Chameleon's Shadow

METROPOLITAN

POLICE

INTERNAL MEMO To: ACC Clifford Golding From: Det Supt Brian Jones Date: 20 August 2007 Subject: Interview procedure

Sir,

Re Concerns expressed by Jennifer Morley’s legal representative

Please find attached a copy of Morley’s custody record, showing that she was charged well within the 36-hour time-limit allowed under PACE.

In the view of the interviewing officers and myself, the ‘breakdowns’ cited by Morley’s legal representative were determined attempts to run down the detention clock. Morley employed fainting spells, panic attacks and constant requests for healthcare assistance to disrupt her interviews. Despite these delays, she was charged at 11.45 on Friday, 17 August 2007, with the murders of Harry Peel and Kevin Atkins, making a detention time of 32 hours and 15 minutes. She appeared before magistrates three hours later and was remanded to HMP Holloway.

The custody officer is entirely satisfied that we had reasonable grounds for detaining Morley, and that all interviews were conducted in accordance with Codes of Practice. She was allowed several rest periods, including a sleep break, and was given appropriate assistance and monitoring at all times together with regular offers of food and beverages. Most of these were declined. A copy of her custody record was made available to her legal representative.

The following is a brief summary of events

DI Beale and DC Khan pursued a line of questioning, proposed by James Steele (psychologist), which was designed to persuade Morley that she had control of the interview. As Steele predicted, this led her to offer easily disputed alibis about where she was and who she was with over the murder weekends. In the first two cases (Peel & Britton), she claimed to have been in London in the company of Lt Charles Acland; in the third (Atkins), to have been in a hotel in Birmingham, following a visit to Lt Acland in hospital.

Morley’s first fainting spell occurred after DI Beale showed her the register from Lt Acland’s base, and read parts of his statement, detailing her violence against him. Thereafter, the ‘breakdowns’ became more frequent as new evidence was disclosed. On the insistence of her legal representative, Morley was given time to recover after each occasion.

In her next interview, she denied assaulting Lt Acland and made counter-accusations that he’d brought the stun gun and the knobkerrie into the relationship in order to assault her. She portrayed herself as an abused ‘spouse’ with battered-wife syndrome. When asked if this had given her a fear of men, she agreed that it had, although she refused to comment on information retrieved from her computer that suggested a continued willingness to put herself in danger from men in the role of prostitute/escort. This information included the names and/or telephone numbers and addresses of Peel, Britton and Atkins.

Following a two-hour break at the request of her solicitor, she offered drug dependency as a reason for her prostitution. She further claimed that her victim status as an abused spouse had driven her to self-medicate on ‘uppers’ in order to treat her depression and low self-esteem. She blamed Lt Acland for her dependency, laying prolonged stress on his violent and jealous behaviour. As explanation for having Peel/Britton/Atkins’s contact details on her computer, she claimed to work part-time for a sex chat line.

On James Steele’s advice, DI Beale and DC Khan allowed these statements to go unchallenged and ‘rewarded’ Morley with an overnight sleep break. She was woken at 06.30 and given an opportunity to perform basic ablutions and apply make-up. Breakfast was offered, but declined.

Morley’s demeanour remained upbeat until she was shown the forensic evidence obtained from two different sets of clothing in her flat. Blood-spot DNA traces on a dark jacket, linking her to Atkins, and similar DNA traces on a pair of shoes, linking her to Peel. In addition, FSS made matches with fibres taken from a woollen scarf in Morley’s apartment to fibres found on Atkins’s premises.

After another ‘breakdown’ and a lengthy consultation with her legal representative, Morley admitted involvement in the deaths of Peel and Atkins. She offered self-defence and ‘battered-wife syndrome’ as justification, saying both men became aggressive under the influence of alcohol. She claimed to have lashed out in a panic with the first thing she could lay her hands on. In the case of Peel, a table lamp base. In the case of Atkins, an unopened bottle of wine.

Morley was then shown the hemp duffel bag and its contents and was asked to account for the stun gun and the knobkerrie. On the advice of her legal representative, she refused to answer further questions, and I took the decision to charge her with the murders of Peel and Atkins.

The detailed investigation of Morley’s property continues, and FSS are confident of linking her to Martin Britton’s premises and murder.

Three strands of hair found on the inside of the hemp bag have provided a DNA link with Morley, although this will certainly be contested in court. It is feasible, if unlikely, that Lt Acland carried them on his clothes for several months and transferred them unwittingly to the duffel.

