Woman's Hour - Solving historic rape cases, British cyclist Lizzy Banks, Margaret Leng Tan

Episode Date: May 21, 2024

A new documentary on BBC Two is looking at how new forensic techniques can help police re-examine old cases involving sexual assault and rape, helping to convict perpetrators from decades ago. Cold Case Investigators: Solving Britain’s Sex Crimes tells the story of three cases that were re-examined. One is that of Karen, who was raped in 1983. She joins Nuala McGovern alongside Detective Constable Hayley Dyas, who helped work on her case and finally get a conviction.On 28 July last year the British cyclist Lizzy Banks received an email from UK Anti Doping to say she had return two Adverse Analytical Findings. The letter stated she faced the prospect of a two-year ban unless she could establish the source. Thus began a ten-month journey investigating, researching and writing submissions to establish how the contamination event occurred. Absolved of any blame, having proved on the balance of probabilities that her test was contaminated, Lizzy speaks to Nuala about how the process destroyed her mentally, emotionally and professionally.The toy piano virtuoso Margaret Leng Tan is a leading force within avant-garde music and the first woman to earn a doctorate from the prestigious Juilliard School of Music in the US. She’s currently in London, performing her sonic autobiography Dragon Ladies Don’t Weep at the Southbank Centre this week. It’s a combination of spoken text, projected images and original music for toy piano, prepared piano, toys and percussion. It focuses on the obsessive compulsive disorder Margaret has had since her childhood. She explains how music helped her accept OCD as an integral part of who she is.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Kirsty Starkey Studio Manager: Duncan Hannant and Neva Missirian

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2. And of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme. Peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, this is Nuala McGovern and you're listening to the Woman's Hour podcast. Hello, you're very welcome to Woman's Hour. Well, in a moment, British cyclist Lizzie Banks gives her first broadcast interview to Woman's Hour on how she fought and won a flawed doping case. Also today, did you catch Cold Case Investigators solving Britain's sex crimes? It was on last night.

It is a fascinating programme. It pulls back the curtain on what forensic science and DNA can now do. They can accurately pinpoint a perpetrator decades after the crime. So we're going to hear from one woman and the detective who worked with her to get her justice.

Also, one of my guests this hour describes her instrument as having magical overtones, hypnotic charm and off-key poignancy. The avant-garde musician Margaret Leng Tan will perform for us. And yes, the toy piano is coming to the Woman's Hour studio this morning. If you want to get in touch with the programme, the number to text is 84844 on social media or at BBC Woman's Hour.

Or you can email us through our website. And for WhatsApp, that number is 03700 100 444. Let me turn to the 28th of July last year. That was when the British cyclist Lizzie Banks received an email from the UK Anti-Doping Agency. And it was to say that she had returned to Adverse Analytical Findings, also known as Testing Positive for Substances.

The letter stated she faced the prospect of a two-year ban unless she could establish the source. But feeling certain she had not taken any banned substances, she began a 10-month journey investigating, researching and writing submissions to try and prove a contamination event had occurred. Her final submission was some 144 pages and more than 40,000 words. She says it was a process which destroyed her mentally, emotionally and professionally. She has talked about feeling suicidal during her battle with anti-doping authorities. She has been absolved of any blame, having proved on the balance of probabilities that her test was contaminated. And in her first broadcast interview, Lizzie Banks

joins me now. Welcome to Woman's interview, Lizzie Banks joins me now. Welcome to Woman's Hour, Lizzie. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Well, let's turn to that letter that you received that said there were two adverse analytical findings, so testing positive. Do you remember how you felt when you received it? Absolutely.

I was actually 50 kilometres away from home on a four-hour bike ride at the halfway point of my ride. I'd stopped to grab a Coke, checked my phone, had an email from UK Anti-Doping, which in itself wasn't unusual. But the contents was it said, please ensure that this is your email address. We have something very important to send you. And then I had a five minute agonising wait for the letter. And I just couldn't believe it. There was this massive, bold, red, highlighted writing. And I just, I couldn't comprehend what I was seeing before my eyes. I've been so, so careful throughout my career to avoid any risks of contamination. And I just had no idea

how this could possibly have occurred. And I know, of course, people listening will be skeptical and they will say, well, that's just another doper speaking, but I urge you to listen to my story and read my story over on www.lizziebanks.co.uk because it's so complicated and the anti-doping authorities need to change. But let us get to the specifics of this. What did they say you had taken? So they said that the term is used. Used means you you've used it inadvertently or on purpose okay now i tested positive for two substances one was for motorol which is a medication i take for asthma i've taken it for five years now and i've had many many anti-doping tests and i thought how could this possibly be right another one was called chlorotalidone i googled this substance and i

very quickly learned that it was a diuretic. I take a number of medications because I've had a number of complicated health conditions over the past years, pericarditis with long COVID, a concussion, and then I suffer from asthma and a couple of other health conditions. And I knew that this wasn't in any of my medications, so I was just so confused but very quickly I learned that unfortunately pharmaceuticals can be contaminated with banned substances and are often contaminated with banned substances and this began a like you say 10 month process of research in order to find out that actually this is something that the anti-doping authorities have known about, this possibility of contamination of water and pharmaceuticals for at least 10 years.

