Hard Handshake

Had a great meeting with Shaun Attwood recently – a very nice lunch in my garden. Shaun almost ate all the potatoes from the three raised beds in the vegetable patch – clearly he is still recovering from the green baloney diet he was fed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio during his spell in Arpaio’s jail system in Maricopa County, Arizona a few years ago. Shaun’s book, Hard Time, (pictured,) covers his time in Arpaio’s custody when he started the world’s first blog by a prisoner. It’s a great read and a worthy first effort, well worth buying here for special fast delivery. I liked Shaun – an inveterate smiler who is campaigning hard through his book and his continued writing to bring to light the inhumanities of Joe Arpaio’s prisoner abuses. Good luck Shaun – it was a pleasure to shake your hand…

Sion Jenkins

The only person who really knows the answer to that question is Sion Jenkins himself. But the man was subjected to three trials, pursued by the state with unlimited resources at a cost of tens of millions of pounds, yet still a jury could not be persuaded to convict him of murdering his foster daughter Billie Jo. The evidence that did convict him at the end of his first trial, the microscopic blood spots found on his fleece jacket, was quickly undermined by the time of his second trial. Given that the patio where Billie jo was beaten to death with a metal tent peg was splattered with blood and tissue from her injuries it was unlikely that the only forensic evidence on her assailant would be such a fine microscopic spray. ”To put the 158 microscopic bloodspots into proportion, a vigorous sneeze will normally generate 20,000 tiny droplets of mucus, saliva and phlegm – that is, about 100 times as many as the number found on Sion’s clothing. ” (From The Murder of Billie Jo by Sion Jenkins and Bob Woffindon.) Close scrutiny of this evidence by experienced Canadian policeman Joseph Slemko among others, an internationally known expert in the field of bloodstain evidence, led him to conclude that for the pattern to on Jenkins’ fleece jacket to have been created, Jenkins, “…would have to be in a crouching semi-kneeling postion, with the right side and right outer lower trouser leg exposed to the blood source and whith his torso twisted right and lowered to expose the outer chest area – a position not consistent with being an assailant, but consistent with him positioning himself to examine her.”  Slemko called the prosecution theory, that the pattern on the fleece had been created by “impact splatter” - ”highly improbable.” The only evidence left against him was “bad character” evidence, which hadn’t been admissable at his first trial. In this respect much was made of the fact that Jenkins had fabricated large parts of his CV when he applied for and secured the post of deputy head at William Parker school in Hastings. It made him look “dodgy” for sure. But it is a huge leap from fabricating a CV to bludgeoning a thirteen year old girl, for whom you hold parental responsiblity, to death. Jenkins held the post of deputy head for five years and on the strength of what he had achieved was invited to apply for the post of Head. Sexing up his CV was a stupid unnecessary thing to do. He did have a teaching certificate. He did have a masters degree in educational management – but to get out of London he invented a history of bonafides that prompted East Sussex County Council to state after his fraud was uncovered, ”He did not attend the University of Kent and has not obtained a BA (hons) degree, a Post Graduate Certificate in Education, an Advanced Diploma from the Open University or an Msc in Education Management from Kings College London. He did not attend Gordonstoun School. This is the information contained in his application for deputy headmaster.”  Mortifying stuff – but not evidence that he murdered anyone.

Ken Clarke, a "Progressive."

“I think it is too simple to argue about tougher sentencing or softer sentencing, although it makes for good headlines,” said Justice Minister Ken Clarke yesterday in his speech to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. How true. How honest.  (I describe him as a “Progressive” in my Guardian piece on his speech to the CCJS yesterday.) A more appropriate term would be “effective.” Effective sentencing not only means reserving prison for those who have caused serious harm to others, but ensuring that while they are there, if they want to change and work towards living crime free lives they should be offered every opportunity to do so. Not, you understand, for reasons of compassion and understanding and kindness – but to maximise the likelihood that they will not re-offend and hurt someone else once they have been released. Everyone in prison, bar the thirty or so highest profile murderers in the system, will be released one day and they will end up being somebody’s neighbour. My view is that we, as a society, should be doing all we can to ensure that once they are out they become good neighbours. I’m also with Clarke as far as short sentences are concerned. For every sentence under twelve months that scares a perpetrator into “going straight” – nine others will only serve to condition the offender into the prisoner/convict/criminal identity. The majority of long term prisoners have at least a couple of short sentences somewhere in their history. Effective community sentencing is the way forward for less serious offenders – failure to comply should result in a custodial sentence of at least two years – not to be spent in a traditional, invariably overcrowded  and underresourced long term prison, but in a facility designed specifically to get them to address why they are failing.  These are challenging ideas, but necesarry if we really want fewer people to become victims of re-offenders.

