John Bodkin Adams - Concerns of Prejudice in The Trial

Concerns of Prejudice in The Trial

There is considerable evidence to suggest that the trial was "interfered with" by those "at the highest level".

• The loss of the nurses' notebooks: Eight books of records made by nurses who had worked under Adams were recorded in pre-trial police records but disappeared before the trial started, depriving Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, of the chance to familiarise himself with them. He was presented with only a copy of them by the defence on the second day of the trial. These books were then used by the fully prepared defence to counter evidence given against Adams by the nurses, who had originally written the notes. Six years after the event, the notes could be said to be more reliable than the nurses' own memories. The defence was not required to explain how the books came into their hands, and the Attorney-General made no effort to pursue this matter, despite his nickname of "Sir Bullying Manner". He also failed to ask for an adjournment to acquaint himself with the new evidence – despite the fact that the judge would have been sure to grant it.

• Adams gave three conflicting explanations for how the defence came to have the note books: they were given to him by Morrell's son when he found them among her effects and filed away at his surgery; they were delivered anonymously to his door after she died; they were found in the air raid shelter at the back of his garden. His solicitor, meanwhile, claimed later that they were found by the defence team in Adams's surgery shortly before trial. All versions however differ from the police records: in the list of exhibits for the Committal Hearing given to the DPP's office, the notes are clearly mentioned. The Attorney General therefore must have known they existed. According to Cullen, this shows "that there was a will at the highest of levels to undermine the case against Dr Adams".

• Disclosure of evidence to the BMA: On 8 November 1956, the Attorney-General handed a copy of Hannam's 187-page report to the President of the British Medical Association, effectively the doctors' trade union in Britain. This document – the prosecution's most valuable document – was in the hands of the defence, a situation that led the Home Secretary, Gwilym Lloyd George, to reprimand Manningham-Buller, stating that such documents should not even be shown to "Parliament or to individual Members". "I can only hope that no harm will result" since "the disclosure of this document is likely to cause me considerable embarrassment".
• Use of the Nolle prosequi: after the not guilty verdict on the count of murdering Morrell, the Attorney-General had the power to prosecute Adams for the death of Hullett. He chose to offer no evidence by entering a nolle prosequi — historically a power only used on compassionate grounds when the accused is too ill to be tried. This was not the case with Adams. Devlin in his post-trial book even went as far as terming this "an abuse of process".
• Wrong case chosen: Charles Hewett, Hannam's assistant, described how both officers were astounded at Manningham-Buller's decision to charge Adams with the murder of Morrell, since her body had been cremated and therefore there was no evidence to present before a jury. He believed that there were other cases against the doctor, where traces of drugs had been found in exhumed remains, which were more compelling as proof. Cullen also describes Morrell as "the weakest" case of the four the police deemed most suspicious.