Thread by @ForensicFibres

#DanielMorgan - a #forensic fibre expert's view - thread - the information I have used to review forensic fibre issues in this is based entirely on the report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel which can be found here danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk 1/

text taken directly from the report are quoted using "". The report is 1200+ pgs long and covers a wide range of issues, I will restrict my review to the examination of the key exhibits, namely the murder weapon, Daniel Morgan's clothes and any other exhibits 2/

recovered from suspects after the crime that may be relevant brief summary - "Daniel Morgan’s body was discovered by a customer who drove into the Golden Lion public house car park at about 9.40 pm on 10 March 1987 the customer who had discovered Daniel Morgan’s 3/

body stated that he had an axe embedded ‘in the right of his neck’. He saw two packets of crisps on the ground close to where Daniel Morgan’s left hand lay and could see that his trousers were torn"the #forensic examination at the scene has been described as "pathetic" 4/

and "poor" in the report. They are right and are probably being, if anything, a little too kind in their descriptions.

There were a few interactions with the body by persons prior to it being moved to the mortuary - "The customer touched the back of Daniel 5/

Morgan’s left hand which, in later evidence at the Inquest, he said was cold to the touch."....A Police Sergeant and a Police Constable were the first officers to arrive, at 9.52 pm.The Police Constable checked Daniel Morgan’s body but was unable to find any sign 6/

of a pulse. The Police Constable stated: ‘I was the only person to touch the body and that was to feel for a pulse in the right wrist. The body was not moved at all...." 7/

- but another police officer did search the body too..."DS Graham Frost had touched Daniel Morgan’s body in order to perform a search."

"The divisional Police Surgeon arrived at 10.55 pm. He examined Daniel Morgan’s body and certified that he was dead." I 8/

presume this required the Surgeon to have physical contact with the body, taking pulse etc... although there is no mention of that specifically in the report. 9/

"The Coroner’s Officer was informed of the murder at 11.30 pm. He attended the scene and arranged for the removal of Daniel Morgan’s body. Francis Chappell & Sons Funeral Directors were called at about 12.25 am. Staff from the Funeral Directors arrived at approximately 10/

01.00 am and transferred Daniel Morgan’s body, which had been covered in plastic sheeting, to Lewisham Public Mortuary at 01.07 am on 11 March 1987."

there is little by way of information in the report as to how the body was secured on its way to the mortuary, 11/

and nothing in the report as to how the body was stored and secured at the mortuary whilst it awaited the post mortem examination by the pathologist. There are precautions taken in relation to the preservation of trace evidence now that may not have been the 12/

norm in 1987.

In relation to what this means for #forensic #fibres, it means that there has been some interactions between the body and others prior to evidence being sent for forensic examination. This is not unusual for any murder case. There is always a 13/

risk that interactions may contaminate a murder victim with fibres and other evidential materials, but it is far more important to ascertain whether a person is still alive when their body is discovered, than presume death for fear of contaminating a crime scene. 14/

therefore the #fibres present on Daniel Morgan's body and clothing at the mortuary will represent those fibres obtained from contact with the offender(s), previous contacts inside the pub and, albeit to a lesser extent, previous contacts he had during his working 15/

day. Interestingly there is evidence that Daniel Morgan wore a suit that day that he had just picked up from the dry cleaners. "At 10.20 am, Daniel Morgan returned to the office, having left earlier to collect a suit from the dry cleaner. He changed his clothing. 16/

He was wearing the suit and black shoes when he was found murdered."

there would also likely have been loss of #fibres from the surfaces of the body in moving it to the mortuary, however, depending on the precautions taken, you would not expect all evidence 17/

to be lost. The sheeting used to cover the body at the scene is only mentioned once in the entire report - it does not appear to have been examined. It is likely that this sheeting would contain evidence too.

At the mortuary a post mortem examination was undertaken. 18/

"At 1.00 pm on 11 March 1987, Dr Michael Heath, a Home Office pathologist, conducted an examination of Daniel Morgan’s body....Dr Michael Heath removed the axe without difficulty, and handed it to DS Graham Frost for further examination. Of the five wounds on 19/

Daniel Morgan’s head, he concluded that woundsone, three, four and five were consistent with having been caused by an axe, resulting in direct brain damage which caused death. Wound two was consistent with having been caused by a blow to the head or contact with 20/

a heavy blunt surface such as the ground. He later identified wound two as having been suffered after wound four and before wound one. Dr Heath also noted with reference to wound five that ‘[t]here was a contusion incorporating a superficial laceration. There 21/

was no evidence of defence wounds. The axe, the murder weapon, went with the body, in-situ, to the mortuary. It was not recovered separately at the scene and secured and bagged etc. 22/