The ongoing examinations of Morley’s computer and mobile telephone, also Peel’s and Britton’s phones, continue to produce evidence. Information retrieved and followed up to date shows that Morley had had previous contact with all three men.

Harry Peel in his role as taxi driver – Morley was an occasional customer.

Martin Britton through his partner, John Prentice –

Morley was commissioned for at least two photo-shoots of silk fashion in a chinoiserie room at the Britton/Prentice house. (Prentice said the slender Uma Thurman look suited his company’s designs.)

• Kevin Atkins as a builder – his company carried out maintenance work on Morley’s apartment block in 2004.

All contacts in Morley’s email folder and cell-phone address book are being traced and questioned. From interviews conducted so far, a picture is emerging of erratic behaviour over a period of years. Morley has had no contact with her family since punching and kicking her younger sister during an assault in 2001. Her mother admitted to being afraid of her.

Two ex-boyfriends, who dated Morley for less than a month each, have described stalker-type behaviour following breakup – threats, late-night visits, nuisance phone calls. A theatre company sacked her after two days for ‘anger issues’. Three escort agencies have taken her off their books because of client complaints.

A high percentage of the telephone numbers recorded in Morley’s computer have been disconnected. Three, including the ex-boyfriends, have been tracked through their servers and interviewed. All cite harassment from Morley as the reason for the disconnection. The third, who lives in Newcastle, admitted to using her services during a business trip to London. ‘I told her she wasn’t worth the money. She sent fifty obscene texts during the following two weeks.’

Despite Morley’s claim that it was Peel and Atkins who approached her ‘for sex’, there is no evidence to support this. Both men’s cell phones have listings for ‘Cass’ under a number that was discontinued around the time Morley met Lt Acland. We believe the initial contact came from Morley, either via a pay phone or by turning up ‘on spec’ at their houses, and that a need for money was the driving force. (Steele argues that Morley’s drug dependency/cravings would have become critical following the encounters with Lt Acland.)

If her intention had been to find a client for the evening, she may have tried other contacts before receiving a green light from her victims. (This might explain her use of a pay phone to avoid her name appearing and giving the recipient a chance to ignore the call.)

Steele’s theory is that all three murders were ‘opportunistic’ – i.e. various factors collided to create a ‘killing’ environment. He suggests the following scenario:

Morley was angry/destabilized by Lt Acland’s refusal to continue the relationship and/or support her financially.

If Morley was rejected by a number of potential clients, this would: a) frustrate her need for cash; b) fuel her anger; and c) persuade her to adopt a different approach.

Her first victim, Harry Peel, was easily accessible as a taxi driver and only accepted payment in cash. This would have been known to Morley. If her initial request was for his taxi service, he was unlikely to refuse her.

Her second victim, Martin Britton, was described by everyone who knew him as ‘courteous’. Britton’s brother believes Martin would have invited Morley in because of the connection with his partner. From her previous visits to the house, Morley may have known that the two men kept cash on the premises.

Morley’s third victim, Kevin Atkins, may be the only one who responded to an offer of sex. His ex-wife says, ‘He hated being on his own, particularly at weekends. We used to do things as a family and he missed that terribly.’ Atkins preferred to be paid in cash for ‘VAT and tax reasons’ and kept it in a ‘roll’ until he could get to a bank.

Despite inviting Morley on to their premises, Steele believes all three men reacted negatively afterwards. Either by questioning the value she put on herself or by refusing requests for money.

Lt Acland’s evidence offers a pattern of how Morley uses a stun gun to exercise control. He was told he’d be allowed to recover as long as he followed her orders – ‘crawling naked round the floor pretending to be a dog’ – but any show of disobedience would result in another hit.

Lt Acland refused to comply, but it’s doubtful that less fit, older men would have been willing to do the same. They may also have believed that being instructed to dress in bathrobes and lie on their beds was merely a device to prevent them following her when she left.

Because her victims lived alone, there was no bar to Morley’s behaviour. She did what she did because she could.

Conclusion

My team and I have come to know Harry Peel, Martin Britton and Kevin Atkins during the months we’ve worked on their cases. These were good, decent men who deserve better than to allow their killer to plead self-defence or diminished responsibility.

All efforts are now being directed at proving that Morley’s motive was financial gain, and that she was prepared to murder her victims because they knew her and could identify her.

I trust this deals with your concerns.

Best wishes,

Detective Superintendent Brian Jones