Almost from the moment that Raffle's body was found at the beginning of February 1986, the
police appear to
have decided that Frank had something to do with it. Given Frank's reputation at the time as a
career
criminal, and the fact that he was clearly a thorn in their flesh, this may not be surprising.
However, this
pre-determination makes their investigation look unbalanced - and, in the end, the
investigation produced
nothing more than circumstantial evidence and innuendo to be presented at the trial.
Surveillance of Frank and Edward Wood
Soon after the discovery of Raffle's body, it became evident to Frank that he was being
watched by somebody,
although he was in some doubt who was responsible for this surveillance. At times he was
certain it must be
the police, yet at others, the behaviour of those watching and following him seemed to rule
this out. By the
time of the trial, however, it was clear that the police had indeed been responsible.
A full account of the three incidents of surveillance noted by
Frank and his family
during this early part of the investigation undermines suggestions at the trial that
Frank's behaviour
under such surveillance was somehow incriminating.
The arrests of Frank and his family
At 7:00 on Sunday morning March 9th Frank was arrested by 22 armed police officers. Both Frank
and William,
his eldest stepson, were removed from the house in handcuffs, wearing only their night
clothing. The two
youngest children and Mrs Ornsby-Wilkinson were then also arrested and taken to Whitley Bay
police station,
leaving the home in the unsupervised hands of a large number of police officers who then
carried out an
extremely thorough search.
On arrival at Whitley Bay, Mrs Ornsby-Wilkinson was informed that she would be charged with
complicity in a
murder and that her husband and son William were to be charged with that murder. She was
subject to a barrage
of
questions and abuse. Mrs Ornsby-Wilkinson repeatedly asked that her children be allowed home
with her so that
they could be fed but this merely brought further abuse. A long, pre-written statement was
placed before her
and she was told that if she were to sign it, then she and all three of her children would be
released. After
12 hours in the police cells, Mrs Ornsby-Wilkinson finally signed this statement and returned
home with her
two youngest sons.
On returning home, they discovered that carpets had been ripped up, panelling had been torn
from the bathroom
walls and many household contents were missing, including ornaments, her clothing, her
husband's clothing and
most of the children's clothing. All of the family vehicles had been vandalised, particularly
the Daimler,
the boot and doors of which had been opened with a crow bar even though the police had the
keys in their
possession. (A complaint lodged by Mrs Ornsby-Wilkinson against the police, and a claim for
compensation for
the damage done in the course of the search, was eventually refused in August 1988 on the
grounds that there
was no evidence that the damage had been done by the police!)
Mrs Ornsby-Wilkinson then made repeated telephone calls to try to find where her husband and
son were.
When her eldest son eventually returned home, he too brought home an account of threats and
brutality by the
police similar to her own. He too had finally signed a police-written statement against Frank.
According to Frank's own account of it, the
conduct of Frank's
first police interview, suggests that one use made of the arrest of the whole family was
to encourage him
to make some sort of incriminating statement. Significantly, neither his wife's nor his son's
statement was
produced at his trial. Nor did the thorough search of his house provide the police with any
significant
evidence.
The arrest of Edward Wood
Wood was arrested at his home by Detective Sergeant Atkinson and Detective Constable Pooley in
the company of other police officers at 7:30 on Sunday morning March 9th 1986. On admittance
to the house,
Atkinson said to Wood:
"I am making enquiries about an assault on Alexander Armstrong at the beginning of
December 1985 and a
burglary at his house, 37, Cedarwood Avenue, at the same time. I'm arresting you for the
assault and the
burglary."
Wood replied:
"That bastard, I'll kill him."
In contrast to Frank's treatment, Wood was then allowed to dress, collect cigarettes and
so on before
being taken to North Shields police station.
Questioning of Frank and Edward Wood
Between the morning of Sunday March 9th, shortly after their arrest for the assault on
Alexander Armstrong, and the evening of Tuesday March 11th
1986, the
police
account of the interview process shows that Eddie was interviewed 9 times and Frank 3 times.
All interviews
took place at North Shields police station.
(See a detailed
record of the
interviews conducted by the
police here.)
Over the course of Eddie's interviews, the story of how Frank supposedly came to murder Raffle
can be seen
taking shape. These interviews were all conducted as conversations and in the main part were
written up into
note form later. (Note that there is no record at all of one of these interviews.) In
addition, Eddie
accompanied the police on a trip to Kielder Forest.
According to the police, Frank was interviewed three times with notes being written down
contemporaneously.
Frank maintains he was interviewed or seen in his cell by the police five times -
and the Custody Record seems to bear this out. He says no
contemporaneous record was
kept of any of these interviews or visits - certainly, no solicitor was present at any
interview, despite
Frank having requested a solicitor immediately prior to his first interview.
Taking of witness statements
The police took a large number of witness statements - according to a prosecution solicitor,
at one stage
there were almost 600 statements to go through, mostly concerned with Frank and his life in
the village. By
July 1986 this witness list had fallen to 135 and was reduced further to 45 at the pre-trial
hearing - these
consisting largely of police officers who had searched various places and other witnesses
giving background
information.
The shifting nature of the stories told by some of the witnesses (several of whom eventually
gave evidence at
the trial) makes them seem less than trustworthy. What follows are examples of such witnesses.
Edward Wood's partner, Brenda McMillan, was interviewed by the police during the same period
that Frank and
Wood were themselves being questioned. She made
three
contradictory
statements, her last statement eventually agreeing with Wood's own final story of what
allegedly
happened on the night of the murder.
Several witnesses were interviewed in regard to the Ford Sierra:
- Kevin Lowson was 21 years old at the time and was an acquaintance of Raffle. Lowson
made two totally
opposing statements to the police. (Lowson's statements.
)
- Alexander McKenzie was the man who stole the trailer that caused so much trouble to
Dodds and Raffle
(Raffle having bought it from McKenzie and resold it to Dodds). (The
trailer
story.). Alexander McKenzie made three statements, all contradicting each other. (McKenzie's statements.)
- Elizabeth Sneap, the wife of the proprietor of "Wheels and Custom", gave statements to
the police
regarding the number plates Frank had bought from them to put on the Sierra. (Sneap's statements.)
Gathering of physical evidence
There were five main sources for the physical evidence gathered by the police during their
investigation:
- Raffle's body - Evidence was found linking Frank to items
of clothing on
the body. Rather than suggesting he had been involved in the murder, all the evidence was
consistent with
his frequent contact with Raffle, including over that weekend.
- The murder weapon - Although a hammer that probably
belonged to
Frank was used to hit Raffle, there is no evidence to suggest that Frank wielded it - and
it may not have
been the only weapon responsible for his death.
- The Ford Sierra - No evidence was found to back the
claim that the
Sierra had been involved in the murder. All evidence linking Frank to the Sierra is
consistent with his
having worked on it over weekend in question and having put some tools in a sack to loan
to Wood which
Wood then put in the boot.
- Frank's house - Despite a very thorough forensic
examination, as
with the Sierra, nothing was found that was inconsistent with Frank having spent part of
that weekend
working with Raffle in his yard.
- Wood's house - The gathering of evidence from Wood
provides a stark
contrast to the thoroughness with which forensic evidence against Frank was sought.