| Flowers in Gods Garden
- Articles |
??/09/99 - South Wales Liberty
- Case Summary Howard Hughes
Howard Hughes was convicted on 18th July 1996 of the rape
and murder of 7-year-old Sophie Hook who went missing
from a tent in her uncle's garden in Llandudno, North
Wales in the early hours of Sunday 30th July 1995. Write
to Howard at:
Howard Hughes
THO 523
B Wing
H.M.P
Full Sutton
York
Y04 1PS
Mr Hughes (hereafter referred to as Howard) was granted
leave to appeal on 5th Sept 1997 but the appeal was dismissed
on 18th March 1998.
The following summary consists of four sections:-
(A) The Timing of Significant Events
(B) Main points of Prosecution Case and Concerns relating
to each point
(C) Other Concerns
(D) Conclusion
(A) The Timing of Significant Events
Saturday 29th July 1995
Three children camp out in the garden of Sophie's Uncle
and Aunt's house in Llandudno.
Sunday 30th July 1995
12.30 am Uncle checks on children and settles them down
for the night.
2.30 am Luke (Uncle's son) wakes and checks time (Sophie
is still in the tent).
2.55 am Howard is spoken to by patrolling police while
sitting on a bench near the promenade close to the end
of the road where Sophie's Uncle’s house is sited,
smoking a cigarette. (He has his bicycle with him).
4.00 am (approx.) Howard is (by his own account) spoken
to again by the police while sitting on a bench by the
main road leading out of Llandudno back towards his home
in nearby Colwyn Bay. No police record has been located
to confirm this.
This is further confused by other alleged sightings of
Howard around 4-4.30 am when 2 men believed to be drunk
at the time claimed they saw someone fitting his description
heading back into Llandudno towards the promenade area
while in contradiction to this he is seen by a taxi driver
cycling home towards Colwyn Bay around 4 am and by a man
at a caravan site at Penryhn Bay between Llandudno and
Colwyn Bay at a similar time.
7.10 am Sophie's body is found washed up on the beach.
7.15 am The other two children report Sophie missing from
the tent.
9.10 am Uncle calls the police.
3.50 pm Howard is arrested at his home in Colwyn Bay.
Howard remains in police custody until:-
Thursday 3rd August 1995
Howard is due to be either charged or released by 3 pm.
In the morning the police and CPS agree that there are
insufficient grounds to hold him any longer.
Approx. 1 pm Police allow Howard's father to visit in
response to Howard's request for welfare visits. His sister
Heather also attends but is not allowed into the first
part of the visit. His father (Gerald Hughes) gives information
to the police concerning the location of a child's clothes
following this visit, information Howard has provided.
3 pm Howard is released but immediately re-arrested on
a charge of possessing indecent photographs which were
found in a search of his home.
3.50 pm Sophie's night clothes are found in the area indicated.
During the evening discussions take place between Howard's
father and sisters and brother-in-law.
9.58 pm Howard is charged with murder "on the basis
of further information''.
This information is a call from his father to the police
saying that he will make a statement claiming that Howard
confessed to the murder during the visit earlier in the
day.
(B) Main points of Prosecution Case and Concerns
relating to each point
1. Howard was a reasonable suspect
Howard had a record of minor criminal offences mainly
for burglary, stealing bikes etc but including a juvenile
conviction for assault in 1984 for which he had been on
probation. His habits, e.g. cycling around at night, were
unusual.
Many of his difficulties stemmed from a chromosomal deficiency
XYY syndrome (as attributed to Stefan Kiszko) and his
dyslexia which was, for a long time, not diagnosed. He
was an unusual person who was present in the area and
hence someone likely to be interviewed.
However:-
- Howard had no history of sexual offences (or violence
of this extreme kind).
- His unusual practices such as cycling around at night
and shaving his body hair were very long standing. They
were by no means unique to the night of Sophie's murder.
Therefore while they appear as circumstantial evidence
these practices may be of no real evidential significance.
Part of the explanation for Howard's liking for being
out at night was that he enjoyed spending time with people
night fishing on the pier which he had done on the night
of the murder.
- Howard was, by some accounts, very frightened of the
police. On one occasion he broke an ankle jumping out
of a window to escape after one officer allegedly punched
him in the mouth (photographs of the injury to his mouth
were taken at the time). The morning after the murder,
however, he was at home, acting calmly, going to the newsagents
and following his normal routine (he was also apparently
wearing the same clothes as the night before).
