All language subtitles for T.T.A.M.M.S02E05.1080p.WEB.DL.H264.BTN_track3_[eng]

(Richard Shepherd)
When a murder is committed,

it's always a race against time
to find the truth,

to separate fact from fiction,
to catch the killer,

and to make sure
that justice is served.

But what happens when the truth
vanishes with the victim?

I'm Dr Richard Shepherd,
and I've spent

my entire career
as a forensic pathologist,

performing nearly 23,000 autopsies.

I've learned that the dead
don't hide the truth,

and they never lie.

Through me, you'll be hearing
directly from the victim.

With the aid
of a state-of-the-art laboratory,

using ground-breaking technology,

I'll be investigating a series
of intriguing crimes

where, from the victims' bodies,

are revealed to you
the truth behind these murders.

(camera shutter snapping)

-(touch tones beeping)
-(line ringing)

(Dispatcher)
Good morning, Dorset Police.

On the 17th of June, 2013,
Dorset Police

pay a welfare visit
to a flat in Bournemouth.

It's the home of taxi driver
William Spiller,

who hasn't been seen for some time.

And there, they make
a gruesome discovery.

(sonar beeping)

(touch tones beeping)
(line rings)

Dorset Police
receive a phone call from a woman

who says she's concerned.

She's had no contact with her
boyfriend for some weeks now.

The problem the police have
in relation to a phone call

like that
is that they're both adults.

They're both grown-ups.

These are not uncommon
things to happen.

If, as an adult, you don't want
to contact somebody or call them,

then you're perfectly
entitled to do that.

It's a very difficult situation
for the police to deal with.

William's girlfriend hadn't
heard from him for quite a while.

And obviously, she was worried.

Something didn't seem right.

And the neighbours
also alerted them.

They're reporting
there are flies -

dead flies, flies everywhere
swarming - and a smell.

The police or a
social services-type organisation

must go and look.

Because, you know,
there are welfare concerns.

(Brian Hook)
The woman had been receiving

texts and messages
via the phone

but had never actually
spoken to the boyfriend.

And that was unusual.

And at that point,
I think Dorset Police

were quite right to decide

that they would go and check
on the person's welfare,

which is basically to go
knock on the door

and say, are you OK?

(knocking)

They enter the block of flats.

And as they approach
the front door,

they are aware of an odour,
a musty smell.

They force entry into the flat.

(door clicks open)

The smell was coming
from the bedroom,

and there discovered this
absolutely horrific scene.

(Brian) Any experienced officer
would tell you

once you've witnessed that
odour of decomposition,

you will never forget it.

There's a TV in the bedroom,
and the TV is on a makeshift table

made of four plastic boxes.

And it's obvious to them, because
of the infestation and the smell,

that they contained
remains of some sort.

When the police smelt this
and saw all the flies

around these plastic boxes,
which are clear,

so they would have seen
these body parts.

A further search
is made of the flat.

And in a filing cabinet,
they find a box.

When they open up that box
to see what the contents is,

their worst fears are realised.

They discover it's a human head,

an absolutely horrific find

for the officers
that go there initially

to find human remains
that have been dismembered.

(Jane Carter Woodrow) It must have
been so traumatic for the police

to deal with
in that investigation.

Imagine that the forensic
scientists or the detectives that

came on after would
have been very surprised

by the head in the filing cabinet.

So this particularly grisly
murder would have certainly

affected, you know, some of
the police in terms of trauma

that they may have
suffered afterwards

from dealing with the case.

(Brian) At this point,
the officers withdraw.

The flat is cordoned off.

And obviously, detective
branch is informed

and a homicide
investigation is commenced.

(Kevin Browne)
It was immediately clear,

from the way the body parts
had been stored, that this

was not typical of a murder scene.

It would be unusual for the police
to find something so ordered

and something so obvious.

I mean, usually, if someone
is dismembering a body,

it's to conceal it, not to
use it as a table for the TV.

So the police would have
been very confused about why

has this person gone
to so much time

to put a body in boxes

and then just to leave it there
for it to be discovered.

So, in this case, this
isn't about concealment.

This is about order.

The evidential trail
starts right away.

This is actually
a very complex crime scene,

even down to some of the things
that perhaps might not be obvious.

Do all the body parts belong to
the same body, is the first thing,

or are we looking
for other victims?

As a pathologist, when I'm
faced with multiple body parts,

the first thing I must
do is make sure they

all belong to the same person.

