Forensic Entomology (Hansard, 27 March 1990)

§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

I am grateful for the opportunity to put before the House a subject which I believe has not been debated in the House before but which will become increasingly important in the future of forensic science. It is the subject of forensic entomology, and I wish in particular to highlight the case of Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu, a forensic entomologist, and the funding of his research.

I begin with a riddle to which I will give the answer shortly. When is a corpse not just a corpse?

During the night, when I was huddled in an armchair in a distant corner of the Palace of Westminster, I had a dream—this is the truth—about you, Mr. Speaker. In the course of this dream, which I had at about 4 am, I dreamed that there was one of those noisy scenes which have made you, something of a star of the small screen since television reached this House. During that noisy scene—it was no doubt an anxiety dream, as I was the target of some of your irritation, if I can be forgiven for using that word—a forensic scientist suddenly came to your rescue with a magical spray which enabled you to quell the wrath of hon. Members with each other, and to bring the proceedings to order in an instant.

The forensic scientist in that dream was not Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu, who is the subject of this debate, but another forensic scientist, Professor Alec Jeffreys of Leicester university. He is a forensic scientist who has come to fame in recent years because of his discovery of DNA fingerprinting or DNA profiling, as it is also known.

I had the privilege in a prosecution that I conducted at Mold Crown court in north Wales of calling Professor Jeffreys as an expert witness and of seeing the ability of DNA profiling to prove a rape charge that would otherwise have been completely unprovable. There was no more substantial evidence against the defendant than the DNA profile, of which Professor Jeffreys gave evidence.

When I started to practise at the Bar in 1971, if somebody had said to me that a scientist would come along in fewer than 20 years and produce what was in effect a photograph that looked as though it had a bar code on it, and which would identify one man from the whole population as a rapist, I should have said that he was quite mad. Yet fewer than 20 years later, it happened. Forensic science is gathering pace and forensic entomology is a growing aspect of forensic science that I believe will develop greatly in the next 20 years provided that it is given Government support.

Britain's only full-time forensic entomologist is Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu to whom I shall now refer for shorthand as Dr. Zak. I know that he does not object to that and everyone else seems to refer to him in that way. Dr. Zak is youngish and brilliant and the only full-time forensic entomologist in the United Kingdom. He works at the department of zoology in the university of Cambridge. He likens his profession to that of an archaeologist. He says: A forensic investigation is building up a picture of the past. We're faced with evidence of what has happened and we aim to reconstruct those events.

In one case which he helped to solve, a 13-year-old girl has gone missing and a man suspected of her murder was found to be in possession of human bones which he had 442 hidden under his floorboards and at various other places around the house. Now comes the answer to my riddle earlier: when is a corpse not just a corpse? I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not meant to be a rude reference to the other place.

In this case, the accused had told the police that the bones were for medical research and that he had hidden them because he did not want to upset friends who visited him and who might have felt a little offended to see bones lying on the dining room table. But Dr. Zak was able to cast doubt on that story by finding a small fly called leptocera saenosa living among the bones. Thus, in a corpse there may be living organisms—indeed, living insects—which will give clues to what has happened.

The presence of that small fly—whose name I shall not attempt to pronounce again—showed that the bones were far from sterile, as the insect in question typically lives in unhygienic environments.

Even more damaging was the discovery that bones kept on a concrete base under the floor boards had living on them fly larvae and mites that are found only in soil. This, of course, demonstrated that the bones had until recently been buried in a grave and had been put under the floorboards later.

As Dr. Zak said: the police suspected that somebody wouldn't dig up something from a grave unless they had something to hide. The man was found guilty. We see there one example of the great help that Dr. Zak has been able to give to the police.

On the television programme "Suspicious Circumstances", shown in the summer of 1988 on Yorkshire Television, the very distinguished pathologist Professor Alan Usher said: My infallible way of determining the time of death is to find out when the victim was last seen alive and when the victim was first seen dead, and then to presume that death occurred somewhere in between. That was something of a joke, but there is an element of truth in it. I have seen many brilliant, top forensic pathologists giving evidence in courts throughout this land and I think that they would all agree that, as Professor Usher implied in those remarks, forensic pathology is often as much art as science and sometimes more art than science, particularly in determining the time and date of death.

