Thank you all for participating in the discussion. I guess I'll start with two things about the case that bother me in terms of credibility of evidence. First is the sloppy police investigation. I am an ex police officer and know how hard it is at a crime scene to worry about preservation of evidence when there is carnage about you but you have to and I have had relatives regard me as insensitive at a crime scene but they have a different attitude when a conviction is secured. After the chaos, I find it hard to reason why they were not more methodical about the investigation & collection of evidence. For e.g. putting multiple items of bloodied clothing/textiles might not interfere with blood patterns but its difficult to prove conclusively that it didnt and therefore causes lingering doubt. I think a conclusion was arrived at very early, which is okay so long as you keep the investigation open to all possibilities.
Question here: I read somewhere that a knife and a screwdriver were seen near the sock but not collected - is this fiction?
The other thing is the so called 'mock trials' held for witnesses. I am now a lawyer and find this practice difficult. This article in the UK Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1840192,00.html details the issues but its about drawing a line between preparing a witness for the trial 'ordeal' and coaching them on what to actually say. Again, the risk is that perfectly credible evidence is able to be discredited and thus create the doubt.
The more defendents/convicted are able to cry foul the more people will do it and thus the greater the risk to the CJS. To clear up an earlier point, I am not talking about public support here, I am talking about the ability to question the credibility or validity of evidence.
Another question - Who is behind the Justicefordarlie website?
Last question - I am interested in what the public criminal legal aid system is in the US. We have a good national scheme in the UK which is very good but costs the country a fortune.
For those that have been interested in criminal trials generally, you might find this one interesting. We refer to it here as the Essex Boys killings, where 3 hardened criminal were assassinated down a country lane in the UK. 2 similarly hardened criminals were found guilty but still profess their innocence 10 years later. Their conviction was based soley on the evidence of an accomplice who turned supergrass and testified against them. Before testifying, he signed a film and book contract but the jury were unaware of this. Obviously there could only actually have been a book/film if the 2 were found guilty, so there was a motive for his testimony. He also, although admitting he drove the car, insisted he had no knowledge of what the other 2 were going to do, so he was also trying to mitigate his position (drug dealing was also an element). He got a minor conviction, a short sentence and now lives a new life under the witness protection programme. This website contains a lot of material (its the site of another criminal of this gang), including graphic crime scene photos, you are warned!
http://www.bernardomahoney.com/rrmurders/main.shtml The convicted had their case referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission who spent a couple of years investigating the case - including having another police force investigate parts of the original investigation. The CCRC refered the matter to the Court of Appeal (which means they think they have a point) but the appeal was dismissed a few weeks ago.
Sorry if I have rambled off the topic!!