We could possibly be dealing
with a serial killer.

But in this case, there was
a torso, a head, arms and legs,

all neatly severed
through the joints

and stacked in plastic boxes.

They did all fit together.

And DNA testing confirmed they
all belonged to the same person.

This was the body of a white man
in his 40s who was large.

He was around 20-plus stone.

And the cuts through
the bone were not

those of an expert, which
suggested he'd been dismembered

using some kind of saw.

Certainly, the cuts weren't smooth
or made with surgical tools.

But who was it?

One of the most important things
in a situation like this,

you have to identify the victim.

That is of paramount importance.

The dismembered body was
in such a state of decay,

there was very little left
to identify the remains.

But what we did have was his teeth.

The inner soft tissue of the tooth
is covered by a layer of enamel,

which is a very,
very hard substance,

capable of withstanding
incredibly high temperatures

and can sometimes last for
hundreds of years after death.

Comparing the teeth
with dental records

confirmed that this was 48-year-old
taxi driver William Spiller.

(Brian) William was known
locally as a gentle giant.

He's a fun-loving, humorous man
that was known to a lot of people.

William was in a
long-term relationship

with a woman called Glenys.

It was her that had called
the police initially.

(Jane)
William was a taxi driver.

He seemed very popular where
he lived down in Bournemouth.

He was also a doorman at one time.

He loved playing snooker.

He did all the sort
of usual things.

He had a caravan at the beach,
and he'd go down there.

And he was also a father.

(Richard) William had a
27-year-old son, Nathan Robinson,

who spent his childhood growing up
in the Midlands with his mother

before moving to Bournemouth
to be with his dad.

(Brian) Nathan studied
at Aberystwyth University.

He has a degree in mathematics.

And, at one point,
he was considering

doing a master's degree.

(Jane) Nathan
had just finished a degree,

graduated from Aberystwyth.

He'd gone to live
down in Bournemouth.

He didn't actually have
a job at that time,

but the two were living together.

(Brian) It was fairly obvious,
when William was found,

that nobody had been in
the flat for some time.

However, Nathan had lived
with William for some years.

So where is Nathan now?

Nathan falls into two camps.

He's either in the suspect's camp
or the victim's.

He could be either at this point.

If Nathan is a suspect
or a victim, what's imperative,

regardless of which camp
he's in,

we need to find him
as a matter of urgency.

In a quiet cul-de-sac
in Bournemouth,

police have launched a murder
investigation after finding

the dismembered body
of taxi driver William Spiller

neatly packed in storage boxes.

There was a torso,
a head, arms and legs,

all neatly severed
through the joints

and stacked in plastic boxes.

The dismembered body was
in such a state of decay,

there was very little left
to identify the remains.

But dental records confirmed this
was 48-year-old William Spiller.

William shared his flat with his
26-year-old son, Nathan Robinson.

(Brian) Nathan's not there.

From the investigative
perspective, why is he not there?

Nathan now has a foot in
two potential boxes here.

He's either a suspect.

He could be a victim.

We need to find out
which one he's in.

(Richard) Police launched
a countrywide search

for William's son.

William's body was dismembered
and badly decomposed,

but could it still
tell us something

about what had happened to him
in those moments before he died?

He was found to have
a number of stab

and slash wounds all over his body.

If we look at the torso, we can
see the spine and the ribs that

protect the vital internal organs.

But if we look at just
the soft tissue of the torso,

we can see that the wounds
are superficial.

They cut through the skin
and the underlying muscle only.

They go nowhere near
penetrating through the ribs

and into the vital organs.

And that's really important
because it tells us

that the weapon used
to cause these injuries

is very sharp
but also very shallow.

During the search of the flat,
police seize

a Stanley knife - a box cutter -
a saw, and a hacksaw.

(Richard) While the Stanley knife
was the likely weapon used

to inflict soft tissue
wounds on William,

these injuries alone weren't enough
to have caused William's death.

But there was
something else his body

told us about this brutal attack.

Often, at postmortem, it's not
what you see but what you don't see

that can become important.

As we look at William's arms,
I can see there are

no slash wounds to his lower arms.

And wounds like that are
caused when someone raises

their hand to defend themselves.

They're called defensive injuries.

And the lack of those
defensive injuries in this case

suggests to me that
this was a sudden attack

and that William was
taken by surprise.

So there's no defensive
wounds on the body.

