Disordered Minds Read online

  There is no evidence to support this. He was examined by two psychiatrists to establish if he was fit to plead, and neither diagnosed schizophrenia. The verdict or the prosecution psychiatrist was that Stamp was "self-absorbed and introverted, but otherwise normal." The defense psychiatrist found him "depressed and suicidal."

  Howard is illiterate with a low IQ which means he has difficulty understanding simple instructions ... He is deeply reserved, particularly when speaking about himself, refuses to look his interlocutor in the eye and covers the lower half of his face with his hands. This self-consciousness, amounting to obsession, is attributable to a poorly reconstructed harelip ... Howard shows symptoms of agoraphobia and regularly betrays a sense of worthlessness ... These emotional difficulties are not helped by being on remand, as he is fearful of interacting with officers and other inmates ... these feelings of inadequacy are making him depressed and suicidal.

  I am concerned by his lack of confidence both in himself and in his relations with others. He has no amour propre and seems to feel he deserves punishment. It is for this reason that he made a habit of cutting his arms during and postadolescence and is now refusing to eat in prison. I am confident that he is, and has been for some lime, suffering from anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder, which is rare in young men but not unknown. This disorder is triggered when an individual persuades himself he is unattractive ... In Howard's case, the deformity of his lip is clearly the major contributory cause.

  ...I consider him unfit to stand trial because he is incapable of taking a necessarily objective view if the charges are to be countered. In addition, he will be so distressed by his public display in court that he will be unable to function successfully. (Taken from Clinical Studies by Dr. Andrew Lawson (Random House, U.S., 1975).

  The defense psychiatrist's recommendations were ignored and Stamp was ruled competent to plead.

  With the knowledge that we now have about eating disorders, it is more likely that the young man was suffering from body dysmorphic disorder. BDD is associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder and is not a variant of anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa, although self-harm and a refusal to eat are typical symptoms as the condition worsens. In most cases, an individual's obsession relates to facial features-defects can be real, imagined or exaggerated-and the sufferer comes to fear ridicule in social situations. The disorder usually begins in adolescence, becomes chronic and, if untreated, can lead to loneliness, isolation, severe depression and even suicide.

  If this is indeed what Stamp was suffering from, then it becomes less probable that he killed his grandmother. She was the one person he could feel comfortable with, because she shared his disability. She may not have had a harelip, but her speech impediment was more severe than his, her friends as few and her dislike of going out as great. They were two of a kind, both preferring isolation to ridicule, and it stretches belief that Stamp's personality could alter so radically that he would move outside his self-harming, self-obsessive, self-hating introversion to slash and stab the one person who protected him.

  Even if Grace had attempted to jolt him out of depression by suggesting he "find a nice girl" because things had improved for her after she "got Arthur," and Stamp had become angry, it seems that shouting was the worst he did. Perhaps Wynne had tried making the same suggestion with the same result. She said at the trial, "He liked ladies better than men, but they didn't like him. It made him angry."

  This was interpreted by the prosecution as "anger against women-one woman, his grandmother, Grace Jefferies, who had become frightened of him," but a more credible explanation is that Stamp voiced frustration when his mother and grandmother urged him to trawl for a date because he knew how painful and futile the exercise would be. Certainly, his suicide three years later is testimony that he found making friends of either sex difficult. A prison officer said at the inquest, "He was very timid. The other inmates picked on him because of it. He wouldn't come out of his cell unless he was ordered."

  One can only imagine how lonely and desperate Stamp must have felt when even his mother believed in his guilt. "I stopped visiting when they moved him to Dartmoor," Wynne said at the inquest. "We had nothing to say to each other and it was a long way to go." The coroner, presumably wanting to rule out any suggestion of murder by other prisoners, asked Wynne if she thought Howard was the type to kill himself. She answered, "He had a lot on his conscience."

  But Did He?

