)
) First Affidavit of Deponent:
) LAWRENCE FINLEY
) On behalf of the Defendant
) Sworn this____day of______
) 1995.
)
) Case No.
)
BETWEEN: REGINA Plaintiff
and
PATRICK DAVID NICHOLS Defendant
----------------------------------
FIRST AFFIDAVIT OF LAWRENCE FINLEY
----------------------------------
I, LAWRENCE FINLEY, of 70 Langdale Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex,
PO19 2JH, MAKE OATH and say as follows:
1. Save where as stated to the contrary, the facts and matters which I depose are within my knowledge. Where I refer to what I have been told by another person, I verily believe as much to be true.
2. I am a retired Detective Suprintendent of Police. I took early retirement from the Sussex Police Force in September 1976 when I was 52 years of age, but not wholly
--- 2 ---
of my own volition. It was
following a telephone conversation with Chief Superintendent Turner
of Headquarters, Lewes, when he expressly contacted me to say:3. I have never met Patrick David Nicholls. I confirm that, since my retirement, I have on occasions corresponded with Mr Nicholls, who has of course for many years now been arguning his innocence of the murder of Gladys Heath.
--- 3 ---
a telephone kiosk. I initially spoke to Detective Chief Inspector
Cantle, who briefly outlined events relating to the death
of Gladys Heath. He indicated that he would like me to come
to the scene. I asked at that stage whether a pathologist had made
a decision as to whether the death was by natural causes or not.
I was told that Dr Hugh Johnson, a Home Office Pathologist,
had been summoned and would be arriving at the scene just
after 9 p.m. I asked in thsoe circumstances whether it was
worth me attending, bearing in mind the various officers who
were aready there. I had in mind the fact that I was frankly very
dishevelled, and that i would not look particularly professional
if I did attend in that state. I was asked at that stage to speak
to Detective Chief Superintendent Marshall. He more or less repeated
the same point, and again I suggested that there seemed little
point in my attending. I was then asked to speak to Assistant
Chief Constable Ross, who was himself there, and he made it
quite plain that he too would like me to attend. I felt in the
circumstances that I had very little option but to attend, and
confirmed that I would do so. I did, however, warn them that I
would be looking distinctly untildy when I arrived.I duly travelled to Worthing and attended Mrs Heath's address. When I arrived, Assistant Chief Constable Ross had already departed. Of the more senior officers, present were Detective Chief Superintendent Marshall and Detective Chief Inspector Cantle. I do not think that detective Inspector Harrison was actually present on this occasion. [This passage in undelined in the original]. There were a large number of other Officers there, together with Scenes of Crime Officers. I was told that the pathologist, Dr Hugh Johnson. had not yet arrrived.
--- 4 ---
6. When I went into the property, I saw the body
of Mrs Heath at the foot of the stairs in the hallway.
I carried out an examination of the body, and saw that there
were facial injuries over the bridge of the nose and underneath
both eyes. These injuries were, in my opinion, consistent with
the woman wearing galsses at the time and coming into contact
with something. One obvious possible explanation for this,
given that she was lying at the bottom of the stairs, was
that she had fallen down those stairs. However, I discounted
that as an explanation, because there were none of the tell-tale
signs which would ordinarily be present if this had happened.
The signs which I would have expected would have been scuff marks
on the stairs and walls; scuff marks on the shoes; stair carpet
having been pulled out of position; and bruising to the hands,
arms, or knees. None of these were present. I therefore concluded
at that point that she had not fallen down the stairs. I can perhaps
point out at this atge that I never did come to any conclusion
as to exactly jow the injuries to the deceased's face had been
caused.7. Having examined the body in situ, I then went into the lounge at the front of teh house, and [found] there was little sign of disorder. I discovered there that the foam cushion of an armchair in the centre of the room was pulled forward, and was at a rakish angle to the ground. In one corner at the back of that chair, under the seat, there were three or more blood spots; and in the opposite corner were a pair of folded spectacles. Immediately in fornt of the armchair was an almost completed cardboard jigsaw puzzle of approximately 1000 pieces. The uncompleted part of about a dozen pieces [was] surrounding the puzzle, and one piece was lying on the floor at the side of the table. The coat of
--- 5 ---
the deceased woman was thrown across a chair in another part
of the room. This chair was located in the lounge immediately inside
the door and to the right. The coat was over the seat of the chair.
