|
|
|
Nick Tucker: Convicted of a
Crime That Never Took Place
This section
contains details which will hopefully demonstrate that a man who was
convicted of murder is in fact the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and an
incredibly worrying miscarriage of justice at that. The information presented
below proves that there is no pathological evidence whatsoever to suggest
Carol Tucker was murdered. Carol died in a car accident and her grieving
husband has spent years in prison as a consequence.
The following was written by the Friends of Nick Tucker (F.O.N.T.) support
group.
A Case that Concerns the Reputation of British Justice It therefore
concerns every member of Britain's judicial and parliamentary system
In July, 1995, Carol Tucker died when the car driven by her husband, Nick
Tucker, (then a Squadron Leader in the R.A.F.) veered off the road in
avoiding two deer and crashed into a shallow river. Carol Tucker was found
floating in the water and pronounced dead at the scene: Nick Tucker was
discovered unconscious, in the water beside the driver's door.
Initially treated as the tragic road traffic accident that it was, he was
arrested 28 days later on suspicion of having° murdered his wife. But it was
eight months before he was charged and 28 months before the case came to
trial. Yet, in that extraordinary length of time no direct or material
evidence emerged to show any murder had taken place.
Despite being charged with murder, in April, 1996, he was released from
remand in custody and granted bail by Mr Justice Hooper who asked: 'Where
is the evidence that a murder has taken place?'
His trial started in November, 1997. The prosecution's case alleged that:
• Nick Tucker's account did not match the beliefs of the investigating
officers.
• The car crashed at a low speed insufficient to render either occupant
unconscious - it was therefore staged, and Nick Tucker's condition feigned.
• Both occupants should have survived the crash, and petechial
haemorrhages found in Carol Tucker at autopsy suggested some form of
mechanical strangulation.
• A blood smear on the outside of the passenger door, attributed to
Nick Tucker, could not have been deposited by anyone else at the scene and
suggested he had not been rendered unconscious.
• The motive for such a crime was a brief relationship Nick Tucker had
had with a Serbian interpreter whilst serving in the Former Yugoslavia.
All the strands of the prosecution case were circumstantial, and each had
innocent, credible alternative explanation. However, after 15 days of
evidence the jury returned a verdict of guilty, by a majority of 10:2.
The issue to be decided by the jury was: was it murder, an accident, or
death by natural causes?
Therefore, why had this case not first passed the test of a coroner's
inquest?
There was no medical evidence to support homicide. Six pathologists
have so far examined the evidence, two of whom conducted autopsies: Dr David
Harrison and Dr Iain West; the others were: Professor Bernard Knight; Dr
Nathaniel Cary; Dr Richard Shepherd; and Professor Derrick Pounder. (A
summary of relevant extracts from their opinions is attached.) The first four
provided opinions prior to trial (but the prosecution declined to call
Professor Knight - for obvious reasons): the latter two as a result of fresh
investigations. All conclude that there is no evidence of murder, foul
play, assault, defence injuries, or that Carol Tucker's death was due to the
actions of anyone.
Surely, and logically, the issue before the court dictated that the primary
issue to be established was the cause and mechanism of death? If the
pathologists, the experts on this issue, are unanimous then logically they
cannot all be wrong. How can it be left to untrained, unqualified laymen and
women, prone to misunderstanding such technical evidence, to say otherwise?
It is an Alice in Wonderland scenario.
SUMMARY OF THE PATHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRE-TRIAL. 1995-7:
Dr David Harrison: (Home Office Pathologist) First Autopsy. 24
July, 1995, in summary and conclusions:
'... The petechial haemorrhages ... are in my experience unusual in cases of
drowning, but the other autopsy features indicate death was due to
drowning and occurred relatively quickly.'
'Cause of Death: Ventricular fibrillation, secondary to immersion in fresh
water.' (ie. Heart stoppage/arrest subsequent to immersion in water =
drowning.)
Old Style Committal, October, 1996, under cross-examination:
'Was there any evidence that Mrs Tucker was deliberately drowned?' 'No.'
Dr Iain West: (Defence Pathologist) Interim Report, 9 January,
1996, following Second Autopsy:
'... based, on the information available ... Mrs Tucker is likely to have
died as a result of a choking episode by regurgitating food from her
distended stomach. ... this is likely to have occurred either during or
immediately after her attempt to extricate herself from the vehicle.'
