The elderly victim of a house fire was awake when she sustained serious burns before collapsing due to smoke inhalation, a murder trial was told.
Today (May 7) burns expert Professor Simon Myers was among those who gave evidence at Leicester Crown Court, as the trial of Karen Vamplew, 43, of King Street, Newark, continues.
Her mother-in-law, Elizabeth Vamplew, 77, died in hospital from burns and smoke inhalation after being pulled from a fire at her bungalow in Eton Court, Newark, on December 15, 2021.
It’s alleged that Karen started a house fire deliberately to obtain money from inheritance. She, however, claims the fire was caused by a lit cigarette, which ignited the bed in which Elizabeth Vamplew was sleeping.
The trial had previously heard that Karen was in significant debt, which she had kept secret from her husband and mother-in-law.
It has also been heard that Elizabeth was secretive with her smoking, and smoked exclusively in the kitchen by the open back door — extinguishing her cigarettes under the sink tap and putting the butts in an empty chocolate buttons packet in the kitchen bin.
Professor Myers, who has a PhD in burns research and about 30 years experience in the field, outlined the events believed to have happened during the fire based on the burns Elizabeth sustained.
He was asked to provide a report on her burns in September 2023, using medical records, photographs of the scene and evidence from Elizabeth’s post mortem examination.
The professor explained that because parts of Elizabeth’s face, including her eyelids, were spared from burns, it appeared she was awake and had her eyes screwed tight closed.
“They appeared to be spared, but that’s the only way they could be,” he told the court.
He further added that the lack of burns to her palms and parts of her nose suggested she had tried to protect her face with her hands.
Professor Myers added that the fact her scalp was spared from burning meant she was not lying down at the time of her injuries, and was either sitting or standing — although not in her bed, which was the at the heart of the fire.
The soles of her feet were also spared from burning.
As no burns were present on her back, the expert found that she had been facing the flames when she was burnt and had not been wearing clothes which were alight.
In fact, he said the burns were most consistent with her not wearing any clothes other than underwear — although Elizabeth had been said to have gone to bed wearing a t-shirt nightdress.
The professor further suggested it would only have been a short time while she was standing before Elizabeth “fairly rapidly” succumbed to smoke inhalation and collapsed at the foot of her bed — where she was found by firefighters.
His conclusion was that Elizabeth had become aware her bed was alight, got up, and then collapsed.
“I think that is the most likely explanation for the distribution [of burns],” he said.
When questioned by the defence, he admitted there was no burns evidence which could prove she was in bed at the time of ignition.
At the start of his evidence, the professor also confirmed that Elizabeth’s burns could not have been survived. This was due to her age, the severity of the burns and the inhalation injuries she’d suffered.
Burns survivability is calculated using the Baux score: adding the age of the victim, the percentage of burns — in Elizabeth’s case 80% — and an additional 17 if inhalation injury is present. If the number is over 140 it is considered unsurvivable.
For Elizabeth, the number was 174.
Fire investigator Emma Wilson also gave evidence this morning.
She had undertaken fire tests to demonstrate the possible ignition of Elizabeth’s bedding.
Video footage of the tests was shown in court. There were four carried out with a cigarette in varying positions, and one with a naked flame.
None of the cigarette tests — one with the cigarette placed on top of the duvet, one with the alight tip down into the folded duvet, one with the cigarette placed on the sheet with the duvet away from it, and the final with the cigarette between the sheet and the duvet — resulted in ignition of the duvet.
The two where the cigarette was buried in the covers resulted in brown heat marks on the bedding, but it did not begin to smoulder before the cigarette burnt out.
Mrs Wilson said: “It takes five to 12 minutes for a cigarette to burn to completion, if they go that far.”
The test with the naked flame, in which Mrs Wilson held a lighter to the duvet cover, quickly resulted in a large fire which engulfed much of the mattress and bedding and filled the container the test took place in with thick smoke, before it was put out.
The progression of the fire from ignition to it being put out in the test lasted just 3 minutes and 24 seconds.
Smoking materials and deliberate ignition were the only two methods of ignition which were not ruled out by fire investigators who attended the scene on December 15, 2021, the court heard when Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service group manager Christopher Emmott gave evidence earlier in the trial.
Mrs Wilson explained that the tests used a double size, standard steel sprung mattress like the one in Elizabeth’s bedroom at Eton Court.
Another witness, Detective Sergeant Emma Pollard, confirmed the Richmond cigarettes used in the test had been provided by Nottinghamshire Police and were the same variety smoked by Elizabeth. The bedding had also been sourced, based on forensic tests, to be equivalent to the fabrics at Eton Court, and had been washed and dried a few times prior to being tested on.
Mrs Wilson was further questioned as to if Elizabeth’s prescription balneum cream, which has attached fire hazard warnings, could have impacted ignition of the bedding.
A number of sealed tubes of the cream had been recovered from her kitchen, although the court has previously heard there is no evidence of it being used during December in carers’ notes.
The fire investigator confirmed that while the cream could increase the speed with which the fabric it was on could burn, it would not make it more susceptible to ignition.
During DS Emma Pollard’s evidence in the afternoon session, a photo was presented of one of Elizabeth’s bedside tables which showed a partially burnt blue Pringles tube.
When questioned, the DS agreed it would normally be the case that people kept food in the kitchen, but said that a full log of where every item in the bungalow was kept had not be created.
The defence noted that there was no mention of Pringles in the carers notes from the evening of the fire — but it did list that Elizabeth was sent to bed with her mobile phone, juice, Horlicks and chocolates.
The trial continues.