"Dr Michael Heath identified spots of blood on Daniel Morgan’s jacket, tie and shirt, and noted significant damage to the waistband and seam of the right leg of Daniel Morgan’s trousers. He described the tear in the trousers as being a ‘tear down the upper third 23/

outer seam of the right leg, which also involved the right pocket’. Later, in 1989, Dr Heath provided a witness statement to the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation noting that‘[t]here was no evidence that the victim had been moved after the attack’." 24/

"Four items from the post mortem examination on 11 March were submitted for forensic examination on that date: the axe which had Elastoplast strips around the shaft, a specimen ofblood for blood grouping, blood oxalate and urine. At least two forensic scientists, 25/

including Philip Toates, were involved in the examination of the exhibits at the Forensic Science Laboratory. Fingerprint experts from the Metropolitan Police’s Serious Crime Unit dealt with fingerprint requests."

"The axe was received by Philip Toates on 13 26/

March 1987. It was regarded as a very important possible source of forensic evidence against any identified or possible suspect. In the absence of an identified suspect, the weapon was considered the best possibility for forensic traces."

Simply put the axe is 27/

the only exhibit in the paltry number of exhibits that were recovered that must have had contact with the offender(s). It is, together with the victim's clothing, the most important exhibits that the investigation and any future investigations can rely on to 28/

get anything new.

"On 16 and 19 March 1987, fibres were recovered from the axe, from the plasters which had been stuck onto the axe handle, and from beneath the plasters on the axe. In total, 117 fibres were recovered during the Morgan One Investigation. Those 29/

fibres were preserved on Sellotape mountings for comparison with any exhibits which might be submitted by the Morgan One Investigation. Ultimately, a total of 183 individual fibres were recovered, during later investigations, from the axe and from the strips of 30/

Elastoplast which had been placed around the axe handle."

Bravo! for a diligent approach to the examination of the murder weapon in 1987. Frighteningly, today, 34 years on, with the police in charge of forensic science in England and Wales, there's no guarantee 31/

that fibres would be recovered from an axe if it was examined in a murder case today. All the more important considering that modern day DNA analysis has been brought to bear on the exhibits in this case recently and yielded absolutely nothing. Nadda. Zip.

In 32/

relation to the fibres recovered from the axe, there are several interesting points. Firstly that there were so many fibres recovered. Weapons like axes, knives etc tend to be smooth surfaces that would not normally not allow fibres transferred to them to persist 33/

for very long.....unless the fibres get trapped in areas of damage - such as rough areas of wooden handles or serrated cutting edges, or get stuck on the surfaces because the item is blood stained and as liquid blood dries it sticks the fibres to the surface. 34/

For this axe, it was blood stained but also contained sticky elastoplasts on the handle, perhaps put there to cover rough areas which could otherwise injure the person wielding the axe.

So where have these fibres come from? Excluding contamination post offence, 35/

the fibres will have either come from the offender, the environment in which the axe was stored prior to the offence (such as an offender's clothing and/or vehicle and/or home), and the victim. Those fibres stuck in blood likely to be more recently deposited whereas 36/

those fibres on the sticky surfaces of the elastoplast could be a recent deposit if the sticky surfaces were exposed during the attack, or could be much more historical and refer primarily to the fibre environment in which the axe was present within when the elastoplast 37/

was applied. This would particularly apply to fibres recovered underneath the elastoplasts which, with some assumptions, would be more likely to have been historical merely by virtue of the fact that the surfaces underneath the elastoplasts would not have been 38/

available for fibres to land on during the attack.

"On 19 March 1987, Daniel Morgan’s shoes, suit trousers and jacket, socks, underpants, tie and shirt were submitted for examination to identify any ‘foreign fibres present, foreign blood present, and possible 39/

fingerprinting’ [emphasis in original]. Samples of Daniel Morgan’s head and facial hair were submitted to the laboratory as control samples for comparison."

This was typical of a request for forensic examination many years ago, i.e. heres a load of clothing, 40/

do everything that's needed.