And they haven't acted properly in order to protect athletes like me from having an inadvertent contamination and ruining their lives and careers. And chlorotalidone is a diuretic, if I have that correct? Yeah, it's a diuretic. So what that means is it's a substance that you might take if you've got high blood pressure or swelling, and it'll make you lose a lot of water. And the reason that it's banned is because it means if you take it, it can, if you have enough, dilute another substance that is actually performance enhancing, for instance, anabolic steroids, and make that substance more difficult to detect. However, the sensitivity of testing is so good nowadays, it's increased so much in the last 10

to 15 years, that the likelihood is that you will detect this other substance anyway. And in my case, the amount used in inverted commas was so small that it has no effect as a masking agent, it doesn't actually dilute your urine. So you were facing, and I don't know if you knew it at that point with the letter, maybe you did, maybe you didn't, that you were facing the prospect of a two-year ban. And you talk about really becoming an investigator yourself, I imagine. How did you go about that? And just to let our listeners know as well that the test that they were referring to had been collected back on May 11th, which was 79 days earlier. Yeah, so that was the impossible thing. Basically, I was being asked to find a contaminant that was hundreds of times smaller than a single grain of salt or sugar.

You know, this minuscule amount that was in a tablet that I'd consumed over three months ago. So I described it as trying to find a needle in a barn of haystacks, which was put there three months ago. And now those haystacks could be anywhere. And you've got to find first the haystacks and then that needle. It was just an impossible task. And I really felt like my whole life was over because I'd seen these cases in the news and I knew that these cases always ended badly. So thankfully, and that's why I feel like I need to publicise this, I was so fortunate to have an amazing education. I studied medicine, so I have this understanding of the scientific background. I looked into the rules, I looked into

all the research, I started to understand that actually, there were problems with contamination in the pharmaceutical industry. And there are really big problems. And even within the allowed limits of contamination in the pharmaceutical industry, which, you know, the pharmaceutical industry, they don't have to be 100% pure, because the reason is because they're trying to make the drug do its thing. They're not trying to make it 100% pure. But the anti-doping agencies have a zero tolerance policy. So now with the testing sensitivity, you can test positive for a banned substance that's a contaminant, even though it's within the rules of the pharmaceutical practice.

So I then started this process of investigation, investigated all of the WADA rules, found that they knew about this and also found that in the WADA rules, it said that if you had shown that you had taken the utmost care in your ability to try and avoid a contaminant, you could also not have a ban. Right. So that would be an exception in one way. We have reached out to WADA for a response this morning. We haven't had a response yet. I do want to read some, though, from UK Anti-Doping. This is from a spokesperson this morning. They say, following concerning reports in the media and comments made by professional cyclist Miss Elizabeth Banks

on Tuesday, 21st of May, 2024, UK Anti-Doping confirms Ms Banks has committed anti-doping rule violations and that the applicable period of ineligibility has been eliminated on the basis that Ms Banks

bore no fault or negligence for those anti-doping rule violations. UK Anti-Doping also notes Ms Banks' comments with concern and will be looking into what it can do to better support athletes going through anti-doping rule violation

proceedings. I'll read on a little because it's just come in. Ordinarily, the UK would not comment on the facts of a specific case until the expiry of all appeal windows. At the time, the decision would be published in full accordance with the reporting requirements of the UK AD, UK anti-doping rules.

An appeal window remains open in this case and therefore UKAD does not intend to provide further comment on the matter at this time. Your thoughts on that as you hear me read it? Yes. So this is the thing. So this decision was actually made by UCAD back in the beginning of April, which was nine months after. And I was already at the point that I was having to keep this from so many loved ones and I just couldn't cope anymore. And there are two appeal windows. It took UCAD two weeks to write their decision.

Then there was a three week appeal window, which closed on Friday. And then the World Anti-Doping Agency have another three week appeal window. Now, by convention they usually respond within the first 21 days but because there's a lot going on at WADA at the moment they've been criticized worldwide for their handling of a case with 23 Chinese swimmers. I think that they're probably quite busy and so they hadn't replied yet and I simply can't wait any longer. I thought I was doing okay. And on Friday, I had a complete meltdown because I simply can't keep this to myself anymore. I've been going through absolute

hell. And to have to wait another three weeks to be able to move on with my life, I just can't wait anymore. So tell me that a little bit more, Lizzie, you haven't told people. Well, this is the thing, because I've told some people, but there are so many people, for instance, right now I'm down in Cornwall visiting family and none of them knew. So I've been going through this, not alone, because I have an incredible support network, but most people didn't know. All of my teammates, I've had hundreds of messages from people saying, where are you? Are you okay? And I just couldn't respond and to tell you it's heartbreaking yeah when I've been going through absolute hell and I haven't been okay

and to be able to say to people well actually I just haven't said anything I've just not responded to these people and really now I'm so I'm so relieved to be able to publish this story and finally tell people what's going on and to receive the support that I've so desperately needed and to be able to start the process of moving on with my life because that's what the anti-doping agencies don't understand. They ruin your life, you have no job, you cannot apply for another job because you're in the middle of this hell, you can't even tell people and then even now nearly two months has passed since I've been told that I'm not guilty. And I still wasn't able to tell people. I had to tell this story for my own health.

