When Your Prints Are All Over It

The prosecutor, Angus Finn QC, stood up. London's Old Bailey Central Criminal Court No 1 was so silent, you could have heard the proverbial pin drop.

Finn approached the jury, head down, as though immersed in thought. He stopped in front of them, paused, then looked up and spoke.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your careful attention to these proceedings, which I know must have been, at times, distressing. Murder is never pretty, but it was essential that you were presented with all the facts here, with the irrefutable facts, because it is on this that you will reach your verdict: And your verdict must surely be to convict this man!" With a dramatic gesture, Finn pointed at the defendant in the dock, who refused to catch his eye.

Finn reminded the jury of the salient points of the prosecution case. He also touched on the essential items the defence had relied on, showing why they did not cast any doubt on the defendant's guilt.

Finally, the confident prosecutor came to his summing up.

"For a prosecuting barrister, like me, there is a holy trinity of evidence that needs to be present: This is motive, means and opportunity. Did the defendant have a motive? Well, that was never in any doubt. You have heard from the defendant himself that he wished the victim were dead. So you must, ladies and gentlemen, accept that the defendant had a motive. Did he have the means? You have heard from Police Officers that they found this man in possession of firearms. No, it is true; the Police did not find the specific weapon from which the killer fired the fatal shot. However, with complete certainty, the forensic officer told the court that the killer fired the fatal shot from a Glock 9 handgun. The defendant had six such weapons in his possession – six - and remember, he does not have a gun licence. It is undoubtedly credible that he had another gun of the same type that he simply disposed of after committing the crime. So, did he have means? Indeed, that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

With means and motive assured, we are left only opportunity to prove: This is where the defence is hoping to introduce an element of doubt, and I am telling you that there is no doubt. Yes, a witness has sworn that the defendant could not have been in that Casino that night. She claims he was in bed with her. It is for you to judge how reliable a witness you find her and, therefore, how credible her evidence. But let me remind you what the prosecution has proved in this case.

A man in a dinner jacket, wearing an 'Anonymous' mask, was at the Cockney Casino in London's Park Lane that evening. You heard the expert evidence that proved that the masked man was the same height and build as the defendant.

The camera footage from the Casino shows the moment the killer produces a weapon from under his jacket and shoots the victim, execution-style, in the back of the head, two shots in quick succession in what I believe is called a 'double tap'. The victim, we heard from the pathologist, was dead before he hit the floor.

The gunman then flees, and we do not see him again. We also never see his face, as the mask never comes off. But in this court, you have seen the evidence from before the murder. The killer is seen coming through the hotel front door and already has on his mask – it was a masked ball that night, this was not suspicious – and he is also wearing full evening dress, including purple gloves. He moves from the hotel lobby down the stairs to the Casino floor. CCTV footage shows every step of his progress, including when he stops halfway down the staircase. He removes his right glove and then gets his handkerchief from his pocket and wipes his face beneath the mask. Perhaps he is sweating, thinking about what he is about to do. He replaces the handkerchief in his pocket, but he is jostled from behind before replacing his glove. His right hand goes reflexly to the side of the stairway to steady himself. He touches it a second time, then, steady again, replaces his glove and continues down to the Casino floor. Now, fingerprint experts have told you that a palm print is just as unique as a fingerprint, and each of those touches on the wall left partial palm prints from his right hand.

The staircase is decorated with gilded images of apple and pear trees, a light-hearted theme, because 'apples and pears' is cockney rhyming slang for 'stairs', and this is, of course, the Cockney Casino. His first touch was on an apple tree, and the fingerprint experts told you that the image of the top of a palm that was left was most unusual, in fact scarce, because the person whose palm it was has a distinctive pattern. We all have ridges and whorls on our prints, but this particular type of whorl is rare. It is called 'curling', and the reason is apparent: It's called that because that is how it looks. The next touch was on the adjacent pear tree. Here there is an image of a ridge from lower in the palm, but this is unusual because the ridge is truncated. This person has a scar on their palm, which cuts across this ridge. That is why only part of it has been imprinted.

I don't need to remind you that the fingerprint experts have examined the defendant's hand and confirmed that, with 99% certainty, these prints were left by this man.

And that was still not all. You heard testimony from the three expert witnesses from France, who presented evidence about the gloves the killer wore. Whilst the Police have not recovered the gloves, they did find a single purple thread on the staircase at the point where the killer stopped and stood. And the investigators found another thread deep inside the defendant's trouser pocket. The witnesses told you that these threads exactly matched one another and also matched the material used by a French company in the manufacture of men's evening gloves: These are the only gloves of this type available for sale in Britain which are purple.

So, I urge you to remember these things, as this demonstrates ample opportunity. There are five stone-cold things: Four curling whorls, three Frenchmen, two purple gloves, and a part ridge in a pear tree.

Your verdict must surely be guilty as charged."