The Perfect Crime (35 page)

HISTORICAL NOTE

Donald Nappey was born on 1st August 1936 and lived with his father, a Willeyer at a woollen mill and his mother, a textile worker, in a tiny one up, one down terraced place, later demolished in a slum clearance programme. Because of his surname and diminutive size, he was bullied at school and in later life, during his National Service.

His mother died during the atrocious, arctic winter of 1947. Someone had to do the house work, so, being the oldest child (he had a sister four years his junior)
from
the
age
of
ten
, he had to do all the shopping, cooking, cleaning, washing and ironing for the family.

When he was 16, his father took in a housekeeper and seemed to be contemplating marriage again. Donald did not get on with the woman, who on one occasion even put a bar of soap in his lunchbox, to take to work with him. Shortly after this, he left home to live with some former neighbours. He was not gregarious and did not make friends easily. He didn’t smoke or drink which made it even more difficult for him to be one of the crowd.

He did have a 125cc BSA Bantam motorbike, bought on hire purchase and discovered that he was a reasonably good dancer. When he was 17, he met Irene Tate, a 19 year-old millworker, at a ‘Half-crown Hop’ at Bradford Textile Hall.

He was in and out of work, abandoning his first job after a matter of months. He was apprenticed to a joiner, but considered it slave labour. He tried studying joinery at evening classes, before starting another apprenticeship.

This ended when on 6th January 1955, he was called up for National Service.

He was posted to the Kings Own Yorkshire Light Infantry at Pontefract Barracks. During his time in the army, he learned about guns and ammunition and the tactics and strategies for successful sorties. He gained prowess in tracking and survival – skills which were to help him in his later, criminal career.

He saw service in Kenya for the anti Mau-Mau operations. Then on to Cyprus fighting EOKA terrorists and finally to Aden where he took part in internal security duties against Arab nationalists. Before he went, he married Irene at St Paul’s Church, Morley, on 30th April 1955. Relatives said he only did it to get the Service marriage allowance.

After he was demobbed, they were unable to afford a house of their own initially, so lived with Irene’s eldest sister for three years, during which time, the Nappey’s only child, Kathryn was born.

He tried a series of jobs. Door-to-door salesman, collecting waste paper, scrapping metal and a window cleaning round, but none of them came to anything. He bought a Morris Oxford and for a couple of years worked as a private hire cab driver, but it was at a time of ‘minicab wars’ and he got fed up with the continual aggravation and strife – and ensuing lack of trade.

Before Kathryn was due to start school, mindful of the cross he’d had to bear in the form of his surname, he changed the family’s name to that of the taxi firm – Neilson.

In yet another attempt to get a bit more cash flowing in, he converted part of their house into flatlets, but even this was to prove insufficient. It was at about this point that he turned to crime.

He started off with dwelling house burglaries, but even at that early stage, he was cute enough to adopt what he called his ‘all change’ system, using one MO for a series, and then something different for a few more. In one way, he was the perfect criminal. Never been in trouble, so not on record. No fingerprints, either. He didn’t drink, so was not going to be caught out, drunkenly boasting about his exploits, or being caught on a job because he was under the influence. Many burglars are, as they find breaking in exciting / frightening and often resort to some Dutch courage before going out, committing crime.

He only ever took things that he could immediately use himself. Usually cash and never anything in which he would have to involve a third party. He never, ever told his daughter about his criminal exploits.

He said he had never told his wife Irene, either, but that assertion is, at best questionable. One of their babysitters said that the Neilsons would go out late at night and return in the early hours. What were they doing? Not many mid week, late night venues in Bradford or the surrounding area in the early 70’s.

Also, about 21:30 on 15th January 1975 and around an hour before Gerald Smith was shot, a witness stated that she was sitting in her car, on Trindle Road, Dudley, waiting for her husband. She saw a car, registered number TTV 454H drive down the road and park directly in front of her. A man
and
a
woman
got out and walked away, towards the Station Hotel. This was less than 100 yards from where the shooting later took place. She said she gained the impression that the couple may have had an argument, as the man crossed the road towards the hotel, but the woman stayed on the other side of the road.