Howard had made a complaint about his previous treatment
by the police which was due to be heard on 31st July,
the day after his arrest. This complaint concerned an
allegation that a policeman had assaulted him (a separate
incident to the one mentioned above).
- Howard was picked up at 3.50 pm on the Sunday for a
crime committed in the early hours of that morning. He
remained in custody as the prime suspect. Were other possible
leads followed up? -
Howard was out and about in the area around the time of
the crime.
2. Howard was out and about in the area around
the time of the crime
However:-
While this can be seen as circumstantial evidence, it
can also be viewed as unsupportive of the case against
Howard because as mentioned above he was often out at
night, but more significantly:-
- Howard was spoken to by patrolling police at 2.55 am.
He was sitting on the promenade near the end of the road
in which Sophie's Uncle's house was sited. He was casually
smoking a cigarette.
- One of the other children (aged about 12) said that
Sophie was still in the tent at 2.30 am.
If he is correct about this there would have been precious
little time for Howard to commit the crime before being
seen by the police and he would surely not have sat casually
on a bench so close to the house if he had done such a
thing.
- Sophie's body was found on the beach at 7.10 am and
experts believed she had been in the sea for at least
3 hours. (Although this is a "best guess" due
to the effect of the sea on cooling the body). This leaves
very little time for Howard to go from the promenade to
the house, abduct Sophie, commit the crime and take her
to the sea, if as experts suggested, the body was thrown
into the sea from the cliff head known as The Little Orme
which would involve a considerable walk from the house
up a steep hill.
- It seems unlikely that Howard would either be relaxing
near the promenade after committing such a crime and equally
unlikely that he would proceed to do such a thing immediately
after speaking to the police and knowing them to be observing
him.
- Howard claims he was spoken to a second time by the
police around 4 am - 4.30 am while sitting on a bench
having a cigarette. At this time he says he was on the
main road which leads out of Llandudno back to his home
in Colwyn Bay under the "Welcome to Llandudno"
sign, still very near to the house where Sophie was staying.
No police record has ever confirmed that this took place.
If true, it would strongly suggest that Howard should
have been eliminated as a suspect both from a point of
view of timing and from the view that such casual behaviour
in the immediate aftermath of committing such a crime
would surely be inconceivable.
There were however a number of sightings of someone fitting
Howard's description at various times and places (see
Timing of Events) some of which were described in unused
material. It seems a clear picture of Howard's movements
that night has never been established.
3. Howard gave information to his father which
led to the location of Sophie's night-dress
Following the visit of his father around 1 pm on Thursday
3rd August Howard gave information via his father of the
location of the clothes. The finding of the clothes is
probably the most compelling evidence against Howard.
Howard said he had found "something that might be
helpful", he did not identify it as Sophie's clothes
although the prosecution questioned how he knew it "Might
be helpful".
However:-
- Howard claimed he found the night-dress (which he referred
to as a T-shirt) by the side of a road about half a mile
from the house close to a derelict property which may
have been occupied at the time by one of the witnesses
described in 5 below. He picked it up with the intention
of using it as a substitute for toilet paper. He did not
use the night-dress for this but carried it for a while
before throwing it away over a hedge (he had not previously
given this information in any police interviews).
- This coincidence may strike one as remarkable but it
is possible especially as not only did Howard cycle and
wander around at night but one of his habits was to pick
up and sometimes take home all sorts of, often useless,
items.
4. "Deet" (insect repellent) was found
on Sophie's clothes and was worn by Howard
However:-
- Howard admitted he had found the clothes, this would
have been stronger evidence had he denied it.
- No ''Deet'' was found on the tent, tent flap or on Sophie's
sleeping bag, which it would have been had he entered
the tent.
5. Evidence of other Witnesses
Two other witnesses gave evidence at the trial:-
- One claimed Howard had said to him that he wanted to
commit this type of crime.
- The other said he saw Howard carrying a bag with a body
in it.
However:-
- Both these witnesses were shown to be entirely unreliable
and were typical of the type of witness used to bolster
the evidence in such cases, even to the point of being
suspects themselves or having charges against them dropped
in return for giving evidence. One of these people had
served a five-year sentence for child abuse.
- The use of such witnesses is a typical feature of miscarriages
of justice and should be regarded as of no value in establishing
a case.
