Breaker

*16*

FAX:

From: PC Nicholas Ingram

To: DI John Galbraith

Date: 14 August-7:05 p.m.

Re: Kate Sumner murder inquiry

Sir,

I've had some follow-up thoughts on the above particularly in relation to the pathologist's report and the stranded dinghy, and as it's my day off tomorrow I'm faxing them through to you. Admittedly they are based entirely on the presumption that the stranded dinghy was involved in Kate's murder, but they suggest a new angle which may be worth considering.

I mentioned this a.m. that: 1) there's a possibility the dinghy was stolen from Lulworth Cove at the end of May, in which case the thief and Kate's murderer could be one and the same person; 2) that if my "towing" theory was correct, there was a good chance the outboard engine (make: Fastrigger; serial no: 240B 6006678) was removed and remains in the thief's possession; 3) you take another look at Steven Harding's log to see if he was in Lulworth Cove on Thursday, 29 May; 4) if he had a second dinghy stowed on board Crazy Daze-which only required a foot pump to reinflate it-it would solve some of your forensic problems; 5) he probably has a lock-up somewhere which you haven't yet discovered and which may contain the stolen outboard.

***I have since had time to consider the logistics of how the dinghy was actually removed from Lulworth Cove in broad daylight, and I've realized that Harding or indeed any boat owner would have had some difficulty.

It's important to recognize that Crazy Daze must have anchored in the middle of Lulworth Bay, and Harding could only have come ashore in his own dinghy. Joyriders going for a spin would have attracted little attention (the assumption would be that the boat belonged to them) but a man on his own, coping with two dinghies, would have stood out like a sore thumb, particularly as the only way he could have removed them from the Cove (unless he was prepared to waste time deflating them) was to tow them in tandem or parallel behind Crazy Daze. It is highly unusual for a yacht to have two dinghies, and once the theft had been reported, that fact is bound to have registered with the coastguards in the lookout point above Lulworth.

I think now that a more likely scenario for the theft was removal by foot. Let's say an opportunist thief spotted that the outboard wasn't padlocked, released its clamps, and carried it away quite openly to his car/house/garage/caravan. Let's say he wandered back half an hour later to see if the owners had returned, and finding they hadn't, he simply hoisted the dinghy above his head and carried that away too. I'm not suggesting that Kate Stunner's murder was premeditated at this early stage, but what I am suggesting is that the opportunist theft of the Spanish dinghy in May gave rise to an ideal method in August for the disposal of her body. (NB: thefts of or from boats represent some of the highest crime statistics along the south coast.) I strongly advise, therefore, that you try to find out if anyone connected with Kate was staying in or near Lulworth between 24-31 May. I suspect the sad irony will be that she, her husband, and her daughter were-there are several caravan parks and campsites around Lulworth-but I think this will please you. It strengthens the case against the husband.

For reasons that follow, I am no longer confident that you'll find the outboard. Assuming the intention was for the stolen dinghy, plus contents (i.e., Kate) to sink, then the outboard must have been on board.

You may remember my querying the "hypothermia" issue in the pathologist's report when you showed it to me on Monday. The pathologist's view is that Kate was swimming in the water for some considerable time prior to drowning, which caused her stress and cold. At the time I wondered why it took her so long to swim a comparatively short distance, and I suggested that she was more likely to suffer hypothermia from being exposed to air temperature at night rather than sea temperature-the latter being generally warmer. It would depend of course on how good a swimmer she was, particularly as the pathologist refers to her entering the sea a minimum of half a mile WSW of Egmont Bight, and I assumed she must have swum a great deal farther than his estimate. However, you told Miss Jenner this morning that Kate was a poor swimmer, and I have been wondering since how a poor swimmer could have remained afloat long enough in difficult seas to show evidence of hypothermia before death. I have also been wondering why her killer was confident of making it safely back to shore, since there are no lights on that part of the coast and the currents are unpredictable.

One explanation which covers the above is that Kate was raped ashore, her killer presumed her dead after the strangulation attempt, and the whole "drowning" exercise was designed to dispose of her body off an isolated stretch of coast.

Can you buy this reasoning? 1) He bundled her naked and unconscious body into the stolen dinghy, then took her a considerable distance-Lulworth Cove to Chapman's Pool = 8 nautical miles approx.-before he tied her to the outboard and left the dinghy to sink with its contents (wind-chill factor would already have caused hypothermia in a naked woman); 2) once set adrift, Kate came around from the strangulation attempt/Rohypnol and realized she had to save herself; 3) her broken fingers and nails could have resulted from her struggle to break free of her bonds then release the clamps holding the outboard in place in order to eject its weight, probably capsizing the dinghy in the process; 4) she used the dinghy as a float and became separated from it only when she lapsed into unconsciousness or became too tired to hold on; 5) in all events, I am guessing the dinghy traveled much closer to shore than the pathologist's estimate, otherwise the boat would have become swamped and the killer himself would have been in trouble; 6) the killer climbed the cliffs and returned to Lulworth/Kimmeridge via the coastal path during the dark hours of the night.

This is as far as my thoughts have taken me, but if the dinghy was involved in the murder then it must have come from the west-Kimmeridge Bay or Lulworth Cove-because the craft was too fragile to negotiate the race around St. Alban's Head. I realize none of this explains Hannah, although I can't help feeling that if you can discover where the stolen dinghy was hidden for two months, you may also discover where Kate was raped and where Hannah was left while her mother was being drowned.

(NB: None of the above rules out Harding-the rape may have taken place on his deck with the evidence subsequently washed away, and the dinghy may have been towed behind Crazy Daze-but does it make him a less likely suspect?)