UK Murder Trial Told Killer Abused Hospital Corpses, Had ‘Clear Sexual Interest’ In Necrophilia
15:02 GMT 01.11.2021 (Updated: 12:22 GMT 01.03.2022)
In 1987 two young women who lived in bedsits - small apartments - were murdered in the space of five months in Tunbridge Wells, a historic town just south east of London. Their killer was only identified by DNA earlier this year.
A jury at a double murder trial in the south of England has been told the killer was a necrophiliac who had an unhealthy interest in dead bodies.
David Fuller, 67, has admitted killing Wendy Knell, 25, and Caroline Pierce, 20, almost 35 years ago but he denies murder. His plea of guilty to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility has been rejected by the prosecution.
Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC told a jury at Maidstone Crown Court Fuller had "depraved sexual predilections."
He said he worked as an electrician at the Kent and Sussex Hospital from 1989 until 2010 when he moved to Tunbridge Wells Hospital.
At both hospitals he had access to the mortuaries and Mr Atkinson said: “Hard-drives concealed at his home showing that over an extended period of time his access to mortuary allowed him to carry out acts of sexual penetration of female corpses.” "The defendant’s clear sexual interest in such a bizarre and grossly repellant activity shows a unique link between the deaths of Caroline and Wendy.”
Miss Knell was beaten and strangled in her basement apartment in Tunbridge Wells on 23 June 1987. She had been sexually assaulted either before or after death.
Five months later Miss Pierce was dumped in a field on Romney Marsh, a remote part of Kent.
Mr Atkinson said Fuller had convictions for burglary dating back to 1973 and this explained how he was able to get into both victims’ apartments.
The prosecutor said Fuller was arrested and charged with the murders earlier this year after advances in DNA techniques allowed him to be linked to the crimes.
But Mr Atkinson said: "He now asserts that at the time of killings he was suffering from an abnormality of mind and that his responsibility was diminished. Even if the defendant can be shown to have been suffering from a mental illness, the question is whether that mental illness substantially affected his ability to perform rational judgement or exercise self-control."