And you're talking about
a man as big as William,

who is 20 stone and 6'4".

So what you're looking at here
is a surprise attack or an attack

by somebody he actually trusted.

And there was no time, obviously,
for William to defend himself.

(Kevin) When the police
attend any homicide

in a domestic environment,
one of their suspicions

is an immediate family member,
because, unfortunately,

40% of all homicides actually
are domestic homicides

in the home by relatives.

It's actually more common
than you think.

And people are more at risk
sometimes

from people they know
than strangers.

And so, therefore,
the police would first

investigate the immediate
family members for a motive,

for potential harm to each other.

And they would suspect
a domestic argument

that had gone too far, etc.

However, they would have been
shocked by the fact there was...

that this body had been
dismembered and ordered into boxes

and left there in the apartment
in such an ordered way,

because that sort of
approach to a body

is very unusual in a family murder
or domestic murder.

(Richard) The police
investigation continued

to focus on Nathan Robinson,
and detectives

began to build a picture of his
relationship with his father.

When the police
were searching the flat

looking for evidence,
one of the things they found

was an IOU note
from Nathan to William

for an absolutely staggering sum -

36,000 pounds.

That is just unbelievable.

Nathan doesn't have a job.

And William is, effectively,
funding Nathan's lifestyle.

(Jane) There seemed to be
an issue of money between them.

Nathan was certainly seeing,
in his father, a cash cow.

He owed his father a lot of money.

And if he needed anything,
he would go to his father.

He didn't actually have a job,

although he did have
a good degree.

He seemed to depend
on his father for money,

and the relationship seemed
pretty heavily biased that way.

(Brian) There were obviously
problems within the relationship,

and a lot of this
stems about money.

William lent Nathan
some money so that he

could go on holiday to Thailand.

The understanding
was that that money

would be paid back to William,
but that never happened.

And the problem arose,
because William now

didn't have that money,
he was unable to pay

the insurance for his taxi.

It's his livelihood.
That's how he makes his living.

Nathan wasn't in education.

So the father's expectation
would be that he should support

himself through being employed.

And of course,
there would have been

a disappointment for the father
if that didn't happen.

So that would have
created conflict.

(Richard) Police inquiries
with friends and family

revealed that Nathan and his father
repeatedly clashed over money.

Do you expect me to subsidise you
for the rest of your life,

was one of the remarks that
was heard by a neighbour

during one of their arguments.

(Jane) Money
can be a source of conflict

in a relationship within a family.

It certainly can be.

There was a conflict
between them about money,

and that seemed
to escalate over time.

(Richard) As work continued
on tracking Nathan down,

detectives needed
to establish a timeline

of events around William's death.

The time when that person
might have died is paramount

because it will direct
your investigation.

It will also give you a window
of when that person died.

You get that, you know where
to start your inquiries.

(Richard) Pinpointing an
exact time of death was difficult,

but the hatched flies
and state of decay

suggested William's body had been
in the flat for around four weeks.

There was confirmation from Glenys
about contact she had

and contact she then
didn't have with the victim.

And that period of time
is narrowed down

as to when it's highly likely,

most likely that
William was killed.

(Richard)
A phone call from a neighbour

corroborated this time frame.

-(touch tones beeping)
-(line ringing)

(Dispatcher)
Good morning, Dorset Police.

(Richard) The neighbour
went on to say he'd heard

a commotion and William calling
out to phone for an ambulance

on the night of the 16th of May.

With a rough time of death,
the investigation

could pick up speed and hone in
on a potential suspect.

Part of the investigative
process, the victim

is going to be lifestyled.

Where do they work?
What hours do they work?

Who are their friends?
Where do they frequent?

Where might they be expected
to be at any particular time?

Because that's where the paths
of our victim and our suspect

or suspects may well have crossed.

There's a huge
amount of work to do.

We all leave a pattern
wherever we go.

Going into places,
in buying things,

you're using cards, credit cards,
debit cards, even cash.

One of the main investigative
strands these days -

closed-circuit TV.

Hundreds of hours of CCTV
is seized and looked at.

On that CCTV, we see Nathan.

Nathan is at the railway station.

Nathan is seen buying
a ticket to travel to Scotland.

(Richard) This trip to Glasgow
in Scotland happened

on the 17th of May, the day
after a neighbour reported

a commotion at William's flat.

It made Nathan the prime suspect.