Supplementary Report. 18 October, 1996:
'The minor injuries on the deceased's body could all have resulted from the
low velocity vehicular accident combined with attempts to move her body from
the river and subsequent attempts at resuscitation. There is nothing to
positively indicate that the deceased had been subjected to an assault.'
'In summary, there is no positive indication as to why this lady died and it
is, to a degree, complete speculation to state the various possibilities.'
'There is no medical evidence to indicate that Mrs Tucker has died as the
result of a direct physical act carried out by another person.'
Professor Bernard Knight: (Pathologist approached by the police
- not called at trial.) First Report, dated 30 January, 1996:
'Given the above problems, it would seem obvious that there is
insufficient evidence on medical grounds for any successful hypothesis to be
maintained that the death was due to the actions of another person.'
'In summary, the cause of death is really unascertained, even though
immersion seems the most likely mechanism. I would suggest that the
medical evidence cannot take forward any intention to bring criminal charges
...'
Second Report, dated 4 April, 1996:
'In summary, the pathological findings are scanty.'
'In essence the cause of death remains unascertained.'
AT TRIAL. November. 1997: (As summed up by Mr Justice Gage):
Dr David Harrison:
Under cross-examination: 'There was no pathological evidence that the deceased
had been deliberately drowned by someone else. ... There were no defence
wounds. ... All other injuries could be consistent with her getting out of
the car after the accident.'
Dr Iain West:
'All the minor injuries could have been caused either in the crash or when
she was trying to extricate herself from the car, or when she was being
lifted from the river, or on resuscitation, or a combination of being lifted
out of the river or resuscitation.'
'There was no evidence of throttling or strangulation.'
'There is no physical evidence to show that she died as a direct physical
result of someone else's intervention. There were no marks on the body
which were other than could have been caused in the road traffic accident
combined with an attempt to rescue the body from the river and resuscitate
it.'
Dr Nathaniel Cary: (Second Pathologist for the Defence)
'The injuries were such that could have been caused in a road traffic
accident, or removal from the river, or on resuscitation.'
'There was nothing to show death as a result of a third party and nothing
to show it was homicide.'
'It was a bizarre death. ... It was speculative that the cause was some
deliberate act. ... The most likely cause of death was drowning.'
MR JUSTICE GAGE SUMMARISING THE EVIDENCE FROM ALL THREE EXPERTS:
'All agree that there is no evidence of a third party causing death.
All three agree there are no defensive injuries ...'
'So far as the cause of death is concerned Dr Harrison said that it was on a
balance of probability drowning ... Dr Cary agrees. Dr West said you simply
could not say the cause of death.'
'... if Dr West and Dr Cary are correct, or may be correct, all the
injuries are just as consistent with drowning by accident as by a deliberate
act, if that is right then obviously it cannot be murder,
[Note: Despite the pathologists' evidence to the contrary, In closing speech
the prosecution alleged that Mr Tucker had first rendered his wife
unconscious by throttling her before he arrived at the river, and had then
driven her unconscious body to the river and drowned her. This was in total
contradiction to the evidence of Dr Harrison, and amounted to a breach of
'Restrictions on Comment in Closing Speeches at Trial', and also amounted to
a 'Late Change in Nature of Case'.]
FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS. 1999-2003:
Dr Richard Shepherd: (Independent opinion) Stated on Just
Television's Trial and Error programme. November, 2000:
'There's no marks on this lady that would indicate that she was held under
the water and drowned. ... I think it would be fair to say that not only
do I believe that but... the four pathologists who reviewed the case early
on, none of them say that they think she was murdered. ... The only thing
I can say to you with certainty is that there is no pathological evidence
that I have seen that indicates that Mrs Tucker was murdered.'
Professor Derrick Pounder: (Independent opinion) Report, dated
23 December, 2003:
'The case is clearly quite extraordinary from the point of view of the
pathology since there is essentially an absence of pathological evidence
to support the allegation of homicide.'
'At autopsy ... no anatomical evidence was found of strangulation or any
other form of mechanical asphyxiation.... Thus there was no evidence to
support a diagnosis of strangulation or mechanical asphyxiation. ... In this
case strangulation could be excluded with reasonable medical certainty.'
