INNOCENT main page

The case

The disappearance of Charlotte Pinkney

The last time anyone claims to have seen Charlotte Pinkney, aged 16, was on 2 March 2004. She disappeared from the north Devon town of Ilfracombe. If she died, her body has never been found.

Charlotte Pinkney

A convenient suspect

Although Charlotte’s mother seems to have last seen her on 27 February, it was not until 4 March that they reported her missing. A large scale search for her followed, with no result (see BBC news 27 March 2004). On 7 March the police arrested Nick Rose, then aged 22, a friend of Charlotte. Nick was questioned, released on bail, then rearrested on 31 March and charged with the murder of Charlotte. Following a trial at Exeter Crown Court, he was convicted of the murder.

Nick last saw Charlotte early on the morning of Saturday, 28 February 2004. They had been at a party, and at about 4.30 am. Nick said he was leaving to visit a friend, Helena Mackenzie. Dean Copp asked if he could accompany him, and so did Charlotte. They drove away in a red Cavalier borrowed from Helena. When they arrived, she was out. They drove to another friend’s house. Dean went to see if anyone was in, while Nick turned the car round. Nick thought he saw police approaching the car, and drove away, since he was disqualified from driving. He says he dropped Charlotte off near the party and drove away, and that was the last he saw of her.

Before he could reached his home, he thought the car was running out of fuel, so he drove down a track near a reservoir where he thought the police would not follow. In a tunnel where a railway crossed the track, the car became stuck in some mud. Still under the impression that the police were after him, perhaps with dogs, he ran up the bank at the side of the track, through brambles which scratched his hands and arms. He made his way to a hut, and climbed on the roof, and waited there until he felt sure no one was after him. Then he returned to the car and tried to move it, without success. So he went home. Later in the day he returned to the car and managed to move it.

Circumstantial evidence

According to the prosecution, when Dean Copp left the car, Nick tried to have sex with Charlotte. Dean said he saw them kissing (although he did not say this to the police initially, and admitted he was high on drink and drugs at the time). He drove to the tunnel, it was alleged, because it was a secluded place. Nick denies the allegation. The prosecution surmised that Charlotte resisted Nick’s advances, and he killed her in anger at this refusal; he then concealed the body temporarily near where the car was stuck, and disposed of it at some later time.

Scenes of crime officers examined the car and found traces of Charlotte’s DNA in bloodstains on the roof lining and in the boot. Although the jury may have been given an impression that the interior of the car was covered in blood, the traces were tiny. Some could have been caused by Charlotte sneezing after snorting cocaine. Charlotte had been in the car on numerous occasions, since the car was used by many members of the group of friends which included her, Nick and Helena Mackenzie.

Near where the car was stuck Charlotte’s Lonsdale-brand handbag was found. Although Nick could not explain how it got there, Charlotte may have left it in the car by mistake and some passer by may have looked in the car on the morning of 28 February, taken it and dropped it, after removing the money and credit cards (which were never found).

The following morning, according to Natalie Mackenzie, the sister of Helena, Nick was at Helena’s house at the same time as her. She observed three scratches on his neck, too long and deep to have been made by brambles (although she did not mention these scratches in her initial statement to the police).

But at the time she said Nick was at Helena’s house, he was playing football. Nick is certain that his team mates would have noticed if he had the scratches on his neck described by Natalie. Unfortunately the football team was not called to give evidence at his trial.

Nick could not have killed Charlotte

There is no evidence which directly connects Nick Rose with the death of Charlotte Pinkney. There is plenty of evidence which shows he could not have killed her.

After the car became stuck in the mud in the tunnel, Nick would have had very little time in which to dispose of Charlotte’s body, before walkers came by and saw him with the car, and with no sign of Charlotte’s presence. The police surmised that he hid the body temporarily nearby, and returned later to move it to wherever it is now – so well hidden that a massive and detailed search over a wide area failed to find it. But between the early morning of 28 February and Nick’s arrest on 7 March, all his time is accounted for. He had no chance to dispose of the body.

