After lunch, the Judge invited Mr Muller to begin the case for the defence, on behalf of Frank. He called Frank to the witness box.

Franklyn Wilkinson

Frank agreed that he knew Raffle well and had many business connections with him concerning scrap and other commodities. He had used many tools in Raffle's yard, some belonging to Raffle and others his own. He stated that Raffle himself was not a thief but would cause others to steal articles for him which he would then buy from them. He agreed that he had instructed William Ornsby to buy the number plates from "Wheels and Custom" in New York, the date being the morning of Sunday December l5th 1985 and not in September as Sneap had testified. This purchase was two days after Wood stole the Sierra from Davidson's. Frank had originally fitted the car with plates bearing the registration number CGR 677W on Friday evening. He was certain that the new plates had been fitted on Sunday evening and at the request of Raffle. Wilkinson stated that he last saw Raffle at between 5.30 to 6 pm and that when he left the yard he left Raffle alone with McKenzie.
Frank had then, he said, returned home, where he put a number of tools into a bag for Wood as Wood was making a wall unit at home. Wood placed the tools into the Sierra as he was planning to take both the tools and the Sierra home with him. Frank identified a hammer shown to him as probably being one that he had loaned to Wood. Mr Muller showed him another hammer and Frank said that, again, while he could not identify it with certainty, it could well be a hammer he had loaned to Wood along with the other tools. Frank said that he went home for his tea and then took his dogs out for the evening, to Whitley Bay, returning home around 10.30 pm. He then had one or two drinks at home with Wood. He said that he did not leave his home again that night and was still there when a police officer called the next morning to discuss a traffic offence involving his Volvo. He said that he was probably wearing his blue fingerless gloves when he fitted the number plates and when he put the tools into the bag for Wood. He identified the tools as far as he could but was not sure where the pick axe mentioned by the police had come from - he had not put it into the Sierra. He agreed that the murder weapon could well be his.
When asked about the police surveillance and the trip to Scotland he replied that the trip had only turned out the way it had because of the police activity. He agreed that he had lied to the police about the surveillance and its aftermath but that this had only been because the police had been lying to him. He also agreed that he had lied during an interview. His reason for that was that his solicitor had advised him to say nothing so he had denied any knowledge of the gloves or anything else to do with the number plates.

(At this stage the court was adjourned for the weekend, and, because of the withdrawal of Wood's defence team on the following Monday morning, was not reconvened until the Wednesday.)

Under resumed questioning from Mr Muller, Frank stated that he had assisted Raffle out of the front seat of the Sierra when he had been working on the electrical connections, thereby accounting for the fibres on Raffle's sticking plaster. Frank was then shown a body-warmer, in the pocket of which had been found a pine needle. He stated that he had never worn the garment and that it was not his. When Frank was asked to try the body-warmer on in court, it was plainly shown to be too small for him to wear. Frank repeated that the tools had been loaned to Wood and were in his possession before the murder took place. Frank said that he had nothing else he wished to say at that time.
Mr Stuart for the Crown then started his cross-examination of Frank. This cross-examination reminded the jury that Frank had lied to the police over the surveillance and during the alleged interviews. Frank accepted this, but asked how many times he would be expected to repeat that he had lied to the police? When asked whether he had lied to the court, Frank replied that he most certainly had not. Mr Stuart ended his cross- examination by describing Frank as a pathological liar.
Wood declined to ask Frank any questions, although he agreed that not to do so was to accept Frank`s testimony as fact.
Mr Muller then asked one or two minor subsequent questions and Frank left the witness box after five and a half hours' testimony.

Noel Spence

A forensic scientist from Northern Ireland with extensive experience of murder enquiries and forensic evidence. This witness gave evidence as to the common use of the type of material from which the gloves involved in the case were made. The strongest statement that could be made was that the fibres could have come from the gloves. He then explained the theory of secondary transfer of fibres, giving an account of an experiment he had conducted in his laboratory:
On Friday 23rd January 1987 Mr Spence had placed on his hand a glove of identical material to those in the case. With the gloved hand he picked up a hammer similar to that in the case. After a short while he placed the hammer into a plastic bag and put the bag onto a shelf where he left it until the following Monday morning. At that time he taped his hands with sellotape to remove any other fibres which may have already been adhering to his skin. Using this clean hand he removed the hammer from the plastic bag and, holding the hammer shaft as if to hit something, he had approached a prepared dummy dressed in a clean white coat. Mr Spence struck the head of the dummy with the hammer to correspond with the number of blows allegedly struck to the dead man's head. Mr Spence then took the dummy under the armpits and dragged it around the laboratory to simulate the alleged dragging of Alan Raffle's body. The findings were as follows: The conclusion was that if Frank had been in contact with Raffle or if he had handled the hammer prior to the murder at any time, then any fibre evidence could be entirely innocent. This was to accept that the fibres came from Frank's garments in the first place. No actual challenge was made to this evidence by Mr Stuart for the Crown.
Mr Muller then called as his final witness the manager of a large textile mill in Yorkshire where the material of the thermal type gloves had been produced. This witness gave evidence concerning the volume of this material produced annually by his factory alone and concerning the varied garments made from it. These included gloves along with many others, demonstrating that the fibres could have come from a great number of sources other than the gloves that had been presented in court. His evidence was not challenged by the Crown.
Wood was asked if he had any questions but declined the offer. Mr Muller rested the case for Frank's defence.