6. Indecent Photographs were found in Howard's
room after his arrest
When the police searched Howard's home after his arrest
indecent photographs of one of his young nieces were found.
This could not be used in Court because of its prejudicial
nature.
However:-
- It no doubt influenced the views and approach of interviewing
police officers.
- It may also have influenced the views of his father
(who later gave damming evidence - see 8 below) because
he was apparently aware of the existence of the photographs
2 weeks before the murder and had not informed the police
or confronted Howard. He may then have felt prejudiced
or even partly responsible for what he (perhaps) now believed
his son had done to Sophie.
- Furthermore Howard later claimed that when he confessed
to his father he was not confessing to the murder but
to taking the photographs.
- Due to the prejudicial nature of this evidence the defence
could not risk using it, even though it does give possible
explanations for both Howard's father's claims and Howard's
supposed confession.
7. Child's Evidence
A child aged around 7 or 8 years old said that she had
been asked by a man with a bike to go with him earlier
on Saturday 29th July. After Howard's arrest she was asked
to attend an identity parade during which she picked out
Howard as the man involved.
However:-
- She had not originally described the distinctive figure
of Howard and had described a man wearing a denim jacket
with a large picture on the back. Howard did not possess
a jacket like this.
- The identity parade was apparently carried out with
the men sitting down. This seems curious as Howard's height
(6 foot 8 inches) is probably his most memorable feature.
- The child's evidence was given to the Court by video.
Her first statement was along the lines of "I was
nearly taken away by the man who killed Sophie".
It is hard to conceive of a more prejudicial statement
coming from a child in a case like this.
- The defence argued that the police had influenced her
while the prosecution said it was evidence that Howard
was building up to the crime. This type of evidence was
eventually discredited in the Stefan Kiszko case and may
beg the questions of whether this event happened in he
way described, of when exactly this event was reported
to the police and whether the person concerned was in
fact Howard.
8. Howard's father gave evidence that Howard had
confessed to him on a visit
As a vulnerable suspect Howard was entitled to welfare
visits from his family. He requested such a visit and
was visited by his father around 1 pm on Thursday 3rd
August. His sister Heather was excluded from the first
15 minutes or so of this visit as was his solicitor Mr
Ray Woodward. Consequently Howard met his father alone.
During this one-to-one visit Howard gave his father information
about the location of the clothes and according to his
father confessed to the murder of Sophie.
However this confession evidence raises numerous
concerns:-
(a) Howard's relationship with his father was extremely
acrimonious, it is very surprising that Howard would choose
a welfare visit from his father. Howard's parents had
split up in very bitter circumstances and Howard due to
his dyslexia etc had never been the type of son his father
wanted.
Howard's mother maintains that her husband was violent
towards her before they split up to the extent that doctors
advised her to leave him and the police had to be called
on numerous occasions. Also that Howard was protective
towards her in the face of her husband's aggression. Howard
was much closer to his mother and sisters. Howard's view
of the confession is that his father simply wanted him
out of the way for good.
(b) The information about the clothes was given to the
police immediately after this visit. Howard's father however
did not inform the police of the confession until over
8 hours later around 10 pm having had discussions with
some other family members.
This delay might suggest that Howard's father had become
convinced by the police or by the photographs that Howard
was guilty and hence became prepared to claim a confession
and firm up the evidence.
(c) As explained in 6 above Howard claimed he had admitted
to his father about the photographs not the murder. When
his sister Heather was allowed to enter the visiting room
Howard was crying and saying "I'm sorry". He
maintains not for the murder but for the obscene photographs
of her daughter.
(d) In the notes of an interview with reporter Coreena
Ford of the North Wales Weekly News on 8th August 1995,
five days after Howard had been charged, his father Gerald
Hughes makes some very circumspect statements such as
"whoever has done this" and "I only hope
they find the person responsible".
This suggests that either he is being very cautious for
a man whose son has confessed to him or he is still wrestling
with doubts about recent events.
(e) There is no doubt that the police, by their own admission,
intended to use this meeting as an opportunity to gather
evidence against Howard. Consequently a decision was taken
to install a covert listening device. However this decision
was, according to the police, abandoned due to shortage
of time (i.e. time to acquire a machine from elsewhere).