From the manner in which it was lying on the seat, I concluded that
the coat had probably been thrown there. [bold here == original
was underlined]. A turban hat, which presumably was worn
by the deceased, was on the floor in front of the settee.
Looking further around the room, I notivced that a clock was missing
from the centre position of the mantlepiece, but the winding key was
where the clock had been. I also concluded that two vases had been
removed from the extreme ends of the mantlepiece, and these had
apparently been substituted by ornaments taken from other parts
of the room. I discovered this simply by the evidence of dust
on the mantlepiece, and the marks left by the original vases.
With regard to the pair of spectacles, I carried out a number
of experiments with them, dropping them on the chair where they
were found. When the glasses were dropped, they folded up in
exactly the way they were discovered. The arms were not stiff.
I repeated the experiment with Dr Johnson when he arrived,
and the same results occurred.8. One further point with regard to the examination in situ was that, in the hallway near to the body of Mrs Heath, a pedestal surmounted by a pot containg artificial flowers had been knocked over. We concluded at the time, however, that this had probably been knocked over by the amulancemen who had attended when the body was discovered about 4.p.m. This pedestal did not cause me to change my mind, in regard to my conclusion that Mrs Heath had not falled down the stairs.
--- 6 ---
9. The initial examination of the scene led me to the conclusion
that there had been no struggle inside the house. There simply
was no sign of a struggle. In particular, the lounge
very plainly indicated that no struggle had taken place.
--- 7 ---
face were consistent with Mrs Heath having fallen whilst
wearing the spectacles. I do not recall anything being said
about marks inside the mouth. Having concluded the examnination
of the body, Dr Johnson took ceratin organs and parts of the body
for closer examination at the dissecting table. I went with him.
He carried out various examinatinos[sic], by dissecting
the parts of the body he had brought to the table.
When he had completed his examination, he turned to me and said:
''This is the cause, it is coronary occlusion. It is, therefore,
natural causes.''
I said, ''Well, that is it, then.''
Dr Johnson said, ''Ah, yes, but they are looking for something
other than that.''
Dr Johnson was obviously referring to the seion Officers
present in the Mortuary.
I said, '' It matters not what they want. If it is other than
natural causes, then the matter of any investigation will be
my respoinsibility. You have got to go and tell them
exactly what you have dicovered, and you conclusions.''
Dr Johnson and I then walked over to where the other Officers
were standing near the body, and he said:
''Mrs Heath has died from natural causes, and her death is as
a result of coronary occlusion.''
Having told every at the post-mortem that it was Death
by natural Cuases, and in due course, one of the Morticians
took Dr Johnson away to make an entry in the
mortuary records.
Folloing the post-mortem, various telephone calls were made and arrangements were put in hand for various Officers to attend a conference later the same morning, in view of the allegations that ceratin propert was missing from the dead woman's house. Beacusse at that stage it was indicated that it had been Death By Natural Causes
--- 8 ---
it was agreed that there was no need for me to attend
the conference, and that I could complete my time off.
I returned to my son's house at Crawley, arriving there
about 2.45 a.m.
11. It may at this stage be helpful if I indicate the conclusion which I came to in relation to the events leading up to trhe death of Mrs Heath. As I have already indicated, there was nothing in the situation I discovered which could in any way lead one to the conclusion that tehre had been any fornm of struggle. Furthermore, because of the lack of signs which I have already referred to, I discounted the possibility that Mrs Heath had fallen down the stairs. I believed, and still believe, that the deceased had come into the lounge having already received the injuries to her face. I do not know how these injuries were sustained. I think that she felt unwell, and probably staggered towards the armchair in the center of the room. She probably intended to sit on the seat, but was caught unwell again and partly collapsed onto her knees, dragging the cushion down. She was most probably using the arms of the chair for support. I think that she would have been holding her glasses in her left hand, and they would have been released, falling onto the seta in the position where we discovered them. The small blood spots would have been caused by dripping from her nose in that situation. The experiments which I carried out with the pair of glasses at the scene confirmed to me, in my own mind, that this was almost certainly what had happened. The deceased's coat had, in my view, been thrown onto the seat of the chair immediately inside the lounge, [which] is consistent with her feeling unwell. The manner in which the coat was lying indicated that it had not been neatly folded.