"On 25 March 1987, DI Allan Jones and Philip Toates agreed that Daniel Morgan’s jacket should first be sent for fingerprint analysis, as DI Jones wanted to try a new process (metal deposition examination) for securing fingerprints. 41/

They also agreed that there should be no examination for foreign blood and fibres in the absence of a suspect. Philip Toates informed the Panel that DI Jones was to discuss the fingerprinting with the fingerprinting department and then liaise with him (Philip 42/

Toates) if a fingerprint examination was to go ahead, so that fibres could be preserved if/where possible. It is not known whether a fingerprint examination occurred. There is no record that any fingerprints were found."

This is a good example of why Police should 43/

not be in charge of a #forensic strategy or have influence over scientists in dictating a strategy. It's appalling to think now that such an approach was undertaken on a primary exhibit in a murder case, but this was a long time ago in a galaxy far away. In relation 44/

to the foreign fibres and blood not being of value without a suspect, this was pre-DNA and also the level of knowledge of fibres as an intelligence tool was not understood widely in 1987.

"Philip Toates recorded on 28 April 1987 that the jacket which Daniel 45/

Morgan had been wearing when he was murdered was heavily bloodstained and that it was not feasible to examine it for blood from a third party. He also found that there were some hairs adhering especially at the outside of the collar and that loose debris was returned 46/

to the exhibit bag which was sealed. He reported that ‘[n]othing of apparent significance was found’ on Daniel Morgan’s shoes, jacket and trousers. Extraneous fibres were found on both the jacket and trousers, but these fibres were not recovered. As DI Allan Jones 47/

instructed him not to conductany further examination on these items, Philip Toates advised in his laboratory report that theyshould be retained in their sealed packages. Philip Toates observed that the presence of red fibres matching the clothing of known associates 48/

was unlikely to be significant."

Unfortunately examining items for the first time in forensic laboratory without recovering fibres will result in a loss of evidence. Although the items were returned to their packaging, failing to recover fibres the moment the 49/

item is out of the bag is very very poor practice and still is. Sadly, there are plenty of exhibits in 2021 where fibres are not being recovered because the police won't pay for their recovery. it wouldn't surprise me if there was more fibre recovery going on 50/

nationally in 1987 than there is now in 2021, and if you believe the police that that's because they are doing investigations using mobile phones and that society is better as a result then you should stop reading this thread. We've learned nothing. Nadda.

The 51/

last point relating to the red fibres does not take into account the fact the clothing worn by Daniel Morgan had been collected from the dry cleaners that day. Why is this important well, laundry is a very efficient way to remove fibres from clothes so any fibres 52/

present on Daniel Morgan's clothes from associates based on historic non-offence related contacts would likely have been removed prior to him wearing those clothes, that day. Perhaps Philips Toates did not know that Daniel's clothes had been dry cleaned, or perhaps 53/

he did and didn't attach any significance to it. Research on the effect of laundry on fibre recovery didn't appear until 1986 and may not yet have penetrated the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory by March 1987.

The panel commented that "Philip 54/

Toates acted properly in placing Daniel Morgan’s jacket and trousers in a sealed evidence bag, with the fibres which had been identified on them. The fibres could have only been of use if they were compared with other fibres from a suspect’s clothing
or other 55/

material associated with a suspect and found to be a match." I'm not sure if the panel are merely highlighting here what was done or agreeing with the statement as to the value of pursuing the fibre examination further. If its the latter, well, I'm sorry panel, 56/

but I disagree. There's tons of information present within the populations of fibres on that axe, that if properly understood and applied could have led the investigation and perhaps even have solved this case.

Looking at these fibres in detail: " By 19 March 57/

1987, Philip Toates, the forensic scientist, had recovered fibres from the murder weapon onto four Sellotape strips, which he secured on acetate sheets. He marked these sheets as Tapes 1, 2, 3 and 4. He did not examine the tapes until 10 April, a week after the 58/

arrests. Ninety-three fibres were ultimately recovered, ten of which were of a red viscose type and others of a different, dark fibre, a wool material. The red viscose fibres were fine and ‘would indicate a possible lining material of trousers or a jacket’. This 59/

information could have informed the searches."

At this point in the report there isn't a full list of all the fibre types present. I suspect the red viscose population stood out amongst the others and therefore became prominent. It can be a difficult task proposing 60/

likely sources of fibres merely from the types of fibres present and it's not known from the text in the report where on the axe these fibres were recovered from or whether they were in blood etc.