  Police pay lip service to reopening cases, but the constraints of limited budgets and the time pressures of rising crime rates mean there is no realistic chance of anyone else facing charges. There is too little data on file, and precious little physical evidence, to indict a second individual a quarter of a century after the event. It's axiomatic- hence the reforms in PACE and CPIA-that if police believe a man to be guilty, they do not waste time looking for evidence that will exonerate him. In addition, and this is pertinent to a trial, the memories of witnesses who failed to come forward at the time or were never followed up will be deemed "unreliable" twenty or thirty years later.

  Nevertheless, since DNA fingerprinting was first introduced in evidence in England in 1987 (Robert Melias in the U.K. was the first man in history to be convicted on DNA evidence.), the balance has swung against murderers who've "got away with it." While, to date, no prominent miscarriage of justice has been satisfactorily rectified by this technique, belated convictions have been achieved in a number of unsolved murders.

  In 1970, DNA fingerprinting was a distant dream, yet inferences from press coverage of the trial in April 1971 suggest police did collect physical evidence from Grace's house that could even now exonerate Stamp.

  "The prosecution alleges that a T-shirt found in the house belonged to Stamp. This was denied by the defense although Wynne Stamp later admitted that her son had owned one 'like it' " (The Times, Tuesday, April 13, 1971). "Discarded gloves linked to orgy of bloodletting" (Headline-Sun, Wednesday, April 14, 1971). "A pair of bloodstained gloves thought to belong to the victim was found in a litter bin near the home of Grace Jefferies. Police believe they were worn by her murderer and then discarded" (Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, April 14,1971). "The ace in the prosecution case is that hair found in Grace Jefferies's bath has been identified as the defendant's. Dr. James Studeley (Home Office pathologist) said the hairs were identical with Stamp's" (The Times, Wednesday, April 14, 1971).

  "Adam Fanshaw, counsel for the defense, denied that hair recovered from Grace's bath could have belonged to Stamp. 'The defendant has never taken a bath in his grandmother's house,' he said, 'therefore any similarities shown by Dr. Studeley (Home Office pathologist) between the defendant's hair and hair retrieved from the bath must be coincidence' " (Daily Telegraph, Thursday, April 15, 1971). "In his summing up, Adam Fanshaw, QC said, 'Dr. Foyle (pathologist for the defense) has shown that the defendant's hair is comparable in character, color and form to his mother's hair, yet no one is suggesting Wynne Stamp committed this murder. The prosecution has failed to prove that the hairs found in the bath are the defendant's, merely that they are similar. Any ginger-haired person could have committed this crime ... However, it is equally probable that hair from the defendant may have dropped into the bathtub during a previous visit'" (The Times, Friday, April 16,1971).

  This indecisiveness was damaging to Stamp's cause. Fanshaw, later to become a High Court judge, ran an inconsistent defense. On the horns of a dilemma because his client insisted he had never taken a bath in his grandmother's house, he offered alternative explanations to the jury. The hairs weren't Stamp's but, if the jury decided they were, then they must have dropped into the bath by accident. However, Wynne Stamp gave evidence that her son had not visited his grandmother's house between Thursday, May 28, and Wednesday, June 3. As she also insisted that her mother was too house-proud to leave her bath dirty, that left Wednesday as the only day for Howard's hairs to drop in "accidentally." Not unreasonably, the jury preferred prosecution claims that there was too much h
air for this to have happened. The quantity was only consistent with someone immersing his head in water and rubbing it with shampoo.

  If the pathologist's second estimate is to be believed, the crime took place between 1200 and 1400 on Wednesday, June 3, 1970. From the pattern of blood on the stairs, walls and floors, it was estimated that Grace had taken between one and two hours to die, and this fitted conveniently with sightings of Stamp. He was known to have left his mother's house at 1145 when he was seen by a neighbor. She described him as "looking normal" although she was unable to say what he was wearing. All the witnesses who saw him leaving his grandmother's house put the time at between 1400 and 1430 and their descriptions of his clothing were similar: "white shirt, not tucked in, and blue jeans," "shirt and trousers," "white T-shirt and Levi's." They all agreed his behavior was "peculiar." One said he was "running like a bat out of hell." Another: "He wasn't looking where he was going and bumped into the back of a parked car." A third: "He tried to hide his face but I saw it before he turned away. His eyes were mad and staring."