And yeah, and I can see you're emotional about it. But with this, I think I'm hearing that there is some relief. Yeah, there's a huge amount of relief. And the reason I did this is because I knew that I was in a unique position where I could actually incite change. I had, you know, what I would call an incredible amount of money, £30,000 to be able to start this process. But that was nowhere near enough. I would have needed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds to have been able to properly represent myself. Because I am the woman that I am. And as I say to people, WADA and UCAD picked on the wrong woman. And if I believe something is unfair, I will fight for it,

whether it's me or somebody else's life on the line. And I'd seen how this had destroyed other people's lives and careers. And the way that I felt through this process, I was seriously worried for my life and for other people's lives. And I believed something had to change. I knew that if any athlete could do this I was the one that could do this and so I've never worked so hard on something in my life I put absolutely everything into this and I truly believe that you know public pressure is the only way that is going to get WADA and UCAD to change their rules because we tried and they would not listen and so if I have to be the sacrificial lamb, so be it, because something

has to change, otherwise someone will lose their life. And that is just not okay. I'm so sorry that you have gone through that. I will read a little of the statement from WADA, which was in the Telegraph, which a spokesperson gave to. It says, this is a complex and nuanced area of anti-doping in which WADA always strives to strike the right balance for the good of athletes and clean sport. And they also say that they cannot comment specifically on this case, but review all cases to ensure they've been dealt with appropriately under the rules and reserve the right to take the appeals to the court of arbitration. I know. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, I was going to say the appeals to the court of arbitration. I know. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, I was going to say, I actually have the whole of that statement. And interestingly, the very first the very first line of that actually says,

and it made me laugh with how ridiculous it was. It said the issue of possible contamination is real and one that WADA is addressing. The WADA contaminants working group was created for the purpose of providing expert advice and recommendations with regards to prohibited substances that can be prevalent contaminants based on the best available scientific evidence. But one of the things that I found out, and this is absolutely critical, one of the things I found out during my research is, well, I emailed WADA, or I asked my legal representation at the time to email WADA because I knew of other athletes in the same very similar situation with the same substance.

And I thought, well, they have a contaminants working group. They must be working on this. They must know that this is a problem. And they replied saying Clortalidone is not a known contaminant of meat or medication. I pressed more. I asked more questions. Now, then WADA replied that they do not have the human resources in order to record first-hand contamination events. So they told me that Chlortaladone is not a known contaminant of mutual medication and then they emailed me saying they do not keep records. The World Anti-Doping Agency does not keep records of what substances have been contaminated by what. So they have a contaminants working group with which they provide information to, but they don't record any information.

So if the World Anti-Doping Agency isn't keeping any records of what is and isn't a contamination, contaminant, sorry, then who is? And the answer is no one. So they have this group, but for all intents and purposes, it's useless because WADA aren't providing the information that they need to provide. And I will, of course, ask if WADA wants to

respond to that particular statement by you, Lizzie. They're very welcome to as well. And we'll bring it to them here, bring it to our listeners on Woman's Hour. I believe it was a sample of your hair in the end you talk about saved by by a hair but but this literally was it when it came to your case yeah it was so now there's this hair sample which i hadn't done previously because i was told that

even if you do the hair sample you have to basically find the specific tablet that was contaminated, which was obviously impossible because I consumed it, well, three months ago, at the earliest now, nearly a year ago. And I also believe that my case could be proved on the balance of probabilities, which is the standard that the Court of Arbitration for Sport used, because it was very clear from everything I had done, from all of the research, that the level of contamination and the substance was very indicative from everything I had done, from all of the research, that the level of contamination and the substance was very indicative of pharmaceutical contamination. Now, there was one case that had very recently provided a hair sample, which had basically

proved contamination because of the tiny amount in the hair. And this athlete had had a reduction in their sanction, which was almost unheard of in the case of not finding the very precise contaminants. Now, in the end, UCAD, UK Anti-Doping, said to me, you can't use this case because you haven't done the hair sample. So this was two weeks before the tribunal. I said, right, that's it. I'm going to do the hair sample. And UCAD said, that's OK, you can do it, but we will not change our opinion. We will not change our opinion we will not change our stance this won't change anything i did the hair sample obviously it showed contamination it showed a tiny amount of this substance in the period just before the test and nothing before or after you had then did a complete 180 and they said that i'd done nothing effectively um that i was at no fault or negligence and that i would have no ban.

