. Can we go down to the<18> bottom of the page, please, the next paragraph 174.<19> This is an extract from Dr Gallup's report and we can<20> see what she says in that paragraph as to the items<21> that you selected as the most suitable potential<22> sources of transferred fibres and she says:<23> "I agree with his choice which was as<24> follows."<25> I do not think we need look and see what you

. P-4322 WAIN

< 1> chose over the page, but were you and she, as I< 2> understand it, in agreement about this matter?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. And, indeed, did she make, as you understood it,< 5> any criticism at all of your prioritisation of tasks?< 6> A. No not at all, as far as I am aware.< 7> Q. Or, indeed, any criticism of the items which you< 8> selected for examination for either blood or fibres?< 9> A. No.<10> MR GOMPERTZ: I think that is all I need ask.<11> MR MANSFIELD: I think I should make clear what the<12> criticism is. It is not of Mr Wain personally. It<13> is of the system and criteria used for selection.<14> THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure those of us who sit with me<15> are fully aware of that.<16> MISS WEEKES: It seems there are no more questions.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I suppose it<18> might be wise just to wait while Dr Gallup gives<19> evidence just in case. I hope she has been listening<20> to the evidence, incidentally.<21> MISS WEEKES: I think she has. She is sitting to the<22> left.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: That is very sensible because there<24> does not seem to be much, if anything, between them.<25> Dr Gallup now please.

. P-4323 WAIN

< 1> <(Witness withdrew)< 2> <DR ANGELA GALLUP, (Sworn)< 3> <EXAMINED BY MISS WEEKES< 4> Q. Thank you very much for coming. Could I ask< 5> you, please, just to tell us what your qualifications< 6> are?< 7> A. I am a Bachelor of Science, a Doctor of< 8> Philosophy in the Faculty of Science, a chartered< 9> biologist, a fellow of the Institute of Biology. I<10> have been a practising forensic scientist for 24<11> years and I was formerly a senior scientist in three<12> of the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratories.<13> Q. Could I, in order to avoid you having to search<14> through your notes because I appreciate you have<15> brought quite a lot of documents with you, bring up<16> your very detailed report that you wrote having been<17> instructed by JR Jones on behalf of the<18> Stephen Lawrence family?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. And that you were asked to do in August of 1995<21> or thereabouts?<22> A. Yes, thereabouts.<23> Q. That, indeed, is the first page of your report,<24> 23rd August 1995. In order to take matters shortly I<25> am going to summarise what you were asked to do, what

. P-4324 GALLUP

< 1> you did do, and then come to your conclusions on the< 2> scene, if I may. Can we please turn to page 8. Can< 3> you see there my instructions?< 4> A. Yes, I can.< 5> Q. "I was instructed to read review the whole of< 6> the scientific work to date and in conjunction with< 7> Mr Wain to identify and to carry out any additional< 8> examinations which might be capable of establishing a< 9> link between Lawrence and the suspects, were they to<10> have been involved in the attack."<11> That is very simply what you were asked to do?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. Can I summarise it, because you do very<14> helpfully in a great deal of detail, which is again<15> very helpful, indicate precisely what you looked at.<16> You read almost all the statements which dealt with<17> the description of the attack?<18> A. I read some of them. I don't know how many I<19> read.<20> Q. I said almost all because it is clear you read<21> quite a lot?<22> A. Right.<23> Q. You went back to the forms, that is the<24> scientific forms, where items had been looked at and<25> analysed and you looked at those?

. P-4325 GALLUP

< 1> A. Yes, I did.< 2> Q. You looked at photographs?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. Were possible, you clearly looked at all the< 5> original items of clothing, shoes, things like that?< 6> A. Yes, I looked at a good number of them.< 7> Q. Can I then now turn, please, to with what you< 8> dealt with by way of blood. There were two important< 9> lines of analysis in the case itself, fibre and<10> blood?<11> A. I thought those were the two most likely to<12> yield evidence, yes.<13> Q. Can we turn to what you say about the overall<14> assessment of blood. Page 43, please. I have jumped<15> ahead a lot because you clearly spent a lot of time<16> reviewing everything that had been done and all the<17> analysis about blood; do you follow?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. If anybody wants to ask you about that you have<20> your papers and everybody has read your report?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. "At the end of the day very little blood,<23> indeed, was found on the suspects clothing and<24> samples of it that have been tested to date either<25> failed to give a result probably because there was

. P-4326 GALLUP

< 1> simply too little blood for the purpose or were< 2> demonstrated not to have come from Lawrence."< 3> Over the page, please, 44. Scroll down now to< 4> paragraph to 168:< 5> "All in all, there is no evidence of any of< 6> Lawrence's blood on any of the items of suspects< 7> clothing examined, but this is not a powerful point< 8> for the defence", and you mean the defence of the< 9> suspects, no doubt; is that right?<10> A. That's correct.<11> Q. "In that, as we have seen, there is no reason to<12> suppose that any blood need have transferred to<13> Lawrence's attackers in the first place."<14> Can I pause. You were an expert and you<15> obviously form opinions. You form that opinion from<16> what, and why?<17> A. From the very -- well, apparently very brief<18> nature of the attack.<19> Q. In terms of speed and the descriptions of how it<20> happened?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. I move on to paragraph 169:<23> "The absence of blood on any of the knives<24> provides a serious obstacle to the suggestion that<25> any one of them in particular was the murder

. P-4327 GALLUP

< 1> weapon."< 2> That is obvious, is it not?< 3> A. Yes, I think so, and the fact you can get the< 4> same sort of cut produced by a variety of different< 5> knives. It is not safe to go on knife cuts -- cuts< 6> in clothing alone.< 7> Q. I say "obvious" but it is a very important< 8> conclusion you have drawn from what you have seen.< 9> When you discussed this with the forensic<10> scientist, Mr Wain, your review of the matters which<11> had already been conducted earlier, before you<12> arrived at the scene, of reviewing this case, that is<13> what you were able to say overall about blood?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. Can I move now to fibres and what you say about<16> that. Can I have page 48, please. I am going to<17> scroll down to the end. "In all, he", and you are<18> referring to Mr Wain no doubt?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. "He examined and compared a total of 646<21> individual fibres"?<22> A. Yes, that is what I understood.<23> Q. "Of these one grey cotton fibre on Lawrence's<24> jacket looked as though it could have come from one<25> of Dobson's jacket, which is the LH5."

. P-4328 GALLUP

< 1> You have heard we talked about that because you< 2> have been in the building.< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. "And another from one of Norris' sweat shirts,< 5> DC6. In addition, two grey black wool fibres found< 6> on a scaffolding pool could have come from Dobson's< 7> cardigan ASR2."< 8> Over the page, please. This is what you did< 9> more recently:<10> "Following my involvement in the case", you<11> conducted these further points. I am going to<12> highlight the first two lines of each of those<13> paragraphs. You did firstly this:<14> "Fibres which could have come from the suspects<15> clothing on nail clippings from Lawrence"?<16> A. Yes, I didn't necessarily do all this work<17> myself but it was done after I became involved in the<18> case.<19> Q. That is in addition to what had been done<20> before?<21> A. That's right.<22> Q. Secondly, following paragraph:<23> "Fibres which might have been transferred in<24> the reverse direction from Lawrence to the suspects?<25> A. Yes.

. P-4329 GALLUP

< 1> Q. That is again an additional piece of work. I< 2> want to move over to page 50, please, and these are< 3> your findings:< 4> "As a result of all of this the total number of< 5> individual fibres examined in detail and< 6> microscopically compared with the relevant reference< 7> samples had risen to 1,071"?< 8> A. That's correct.< 9> Q. "Along the way a small number of cottons and<10> wools were found to be microscopic matches with<11> relevant reference samples. These together with the<12> fibres Mr Wain originally found were then subjected<13> to further analytical tests as appropriate and in the<14> usual way."<15> Over the page to 51, please. Bearing in mind I<16> have just summarised for the sake of speed and<17> clarity all that was done on fibres, at the end of<18> the day there really appeared to have been three<19> important pieces of fibre evidence, yes?<20> A. Well, three pieces of fibre evidence, yes.<21> Q. I will leave out the word "important". Let us<22> see what they were on this page:<23> "Two purple/brown wools recovered from the bag,<24> RC2, which was placed over Lawrence's right-hand<25> which could have come from Dobson's cardigan.

. P-4330 GALLUP

< 1> "Secondly, a single colourless polyester from< 2> the same bag which could have come from the grey< 3> front panels of Dobson's jacket. It is not clear< 4> what the significance of this fibre might be because< 5> colourless fibres are not searched for as a rule.< 6> "This one was only found because it happened to have< 7> been picked off the taping with a another fibre.< 8> Finally, a single grey cotton fibre from Lawrence's< 9> jacket which could also have come from the front of<10> Dobson's jacket"?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. "These three pieces of fibre evidence appeared<13> each time to name one of the suspects Dobson on each<14> occasion?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Can I deal with what you say at paragraph 184<17> towards the bottom of the page: "Even in combination<18> these fibres provide only very weak evidence of any<19> association between Lawrence's and Dobson's<20> clothing. If they had come from Dobson then he need<21> not necessarily have been wearing both items at the<22> time. This is because fibres from one garment might<23> previously have contaminated the other and then being<24> secondarily transferred to Lawrence later on. Just<25> for completeness perhaps of interest here is that on

. P-4331 GALLUP

< 1> the face of it Dobson's jacket, LH5, might seem to< 2> fit Brooks description of what one of the youths had< 3> been wearing."< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. In essence your conclusions and findings on< 6> blood and fibre do not differ from that of Mr Wain's?< 7> A. No, we worked very much in partnership over< 8> this. It was necessary to because there were many< 9> many weeks work here and it simply isn't possible to<10> work any other way and after all he was the person<11> who recovered the fibres amongst which we were<12> searching for these new ones, so there was no way in<13> which we could do it in any other way but work as a<14> partnership.<15> Q. In the report you make no criticism of Mr Wain's<16> method?<17> A. No.<18> Q. You were not asked in the report to make<19> criticisms of his method?<20> A. No, I was asked really to carry the<21> investigation a few steps further.<22> Q. Exactly. The whole point of this was: could we<23> please look back to the beginning and review what has<24> happened here?<25> A. Yes.

. P-4332 GALLUP

< 1> Q. You both willingly and to the best of your< 2> ability did just that?< 3> A. Yes, I should like to make a point too that when< 4> we mention 1,071 fibres in fact, we scanned many< 5> hundreds of thousands of fibres to find those 1,071,< 6> those were the only ones we looked at in very great< 7> detail up to 400 times normal size but we would< 8> certainly have looked at many many more than that to< 9> actually come up with those ones and at some<10> magnification up to 40 times normal size so it was a<11> very thorough and a very detailed investigation for<12> fibres.<13> Q. Just so it is clear, this report that you have<14> served goes into some hundreds of pages attached with<15> photographs and all your findings?<16> A. I think in fact the report itself is only about<17> 58 but then there are lots of photograph that<18> accompany it and so on.<19> Q. Yes. Can I ask can you please go to page 54. I<20> want to go to the top and deal with what you say<21> about time interval before items were seized. In<22> general terms the longer the time that elapses before<23> the transfer of fibres between items has occurred,<24> the less likely is it that the scientist will be able<25> to find any evidence of it?

. P-4333 GALLUP

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. "This is because fibres lie loosely on the< 3> surface of an item including those recently< 4> transferred to it tend to fall off and become lost< 5> during the course of normal wear. This process is< 6> accelerated if the wearer is particularly active"?< 7> A. That's correct.< 8> Q. That deals with an important point about the< 9> murder occurring on the 22nd April, suspects only<10> arrested on 7th May. Suspected clothing that might<11> have been worn recovered on that day but not<12> submitted to the lab until a few days even after<13> that?<14> A. Yes, once it has been recovered as long as it is<15> put in protective packaging nothing much can happen<16> to it after that, the fibres will stay on and around<17> the garment.<18> Q. Can I deal with the blood stained tissue on 56,<19> please, you were probably again sitting in court when<20> Mr Wain was asked to look at the experiments that<21> were conducted on the one tissue which you were able<22> to see. Were you in court at that stage?<23> A. I am not sure whether I saw, can I check my ----<24> Q. I am about to hand it up to you if you do not<25> have it: you recall that the evidence was that a

. P-4334 GALLUP

< 1> test was carried out on that tissue to test as to< 2> whether the staining that could be seen was, in fact,< 3> blood?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. I am just trying to find it for you, forgive me< 6> I appear to have lost it, the reaction Mr Wain said< 7> was that it was positive?< 8> A. KM positive, yes.< 9> Q. What would you have expected to have happened to<10> that tissue, it having tested positive?<11> A. Well for it to have been contaminated with some<12> blood.<13> Q. Once you make that test, is there anything else<14> that you want to carry out bearing in mind that there<15> had been control blood samples taken from a number of<16> individuals in this case?<17> A. You could go on and analyse it, group it or DNA<18> profile it or something.<19> Q. Would you have expected that to have been<20> conducted, is that what you would have done?<21> A. It depends very much where it was found.<22> Q. This tissue was found very near to the scene of<23> the attack?<24> MR GOMPERTZ: With the very greatest respect, that is<25> not right.

. P-4335 GALLUP

< 1> THE CHAIRMAN: 408 Rochester Way, not very near, I do< 2> not think.< 3> MISS WEEKES: Let me use the words that are there: "In< 4> view of their proximity of the scene" you say "it< 5> seems prudent to examine them"?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. "Near or within the vicinity of the attack"?< 8> A. Yes, as long as it was near enough but I wasn't< 9> clear exactly where it was found, but it is a<10> reasonable thing to do if you have got something that<11> is bloodstained to have a look at it. One of the<12> problems with items from a scene in surrounding area<13> is that there are often so many bits and pieces, it<14> is amazing what people discard in gardens and on<15> pavements and things and it is sometimes quite<16> difficult to draw a line as to what you are going to<17> look and what you are not going to look at so<18> proximity is quite important but if it was fairly<19> close to where the attack occurred and obviously I am<20> not quite sure what I have said about it actually, I<21> see the passage, but obviously if there was any<22> chance that it might be connected it might be a good<23> idea to have it analysed.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: Not quite so quick.<25> MISS WEEKES: There may be a debate about how far or

. P-4336 GALLUP

< 1> how close that was but, however, there were two< 2> tissues found and eventually one of them was in fact< 3> examined.< 4> MR DOYLE: Sir, I am sorry to interrupt but I think< 5> it ought to be put on record that there is not any< 6> debate about where this was found, it is a matter of< 7> record.< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: We remember the evidence about it but< 9> you did not test it yourself?<10> A. No.<11> MISS WEEKES: Can I make it clear, I do not want to<12> mislead, there might be a debate about how far and<13> how near, sir, but where it is actually found we can<14> see it on the map.<15> Can I just ask you this: the point of me<16> raising this was for this purpose. If you test<17> positive and this tested positive for some sort of<18> blood deposit, you would want to make some decision<19> or discuss with the senior officers whether you go<20> ahead to try and compare with any other samples you<21> have?<22> A. I think if you are interested in it and you<23> discovered some blood on it, you must want to know<24> something more about it so the logical thing would be<25> to analyse it a bit more further.

