Killers_ The Most Barbaric Murderers of Our Time - Cawthorne, Nigel [106]
The judge, Mr Justice Forbes, denied all three petitions. The trial would continue with the original 16 charges on the indictment.
On 11 October 1999, the jury was sworn in and the case for the prosecution was made by Richard Henriques. He was one of the top Britain’s barristers and had handled the 1993 Jamie Bulger trial, where two ten-year old boys were found guilty of kidnapping, torturing and murdering the two-year-old on Merseyside.
Henriques’ opening statement in the Shipman case pulled no punches.
‘None of those buried – nor indeed cremated were prescribed morphine or diamorphine,’ he said. ‘All of them died most unexpectedly. All of them had seen Dr Shipman on the day of their death.’
He ruled out the possibility of euthanasia or mercy killing as a motive, as none of those who had died was suffering from a terminal illness. Henriques simply concluded that Shipman killed the 15 patients whose names were on the indictment simply because he enjoyed doing so.
‘He was exercising the ultimate power of controlling life and death,’ Henriques said, ‘and repeated the act so often he must have found the drama of taking life to his taste.’
His first witness was Angela Woodruff, who explained that she had spoken to Dr Shipman after the Hyde Police had phoned to tell her that her mother was dead.
‘Exactly what he said was difficult to remember,’ she said. ‘It’s very hazy because I was very, very upset. Dr Shipman said he had seen my mother on the morning of her death. He said he had seen her at home.’
She was then questioned about the fake will that left everything to Shipman. She dismissed it as a fake, citing her mother’s meticulous attention to detail. This was supported by her mother’s diary, where every event was scrupulously recorded in pristine penmanship.
She also testified to the health of her 81-year-old mother. ‘She was just amazing,’ she said. ‘We would walk five miles and come in and she would say: “Where’s the ironing?” We used to joke she was fitter than we were.’
In the ensuing cross-examination, Ms Davies attempted to show that Mrs Woodruff’s relationship with her mother had been less than harmonious. This impression was totally disproven by the diary and other witnesses.
Government pathologist Dr John Rutherford took the jury through the gruesome details of the post-mortem procedure, explaining how body tissue was collected and analysed. He demonstrated that victims cited in the indictment had not died from old age or disease and that, typically, morphine poisoning was the cause of death.
A fingerprint expert then demonstrated that Mrs Grundy had not handled the ‘will’, though Dr Shipman had. Calligraphy analyst Michael Allen then took the stand and dismissed the signatures on the document as ‘crude forgeries’.
Computer analyst Detective Sergeant John Ashley then testified that Shipman falsified his patients’ medical histories. The recorded interviews showing Shipman’s reaction to being confronted with this was then entered into the record.
In the second week of the trial, district nurse Marion Gilchrist was called. She recalled Shipman’s reaction when he realised he was about to be arrested for the murder of Mrs Grundy. He broke down and said: ‘I read thrillers and, on the evidence they have, I would have me guilty…’
Then he said: ‘The only thing I did wrong was not having her cremated. If I had had her cremated I wouldn’t be having all this trouble.’
At the time, the nurse put this down to black humour.
Another witness testified that Shipman had said: ‘If I could bring her back, I would; look at all the trouble it’s caused.’ As to the will, he had said: ‘I was going to say I didn’t want the money but, because of all this trouble, I will have it.’
Shipman had then claimed he was going to use most of the money for philanthropic purposes.
Dr John