person.
Conclusion
While there are some similarities in the lives and backgrounds of Peel and Atkins – bisexuality, marriage, known to engage in casual gay sex but reluctant to commit to permanent gay relationships – there is nothing similar in Martin Britton’s background.
At the moment, there’s no evidence that the men Hugh Britton saw with his brother were sexual partners, nor any indication of how Britton ‘found’ them if they were.
Psychological profile
As requested, I attach a full copy of James Steele’s reworked psychological profile. We commissioned it after the Britton murder, but he has refined it to include information from the Atkins crime scene. In brief, Steele’s opinions are as follows:
The murders carry the same signature – method of killing (skull fractures suggest a round-headed club or similarly shaped heavy object, wielded with considerable force), no sexual intercourse, damage to the rectum, the turning of the bodies to expose both buttocks, rage taken out on property . . . etc. (Steele suggests that the handle of the ‘club’ may have caused the rectal injuries. From gel evidence inside the anus, FSS believe the ‘instrument’ was covered by a condom before insertion, probably to assist its introduction.)
A signature is also apparent in the half-drunk bottle of wine in the living room and rinsed glasses in the kitchen. Steele suggests the initial approach was ‘social’ rather than ‘sexual’. (This sits well with Britton, who is regularly described as ‘fastidious’.)
We are looking for one individual. Steele believes both Britton and Atkins would have been suspicious if a ‘visitor’ had turned up with a companion. (Steele does not preclude the possibility that a companion waited outside but points to the fact that none of the neighbours or passers-by saw anything suspicious on the night of the murders.)
The discrepancy between the lack of ‘forced entry’ evidence and the frenzied nature of the attack suggests a manipulative and convincing individual who is easily roused to anger.
Steele posits the theory that the perpetrator was naked or semi-naked during the attack. (No sightings of any individual in bloodstained clothing afterwards.)
Because fingernail scrapings show no evidence of skin contact, and none of the victims has defence wounds, Steele believes all three were immobilized before they were attacked. In the absence of anything specific from the post-mortems and toxicology reports, he suggests a stun gun to the neck or head. (FSS have re-examined Kevin Atkins to this purpose but say there’s too much bruising in both areas to corroborate Steele’s theory.)
Steele cites the lack of evidence at the crime scenes as an indication that we are looking for a ‘high-IQ, forensically aware’ killer. He also suggests that we keep an open mind about the damage to the rectum and the exposure of the buttocks. The illusion of ‘gay sex’ may have been done for amusement and/or as a blind – or double blind – to create confusion about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.
Steele further advises that we avoid labelling the victims ‘gay’, despite Britton’s declared single-sex status, as it may influence our decisions.
He points to the difference between Britton’s lifestyle and that of the other two victims. He describes Britton as ‘old-fashioned’ and ‘intellectual’, and suggests he may have invited his killer in for ‘companionship’.
Steele believes an army connection may be the means by which the killer wins credibility with his victims and/or gains access to their premises.
He draws particular attention to the victims’ habit of keeping cash on their premises. As a taxi driver,
Harry Peel dealt only in cash; Martin Britton shopped ‘locally’ using cash; as a builder, Kevin Atkins kept cash in a roll to pay casual workers. This habit may have been known to the killer.
Steele’s Recommendations
The perpetrator is likely to be male, aged 18–25. He may be a prostitute/escort and/or current army or ex- army. Drug addiction may be what drives the prostitution and leads to the sudden outbursts of anger. The individual may be known to other men who have employed his services. The most likely motive was money.
The paucity of forensic evidence suggests an average or above-average IQ and a premeditated willingness on the part of the perpetrator to commit a crime. In support of this, Steele cites the fact that weapons must have been brought to the properties by the killer.
In the absence of any real overlaps between the three victims, Steele proposes we go back to the drawing board. He believes the killer knows the area well, probably lives within a three-mile radius of the crime scenes, and is happy to go ‘freelance’ when a suitable punter/victim presents. If so, he will be using the direct approach and arranging the meetings away from the bars and clubs. Steele warns that if we concentrate all our energy on the ‘gay scene’ and/or recognized ‘dating’ agencies we may overlook the obvious – that our killer is free to kill because no one else knows of the arrangement.
He adds, ‘There may be something distinctive about this individual that encourages a sympathetic response. Martin Britton, in particular, would have needed a powerful stimulus to overcome his natural reserve and invite the killer back to his house.’
Steele advises that we concentrate the inquiry on a search for clients who have experienced anger or violence at the hands of a male prostitute but have managed to avoid the fates of Peel, Britton and Atkins. He also advises that we reinterview Mrs Peel, Mrs Atkins and Hugh Britton in an attempt to identify behavioural characteristics that might trigger the killer’s rage at an early stage of the encounter.
With kind regards,
Detective Superintendent Brian Jones
Southwark Echo
72-yr-old attacked for mobile telephone
