Professor T - Second Season

Adelaide?

Not now, Wilfred. Can't you see I'm on the warpath?

Lisa! Not now, Dan.

Morning (!)

Ma'am, I... Oh, erm...

I should've... knocked.

Don't mind me, I'm, er, just on my way.

So, er, what is it that's so important

that made you feel compelled to barge in here without knocking?

I wanted to let you know I am interested in that promotion, Ma'am.

I figured if I didn't tell you straightaway, then...

I didn't want you to be in any doubt.

Are you sure about that?

I know you've got a lot going on at home.

Now, I want you to go into this with your eyes wide open, Lisa.

It'll mean a lot more hours, a lot more responsibility.

I know, Ma'am. And there will be other opportunities.

You know, no-one will think the less of you.

I will.

The proudest day of my life.

I'd never forgive myself if I let go of this opportunity, Ma'am.

Glad to hear it.

You know, I think you have real leadership potential, Lisa.

So, all I need now

is for you to give me your written expression of your interest.

Of course.

Thank you, Ma'am. Mm-hm.

Can I mention it to DS Winters?

Let's leave that for now... until we know it's confirmed.

I wish to know the meaning of this.

It is a letter from my therapist

inviting you to take part in a joint session with me.

Don't be so literal, Jasper. I can read as well as you can.

I demand to know why it has been sent.

Dr. Helena believes that you can help me excavate

the root of my hostility towards women.

Your hostility towards me, I think you mean.

Am I to conclude that you are refusing to take part, Mother?

And give you another reason to resent me? Heavens, no.

Ah, yes, a homework assignment.

Dr. Helena has suggested that we come prepared with a list

of one another's personality traits.

Both positive...

...and negative.

Dear boy, if you're gonna go mano a mano with me,

you'll need to come better prepared than that.

Your full attention, please, ladies and gentlemen,

with immediate effect.

At the risk of exposing your ignorance of current affairs,

can anyone apprise us of the significance of today's date?

It's my birthday.

Then you have the honour of sharing it

with the Emperor Ming of the Han Dynasty,

the sadly underrated Italian balladeer Sergio Endrigo

and the eminent criminologist Robert D Keppel,

who helped identify the American serial killer Ted Bundy.

And that is not the observation I was hoping for.

Had you bothered to read the Crown Court listings

as instructed, you would be aware

that the trial of Sean Hallett begins today...

...not half a mile from where I am standing.

On the March 9th last year,

officers were dispatched to the property

when a silent intruder alarm was triggered at 18 minutes past nine.

Arriving at 9.34pm, they encountered a vehicle on the drive,

later confirmed to belong to the defendant.

When the officers entered the building,

they came across the victim's body, Vincent Soames.

He had suffered a single gunshot wound to the chest

and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The defendant, Sean Hallett,

was found standing next to the victim's body.

He was arrested and taken into custody.

A hunting rifle was found in the immediate vicinity.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

you will hear expert witnesses give evidence

that Vincent Soames was killed with the rifle found at the scene.

You'll be presented with forensics

linking the defendant to the murder weapon.

And you will also hear evidence from a close associate of Sean Hallett's

that the weapon used to kill Vincent Soames belonged to him.

You'll be asked to consider a list of more than 50 items

recovered from Sean Hallett's cottage in the wake of the murder.

It is the prosecution's contention that these were stolen

from the Soames during his nine years of employment

as groundsman and odd-jobs man for their estate.

And lastly, you'll hear from the victim's wife Hester

that her husband meant to confront Sean Hallett

about her missing diamond engagement ring

on the very night he was murdered.

Sounds like it'll be over before lunch.

A facetious observation, but an understandable one nevertheless.

The Crown Prosecution Service would not have opted

to initiate proceedings against Mr. Hallett

had they not been convinced that the investigating officers

had put forward a case backed by compelling evidence of his guilt.

But, as regular attendees of my lectures

will have understood by now,

evidence alone is not always sufficient

to determine the outcome of an investigation.