. P-4337 GALLUP

< 1> MISS WEEKES: Thank you very much, there may be some< 2> questions for you.< 3> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MANSFIELD< 4> Q. Dr Gallup, as you are aware I represent< 5> Mr and Mrs Lawrence. Just a few generals points and< 6> one or two in particular. You have been asked about< 7> the question of time and delay and I want to begin< 8> with that. As a general principle of course in< 9> relation to an investigation the sooner items are<10> recovered for comparison the better?<11> A. Yes, absolutely.<12> Q. It has already been put this morning most senior<13> officers in charge of investigations should know<14> that, it is a matter of common sense?<15> A. I would have thought so.<16> Q. And there should never be a question that you<17> would delay because nothing much will happen to<18> whatever is left in the intervening delay?<19> A. No.<20> Q. Because in relation to the two main avenues<21> here, that is blood and fibres, in relation to both<22> of them either small traces of blood or traces of<23> fibre or even further down the line, hairs, will just<24> disappear, get washed off or worn off?<25> A. Yes, the chances are that as the time progresses

. P-4338 GALLUP

< 1> they will disappear.< 2> Q. If, as a scientist, you were asked to advise a< 3> senior officer what the balance of convenience and< 4> also effective examination was, it would be in favour< 5> of going in early?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. So far as the two main avenues are concerned,< 8> may I take blood first in this particular case. You< 9> did read all the statements of eyewitnesses in this<10> case?<11> A. I read all the ones that I was sent. I am not<12> quite sure if that is the whole bundle, all of them.<13> Q. I am not going through them again, I think you<14> were here when I read out the bus stop witnesses plus<15> Duwayne Brooks who was a victim, so you read those in<16> any event?<17> A. I think I read some of them, yes.<18> Q. Given the nature of this attack which is not a<19> particularly unfortunately uncommon event, namely, a<20> number of youths on to one, possibly two and a<21> stabbing which is over in, no doubt, seconds this is<22> not an uncommon event, is it?<23> A. No.<24> Q. So far as blood is concerned, the two injuries<25> concerned here, you were aware, were stabbings which

. P-4339 GALLUP

< 1> dissected major arteries in both cases?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Plainly unless somebody is wearing no clothing< 4> at all, the clothing on the body plainly may act as< 5> an effective means of wiping off any blood that is on< 6> the knife when it comes out of the body?< 7> A. That's correct and the elasticity of the skin as< 8> well plays a part in that.< 9> Q. However, it is unlikely to remove all traces of<10> blood?<11> A. Well that is my view, unfortunately it is not<12> the sort of experiment one can ever carry out. But I<13> would be very surprised if one could plunge a knife<14> deeply into someone and come out through clothing and<15> not find anything at all on it. The KM test that<16> Mr Wain talked about is extremely sensitive, but<17> having said that I would find it difficult to say<18> that it absolutely couldn't have happened.<19> Q. So the balance is that way, in other words it is<20> unlikely there would be no traces. I want to develop<21> the kind of traces in what senior officers should be<22> considering the first weekend and the first week.<23> The kind of traces that emanate from that kind of<24> incident commonly tend to be, if you have the knife<25> itself, a very small trace lodged near a handle where

. P-4340 GALLUP

< 1> it could remain as it were unclean, unwashed and so< 2> on, possibly another very small trace on the blade< 3> but very small traces indeed might remain on the< 4> knife itself?< 5> A. They might, if it is up by the handle then it< 6> would have to have gone in very deeply. More< 7> commonly you find smeared blood on the blade but it< 8> is perfectly possible.< 9> Q. Turning away from the from the blade to the<10> clothing of the person or the perpetrator. We do not<11> know whether it is one person doing this or two<12> people with two separate knives. The likelihood is<13> it is one. If the person carrying the knife or<14> having the knife puts it back into clothing from<15> whence it came, the suggestion in this case is that<16> one or more of the suspects were in the habit of<17> carrying knives in the waistbands of their trousers,<18> if getting away from the scene, other than throwing<19> it into a garden locally, it was placed back into the<20> waistband then, of course, that is the point at which<21> some small trace of blood might get on to the<22> clothing?<23> A. Yes, that's correct.<24> Q. The trace of blood that might get on to the<25> clothing might not be immediately visible to the

. P-4341 GALLUP

< 1> eye. In other words, the person who has been doing< 2> this might get home and not recognise that there< 3> might small traces of blood on the clothing?< 4> A. That's right and it would depend on the colour< 5> of the garment as well whether or not the blood would< 6> show up.< 7> Q. That is the perpetrator with the knife, putting< 8> the knife into clothing or near clothing. In< 9> addition to that of course there are some occasions,<10> one does not say it necessarily happened here, but<11> there are occasions when the perpetrator, him or<12> herself, cuts themselves in the process of the<13> stabbing and therefore there might be blood coming<14> from the perpetrator?<15> A. It is fairly rare but it does happen.<16> Q. In addition to the perpetrator and the knife<17> itself, when the knife is withdrawn from injuries of<18> this kind it is not uncommon to find, is it, tiny<19> blood spots ending up on the perpetrator as well as<20> one or more of those standing within very close<21> proximity?<22> A. Do you mean the blood from himself because of<23> his the cut to his --<24> Q. No, the blood, as the knife is withdraw from the<25> victim, if there are small amounts of blood on the

. P-4342 GALLUP

< 1> knife, it having severed major arteries, that small< 2> drops of blood then end up on the lower part of the< 3> clothing of the perpetrator and anyone else who is< 4> within the region as the blade is drawn out quickly?< 5> A. Well, it is possible, but I think if the knife< 6> has travelled through clothing it is much less likely< 7> than if it has been applied to an open, exposed skin< 8> surface.< 9> Q. This is a situation again which you have<10> discovered in the past, in other words, tiny specks<11> of blood ending up particularly on trainers?<12> A. It can happen. They can flick on to any surface<13> nearby.<14> Q. Similarly with the traces of blood on clothing,<15> the perpetrator on an associate who has got tiny<16> specks of blood on their clothing, again, may not<17> recognise that is what they have got?<18> A. No, that's right.<19> Q. So far as the fibres are concerned in this case,<20> may I take the jacket LH5, I think you recognise that<21> that jacket had a significance because in many ways<22> it bore some resemblance to the description given by<23> Mr Brooks of what he saw one of the attackers<24> wearing?<25> A. Yes, I think it was when I laid it out on the

. P-4343 GALLUP

< 1> floor and you could see there was a fairly plain, I< 2> think it was black at the back, but then you could< 3> see the grey part of the sleeves coming on to the< 4> back, so it looked as if there were stripes down the< 5> outside of the sleeves, which I think, is something,< 6> from memory that is what Mr Brooks may have< 7> described.< 8> Q. So far as you indicated, that is a jacket that< 9> comes from Mr Dobson?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. There were fibres that came from another item of<12> clothing, a cardigan, and you have indicated already<13> that he would not necessarily have had to be wearing<14> both at the same time?<15> A. Yes, I made that point in case there was some<16> confusion about that.<17> Q. Yes, but what it could mean, of course, is also<18> if it was the jacket on which the woolen fibres were,<19> it provides a link to Dobson. I am not suggesting<20> anything more than that at the moment?<21> A. Yes, if it were, yes.<22> Q. So far as the other items are concerned, I will<23> come to tissues in a moment, you have heard this<24> morning me asking Mr Wain about a number of other<25> things that do not appear either to have been

. P-4344 GALLUP

< 1> submitted or to have been examined, but particularly< 2> submitted. Do you agree, first of all, that< 3> decisions about submission are particularly important< 4> ones, in other words, which things are going to go to< 5> the laboratory in the first place?< 6> A. Yes, they are.< 7> Q. One of the items in this case, and I will put it< 8> in parenthesis, because it is not entirely clear< 9> where it was found, I want to deal with the satchel,<10> you are aware of its existence?<11> A. Yes, I am.<12> Q. The photograph suggests that it is in the road.<13> The statement of the finder suggests it was on a<14> pavement, but in any event, it is within a vicinity<15> of Stephen's movements, mouth of Dickson Road, then<16> 320?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Did you ever get to examine the satchel itself?<19> A. No, I asked for it, but I understood it had been<20> returned.<21> Q. So it was not possible. Can I deal with it in<22> general terms. An article like that, if found close<23> to the scene, could afford a receptacle on which<24> things like either blood, but more particularly<25> fibres and other items might be transferred?

. P-4345 GALLUP

< 1> A. Yes, it could.< 2> Q. Therefore, as far as submission is concerned< 3> this is an item which, would it be fair to say, you< 4> would expect to be submitted as having been found< 5> near the murder scene?< 6> A. I think because it was Stephen Lawrence's it was< 7> an item that would have been one quite likely to have< 8> been submitted.< 9> Q. If it is found separately, and it is not<10> entirely clear, if the strap is found separately,<11> that is another item that could afford a basis ----<12> A. The bag would be more interesting than the<13> strap.<14> Q. I accept that. In addition to that of course<15> there were other items that were not submitted, and<16> two of them at the time were the tissues you have<17> been asked about. May I summarise it in this way:<18> The two items of tissue which you have mentioned were<19> found in Rochester Way and the (inaudible) has<20> indicated the numbers are 408 roughly. Unfortunately<21> on our plan the numbers of houses are not given.<22> However, are you now aware since your involvement in<23> the case that a witness in this case suggested that a<24> group of suspects, and I do not put it any higher<25> than that for the moment, and it relates to a witness

. P-4346 GALLUP

< 1> called B, ran out of Cobbett Road onto Rochester< 2> Way. Were you aware of that?< 3> A. I simply can't remember whether I have been< 4> aware of that.< 5> Q. In any event, you thought it was prudent to< 6> examine the one that still remained. Plainly, just< 7> going back to the beginning, it was two separate< 8> officers who found these two tissues. These were< 9> items which, in the general run of things, you would<10> expect to be submitted, would you not?<11> A. I think it would just depend on how close they<12> were to the scene and to any other activities, what<13> they looked like, whether they were sort of heavily<14> weathered, whether it looked as if they had been out<15> for a while and, therefore, connected with the<16> things. There would be quite a bit you could tell by<17> just looking at them whether they were going to be<18> useful to examine.<19> Q. Because the tissue itself, it is not just the<20> question of the glove, because the tissue might<21> contain other traces that could link to an individual<22> suspect?<23> A. It might do.<24> Q. For example, we are again back into fibres and<25> hairs and so forth?

. P-4347 GALLUP

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. The one remaining tissue that you were aware of< 3> when you came into this matter, did that have, as far< 4> as you are aware, fibres on it?< 5> A. I don't know whether it did or not. I could< 6> probably check. I think I may have Mr Wain's notes< 7> on it. I didn't examine it myself. I think the< 8> strategy there was to analyse the blood and to see< 9> whether it was the same as Stephen Lawrence's or<10> anyone else involved, and if it had been then would<11> have been the moment to go on and do the fibres, and<12> I think in the event it turned out to be different<13> from Stephen Lawrence's.<14> Q. Can I look at it, it is the point by fibres.<15> LAW00060056, do you see paragraph 201 there?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. "Textile fibres have been recovered from the<18> surface", that is the one tissue that was<19> remaining. "These will only be checked against<20> clothing in the case of the results of blood analysis<21> becoming known." Thank you.<22> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR GOMPERTZ<23> Q. Dr Gallup, just dealing with the question of<24> KCR1, the tissue that was examined, that was not<25> examined until 1995, but when it was examined it was

. P-4348 GALLUP

< 1> found that the blood upon it was not that of< 2> Stephen Lawrence?< 3> A. Yes, that is as I understand it.< 4> Q. Thank you. We have all heard what you said very< 5> recently about whether you would have expected that< 6> tissue and indeed the other one about which we know< 7> to have been submitted or not. I do not ask you< 8> further about that.< 9> Can I just ask you about what you say at another<10> passage of your report. Can we have (LAW00130053)<11> please. If we go up to the top of the page, you are<12> dealing with a selection of items for examination, I<13> think particularly in relation fibre searching,<14> right?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. In paragraph 188 you say this: "No criticism of<17> those responsible for the selection is intended<18> here. I make the point so that the importance of<19> such a large number of negative findings is not<20> overestimated."<21> A. I was talking there particularly about the fact<22> that a significant number of the items had been<23> submitted because it looked as though they had blood<24> staining on them, and so that was the basis of what<25> then became the fibre examination of them, even

. P-4349 GALLUP

< 1> though in the event it turned out they weren't blood< 2> stained and I just wondered about -- I mean, in a< 3> sense, I suppose it doesn't really matter, they were< 4> items that belonged to suspects and to that extent it< 5> was valid to have a look at them for fibres, but it< 6> was quite an interesting twist in the case at that< 7> point and I know it was something that Mr Wain and I< 8> discussed.< 9> Q. Yes, indeed. It is the first sentence of<10> paragraph 188 that I would like to just query with<11> you. I do not quarrel with it at all. You are not<12> making any criticism of those responsible for the<13> selection of items for examination?<14> A. No, I was meaning particularly in relation to<15> the fact that some of them looked as though they were<16> blood stained and then turned out not to be later on,<17> but I am not in a position to say whether or not one<18> could say anything about the selection because I am<19> not aware of what the total choice might have been.<20> Q. Thank you. One further matter: Did you ask to<21> look at the gloves which were found?<22> A. No. Mr Wain and I discussed the gloves and I<23> think we had some police photographs from memory, we<24> had some police photographs in front of us and I<25> think he said that they were found virtually adjacent

. P-4350 GALLUP

< 1> to where Stephen Lawrence collapsed, and I, from< 2> memory, and I may be wrong, but I seem to remember< 3> there was something to do with some railings and< 4> whether or not they had been thrown behind some< 5> railings or something, but I remember thinking it< 6> didn't sound at all as though they had anything to do< 7> with the actual attack, both from where they were< 8> found -- well, from where they were found and the< 9> circumstances.<10> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR DOYLE<11> Q. PCA00460063, please. I ask questions on behalf<12> of the senior investigating officers. You may not<13> have seen this document before. It is part of a<14> briefing note given by senior officers before the<15> suspects houses were visited by the police and<16> arrests made.<17> Do you see in that document that considerable<18> care has been taken to identify the type of clothing<19> from available descriptions to the police that might<20> be found at those addresses?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. My learned friend Mr Mansfield has put to you,<23> with respect, quite properly, that you would expect<24> senior investigating officers to apply their minds,<25> not just to whether or not there was apparent

. P-4351 GALLUP

< 1> staining to clothing on the outside, but to the inner< 2> reaches of clothing, including pockets and< 3> waistbands; do you remember that line of< 4> cross-examination?< 5> A. Yes, I do.< 6> Q. If you look at the middle of that document, do< 7> you see where it reads: "The pathologist"?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. This is a briefing to the arresting officers:<10> "The pathologist was of the opinion that any blood<11> staining on the assailants clothing would only be<12> spotting considering the layers of clothing worn by<13> victim. However, attention should be paid to the<14> waistband of trouser and edges of pockets of trousers<15> and jackets where weapons may be concealed or any<16> type of sheath. Particular attention should be paid<17> to footwear for blood, ie, welts and laces, lace<18> holes etc as a considerable quantity of the blood was<19> in the road way at the junction Dickson Road and<20> assailants were described as kicking victim."<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. It is clear here that a direction is being given<23> to check very carefully for the inside of clothing<24> where a weapon may have been concealed or carried?<25> A. Yes.

. P-4352 GALLUP

< 1> MR DOYLE: Thank you.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed for your< 3> very clear evidence, Dr Gallup.< 4> <(The witness withdrew)< 5> MS WEEKES: Mr Lawson is going to take the next< 6> witness, sir.< 7> MR LAWSON: The next witness is Mr Crowley.< 8> Mr Gompertz has just mentioned to me that there may< 9> be an application which is constrained to make. I do<10> not know whether that inhibits the start of<11> Mr Crowley.<12> MR GOMPERTZ: The application I make is that you<13> consider perhaps taking an early luncheon or at least<14> giving me the opportunity to speak to<15> Detective Sergeant Crowley. I make the application<16> because this morning we have had served upon us two<17> further notices of allegations to be made by my<18> learned friend, Mr Ian McDonald, on behalf of<19> Mr Duwayne Brooks. The first was served at the very<20> start of the day, shortly before 10 o'clock. The<21> second was served as Dr Gallup came into the witness<22> box. That was as a result of a conversation, it is<23> right to say, I had with Mr McDonald during the break<24> in the morning, but what I have not had the<25> opportunity to do is to discuss the second of those

. P-4353 GALLUP

< 1> notices with Detective Sergeant Crowley. Once he< 2> starts his evidence ----< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. We will break now until< 4> 1.45.< 5> <(The Luncheon Adjournment)< 6> MR EGAN: I wonder before Mr Lawson examines the next< 7> witness or calls the next witness, can I raise one< 8> matter. I have put my learned friend Mr McDonald on< 9> notice about it with an apology. There is a document<10> I have missed.<11> I represent, amongst other officers,<12> Sergeant Bevan. You will remember, I think in<13> fairness sergeant Bevan less so, but certainly three<14> other officers that I represent and a number of other<15> officers who have been questioned closely about<16> whether they believe that this was a purely racially<17> motivated murder and I am not going to reprise the<18> evidence that has been given, but the point has<19> always been, "well we do not really know what the<20> motive was" and various people have said, for<21> example, that the attackers would have been just as<22> happy to stab white youths.<23> When Mr Bevan gave evidence I should have put a<24> document to him. I must admit the reason that we did<25> not was because we missed it. He did a great many

. P-4354 GALLUP

< 1> messages and I am grateful to my learned friends< 2> Mr Beer and Gompertz for pointing out our mistake< 3> there, but could I ask you please to turn up< 4> (MET00890290). This is a message taken by< 5> Sergeant Bevan on 24th September 1993, and the body< 6> of the statement says:< 7> "On 23rd September I obtained an additional< 8> MG11", that is a statement and for reference that is< 9> (PCA00380043), "from Duwayne Brooks. During this<10> statement, although not included in it, he stated<11> that he felt that he and Stephen were in the wrong<12> place at the wrong time and if two white youths had<13> been there the same could have happened. Noel<14> Penstone did not share this sentiment."<15> The original of that message has never been<16> scanned in, but in fact it is in identical terms.<17> Bearing in mind the number of times officers have<18> been asked about precisely the same matter, in my<19> respectful submission, that is a relevant and<20> material matter for this Inquiry to take into<21> account. My learned friend Mr McDonald is aware of<22> it. He was not taken by surprise.<23> MR MCDONALD: We did not cross-examine Mr Bevan about<24> this because we thought that it was something that he<25> had decided not to rely on and if it had been relied

. P-4355 GALLUP

< 1> on then obviously we would have cross-examined it.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I see.< 3> MR MCDONALD: I do not know whether it is accurate.< 4> It is a recording of something he has said.< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: I am not surprised that Noel Penstone< 6> did not share the sentiment. Thank you.< 7> MR MCDONALD: Thank you.< 8> MR LAWSON: Sir, can I call Mr Crowley, please.< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, certainly. Thank you.<10> <CHRISTOPHER CROWLEY, sworn<11> <EXAMINED BY MR LAWSON<12> THE WITNESS: I am Christopher Crowley.<13> THE CHAIRMAN: Will you sit down, Mr Crowley and say<14> who you are.<15> THE WITNESS: I name is Christopher Crowley. I am a<16> detective sergeant attached to 4 Major Investigation<17> Team. At the time of this inquiry I was a detective<18> sergeant at Plumstead Police Station, sir.<19> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr Lawson will<20> first ask you questions on behalf of the Inquiry.<21> MR LAWSON: Mr Crowley, it is right, is it not, that<22> your only involvement in the matter we are<23> investigating concerned your being present on<24> 3rd June 1993 at an identification parade and making<25> arrangements to escort Mr Brooks to and from?

