In the middle of the day on the 21st of August 2023, on a quiet street in Shrewsbury, a DPD delivery driver was ambushed and killed whilst on his rounds. The group used a hodgepodge array of weapons. Pathology evidence showed that whether the skin was broken or not, the underlying damage tells its own powerful tale.
Weapon 1: Knife
- Two stab wounds, both to the back
- One had “completely transected” a rib
The rib was cut in two. Bones are, by their nature, hard to damage. Whilst a rib may be prone to cracking in a fall, the amount of force needed to cut through one was “severe”. The story therefore gained another detail: whoever used that weapon put a great amount of effort into it. They succeeded in driving the knife deep into the body.
The shape – or “track” – of a stab wound can be informative as to what weapon was used. The width of a blade can broadly be assessed from the path it makes into the body. However, aside from stabbing someone in their sleep, the chances of a neat cut the exact width of the blade are slim. Care must be taken in drawing too many conclusions from an incident where the victim was moving at the same time.
Even more care should be taken when trying to reach a conclusion about length of the weapon. A minimum length can be estimated, but the body compresses under the force of an impact. This is particularly important where the stab is to the chest: it is a part of the body evolved to move for the lungs to function. So, a 3 inch blade may appear to have reached further into the chest cavity because the pushing action has squashed the skin and ribs on the way. A witness who tries to say the blade seized was therefore – on that alone – the weapon used should be challenged for over-egging their conclusion.
Weapon 2: Axe
- Three chop wounds to the head
- All distinct with clean edges: ie the blade, not the butt was chosen by the attacker
- One of the chop wounds fragmented the skull
- Another broke it but did not pierce through to the brain
These wounds killed the victim. He did not die immediately, though. Neuropathology showed the part of his brain which was damaged would not even have stopped him trying to move. However, when paired with the lack of blood staining anywhere else on the street (the scalp would have bled a lot, straight away) it became clear he did not move again.
Specialist neuropathology can assist with what impact such heavy blows had. Where there were bruises (contusions) on the brain paired with tears (lacerations) in the same area, it tells the court that a chop wound was the culprit. Bruising alone would point to a blunt object. When a group attack is considered, these distinctions can be used to infer who did what.
Weapon 3: Golf putter
- Partial amputation of the pinna: it left the victim’s ear in tatters
- Bruising of the skin with rounded edges
- Fracture of the skull with matching rounded edges
A golf putter makes a surprisingly effective weapon. The long handle is topped with a solid metal head with a small surface area. A big swing can put a lot of power into one small point of impact. This weapon was found at the scene with the head detached and the shaft bent to nearly 90 degrees.
Neuropathology showed side to side bruising of the brain: the blow was hard enough to rattle it around and cause damage, which of course is consistent with what state the weapon was left in. The injuries were distinct enough to separate them out from the other wounds. Those defending can use this material to suggest direct responsibility for those can be attributed to others.
Other blunt weapons
- Various other weapons carried by rest of the group
- There was a large (8cm x 6cm) bruise to the deltoid (the shoulder muscle)
What was under the bruise is the most telling. The fat in that area had been liquified. To turn the natural fatty deposits below the skin into liquid requires a severe amount of force. The attacker who used that blunt object – like the knife assailant – put a lot of effort into it. This was deployed by the Prosecution to show that even those who did not carry traditional “weapons” still wielded their items with power and intent to do at least really serious harm.
The importance of other evidence
Pathologists are not – contrary to their portrayals on television – bestowed with special powers to recreate exactly what happened just by looking at a body. Most when giving evidence will be cautious to explain the limits of their conclusions. If they do not, or have not done so in their report, those defending can use this to damage the witness’ impartiality in the eyes of the jury.
Comparing a pathologist’s conclusions with the other evidence in the case – agreed or not – can bolster or weaken their evidence. By ensuring earlier in the case that the Scenes Of Crime Officers who gave evidence covered the lack of blood elsewhere in the scene, the Prosecution were able to sustain a safe conclusion that the victim did not move after his head injuries.
Lawyers for both sides should not underestimate the importance of the other scientific evidence when considering pathology. The use of summaries of expert conclusions under CrPR 19.3, served as “SFR/1’s”, is important. If there is material which could support (or undermine) a pathologist’s evidence – such as blood pattern analysis – prompt notice under CrPR 19.3 (5) that the evidence is not agreed is essential to preserve the challenge to it. The time limit is 10 days from service, although in practice notice in a timely Defence Statement will be accepted by the Court.
Conclusion
Pathology evidence can tell a powerful narrative, especially with careful consideration of what the attacker must have been doing to achieve that damage. In cases of self-defence the same points can be made of any injuries apparent on the defendant. The jury can then step back and add up the total effect to determine causation and intent.
It is essential however for lawyers to go beyond the pathologist’s report and compare it to other evidence in the case. Every factual assumption in the report should be compared to scene and scientific evidence. These can reveal lines of attack, or help avoid bad points being taken in front of the jury.
Further information
For more information from the crime team, contact clerks@36crime.co.uk
Involving James Bruce