It is no surprise to me that many people on death row in the US “volunteer” to be executed after suffering years in limbo – neither alive or dead – just waiting for the needle -  or the firing squad. In Utah last month, when Ronnie Lee Gardner was asked how he would like to be executed after 25 years on death row he said, “I would like the firing squad please.” Bless him. You’d have to have done a few years as a lifer to really appreciate the humour in that request.

Lifers are the highest suicide risk in UK prisons, especially in the months after conviction and sentence – or during the first twelve months of release. Lifers in the UK have become the forgotten few – other than those close to them few outside care if they live or die – in the system they are treated with contempt and disdain – most of them are murderers, so why not? Except the sentencing procedure operates with an assumption that almost all “life sentence” prisoners will one day be released – once the “tariff” has been served for the purpose of “retribution and deterrence” - the only reason they should be kept in is if they present an ongoing risk to the public. How do the professionals figure out the risk? Educated guesses is the the answer – for nobody can see inside anyone’s head, not even prison psychologists…. though how they would love to.

Instead of working to get lifers out and functioning properly in the community, they keep them in, by default – playing them along, do this course or that course, then do them again and again and again – nobody outside cares that these forgotten men and women are being subjected to distressing and damaging mental pressure – they are murderers or rapists, paedophiles or arsonists – they deserve all they get. That’s how the system gets away with abusing them. Victims, I guess, wouldn’t care too much how the perpetrators suffer, just so long as they do which is completely understandable.

But I think it is about time we had some honesty in the life sentence – either let lifers out with a realistic chance of living again and attempting to make some ammends; keep them all in until they die – or bring back the death penalty and publicly execute as many capital convicts as the viewers can stomach. The latter would be an undisguised blessing for many more than you might imagine.

Da'rryl Durr

What happened to sixteen year old Angel Vincent was heinous and grotesque. That she was murdered is beyond any doubt. Whoever did it behaved in the worst possible manner towards a fellow human being. That she was so young and had her whole life before her exacerbates the crime that was committed against her. She and her family had an absolute right to demand and expect justice towards whoever killed her. The pain that her murder left behind must have been unbearable and everlasting. As anyone would, now that I know about the case I feel deeply for Angel Vincent and her family. And I wish them peace.

 Da’rryl Durr was convicted unanimously by a jury of Angel Vincent’s murder. He was also convicted of kidnapping her, robbing her and raping her. But there was no physical evidence against him – the tests on Angel Vincent’s remains for evidence of rape were inconclusive. Durr was convicted on the sole testimony of his former girlfriend Deborah Mullins. He may indeed have been guilty as charged. But though Mullins’ testimony was strong and her recollections feasible – should that have been enough to warrant the state extinguishing Durr’s life?

 In news reports about his case Durr is invariably described as a, “serial rapist and murderer.” He was initially arrested on suspicion of committing two rapes – only then did Deborah Mullins come forward and tell the police that Durr had murdered Angel Vincent, almost nine months after Vincent disappeared and five months after Vincent’s remains were discovered in a park. On the advice of his lawyers Durr pled guilty to the rapes – but later denied that he had ever raped anyone. He continued to deny that he had murdered Angel Vincent for the whole of the twenty one years and three months he was on death row. Right until the end – he said he was innocent.

 In such cases, where the original evidence has an element of vagueness and there has been such a long passage of time, the only people who can ever really know the truth are the people involved. In this case that means Durr and Mullins. But when I spoke to Durr on Saturday 17^th April and then again on Tuesday 20^th April three and a half hours before he was executed, though I felt obliged to ask him, his innocence or guilt did not seem relevant. It was clear to me that whoever Da’rryl Durr had been in 1988 when Angel Vincent was murdered, this was a different man. We were almost four thousand miles apart and our conversations were brief. But there was enough information in our exchanges to convince me that the Da’rryl Durr who was executed on that Lucasville gurney at 10.36 local time was a man of dignity and courage.