. P-4356 CROWLEY

< 1> A. That's correct, sir, yes.< 2> Q. You did not have any involvement in the< 3> investigation prior to that?< 4> A. No, I did not.< 5> Q. You had no involvement in it thereafter?< 6> A. No, certainly not.< 7> Q. We have a statement that you made that is on our< 8> system. I am going to ask it to be shown as< 9> (DBR00010135). This is, of course, you will<10> recognise a HOLMES print-out version of the<11> statement?<12> A. That's correct, yes.<13> Q. It bears the date, if we go down the page a<14> little, just there, we see at the foot of the screen,<15> bears the date 4th June. You are going to tell us,<16> are you not, that the proper date should be the 3rd?<17> A. Yes, sir. This was amended to show 3rd June.<18> Q. We will come to that, if we may, in a moment.<19> You made no other statement, did you, in connection<20> with the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation?<21> A. No, I did not, sir, no.<22> Q. Am I right in thinking you were not invited to<23> make any statement to the Kent Police in their<24> investigation?<25> A. No, sir, I did not speak to Kent Police

. P-4357 CROWLEY

< 1> officers.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Crowley, would you speak across this< 3> way and make sure the microphone is close to you.< 4> Put it closer.< 5> THE WITNESS: Okay, sir.< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: That is it.< 7> MR LAWSON: Mr Crowley, you received notice from the< 8> Inquiry, did you not, of your assistance being sought< 9> in a letter in February?<10> A. Yes, I did, sir, yes.<11> Q. You were invited to provide a written statement,<12> Mr Crowley, but you have not done so, have you?<13> A. I have made a statement, sir, and submitted that<14> statement to the Inquiry.<15> Q. Have you? Well, it has not reached the Inquiry<16> team. Sorry about that. I hope Mr Gompertz can<17> assist you. Submitted by the Metropolitan Police?<18> A. The statement I was requested to compile, yes.<19> MR LAWSON: I had asked about this. I do not want to<20> criticise you if it has gone amiss.<21> MR GOMPERTZ: Can I just take instructions?<22> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, do. Carry on meanwhile.<23> MR LAWSON: What I must do, Mr Crowley, amongst other<24> things you were invited to give a brief review at<25> least of your police experience and background,

. P-4358 CROWLEY

< 1> et cetera. Can I do that blind, so to speak. How< 2> long have you been a police officer?< 3> A. This is my 19th year of service.< 4> Q. How long a CID officer?< 5> A. Since 1989.< 6> Q. You hold the rank now and did in 1993 of< 7> detective sergeant; is that right?< 8> A. Yes, I did, sir, yes.< 9> Q. How long have you been a detective sergeant?<10> A. I actually commenced duty as a detective<11> sergeant in 1989.<12> Q. Thank you. Mr Crowley, I think you will have<13> received yesterday and today various typed and<14> handwritten notices of allegations that may be raised<15> by one of the parties. You have seen those?<16> A. Yes, sir, I did, sir, yes.<17> Q. Those include, those allegations, do they not,<18> allegations relating to the role that you are said to<19> have played in the murder investigation, the Adams<20> murder investigation, if I can call it that?<21> A. Yes sir, allegations were made, yes.<22> Q. Those allegations have been made previously, you<23> are aware of that, are you not?<24> A. No, sir, I'm not aware of that.<25> Q. You are aware of allegations of impropriety on

. P-4359 CROWLEY

< 1> your part. Do not be too defensive about it, Mr< 2> Crowley, I am just going to explain the position I< 3> hope accurately. You are aware that there was an< 4> investigation by the Metropolitan Police of< 5> allegations of impropriety on your part?< 6> A. There was an inquiry, sir.< 7> Q. What we call the Selwoood Report resulted from< 8> it?< 9> A. There was no formal complaint, sir.<10> Q. No. We have a document for reference purposes,<11> it is at (MET00500056). We do not need it on the<12> screen, the Selwood Report relating to the Adams<13> matter, if I can put it that way. I am not going,<14> myself, Mr Crowley, going to ask you any more about<15> it than that, save for this: there was some<16> allegations published about you, were there not, in<17> the Private Eye magazine?<18> A. And other publications as well, sir, yes.<19> Q. And are those, or some of those allegations, the<20> subject of outstanding defamation proceedings?<21> A. Yes, they are, sir, yes.<22> Q. That is all I want to ask you about that. I am<23> going to ask you solely now about your involvement<24> with Stephen Lawrence or that investigation.<25> We have on the screen, as I say, the typed

. P-4360 CROWLEY

< 1> version of your statement. Do you have a copy of the< 2> original available to you?< 3> A. Yes, sir, I have the original and may I refer to< 4> it.< 5> Q. The actual original?< 6> A. The original, yes.< 7> Q. Just help us about the date, first of all, it is< 8> right, is it not, that the original statement has in< 9> manuscript originally the date 4th June?<10> A. Yes, it did, sir, yes.<11> Q. And altered and initialled by you to the 3rd?<12> A. Yes, sir, by me, yes, to the 3rd.<13> Q. No doubt on the original it is clearer than it<14> is on my copies but there are date and timestamps on<15> the original, are there not?<16> A. Yes, sir, on every page and on some pages three<17> times.<18> Q. And do those date and timestamps indicate that<19> the stamping was carried out, in fact shortly before<20> 8 pm on the evening of 3rd June?<21> A. Yes, sir, in 19.56 and 19.57.<22> Q. Just to explain that I think the reference has<23> "RA" on it, that is the reference of Plumstead<24> Police Station?<25> A. That's right.

. P-4361 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. You did not make the statement at Plumstead, did< 2> you?< 3> A. No, sir, I made it at Eltham.< 4> Q. I do not think that Eltham had a stamping< 5> machine, did it?< 6> A. No, they did not, sir, no.< 7> Q. So when you went to Plumstead you had it done< 8> there; is that right?< 9> A. Yes, sir, yes.<10> Q. That statement which has been translated for us<11> into the typed form, does that statement constitute<12> in effect your original note of events you are going<13> to talk to us about?<14> A. Yes, sir, it does.<15> Q. They concerned, did they not, the identification<16> parade earlier that day of 3rd June?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Which we know and you may remember to be the<19> identification parade during which Mr Brooks<20> identified a suspect by the name of Luke Knight?<21> A. I was made aware of the name after the -- I was<22> made aware subsequently ----<23> THE CHAIRMAN: Would you sit up and make sure that the<24> shorthand writer can hear you in the usual way. You<25> are speaking very softly?

. P-4362 CROWLEY

< 1> A. I was not aware of the name of the person on< 2> that parade until the completion of my statements and< 3> notes.< 4> MR LAWSON: I will come to that in a moment. So we< 5> get the timescale right, can we have on the screen< 6> (PCA00160056). I have been given the wrong one.< 7> Take it from me, if you will, that this is an extract< 8> from the relevant record, yes, of the parade, and we< 9> see that the parade was conducted at about 5 to 4 in<10> the afternoon. Go down the page, please. Number 8<11> on the parade was identified and we can see<12> Mr Brooks' signature there. That was, I can remind<13> everybody, that was Luke Knight who was being<14> identified. So the events we are talking about<15> occurred at or after about 4 o'clock in the afternoon<16> of the 3rd?<17> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.<18> Q. And were recorded by you very shortly afterwards<19> if your note and statement was franked as it was<20> before 8 o'clock in the evening?<21> A. That's correct, sir, yes.<22> Q. You do have the original in front of you so feel<23> free to refer to that if you want to. We are going<24> to look at the typed version on the screen. Back to<25> (DBR0010135). Can we go down to the bottom half of

. P-4363 CROWLEY

< 1> the page. This indicates that on the day in< 2> question, 3rd June, it said you were employed dealing< 3> with the transportation of witnesses for a parade at< 4> Southwark Police Station?< 5> A. That's correct, sir.< 6> Q. Can I just pause there. Why you, Mr Crowley,< 7> can you help us?< 8> A. A request was made by Detective Inspector Jeynes< 9> that an officer was to assist with transportation of<10> witnesses. That mainly being two witnesses and I was<11> the only officer available on that day, sir.<12> Q. Mr Jeynes has told the Inquiry that you were<13> asked to assist because "resources were short and the<14> officer was the only one available."<15> A. Yes, as I just said, sir, yes.<16> Q. So that accords with your recollection?<17> A. Yes, sir, it does.<18> Q. You were given an address, obviously we are not<19> going to ask you about it, you went and collected<20> Duwayne Brooks, did you not?<21> A. Yes, sir, I did call at a previous address to<22> that to deal with another witness.<23> Q. Certainly in due course you collected<24> Duwayne Brooks?<25> A. Yes, I did, sir, yes.

. P-4364 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. If we go on with the statement over the page,< 2> you ended up with him, taking this relatively shortly< 3> if the other details matter others will ask you, at< 4> Southwark identification suite?< 5> A. Yes, I did, sir, yes.< 6> Q. Did you there, as your statement indicates, wait< 7> with him in the witness waiting room?< 8> A. Yes, I did, sir, yes.< 9> Q. Pending the arrangements being made for the<10> parade?<11> A. That's correct.<12> MR LAWSON: Sir, could you just give me one moment, I<13> have just had a document put in my hand.<14> MR GOMPERTZ: Sir, may I apologise for the confusion<15> which has arisen over Sergeant Crowley's statement<16> which I suspect is the document my learned friend is<17> now looking at.<18> MR LAWSON: Yes.<19> MR GOMPERTZ: I thought it had been served. It had<20> not been because it really does not take matters any<21> further.<22> THE CHAIRMAN: No. So that everybody knows, it is<23> simply confirms that he read his 3rd June 1993<24> statement and wishes that to be used at the Inquiry.<25> But we all have it now and it is not, in truth, a

. P-4365 CROWLEY

< 1> statement in one sense, it is a confirmatory document< 2> referring us to what the witness is looking at now.< 3> MR LAWSON: Yes. Of course that is right, is it not?< 4> A. Yes, sir, that's right, yes.< 5> Q. I am sorry, if you were embarrassed and so were< 6> we to find we did not have it. Let us not worry< 7> about that. Let us go back to the events that< 8> unfolded. In due course then Mr Brooks left your< 9> presence, as your statement indicates, to attend the<10> parade; is that right?<11> A. Yes, it is, sir, yes.<12> Q. You did not accompany him into the parade room;<13> is that right?<14> A. No, I did not, no, sir.<15> Q. That would be normal, would it?<16> A. Yes, that would be correct, yes.<17> Q. Then you indicate in your statement, that last<18> long paragraph, you say you were informed by an<19> inspector called McIlgrew, who was conducting the<20> parade, that the witness had identified the youth who<21> was on the parade; in other words, had identified the<22> suspect?<23> A. Identified the person at number 8, yes.<24> Q. You say in your statement, your contemporaneous<25> statement, you entered the witness waiting room prior

. P-4366 CROWLEY

< 1> to informing Duwayne Brooks of his identification of< 2> a youth. Police requested to stand the parade.< 3> "I took a statement from him briefly detailing< 4> his participation, having identified the youth",< 5> et cetera?< 6> A. I took a statement from him, which he identified< 7> number 8 while he was sitting down and at no stage< 8> did I tell him he picked out the right person, as< 9> such.<10> Q. Which is what your statement says. The formal<11> statement you took from him, glance over to the<12> computer print form, DBR1 of page 22. If we look<13> down to the body of the statement, we will not dwell<14> on the date. The date of 4th June appears. It is as<15> though you or someone may have made an error about<16> the date?<17> A. I crossed out the date and I changed it to the<18> 3rd.<19> Q. Yes. That is the formal statement, is it not?<20> A. That is the statement I took from Mr Duwayne<21> Brooks, yes.<22> Q. That you took on the 3rd?<23> A. Took on the 3rd at the identification suite at<24> Southwark Police Station.<25> Q. That simply formally confirms he identified

. P-4367 CROWLEY

< 1> youth number 8?< 2> A. That's correct, sir, yes.< 3> Q. Let us go back, if we may, to your statement,< 4> (DBR00010137) this time, please. Your statement then< 5> says that he, that is Mr Brooks, then, having< 6> completed that statement, asked whether he had< 7> identified the right youth, yes?< 8> A. That's right, yes.< 9> Q. He said if he hadn't been he would be released<10> any way?<11> A. That's correct, yes.<12> Q. What does that mean?<13> A. That if he wasn't right person he would be<14> released.<15> Q. Right. If he had picked out the wrong chap,<16> nothing would happen to him?<17> A. If the person wasn't picked out he would be<18> released from the police station.<19> Q. Then you say he went on to say he had been told<20> it was the Acourt brothers and this one, the one he<21> had identified, was the brother of the youth he had<22> identified before on a separate parade?<23> A. Yes, sir, that's correct, yes.<24> Q. We know, if we can fill this factual gap in<25> here, that on 13th May he had identified Neil Acourt

. P-4368 CROWLEY

< 1> on an earlier parade. What I want to ask you about< 2> is this, just the order of events: You say that after< 3> the parade took place you took this formal statement< 4> from him. The officer in charge, McIlgrew, having< 5> told you he had picked out the suspect?< 6> A. He told me that he had picked out number 8 of 10< 7> white lads which was the person the police had put on< 8> the parade.< 9> Q. Would you have taken a statement from him if he<10> had not picked out the suspect?<11> A. Yes, I would have done.<12> Q. You would have done that anyway?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. You took the statement from him and having done<15> that, it was after that that he mentioned matters to<16> you which caused you some concern?<17> A. Yes, they did, sir, yes.<18> Q. I want to ask you, please, to deal with this. I<19> apprehend you will have seen or heard of this<20> before. You, of course, have given evidence about<21> this matter on previous occasions, have you not, both<22> at the committal proceedings and the private<23> prosecution and indeed at the Old Bailey?<24> A. Yes, I have.<25> Q. You were aware that Inspector McIlgrew was

. P-4369 CROWLEY

< 1> someone who was summonsed to give evidence at the< 2> committal proceedings?< 3> A. Yes, he did give evidence, I believe.< 4> Q. I want to ask you if you can help us in this< 5> respect, we do not have this on the system, I am< 6> going to ask you to look, please, at a copy of the< 7> statement by Mr McIlgrew. There are some spares< 8> there. (Handed). This is a copy of a statement from< 9> the HOLMES system. It is a copy of the statement by<10> Inspector McIlgrew made on 11th September 1995. Have<11> you seen this before?<12> A. I saw it this morning, sir.<13> Q. Doubtless, you understand this was a short<14> statement taken, in fact, at the time that McIlgrew<15> was about to give evidence at the committal<16> proceedings?<17> A. I think that would be about the right time, yes.<18> Q. You have seen it. Others have not, as yet.<19> This refers to a previous statement of his which I<20> need not go to, a purely formal statement, dealing<21> with the identification parade. He says he went to<22> the administration area to complete his paperwork and<23> as he got there you approached him and said something<24> like: "Was anyone picked out?" He said: "Yes, he<25> picked the suspect." You then said: "I'm not happy.

. P-4370 CROWLEY

< 1> Brooks has said things to me that makes me think he< 2> didn't see the suspects clearly." I said: "Listen,< 3> I'm the identification officer. The parade went off< 4> correctly. If you have any doubts you must make a< 5> statement and contact the Incident Room."< 6> What do you say to that, Mr Crowley, as an< 7> accurate account of what happened?< 8> A. I don't recall the exact conversation, but I did< 9> contact Mr McIlgrew that Brooks' account was only to<10> bring to his attention, at no stage was I asked or<11> told to make a statement by Mr McIlgrew and I took it<12> upon myself to inform Mr McIlgrew and to contact the<13> Incident Room, to bring attention to these points.<14> Q. All I am concerned about at the moment is the<15> order of events and that you in your statement<16> indicate the order of events was that you were told<17> by McIlgrew that Mr Brooks had picked out the<18> suspect. Then you took a statement, a formal<19> statement from him, that we have looked at, and it<20> was after that that he, Mr Brooks, then told you<21> matters which caused you misgivings. That is your<22> recollection, is it not?<23> A. I went and told Mr McIlgrew straight away.<24> Q. Mr McIlgrew seems to have it a different way<25> around?

