Chameleon's Shadow

METROPOLITAN

POLICE

INTERNAL MEMO To: ACC Clifford Golding From: Det Supt Brian Jones Date: 1 May 2007 Subject: Peel/Britton/Atkins inquiry

Sir,

Progress to date

As I reported yesterday, there’s been little movement in the P/B/A inquiry since the initial flurry of interest last month when we made public that we believed the murders were linked. The team has interviewed some 2,500 people – friends, relatives, neighbours, employees, taxi drivers, regulars at the different gay clubs and bars – but there are no consistent factors between the three men apart from varying lengths of army service and homosexual leanings.

The wives of the two younger men, Peel and Atkins, describe their husbands as bisexual. Mrs Peel says the estrangement was never supposed to be permanent. ‘We were going through a bad patch and Harry picked up a bloke in his taxi one night. They had sex and it confused Harry. He’d had a couple of encounters when he was in the army which he never forgot. He told me he wanted to try the ‘gay’ scene for a while. We agreed he should rent a bedsit so that he could have his own space, but he used to drop by almost every day. He talked about moving back the last time I saw him.’

For the six months of the estrangement, Peel was a regular on the gay scene. He visited the bars and clubs – either as a punter or in his role as cab driver. He preferred working nights and most of the bouncers knew how to contact him if customers wanted a taxi. In support of his wife’s claim that he was talking about ‘moving back’, several of his friends say he missed her. They had been married for 24 years.

Mrs Atkins cites her own affair as the reason for her divorce. ‘Kevin was very discreet about his gay encounters because he didn’t want to embarrass me or the kids. They started about five years into the marriage. As far as I know they were always one-night stands, so I think he probably did use male prostitutes. It was like an addiction, something he had to do every so often, but he always said it was me he loved. I suppose you can’t help your feelings. I couldn’t help mine when I fell in love with Roger. Kevin blamed himself when I asked for a divorce. He said he’d promise never to go with a man again if I’d stay with him, but it was too late by then.’

Atkins was also known to attend the bars and clubs, although not to the same extent as Peel. We have found one ‘partner’ that he took home for a single night – a 28-yr-old marine who admits to being paid – but Atkins preferred using dating agencies on the net. Most of his encounters seem to have been with soldiers. His wife said he loved his 15 years in the Parachute regiment. ‘He wasn’t a predator. He was only interested in consensual sex.’

Friends of Martin Britton describe him as homosexual. He lived in a committed relationship for 20+ years until 2005, when his partner, John Prentice, died of cancer. There are some indications that Britton had casual relationships afterwards – his brother, Hugh, speaks of seeing younger men at the house from time to time – but he can’t remember their names and gives only vague descriptions. Despite considerable help from the gay community, we have been unable to locate anyone who admits to going to Britton’s house in the last two years other than his established friends.

Britton’s photograph was not recognized by any of the staff or regulars at the bars and clubs in the area, and his friends say he wasn’t the type to trawl for sex. In addition, none of them support his brother’s claims to have seen younger men in the Greenham Road house. The descriptions neighbours have given of his visitors match his friends – older men and women – but everyone agrees that he rarely entertained.

His next-door neighbour, Mrs Rahman, said, ‘When John was alive, he and Martin used to go to the theatre and opera on a regular basis. They both loved classical music and anything to do with the stage. Martin said it wasn’t the same when there was no one to share the experience with, and he stopped going after John died. Most evenings he sat at home and listened to his CD collection alone. It was sad. I think Martin was shy and, without John to keep pushing him to do things, he simply withdrew into himself. I can’t imagine him inviting strangers back for sex. He just wasn’t like that.’

This would suggest that his brother’s evidence is unreliable. However, Hugh Britton was Martin’s only regular visitor. He used to call in once a week to make sure ‘everything was all right’. He said further, ‘There were often people in the house when John was alive, so I didn’t think anything about it. I remember Martin introducing one of the young men as a colleague of John’s. I didn’t stay very long because I was pleased Martin had someone else to talk to. I certainly didn’t get the impression the other man was there for sex.’

John Prentice was employed as PR for a Chinese silk fashion chain, but we can find no work colleague who a) fits the description – male, blond and 30-ish; or b) irrespective of description, paid a visit to Martin Britton when his brother dropped in. Only three say they ever went to Greenham Road, even when John was alive, and they are all women in their late 50s.

Only two of the victims, Martin Britton and Kevin Atkins, had computers. Both hard drives have been examined. Atkins had irregular contact with two gay ‘dating’ sites and rather more frequent visits to gay and straight ‘soft porn’ sites. A list of emails shows how he selected and confirmed prospective partners for one-night stands and all the men interviewed have solid alibis for the night of his murder. There are no overlaps between the partners Harry Peel found at the clubs and the partners Kevin Atkins found via the internet. Martin Britton’s hard drive is ‘clean’ of pornography or ‘dating’ sites, and we can find no emails relating to casual sex.

Cross-referencing army and regimental data has produced nothing. We can find no consistent features or persons between the men, except that Martin Britton, as an MOD employee, had access to Peel’s and Atkins’s archived records. NB We place no significance on that.

