Page 97 of Dissection of a Murder
“This is not in dispute, Your Ladyship, so I’m permitted to lead,” Julian confirms. “It’s worth noting that no phone calls were ever made to this number. Only text messages?”
“That is correct.”
“Have you been able to locate the owner of this number?”
“No. It would appear to be a pay-as-you-go phone. No contact details are needed to set one up.”
“What else can you tell us about the defendant’s phone?”
“Although we haven’t been able to retrieve any data, we can trace movement with the assistance of cell site analysis.”
“Can you explain to the jury what this is?”
“Every time you use your mobile phone, that information is recorded by telephone masts. Cell site analysis places you at a specific location at a specific time.”
I’m grateful for the way this expert witness is explaining the technical content of his evidence. We need to keep the jury engaged and alert, and this could be a danger point for them to drift. He’s concise, and all twelve members appear interested. I hope it lasts.
“Are there any circumstances in which it doesn’t work?”
“Three. If the phone runs out of battery, is switched off, or is underwater.”
“What can you tell us about the defendant’s phone activity?” Julian asks.
“The phone remained at the premises known as Temptation until 10:41 p.m., at which point the signal was lost. The last known activity previous to that was a text message sent to the pay-as-you-go phone at 6:47 p.m.”
“What conclusion can you draw from this?”
“In practical terms, the defendant’s phone was likely switched off or ran out of battery. However, at 11:27 p.m., the signal reconnected, and the phone was located elsewhere.”
“Where was that location, exactly?”
“The phone had moved to the village of Pickford, twelve miles north of Durham, which is where I believe the victim lived.”
Julian pauses, very briefly, for the jury to take in what they’re hearing.
“Thank you. Turning, then, to the phone of Anton Smythe. What can you tell us about this?”
“Thankfully, we did have his handset, so were able to retrieve everything by way of text message content. On September 6, he went to work at Durham Crown Court in the morning, before going toDiamond Lounge at 6 p.m., where he texted his wife, ‘I’m just meeting Quinn for a drink.’ After that, he went home for a few hours before leaving again at 10:12 p.m., the data placing him at Temptation, from where he texted Quinn at 10:26 p.m. He wrote, ‘You don’t need to worry about it.’ ”
Julian explains to the jury that Quinn is Anton’s eighteen-year-old son, and they will hear from him as a witness in due course.
“So, we’re getting closer to the incident now,” my husband declares excitedly. “What happened next?”
“At 10:39 p.m., the data suggests that Mr. Smythe opened the FaceTime app on his mobile phone, and that it remained open for thirteen seconds. No contact was selected, and nobody was called. That was the last piece of activity before he died.”
“For the avoidance of any confusion, can you please explain what FaceTime is?”
“It’s a function on an iPhone that enables you to video call a contact.”
I glance at the jury to see what they make of it all. It’s a lot to take in.
“Mr. Wyndam, thank you,” Julian says. “My learned friend will no doubt have many questions for you.”
He knows I won’t. Another tactical statement to make me look incompetent in the eyes of the jury. The problem with evidence of this type is that it’s difficult to dispute. You can attempt to cast doubt on it, test its accuracy and minimize it, but ultimately, you can’t argue with facts. And jurors love facts.
“Mr. Wyndam, how accurate is the cell site analysis data?”
“Very accurate. Subjects can be located within a few meters.”