And interestingly, there were many, many things that they had said in their written submissions that discredited me. And then they produced a document to submit to basically say that I was at no fault or negligence. And they turned all of these things around. And that is one of my things I'm saying that UK anti Antidoping do not have the inherent scientific knowledge to understand this critically scientific process. And as they are, they are not fit for purpose. They said things like I hadn't provided pharmacokinetic evidence, which was rubbish. I provided probably 20 pages of it. So and that is the scientific part of it that you are very much arguing. I can see bicycles behind you where you are right now. We've spoken a little bit about how much it affected your life. And I'm sure those in your immediate support system as well. What do you want them to know about? I don't know whether you're planning to cycle again

i don't know what your plans are or how your life is 10 months on uh i have literally just started riding my bike again i i couldn't look at it i couldn't look at it i couldn't put my kit on because i couldn't afford kit that wasn't my old team kit and putting my old team kit on made me feel physically sick um one of the things that we didn't mention earlier, actually, was the fact that after the contamination, I was so terrified that I stopped taking my medication for asthma. After about a week, I became so critically ill with my asthma. I was having a crisis that I was forced back into taking it. And I would say I was paralysed by fear every single time I had to take my medication that was keeping me well. I was scared to eat meat. I was scared to drink milk. I was scared to do anything. It was horrendous. It's been like any process of grief. It's been a long process of recovery. And in the last month,

I have just started riding my bike again. In that time, I started running to sort of have that bit of outlet. But to be honest, I've been working flat out every single day on this. The thing that I want people to know and to understand is that when you read that somebody had a positive test, you must be critical about it. Please don't assume what has happened. And please understand that behind that screen, there is a human whose life is being torn apart. Now under any normal criminal circumstance which this is not you would have a due process and you would be innocent until proven guilty. The problem with this is that you are guilty until proven innocent and with the increase in sensitivity of testing that is not okay at the moment. WADA needs to change. I do believe,

like I said in my article, I do have no intention to try and bring down water. But I do believe that change must be incited. And I do believe there's a way to reconcile the fact that you can catch the actual dopers and not catch the people who are victims of inadvertent contamination. British cyclist Lizzie Banks, speaking at Women's Hour in our first broadcast interview. Thank you for speaking to us. Thank you very much. Let us move on. Many of you were with me yesterday when I was speaking to Clare Walton and her story of how infected blood changed her life.

You will be, of course, following the story perhaps over the past day or perhaps over the past months. Her husband, Brian, who was a haemophiliac, contracted HIV through contaminated blood. He died of AIDS in 1993. Claire, through him, also contracted HIV. She described to me experiencing trauma upon trauma due to how she was treated and also the impact on her life. We really wanted to have a family, so I have no family. That's another big word. But at the time and over the years, it was the silencing and not being able to talk to it

that actually traumatised and made me very different, basically dehumanised us. Another reason for giving evidence is for people to realise just how badly, how appallingly a group of people were treated, how society would look upon people with HIV. People were losing their jobs, people were not getting the support they really, really needed. Yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak offered a wholehearted apology, his words,

to victims and pledged compensation, whatever it costs. Full details are expected later today. If you have experienced, and some of you got in touch yesterday, I know there are more of you, if you've any experience of this blood scandal, what is your reaction then to that apology? What, if anything, does it change for you?

Again, text the programme 84844 on social media. We're at BBC Women's Hour. You can email us through our website. And for a WhatsApp message or a voice note, that number 03700 100 444. Just let us know.

What does the apology mean, if anything? Well, we are moving on now instead to a new documentary on BBC Two, which is looking at how advances in DNA and forensic technology mean that the police can now re-examine cases of alleged sexual assault or rape. We heard a bit about this, you might remember,

in the case of Andrew Malkinson, whose rape conviction was overturned last year after new DNA techniques proved he was innocent. But this documentary, Cold Case Investigators, Solving Britain's Sex Crimes, looks at the opposite side. What happens when those new techniques can be used to catch a perpetrator who had previously gotten away with it? Detective Constable Hayley Dyess is part of the police team. Major crime. This is at Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Police.

And they are re-examining unsolved rape cases. One of the cases that she has worked on was called Operation Weave. It looked into the rape of a woman who was called Karen. She was 26 years old when that happened. On her birthday in 1993, Karen got into a car in which she believed to be a taxi in order to go home. The driver took her to a dark garage area and raped her before dropping her off on the pavement. She went to the police, but no suspect was ever identified. Karen joined me alongside D.C. Hayley-Dyess just a little earlier this morning. And before we listen, I should say that our conversation does discuss rape evidence in detail.