But with no criminal record,
lots of friends,

and no concrete evidence,
he seemed an unlikely murderer.

Police continued to investigate.

(Brian) Now that we know
where Nathan has gone,

crucial evidence is being
gathered in Scotland.

We need to know his movements,
where he's been, who he's seen,

and what he's actually
doing in Scotland.

His friends said that he
was being extravagant.

He was buying them meals.

He was staying
in expensive hotels.

He treats his friends.
He's buying drinks.

He's buying food.

You see this largesse.

You see he's trying to
impress his friends.

He has a definite sense of...
in my opinion, a definite sense

of entitlement about him.

He feels this is his right.

He's there showing off.

Question is, where does
this money come from?

(Jane) But we know that he
doesn't have any money.

He doesn't have a job.

And his father didn't want
to give him any more money.

You can only assume that he's
taken his father's money.

After leaving Scotland,
Nathan's spending spree continues.

He goes to see his mother.

He takes her on an expensive
spa weekend in a hotel.

When he goes down to Birmingham,
when he takes his mother out,

again, look at me,
I'm the business.

He is the centre of his world,
totally egocentric.

But he wants admiration, which
you always see in narcissists.

In the four weeks
since leaving Bournemouth,

Nathan had spent
over 8,000 pounds.

(glasses clink)

(Richard) So did Nathan
murder his father for money?

(Kevin) He used his father's money
to an extreme,

spending a lot of money
in a weekend.

That may tell me that he was
half expecting to be caught

and he was having a big splash
before he got caught.

(Brian) Police eventually
track Nathan down,

and they arrest him
on suspicion of being

involved in the murder of William.

His remark when he's
arrested is, is this a joke?

After William Spiller's body
was discovered

carefully dismembered
and neatly packed in storage boxes,

police arrested
their prime suspect,

his 26-year-old son,
Nathan Robinson.

William's body had been
slashed with a knife,

but there were
no defensive wounds,

suggesting a surprise attack
by someone in the home.

Shortly after the murder,
Nathan had

gone on a spending spree
in Scotland and Birmingham

with his father's money.

Well, it seemed that
after he'd cleaned up

and he'd ordered the flat
in the way that he did

that he couldn't remain there.

He needed to leave the flat
and go away to Scotland,

to Glasgow, to see friends.

And so obviously, the environment
of his father being there

was impacting on him, that he
couldn't stay there the weekend.

Police eventually
track Nathan down,

and they arrest him
on suspicion of being

involved in the murder of William.

His remark when he's
arrested is, is this a joke?

It's a strange response for
somebody that's been arrested

for such a serious offence.

I've experienced silence.

I've experienced anger.

I've experienced confusion.

But that response is strange.

I think it's the response
of somebody in denial,

and certainly he's going to
be denying any involvement.

And what they now want to know

is, how much do the police know?

In other words,
how much evidence have

you got that I'm involved in this?

(Jane) This is
classical of narcissism.

They don't expect to get caught.

They're very arrogant.

No way is this
anything to do with me.

It's very casual denial.

He wants to elicit a response
from the arresting officers.

He wants them to carry on talking.

He wants them to say
something back,

even if it's just,
no, it's not a joke, mate.

He's now entered a conversation
that he has started.

That's the start of him
trying to control.

(Richard) Nathan claimed
he was innocent of his father's

murder, but William's body would
reveal more answers

about what happened
the night he was killed.

It's the job of the forensic
pathologist to determine

what was the fatal injury.

There were knife wounds
all over William's body.

But critically, there were
also injuries to his neck.

The neck is where there are
some major blood vessels.

And you can see them here.

In red is the carotid artery,
which carries blood

from the heart up to the brain,
and the jugular veins,

which carry blood
back to the heart.

Some of these blood vessels
are protected

beneath this big muscle of the
neck, the sternomastoid muscle.

But there's one blood vessel here,
one branch of the jugular vein,

that sits on top of this muscle.

And if it's cut, it's
going to bleed torrentially

and is likely to cause
death very quickly

without immediate
medical assistance.

William Spiller's neck
was severed in this place,

an injury that would have produced
a considerable amount of blood.

Cutting up the body would
create even more blood.

But when police first
discovered William,

the flat didn't look
like a crime scene.

(Brian) One of the
things that was noticed

was that the flat was very clean.

In other words, if somebody
is dismembered at that flat,

you would expect there to be
blood staining, blood spattering,

a whole array of things.