I appeared as junior counsel in one case in which a skull was found in a Cheshire bog. The pathologist who examined the skull said that he thought that it was something over 20 years old. Being concerned about such an estimate, I suggested to those instructing me in the case that an attempt be made to date the skull more accurately. It was sent to a laboratory in Cambridge and there it was discovered that the skull was not 20 years or so old but 1,800 years old. Unfortunately for the accused, he had already confessed to a murder committed some 20 years or so before, of which he was duly convicted, despite the fact that the body was never found and the trial took place some 20 years or more later, and the conviction stood.

That example shows that pathological evidence on its own is often insufficient to answer the very important questions: did the deceased die and is the body found that of the deceased?

There are many examples of cases in which Dr. Zak has been able to assist the police. The notorious Dixon case, involving the killing by shotgun of two entirely innocent holidaymakers, in June 1989 in Pembrokeshire is an 443 example of a case in which Dr. Zak's evidence will still, it is hoped, be useful. The entomological evidence was instrumental in determining the time of the murder. In the Anthony Samson Perera case, in 1985, a 13-year-old girl was murdered in west Yorkshire. Dr. Zak helped in that. In the Karen Price case, in Cardiff in December 1989, he was able to assist. Those are but three examples from a very long list in my possession.

Dr. Zak believes that forensic entomology is in its infancy in this country. It seems to be used more fully in other countries. In Hungary, for example, there are a number of forensic entomologists who have been able to carry out research on this subject, and it seems to be more widely used there. One can say that forensic entomology may acquire the status which has already been acquired by genetic profiling, or DNA fingerprinting.

I turn, therefore, to the funding of Dr. Zak, for this is at the root of the problem. Are we to have a forensic entomological service available in this country or not? If we are, there must be funding for it. For the past five and a half years, Dr. Zak's zoological and entomological research had been funded by the Field Studies Council, but the original five-year grant, already extended for a further year, will run out in August 1990. The good doctor receives token fees from the Home Office when he helps it, but he finds it difficult to extract adequate funds, due to financial pressure on the Home Office and on the police. He works for independent firms on projects and finds it much easier to obtain funding from them for such one-off projects. It is surprising that the police and the Home Office cannot value his work in the same way.

To be fair, it has been revealed in two parliamentary answers given to me by the Minister that the Home Office is looking into ways of funding Dr. Zak's further work. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that a conclusion to that review will be reached soon and that it will be favourable. It would be scandalous if the result was not favourable, having regard to Dr. Zak's potential and value, and to the need for more forensic entomologists.

The Home Office has circulated a letter to several forensic pathologists in the United Kingdom, seeking their view of the value of Dr. Zak's work. I have seen some of the replies. I understand that everyone who has replied so far has been in support of that work. I believe that it has the support of such distinguished pathologists as Professor Usher, whom I have already mentioned, and of Professor Bernard Knight of south Wales, another pathologist of extreme distinction and skill.

Apparently the problem is that it is very difficult for a person to obtain funding for research once he reaches the terrible old age of 35, which Dr. Zak has reached. It causes me much concern to discover that one is over the hill for original research when one passes the age of 35. Dr. Zak is finding that, if he were 22, it would be much easier to obtain research grants. It is right that young researchers should be given every encouragement, but I am sure the House would also agree that it is extremely important that research work should be judged on its merits. If a 79-year-old scientist comes up with original work which may be of public benefit, that should be supported. I hasten to add that Dr. Zak is much nearer 40 than an older age group.

Dr. Zak has been consulted by the Home Office 60 times in recent years. Each year his case load increases. That is directly attributable to wider knowledge of his existence and of the service that he provides. Despite the 444 fact that his expertise and availability are still poorly publicised to the vast majority of police forces, he has found that once he has been discovered by a police force it keeps coming back to him because his work has been so helpful.

Another reason for Dr. Zak's relative obscurity until, I am pleased to say, I could raise his case in this House, is the fact that decisions about when a murder investigation is entomologically intriguing are made by the wrong people. The common misconception is that, for an entomologist to be called in, the corpse must be infested with maggots. This is fallacious. Often, the absence of insects sheds light on an enigmatic investigation.

This branch of science and the scientist to whom I have referred—the brilliant, determined and redoubtable Dr. Zak—deserve the support of the House and, above all, the financial support of the Government. If the Minister cannot give an answer this morning about funding, I am sure that he will take into account what has been said and I hope that he will be able to confirm that the Government will shortly make an announcement about such funding.