I started by asking D.C. Hayley to tell me a bit more about Operation Painter. That's the name of the overall project that is looking at cold cases. So Operation Painter is an initiative that we in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Police adopted to look at our unsolved rapes and serious sexual offences. What we know is technology has advanced over the years in relation to DNA and the current methods are now much more sensitive and discriminated than previous techniques and methods used. These new techniques allow us to look at historic cases and for work then to be carried out on the remains of any original exhibits. It deals in effect more effectively with old degraded samples so we were able to go to forensic science service and say look we want to look at our unsolved rapes and

serious sexual offenses what exhibits do you have retained there that we are able to retrieve once we'd established that and we were able to retrieve the samples that they still held, and let's be honest, in a lot of cases, these samples that were retained weren't retained for DNA purposes. They were retained before the national database was set up in 1995. So for example, Karen's case in 1993, her samples would have been obtained to prove or disprove an offence that actually occurred rather than for the purpose of DNA to be looked at in future years. So we were able to obtain those samples and then approach an independent scientific service provider, in this case Eurofence, and say, can you look at these

samples? And can you find any profiles for us? And as we know, in Karen's case, we were really lucky they were able to detect spam within some of the samples, which we were able to then analyse and we got a hit to our suspect, Zaid Majeed. And just to be really clear those samples what are they? They could be anything they could be in Karen's case we still had our underwear but they can also be swabs that are obtained by the force medical practitioner at the time. Karen was seen very very quickly after the rape within a matter of hours. And samples were taken from high vaginal swabs, as we call them, and other swabs, intimate swabs, which were then secured,

sealed, forensically sealed and submitted to our forensic science services. And so you could go back to those samples that were taken in 1993. What is the technology that you're using? We hear DNA kind of bandied around that it has progressed so much and what it's been able to detect. But can you give us a little bit more elaboration on that? Not very good with the DNA technology. All I can say is we now have DNA 17, which came into place in 2014. Previously, we used a technique called SGM where DNA17 is actually able to look at

not just only the components that fell out of SGM but also look at additional components under DNA17. And so basically it is that the DNA, the way you can test now, gives a much more accurate picture and picks up a much wider array than it would have in the previous techniques. Absolutely. Yeah. DNA 17 has taken the level to, well, a completely new high for us. I want to come back and ask you, Hayley, about what it's like going back to those cold cases. But I want to go to one cold case first.

And that was a cold case, I should say. And that is Karen's. Karen, welcome to Woman's Hour. Hello. It's lovely to be here. And it's lovely to be here with you guys. It's wonderful. We're ladies, I should say, maybe.

Well, we're very glad you're here. Now, I was watching the story of your attack. And I'm so sorry you went through that. That was back in 1993. You were the victim of a rape that took place. Maybe, is it okay if you tell birthday with a group of friends um and i think this is very important to make sure that the vehicle you're getting in is the vehicle you think that you're getting in because i presumed that it was a taxi the man wound down the window and said, where are you going? And I got in because he played the part really, really well. And as we were driving, I think within a minute and a half to two minutes,

we took a left where we should have gone straight on. And yeah, things kind of went downhill from there. Yeah. And the outcome was, as I said, I'm so sorry to hear this, but that he raped you. That was back in 1993. How did you hear and what were your thoughts when you heard that the police are going to try and re-examine your case? I got a phone call and the lovely people at the end asked me to sit down or asked me, you know, was I sitting down? And for some unknown reason, because it was the police,

I thought there was a problem with one of my children. You know, why are they ringing me? You know, anyway, and then I got the news and I really I actually thought I was dreaming when I heard it I thought hold on a moment and they said um you know basically you know um there was a terrible incident that occurred with you in 1993 and and from there it was kind of a bit of a dream if you know what I mean it was kind of like am I hearing right and they and they said we've caught him and at that point I was really glad I was sitting down I'm just so glad I have taken Hayley's advice all the way through this because she's never been wrong shall we just say that so but yes it was um it was a shock it was a

brilliant shock and then at the same time it was like i'm not sure if i want to hear this because i i'm not sure if it was better when it was buried you know because what is going to come from all of this now um so yeah i think the initial stages of hearing about it, I had extremely mixed emotions. But it was just amazing because in 1993, the DNA workmanship, shall we say, that there is now, it just didn't exist. And I think, you know, what these guys can do nowadays is absolutely amazing. And from what I can gather as well, they didn't have very much DNA to go on, but they worked it wonderfully. And I didn't think from that call, I couldn't have imagined that it would go to court. I just couldn't. I couldn't at that point.

So and I was told that it was going so. But the initial thing that that was a one to be dealing with that day, I can tell you. Well, let me tell that back to Hayley then. I mean, that is a very powerful moment, Hayley. What is it like going back to these cold cases and particularly having to tell people that you're re-examining them? I've been really fortunate that I've worked on a number of cold cases and with that has come a lot of lessons learned along the way, for want of a better phrase. What I do know is that we can't and we really shouldn't underestimate what we ask of our victims.

For many, whilst they never forget what's happened to them, they are often able to find coping mechanisms to help them deal with it along the way. We then, in effect, rip off the plasters that they've so carefully applied, as Karen alludes to, exposing the trauma all over again. We ask them to relive quite possibly the most traumatic period of their lives all over again. And we can't underestimate actually by doing this that we very much can create almost a PTSD effect. So we have to ensure that we have a lot of services in place that we can offer to our victims. Whilst it's an incredible moment to go and speak to people like Karen, who, you know, at no point has ever faltered throughout the investigation,

we have to temper that against what is also best for the victim. We have to make sure that we're not causing any further damage to them. And that is a really difficult place to be in. And, you know, we said to Karen at any point that it got too much, she had to tell us and we have to have a very open conversation. And it has to work both ways, where if Karen wasn't coping at any point, she had to come back and say, look, guys, I need to put a stop on this at the moment, I need to take a breather, because we do have to keep that very, very carefully measured.