. P-4371 CROWLEY

< 1> A. I can't assist obviously with his order.< 2> Q. Let us go back to what you said at the top of< 3> the page which is on the screen at the moment, where< 4> you say that he, Mr Brooks, told you that he had been< 5> told it was the Acourt brothers, yes?< 6> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.< 7> Q. Told by whom?< 8> A. He was told by the people.< 9> Q. Did you ask him who?<10> A. I did not engage in any conversation with him<11> regarding it.<12> Q. This was not presumably just a speech by him,<13> was it?<14> A. It was a voluntary by him. He did all the<15> talking.<16> Q. Did you raise any questions with him at all?<17> A. No, I did not, sir. At the time he was telling<18> me things which had a bearing on the investigation,<19> so I did not engage in any conversation with him.<20> Q. Were you not interested as to who had told him?<21> A. I was just listening to him, sir, to establish<22> what he wanted to say.<23> Q. According to your recollection and your<24> contemporaneous account, on a number of occasions, at<25> the foot of the screen as it stands at the moment, he

. P-4372 CROWLEY

< 1> said he had been told by friends, yes?< 2> A. Yes, that is what he said to me, yes.< 3> Q. If we go over the page, top of the next page at< 4> 139. Again, according to your recollection he told< 5> you he had been informed of friends of the appearance< 6> of the brothers?< 7> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.< 8> Q. Did you at no stage, three references to being< 9> told by people, friends or otherwise, did you at no<10> stage enquire of him who these people were?<11> A. No, I did not.<12> Q. Why not?<13> A. Because if I was to ask him questions then I<14> would be involved in the investigation.<15> Q. You did not think that was a matter that might<16> be of interest to the investigators?<17> A. I listened to what he had said, sir, and I noted<18> it down and gave my exact account to the Inquiry<19> team.<20> Q. If we go back, please, to page 137, we will deal<21> with the first paragraph. You add that he told you<22> he had not been informed whether or not he had<23> identified the right youth and then continued telling<24> you something of the story of what had happened, yes?<25> A. Yes, he did, sir, yes.

. P-4373 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. You say from his recollection, as you attribute< 2> to him, he, Brooks, can only remember there the< 3> attacker's physical descriptions and hair and did not< 4> in any way see the faces of the youths who were< 5> around Stephen Lawrence?< 6> A. Yes, sir, that is what he did say to me.< 7> Q. That obviously struck you as being rather< 8> important, having just identified a suspect?< 9> A. Yes, sir, it was very important.<10> Q. You knew he had previously identified another<11> suspect?<12> A. I couldn't assist whether he had identified<13> anyone else prior to this parade.<14> Q. He told you he had?<15> A. In what context, sir?<16> Q. In the context of about six lines up the page?<17> A. Sorry .<18> Q. The one he had identified was the brother of the<19> other youth whom he had previously identified. You<20> knew on his assertion that he had previously<21> identified somebody, yes?<22> A. I couldn't assist whether he had identified the<23> right person or a person he identified on a parade.<24> Q. Okay. I am not going to pursue that. The<25> information he was giving you, whether you believed

. P-4374 CROWLEY

< 1> him or not, was that he had now identified two< 2> people, yes?< 3> A. From his account, yes.< 4> Q. And he was telling you according to this that he< 5> had not seen the faces of any of the attackers?< 6> A. Yes, sir, that's correct.< 7> Q. Is it possible that you misunderstood him, do< 8> you think?< 9> A. No, sir, I did not misunderstand him at all.<10> Q. Is there any possibility that you are in error<11> in saying or attributing to him that he did not see<12> their faces?<13> A. No, sir, there is no error.<14> Q. Your statement then continues, referring to what<15> he told you: "Following requests to attend the<16> parades and from what he had been told by friends the<17> persons responsible had been the Acourt brothers"?<18> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.<19> Q. You recorded him having told you something to<20> the effect that he had been prompted by a friend who<21> said he ought to know them as they had attended the<22> same school as him?<23> A. That's correct, sir, yes.<24> Q. Then, as you recollect, he gave you an<25> explanation as to why it was he was able to pick out

. P-4375 CROWLEY

< 1> the particular individual on the parade, yes?< 2> A. Yes, he did, yes.< 3> Q. So that he said he was totally differently< 4> dressed to the others. He had tracksuit trousers on< 5> and had the physical appearance of being kept in a< 6> cell at a police station. So in his own words, that< 7> is Duwayne Brooks' own words, he had to be the one< 8> who had put on the parade by the police?< 9> A. That's his words, yes.<10> Q. Did you make a note of that at the time or is<11> this the first note that you made?<12> A. No, I made the note when I arrived at Eltham<13> Police Station.<14> Q. Are you sure that he described his<15> identification as being carried out without reason<16> and not somebody else's?<17> A. Yes, sir, I am.<18> Q. You are aware that he said somebody else, said<19> something to that effect?<20> A. I think he may have said it having read his<21> transcript, yes.<22> Q. Then you continue that he made reference to his<23> having been in full contact with Mr Khan, the<24> solicitor?<25> A. Yes, he did say that, yes.

. P-4376 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Informed him constantly of the progress of the< 2> murder inquiry. I do not think there is any doubt or< 3> dispute that he made some such reference. At the top< 4> of this next page of 139, he had been informed by< 5> friends of the physical appearance of the brothers?< 6> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.< 7> Q. Friends having prompted him as to their physical< 8> features and hair details. He adamantly stated, you< 9> say , on the night of the stabbing he did not see the<10> faces clearly enough to be able to identify them. He<11> said his identification relied totally, in your<12> words, on the physical description and appearance and<13> not facial identification?<14> A. Yes, sir, that's correct.<15> Q. You are aware, of course, that he says you have<16> it completely wrong in that respect?<17> A. Yes, sir. Officers did attend his address and<18> spoke with him.<19> Q. I just want to ask you again, do you think there<20> is a possibility of your being mistaken?<21> A. I was not mistaken, sir, no.<22> Q. Do you have any axe to grind, if I can put it<23> generally, so far as he was concerned or<24> Stephen Lawrence was concerned?<25> A. I had never met Mr Brooks before that day and I

. P-4377 CROWLEY

< 1> have not seen him since.< 2> Q. Let me ask you directly, because you may be< 3> asked it indirectly in due course, did you have any< 4> interest in undermining the investigation?< 5> A. No, sir, that is a very hurtful remark to be< 6> made.< 7> Q. Or in undermining a potential prosecution?< 8> A. Sir, again, I take that as very hurtful to say< 9> that I would try to undermine the case.<10> Q. I should have asked you this at the outset. My<11> function is just to get the facts and no more than<12> that. You have told us you have been a police<13> officer for, what, 19 years?<14> A. This is my 19th year of service.<15> Q. There has been no substantiated complaint<16> against you; is that right?<17> A. That's correct, yes.<18> Q. You say in your statement, as we see halfway<19> down the screen, that from the general conversation<20> with Duwayne Brooks he admitted he was totally<21> anti-police?<22> A. Yes, he did, sir, yes.<23> Q. On the night of the murder he had only called<24> the ambulance with no intention of calling the<25> police. His intention being to seek revenge on his

. P-4378 CROWLEY

< 1> own or in his own way of the stabbing of his friend?< 2> A. That's what he told me, yes.< 3> Q. As we will see there is no substantial dispute< 4> that he told you something of that effect. You say< 5> you took him to Rotherhithe to pick up a diary?< 6> A. Yes, he left his filofax behind.< 7> Q. From there you contacted the murder squad and< 8> spoke to Sparrowhawk there?< 9> A. I had previously spoken to him at Southwark<10> Police Station as well.<11> Q. You left a message, in effect, for the SIO; is<12> that right?<13> A. Yes, I gave an account of how long I would be to<14> arrive back at Eltham Police Station.<15> Q. Then you took Mr Brooks home?<16> A. Yes, I did, sir, yes.<17> Q. Apparently via his father's address, yes?<18> A. Yes, I waited in the car for him and he went to<19> his dad's address, or he said it was his dad's<20> address, and then I took him home.<21> Q. At what point then did you make your statement<22> or note? Was that before you took him home or<23> afterwards?<24> A. No, sir, I arrived back at the Incident Room at<25> Eltham Police Station and spoke to Detective

. P-4379 CROWLEY

< 1> Superintendent Weeden and members of the Inquiry< 2> team----< 3> Q. This is after you have taken him home?< 4> A. After he was taken home, yes.< 5> Q. It must be because you have referred to taking< 6> him home?< 7> A. Yes. Then having told the Inquiry team I then< 8> compiled these accounts of my contact with Mr Duwayne< 9> Brooks at that station, Eltham, and subsequently<10> timed a statement at Plumstead Police Station.<11> Q. I just want to ask you about this, one or two<12> matters, please: as far as Mr Brooks is concerned,<13> have you seen Mr Brooks' statement made for the<14> purposes of this Inquiry?<15> A. Yes, sir, that was handed to me late yesterday<16> evening.<17> Q. He refers to a statement that was taken from<18> him, not by you, but by another officer the following<19> day which we can see as (DBR0010019): this was taken<20> in fact by an officer by the name of Doyle,<21> apparently?<22> A. Yes, I believe so, yes.<23> Q. This statement we are told by Mr Brooks is<24> accurate insofar as it goes, although there are bits<25> left out, he says, that is paragraph 45 of his

. P-4380 CROWLEY

< 1> statement for the purposes of this Inquiry?< 2> A. I could not assist with what Mr Brooks told him.< 3> Q. You will forgive me from time to time I slip< 4> bits in because it is useful to have it on the record< 5> so they can be found later. Do you understand?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. I just want to ask you, please, for comments< 8> upon this, because you have seen this, no doubt, this< 9> statement. Yes?<10> A. Sometime ago, sir, yes.<11> Q. He refers, we can see to being collected by a<12> CID officer who said he was a DS, a detective<13> sergeant. That is probably right?<14> A. Well, I was a detective sergeant, yes.<15> Q. He said he did not know anything about the<16> Inquiry?<17> A. I did tell him that, sir.<18> Q. Something to that effect?<19> A. Yes, that is correct, sir, yes.<20> Q. Went to Southwark via Rotherhithe. That is not<21> in issue. Went to a waiting room. He says: "There I<22> was joined after the identification parade had taken<23> place I went to a waiting room. There I was joined<24> by the detective sergeant. He came into the room",<25> whether you were in there or came in it does not

. P-4381 CROWLEY

< 1> matter, "He said: 'Do you think you've picked the< 2> right person?' I said: 'Yes, I have'. He said: 'Next< 3> door seems to think you have'." What do you say to< 4> that?< 5> A. I did not say that at all, sir.< 6> Q. He denies that he asked you if he had picked out< 7> the right man, as we have said. You see at the foot< 8> of the page he says, as you have recorded: "I said< 9> that the man I have just identified is either the<10> brother or the same person who I had previously<11> identified on the parade on 13th May."<12> A. That's what he says in his statement.<13> Q. That is broadly similar to what you recall?<14> A. I believe the officers had my statement and read<15> it over to him.<16> Q. He says he remembers telling you about the<17> murder; do you agree with that?<18> A. Yes, he did, sir, yes.<19> Q. He did not see the actual stabbing; did he tell<20> you that?<21> A. That was covered in my note, sir.<22> Q. "Although I could not fully describe the faces of<23> the attackers I could describe the size, hair, body<24> shape, shape of head and I made the identification on<25> the basis of these characteristics and then the

. P-4382 CROWLEY

< 1> facial identity having seen them on the< 2> identification parade."< 3> What do you say to that?< 4> A. This is what he told the officers, obviously. I< 5> was not present when this was taken.< 6> Q. Do you think that might be an accurate account< 7> of what he told you?< 8> A. Sir, my account is the accurate account of what< 9> took place.<10> Q. So you are adamant that he told you he had not<11> seen the faces?<12> A. I am adamant, sir, yes, that he did not see the<13> faces.<14> Q. He disputes saying anything about the Acourts<15> being at his school?<16> A. He did say that from a friend that he should<17> know them because he went to the same school.<18> Q. He said he told you about a witness who had<19> attended one of the parades and that he had known the<20> person he had identified and said "it was obvious<21> anyway because the person looked as though they had<22> been in a cell all night and was the only one wearing<23> tracksuits"?<24> A. He told me that he was the person who picked him<25> out.

. P-4383 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. He agrees he mentioned Mr Khan to you, the< 2> solicitor, who tried to keep him informed of what was< 3> happening with the murder investigation. You agree< 4> with that?< 5> A. Which is contained in my statement, yes, sir.< 6> Q. He said he did not tell you that his friends had< 7> given him descriptions of people on the parade?< 8> A. He did, sir.< 9> Q. He did tell you that after the earlier parades<10> he told his friends about who he had picked out and<11> that they had said it matched the description of one<12> of the Acourts?<13> A. Sir, I was not present when the statement was<14> taken.<15> Q. Did he tell you that?<16> A. Sorry, can you repeat the question?<17> Q. Did he tell you, when you were with him on<18> 3rd June, that he told his friends after the earlier<19> parade, who he had picked out and described him and<20> said it sounded like one of the Acourts?<21> A. He told me exactly what is contained in my<22> notes, sir.<23> Q. I do not suppose you claim your notes to be an<24> absolutely verbatim account of everything that was<25> said, do you?

. P-4384 CROWLEY

< 1> A. They were not verbatim, sir, no.< 2> Q. Do you think he may have told you something to< 3> the effect that is described in his statement?< 4> A. No, sir. I have no recollection of that, sir,< 5> no.< 6> Q. He says in his statement: "If the officer has< 7> said that I said I couldn't identify Stephen's< 8> attackers by their faces he has misunderstood what I< 9> have said, as I have explained previously."<10> A. I did not misunderstand him, sir.<11> Q. Apparently he wanted to say, so he says, that<12> you were making it up, that you were lying. Were<13> you?<14> A. From his allegation that he has put forward, I<15> totally refute that because I was not lying, sir.<16> Q. Bearing in mind what you said about his saying<17> being anti-police he says: "During the course of<18> general conversation I did say to the police officer<19> I was anti-police and I wanted to seek revenge for<20> Stephen's death myself." He said he called an<21> ambulance and not the police?<22> A. Which is noted in my statement, yes.<23> Q. There is no difference between you on that?<24> A. No, sir, no.<25> Q. Can I ask you about this: when you took him,

. P-4385 CROWLEY

< 1> Mr Brooks, home did you have an argument with him?< 2> A. No, sir, I did not, sir.< 3> Q. You have seen what he said about it, I just want< 4> you to deal with it?< 5> A. Yes, he is meant to have said that he told me to< 6> "fuck off". Excuse the language.< 7> Q. No, you are quite right. That is what he says.< 8> At paragraph 47 of the statement, I want you to deal< 9> with this so we have your evidence, this is his first<10> statement. He says: "On one stretch of road by<11> Greenwich Park, about 4 minutes from home" -- sorry,<12> it is the second statement. " On one stretch of road<13> by Greenwich Park, about 4 minutes from home,<14> Sergeant Crowley said something to the effect that I<15> was guessing." We will pause there. Did you?<16> A. No, sir, I did not, sir, no.<17> Q. He said: "I got angry, we had an argument along<18> the lines of the rest of my statement to DC Doyle."<19> That's the one we just looked at. "I got out of the<20> car at home and told him to 'fuck off'"?<21> A. No, sir, that did not talk place at all.<22> Q. On what sort of terms did you leave him then?<23> A. We were talking on the way back and I dropped<24> him off home.<25> Q. I mean, was it friendly, unfriendly, hostile,

. P-4386 CROWLEY

< 1> neutral, what?< 2> A. He obviously showed some -- he didn't like the< 3> police as such but he had nothing with me. We were< 4> quite friendly.< 5> MR LAWSON: Thank you.< 6> MR MANSFIELD: I wonder, sir, as a matter partly of< 7> convenience and for other reasons to do with brevity< 8> whether, in fact, I might go slightly out of turn on< 9> this occasion?<10> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course.<11> MR MANSFIELD: As you are aware I think I have<12> cross-examined Mr Crowley twice extensively before.<13> So I do not want to repeat entirely----<14> THE CHAIRMAN: Of course everybody will be aware that<15> those cross-examinations are a matter of record and<16> we know exactly what happened and how the judge dealt<17> with it at trial. Just to remind ourselves, he did<18> not rely upon the contested parts of the issue<19> between Mr Crowley and Mr Brooks. He relied upon the<20> parts that Mr Brooks had admitted.<21> MR MANSFIELD: Yes.<22> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr McDonald? I<23> am just wondering which is a more sensible order?<24> MR MCDONALD: I suspect that since I have got more to<25> say probably to this witness.

. P-4387 CROWLEY

< 1> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think it would be sensible if< 2> you went next.< 3> MR MCDONALD: I am grateful.< 4> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MCDONALD< 5> Q. Mr Crowley, I am asking you these questions, as< 6> I suspect you realise, on behalf of Duwayne Brooks?< 7> A. Yes, I understand that, yes.< 8> Q. You have had a notice of the issues and< 9> allegations against you on my client's behalf?<10> A. Yes, I have copies. May I refer to them if need<11> be?<12> Q. Of course. I was going to go through it with<13> you. The first allegation is that you were either<14> lying about or misunderstanding what Duwayne Brooks<15> said to you following the identification parade on<16> 3rd June and thereby undermining the credibility of<17> Duwayne Brooks' identification evidence. Do you<18> understand that?<19> A. That is the allegation number 1, yes.<20> Q. And that it is alleged that you incorrectly<21> recorded what Duwayne Brooks had said to you during<22> the conversation with fundamental consequences for<23> the prosecution of those accused of Stephen<24> Lawrence's murder. Do you understand that?<25> A. Part 2, yes, sir, yes.

