Amanda Knox, the 'golden bullet' evidence falters....

Amanda Knox's appeal continues in Italy, the court appointed independent experts requested by the defence have reported that the analysis of 'golden bullet' dna evidence found weeks after previous searches was 'below international standards' and the evidence 'might have been contaminated.'

The 'wonder' evidence that arrives 'after' previous searches and when the case against a suspect is looking frail - appears to again fail. Here in New Zealand we've seen the cartridge cases recovered from a garden strip weeks after it had already been searched, but hello, the cases had not even been manufactured at the time of the crime, nine more years before Arthur Thomas would have that convicted set aside or be 'pardoned' for it. David Bain had a similar experience, days after his brother's room had been meticulously searched, an officer whose job wasn't to search but was in fact in charge of the scene, returned after hours and found a 'lens' that was said to match David's glasses. As time moved on the lens was found to have been dusty and 'under' clothing possibly in the room for a lot longer than the few days since the family annihilation or even 'put' there by somebody, and finally not to be from David's glasses at all (something the prosecution decided to withhold from the 1st Jury.) Of course there is another case of this type, that of Scott Watson who had a blanket from his boat screened for evidence, then on a '2nd' screening was found to have a hair allegedly from one of the deceased discovered on it - pretty hard to miss a long blond hair when that is the type of thing the forensic scientist would have been looking for. So the common thread, dna not found first time round in the Knox case and now its screening analysis found to be wanting, a cartridge case found on a 2nd search in the Thomas case that was even manufactured at the time of the murders for which he was falsely imprisoned, a 'magic' appearing lens in the Bain case found by an officer not directly involved in the search and after other officers had already searched the small room - and any complicity was required to be shown, the Crown with-holding evidence of a witness who said that the lens wasn't from David's glasses, the magic 'appearing' hair in the Watson case to add to a long list of other equally unpalatable fissures in a case that needed alleged incrimination's of the character of Scott to get over the line of what has all the appearances of another false imprisonment - time to let him go, as I hope that Amanda Knox is let go.

Her case also, like Scott's, makes up for its shortfall in evidence by impinging on the character of the accused and unproved propositions cast to set a distaste for allegations of (shock horror we're back in the 17th Century) a 'sexual' nature.

Give it up you framers. Show some guts, if you don't have the evidence don't 'make' it.

The choice of whom is to be railroaded.

There are as many definitions of those that might falsely fall foul of the law. Arthur Thomas, and David Bain were cleanskins, among the similarities as to what happened to them was 'evidence' found that had earlier been 'missed.' A distinguishing feature between the two was that Arthur was 'verballed' whereas David was not. When I reflect on the fact that David was not 'verballed' (claimed to have made some kind of confession) I think that might have been uncertainty within the Dunedin Police or fear that ultimately the wheels might fall off the prosecution despite one or more officers claiming a 'confession.' Or it may simply be that their Auckland counterparts at the time had more readily as a tool of trade 'confessions.'

But to move to 3 others who were not clean skins when arrested. Haig, Dougherty and Watson. Haig was necessarily going to be of interest because the was the boat's skipper on which the murder happened. Dougherty was a burglar and well known to the Police. Watson was a 'rare' catch in that he brought with him a criminal past that would always be used predjudicially against him, another Police tool of trade. As much as the evidence is argued about Watson there always remains the argument that he was of less than desirable character, allowing short falls in evidence therefore to be bridged by 'character' and insinuation. So the 'choice' of Watson is evidently a 'good' one where the evidence against him seems far from clear.

Bringing us back to Dougherty and what I sensed was major disappointment for those that had helped him win his freedom. I fully sympathise with those feelings of disappointment but I feel they're unrealistic because Dougherty or anybody doesn't have to be perfect to be the subject of a miscarriage of justice, and the further they are from being perfect the easier to administer the moj. His life was a struggle before his false imprisonment, and sure he was paid money, but he unfortunately remained probably an inadequate person who had led a life of crime the issues for which remain unresolved. It seems that we expect things to be in black and white and easily understandable when dealing with the complexities of life, and the individuals that might suffer moj.

I remain aware that Arthur still gets maligned, even though without any doubt he is innocent. The same happens to David whom in my opinion has equally strong proof of his innocence, but there are others trapped in the system, chosen as targets to solve a crime, because a informer was ready to snitch on them for money and say whatever was necessary, or evidence was 'found' or the man or woman 'confessed' and as a country we need to be quickly able to get to those moj's no matter who is the individual involved, by an agency with lawful power and the appropriate distance from the Crown.

What makes the Crewe and Bain cases similar.

One striking similarity is the 'golden bullet' evidence. The evidence for some reason which is not originally available but which 'happens' along to connect a picture for the case under investigation and drive it toward an unsound conviction.

Firstly take a look at the protagonists, David and Arthur. What they share in common is that they were 'clean skins' with a healthy respect for the law and a naivety about the role of the police, the type in fact to co-operate in their own demise. In the beginning both men freely answered questions, often without regard for the consequence of their answers and how those answers might be used against them. They were both genuine men who thought highly of the system and respected that the law and justice would prevail. Though I'm sure if they were asked now they would acknowledged that they had lost faith in the system long before the good ship justice was righted for each man individually. I'm sure they will admit under pressure to expecting to never fully recover from a situation that stole so much from them, so much that can never be replaced or compensated for.

But back to the golden bullets, to name the golden bullets in the Crewe case was the discovery of cartridge case that was missed in the first searches and when found was ultimately proven not to have even been manufactured at the time of the Crewe deaths. And of course the axle with a 'positive' match for parts found on Arthur's farm. Golden bullets, breakthroughs of injustice by the men tasked to uphold the law.
When pressure mounted on the evidence after the trial, suddenly material was dumped at the Whitford Tip as would also happen with evidence destroyed by the Police in the Bain case.

And similarly with David. A small room searched for days, then several nights later, an officer not tasked with the duty of searching, returning to that room virtually after hours and 'finding' a lens somehow apparently 'missed' by his colleagues. Then the frame of the glasses found in David's room and to span 13 years an officer revealing for the first time that David had asked for those glasses on the morning of the murders (despite they being of no use to anyone because they were without lens) but the officer had not wanted to mention the 'truth' earlier because he didn't want to criticised. The quality of truth rendered to the reaction possibly made to the speaker, rather to unequivocal honesty regardless of any impression, favour or disfavour.
But these are only a starting point to build on those others have made which show these two cases to be chillingly similar. I used the words 'golden bullet' taken from today's Herald where an ex FBI investigator comments about the conviction of Amanda Cox where he says 'any time that you go back to a crime scene six weeks after the event, and suddenly come up with a piece of evidence that is effectively the "Golden Bullet," that is suspicious. At best it is contaminated. In the UK or the US it would never have been admitted as evidence.' Of course in NZ, as in the case of David and Arthur, the 'golden bullets' once discovered were 'put in context' by the Judiciary who allowed the Crown to carry on and there is probably the key similarity between the two, even with things wrong with substantially important evidence, Miscarriages of Justice were allowed to 'carry on.' Even today idiots like Mike Stockdale, cobble together apparently un-discredited evidence from discredited witnesses, from a discredited investigation to carry on persecution. That is what will stop when an OIC of an investigation or an Area Commander or a Commissioner of Police, or Minister of Police will find abhorrent, poison and toxic anything with a hint or a smell of being a 'golden bullet,' anything found which was 'apparently' missed earlier, or not mentioned for fear the witness might be criticised. When those same men or women at the top rightly act with cynicism and not excitement or satisfaction that at last a 'breakthrough' is made on an important case.