Yes. So you have these advances, but these other ramifications that can come from it. What about for you, Karen? Was there that difficult part that Hayley is talking about? Oh, 100%, 100%. And Hayley is 100% right, as usual, that we do gather our coping mechanisms mechanisms sadly um some of the coping mechanisms are not so positive some of them are negative coping mechanisms and i can imagine ladies all

around the world are you know coping in very negative ways And actually probably one of the most powerful things Karen ever said to me was we think we take as police officers for granted a process that we'd like to adopt and in Karen's case we wanted to go back and re-interview Karen about the rape. We wanted to do a what we call a visually recorded interview to ensure that any information previously provided to the police back in 1993 was entirely accurate. In Karen's case, we did ask Karen to conduct a visually recorded interview. And this is one part that I'd never encountered before. And Karen said to me, I'm really happy to provide you with a statement, Hayley, but I can't do it on a visually recorded interview. And I took a step back because I thought, why?

You know, it's a much faster process. It's going to be easier for you, Karen, to do it this way. And Karen's answer was because I'm very, very likely to get very emotional and very hurt and upset as we talk about it. And what I won't do is I won't allow him to have any further power over my life as I sit here today. And if he sees that he still has this effect on me, he's one. And you'll probably see from Karen and speaking to Karen and when you watch her on the documentary, she's very strong and she comes across as a very strong lady.

But a lot of that is a coping mechanism that Karen has also put in place on the documentary, she's very strong and she comes across as a very strong lady. But a lot of that is a coping mechanism that Karen has also put in place to ensure that that vulnerability side of Karen isn't exposed to the likes of Majid. And that is really something to think about, isn't it, Karen? And I was thinking of you last night as I watched a preview of the documentary, as I know you have as well.

And there is footage of the man who attacked you. That is Saeed Majid lying in his police interview. This is all visualised, taped and it's shown within the documentary. But I'm wondering how you felt watching that. I mean, many will watch it and their blood will boil. I can honestly say that my blood didn't boil. I've learned to separate the man from the deed. And, you know, I'm very interested in psychology and the way people work and things like that.

And I truly believe if you hate the person, you can hate what they did to you by all means. It's horrible. I can't even find a word for it in the English dictionary, to be fair. But to continue that hate, I don't know what that's going to do to your heart. I don't know what it's going to do to your heart. I don't know what it's going to do to your life. I spent a number of years hating Zahid Majeed. That is for absolute sure. But the moment all of this came around, it was kind of like, well, OK.

So it was kind of a reward for me learning not to hate, if that makes any sense. But seeing him on the TV and the way the police handled everything was amazing. It really, yeah, it was amazing. And the fact that he strange, very strange. And the fact that he was imprisoned for 16 years, did that feel like justice to you? 100%. I just couldn't believe it. I mean, I was, you know, googling things like how long,

because, you know, I don't know much really about prison or, you know know sentences or any of this um so I looked up things like how long can you know the minimum sentence for rape the minimum sentence for kidnap and I was like right okay so he's getting six years that that's what he's getting max because you know years ago um my kind of case was very very hard to prove you know, years ago, my kind of case was very, very hard to prove, you know, in 1993. And I think almost constantly it was going back to 1993. You know, my head was. It was it was amazing. I think it just rocked me to my core.

I think at the end of his sentencing, I um Hayley would be able to tell you how that went better than I would but um I was barely able to stand up I just I mean it was firstly the support that everybody had given me and people believing you and you know in your head you've been so long just burying it and saying nothing's going to happen here. And then when the judge says, you know, basically, I'm not quoting her verbatim here, but, you know, basically saying what a disgusting individual he was and how, you know, he put me in a mental prison for almost 30 years. It was as if everybody had heard everything I said. So I'm not even sure justice is the word it was just it was like a miracle it really really was like a miracle. And that has I would imagine

then filtered into your day-to-day life? A hundred percent a hundred percent We kind of we walked out of there. I think all of us were in. We just didn't know, you know, where did this come from? You know what I mean? Yeah. So from that moment on, what the wonderful thing for me, because what people have to remember is this guy was never caught. What did he look like? You know, three years later, five years later, 10 years later? So my fear was always bumping into him on the street or, you know, worse still, you know, maybe he was looking for me. Maybe he knew where I was, you know, all of these different types of things.