The prosecution told the court that Nick murdered Charlotte before 6.30 on the morning of 28 February. At about 12.30 the same day a boy who knew Charlotte saw her walking towards the centre of town. At 1.00 pm Brett Holford, landord of the Victoria pub in Ilfracombe saw Charlotte in his pub. At 3.00 pm Ronald Townsend saw Charlotte in the same pub. Later that day Martin Watts saw Gus O’Brien with a girl in the street. When shown a photo of Charlotte, he said he was ninety-nine per cent certain that the girl was Charlotte. Charlene Bettis, who knew Charlotte well, saw her at 4.20 pm on 2 March in Ilfracombe Town centre.

The prosecution insisted all these witnesses were mistaken: Charlotte was already dead. They said that the Victoria pub witnesses were confusing Saturday 28 February with Saturday 21 February. But on 21 February, Charlotte spent the day in a pub on the other side of town, in the company of a number of her friends. Unfortunately these friends were not called to give evidence at Nick’s trial.

Appeal

The appeal was heard on 22 June 2006 and judgment was given by Lord Justice Tuckey on 23 June, refusing the appeal.

The court heard two new witnesses who saw Charlotte alive after the last time when Nick could possibly have killed her. The judges (Tuckey, Leveson and Irwin) decided that one of these witnesses was honest but could have been mistaken, and that the evidence of the other would not have been admissible at the original trial, apparently because the judges did not find it credible.

It seems strange that they should dismiss these witnesses as being not credible because their evidence is set against that of prosecution witnesses who had been partying all night, consuming drugs and alcohol, and were, to use the word used by Lord Justice Tuckey, 'wrecked'.

But the decision of the judges is plainly wrong. Their duty is to decide whether fresh evidence would be admissible in a trial, and whether such evidence could have made a difference to the jury's decision.

It is not their business to decide whether witnesses are truthful or credible. That is the responsibility of a jury in the English legal system.

The trial jury had heard four good, independent witnesses say they had seen Charlotte alive after 6.30 am on 28 February, although the prosecution managed to cast doubt on their evidence. The jury took 25 hours of deliberations to reach a majority verdict. If they had heard two more independent witnesses confirm that Charlotte was alive after Nick was alleged to have killed her, they might well have decided they could not find him guilty. These witnesses, had the defence known of them at the time of the trial, would have been key witnesses for the defence case.

So the appeal court should have quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. Now, unless this wrong decision can be challenged in the House of Lords, the case will have to join the long queue at the door of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Contacts:

Nick Rose, KB8522, H.M.P. Wakefield, 5 Love Lane, Wakefield WF2 9AG

Mr and Mrs Rose (Nick’s parents)
0208 582 2562
email KAYROSE1@blueyonder.co.uk

Rose thorns

by John Hatton, Private Eye 1173, 8 December 2006

THE sudden dropping of all drug charges against 42-year-old Gus O’Brien, at Exeter crown court this month has renewed interest in the case of O’Brien’s missing girlfriend, Charlotte Pinkney, 16.

Although her body was never found, Nick Rose, 24, another man from the same West country town of Ilfracombe, was convicted of her murder at Exeter crown court almost two years ago.

Rose, O’Brien, and Charlotte had all been at a drugs party at a house in Slade, two miles outside the town in the early hours of the morning on February 28, 2004. Rose had arrived in a friend’s car and at about four o’clock in the morning had decided to drive back to the friend’s house in Ilfracombe. Charlotte and another man, Dean Copp, asked if they could come with him. Rose dropped Copp off in Ilfracombe, but instead of returning the car, he and Charlotte started off back to the party.

That, according to the prosecution, was the last time anyone saw Charlotte alive. Their case was that Rose killed her, hid the body and later dumped it somewhere. Although there was no direct evidence against him, there was on the face of it quite a lot of circumstantial evidence – tiny blood spots matching hers were found in the car; he was seen to have scratches on his neck; he was seen to be washing the car, both inside and out, the day after her disappearance. A bag similar to one Charlotte had owned was found near where Rose had said the car became stuck that night and a boot similar to hers was found near his home.