In a casual conversation after Howard's conviction a comment
was made to Howard's solicitor by a serving policeman
that the reason for not recording was due to having no
battery for the machine. This seems strange in that most
recording machines would use mains power perhaps with
a battery for backup only.
This raises serious questions:-
- The interview between Howard and his father has no corroboration
or safeguards. (At appeal Howard's lawyers maintained
that had the confession been made to a police officer
the rules of PACE would have required 16 legal safeguards
to be in place. With his father there were none.)
- It seems extraordinary that the police would allow a
potential and intended evidence gathering exercise to
go ahead rather than await the arrival of recording equipment.
(In fact they denied the defence assertion that equipment
was delivered from Llandudno on Thursday morning once
the visit had been authorised). The temptation to suggest
that the visit was recorded and the tape ''lost'' because
no such confession took place is hard to resist.
- Howard had been in custody and subject to expert police
interviewing for four days without confessing and then
almost immediately it is claimed he confesses to his father,
with whom his relationship had broken down long ago. (It
has to be accepted however that this did happen in relation
to the information about the clothes).
- At appeal Howard's lawyers argued that as the conversation
was not recorded Howard should have had the opportunity
to comment on it at the time, however he was not told
about it at the time only that he was being charged on
the basis of new information.
- Uncorroborated confession evidence is a notorious feature
of miscarriages of justice and must be treated with great
caution.
While the finding of Sophie's night-dress does
provide circumstantial evidence, the defence were surely
right to argue at both trial and appeal that the confession
should not have been admitted in evidence. On the balance
of probabilities it seems reasonable to suggest that the
confession as described by Howard's father may never have
taken place.
(C) Other Concerns
1. Abduction of Sophie from the Tent
- Sophie was sleeping in the middle of the tent between
two other children. It seems extraordinary that she could
be abducted from this position by a stranger without waking
the other two children, especially by the exceptionally
tall (6 ft 8 ins), lumbering, and to a small child in
the night, no doubt frightening, figure of Howard. The
person doing this would have to have unzipped the tent
and removed Sophie from the sleeping bag without leaving
a trace of forensic evidence or waking the other children.
- Furthermore a security light trained or the garden and
tent was shown to be in working order before and after
the abduction.
- The only forensic evidence found on the tent was a footprint
on the tent flap. This print was not that of Howard. Neither
was it that of Sophie's Uncle. It was not identified.
- Given these factors the prosecution suggested that Sophie
must have left the tent herself before being abducted.
This would have set off the security light but it would
explain the absence of ''Deet' on the tent and sleeping
bag. (See B4 above). However, incredible as it seems,
Howard's father's account of the confession says that
Howard entered the tent and persuaded Sophie to go with
him. In this respect the prosecution successfully rode
two horses at once.
The alternative scenario was that Sophie left the tent
quietly and compliantly. This would only seem likely if
she left with someone she knew. What actually happened
remains a mystery to all but the perpetrator.
2. The Lack of Supporting Forensic Evidence
- Howard immediately on arrest volunteered and provided
forensic samples. He was thoroughly examined by a doctor
at this time (about 12 hours after the crime). Given the
violent vaginal and anal rape that had taken place some
marks would have been expected - none were found. In fact
a report by the Forensic Access Team concluded that "There
is no evidence that Howard had been involved in any sexual
activity at the material time with anyone, let alone Sophie
Hook."
- Despite the appalling violence of the crime, no blood
or fibre evidence was found on Howard's clothes, underclothes
or in his home. When arrested he was apparently wearing
the same clothes as the day before.
- If Howard did abduct Sophie he would have had to carry
her while pushing his bike, through a narrow bushy bridle
path to the sea. No evidence of bushes, thorns etc were
found on her clothes.
(Given this, along with the fact that Sophie was taken
across a main road to reach the sea, the possibility that
the crime was committed by someone using a car must be
considered.)
- The prosecution maintained that due to being in the
sea, the body had been "forensically cleansed"
and hence no DNA link could be established.
However:-
- A statement by Howard's solicitor Mr Ray Woodward dated
9.7.96 refers to his attendance at Rhyl police station
on Monday 31st July. This statement concludes "it
was implicit in all discussions that they (the police)
did in fact have forensic evidence that was capable of
proving or disproving the involvement of this defendant".
Mr Woodward has since stated his belief that the police
were stalling for time by talking about waiting for forensic
tests and that he no longer believes that there was any
forensic evidence.