And then when you're told that he's going to jail for a number of years, it's as if the whole universe says, right, you can go to the shop without worrying now. You know, silly little things like that. But very important. But very, very important. I'm so glad that you've had that relief,

as it sounds, that that came to you. Hayley, did you ever think that it might come to this with DNA and your work? I didn't think we'd have computers when I first joined the police. We're not. Look, it changes so quickly, doesn't it? The whole world of technology, what we're doing with DNA, what we're able to do now looking at our unsolved um rapes serious sexual offenses but also homicide you know again i've been really lucky i've been involved in cold cases where we've had no dna and we've been able to

get cases through court um you know in in some ways we now look you know even if you look at karen's case whilst we had the d, but it wasn't preserved for DNA purposes at the time of the offence, what we didn't have back then, of course, was CCC TV, AMPR, mobile phone data that we rely on so heavily now for modern day investigations, ring doorbell, you know, everything now has technology. Where, of course, back in 93, we didn't really have that. And it's certainly even for some of our cases where we've gone further back into the 70s,

that all bits of technology that we couldn't rely on back then. So, of course, now we're in a position where we have so much more to assist us. And there is in the documentary cases from the 80s as well, I should say. What about people listening to this who say you should be focusing on recent assaults? And there's a lot in the news, of course, about rape case backlogs. Yeah, I think they're right. I do think we should be focusing on more recent cases but what we can't do is we can't not investigate cold cases as well these investigations need to be run in tandem like we do within our forces force areas there is no priority given to whether it's a live case or a cold case we are able to run them at the moment consecutively. And for me, you've listened to Karen and what it means to

Karen. When we go back and we are talking to victims who have had to deal with some of the most abhorrent crimes that are committed by man, and they've had to live with that for 30 years without justice, I think that those people need to look and say, actually, everybody is entitled to justice. Thank you. If I can go back as well. What we've got to remember is this man, Zahid Majeed, was walking around for 30 years. I had an idea when they'd caught him that he had done something very very naughty and that's why he'd been caught so if you do not catch these people and get justice

they're still going to be walking the streets and they're your menace. Well said Karen and looking at the documentary and I don't know what it's like in the unit, there seemed to be an awful lot of women that were at the forefront of these cases. Yeah. And interestingly, I said to my husband last night, I wonder if we'd watched a documentary in the 70s, how many women would have featured on it? Because, of course, all the car case footage that we see in many, many cases,

whether it's a homicide or whether it's rapes, et cetera, all the car case footage that we see in many, many cases, whether it's a homicide or whether it's rapes, et cetera, are all men. And actually, Karen and I had a very similar conversation within the court arena that the judge was female, the prosecuting counsel was female, the defence counsel was female, the OIC was female, and obviously a victim female. And I wonder at what point, or if there was any point within those proceedings when Majeed thought, wow, everybody around me is actually female and everybody has that power, if you like, to do something to alter the course of my life. DC, Hayley Dias speaking to me there alongside Karen

and the second part of Cold Case Investigators is on BBC Two tonight at nine o'clock with Karen Storey. You can catch up on part one on BBC iPlayer and as always, if anything you've heard in this conversation has affected you there are links to support and resources on BBC Actionline.

I want to read some of your messages coming in. We're talking about the infected blood scandal. Here's some of the messages I've received. We were asking about the apology by Rishi Sunak. Does it make a difference? Infected blood, says Miss Morgan. The apology is too little too late. Empty words, shameful.

Another says, hello, my husband was given hepatitis C through a blood transfusion. He died in June 2013. My response to Rishi Sunak's apology is that he spoke well and apologised on behalf of all governments involved, but admitted to apologise for his own failure to respond to either Sir Brian's 2023 or Sir Robert Francis's 2022 compensation reports. He needs to own his own shame. Not holding out for much info today, but I'd like to be proved wrong. 84844. Now, my next guest is a leading force within avant-garde music. New York-based Singaporean pianist Margaret Leng Tan is the first woman to earn a doctorate from the Juilliard School of

Music in the States before deciding to size down, to switch to a toy piano, turning it into a serious instrument in the process. She's in London to perform her sonic autobiography, her sonic memoir, Dragon Ladies Don't Weep. It's going to be at the Southbank Centre this weekend. And it's a combination of spoken and recorded text. It's got projected images. It has original music for the toy piano and also prepared piano, different toys. I saw a child's telephone at one point and percussion. And it tells about Margaret's experience with obsessive compulsive disorder. So something that she has had since childhood. Margaret, I'm delighted to say is in studio with me, along with one of her toy pianos to my left.

She's going to perform live for us a little later. Welcome to London. Welcome to the programme, Margaret. Oh, I'm delighted to be here. Thank you. So a sonic memoir. I am intrigued as a radio presenter with this. Why did you want to tell your life story,

Dragon Ladies Don't Weep, through sound rather than words or a book? Well, I had intended to write my memoir, but I never got round to it because I was always touring or practising. So I decided it would be easier to make a sonic memoir than a written one. I'll get round to the written version eventually, I hope, when I retire. Oh, I have a feeling that's not going to happen, Margaret. I don't know. Well,

Dragon Ladies Don't Weep. So this is a collaboration with composer Eric Griswold. And as I mentioned, it's really trying to explore your struggle with OCD. You said when you were a child, you couldn't stop counting. When did you realise you had OCD? Well, I didn't know there was a name for it until about the 1980s when I heard a program about it on television and I realized I'm not alone and it has a name. So I felt that in creating Dragon Ladies Don't Weep, what I have done with Tamara Solwick of Chamber Maid in Melbourne and Eric Griswold with the music, is turn an affliction into a work of art. How beautiful. It's my public service message.