. P-4388 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. In connection with the Nathan Adams< 2> investigation that you acted in a manner which had< 3> the effect of undermining the credibility of Nathan< 4> Adams, the principal prosecution witness, surviving< 5> victim and brother of Roland Adams, who was murdered< 6> in a racist attack of February 1991; and that your< 7> arrest and treatment of Nathan Adams on two< 8> occasions, ie, the alleged assault on a man called< 9> Cattini in April 1991 and the alleged robbery in June<10> 1991 were either deliberate or the result of<11> discriminatory conduct. That has been more<12> particularised for you. Have you had that further<13> notice?<14> A. Yes, I have sir.<15> Q. It is also suggested that in taking witness<16> statements in connection with the Adams murder and<17> the subsequent charge of Nathan Adams in connection<18> with the Cattini assault that you failed to make an<19> accurate record, and/or failed to elicit evidence of<20> racial abuse, and you have had the statements of<21> various witnesses whose witness statements you took;<22> is that right?<23> A. I have seen the copies, yes, sir.<24> Q. It is alleged against you that your questionable<25> involvement in both the Adams and Lawrence murder

. P-4389 CROWLEY

< 1> inquiries, if unexplained, are sufficiently serious< 2> that they provide a basis for inferring an attempt to< 3> thwart the success of both murder inquiries, you< 4> understand that?< 5> A. Those were the allegations put forward by< 6> Mr Duwayne Brooks.< 7> Q. So far as you are concerned, in relation to< 8> Duwayne Brooks do you say that you did any single< 9> thing that was wrong?<10> A. No, I did not, sir, no.<11> Q. Nothing?<12> A. Nothing at all, sir.<13> Q. With regard to him, with the benefit of<14> hindsight and the passage of time, would you have<15> done anything differently with regard to him?<16> A. I would not have changed my course of action,<17> sir, at any stage.<18> Q. So far as Nathan Adams is concerned, did you do<19> anything wrong there?<20> A. No, sir, I did not.<21> Q. Again, with regard to him, with the benefit of<22> hindsight and the passage of time, is there anything<23> that you would have done differently?<24> A. No, sir, I would never have changed my course of<25> action.

. P-4390 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. You told Mr Lawson, who has just been asking you< 2> questions, that you have made no mistake; is that< 3> right?< 4> A. Yes, sir, I have made no mistake.< 5> Q. That there is no misunderstanding; is that< 6> right?< 7> A. There is no misunderstanding, sir.< 8> Q. In your dealings with Duwayne Brooks on the< 9> 3rd June 1993 what you had from him was, in effect, a<10> speech?<11> A. The conversation came from Mr Brooks, yes.<12> Q. A conversation is a two-way thing, as I<13> understand it. Let me see if I have accurately<14> recorded or paraphrased what you said. You said: "I<15> did not engage in conversation. I was just listening<16> to him."<17> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.<18> Q. Then you said you did not ask any questions?<19> A. No, I did not.<20> Q. Because you said if you had asked questions then<21> that would make you involved in an investigatory<22> role?<23> A. Yes, that's right.<24> Q. So I take it from that, that what you are saying<25> about Duwayne Brooks simply came from him, as it

. P-4391 CROWLEY

< 1> were, spilling out these words that you have recorded< 2> in your statement and told us about today?< 3> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.< 4> Q. And did not result at all in the course of a< 5> conversation between you and him?< 6> A. No, it did not, sir, no.< 7> Q. Therefore, it would be wrong, I suppose, if I< 8> suggested to you that you had some kind of general< 9> conversation?<10> A. No, sir, I did not. The conversation came from<11> Mr Brooks.<12> Q. There was no general conversation?<13> A. There was general conversation on the way back<14> from the identity parade, yes.<15> Q. But not where you say all of this happened at<16> the -- or just after the identity parade?<17> A. Apart from him mentioning that he was<18> anti-police.<19> Q. But otherwise no general conversation?<20> A. No, there wasn't.<21> Q. It would be quite wrong for anyone to suggest to<22> you that there was?<23> A. To my recollection it was -- what he was saying<24> to me I noted it down, or noted it, I should say.<25> Q. Could we have (PCA00390047), which is your

. P-4392 CROWLEY

< 1> witness statement, please. The second paragraph on< 2> that page. You see what you have written down:< 3> "From the general conversation with Duwayne< 4> Brooks he admitted he was totally anti-police and< 5> that on the night of the murder of Stephen Lawrence< 6> he only called the ambulance service with no< 7> intention of calling the police."< 8> You say from the general conversation?< 9> A. As I say, regarding his anti-police.<10> Q. You give us the reason why you say that you<11> never engaged in conversation or asked questions was<12> because that would mean you were involved in the<13> investigation?<14> A. Yes, sir, that's correct, yes.<15> Q. If there is any truth in what you have been<16> telling us, effectively, what Mr Brooks is telling<17> you is that the identification parade that he has<18> just taken part in is utterly and completely<19> contaminated because he has been told what the<20> suspects look like?<21> A. Sir, I am telling you the truth and this is what<22> he told me.<23> Q. But you appreciate that if you are right that is<24> what effectively he is saying, is it not?<25> A. That is why I reported it to senior officers.

. P-4393 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Are you telling us that when someone starts< 2> giving you information of that kind, that you do not< 3> ask them a single question?< 4> A. It has never happened before, sir. This is the< 5> first time and the only time.< 6> Q. It has never happened before, but you have been< 7> a police officer for quite a long time, have you not?< 8> A. This is my 19th year of service, yes.< 9> Q. Your 19th year of service, and somebody starts<10> giving you information which you immediately<11> understand, if it is right, is of a critical nature<12> and you do not ask a single question?<13> A. No, sir. This is the first time it has happened<14> to me and the only time.<15> Q. What on earth would be wrong with your, as it<16> were, doing a little bit of investigation of your<17> own?<18> A. As I was listening to what he was saying and I<19> reported those facts to a senior officer.<20> Q. I appreciate that, but you have someone in a<21> one-to-one situation with you who is giving you<22> dynamite and he is telling you that certain people<23> have told him things before he goes into the<24> identification parade?<25> A. This is what he told me. I didn't know whether

. P-4394 CROWLEY

< 1> it had any bearing on the case because I was not< 2> involved in the investigation.< 3> Q. But you knew he had been at an identification< 4> parade?< 5> A. It was mentioned in his statement.< 6> Q. Yes. You knew that he had identified one of the< 7> suspects?< 8> A. I could not say who he identified.< 9> Q. You knew he had because you were told that, were<10> you not, by McIlgrew, or whatever he is called?<11> A. McIlgrew said to me: "He identified number 8 of<12> 10 white lads", and he was the one put in the parade<13> by the police.<14> Q. He knew that?<15> A. That is what he told me.<16> Q. Do not let us beat about the bush, you knew<17> perfectly well, if there is a word of truth of what<18> you are telling us, that Duwayne Brooks was telling<19> you that this identification of a suspect in a murder<20> case was a contaminated identification, and you are a<21> police officer of 19 years experience?<22> A. This was the truth, sir, and I noted down what<23> he was saying to me and it was made on my notes.<24> Q. You are saying that if, after 19 years in the<25> police, somebody gives you that kind of information

. P-4395 CROWLEY

< 1> you do not at least ask the supplementary question:< 2> "Who are the people who told you this?"< 3> A. It has never happened before and it has never< 4> happened since. This is the first time ever.< 5> Q. Prior to 3rd June you told us earlier you had no< 6> involvement in the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry?< 7> A. That's correct, sir, yes.< 8> Q. None at all?< 9> A. No, sir.<10> Q. But, of course, would this be right, that you<11> obviously knew a number of officers on the inquiry<12> team?<13> A. I knew officers on the inquiry team, yes.<14> Q. Men who you had worked with before?<15> A. There were officers from my station there.<16> Q. Yes?<17> A. Yes, that is correct.<18> Q. So men who you had worked with before and no<19> doubt some women as well?<20> A. I recall some men. I can't assist with regard<21> to any women.<22> Q. You would have known from general conversations<23> in the canteen or in the pub or wherever else a<24> little bit at least about this murder inquiry, would<25> you not?

. P-4396 CROWLEY

< 1> A. The officers who were employed from my station< 2> were employed at a different station totally, Eltham< 3> Police Station.< 4> Q. You had contact with them?< 5> A. I had no contact since they went on the Inquiry.< 6> Q. You had no idea at all what was going on?< 7> A. I knew there was an inquiry at Eltham, but I was< 8> not privy to the information or the inquiry< 9> procedure.<10> Q. Police officers when they meet socially or go<11> off-duty like other professions talk shop, do they<12> not?<13> A. I couldn't say so, not regards myself.<14> Q. What, you mean you do not know if you talk shop<15> ever?<16> A. Sorry, could you repeat that?<17> Q. You do not know whether you ever talk shop?<18> A. Could you just explain what you mean by "talk<19> shops, please.<20> Q. Talk about the work you are involved in. You<21> come off-duty, you have had a hard day, you might<22> have seen some nasty people you have had to arrest.<23> Do you not talk about it with your colleagues?<24> A. No, sir, I drive home to my family. I spend<25> time with my family.

. P-4397 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. So you never talk about your work except during< 2> you work?< 3> A. Many times I would talk doing work, but I used< 4> to leave home, go to work and then go back home to my< 5> family and spend time with my family.< 6> Q. Are you telling us that between 22nd April when< 7> the murder took place and 3rd June when you took< 8> Duwayne Brooks to the identification suite you had< 9> not spoken to any officers in the Inquiry team<10> formally or informally about this investigation?<11> A. I spoke to officers on the Inquiry team because<12> they were officers involved in other investigations<13> that I was involved in, so I spoke to them about the<14> matters at hand. But as far as the investigation of<15> Stephen Lawrence, I did not discuss that with them.<16> Q. Why on earth not?<17> A. Because I was not involved in the investigation.<18> Q. Were you not interested?<19> A. As far as the case was concerned, sir, it is an<20> inquiry team and they would deal with the<21> investigations as appropriate.<22> Q. But it was a high profile murder?<23> A. It was a high profile murder, yes, sir.<24> Q. It had been all over the newspapers, had it not?<25> A. I was not on that inquiry team, sir.

. P-4398 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. I appreciate that. Mr Nelson Mandela had spoken< 2> about it, had he not?< 3> A. Yes, from the television, yes, he had.< 4> Q. Who were the people that you had spoken to about< 5> what was going on in this inquiry?< 6> A. I spoke to officers regarding separate matters.< 7> Q. Which officers, name them?< 8> A. There was a DC Hughes.< 9> Q. DC Hughes, yes?<10> A. That is about the only officer I spoke to.<11> Q. Only DC Hughes?<12> A. That's correct, sir, yes.<13> Q. So you would like to change your evidence from<14> officers to officer?<15> A. There are officers I may have said hello and<16> nodded to, but that is about the extent of it.<17> Q. We know there are two Hughes on this inquiry.<18> Which was it?<19> A. Detective Constable Keith Hughes, sir.<20> Q. Keith. So, during the period 22nd April to<21> 3rd June 1993 you spoke casually to one police<22> officer who was on the Inquiry team into the Stephen<23> Lawrence murder?<24> A. I spoke to them about separate matters, yes.<25> Q. This came up casually in the course of the

. P-4399 CROWLEY

< 1> conversation?< 2> A. I did not discuss the Stephen Lawrence case. I< 3> discussed separate matters.< 4> Q. Is there some reason why you should want to, as< 5> it were, isolate yourself so completely from this< 6> investigation that was going on in your police< 7> division?< 8> A. At the time, sir, I was involved in numerous< 9> serious offences investigations, which entailed me<10> being the officer in many difficult cases, so I had<11> my own workload to deal with at the time.<12> Q. At the time I think you were based at Plumstead<13> Police Station?<14> A. Yes, I was at Plumstead Police Station at that<15> time.<16> Q. When you were asked to drive Duwayne Brooks to<17> the identification parade, were you asked to drive<18> someone else as well?<19> A. Yes, I was told to go to an address of a lad<20> called Joey Shepherd, I think his name was.<21> Q. Did you take both of them to the parade at the<22> same time?<23> A. No, sir. I went to his address; I spoke to his<24> mother, Mrs Shepherd; she informed me that he was not<25> going to attend, as he had previously told the

. P-4400 CROWLEY

< 1> Inquiry team, he did not intend attending that< 2> parade.< 3> Q. At the time when you were asked to go -- you< 4> were, of course, engaged on these other terribly< 5> important and complicated and difficult other< 6> cases -- why was it that you, with your busy< 7> workload, were selected to go on this particular< 8> journey with Duwayne Brooks?< 9> A. Because I was the only officer available, sir,<10> to be deployed on those duties.<11> Q. How do you know that?<12> A. Because on that day, if I remember rightly, I<13> was 7 to 3, which is the early turn shift.<14> Q. There are other people on 7 to 3 shifts, are<15> there not?<16> A. To my recollection, sir, I was the only team<17> that was on that day.<18> Q. The only person?<19> A. The only team. There are a number of officers<20> on that team.<21> Q. I appreciate that. But why you?<22> A. Because the other officers on my team had other<23> commitments.<24> Q. Like what?<25> A. Other crime inquiries and other matters to deal

. P-4401 CROWLEY

< 1> with.< 2> Q. And you had nothing on that day?< 3> A. I was due to finish, I would suggest, at about< 4> 3 o'clock that afternoon and I was requested by< 5> Detective Inspector Jeynes to deploy an officer to< 6> pick up these two witnesses.< 7> Q. That is all you were told specifically to do,< 8> pick up these two witnesses, take them to I think it< 9> was a holding police station, Woolwich, was it?<10> A. Having been given the instructions to pick up<11> the two people, I then made arrangements to go to<12> Rotherhithe Police Station.<13> Q. And then you waited for a phone call?<14> A. I informed them that I was at the point of<15> reference and when he was ready I would drive him<16> across there.<17> Q. Can I ask you this: have you ever fulfilled a<18> similar function with regard to an identification<19> parade before?<20> A. Yes, many times, sir, yes.<21> Q. You have done it many times?<22> A. Yes, sir, yes.<23> Q. Prior to 3rd June, did you know the names of the<24> five suspects in the Stephen Lawrence Murder Inquiry?<25> A. No, sir, I did not, no.

. P-4402 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. The name Norris, Dobson, Knight, two Acourt< 2> brothers?< 3> A. No, sir, I did not.< 4> Q. The names did not mean anything to you?< 5> A. Not at all, sir, no.< 6> Q. You have been a detective for some time in that< 7> area, have you not?< 8> A. Yes, sir. I worked at Greenwich, Eltham,< 9> Plumstead, Thamesmead covering all of the areas<10> surrounding that area.<11> Q. And no-one asked you, for example, had you got<12> any dealings or information about these people?<13> A. No, sir, they did not.<14> Q. I mean, your local intelligence was never tapped<15> by any officers on the Inquiry team?<16> A. No, sir, no.<17> Q. And there was no discussion that you took part<18> in, I have been through that before, with regard to<19> these people or other likely suspects?<20> A. No, sir. I had no contact with them until I<21> appeared on 3rd June.<22> Q. So far as those five suspects, had you ever<23> arrested any of them ever before?<24> A. Never, sir, no.<25> Q. Had you ever heard of any of them before?

. P-4403 CROWLEY

< 1> A. No, sir, I had no dealings with them or heard of< 2> them.< 3> Q. Had you ever heard of any of their families< 4> before?< 5> A. I may have heard a mention of a father of one of< 6> them.< 7> Q. Is that the father of Mr Norris?< 8> A. Yes, just ----< 9> Q. Clifford Norris?<10> A. I couldn't establish his first name, but ----<11> Q. A well-known South London villain involved in<12> drug trafficking and firearms?<13> A. It was just a name, "Norris", I couldn't assist<14> with his involvement.<15> Q. You did not know anything else about it?<16> A. No, sir.<17> Q. Were you aware from your experience in that area<18> that he was someone who was known to buy off<19> witnesses and possibly jurors?<20> A. I couldn't assist you, sir, I had no dealings<21> with him.<22> Q. Did you ever hear any rumours about Mr Norris<23> senior buying off police officers?<24> A. No, sir, no I did not.<25> Q. You had no dealings with him?

. P-4404 CROWLEY

< 1> A. No, sir, I have never met him or dealt with him.< 2> Q. And no dealings with any members of his family?< 3> A. No, sir, I have not.< 4> Q. And no dealings with any associates of his?< 5> A. No, sir, I have not.< 6> Q. Does the name Donald Stainer mean anything to< 7> you?< 8> A. It means nothing to me at all, sir.< 9> Q. Does the name Stacey Benefield mean anything to<10> you?<11> A. No, sir, the name does not mean anything to me<12> at all.<13> Q. Did you hear at all about a serious assault upon<14> him which might well have killed him?<15> A. No, sir, I did not.<16> Q. Never?<17> A. Never, sir, no.<18> Q. So, coming back, you picked up Duwayne Brooks,<19> you go to Rotherhithe Police Station, as you have<20> told us and then on to the ID suite at Southwark?<21> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.<22> Q. Did you have any conversation in the car on the<23> way there?<24> A. We had a conversation. I offered him, in fact,<25> a can of Coke and a Mars bar which he declined.