Additionally, after Neilson’s arrest, when the police arrived to search the place, they found that Irene had been burning postal orders in the fireplace. She was later convicted of dishonestly cashing postal orders – many hundreds of pounds worth and over a considerable period of time. She was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. A hefty sanction for a first time offender. Maybe not a Rosemary to her Fred West, but hardly an innocent bystander, with no knowledge (as she claimed) of her husband’s misdeeds.

Neilson came by the weapons and ammunition in two burglaries, the first on 17th November 1970 at premises in Thornhill, Dewsbury, where he stole a Remington automatic shotgun, a Smithson double barrelled shotgun and a quantity of cartridges. The second was at the end of January 1971 from a house in Cheadle Hume, Cheshire, where he stole a Hi Standard .22 automatic pistol (used to kill Derek Astin, Sidney Grayland and Gerald Smith, but never recovered by the police) a Walther 7·65mm automatic pistol, a Voere .22 automatic rifle, a Crossman .177 air rifle and 300 rounds of ammunition.

The list of his crimes is as accurate and comprehensive as I could achieve, bearing in mind that this is a novel and I have allowed myself some artistic licence. I have not been able to establish the names of all people with 100% accuracy, so in time honoured tradition, I have either glossed over matters, or simply made them up. If anybody knows any different and cares enough to enlighten me, I shall endeavour to make the corrections for the inevitable reprint / revision (!)

The Gloucester underpass business was a hoax. The couple ostensibly passing by walking their dog were later arrested and found guilty of trying to obtain £50,000 by deception from Ronald Whittle – because they had seen the money on the TV appeal and wanted to emigrate to Australia.

Neilson always maintained that his kidnap target was either Ronald, or Dorothy. In one sense, it matters not. The crime, the conviction, the sentence would have been the same whoever he abducted, but look at the evidence, the circumstances. He had to force his victim out of the house and singlehandedly secure them and get them into the car. How would he have managed with Dorothy, at that time 60 years old? And how would he have kept Ronald covered by his shotgun and at the same time, tied him up? If he had put the gun down to secure his prisoner, who knows what might have happened. In any case, he had been in and around Beech Croft on several occasions, sussing out the lie of the land. He would presumably have found out that Ronald no longer lived there, but with his wife, a mile or so away. Neilson may have been a lot of things (many unpleasant) but he was careful and was a planner, no doubt about that. How much easier with a slip of a girl of 17 – shorter than him and only 8 stone wet through. If he had taken Ronald, at Bathpool Park, he would somehow have to get his fit, 6 foot tall, prime of life, 14 stone victim out of the car and force him down a sixty foot drainage shaft. What chance? Far, far easier with little Lesley. The area he had chosen to secure his abductee – 22” wide by 5’ long. Just the right size for Lesley, Ronald would have been hard put, to stay put. I could go on.

Was there ever any sexual involvement with Lesley? He always maintained there was not, but I would defy any red blooded man in a position of absolute power – as he was – with a slim, seventeen year old girl, naked, in such close proximity, not to have the thought cross his mind. There is no evidence that he did pursue anything of a sexual nature with her, but when asked, would only say that his daughter, Kathryn was only a couple of years younger than her, so obviously nothing would ever have happened.

Right.

I’ll leave that one with you.

Did he mean to kill her? I must say that I am surprised the Crown pursued a murder charge. He was already on a fairly certain road to being convicted of three murders. He would have received no further meaningful sanction for a fourth. There was sound evidence for manslaughter. He had put her in the way of harm. She died as a result. Manslaughter, cut and dried, whether he intended her to die or not.