If you dismember somebody,
it's very difficult

to clean up afterwards.

It takes quite a considerable
amount of effort.

One of the things that the police
discovered afterwards was that

the neighbour had
complained to Nathan

that he had a pink liquid coming
down the wall in his bathroom.

The neighbour came upstairs
to enquire what that was,

to report it to him, and he
immediately covered for that.

The neighbour said he's very
cool, calm, and collected.

(Richard) Nathan
claimed he had spilled red wine.

(Brian) Nathan didn't
bat an eyelid

and was absolutely normal
in explaining why that

was happening to the neighbour.

(Kevin) The pink
fluid was probably

a mixture of bleach and blood.

(Richard) Armed with this
information, detectives homed in

on the CCTV that
captured Nathan's movements

around the time of the murder.

He goes out and he buys
steam cleaning equipment.

He actually buys
two steam cleaners.

There's a lot of evidence
to indicate that Nathan is,

in fact, the killer of his father.

(Richard) And a
forensic sweep of the flat

revealed critical evidence that the
killer hoped to have washed away.

Just because you
clean up blood

doesn't mean
to say it's not still there.

So it might look clean,
but it's not.

From the investigative process
of using a liquid -

be it bleach, be it soapy water -

to try and get rid of bloodstains,
what you're actually doing

is spreading it.

That stain that was 6 inches
around, when you dilute it,

now it becomes 12 inches,
14 inches, 24 inches.

And what you're actually
doing is moving the blood

into the cracks and
the crevices where

you might not be able to see it,

but, forensically, we can find it.

Cutting up a body, especially
in a domestic environment

rather than a clinical environment
will make a lot of mess.

To systematically go
through and clean that up,

it shows a level of not thinking
about what has happened and just

getting on with the job and
thinking about it as a task -

a cleaning task -
rather than what it represents.

This was just something that had
to be cleaned up and ordered,

which he did meticulously
and very carefully.

So obviously, this to him was just
a task needed to be done.

(Jane) So he's completely
in control of what he was doing.

You know, there was no sort of
lost touch with reality.

He knew what he'd done, knew
what he was going to do.

He was going to try
and cover for himself

to get away with this murder.

(Richard) Nathan
also spun a web of lies

to make it look as if his
father was still alive.

After William's death, Nathan
goes to a huge amount of effort

to cover up the fact
that he's dead.

So he didn't want
that murder discovered.

He had the foresight to
make sure that nobody would

be calling round for a while.

(bell dings)

(Brian) He pays the rent for
the flat a month in advance,

so nobody's going to come
knocking on the door.

He actually used his
father's phone to communicate

with William's girlfriend,
Glenys, to convince her

that he's still alive.

She'd had some text messages.

And those that she'd had,
she didn't actually think

sounded quite right because
she knew that William

would be in touch with her.

(Brian) He sends messages
saying that

William's gone to the Midlands

because one of his friends
is dying

and he wants to be with him.

You know, a terribly
cruel thing to do.

(Richard)
And when Glenys first

tried to report William
missing to the police,

Nathan called them with
his own version of events.

(line rings)

He's actually explaining away
why his father is not being seen,

and all the time he knows exactly
where his father is.

Just a cold, callous,

calculating thing to do.

I think that Nathan
is looking for excuses.

He knows the evidence that's
against him, it's overwhelming.

And he is trying every single
avenue to get out of it.

(Richard) But he'd
reached the end of the road.

On the 18th of June, 2013,
Nathan Robinson

was arrested and later
charged with the murder

of his father, William,
the unlawful disposal

of human remains, and theft.

(Kevin) What we
understand by patricide,

when a son or daughter
kills a parent,

is that the relationship
between the son and the father

is detached and possible
hatred between each other.

There must have been a level
of conflict in the past.

And indeed, what we find,
in this case,

that it was so extreme that he
committed murder, patricide.

(Brian)
There is a link and a bond

that we all have with our
family, which is close.

And the breaking of that bond
almost feels like sacrilege.

(Jane) Nathan was a very cold,
calculated killer.

And he certainly never
expected to get caught.

The evidence that's against him,
to be quite frank,

it's overwhelming.

(Richard) The police were
confident they had their man.

But in court, Nathan Robinson
denied murder on the grounds

of diminished responsibility.

And what that means is that
he is saying to the court

and wants to prove to
the court, he actually

didn't know what he
was doing at the time

because he had no mental
faculties that enabled him

to know what he was doing at all.