. P-4405 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. When you get there, are you placed into a< 2> waiting room or some similar place at the< 3> identification suite?< 4> A. Yes, we were put to the appointed room.< 5> Q. Any conversation in there?< 6> A. We just sat there and waited for him to go on< 7> the parade.< 8> Q. Any conversation in there?< 9> A. Not to my recollection, sir, no.<10> Q. Then he presumably left you and was taken in to<11> the identity parade and then no doubt returned after<12> it?<13> A. Yes, he went with a member of the civilian staff<14> and then came back to me.<15> Q. You have already told us that you were told by<16> Inspector McIlgrew that Duwayne Brooks had identified<17> one of the suspects which I think you said you later<18> heard was called Luke Knight?<19> A. He identified number 8 of 10 white youths,<20> that's correct.<21> Q. Who was one of the suspects?<22> A. He said he was a man placed on the parade by the<23> police.<24> Q. When you were told that by Inspector McIlgrew<25> where was Duwayne Brooks at that time?

. P-4406 CROWLEY

< 1> A. He was in the room -- in the waiting room.< 2> Q. A separate room from where you were?< 3> A. I was outside the door and he was in the room to< 4> the left of me.< 5> Q. Was this before or after you took the brief< 6> witness statement from Duwayne Brooks that we know< 7> about?< 8> A. It was before because I wanted to establish the< 9> make-up of the parade.<10> Q. Afterwards you say you went back and spoke to<11> Mr McIlgrew?<12> A. After the conversation Mr Brooks relayed to me,<13> I then spoke to Mr McIlgrew.<14> Q. From the witness statement of his that you were<15> shown, you told him that Duwayne Brooks had told you<16> that he did not see the suspects clearly. That is<17> what he has recorded?<18> A. That is what is recorded. I don't recall his<19> exact words but I told him there was a doubt on his<20> identification and that he should be made aware of<21> it.<22> Q. You see, if you are right about what you have<23> said, Duwayne Brooks had told you that the person he<24> identified looked a bit shabby and was<25> distinguishable from the others. He told you that he

. P-4407 CROWLEY

< 1> had been given descriptions by his friends. I mean,< 2> effectively, he told you that the identification was< 3> completely contaminated, did he not?< 4> A. He told me the conversation. Whether it had a< 5> bearing on the investigation I could not say but I< 6> reported the facts to a senior officer to me, which< 7> is Mr McIlgrew.< 8> Q. But Mr McIlgrew had already told you before you< 9> take the section 9 witness statement from<10> Duwayne Brooks that he has got it right, had he not?<11> A. Mr McIlgrew told me he identified 8 of 10 white<12> youths.<13> Q. No. 8?<14> A. No. 8, yes, okay. The conversation then on<15> completion of that statement was for Mr Brooks and<16> following his conversation to me, I total Mr McIlgrew<17> about those points that are raised in my notes.<18> Q. Yes. But I am sorry, Mr McIlgrew has told you<19> outside the door of the waiting room that<20> Duwayne Brooks has identified the right person -- the<21> suspect. Just "yes" or "no"?<22> A. If I can answer, please. He has told me he has<23> identified the youth placed on the parade by the<24> police.<25> Q. Ie, the suspect?

. P-4408 CROWLEY

< 1> A. Well----< 2> Q. I am not trying to trick you. I am trying to< 3> save time?< 4> A. I appreciate, sir. It is just the fact that< 5> this is what he told me.< 6> Q. So you knew that Duwayne Brooks has identified< 7> the suspect?< 8> A. He identified No. 8, yes.< 9> Q. You then have this gushing forth of various<10> things from Duwayne Brooks. Yes?<11> A. That's correct, sir, yes.<12> Q. If you had heard it properly and had not<13> misunderstood it at all and it actually took place,<14> then when you went back to Mr McIlgrew you would know<15> perfectly well that the identification of this<16> suspect was one which was contaminated from what you<17> had been told by Mr Brooks, would you not? You would<18> know that something was seriously wrong, would you<19> not?<20> A. Yes, that's why I reported the facts to<21> Mr McIlgrew.<22> Q. It is not a question of he did not see the<23> suspects clearly, is it?<24> A. The conversation that Mr McIlgrew put in his<25> statement I do not recollect that I said that to him.

. P-4409 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. I mean, "he did not see the suspects clearly" is< 2> very different, do you not agree, from all the< 3> different things that you have told us: "I was given< 4> a full description, including hair colour by my< 5> friends."< 6> A. I can't say what Mr McIlgrew has put in his< 7> statement.< 8> Q. Or is it that when you went back to see< 9> Mr McIlgrew, you had not quite worked out what<10> exactly you were going to say against Duwayne Brooks?<11> A. Sir, that is a very malicious way of putting<12> it. I did not -- the account I gave, as I say, is<13> the account which has been recorded at the Court<14> proceedings.<15> Q. Or it may be that when you went to see<16> Mr McIlgrew afterwards you had not, in fact, had a<17> conversation relating to the parade with Duwayne<18> Brooks because I suggest you had that in the car<19> going away from the identification suite?<20> A. No, sir, I did not have the conversation in the<21> car. It took place at Southwark Police Station.<22> THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a break moment or do you want<23> to go on?<24> MR MCDONALD: Certainly.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: We will break until 10 past. Do you

. P-4410 CROWLEY

< 1> talk about your evidence at all, will you?< 2> THE WITNESS: No.< 3> <(Short Adjournment)< 4> MR MCDONALD: Mr Crowley, you were asked some< 5> questions when you were answering Mr Lawson about< 6> comparisons with what you had said as compared with< 7> Duwayne Brooks, and if we could have up on the screen< 8> (MET00500119).< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: Is it Duwayne Brooks' statement?<10> MR MCDONALD: No, it is the comparison, (MET00500119),<11> do you have that, Mr Crowley?<12> A. Yes.<13> THE CHAIRMAN: Have you seen that before.<14> THE WITNESS: I saw it shortly before coming in<15> today, yes.<16> MR MCDONALD: That is a comparison that someone has<17> done during an earlier investigation into you,<18> comparing on the left what you say, comparing on the<19> right what Duwayne Brooks says in his statement of<20> 4th June?<21> A. Yes. It was an examination of facts by<22> Superintendent Selwood.<23> Q. Yes. I do not want to, because to some extent I<24> am ploughing old ground, because you have been asked<25> about this on a number of previous occasions, have

. P-4411 CROWLEY

< 1> you not?< 2> A. I have been asked about the contents of my< 3> statement, yes.< 4> Q. As compared with what Duwayne Brooks has said?< 5> A. It was mentioned by Mr Lawson this morning.< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: No, at the trial, I think Mr McDonald< 7> means.< 8> THE WITNESS: There were various questions obviously< 9> in the committal proceedings and the trial.<10> MR MCDONALD: I do not intend to go over every piece<11> of ground that has been dealt with before, because<12> the issues are well-known. Do you follow?<13> A. I understand, sir, yes.<14> Q. You are fully aware, I think, from what<15> Mr Lawson has asked you, of where there is a conflict<16> between your evidence and Duwayne Brooks'<17> recollection in his witness statement there?<18> A. Yes, in front of me, obviously from the<19> Superintendent.<20> Q. I just really wanted to take one or two points<21> that I can take up with you, please. On<22> identification parades, which you say you have<23> performed this task many, many times, it is right, is<24> it not, that a code of practice covers the way<25> identification parades are held?

. P-4412 CROWLEY

< 1> A. There is a set of rules, yes.< 2> Q. Code D?< 3> A. Code D deals with the inspector's< 4> responsibilities, yes.< 5> Q. You will be fully familiar that on< 6> identification parades where there is only one< 7> suspect that you should get at least 8 people who, so< 8> far as possible, resemble the suspect in age, height,< 9> general appearance and position in life. That is<10> something, I take it, that as an officer with your<11> experience you are fully familiar with?<12> A. Yes. I am not aware of the actual code, but<13> yes, I am aware of it.<14> Q. You are also aware that at an identification<15> parade a suspect is allowed to have present his or<16> her solicitor?<17> A. All the instructions are governed to the<18> inspector's responsibility.<19> Q. But you are familiar with that scenario, are you<20> not?<21> A. I am familiar with it, but obviously I am not an<22> inspector.<23> Q. I appreciate that. I am not asking about that.<24> So the chances on an identification parade of having<25> a suspect who, if you like, stands out like a sore

. P-4413 CROWLEY

< 1> thumb because the suspect is dressed in a completely< 2> different way or looks as if he has been sleeping< 3> rough for the last week, whereas the other people do< 4> not. That is not likely to happen, is it?< 5> A. I couldn't say, sir, because I have no control< 6> over those procedures, because I am not the inspector< 7> in charge of the parades.< 8> Q. I know, but you cannot just say that all< 9> knowledge resides with the inspector, can you?<10> A. It's his total responsibility.<11> Q. I appreciate it is his responsibility, but you<12> surely know the kind of thing that goes on at ID<13> parades?<14> A. All the ID parades I have attended it is done by<15> the procedure, as you say code D ----<16> Q. And properly?<17> A. And the person representing the suspect has a<18> chance to object to those procedures.<19> Q. So far as you were aware, there was nothing done<20> improperly on this particular ID parade on 3rd June<21> of 1993, was there?<22> A. Without referring to the documentation, sir, I<23> could not say.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: You were not at the parade, were you,<25> itself?

. P-4414 CROWLEY

< 1> A. No, sir, I was there solely to escort Mr Brooks.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: But what room were you in?< 3> A. On a totally separate floor.< 4> MR MCDONALD: But, although you were not there, you< 5> were told, were you not, by Mr McIlgrew who said< 6> words to this effect to you: "Listen, I'm the< 7> identification officer. The parade went off< 8> correctly."< 9> A. Those words were not said to me, sir.<10> Q. Those words were not said to you?<11> A. That's correct.<12> Q. You see, I am reading those words from that<13> witness statement that was produced today from<14> Mr McIlgrew that Mr Lawson showed to you?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Are you saying that Mr McIlgrew has got it<17> wrong?<18> A. Yes. Mr McIlgrew, according to his statement,<19> has said that he told me to take a statement.<20> Q. So, "Listen, I'm the identification officer.<21> The parade went off correctly", is not something he<22> said to you?<23> A. Not to my recollection, sir, no.<24> Q. You are not mistaken?<25> A. I am not mistaken; I brought it to his

. P-4415 CROWLEY

< 1> attention.< 2> Q. If Duwayne Brooks had really told you, as you< 3> have told us, that he had been able to pick out the< 4> suspect because of his particular shabby appearance,< 5> if you like, is that not something that you would< 6> have immediately gone and told Mr McIlgrew?< 7> A. No. Mr Brooks told me the exact conversation,< 8> which is noted in my statement, and after the< 9> conversation with Mr Brooks I reported the facts to<10> him. I then made contact with the desk at Eltham --<11> the inquiry desk, to report the facts to them<12> Q. I appreciate that. If you had been told that<13> there was one person who stood out like a sore thumb<14> on the identification parade, is that not something<15> you would have drawn the Inspector's attention to?<16> A. Mr Brooks told me that he had attended a parade<17> and the conversation continued.<18> Q. I appreciate what you are saying about Mr Brooks<19> told you. Could you please try and answer my<20> question?<21> A. He never -- as far as that conversation is<22> concerned, the only conversation I had with Mr Brooks<23> was as reported in these facts.<24> Q. We have understood all of that. Do you<25> understand my question? Can you remember my

. P-4416 CROWLEY

< 1> question?< 2> A. Yes, sir. You have just said it to me.< 3> Q. What was it?< 4> A. It was about whether -- if he told you about the< 5> person who was dressed shabbily, or words to that< 6> effect, would you have told the inspector.< 7> Q. Yes. Can you answer that now?< 8> A. When Mr Brooks told me he had been on the parade< 9> and he described the person with the tracksuit<10> bottoms on, I then immediately told the Inspector<11> about his conversation.<12> Q. Oh, so you told the Inspector about the<13> tracksuit bottoms?<14> A. I told the Inspector about Mr Brooks' account,<15> not remembering what had taken place.<16> Q. Did you tell the Inspector about the tracksuit<17> bottoms?<18> A. No, I did not.<19> Q. So you did not tell him everything you had been<20> told?<21> A. I told Mr McIlgrew that following the<22> conversation with Mr Brooks that he had said things<23> which cast doubt on his identification.<24> Q. On page 119 if we go a little bit further down,<25> on that same page. "The following request to

. P-4417 CROWLEY

< 1> attend the identification" on the left-hand side. Do< 2> you see that? That is it?< 3> A. Yes, I do see that, sir.< 4> Q. "From what he was told by friends the persons< 5> responsible was two brothers by the name of Acourt.< 6> Having been prompted by the friend he was told he< 7> should know them as they attended the same school as< 8> Duwayne Brooks." That is what you say you were told< 9> by Duwayne Brooks?<10> A. That is what he told me, sir, yes.<11> Q. Do you see what he responds to that: "I did not<12> tell the officer that someone had told me that I<13> should know the Acourt brothers because they went to<14> my school. I know that they didn't and, therefore,<15> there would be no need for me to mention this."<16> A. The officers that attended his address read the<17> statement over to him.<18> Q. Yes, I appreciate that?<19> A. So he had an account of the conversation we had<20> had at Southwark Police Station and then he gave his<21> account of what he had remembered saying to me.<22> Q. But, of course, if you go to an identification<23> parade and you have been told that on it what you<24> have to look out for is people you have been at<25> school with and if you see someone there who you had

. P-4418 CROWLEY

< 1> been at school with, "that is the man". Is that what< 2> you understood him to be saying to you?< 3> A. What he said to me was, he should know them< 4> because he went to the same school.< 5> Q. We know as a fact that they did not go to the< 6> same school. Were you aware of that?< 7> A. I couldn't say, sir. I mean he told me that in< 8> the conversation.< 9> Q. I suggest that apart from the fact that this was<10> never said to you, it is complete nonsense anyhow?<11> A. This is what Mr Brooks said to me and this is<12> why I recorded it.<13> Q. Now, you say that all this spilling out of this<14> information from Duwayne Brooks took place in the<15> identification suite before you left it?<16> A. That's correct, sir, yes.<17> Q. Duwayne Brooks was, according to you, quite<18> spontaneously giving you all of this information?<19> A. He relayed the information which is contained.<20> Q. No holding back?<21> A. He wanted to tell me.<22> Q. He wanted to tell you it?<23> A. Which he did.<24> Q. Anxious to tell you it?<25> A. Well, he told me it.

. P-4419 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Yes. Did it not seem the obvious thing to you,< 2> if he was so obviously wanting to tell you all this< 3> about the identification parade, that you should sit< 4> down there and then with him and get him to commit it< 5> to the witness statement or to another witness< 6> statement there and then?< 7> A. He was asked that, sir.< 8> Q. What did he say?< 9> A. He would only make a statement which was the<10> short four lines or five lines of his----<11> Q. No, no, no. He has already made that statement<12> to you?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. That is history, that statement?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Is it not?<17> A. After the conversation he had with me I then<18> said to him: "We need to record down the conversation<19> we've just had."<20> Q. "We need to record the conversation"----<21> A. "We've had".<22> Q. You have had. What did he say?<23> A. He said: "I'm only going to make a statement" of<24> the exact five lines he made.<25> Q. Where in your witness statement does that

. P-4420 CROWLEY

< 1> appear?< 2> A. This point has been raised----< 3> Q. Where in your witness statement does that< 4> appear?< 5> A. It does not appear.< 6> Q. It does not appear?< 7> A. That's correct.< 8> Q. Was that not a rather important thing? Here you< 9> have this young man spilling his heart out to you and<10> you go back to your police station and you write up<11> your note and you try to remember all of the<12> important things that have been said to you, many,<13> many of them, and yet when you ask this person who is<14> volunteering all of this information if he would put<15> it in a witness statement he says "no"?<16> A. He said he would only do a statement which says:<17> "I attended a parade. I picked No. 8 of 10 white<18> youths." That was the only statement he would sign.<19> Q. So, the important point of you asking him to<20> make a witness statement and him refusing is utterly<21> and completely absent from your initial witness<22> statement which you say is your note of recollection<23> of what took place?<24> A. These are my notes, sir, and I have explained<25> this at the previous proceedings.