'There was no basis whatsoever for the prosecution to suggest that
strangulation had taken place either to the point of unconsciousness or to
the point of death. Not only was the prosecution position that strangulation
had caused death unsupportable on the pathological evidence but the
prosecution contention that strangulation leading to unconsciousness had
preceded homicide by drowning was equally unsupportable on the pathological
evidence. It is difficult to understand how such a prejudicial and
unsupportable allegation came to be presented to the jury.'
'The typical features of drowning are found in only a small minority [10%] of
cases of drowning. It appears that the jury was seriously misled by the
presentation of the pathological evidence so as to believe that the
absence of typical signs of drowning in the deceased was in some ways
suspicious.'
'Taking the cause of death as drowning, the autopsy findings provide no
evidence of an assault to substantiate an allegation of homicidal drowning.'
'In summary an allegation that the deceased was strangled to death or
strangled to the point of unconsciousness prior to homicidal drowning is
unsupportable on the pathological evidence. The pathological findings are
entirely consistent with death by drowning and on pathological grounds there
is no basis for suggesting that the cause of death was other than drowning.
The autopsy findings provide no physical evidence to give rise to allegation
of homicidal drowning since the minor injuries found to the body are more
likely the result of the road traffic accident, escape from the vehicle,
recovery of the body and attempted resuscitation than assault.'
'There can be little doubt that the pathological evidence presented at
trial was in some areas wrong and overall both misleading and highly
prejudicial.'
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION:
In granting leave to appeal in July, 1998, Mr Justice Coleman stated: 'I am
giving leave because looked at as a whole the evidence of guilt is extremely
tenuous and so much so that it is arguable that the jury must logically have
been left in doubt.' This was solely on legal argument with no fresh evidence.
In December, 1998, following appeal, Lord Justice Judge wrote: 'When
examining the safety of a conviction where the evidence for consideration is
the same as the evidence which was before the jury, the court cannot ignore
the fact that the jury disbelieved the appellant's testimony about crucial
issues in the trial.', but; 'We immediately recognise that there was and is
no direct evidence that the appellant murdered his wife.' Yet the appeal was
disallowed in order not to undermine the constitutional preeminence of the
verdict of the jury in our criminal justice system.
Notwithstanding the pathological evidence supporting Nick Tucker's innocence,
the evidence now available is substantially different to that put before any
court. Following the first appeal an independent investigation commissioned a
scientific reconstruction of the crash which has established that:
• The police measurements and claimed ergonomics of the crash were
wrong.
• The impact velocity would have been double that claimed in court.
• Nick Tucker's head injury was caused by impact with the steering
wheel, and was sufficient to render him unconscious.
• Critically, there was no neurological evidence provided at trial or
appeal.
• Having been rendered unconscious Nick Tucker could not have committed
any offence, and any testimony of his was unreliable.
• Four independent experts have criticised the forensic evidence and
handling of the car: they conclude that it is not possible to establish when,
where, how or by whom the blood smear was transferred to the passenger door.
• This leaves the innocent explanations as the only ones valid for the
extraneous circumstantial issues.
The case was submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1999. In
2003, it rejected the application and declined to refer it to fresh appeal,
despite the new evidence, which also answers the second most fundamental
direction of Mr Justice Gage at trial: 'if Nick Tucker was not lying about
the crash, and it was true or may be that he was knocked out, then that was
an end of the prosecution case.'
The primary issue in this case, whether or not any murder had taken place,
has direct legal and medical parallels with cases such as Angela Canning's.
In that appeal Lord Justice Judge stated: '... there was no direct evidence
and very little indirect evidence to suggest that [murder had taken place]'
and 'If murder cannot be proved, the conviction cannot be safe. In a criminal
case, it is simply not enough to be able to establish even a high probability
of guilt.'
Nick Tucker's case falls into the same category. His present situation and
continued imprisonment questions the moral integrity of the British judicial
system, and, in any charge of murder, the requirement to prove actus reus,
that the deed was committed.
The authorities agree that Nick Tucker is not a threat to the public. He is a
model prisoner with great responsibility in a Category C prison and who is
allowed to visit shops in a local town, accompanied with prison staff. It is
expected that he will be recategorised again soon, and moved to a fully open
prison. Nick is hopeful that a fresh application to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission will be made very soon on the basis of strong fresh evidence that
undermines the prosecution's case.
If you would like to know more about this case please view the articles I
have written about it, which are linked from the 'Published Articles' section
of this site. Feel free to contact me if you would like to know more.
To return to the Cases of Interest index please click here
To return to my home page please click here
|
|
|