Arthur & George

'No evidence of any apron was given in court.'

'That is not my point. I am merely giving you a different explanation from your own. Another might be that there were others present. If there were a gang, as has been suggested, then the young man might not have done the ripping himself, but might have been standing by, and a few drops of blood might have fallen on his clothes in the process.'

'Again, no such evidence was given.'

'But there was a strong suggestion of a gang, was there not?'

'There was deliberate mention of a gang. But not a shred of proof.'

'The other man who ripped his horse?'

'Green. But even Green did not claim there was a gang.'

'Sir Arthur, I quite follow your argument, and your desire for evidence to support it. I merely say, there are other possibilities, whether or not they were brought out in court.'

'You are quite right.' Arthur decided not to press further on this. 'May we talk instead about the hairs? You said in your evidence that you picked twenty-nine hairs from the clothing, and that when you examined them under the microscope they were – if I remember your words correctly – "similar in length, colour and structure" to those from the piece of skin cut from the Colliery pony.'

'That is correct.'

'"Similar". You did not say "exactly the same as".'

'No.'

'Because they were not exactly the same as?'

'No, because that is a conclusion rather than an observation. But to say that they were similar in length, colour and structure is, in layman's terms, to say that they were exactly the same.'

'No doubt in your mind?'

'Sir Arthur, in the witness box I always err on the side of caution. Between ourselves, and under the conditions you have proposed for this interview, I would assure you that the hairs on the clothing were from the same animal whose skin I examined under the microscope.'

'And from exactly the same part too?'

'I do not follow you.'

'The same beast, but also the same part of the beast, namely the belly?'

'Yes, that is true.'

'Now, the hairs on different parts of a horse or pony would vary in length, and perhaps thickness and perhaps structure. Hairs from the tail or mane, for example, would be different?'

'That is also true.'

'Yet all of the twenty-nine hairs you examined were exactly the same, and from exactly the same part of the pony?'

'Indeed.'

'Can we imagine something together, Dr Butter? Again, in complete confidence, within these anonymous walls. Let us imagine – distasteful as it might be – that you or I go out to disembowel a horse.'

'If I may correct you, the pony was not disembowelled.'

'No?'

'The evidence given was that it had been ripped, and was bleeding, and had to be shot. But the bowels were not hanging from the cut as they would have been had it been attacked differently.'

'Thank you. So, imagine we wish to rip a pony. We would have to approach it, calm it down. Stroke its muzzle, perhaps, talk to it, stroke its flank. Then imagine how we might hold it while we rip it. If we are to rip the belly, we might stand against its flank, perhaps put an arm over its back, holding it there while we reached underneath with whatever instrument we were using.'

'I do not know. I have never attended such a gruesome scene.'

'But you do not dispute that this is how you might do it? I have horses myself, they are nervous creatures at the best of times.'

'We were not in the field. And this was not a horse from your stables, Sir Arthur. This was a pit pony. Are not pit ponies notorious for their docility? Are they not used to being handled by miners? Do they not trust those who approach them?'

'You are right, we were not in the field. But indulge me for the moment. Imagine that the act was done as I described it.'

'Very well. Though of course it might have been done quite differently. If there was more than one person present, for example.'

'I grant you that, Dr Butter. And you must grant me in return that if the deed were done roughly as I described it, then it is inconceivable that the only hairs which ended up on the individual's clothing were all from the same place, namely the belly, which in any case is not where you would touch the animal to calm it. And further, the same hairs are found on different parts of the clothing – on both the sleeve and the left breast of the jacket. Would you not expect, at the very minimum, some hairs from another part of the pony?'

'Perhaps. If your description of events is the true one. But as before you offer only two possible explanations – that of the prosecution, and your own. There is a wide expanse between them. For instance, there might have been some longer hairs on the clothing, but they were noticed by the culprit and removed. That would not be surprising, would it? Or they might have blown away in the wind. Or again, there might have been a gang…'

Arthur then moved, very cautiously, towards the 'obvious' solution proposed by Wood.

'You work at Cannock, I believe?'

'Yes.'

'The piece of skin was not cut by you?'

'No, by Mr Lewis who attended the animal.'

'And it was delivered to you at Cannock?'

'Yes.'

'And the clothing was also delivered?'

'Yes.'

'Before or afterwards?'

'What do you mean?'

'Did the clothing arrive before the skin, or the skin before the clothing?'

'Oh, I see. No, they arrived together.'

'At the same time?'

'Yes.'

'By the same police officer?'

'Yes.'

'In the same parcel?'

'Yes.'

'Who was the police officer?'

'I have no idea. I see so many. Besides, they all look young to me nowadays, so they all look the same.'

'Do you remember what he said?'

'Sir Arthur, this was over three years ago. There is not the slightest reason why I should remember a word he said. He would merely have told me that the parcel came from Inspector Campbell. He might have said what was in it. He might have said the items were for examination, but I hardly needed to be told that, did I?'

'And during the time these items were in your possession, they were kept scrupulously apart, the skin and the clothing? I do not intend to sound like counsel.'

'You do a very good likeness, if I may say so. And naturally I see where you are heading. There was no possibility of contamination in my laboratory, I can assure you.'

'I was not for a moment suggesting it, Dr Butter. I was heading in a different direction. Can you describe to me the parcel you received?'

'Sir Arthur, I can see exactly where you are heading. I have not stood cross-examination by defence counsel for these last twenty years without recognizing such an approach, or without having to answer for the procedures of the police. You were hoping I might say that the skin and the clothing were all rolled up together in some old piece of sacking into which the police had incompetently stuffed them. In which case you impugn my integrity as well as theirs.'

There was a steeliness now overlaying Dr Butter's civility. This was a witness you would always prefer to have on your side.

'I would not do such a thing,' said Arthur mollifyingly.

'You just have, Sir Arthur. You implied that I might have ignored the possibility of contamination. The items were separately wrapped and sealed, and no amount of shaking them around could have made the hairs escape from one package into the other.'

'I am obliged to you, Dr Butter, for eliminating this possibility.' And thus leaving it down to a choice of two: police incompetence before the items were packed separately, or police malice while this was happening. Well, he had pressed Butter far enough. Except… 'May I ask one more question? It is purely factual.'

'Of course. Forgive my irritation.'

'It is understandable. I was behaving too much like a defence counsel, as you observed.'

'It was not so much that. It is this. I have worked with the Staffordshire Constabulary for twenty years and more. Twenty years of going to court and having to answer sly questions based on assumptions I know to be false. Twenty years of seeing a jury's ignorance being played to. Twenty years of presenting evidence which is as clear and unambiguous as I can make it, which is based on rigorous scientific analysis, and then being treated, if not as a fraud, then as someone who is merely giving an opinion, that opinion being no more valuable than the next man's. Except that the next man does not have a microscope and if he did would not be competent to focus it. I state what I have observed – what I know – and find myself being told disdainfully that this is merely what I happen to think.'