. P-4421 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. That may be. I am asking you in these< 2> proceedings?< 3> A. I can't account for why it is not in my notes.< 4> Q. Because I suggest it never happened?< 5> A. It did happen, sir.< 6> Q. And that you are lying on this point?< 7> A. I am not lying, sir, and I think that is quite a< 8> hurting remark.< 9> Q. Now, did you ever tell Duwayne Brooks that he<10> had, in fact, picked out the right person?<11> A. No, sir, I did not at any stage tell him he had<12> picked out the right person.<13> Q. You see, going to the top of that same page,<14> what Duwayne Brooks says is that you have come my the<15> room and you say: "Do you think you picked the right<16> person?" I said: 'Yes, I have'. He said: Well them<17> next door seem to think you have. 'I did not ask the<18> police officer if I had picked out the right man. I<19> didn't tell the police officer that I had been told<20> that the Acourt brothers had been responsible for the<21> murder'."<22> He goes on about the bit about the brother?<23> A. He, in his account he did not say to me: "Do you<24> think you picked out" -- sorry, I did not say to<25> him: "Do you think you picked out the right person?"

. P-4422 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. But you did tell him, did you not, that he had,< 2> in fact, identified the youth who the police had< 3> requested to stand on the parade?< 4> A. No, sir, I told him he had identified No. 8 of< 5> 10 white youths that were on the parade sitting down.< 6> Q. You did not need to tell him that, he knew that?< 7> A. It was before I had spoken to Mr McIlgrew to< 8> establish the make-up of the parade and the statement< 9> was as it is in evidence.<10> Q. You must appreciate that when someone identifies<11> or tries to identify someone on an identification<12> parade they are going to say No. 7, No. 8, No. 3,<13> No. 2, are they not? Well, are they not?<14> A. They are, yes.<15> Q. So if I have gone in there and said "No. 8", I<16> do not need you, do I, to come along and tell me "you<17> picked out No. 8"?<18> A. I established from Mr McIlgrew that he<19> identified No. 8 of 10 white youths sitting down.<20> Q. Duwayne Brooks knew he identified No. 8. He did<21> not need you to tell him?<22> A. The statement was compiled by me.<23> Q. I appreciate all of that, but you told him, did<24> you not, that the No. 8 that he had picked out was<25> the right man?

. P-4423 CROWLEY

< 1> A. No, I did not, sir, no.< 2> Q. Look at your witness statement at< 3> (PCA00390045). Do you see the bit, "the youth< 4> identified had been identified having been seated at< 5> position number 8 on the parade, a total of 10< 6> youths", yes?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Sorry, "a total of 10 youths were on the< 9> parade"?<10> A. That is correct.<11> Q. "I then entered the witness waiting room", yes?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. "And prior to informing Duwayne Brooks of his<14> identification of a youth who police had requested to<15> stand on this parade, I took a statement from him."<16> A. I did not inform him that he picked out the<17> right person.<18> Q. So is that a mistake in your witness statement?<19> A. I see nothing wrong with that statement.<20> Q. "Prior to informing Duwayne Brooks of his<21> identification of a youth who police had requested to<22> stand on this parade, I took a statement from him"?<23> A. I see nothing wrong with that, no.<24> Q. You took the statement from him and then told<25> him that he had identified the right youth?

. P-4424 CROWLEY

< 1> A. No, sir, at no stage did I tell him that he had< 2> picked out the right youth.< 3> Q. Could you explain to us what on earth you mean< 4> by those words "Informing Duwayne Brooks of his< 5> identification of a youth who police had requested to< 6> stand on this parade"? What do you mean by those< 7> words?< 8> A. It is by informing him that he had picked out< 9> number 8 of 10 white youths on the parade.<10> Q. Did you think that that was information that he<11> did not already have?<12> A. I couldn't say, sir.<13> Q. You mean you cannot say whether Duwayne Brooks<14> was aware that the person he picked out was number 8<15> on the parade?<16> A. I established the facts from Mr McIlgrew and<17> then I compiled the statement.<18> Q. Mr Crowley, I am afraid I have to suggest to you<19> again that you are telling lies to this Inquiry?<20> A. Sir, I am not telling lies to the Inquiry. I am<21> telling the truth and those remarks I find very<22> hurtful.<23> MR GOMPERTZ: If my learned friend is leaving that<24> point I would invite him to put the first sentence of<25> the next paragraph, please.

. P-4425 CROWLEY

< 1> MR MCDONALD: Well, I do not think it is necessary for< 2> me to do so because the Inquiry is fully aware of< 3> those matters.< 4> THE CHAIRMAN: We have read it. We can see it. Yes,< 5> thank you.< 6> MR MCDONALD: Thank you.< 7> You say that the entire discussion took place at< 8> Southwark Police Station?< 9> A. Yes, sir, it did, yes.<10> Q. Could you have misunderstood what Duwayne Brooks<11> said to you?<12> A. No, sir. What he said to me I have given before<13> this Inquiry today.<14> Q. You see, you had this -- I have called<15> it "spilling out his heart to you" -- at about 3.56,<16> or just after 3.56 in the afternoon?<17> A. Yes, that would be right.<18> Q. The identification I think is timed at 3.56. If<19> I have it slightly wrong, I will be corrected?<20> A. I believe it may be, indeed, about that time,<21> yes.<22> Q. Your written out witness statement that you were<23> asked to look at has a stamp on it at 19.56?<24> A. Yes, that's correct, yes.<25> Q. So we are talking about some four hours later

. P-4426 CROWLEY

< 1> you stamp your notes?< 2> A. That's the completion of my stamp, yes.< 3> Q. Obviously, if you are right about this, that you< 4> wrote them out at one police station and had to< 5> travel to another police station because that was the< 6> only one that had a time stamp on it, that would< 7> obviously take you some time?< 8> A. Yes, the distance ----< 9> Q. How long would it take you to travel from the<10> police station that you made the notes to the<11> police station that you stamped them?<12> A. A distance of about 20 minutes.<13> Q. You would want to do that quickly?<14> A. I drove to the station and had the statement<15> stamped.<16> Q. Straight away?<17> A. As soon as I could get to the station.<18> Q. Yes. So if we knock 20 minutes off 19.56 you,<19> as it were, finished your notes somewhere at about<20> 7.30 that evening?<21> A. Half past, sir, yes.<22> Q. About 7.30?<23> A. Possibly, yes.<24> Q. Started writing them, what, at 7 o'clock?<25> A. After the actual office meeting had concluded.

. P-4427 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. I just want to know ----< 2> A. I don't know what time the meeting finished.< 3> Q. How long did it take you to write out your< 4> statement?< 5> A. I couldn't establish the exact time.< 6> Q. Roughly?< 7> A. I couldn't estimate, sir.< 8> Q. It is six pages in your handwriting, is it not?< 9> A. Yes, sir, yes.<10> Q. You have no idea how long that takes you to do?<11> A. No, sir.<12> Q. Half an hour does not mean anything to you?<13> A. I would think it would be longer than that.<14> Q. All right. So you have this conversation with<15> Duwayne Brooks; you go back to the police station;<16> you are engaged in an office meeting; yes. Then for<17> the first time you go and set pen to paper?<18> A. On the completion of the parade I had to wait<19> for the -- what they call the stooges to leave the<20> station.<21> Q. All I am trying to get from you is times, not<22> whether stooges left the station or you had a traffic<23> jam or the lights were red or the road was up, or<24> whatever. I am just trying to get times?<25> A. That is what I am trying to explain to you, sir.

. P-4428 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. All right. I thought I was shortening it, but I< 2> am obviously not.< 3> A. If I may continue, please?< 4> Q. Please do?< 5> A. I left the station after the stooges in the< 6> parade had left the building. Then I drove to< 7> Rotherhithe Police Station, which was to pick up a< 8> filofax Mr Brooks had left behind.< 9> Q. And no conversation in the car then?<10> A. Just general conversation about his life<11> Deptford, because I had previously worked there as a<12> Detective Constable there. Then I was asked to drive<13> him to the back of Deptford Police Station as he said<14> he wanted to visit his father. He went to an address<15> which was quite close proximity to the station and<16> then he returned to the car and then I drove from<17> there to Charlton -- to where he was resident at the<18> time, and from Charlton I then drove the distance<19> from Charlton to Eltham Inquiry Office. Officers<20> were in attendance and I relayed the information to<21> them in our meeting.<22> Q. You set pen to paper for the first time after<23> that?<24> A. On completion of the meeting I went into a<25> separate room and made my statement.

. P-4429 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. So we are talking some possibly 2.5 to 3 hours< 2> after the conversation you say you recorded?< 3> A. The earliest opportunity I had, yes.< 4> Q. Possibly, but some 2.5 to 3 hours later?< 5> A. Given my pattern of behaviour, as I said.< 6> Q. You say that there is no mistake there, there is< 7> no misunderstanding there?< 8> A. No, sir, there is no misunderstanding. I have< 9> given my evidence here before the Inquiry and that is<10> what happened.<11> Q. You say there is nothing that you have left out<12> of your witness statement apart from the refusal of<13> Duwayne Brooks to make a witness statement at the<14> identity suite, and apart from having a conversation<15> with the Inquiry Inspector?<16> A. No, on completion of the statement by<17> Duwayne Brooks he was asked to establish what parade<18> he had been involved in and he declined ----<19> Q. I appreciate all of that. I am sorry to cut you<20> short, but there is nothing else you have left out of<21> your Section 9 statement?<22> A. It is notes of my involvement. I spoke to the<23> Inquiry Desk from Southwark Police Station.<24> Q. Yes.<25> A. And from then I drove to Rotherhithe and

. P-4430 CROWLEY

< 1> informed the Inquiry team of my anticipated arrival< 2> at the Inquiry Desk.< 3> Q. Did you and Duwayne Brooks not have an argument< 4> in the car on the way to his home from Rotherhithe< 5> Police Station?< 6> A. No, sir, we did not, and as is suggested in his< 7> account he did not tell me to -- excuse the< 8> language -- to "fuck off".< 9> Q. Did you not saying in to the effect in the car<10> that he had been guessing when he picked someone out<11> at the ID parade?<12> A. No, sir, I did hot say that to him.<13> Q. He got angry at that?<14> A. No, sir. We were talking and I left him as I<15> picked him up in the morning.<16> Q. Then he told you to "fuck off" after you told<17> him he was guessing?<18> A. No, sir, at no stage did Mr Brooks say to me<19> those words "fuck off".<20> Q. Then he got out of your car?<21> A. Well, I dropped him off at his home address at<22> his request.<23> Q. If I have understood your account of that, at no<24> stage after this conversation, after you had left the<25> identification suite, at no stage, did you make any

. P-4431 CROWLEY

< 1> kind of reference at all to these important matters< 2> that he had told you about?< 3> A. No, sir,. On the journey back we discussed< 4> about his upbringing in the Deptford area and as I< 5> had been a detective at that station we discussed the< 6> actual area.< 7> Q. I want to turn to Nathan Adams. You were one of< 8> the investigation team on that murder, were you not?< 9> A. Yes, I was.<10> Q. Of Roland Adams?<11> A. Yes, I was, sir, yes.<12> Q. So far as that murder was concerned, did you<13> treat that, as one of the investigation officers, as<14> a racist killing?<15> A. From the action information given, yes, I did.<16> Q. Could we have up on the screen (MET01020004).<17> If we can go down to the bottom of the page.<18> Mr Crowley, just so that you are not completely<19> bemused by this, this is an excerpt from a report<20> prepared by acting Detective Inspector David<21> Anderson. Does that name ring a bell?<22> A. Yes, he was a colleague I worked alongside on<23> that investigation.<24> Q. So these are extracts from his report on that<25> murder, yes?

. P-4432 CROWLEY

< 1> A. I would take that it is, yes, sir.< 2> Q. At paragraph 5 there, background: "In the< 3> Thamesmead area of London there is a local gang of< 4> youths known as the Goldfish Gang. From local< 5> information this has recently changed its name to< 6> that of NTO which stands for the Nutty Turnouts. It< 7> is believed that all the youths charged are all< 8> members of this gang, although not all will admit to< 9> this."<10> If we go over the page to the top: "The of<11> object of this gang is purely that of a hatred of<12> black youths living the area and also those visiting<13> from Woolwich, whether black or white. Apart from<14> their racial objects, this gang also believes<15> strongly in protecting what they consider their own<16> territory from outsiders."<17> Would you agree that sets the scene, as it were,<18> the background to the Roland Adams murder?<19> A. Yes, I would agree, yes.<20> Q. Did you take the view that it was primarily a<21> territorial battle or that this was a murder with a<22> racial motive?<23> A. I took it to be as is described in part 6 of the<24> report.<25> Q. Well describe it?

. P-4433 CROWLEY

< 1> A. As he says, "territorial from outsiders".< 2> Q. You think that is the primary way you would< 3> describe it?< 4> A. The full content of that paragraph.< 5> Q. In the full context?< 6> A. In the full context, yes.< 7> Q. That is describing the gang, is it not, not the< 8> actual murder?< 9> A. That is describing the gang, yes, that's right.<10> Q. I just wondered so far as the murder is<11> concerned which you investigated, would you describe<12> that as a "territorial murder", a battle for<13> territory, as being the principal motive or racism as<14> being the principal motive?<15> A. I would say it is probably both.<16> Q. Probably both?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. So you would be aware, as an investigating<19> officer, of continuous chance by the chasing gang of<20> youths who were chasing after Roland and Nathan<21> Adams: "Get the nigger, get the nigger."<22> A. Those points were not brought to my attention,<23> no.<24> Q. Those points were not brought to your attention?<25> A. They were not, sir, no.

. P-4434 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Well, you took, did you not, some witness< 2> statements in the course of that Inquiry?< 3> A. I took, I would say, probably most of the< 4> prosecution witnesses in that case.< 5> Q. I think you took 9 in all or something like< 6> that?< 7> A. I think 9 of 11 possibly.< 8> Q. One of the ones that you took, which I think you< 9> have, we cannot put it up on the screen?<10> A. I have not got a copy of it, no.<11> Q. Were you not given a copy of it with your<12> notice?<13> A. I was shown a copy and I have not got copies----<14> Q. Someone took it away. Sir, I wonder if----<15> THE CHAIRMAN: Which one is it?<16> MR MCDONALD: 2nd March 1991, sir.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a spare one, otherwise he can<18> have mine.<19> MR LAWSON: Is this this morning's notice?<20> MR MCDONALD: Yes.<21> MR LAWSON: Do you not have another copy?<22> MR MCDONALD: No.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: It is Borland, is it not?<24> MR MCDONALD: Yes. I thought copies had been prepared<25> with all the notices but I gather that Mr Lawson has

. P-4435 CROWLEY

< 1> not got one.< 2> MR LAWSON: I have got one but I thought that copies< 3> would be available for the witness. I am sorry that< 4> they are not.< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: You have that now. Have you seen that< 6> today.< 7> THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I have seen that today but I< 8> have was given a copy to maintain.< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: No, quite.<10> MR MCDONALD: Now, that is a typewritten copy of a<11> statement you took on 2nd March from Mr Borland?<12> A. It was a statement taken from Mr Borland in the<13> presence of his mother. In the presence of an<14> associate of Mr Noel Penstone and a solicitor. There<15> were four people in attendance when the statement was<16> taken.<17> Q. According to the statement he was a 21 year old<18> student?<19> A. Yes. On the directions of Mr Penstone it was<20> asked that all persons be present and prior to the<21> signing of the statements, all parties agreed to the<22> contents of the statements.<23> Q. Now, you have had an opportunity of reading it<24> through again, have you not?<25> A. I have read it through this morning.

. P-4436 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. He describes, does he not, the attack that led< 2> to the killing of Roland Adams?< 3> A. I believe he describes an incident that took< 4> place, yes.< 5> Q. Well, it is immediately before and it is the< 6> chasing of Roland and Nathan before, in fact, Roland< 7> is fatally stabbed?< 8> A. That is halfway down the statement; is that< 9> correct, sir?<10> Q. Yes, that's right?<11> A. Yes. He does say that the last -- sorry: "The<12> reason the group, who were last to join the group<13> with Mark Thornborough, attacked Roland and Nathan<14> kicking and punching them, but they did not fall to<15> the ground."<16> Q. Would you agree that there is nothing in there<17> at all which mentions anything about racial abuse?<18> A. If he had mentioned it, sir, during the course<19> of that statement taking, it would be in the<20> statement.<21> Q. So the answer is "no"?<22> A. Well, if he doesn't tell me, I can't put it in<23> the statement.<24> Q. There is not anything in the statement?<25> A. Well, as you just said.

. P-4437 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Thank you. Can you turn to the statement on< 2> 23rd April of the same person, which you were< 3> supplied a copy of?< 4> A. I have a copy now.< 5> Q. That was taken 23rd April, not by you, but by a< 6> DC Reid. Do you see halfway down that?< 7> A. Could I----< 8> Q. Mr Borland says: "Further to my statement of< 9> 2nd March". Yes?<10> A. Could I ask that the statement be read, please.<11> The full statement please.<12> Q. Just answer my questions?<13> THE CHAIRMAN: If somebody wants you to read the<14> whole thing or you want to, then I am sure it will be<15> done by the other people who question you?<16> A. Okay, sir.<17> Q. At the moment if you could just isolate the<18> answers to the questions of Mr McDonald?<19> A. Okay, sir, yes.<20> MR MCDONALD: In that witness statement he says<21> halfway down: "There is only one other thing I would<22> like to add; that being that whilst the boys ran off<23> chasing Roland and Nathan they started shouting<24> racial abuse, such as 'get the nigger', over and over<25> again. They were all shouting."