- A statement dated 31.7.95 by Constable Lise Goss records
a list of items taken from the body during the post-mortem
on 30.7.95 as well as blood samples, anal and vaginal
swabs, it lists a number of hairs some described as "possibly
pubic" found on the body. It was concluded that these
hairs were fibres from a blanket laid over the body on
the beach by a member of the public. DNA technology has
however advanced even since this fairly recent crime and
even very tiny traces of DNA might be more significant
today than then.
- In his book "The Kevin Callan Story" (Page
160, beginning of Chapter 14) Mr Callan describes an incident
which occurred after his release having been cleared of
murder by the Court of Appeal (He had studied neurology
and enlisted the help of experts to disprove the case
against him.)
At the time he was living in Colwyn Bay and was visited
by the police who asked him to give a DNA sample to assist
the Sophie Hook investigation. Mr Callan made a complaint
about this with the help of his solicitor Campbell Malone.
Either this incident was pure harassment of Mr Callan
or the police believed that DNA evidence did exist.
According to the book the visit occurred 36 hours after
Howard had been charged (about a week after the murder).
Given that the samples were taken by Constable Goss on
the same day the body was found, it seems very strange
that the police were still investigating in terms of DNA
when the prosecution case was that any such evidence had
been washed out in the sea.
Certainly if any DNA evidence had been found linking Howard
to the crime it would have been used in evidence. The
case of Stefan Kiszko indicates that prosecuting authorities
have not always been adverse to hiding forensic evidence
which disproves the involvement of a suspect.
- Fingernail scratches?
There were scratches on Sophie's body which a Home Office
pathologist said were "probably caused by the assailant's
fingernails". A second Home Office pathologist, Dr
Tapp, concluded that Howard's nails were bitten down to
such an extent that it would have been impossible for
Howard to have made the marks. (Medical records confirm
that his nails had been bitten down like this since at
least age 13) The prosecution changed their view to suggest
that the marks were made by rocks in the sea.
3. Another Strange Circumstantial Event?
A former soldier suffering from Gulf War syndrome and/or
stress related to the war went absent on the night of
the crime from a local psychiatric unit, very close to
the house where the children were camping. He returned
in the morning with wet clothes which suggested he had
been in the sea. Shortly after this he committed suicide.
It is disrespectful in the extreme to suggest this gentleman
had any involvement in the crime on the basis of this.
However this event illustrates how in a town the size
of Llandudno numerous events may be taking place at night
which could be interpreted as circumstantial evidence.
Howard was not the only person out and about and acting
in an unusual way.
4. Barristers at the Trial
It has been suggested that Gerard Elias QC for the prosecution
and Patrick Harrington QC for the defence were from the
same Chambers. If so, this would seem entirely inappropriate
in such a serious case.
(D) Conclusion
- Howard has always vehemently maintained his innocence.
- The prosecution were able to present a strong circumstantial
case.
- This is however offset by the complete lack of forensic
evidence on Howard or his clothes, which in a case like
this seems to suggest that Howard was not the perpetrator.
- There is at least an implication that forensic evidence
from the body did exist (See C2 above). If this was the
case where is it and what has happened to it?
- The confession evidence may well be unreliable.
Howard's unsuccessful appeal in March 98 was presided
over by the Lord Chief Justice. This and the restrictive
rules of the appeal process makes any review of the current
evidence or legal argument unlikely to impact on the conviction
of Howard.
In such a horrific crime as this society has the duty
to ensure that the true perpetrator is detained. New evidence,
perhaps relating to the central issue of the confession,
the conduct of the police investigation or ideally of
a forensic nature seems to be required to prove the guilt
or innocence of Howard Hughes. The current situation echoes
some disturbing parallels with the case of Stefan Kiszko.
A tragedy everyone agreed should never happen again.
This case summary is accurate to the best of our knowledge
at the time of writing. It has been compiled with reference
to a limited number of case papers and with the assistance
of:
Mr Ray Woodward
Mr Bob Woffinden
Mrs Renee Hughes
South Wales Liberty (September '99) |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
| Flowers in Gods Garden |
|
| Paul Pearson |
|
| Rosie Palmer |
|
| Sophie Hook |
|
| Sarah Payne |
|
| Victoria Climbie |
|
| Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman |
- Documents
- Audio
|
| The Yorkshire Ripper |
- Video
|
|