(Richard) But was there
a reason why he did it?

During the court case,
Nathan makes

an absolutely explosive claim.

He'd forgotten about it.

And suddenly, it came back to him.

(sonar beeping)

(Richard) When police officers
carried out a welfare check

on a Bournemouth flat,
they discovered

the dismembered body of
taxi driver William Spiller

stored in plastic containers.

The postmortem showed that
wounds across William's body

were inflicted by a Stanley knife,
also found at the flat.

William's son, Nathan, was the only
other person living at the flat.

Around the time of
the murder, neighbours

had reported a commotion.

Nathan was spotted on CCTV
buying cleaning products

and then went on a spending spree
with his father's money.

After a nationwide search, police
arrested William's son, Nathan,

and charged him with murder.

(Brian) He eventually goes to
court and he pleads not guilty.

As part of that not guilty plea,
he is offering up a defence,

a defence that is known as
diminished responsibility.

If you're found guilty with
diminished responsibility,

you cannot be given a
whole life sentence.

You will be sentenced to a much
lesser term of imprisonment.

There's an element
of sadism, almost,

in this, because he's
making William's girlfriend

and the family of his father

go through the horrific details
of the crime.

If he'd have pleaded guilty,
none of that would have happened.

But now he's got the
best of both worlds.

He's trying for that.

He's trying to get
a reduced sentence,

and he's enjoying the details
of his crime coming out.

And it's a kind of
celebrity notoriety

that you get from that as well.

So I think that would have
appealed to him because I

do think he wants attention.

(Brian) As part of Nathan's
diminished responsibility plea,

Nathan accepts that
he killed his father.

He accepts that he watched him die
and that he didn't

call an ambulance that could have
potentially saved his life.

He then says he has no memory
whatsoever of those events.

Nathan then says the
next thing he remembers

is he's in the shower washing
off the blood from his father.

Now, I would suggest that
the cognitive thought process

of realising that you have to
wash the blood off to get rid

of evidence means that there is
a thought process that has been

followed from the actual
event of killing his father,

which he has accepted.

And it's selective.

He's been selective
in what not to remember.

(Richard) The prosecution
argued against the plea

of diminished
responsibility, claiming

Nathan had a clear financial
motive for murdering William.

Father of 48 supporting a son
of 26 is nothing unusual

as long as that son
is in higher education

and he's seen to be achieving.

The arguments come
when he's dropped out.

Nathan owed his
father 36,000 pounds.

What are you going to do?
When are you going to get a job?

That's when the arguments come.

And of course, there would have
been a disappointment

for the father
if that didn't happen.

In my opinion, he had
a sense of entitlement.

He wanted the money.

His father was fed up
with giving him money.

He clearly had a grudge
against his father.

And of course,
the most telling thing

is the fact that
the way Nathan wanted

to spend his time
after he'd murdered his father

was to support his mother,
show her a good time,

go out
and spend money with his mother.

And he obviously had an emotional
attachment to his mother

that was absent for his father
because he took his mother's

surname, not his father's surname.

The Oedipus complex was first
talked about by Sigmund Freud,

and he suggested that sometimes
a son competes with the father

for the attention
and love of the mother

and so that the son
and father are in conflict.

And in some cases,
this can be so extreme

as to lead to violence
between the father and son

and even death and homicide.

(Richard) After the prosecution
rested their case,

it was the turn
of Nathan's defence team.

Nathan's barrister suggested
during the case

that this was an
unusual crime, that it

was a result of a sudden
snapping that caused the killing

and that the crime had no motive.

(Richard) But did
William's body support this claim?

The multiple injuries
on William's body

would tend to indicate
a sudden explosion of violence.

But the fact that Nathan
watched him bleed to death

and then dismembered his body

would suggest something
far more calculated.

We know that Nathan had used
a Stanley knife to inflict

the injuries, but the police
also found a couple of saws

that he'd used
to dismember the body.

William Spiller was a big man.

He was 6'5" -
that's nearly 2 metres tall -

weighing 160 kilogrammes.

That's about 25 stone.

Dismembering him would not
have been easy.

Joints are particularly
complex with interlocking

pieces of bone held together
with tight ligaments.

Take the shoulder
joint, for example.

Here, the head of the
humerus, the clavicle,

and part of the shoulder blade
all are fixed together

by tight fibrous bands.