. P-4438 CROWLEY

< 1> That does not appear in the witness statement< 2> that you took, does it not?< 3> A. To continue, sir, it says----< 4> Q. That does not appear in the witness statement< 5> you took, does it?< 6> A. But he gives an explanation of why it was not in< 7> the statement.< 8> Q. I appreciate that. But it was not this, was it?< 9> A. The explanation is very important as well, sir.<10> Q. I appreciate that. I am coming on to that. Let<11> us take it in stages, please?<12> A. It was not in the statement because he did not<13> mention to me when he made his first statement.<14> Q. Yes. Why was it in the second statement not<15> taken by you and omitted from the first statement<16> taken by you?<17> A. Because he had been asked by Mr Penstone to<18> provide the information to the police.<19> Q. Well, did you not ask him if he had heard<20> anything being shouted as this gang was chasing the<21> Adams brothers?<22> A. The account he gave in the presence of all<23> parties present was the account which was agreed and<24> the statement was signed to the account that he<25> remembered as best he could of the incident.

. P-4439 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Mr Crowley, you were the person who was taking< 2> the witness statement, were you not?< 3> A. I was taking account of his statement.< 4> Q. And you were the person who was asking,< 5> prompting questions, were you not?< 6> A. I was asking him to recollect his memory of what< 7> took place.< 8> Q. Did you ask him if he had heard anything being< 9> said or shouted?<10> A. The account he gave is the full account he could<11> remember.<12> Q. Did you ask him if he had heard anything being<13> said or shouted, please? It is a simple question?<14> A. I do not have any recollection of actually<15> saying that to him.<16> Q. Because if you had asked that would you not<17> expect that if he had heard all of this racist<18> chanting that he would have total you about it?<19> A. If he had said those remarks that would be in<20> his statement, which I think some 6 weeks later he<21> actually made that statement.<22> Q. Yes. Because the first statement really<23> misrepresented what his evidence was, did it not?<24> A. No, he gave an account of which he could<25> remember, sir.

. P-4440 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Now Colin Cattini?< 2> MR LAWSON: Sir, I am sorry, I do have a function on< 3> behalf of the Inquiry, bearing in mind complaints< 4> about people not getting a fair hearing. Mr McDonald< 5> said he was going on to deal with the explanation< 6> that is contained within the statement. I think it< 7> only right and proper that he should do so.< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McDonald, you better deal with that,< 9> had you not, before you pass to Mr Cattini.<10> MR MCDONALD: I am sorry, sir I did not actually ----<11> MR LAWSON: You said you were going to go on to deal<12> with the explanation contained within the statement.<13> MR MCDONALD: Yes, certainly I will.<14> If we go down the statement, having said that he<15> had heard all of this racial abuse, he then explains<16> why it was not in his first statement, does he not?<17> Do you see that?<18> A. He says: "It was not in my earlier statement<19> because I didn't realise the importance of mentioning<20> racial matters. As this only sunk into me personally<21> and at the time of making my earlier statement did<22> not seem very relevant."<23> This is what he gave as an explanation.<24> Q. Yes?<25> A. It also says: "I did not receive any direct

. P-4441 CROWLEY

< 1> abuse at all. All of this shouting and swearing was< 2> directly towards Roland and Nathan as they were being< 3> chased."< 4> Q. Because he may not have realised its relevance,< 5> but you as an investigating officer are fully aware< 6> of the kind of racism that the NTO engaged in, would< 7> be fully aware that it was relevant when you were< 8> taking his first statement, would you not?< 9> A. I took the statement from Mr Borland in the<10> presence of all persons who were present at the time<11> and he gave me the best account of which he could<12> remember that day, and the statement was then<13> completed by Mr Borland and gave a true account of<14> what he could remember.<15> Q. I appreciate that. He may not have realised his<16> relevance. My only point I am putting to you is you<17> must have realised the relevance and do you not think<18> that you might have asked him some questions about<19> what he had heard or if he had heard anything?<20> A. I asked him as best as he could remember.<21> Q. Because if you do not prompt a witness with<22> questions, you may not get the information that is<23> necessary to obtain, may you?<24> A. I feel that I did a professional job in this<25> case, as I did with every witness in this case, and I

. P-4442 CROWLEY

< 1> went to take nine further statements which secured a< 2> conviction of the murderer of young Roland Adams.< 3> Q. Colin Cattini?< 4> THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask, who took the second< 5> statement in which he gave that explanation.< 6> THE WITNESS: It was taken by a Detective Constable< 7> Reid.< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, thank you. I thought it was< 9> not yourself. Detective Constable Reid took that<10> about 6 weeks later.<11> THE WITNESS: 6 weeks later. I was no longer on that<12> inquiry. I had no contact with that inquiry<13> subsequently.<14> MR MCDONALD: Colin Cattini. Colin Cattini was<15> described, I think again, by acting Detective<16> Inspector Anderson as a white youth, a member of a<17> right wing gang. Would that be your recollection?<18> A. Without seeing, sir, I could not say.<19> Q. All right. (MET00500088), paragraph<20> 5.1: "April 1991 a youth named Cattini was attacked<21> by a gang of black youths", et cetera. "He was also<22> believed to be a member of the right wing gang<23> associated with the murder. This factor was probably<24> the motive for the attack"?<25> A. This was an investigation by Detective

. P-4443 CROWLEY

< 1> Superintendent Selwood.< 2> Q. I appreciate that. It summarises, does it not,< 3> the attack that took place or was alleged to have< 4> taken place on the youth named Cattini and who he is,< 5> would you agree?< 6> A. No, I do not agree, no. Colin Cattini was one< 7> of the principle witnesses that actually provided< 8> evidence to secure a conviction for Roland Adams. He< 9> actually saw the movement towards the body of Roland<10> Adams which caused him to move back away and then<11> unfortunately he died having departed from the scene,<12> so Cattini was, I would say, one of the main<13> witnesses that helped to secure the conviction for<14> Roland Adam's murder.<15> Q. So you took two witness statements from<16> Colin Cattini, did you not?<17> A. In my total involvement with Colin Cattini I<18> have taken two statements.<19> Q. One where he was giving evidence or as a<20> potential witness in the Roland Adams murder trial?<21> A. Yes, that's correct.<22> Q. The second one, which is where he was the<23> alleged victim in this incident that is summarised in<24> that report?<25> A. He was the victim who was attacked by Nathan

. P-4444 CROWLEY

< 1> Adams and a group of his friends.< 2> Q. That is the same man in both incidences?< 3> A. That is the same man, yes.< 4> Q. No doubt, you took the witness statements in< 5> both of those occasions with great care and attention< 6> to detail?< 7> A. Yes, I took both statements and I feel I did it< 8> professionally and to the best of my ability.< 9> Q. You were not in any way sloppy or careless?<10> A. No, I was not sloppy at all.<11> Q. You did not fail to understand what you were<12> told?<13> A. No, I did not.<14> Q. Because that is not one of your failings, is it?<15> A. I would say I did my job very professionally,<16> sir.<17> Q. I wonder if you could look at the witness<18> statement of Colin Cattini which is typed on<19> 28th February 1991, which again, was sent with the<20> notice?<21> A. Yes, I have a copy, sir, yes.<22> Q. In the statement there you describe, is it,<23> Master Colin Terry Cattini?<24> A. That is his name, yes.<25> Q. 15 years and you give his date of birth?

. P-4445 CROWLEY

< 1> A. Yes, at the time he was that age.< 2> Q. A schoolboy, occupation?< 3> A. Yes, that's correct, sir, yes.< 4> Q. Then some 6 weeks later he is involved in the< 5> alleged attack on him by a gang of black youths,< 6> which included Nathan Adams?< 7> A. Well, Nathan Adams was a man who inflicted< 8> injury on him.< 9> Q. That was his allegation?<10> A. That was the allegation, yes.<11> Q. Yes. You took a witness statement from him on<12> that occasion, is that not right?<13> A. I took a statement on 15th April of that year,<14> yes.<15> Q. Again, you took that with your usual care and<16> attention to detail, no sloppiness or carelessness,<17> was there?<18> A. I took statements from everybody that provided<19> evidence in that case.<20> Q. Can we look at the second statement you took<21> from Colin Cattini?<22> A. Is it ----<23> Q. Statement of Mr Colin Cattini, that is in your<24> handwriting?<25> A. Yes, it is, sir, yes.

. P-4446 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Age of witness, over 21, occupation of witness,< 2> factory worker. So in 6 weeks time, if that is< 3> right, Colin Cattini has gained at least 5 years in< 4> age and has changed from being a schoolboy to a< 5> factory worker? Are the details that you took on< 6> that second occasion correct?< 7> A. Yes, they are correct, because they were taken< 8> in the presence of a suitable adult.< 9> Q. He was describing himself, was he, as over 21 or<10> is that your sloppiness in recording the details?<11> A. I would not say it is my sloppiness, sir, no.<12> Q. He was 15 two months ago?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Now he is over 21?<15> A. I can't explain that, sir.<16> Q. No.<17> MR GOMPERTZ: I am not interrupting willingly. I<18> quite understand, as I said on one previous occasion,<19> some people may find some of the evidence humorous,<20> but it is only fair to the witness that he should be<21> able to give his evidence without interruption.<22> MR MCDONALD: I agree with that.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Gompertz, you and Mr McDonald both<24> agree and I hope the people who are present in the<25> public gallery will note what you have both said.

. P-4447 CROWLEY

< 1> MR MCDONALD: You have never noticed that, have you?< 2> You have had a chance to look at those statements< 3> today, have you not?< 4> A. This is the first time for a number of years,< 5> yes.< 6> Q. Yes, I appreciate that. You could not remember< 7> on the second occasion what Cattini had told you 6< 8> weeks earlier about his age and occupation, could< 9> you?<10> A. The only thing that is on here which is<11> different to the first statement is that he is over<12> 21.<13> Q. You see, I suggest that the truth is that you<14> are, in fact, shoddy, careless and pay little<15> attention to detail. This is an example of just that<16> happening?<17> A. No, sir. The statement was taken and your<18> learned colleague to your left was the person<19> actually dealing with that.<20> Q. I suggest that you cannot be trusted to get<21> elementary details correct and that when it comes to<22> bigger details like that, like what Duwayne Brooks<23> told you, you are even less reliable there?<24> A. I am reliable, sir, and I can't explain why the<25> over 21 is on that statement. The evidence contained

. P-4448 CROWLEY

< 1> in that statement is an account he gave in the< 2> presence of a suitable adult, as is documented on the< 3> rear of the statement, saying that the mother gave< 4> permission for her son to make a statement.< 5> Q. If there was a suitable adult present, then it< 6> must have been a juvenile and how on earth could you< 7> as a responsible, careful and attentive police< 8> officer possibly put down "over 21"?< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McDonald, we have the point. There<10> is no jury. We have the point.<11> MR MCDONALD: I am grateful.<12> THE CHAIRMAN: It is a valid one, we have it and we<13> will consider it.<14> MR MCDONALD: You see, I suggest that it is exactly<15> that approach that you took when you were dealing<16> with the conversation that you had with Duwayne<17> Brooks following the identification parade on<18> 3rd June?<19> A. No, sir. I recorded exactly what Duwayne Brooks<20> said to me and I have acted professionally in all<21> aspects of my police service and especially dealing<22> with the investigation into the Roland Adams case and<23> also the investigation into the Stephen Lawrence<24> case.<25> Q. Let me go back to Mr Cattini, the man with two

. P-4449 CROWLEY

< 1> ages. He told you the names of two boys: Nathan< 2> Adams and can I call the other one "X", rather than< 3> identify him by name?< 4> A. Can I refer to the statement?< 5> Q. Please do. It is your handwritten statement?< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: 15th April?< 7> MR MCDONALD: Yes.< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.< 9> MR MCDONALD: It is the last paragraph on the first<10> page. Just read it to yourself, please, because I do<11> not want the name of the second person to be read out<12> in public?<13> A. Okay.<14> Q. That is why I am calling him "X"?<15> A. Okay.<16> Q. So he gave you the names of two boys, yes?<17> A. He gave the name -- in the statement he<18> mentioned two boys, yes.<19> Q. By name. The others he did not name?<20> A. No, he mentioned --<21> Q. Those two?<22> A. -- Nathan Adams and "Mr X".<23> Q. It is right that both were arrested?<24> A. Adams and Mr "X" were arrested, yes.<25> Q. I am not saying anything about it being right or

. P-4450 CROWLEY

< 1> wrong to arrest. That is not an issue I am taking< 2> with you. Do you follow?< 3> A. Yes, I understand that, yes.< 4> Q. Both were interviewed?< 5> A. Both were interviewed, yes.< 6> Q. Both made "no comment" interviews?< 7> A. Yes, they both made "no comment" interviews.< 8> Q. And you certainly interviewed Nathan Adams. I< 9> do not know if you interviewed the other boy?<10> A. I interviewed both of the boys.<11> Q. You interviewed both of them. So far as Nathan<12> Adams is concerned -- and both were "no comment"<13> interviews?<14> A. On the advice of their representatives, yes.<15> Q. They were "no comment" interviews?<16> A. Yes, that's correct.<17> Q. Both of them juveniles at the time?<18> A. Both juveniles, yes.<19> Q. And so far as Nathan Adams was concerned, you<20> caused him to be charged that same day, I think, did<21> you not?<22> A. Yes, sir. The procedure, as regards juveniles,<23> obviously under the age of 17, are in probably three<24> different categories.<25> Q. You caused him to be charged that same day?

. P-4451 CROWLEY

< 1> A. Authority was ----< 2> Q. Just yes or no?< 3> A. Yes, I was granted authority from the Youth &< 4> Community section to charge him. They gave the< 5> authority to charge him.< 6> Q. That same day?< 7> A. Within probably 45 minutes of him being at the< 8> station.< 9> Q. Yes. Was it not the practice at that time, in<10> fact, to refer all juveniles to the juvenile section<11> before any charges could be brought?<12> A. No, sir, they are not.<13> Q. Normally it would take, would it not, about 5 or<14> 6 weeks sometimes before a charge is finally decided<15> upon?<16> A. Depending on the three circumstances, as I<17> previously explained.<18> Q. What are the three circumstances?<19> A. If the offence is grave, serious the person<20> would be charged forthwith; if the person at the time<21> was called a recidivist, a persistent offender, the<22> papers would be submitted for consideration; and then<23> there is the likelihood of what is called an<24> "immediate caution", having no previous involvement<25> with the police at any stage.

. P-4452 CROWLEY

< 1> Q. Is that a third category, a caution?< 2> A. The first stage is a caution, yes.< 3> Q. So caution, serious offenders and recidivists?< 4> A. And the circumstances of whether or not the< 5> person has actually acknowledged his involvement in a< 6> particular matter.< 7> Q. What if it is not a recidivist, but a less< 8> serious offence?< 9> A. In the case of Mr Adams he had made no reply, so<10> there was nothing I could forward to the youth<11> section to be considered with.<12> Q. Well, the facts of the case?<13> A. The facts only came from Mr Cattini.<14> Q. Yes?<15> A. Mr Adams did not reply to any questions put to<16> him.<17> Q. Of course, nor did the other boy, did he?<18> A. Yes. Also Mr Cattini was able to recognise him.<19> Q. Well, Mr Cattini named the other boy, did he<20> not?<21> A. But he could not say what he was involved in in<22> that particular attack.<23> Q. He said he was involved in kicking him, did he<24> not? He was one of the group who was kicking him on<25> the ground?

. P-4453 CROWLEY

< 1> A. But not specifically what he was doing.< 2> Q. So he was not charged or recommended for charge,< 3> was he, just Nathan Adams?< 4> A. There was nothing I could consider to charge him< 5> with.< 6> Q. So isn't being involved as part of a joint< 7> enterprise in kicking someone on the ground, which< 8> causes injury, at least an assault?< 9> A. The assault firstly commenced ----<10> Q. Is it not?<11> A. If you can identify who the person is<12> responsible.<13> Q. Yes, and Mr Cattini had done that for you, had<14> he not?<15> A. He'd identified Mr Adams, but he did not<16> identify anybody else.<17> Q. But he did. He identified the second boy, did<18> he not?<19> A. No.<20> Q. He did not identify numbers 3, 4 and 5, I agree,<21> but ----<22> A. He said a person who was there, who we call<23> Mr "X", along with eight other youths, approached<24> the bus stop.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McDonald, how are you getting on?

. P-4454 CROWLEY

< 1> Are you nearly finished?< 2> MR MCDONALD: I am getting close.< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: I want to stop at about quarter past or< 4> 20 past. Will you finish in that time?< 5> MR MCDONALD: I think it is unlikely.< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: Reach a point when it is convenient for< 7> yourself.< 8> MR MCDONALD: This would probably be a convenient< 9> point.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid there will be other<11> questions tomorrow. So you must come back. Of<12> course do not speak to anyone or let anyone speak to<13> you about the evidence in the usual way.<14> THE WITNESS: I appreciate that, sir, yes.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We will start<16> again tomorrow at 10 o'clock.<17> <(The Inquiry Adjourned at 4.14 pm)<18><19><20><21><22><23><24><25>

. P-4455 CROWLEY