0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
From 2002 Appeal doc282. We must of course consider whether the combination of failing to disclose in the statements of DS Finch, DS Lunn, and DC King the fact that an examination for entry and exit marks had been carried out and the further failure in DC Barlow's statement to disclose that he had examined all the windows has adversely affected the safety of the convictions.283. In interview the following passage appeared:"Appellant: There are many ways to get into the house i.e. windows"Question: "What do you mean, insecure windows?Appellant: "Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference".284. On the 12 September, 2 days later he was asked:"Question: Have you ever got in a window by putting something in between the window frames, like a knife, to move the catch so you could slide the window open?Answer: "Yes".Question: Which window?Answer: Downstairs toilet and lounge window".285. Having been interviewed he was released on bail and thereafter asserts that within a day or two he went to the White House Farm and climbed in through the very downstairs toilet window and thereby provided an explanation for the marks on the window frame. This resulted in his being asked in evidence the very pertinent question whether it was unwise to go back within 2 days of being questioned about climbing in and out of the downstairs toilet window to and leave marks on that very same window in order to get into and out of the house.286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise.288. It follows that any failure to disclose earlier examination of windows cannot affect the safety of this conviction.
If someone was cynical, they might view the above as an attempt to cover his tracks
Did he have to leave a note ? No.
Of course he did - he needed an excuse for being there and so he didn't just look 'sneaky'
As is your wild suggestion about the silencer! You don't have the monopoly on speculation
We know that he knew how to unlock the windows from outside and to climb through them because he admitted to it. That ends the ability to say he could not have gotten in on the night of the murders through the windows.
It's up to you to tell me why my 'wild suggestion' is not possible.
There was a " to do " at that farmhouse the minute that Sheila set foot in it and I aim to find out what it was. As soon as they'd arrived,both mother and daughter were daggers drawn,and Sheila just DIDN'T want to be there.
I'm intrigued to know how you think that can be achieved given that all the particents in the scenario are long gone. IMO, all you, or ANY of us can do is speculate. I agree that Sheila didn't want to be there but whether it was a case of rather not OR desperately don't want to is up for grabs.
half the posts on here rare based on speculation.