  None said his hair was wet, nor that it looked different from normal. But they should have done if the prosecution was correct in its assumptions. In appearance, Stamp aped his hero, Ginger Baker, the legendary drummer with the 1960s rock group Cream. A photograph of Stamp taken by his mother three months before the murder shows him with a pale, pinched face, straggly mustache and beard, and a tangled mat of wiry hair hanging over his face and down to his shoulders. Wynne said he rarely washed it because it "frizzed up when it dried and stuck out round his head." She also claimed he "put Vaseline on it to make it heavier." In his summing-up Adam Fanshaw drew attention to these discrepancies-"if the defendant shampooed his hair, it must have been wet or sticking out when he left the house ... there were no residues of Vaseline on the hairs in the bath." But the jury wasn't impressed.

  Perhaps they thought frizzy hair and matted hair looked much the same. Perhaps they found Stamp's clean-cut appearance at trial-he had been persuaded to shave and accept a short-back-and-sides to present a boyish appearance-inconsistent with his mother's descriptions of him as "always plastering his hair over his face to hide his lip." They certainly accepted the prosecution's claim that shampoo, a detergent, dissolves Vaseline, a petroleum-based product, despite the defense's attempts to prove that Vaseline residues would have remained on the sides of the bath.

  In one last twist, Stamp's mugshot, taken four days after he was said to have had a bath, presents an identical appearance to the photograph taken three months earlier. Pale, pinched face, straggly mustache and beard, and a tangled mat of Vaselined hair to his shoulders.

  Irreconcilable Evidence

  The earliest Stamp could have reached Grace's house was 1200, and the latest he could have left it was 1430. This would have given him two and a half hours in which to work up a rage, slash and stab his grandmother before cutting her throat, take a bath, wipe his fingerprints from the bath taps (they were clean), vandalize her house to cast the blame elsewhere, pull the curtains and secure the windows.

  Even assuming all this were possible in so comparatively short a time, he also had to remember to dispose of a pair of gloves in a litter bin after he left. Yet witnesses described him as behaving peculiarly, running like a bat out of hell, bumping into things and having mad, staring eyes. In other words, he was a man in a panic.

  It's difficult to see how this mad flight in the middle of a summer afternoon can be reconciled with the thoughtful way he appears to have acted in the wake of the murder. Why draw attention to himself after leaving the scene if he'd made an attempt-however poor-to cover his tracks? Indeed why was it necessary to leave the house in such a hurry? Wynne said he rarely returned from visits to his grandmother until the early hours-"they watched telly together"-so why didn't he do the same that day? Not only would it have given him longer to lay a false trail, it would also have allowed him to slip out under cover of darkness.

  The more obvious explanation for his flight is that his second statement was true. He let himself into his grandmother's house and was so shocked by what he discovered that he ran home in terror to lock himself in his bedroom.

  When Was Grace Jefferies Killed?

  The pathologist's first estimate, later dismissed as a "slip of the pen," suggested Grace died on Monday, June 1, 1970. The postman's statement, amended at trial, referred to her curtains having been drawn for several days before he decided to report his concerns to police on Friday, June 5. The blood deposits on Stamp's clothes were described as "flakes," which implies dried blood. In his second statement Stamp said, "I knew Nan was dead the minute I pushed her hand. It was cold and her fingers fell open. When I touched her shoulder it felt stiff."

  This gives us the beginnings of a time frame. Rigor mortis starts after three to four hours in the small muscles of the face, hands and feet, before affecting the larger muscles. As it wears off, it follows the same pattern. Stamp's description implies rigor was still present in the major muscle of the shoulder, but had started to disappear in the smaller ones of the hand. Because it's a chemical process, rigor can be affected by a number of variables: environmental temperature, body temperature, illness, activity before death, the physical conditions in which the corpse is left. Typically, a body that is described as cold and stiff has been dead between twelve and thirty-six hours, and one that is described as cold but not stiff may have been dead up to seventy-two hours. Cool environments and obesity delay onset, thereby extending the overall time frame. Warm environments and high metabolic activity before death advance it, thereby shortening the time frame.