I am absolutely amazed that they actually went on to secure a conviction for murder. There was no sign of a struggle. She had no marks on her. From the evidence there was, it seems a reasonable assumption that she did, indeed slip over the edge of her platform in the sleeping bag. There is even some doubt that he was there when it happened. So, no independent evidence that he was there at the time (although he admitted he was) no evidence of the force that would have been needed to push her over, with her struggling against being pushed. In fact, had the wire tether not snagged as she fell, it wouldn’t have made any difference whether she fell, or was pushed. She would have landed on the ledge below. Was it the Crown’s contention that he pushed her over, knowing the wire was long enough for her to stand up when she landed, or that he knew it would snag, and so hang her? Either way, it does not really make sense. My opinion is that the murder conviction was attained simply because of the overwhelming sentiment against him – that and the fact he’d let it slip that Lesley had seen him without his hood on. There was so much of a media frenzy surrounding the Black Panther and his exploits, that no amount of distance or time could free the trial entirely from public knowledge of him and what he had done. He had killed several times already – so obviously he’d done it again.

Poor old Gerald Smith – now that
should
have been a prosecution and conviction for murder, but at that time murder was contrary to common law and was defined thus:

Murder
is
when
a
man
of
sound
memory
and
of
the
age
of
discretion
,
unlawfully
kills
any
reasonable
creature
in
being
,
under
the
King's
peace
,
with
malice
aforethought
,
either
expressed
or
implied
,
so
as
the
party
die
within
a
year
and
a
day
.

Unfortunately (depending on how it is viewed) with the assistance of modern medical attention, Gerald Smith soldiered on for nearly 14 months, so although he also, undoubtedly died because of the murderous actions of Donald Neilson, he was never tried for the offence – it was ordered to lie on the file.

In respect of the Langley post office job / Sidney Grayland murder, Neilson had already started to modify his MO. It was evening time, rather than the early hours of the morning. Although in my story, I have him in his trademark black, there is evidence that points to him being dressed as he was at the time of the shooting of Gerald Smith and when he was arrested – knee length raincoat and maybe, flat cap. Perhaps dressed all in black, on public transport in the afternoon / early evening might have aroused some suspicion, who knows?

Bob Booth
was
moved to Malvern, but not as a result of any immediate action by Commander Morrison. He did organize a press conference in direct contravention of his orders, but as soon as the hierarchy got wind of it, it was cancelled. He was not moved until after an extraordinary, lengthy outburst in the witness box at the trial. Using the immunity / cover of the courtroom proceedings, he heavily criticized fellow officers and sought to justify actions of his own, that frankly, on occasions bordered on the ludicrous, if not actual neglect of duty – for example lying to the press and insisting that the telephone kiosks containing the Dymo tape ransom messages should not to be forensically examined, with the result that time and valuable evidence stood to be lost. They were not searched for eleven days. Eventually the tape was discovered by a member of the public, seventeen year old Keiron Brewster.

As a matter of interest, the Lesley Whittle debacle, as well as the Muriel MacKay fiasco – and others – led to a procedure known today as ‘Tiger Kidnap’. The term originates from an IRA tactic of kidnapping a loved one, then forcing the spouse, parent or whomever, of that person to set off a bomb, or perform some other atrocity in the knowledge that if they do not, the loved one will suffer torture and / or a long, painful death. Other criminals pursue a similar course of action, but will kidnap (say) the wife and child of the manager of a large supermarket. He will then be forced to open the ATM / cash dispensers at his place of work and allow the robbers to steal the many thousands of pounds therefrom, or his family will be harmed. People in such occupations or similar situations are briefed on what to do. They must immediately call the police. The police contact the media and invoke the Tiger Kidnap procedure. A press conference is held and the media will be given as much information as is available, on the strict understanding that nothing will be published until the family are safe. The police will then deal with the situation and the media will have the certain knowledge that they will be given the go ahead as soon as possible. This system has been in successful operation for the last 30 years or more.