And then we can see
how they're surrounded

by muscle and other ligaments
keeping it together.

Dismembering a body is never easy.

It must have taken him
hours and hours.

William's dismembered body
revealed that this was not a moment

of madness - quite the opposite.

This was a considered
and determined action.

There's no doubt that
the son was emotionally

detached from his father.

This particular individual would
have been particularly callous

and not have much empathy
for the victim.

And to have systematically tidied
up and then stacked them in boxes

after dismembering the body shows
a level of detachment from reality

and what has gone on
in the room.

It's so bizarre that he
went to all that trouble

to dissect the body, to put it
in all these plastic boxes,

which, to me,
seems like utter contempt -

utter contempt for his father.

And then to build them up
and to put the TV on

and to use it as a stand,

I mean, that really is
a horror movie.

When the police
eventually arrived,

they found that his father's head

was actually
in the filing cabinet.

No matter how emotionally
detached you are from your father,

you know what your
father looks like.

So the head represented
a challenge

to the way he was trying to blank
the whole thing out of his memory.

And so it had to be hidden away
so the son could forget

what had happened in that room.

(Richard) But was his motive
really just purely financial?

So from the ferocity
of the attack,

from slitting his throat
with a Stanley knife,

and then when his father
was laying on the floor,

pleading for an ambulance
and bleeding out,

to continually stab him

means there was real hatred
in the act,

which suggests that it wasn't
just an argument

about financial concerns

and about the amount of money
that his dad, as a taxi driver,

was paying for his son
to sit at home.

This was something else.

(Brian) During the court case,
Nathan makes

an absolutely explosive claim.

He says that when he was 13, he
was sexually abused by his father.

He'd forgotten about it.

And suddenly, it came back to him.

(Jane) Nathan tried to claim
that he'd suffered from PTSD,

that he'd been abused
by his father,

and that he'd had
a really bad childhood.

If somebody
has post-traumatic stress disorder

from a long period of abuse,
if that had happened in childhood,

then yes, I could see

how a person could snap

or a child might want to
get out of that situation.

It seemed to kind of
come out of the blue,

his defence of abuse.

(Brian) He knows
it can't be proved.

But also, it can't
be disproved as well.

(Kevin) Nathan says,
well, I was sexually

and physically abused as a child.

That may well have happened.

We do know that children who
have been sexually abused

under the age of 10
are much more likely

to commit homicide than children
who have not had that experience.

But with no evidence,
the court finds it difficult

because he could
be making it up as a way

of defending himself.

William is described as
a caring, loving father.

(Jane)
His father had always kept him.

He didn't have to
have him at the flat.

Nathan didn't have
to go and live there.

He could have gone and lived
somewhere else, you know,

after his degree course finished.

It just doesn't wash.

There's nothing there
actually in his past.

So they had nothing there
that could back up that claim.

(Brian) Nathan is easily
able to manipulate William,

to wrap him round
his little finger

to get him to do what he wants.

We can speculate as to why
William is happy to do that.

It could be guilt.

It could be
a whole host of reasons.

It's up to the jury to decide
whether or not they believe him.

(Richard) We'll never know
exactly what happened

between William and Nathan and
why their relationship broke down

with such devastating consequences.

After a three-week trial,
the jury took just

two hours to return their verdict.

Nathan was found guilty and
sentenced to life imprisonment.

The judge remarked
during his sentencing

that this was a callous,
cold-blooded, premeditated murder

of William,
the motive being financial.

He believed the money was his.

He had the sense of entitlement.

It was there, and he would do
what it took to get this money

and then to cover his tracks.

(Brian) I think the only way
you can look at Nathan,

when you know
all the circumstances

and all the facts of this case,

is, he was a cold,
calculating person.

He was driven by money.

People say that money
is the root of all evil.

And that's actually not correct.

What is correct is, the love
of money is the root of all evil.

Nathan is just pure evil.

It was a fatal wound to the neck
that killed William Spiller,

but the lack of defence
wounds proved he

didn't expect to be
attacked by his own son

and left to bleed to death.

Nathan tried to cover his tracks,
throw the police off the scent,

and claim childhood abuse
had triggered the assault.

But the clinical dismembering
of William's body

proved this was no
sudden snap of anger.

It was considered and calculated.

And for that reason, his body
revealed the cold, hard truth

about his murder, and a dangerous
killer was brought to justice.

Subtitles by accessibility@itv.com