But what about the title, Dragon Ladies Don't Weep? Where does that come from? Oh, it just popped into my head one day. And I feel I'm a bit of a dragon lady, right? And I haven't been able to cry in about 30 years. So that's... Oh, hold on. Let us stop there. You haven't been able to cry for 30 years. I can't even cry when my dogs die, you know, and they mean a great deal to me, more than anything in the world, really. I just have lost the ability to shed tears. So from your 40s, I'm thinking,

you're in your 70s now. Yeah, right. And it's not that I don't feel deeply and profoundly. I just cannot express it through tears. Do you want to cry? Not necessarily. No. It's just the way I am. So that's why I thought that'd be a really good title for the play, since it's just something I had already intended to write. And when you have a good title, you should always fulfill it somehow. And so you have. So we have this intersection of your music and talking about or exploring, I should say, OCD. How does that come together?

Does music help you manage what you call an affliction? Absolutely, because when I was a child, I had this obsession with counting. And the piece that I'm going to play is called One, because that was a number that I used to say to myself over and over when I was a child. And Eric Griswold has now transformed it into a beautiful, beautiful moving piece of music. Yes. Because when I started piano lessons when I was six, I thought, oh my God, this is where the counting really belongs. So it became my refuge as well as my passion.

And something then that you became very good at. Yes, very creatively. My counting had found a creative outlet. You're a dragon lady, you have told me. You consider yourself one. I believe this is also dedicated to your mother and to John Cage, the great avant-garde musician as well. Yes, because they were both very important influences in my life. I worked with John Cage for the last 11 years of his life. And he also introduced me to Zen and a whole other way of thinking about life and music.

And it's helped me cope with my OCD. What should our listeners be listening out for when you perform? This sense of repetition, of being trapped within the four walls of my own mind that comes through in the music. Shall we listen? Yes. Do you want to take off your headphones there, make your way over, as I describe.

It's a little, tiny, upright piano. It is a toy piano. Where did you pick up this one, Margaret? Where did you get this piano? This toy piano is a vintage one from the 1970s. It came from a Wisconsin barn sale and it's been everywhere. It's been on the main stage of Carnegie Hall. It's been in Wigmore Hall.

It's even been to Beethoven's house in Bonn where I was invited to play toy piano on it. I can see the joy as you sit there on your tiny stool. I mean, to let people know, I mean, you have one knee, your right knee is on the ground, your left knee is then in a squash, shall we say. Sitting side saddle is a really perfect way to put it. And just before we get into it, what is it about the toy piano that you love so much? I have a grand piano right behind you that you could be playing. But why the toy piano? Because John Cage wrote his suite for toy piano. And I discovered that and I realized that it had the potential to be a real instrument. John Cage was always prescient and ahead of everyone else.

And I'm leaving a little silence there, Margaret, as well, because I know you want us to be aware of silence as well as part of your work. How does it feel to play the toy piano? It's very challenging because it is a toy after all. But I've learned to control it so that I can actually create articulation and even a relative sense of dynamics on it. I treat it like a real instrument. Explain that a little bit more. Well, it's a toy. I mean, it's, but I've turned it into an instrument capable of genuine artistic expression. I've become the world's instrument capable of genuine artistic expression. I've become the world's first toy piano virtuoso.

Yes, you have. It's your legacy. How does that feel? Oh, the toy piano is alive and well. There are other toy pianists besides me now. And there's a whole repertoire that's been created for it. So it'll live long on after I'm gone. Well, you're going to stick around for a long time. I know your mother lived to be... 99.

99, exactly. I read that somewhere. Toy pianist, Margaret Langtan, and will be performing at the Southbank Centre in London this Friday and Saturday. You had a little taste of it there. Margaret, thank you so much for coming in and sharing some of your gift with us.

I want to read some of the messages that have come in in relation to our programme this morning. Particularly Lizzie Banks, the British cyclist that we talked to at the beginning of the programme. We have a message from Lou.

He or she says, keep going, Lizzie. You're so nearly there. Please don't give up now. Look after yourself and just hang on for three more weeks. Then arrange some relaxation

for yourself to recover. Well done for taking this on. You should feel extremely proud. I'm back with you tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. I'm Dr. Michael Mosley, and I want to let you know about my new immersive BBC Radio 4 podcast series,

Deep Calm. It's all about how to tap into and activate a remarkable system that we all have, hardwired inside of us, our relaxation response. And it's been developed to be listened to at any time you want to really unwind. We'll discover simple, powerful, scientifically proven techniques

to activate this relaxation response and encounter incredible mechanisms that work to help you rest, restore and find stillness. From the breath to the fractal patterns of nature. I hope you'll subscribe on BBC Sounds. doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this?

What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story, settle in. Available now.