Later in the report there is a glimpse of other fibres present 61/

too: "The items of clothing were also examined as a possible source for the red viscose fibres which had previously been found on the plaster on the axe. All had red (or reddish) component fibres but none of these matched the red viscose fibres found on the axe.. 62/

Philip Toates examined Jonathan Rees’s jumper to establish whether fibres found on the axe matched the fibres on the jumper. No matching fibres were found. A number of blue wool fibres recovered from the axe were also compared with the fibres on Jonathan Rees’s 63/

suit jacket. These fibres also did not match the jacket. Philip Toates also compared the shoes, a grey scarf found at Southern Investigations andthe red pullover found at Jean Wisden’s home with one pink wool fibre and one red wool fibre recovered from the axe. 64/

No match was found."

So we know there were red viscose, blue wool, pink wool and red wool fibres, and that some of these fibres were found on the plaster on the axe, but doesn't specify if the fibres were found on the surface of the plaster or stuck in the sticky 65/

parts of it. Perhaps the fibres came from a soft furnishing such as a carpet or rug made of a blend of multicoloured viscose and wool fibres, rather than a single source of fabric made from a single coloured fibre type. I would include fabric used to line car 66/

boots and car seat materials too.

There does appear to have been an attempt to link the axe to the vehicle of one of these suspects via these fibres on the axe: " On 07 March 1988, police asked Jonathan Rees to bring his BMW car in for further forensic examination. 67/

Jonathan Rees asked that a police officer and Scenes of Crime officer attend at his office. On 10 March 1988, fibre samples were collected from the seats, front
and rear floor mats and boot mat. A number of tapings and control samples retrieved from the
car were 68/

submitted for comparison with the fibres found on the axe. No matching fibres
were found." Although the panel provide further that: "Jonathan Rees’s car had not been fully forensically examined before this point, a year after the murder. The consequence of this 69/

failure was that, even if evidence had been found which linked the car to the murder of Daniel Morgan, there would have been scope for arguments that there was no continuity to any such evidence secured, and that there was a possibility of contamination of such 70/

evidence in the year between the
date of the murder and the search of the car."; we found fibres in a vehicle seized several months after a murder which still contained within it fibres that were also present on the murder victim's body, and led to the conviciton 71/

of a murderer who had evaded justice for a crime committed in 1993. So it's always unwise to consider the likelihood of finding evidence as low merely on the basis of time elapsed since the offence, particularly in intractable, difficult, messy cases like this. 72/

In 2006 LGC Forensics were instructed to carry out a review. Their recommendations appear solely to be focussed on DNA relating to the axe, Daniel Morgan's clothing and hairs. To say this is an opportunity missed is an understatement. Why didn't LGC Forensics 73/

recommend more in-depth fibre work? In the end, nothing came from the wonders of DNA advances. Nadda.

"The statement of the LGC Forensic Scientist showed that a number of experiments were conducted using the exhibits available, including the axe used to kill 74/

Daniel Morgan, DNA samples, clothing, photographs and letters, and various other extraneous materials such as hairs, fibres, frozen extracts and ‘tapings’. This was in an attempt to secure scientific findings which might have assisted in determining the circumstances 75/

surrounding the murder of Daniel Morgan. The only DNA (STR) profile identified during this process was that of Daniel Morgan. Minor DNA components secured did not match any of the 31 individuals profiled in the case. The Forensic Scientist stated that the tapings 76/

from the plasters consisted of four pieces of transparent plastic sheet and two small dishes containing some other fibres and debris which appeared to be heavily stained with blood. The plastic sheets were labelled Tape 1 to 4 and subsequently examined. A single 77/

minor DNA component was recovered from Tape 3 from the axe. It was recorded as occurring in approximately 50 per cent of the population and was therefore of negligible significance."

In 2009 the Met Police tried again, this time with Cellmark Forensic Services 78/

looking for mitochondrial DNA links, but the "findings of this exercise were subsequently dismissed in January 2014 when it was concluded that the mitochondrial sequence from the hair sample was similar to that of Daniel Morgan who ‘cannot be excluded from being 79/

the source".

In over 30 years, in spite of the fact that the only forensic lead that exists are fibres on the murder weapon, there does not appear to have been a fully comprehensive forensic fibre examination done in this case. No survey of the fibre populations 80/

on the clothing of Daniel Morgan for leads. Nothing further on the fibres from the murder weapon since 1988. 81/

Entirely symptopmattic of a police led forensic investigation that focusses on DNA and when DNA fails to provide an answer, the only solution is to try more DNA. Is there hope for this case? 82/

Always, in spite of the limited number of exhibits and time elapsed, we've all solved these difficult cases before. But without a change in forensic strategy this is going nowhere. 83/

@threadreaderapp unroll