--- 8 ---
Again I suspect that the coat had been thrwon there during
a perod of distress in relation to the woman. I assumed that,
following all of this, Mrs Heath walked or dragged herself to
where she was ultimately found. With regard to the mantlepiece
area, the evidence there in my view certainly was not consistent
with what later transpired to be murder investigation. Clearly,
in my view, the two vases had been removed and replaced by other
ornaments in a calculated manner, perhaps by Mrs Heath herself.
--- 9 ---
why I was aked to do so, given that there [were] so many
other senior officers involved in the investigation, is
difficult to say. However, I reviewed the evidence and
discovered that six library books belonging to Worthing Library
had been found in the flat belonging to Mr Nichols. I had enquiries
made at Worthing Library, and this revealed that the books had not
been booked out. I, therefore, caused a charge relating to the
theft of the six library books to be framed.I know that Mr Nicholls was charged with this offence.
It is right to say that at this time I was involved in a very serious investigation, relating to an alleged major land fraud, which in fact occupied approximately one year of my carreer. I can say that I did not really wish to become involved any further in the investigation relating to Mrs Heath's murder, and I was able quite legitimately to devote my time to the land deal investigation. I was aware that a mini murder-squad of Detectives continued to investigate the matter; and I was aware that Mr Nichols had been remanded in custody in respect of the charge alleging theft of the six library books, to permit the murder investigation to continue. The appliaction for a remand in custody was undertaken by Mr Tom Lavelle, the Chief Prosecuting Solicitor.
--- 10 ---
When I realised that I was actually going to see Dr Johnson,
I telephoned his office. He was not available. I spke to his
secretary, and informed her that I would be arriving with other
officers to collect the report. I indicated to her that, if he
wanted to speak to me privately and out of reach of the other
two Officers who would be there, [then] we should use a particular
coded message. The object, obviously, was so that we could go into
a separate room and discuss matters alone. The basis of the
excuse to be used -- or the substance of the coded message -- was
that my Head Quarters wanted to speak to me about the land deal
investigation, and that I was to contact them by telephone.
Myself, Detective Chief Instecor Cantle, and Detective Inspector
Harrison, duly travelled to the hospital. We met Dr Johnson, and
he immediately gave to me the coded message. Together we entered
a sdeparate office. Dr Johnson then indiacted that the cause of death was Shock due to facial Injuries
--- 12 ---
and Coronary Atheroma, and he supported that a murder charge
should be preferred. We subsequently left and the pathologist's
report was taken by Detective Chief Inspector Cantle.14. the day after this, I telephoned Assistant Chief Constable Ross to inform him of the discusiions between Dr Johnson, Detective Chief Inspectot Cantle, Detective Inspector Harrison, and myself. I also told him taht we had brought back the report of Dr Johnson, and it was now the intention [to] charge Mr Nicholls with murder. Assistant Chief Constable Roass instructed that I should not proceed with this until after contacting the Chief Prosecuting Solicitor, Mr Lavelle. This I did, and arrangements were made between all interested parties on Thursday 17th April 1975. I also made arrangements for the video recordings, both at the scene and of the autopsy, to be available at the meeting. On the appointed day, we went to the house in Clifton Road and reconstructed certain aspects of the incident. When we returned to Worthing Police Station, we saw the video films. This was the first time I had seen the film, and this showed Dr Johnson giving the cause of death as Death By Natural Causes. After the film was run, the Chief Proseciting Solicitor [Mr Lavelle] stated that a charge of murder could not be preferred, and of course I agreed with that. After further discussion, it was suggested by the Chief Prosecuting Solicitor that Mr Nicholls should be charged with manslaughter and robbery involving the theft of the various items of property traced to his possession. I understand that this is what actually happened
--- 13 ---
and this was the last involvement that I had in the inestigations.
--- 14 ---
Mr Conningsby with His Honour Judge Finlay that some degree
of plea bargaining did go on at that meeting. As far as the meeting
which I had with Boorer in the cells after his sentencing [goes], I
confirm that I took no notes whatever of the meeting, but obviously
I remember it in considerable detail. I confirm that, after my
meeting with Boorer, I passed on the substance of the conversation
to Detective Chief Inspector Cantle; who subsequently arranged for
himself and Detective Inspector Harrison to interview Boorer. I
subsequently saw the statementmade by Boorer, and noticed that there
was a substantial difference between what he had told me and what he
had told those Officers relating to the five-pound notes. I made
this point to Detective Chief Inspector Cantle and urged him to
research and substantiate as much of the statement as possible.
