Murderer’s parole hearing ‘should be held in public’ says journalist

An investigative journalist is calling on the Parole Board to hold a public hearing when it considers whether a man convicted of a notorious murder should be released.

In 2011, John Pope was convicted for the second time of murdering Karen Skipper, 34, in 1996. Her partially clothed body was found in the River Ely.

Mrs Skipper’s former husband, Phillip, stood trial for her murder in 1997 but was cleared.

Pope, now 77, was convicted of her murder in 2009, but his conviction was quashed on appeal.

The murder investigation was reopened following improvements in forensic science, with Pope identified as a suspect.

One nagging doubt at Mr Skipper’s trial was a bloodstain found on the lining of Mrs Skipper’s pocket. DNA from the bloodstain did not match either Mrs Skipper or her husband, who died of cancer in 2004.

In 2006, Pope gave a DNA sample after he was arrested for another offence. In 2007, a review of unsolved cases found that the sample matched the DNA from the bloodstain.

Just before midnight on Sunday 10 March 1996, Mrs Skipper had been walking her two dogs along the riverbank at Birdie’s Field, between Ely and Fairwater. She was attacked, her lower clothes were removed and her hands were tied tightly behind her back with leads and dog chains. She was then thrown into the river, where she drowned.

Mrs Skipper’s body was found in the early hours of the morning by a man walking his dog.

Pope was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 19 years. Taking into account the time he served on remand and following his first conviction, Pope will shortly be eligible for a parole hearing at which a panel will decide whether he should be released.

Such hearings are usually held in private, but they can be held in public if a case is made that doing so is in the public interest.

Investigative journalist Satish Sekar, who has written about the case, has written to the Parole Board requesting that Pope’s hearing be held in public.

‘Injustices’

In his letter, he states: “I am a journalist who has an interest in injustices and also the application of justice. As you may know, I was integrally involved in exposing the miscarriage of justice that befell the Cardiff Five over the sexually motivated and horrific murder of Lynette White. In the course of that work, it became clear that further injustices were occurring. Jeffrey Gafoor, the real killer, won parole on his sixth application – the destructive role that his refusal to correct the injustice when he knew that innocent people were having their lives ruined, caused by his failure to put the record straight resulted in irreparable damage to innocent men.

“While the flaws in the tariff imposed on him are not the responsibility of the Parole Board – that was the responsibility of the judge – the parole process needs to be understood by the public, and that cannot happen if the public is not permitted to observe the hearing. That was a case of great public importance – it was the first vindication case in a homicide in Britain in the DNA age (vindication is a case where there is no doubt about innocence because the real perpetrator has been brought to justice). It was a matter of public importance as the public needed to fully understand the parole process, especially in such cases.

“The public must understand the parole process, and in such cases in particular, not only the process, but why these decisions were made. With the best will in the world, a summary cannot provide that.

“While it is too late to hold the Gafoor hearings in public, another similar case is wending its way towards a parole hearing. In the summer of 2011, John Pope was convicted of the sexually motivated and brutal 1996 murder of Karen Skipper for the second time – he was arrested in December 2007, which makes him eligible for a hearing to apply for his release on parole in December 2026.

‘Mean-spirited defence’

“He conducted a mean-spirited defence. His tactics were to try to create a reasonable doubt by aggressively accusing the late Philip Skipper by back door – Philip Skipper had been acquitted of Karen’s murder in 1997 – effectively reprosecuting Skipper without any safeguards. Pope not only never expressed remorse for the murder, but retraumatised Karen’s family and Philip’s too, which included a then barely teenage daughter. Her views on Pope’s parole application should be actively sought. She should not have to initiate such a process, and nor should her mother or Karen’s family.

“It is, in my view, essential that the parole process in this case is conducted in public.

“Mr Pope appears to remain a very dangerous person. His criminality at the time of the murder was impossible to predict. When facing being brought to justice, unlike Gafoor, he not only did not accept guilt, he aggressively tried to shift responsibility onto the entirely innocent and late Philip Skipper, a man who cannot defend himself and never got the chance to give a victim personal statement on the effect that Pope’s crime had had upon him – he died of stomach cancer aged just 48 in 2004 without ever seeing the real killer brought to justice.

“His family has not had their say either. The main purpose of your process is the protection of the public. Those directly affected should be invited to have their say, and the public should be reassured as to whether it trusts the process and feels safe by conducting the process in public. Then, and only then, can the public be reassured.

“I therefore request that Mr Pope’s parole application should be one that the public, including journalists, can observe.”

The Parole Board will decide in due course whether to hold the hearing in private or in public.