It can be ambiguous, circumstantial, contradictory.

Undue focus on one piece of evidence

can cause the investigating authorities

to overlook others that might lead to a different view of the case.

I bring this trial to your attention

as a case study in the pitfalls of a criminal investigation

that fails to marry evidence gathering

with psychological insight.

Indeed, the interpretation of evidence

without psychological understanding

is like the appreciation of music without Johann Sebastian Bach.

Yes.

Why are we using this as a case study

if we don't know the outcome of the trial?

Because this murder predates my consultancy with Cambridge Police,

and I wish it to be known that I had nothing to do

with constructing the case against Sean Hallett,

particularly when he is acquitted of the murder of Vincent Soames,

as I believe he invariably will be.

Won't that be embarrassing, Professor?

For the police officers involved?

I cannot say.

That is not an emotional state with which I'm familiar.

And as I was saying,

it is very important that all the facts about the firearm

are laid out in detail for the jury.

What were you so desperate to speak to the boss about this morning?

Nothing important. ...but also who used it.

Could've fooled me.

In layman's terms, Detective Inspector Rabbit,

the defendant fingerprints were found all over the murder weapon.

That's correct. Fingerprints were found on the stock and the barrel.

The examination report also indicated

an attempt to wipe the weapon clean before we recovered it.

Thank you. No more questions.

Lock, stock and barrel, Detective Inspector.

Perhaps you could explain the different parts of the weapon

for the benefit of the jury.

The stock sits against the shoulder when firing.

The barrel acts as a...

That's self-explanatory. But the lock?

It's an archaic term that basically means the firing mechanism.

Including the trigger. That's correct.

So, fingerprints on the stock and the barrel,

but no mention of the lock, Detective Inspector.

Does that mean that none of the defendant's fingerprints

were found on or around the trigger?

That's correct.

As I said, the forensics found

were consistent with an attempt to wipe the weapon clean.

Or maybe a better explanation is that Sean Hallett never fired it.

One more thing, Detective Inspector.

Was any gunpowder residue found on the defendant's hands or clothes?

The presence of gunpowder residue is no longer considered to be...

A simple yes or no will suffice.

No.

No more questions, Your Honour.

Maybe he washed his hands before the police arrived.

A half-witted suggestion.

If he had time to wash his hands,

he surely also had time to escape the scene.

Will that be Hallett's defence? That they can't prove he fired the gun?

We will have to wait and see, but in his statement to police,

he was adamant that Mr. Soames' fatal injury

was sustained BEFORE he arrived.

What was even doing there at ten o'clock at night?

Mr. Hallett claims he was summoned by an urgent call from his employer.

Is there any way of verifying that?

His wife Anya cooks and cleans for the Soames.

She has confirmed that she was watching television with her husband

when the call was placed.

What about telephone records?

They confirm a call was made from a landline owned by the Soames

to a mobile number registered to Sean Hallett at 9.24pm.

That is six minutes after the silent alarm was triggered.

Has Hallett said why Soames called?

He thought he'd heard noises in the cellar,

but the light bulb was gone.

He wanted me to change it and maybe check things out.

Did Mr. Soames often ask you to do things outside normal working hours?

There was no such thing as normal working hours with the Soames.

They'd call at all hours, especially him.

Expect me and Annie to drop everything.

We didn't think we could say no.

It was made pretty clear what the consequences would be.

How long did it take you to drive to the main house

after receiving the call?

A few minutes.

Our cottage is by the east gate, about half a mile as the crow flies.

Did you have keys to the main house? No.

Just the sheds and outhouses, but...

the kitchen door was open, so I went in, and...

...and there he was.

Is there any chance it was a burglary?

There were no signs of a break-in, no tyre tracks,

foot marks or unexpected fingerprints,

and nothing reported missing by the Soames family in the aftermath.

Except for the aforementioned diamond ring.

Is his IQ below average, Professor?

No more so than many here today.