Later, I did in fact rebuke Detective Chief Inspector Cantle
for not putting more energy into this aspect of the investigation.
The only other involvement I had in regard to Boorer's
[role] in Mr Nicholls' trial was that I was Summoned
to Lews Crown Court during Mr Nicholls' trial by William Denny QC,
who was leading the case on the part of the Crown. He wanted
to know what had transpired between myself and Boorer, when we
met after Boorer's sentencing. I provided him with full details.
I also indicated to him the difference in the evidence provided
in Boorer's statement and the interview he had with me, relating
to the five-pound notes. I have no idea whether Mr Denny
passed this information on to the defence team. I did not
refer to Dr Johnson's original post-mortem when I saw Mr Denny,
because I was not asked to do so. I therefore do not know whether
the prosecuring team knw of this problem or not.
--- 14 ---
17. I would confirm that at no time during Mr Nichols'
period in detention, or during his trial, did I make a statement
relating to any of the invlovement which I had in the criminal
investigation. I was not asked to do so. Furthermore, I suspect
that my name was not disclosed to the defence as a potential
witness at the trial. The other point I would make is that
at that time the Director of Public Prosecutions undertook
all prosecutions for muder. It was normal to send a detailed
report to his office containing the evidence against the defendant.
In this case, the report was prepared by Detective Chief Inspector
Cantle and Detective Inspector Harrison. I have a feeling the
report was actually signed by Detectice Chief Inspector cantle,
but I can't be sure. I was able to have a brief look at the report
after it was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. When I
flicked through it, I discovered that no mention in the body of the
report was made to Dr Johnson's initial finding of Death By Natural
Causes at the original post-mortem. This had expressly been
excluded. I made a very forceful comment indeed to Detective Chief
Inspector Cantle for failing to do so. The effect of the report
is, of course, that the Director of Public Prosceutions Office
would have conducted the prosecution on the basis that there was
no question relating to Dr Johnson's findings at the post-mortem.
Furthermore, prosecuting Counsel would have conducted the
prosecution on the same basis.18. I weould just refer once again to my exhibit ''LF1''. It will be observed when reading that statement that various exhibits were referred to in the body of that document. Regrettably, I no longer have copies of those exhibits.
--- 15 ---
--- 16 ---
Nicholls' pet dog. I also recall that, following the
pathologist's decision, Detective Inspector Harrison requested
that he would be allowed to have a further interview
with Mr Nichols. I indicated that this would be a complete
waste of time; but nonetheless I did not prevent him from doing so,
and I am aware that he did interview [Nicholls] [again].
--- 18 ---
2HR, acting for Mr Nichols, when he wrote me a letter
dated the 20th October 1994. He invited a reply in writing
or telephone in response to the letter: I replied ny telephone.Mr Cox never made any further contact with me.
The reamining contact has been with Messrs Barry Culshaw (Solicitors), who now act for Mr Nicholls.
Some time after my retirement, an investigation was initiated by the Sussex Police into the affairs of Mr Nicholls, and this was undrtaken by a Chief Superintendent and a Detective Chief Inspector from Thames Valley Police. I was interviewd at my home, and I co-operated fully by providing all the evidence mentioned in this Afiidavit.
Subsequently, I recieved a further visit from these two
officers, and I was told that the investigation had been
completed. The Chief Superintendent said to me:
''You will be pleased to know that I have got the videotape
in my bag. I have not seen the film. If I feel it has been
tampered with in any way, then I will take it to Kodak
for examination.''
I asked the Chief Superintendent if they had examined
the Mortuary Register at Worthing Mortuary. He knew nothng about
a Mortuary Register and, when I told him about it, he said:
''I don't propose going back into Sussex [as] I have had
enough of it. We are on our way home. As far as I am concerned,
you are the only one who is speaking the truth.
I have learned a lot
--- 19 ---
about you, and I feel it would have been a privilege
to have served with you.''
I have heard nothing, nor seen these Officers, since that day.
I think the investigation was towards the end of 1977.
SWORN by the above named deponent, LAWRENCE FINLAY, at ________________________________ In the County of __________________ This_____day of________________1995 BEFORE ME .............................. Solicitor/Commissioner for Oaths/ Officer of the Court appointed to Take Affidavits.
[re-typed by Dave<XEMU> in April 1996; 99% verbatim apart from a few punctuation changes, none of which alter the sense]