When it comes to prison barbarism by far the most popular personal weapon of choice in the UK is the old favourite and perpetually reliable, “battery in a sock.” Wielded like a battle flail, a simple sock loaded with a PP9 can swiftly and effectively incapacitate even the most robust enemy with just a few swings to the temple, so long as a solid connection is made from the off. For that to happen, better that the strike is made when the target least expects it: in the communal toilets perhaps when heads are down and trousers are around ankles, or in the showers – for nobody in prison is more vulnerable than a naked prisoner with eyes closed under flowing water – and the more cowardly the attack, the greater the likelihood of success. (Pusillanimity is almost always a key characteristic among jail assailants.) Other weapons are popular too of course. The jug of, “napalm,” – boiling water taken from the landing urn mixed with sugar to ensure the hot liquid sticks and inflicts maximum scarring is another favourite. A good “jugging” will soon rid the wing of any persona non grata. More vicious and risky to employ are home made bladed instruments known as “chibs” or “shivs,” (though there is now a fashion for calling such tools after their American equivalents: “shanks.” In-cell television and access to programmes like America’s Toughest Jails, has introduced much US prison slang terminology to UK prisoners which helps to give the largely depressing British prison experience yet another distorted shade of the exotic.)

 Blades can be fashioned from a positive plethora of items available on a prison wing. Most convenient to hand are prison issue knives, forks and spoons made from hardened plastic which are easy to hone on any abrasive surface. Perspex rulers stolen from the education department, sharpened and shaped by the same method also make fearsome stabbing implements. The classic prison shiv however is the type that Damien Fowkes allegedly used on Huntley – the toothbrush with a razorblade melded into the end. According to various reports Fowkes allegedly managed to cut a seven-inch gash Huntley’s throat that may have been as much as an inch deep, missing his jugular by a matter of millimetres.

No glory for Fowkes however. My guess is that the lack of precision in his  lunge and slice will haunt the convicted robber for the rest of his criminal career. Huntley will now undoubtedly be generously compensated for the prison service’s alleged negligence in allowing the circumstances in which the assault took place to occur. And instead of becoming known as the man who killed Huntley, Fowkes will be forever known as the man who won a cash bonus of thousands for a childkiller. If the whole sorry episode was not so damned tragic – it would be a struggle not to split your sides laughing.

No toilet joy in "The 'Joy"

During my visit to Mountjoy jail a couple of Monday’s ago I had some great “craic” with a group of long term prisoners. I am never too sure about the appropriateness of me going into prisons to “meet the residents.” I guess that’s because I remember all too often how embarrassing it used to be when visitors came into prisons where I was serving my time. For one, nobody is exactly looking their best. Gawping outsiders traipsing about the place with a prison officer in tow telling them how good the facilities are etc etc used to be so frustrating. There were some amazing facilities in many of the prisons I experienced for sure – but only a minority of prisoners ever got to take advantage of them. It was always a fierce competition to get anywhere near the front of the queue for opportunities. And then there were those who really didn’t want to compete – they needed more help, more encouragement, more of everything – so they got left behind. The guiding prison officers rarely mentioned those truths. In Mountjoy it was different. I agreed to go in to talk about writing – share a bit of my journey, before, during and after prison. It might inspire a bit of hope – I never saw anyone who had been in prison come back in to share something positive with us when I was in. I only ever saw people coming back who had failed, for whatever reason, and were back for another stint. What struck me at Mountjoy was how, (ahem,) honest everybody was. The teachers I met were amazing – as usual in prisons everywhere, these people treated the prisoners like students – and there was a holistic approach to their work. They weren’t just teaching subjects, they were providing social care and support. I met the music teacher, the ceramics teacher, a psychologist and a counsellor – they were just amazing individuals. The big bear of a teacher who organised my visit could not have been more positive about the work they were doing. “We are trying to encourage hope and the belief that there is a better way to live, even in here,” he said. I shook hands with a prison officer – he was embarrassed about the “slopping out” – the practice of shitting and pissing in buckets by prisoners – I was shocked that it was still going on.  Even the governor was embarrassed when I mentioned it to him. But it is the Irish Prison Service that really should be embarrassed. People go to prison as a punishment – not to have their human dignity undermined more than it already has been by their criminality.

Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox

In the Land of the Free, Vadim Jean’s film about the suffering and injustice inflicted by the state of Louisiana on Herman Wallace, Albert Woodfox and Robert King is a searingly compelling masterclass in documentary making. I had a preview of the film a few weeks ago and when it finished, the small group of us present, sat motionless and in silence for several minutes. The power of this injustice was just so overwhelming, Vadim Jean has marshalled the facts superlatively. America is a great country, but like any western democracy it has its flaws. This case is more than a flaw however, it is a bleeding wound in its heart, a shadow over its soul. Hearing Albert’s voice crying out to be heard after more than 37 years in solitary was like listening to a silent scream. His voice trembling but his courage and nobility intact, he sent his message to the world over the telephone from Angola prison. “Our primary objective,” he says, “is that front gate. That is what we are struggling for and we are actually fighting for our freedom. We are fighting for people to understand that we were framed for a murder that we are totally, completely and actually innocent of.” It was a privilege to write about the case for the Guardian.

Vadim Jean: “Anyone who wants to help right this dreadful injustice should write letters to Herman and Albert expressing their support.”  The letter template, in the only form acceptable to the prison, can be accessed at: www.inthelandofthefreefilm.com from 15 March. Letters to the Governor of Louisiana, Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal, may be addressed to: Office of the Governor, PO Box 94004, Baton Rouge, LA 70804, USA. In the Land of the Free is premiered at the Human Rights Watch film festival in Brixton on 24 March and goes on general release on 26 March. 

I spoke to my friend Big Rinty on the telephone last night. Rinty, who passed his 56th birthday last week, has been in jail since 1976 after he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released in 1994 and attempted to make his way in the community, working and living honestly until he was accused of an assault in 1997. He was innocent, he told the police. At his trial he told the jury the same thing. “I’m innocent,” he said loud and clear from the dock. The jury believed him. After just eight minutes of deliberations they returned a firm and unequivocal, “NOT GUILTY.” He should have walked from the court a free man and been allowed to get on with the rest of his life. Instead he was recalled to prison. His life-licence in effect until the day he dies, he is subject to recall at any time on any pretext by the authorities. They said they were taking him back in for “psychological assessment.” Thirteen years later he is still in prison with no indication of when he might be considered for re-release. He bears up well, my friend Rinty. He’s still funny – still got his “inappropriate sense of humour,” as one psychologist put it in a report justifying his continued detention. He still makes me smile – but his courage makes me want to weep too. Last night he spoke about the recall of Jon Venabals. ”He’s not been charged yet,” he said, “but if he does get charged with something and then goes to trial – what if he gets found not guilty? Will they keep him in, for something a jury says he didn’t do? Or will they let him out?” It’s an interesting question, probably baffling the experts at this very moment, (although if the experts are baffled, how the f*** can they be “experts”?) 

“What I’m saying,” said Rinty, hope rising in his voice, “is if he’s found not guilty and they let him out – surely they’ll have to let me out?” Surely they will, surely they will, all things being equal. And by Christ that would be a lovely result for my big friend.

On this morning’s Today programme Jack Straw confirmed that he has still not met with the family of James Bulger – why not? That he didn’t say – he “might” give the nation  – ie the tabloid press – “more details” concerning the arrest and recall to prison of the prisoner formerly known as Jon Venables, later today. Where is the leadership in that? Last week home secretary and former postman Alan Johnson said, “the public has a right to know” the reasons for JV’s recall – until he was slapped down by Straw and closed his mouth on the subject. Johnson has been such a disappointment as home sec – his humble beginnings should have made him a perfect “man of the people,” able to act for the community as a whole – not just sections that he thinks might give him the hardest time. But it is Jack Straw who is at fault here. Last year he slated prison reform charities for their “platitudes” about prisoners. “It’s the victim we should be more concerned about,” he said. The Venables/Bulger tragedy needed immediate and firm leadership. Venables is currently facing no charges, according to Straw. As far as I can see it is Jack Straw who should be in the dock for failing us in one of the most crucial tests of justice in modern times.