Rose maintained that when he arrived back at Slade, he saw police and – as he had no license - he hurriedly dropped Charlotte off at the Community Centre and drove the car to hide it up a rough track alongside Slade reservoirs. The car stalled and stuck in mud under a disused railway bridge. He scrambled up the embankment, scratching himself on brambles, and seeing that the coast was clear, walked along the railway embankment to his parents’ home in Ilfracombe. From then onwards, he had pretty well continuous alibis until his arrest on March 7.

One hurdle for the prosecution was that in order to convict Rose, it needed to prove that Charlotte was dead by 6.30 that morning. But at the trial, there were three witnesses who said they had seen her alive hours later. One was the landlord of Ilfracombe’s Victoria pub, Brett Houlford. He said that Charlotte and O’Brien had spent some hours in his pub on the afternoon of the 28 th. Charlotte had been sitting on Gus’s knee and was very distressed about something. He was sure it was the 28 th, because one of his regular customers, Ronald Townsend, normally an enthusiastic drinker, was drinking orange juice because he had to ferry his daughter and her friends from her birthday party that day at an Ilfracombe restaurant.

Mr Townsend himself said he also saw Charlotte on the 28 th looking ‘wrecked’. (He recently told the Eye that he had difficulty in persuading two police officers to take his statement. One said to him: ‘You’ve thrown a right spanner in the works.’)

The third was a 14 year old boy, who said was in no doubt about the date when he say Charlotte in the street, because it was a Saturday two days after his birthday. He was wearing his new tracksuit which had been given to him as a present.

Their evidence clearly troubled the jury, which took 25 hours to convict and only then by a majority verdict. However another man, postman …..Perrin then came forward later to say that he too had seen Charlotte in the pub at about 2.20pm. He spotted her when he arrived by taxi.

His evidence was central to Rose’s recent appeal – but the appeal judges ruled that he may have confused the 28 th with the 21 st, when he was on a similar work shift. However, the previous week Charlotte and O’Brien were seen watching a football match at a different pub in the town, and staff had apparently had to break down the lavatory door to recover Charlotte who had apparently passed out. (where does this come from)

The appeal judges clearly decided that all these witnesses were mistaken – even though restaurant records show Mr Townsend’s family birthday party definitely took place on the 28th. Lord Justice Tuckey commented that although he believed Mr Perrin an honest witness, he had been pressed to give evidence by Rose’s grandmother, Doris Brown.

But if the defence witnesses were mistaken, then much worse could be said of the prosecution witnesses, most of whom were at the drugs party that night. Dean Copp is barred from pubs for violence including assaults on women. (is this right what evidence). O’Brien himself under cross examination in the witness box, denied that he was dealer and that her death had been cocaine related. When police had searched his flat they found a book in his possession, entitled Changes after Death, which had been given him by the artist, Damian Hirst. A bookmark was in the chapter relating to death from an overdose.

O’Brien had told the court, he had not seen Charlotte leave the party that night, had never saw her afterwards and was not – as the landlord and others maintained - in the pub with her the next day.

Had Gus O’Brien trial gone ahead and he been convicted of drug dealing at Exeter the other week, the credibility of his evidence at Rose’s trial would have been thrown into doubt. The CPS were unable to tell the Eye why the charges against him had been dropped. They were unable to say when he had been charged, whether any Class A drugs had actually been found in his possession. A spokesman did say that witnesses, some of whom were the same as at Rose’s trial, were however no longer willing to come forward.

Campbell Malone , the probing solicitor behind many infamous injustice cases including that of Stefan Kiszko, has now taken over the Rose case and is now preparing a dossier for the Criminal Case Review Commission.

To contact the author, John Hatton, email hatton.hack@bristolsatire.fsnet.co.uk

INNOCENT main page