  Because of these variables, rigor is a poor indication of time of death. In Grace's case, there are conflicting factors. She was a large lady, but her metabolic rate must have been high in the hour before her death as she tried to avoid her tormentor. It was summer and the ambient temperature outside was warm; however, her curtains had been pulled to shut out the sunlight and police described the house as "chilly" when they entered. Loss of blood would have lowered blood pressure, while fear would have heightened metabolic activity.

  The only records we now have of Dr. Studeley's findings come from newspapers:

  "The pathologist detailed the postmortem results and said they were consistent with Mrs. Jefferies having been dead some forty-eight hours before he examined the body ... In cross-examination, counsel for the defense challenged some of his conclusions. 'Isn't it true,' he asked, 'that the staining of the abdomen suggests decomposition was of longer duration than two days?' Dr. Studeley denied this. 'The process is faster when a body is exposed to air.' Fanshaw then asked why he'd found no evidence of rigor mortis. 'Grace Jefferies was a heavy woman. Wouldn't you have expected lingering stiffness in the larger muscles?' 'By no means,' said Dr. Studeley. The weather was warm and Mrs. Jefferies suffered horribly before she died. In such circumstances the onset and completion of rigor would be comparatively quick' " (Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, April 13, 1971). "After taking into account various factors, Dr. James Studeley said the postmortem results accorded with Mrs. Jefferies meeting her death during the morning or afternoon of June 3. He rejected defense claims that some of his conclusions were questionable" (The Times, Tuesday, ApriM 3,1971).

  Dr. Foyle's testimony for the defense put the death twenty-four to thirty-six hours earlier. However, he faltered under cross-examination.

  "The pathologist for the defense argued that putrefaction was too advanced for the forty-eight-hour estimate. 'Green staining appears on the right side of the abdomen in the first couple of days. Thereafter the discoloration spreads and the abdomen begins to swell with gas.' He pointed out that Dr. Studeley's notes from the postmortem mentioned 'pervasive staining and some bloating.' 'This is more consistent with three to four days,' he concluded. When asked by prosecuting counsel if he'd examined the body himself, Dr. Foyle admitted he hadn't" (Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, April 14,1971). "Dr. Foyle said he believed the defendant's statement 'had the ring of truth.' 'Mr. St
amp's description suggests the process of rigor mortis wasn't complete at the time he found the body. This would agree with my estimate that Mrs. Jefferies died during the night of June 1 or by the evening of June 2 at the latest.' Asked under cross-examination if he'd seen the body, he said he hadn't. 'It's a matter of interpretation,' he said. 'Assuming Dr. Studeley recorded his findings accurately, then I cannot support his conclusions. In cases like this, time of death is always difficult to establish, but there's no doubt in my mind that Mrs. Jefferies was killed much earlier than is being suggested.' However, when pressed by prosecution counsel, Dr. Foyle agreed that Dr. Studeley's conclusions were 'not beyond the bounds of possibility' " (The Times, Wednesday, April 14,1971).

  Interestingly, it was the prosecuting counsel, Robert Tring, QC, who referred to Dr. Studeley's "slip of the pen."

  "Robert Tring asked the witness why he had written four days in his postmortem notes if he was now claiming that Mrs. Jefferies had been dead only two days. Dr. Studeley said it was 'a slip of the pen' which he corrected on the official report" (The Times, Wednesday, April 14,1971).

  It's hard to understand why Adam Fanshaw didn't challenge this error when his own pathologist was arguing that three to four days was a more likely estimate. One explanation is that he planned to recall Studeley after his own pathologist had successfully established the night of June 1/day of June 2 as a possibility, and/or use the mistake as the main focus of his summing-up. Another explanation is that he didn't want to alienate the jury by badgering an elderly pathologist for a lapse of concentration, and intended to infer that Studeley had changed his mind under pressure from the police. In either event, the ground was cut from under his feet when Dr. Foyle agreed that Studeley's findings were "not beyond the bounds of possibility."