Correspondence, diaries, itemized landline bills show no common names, addresses or phone numbers between the three victims. Similarly, itemized mobile accounts for Peel and Atkins. (Britton used a ‘pay as you go’, for which there are no records.) Several numbers (all different) on the Peel and Atkins accounts have been disconnected. No success yet in tracing the previous ‘owners’ of the numbers. NB We have requested Atkins’s server to keep his mobile ‘live’ on the off-chance it’s still active and we can track its movements. Nothing to date.

It remains unclear how any of the victims made contact with their killer or how they ‘found’ the same person.

Conclusion

While there are some similarities in the lives and backgrounds of Peel and Atkins – bisexuality, marriage, known to engage in casual gay sex but reluctant to commit to permanent gay relationships – there is nothing similar in Martin Britton’s background.

At the moment, there’s no evidence that the men Hugh Britton saw with his brother were sexual partners, nor any indication of how Britton ‘found’ them if they were.

Psychological profile

As requested, I attach a full copy of James Steele’s reworked psychological profile. We commissioned it after the Britton murder, but he has refined it to include information from the Atkins crime scene. In brief, Steele’s opinions are as follows:

The murders carry the same signature – method of killing (skull fractures suggest a round-headed club or similarly shaped heavy object, wielded with considerable force), no sexual intercourse, damage to the rectum, the turning of the bodies to expose both buttocks, rage taken out on property . . . etc. (Steele suggests that the handle of the ‘club’ may have caused the rectal injuries. From gel evidence inside the anus, FSS believe the ‘instrument’ was covered by a condom before insertion, probably to assist its introduction.)

A signature is also apparent in the half-drunk bottle of wine in the living room and rinsed glasses in the kitchen. Steele suggests the initial approach was ‘social’ rather than ‘sexual’. (This sits well with Britton, who is regularly described as ‘fastidious’.)

We are looking for one individual. Steele believes both Britton and Atkins would have been suspicious if a ‘visitor’ had turned up with a companion. (Steele does not preclude the possibility that a companion waited outside but points to the fact that none of the neighbours or passers-by saw anything suspicious on the night of the murders.)

The discrepancy between the lack of ‘forced entry’ evidence and the frenzied nature of the attack suggests a manipulative and convincing individual who is easily roused to anger.

Steele posits the theory that the perpetrator was naked or semi-naked during the attack. (No sightings of any individual in bloodstained clothing afterwards.)

Because fingernail scrapings show no evidence of skin contact, and none of the victims has defence wounds, Steele believes all three were immobilized before they were attacked. In the absence of anything specific from the post-mortems and toxicology reports, he suggests a stun gun to the neck or head. (FSS have re-examined Kevin Atkins to this purpose but say there’s too much bruising in both areas to corroborate Steele’s theory.)

Steele cites the lack of evidence at the crime scenes as an indication that we are looking for a ‘high-IQ, forensically aware’ killer. He also suggests that we keep an open mind about the damage to the rectum and the exposure of the buttocks. The illusion of ‘gay sex’ may have been done for amusement and/or as a blind – or double blind – to create confusion about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

Steele further advises that we avoid labelling the victims ‘gay’, despite Britton’s declared single-sex status, as it may influence our decisions.

He points to the difference between Britton’s lifestyle and that of the other two victims. He describes Britton as ‘old-fashioned’ and ‘intellectual’, and suggests he may have invited his killer in for ‘companionship’.

Steele believes an army connection may be the means by which the killer wins credibility with his victims and/or gains access to their premises.

He draws particular attention to the victims’ habit of keeping cash on their premises. As a taxi driver,

Harry Peel dealt only in cash; Martin Britton shopped ‘locally’ using cash; as a builder, Kevin Atkins kept cash in a roll to pay casual workers. This habit may have been known to the killer.

Steele’s Recommendations

The perpetrator is likely to be male, aged 18–25. He may be a prostitute/escort and/or current army or ex-army. Drug addiction may be what drives the prostitution and leads to the sudden outbursts of anger. The individual may be known to other men who have employed his services. The most likely motive was money.

The paucity of forensic evidence suggests an average or above-average IQ and a premeditated willingness on the part of the perpetrator to commit a crime. In support of this, Steele cites the fact that weapons must have been brought to the properties by the killer.

In the absence of any real overlaps between the three victims, Steele proposes we go back to the drawing board. He believes the killer knows the area well, probably lives within a three-mile radius of the crime scenes, and is happy to go ‘freelance’ when a suitable punter/victim presents. If so, he will be using the direct approach and arranging the meetings away from the bars and clubs. Steele warns that if we concentrate all our energy on the ‘gay scene’ and/or recognized ‘dating’ agencies we may overlook the obvious – that our killer is free to kill because no one else knows of the arrangement.

He adds, ‘There may be something distinctive about this individual that encourages a sympathetic response. Martin Britton, in particular, would have needed a powerful stimulus to overcome his natural reserve and invite the killer back to his house.’

Steele advises that we concentrate the inquiry on a search for clients who have experienced anger or violence at the hands of a male prostitute but have managed to avoid the fates of Peel, Britton and Atkins. He also advises that we reinterview Mrs Peel, Mrs Atkins and Hugh Britton in an attempt to identify behavioural characteristics that might trigger the killer’s rage at an early stage of the encounter.

With kind regards,

Detective Superintendent Brian Jones