"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919
"Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) but he was turned down, eventually being released from prison in December 2020.  At the time of his trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution's case against him was based solely on identification evidence."

https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"Andrew Malkinson’s case is a bitterly poignant reminder of the risks associated with eye witness identification evidence, which courts have long recognised can be unreliable. Safeguards include capture of all first descriptions provided by witnesses, scrutiny of the duration of observation, quality of lighting and view and any factors that may have influenced a witness’s recollection as well as strict adherence to authorised forms of identification procedure. However awful the crime, justice can never be served by a less than rigorous approach to such evidence during investigation and trial." highlighting mine

[faithlilly]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919
"Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) but he was turned down, eventually being released from prison in December 2020.  At the time of his trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution's case against him was based solely on identification evidence."

Ah so Mr Malkinson didn’t even get as far as the Court of Appeal yet. Food for thought.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"DNA sampling and analysis undertaken for the police and to have disclosure of all the relevant records before trial, and may choose to undertake their own analysis. It is also vital that exhibits and all DNA samples are retained after conviction for as long as there may be any possibility of an appeal so that retesting can be facilitated."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/dna-evidence-dna-cps-greater-manchester-court-of-appeal-b2382235.html
"Mr Henry told the court that samples of DNA which were “rigorously tested” had been preserved over many years but that “most regrettably” items of the victim’s clothing had been “destroyed by Greater Manchester Police”."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/24/manchester-rape-suspect-dna-appeal
"The prosecution’s case relied entirely on eyewitness identification, and the lack of DNA evidence was explained away by saying Malkinson was “forensically aware” and had deliberately not left any trace. Malkinson did not match key parts of the victim’s original description of the attacker. She said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day. He was also 3in taller, had chest hair, when her attacker’s chest was described as hairless and shiny, and had prominent tattoos on his forearms when no tattoos were mentioned.  Testing using new forensic techniques in 2020 showed traces of male DNA on fingernail scrapings, as well as on fragments of her clothing, that did not match Malkinson."

It is the fingernail DNA that I find most probative.  The argument about someone's being forensically aware is dubious.

[faithlilly]

https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"DNA sampling and analysis undertaken for the police and to have disclosure of all the relevant records before trial, and may choose to undertake their own analysis. It is also vital that exhibits and all DNA samples are retained after conviction for as long as there may be any possibility of an appeal so that retesting can be facilitated."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/dna-evidence-dna-cps-greater-manchester-court-of-appeal-b2382235.html
"Mr Henry told the court that samples of DNA which were “rigorously tested” had been preserved over many years but that “most regrettably” items of the victim’s clothing had been “destroyed by Greater Manchester Police”."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/24/manchester-rape-suspect-dna-appeal
"The prosecution’s case relied entirely on eyewitness identification, and the lack of DNA evidence was explained away by saying Malkinson was “forensically aware” and had deliberately not left any trace. Malkinson did not match key parts of the victim’s original description of the attacker. She said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day. He was also 3in taller, had chest hair, when her attacker’s chest was described as hairless and shiny, and had prominent tattoos on his forearms when no tattoos were mentioned.  Testing using new forensic techniques in 2020 showed traces of male DNA on fingernail scrapings, as well as on fragments of her clothing, that did not match Malkinson."

It is the fingernail DNA that I find most probative.  The argument about someone's being forensically aware is dubious.

There wasn’t only traces of another male’s DNA on Jodi but a full profile. I’ll never understand why this wasn’t treated more seriously by the investigation.

[Chris_Halkides]

There wasn’t only traces of another male’s DNA on Jodi but a full profile. I’ll never understand why this wasn’t treated more seriously by the investigation.

I am of exactly the same opinion, but I wonder why the jury did not give it more weight.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.the-sun.com/news/8706467/innocent-andrew-malkinson-released-jail-police-corruption/
"He bedded down on a pal’s sofa in Grimbsy on the night a 33-year-old woman was raped, choked and left for dead on a motorway embankment. The friend would later say they were confused about the exact night he stayed over"

And "It later emerged that another *witness had initially *chosen a *different man at the line-up but changed it to Andrew after *leaving the room with cops."

And "The victim and one of the witnesses were driven together to the line-up in a breach of identity parade guidelines. Why was this allowed to happen?" (quotes from The US Sun)

A number of my comments have discussed the special problem of alibi eyewitnesses. I would like to know more about how this alibi witness was interviewed. I would also like to know why the change in who was selected regarding the other witness. Regarding the final point above, allowing witnesses to talk to one another is a good way to contaminate memory.

[Nicholas]

A number of my comments have discussed the special problem of alibi eyewitnesses. I would like to know more about how this alibi witness was interviewed. I would also like to know why the change in who was selected regarding the other witness. Regarding the final point above, allowing witnesses to talk to one another is a good way to contaminate memory.

Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims eyewitness evidence still stands

She told the jury that before Malkinson rendered her unconscious she had told him she would “never forget” his face!

She also said she was “more than 100% certain” Andrew Malkinson was her attacker

[Chris_Halkides]

Dan Simon “The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials” Vanderbilt Law Review 64(1):143-223.  Dan Simon teaches criminal law at the University of Southern California.  The article covers several areas that are of interest in the Mitchell case.  I want to focus on one question, namely how the claimed certainty of a witness affects the jury.

"One study found that eyewitness confidence was a stronger predictor of jurors' decisions than the actual accuracy of the identifications.⁴⁸...Witness confidence has also been found to wipe out jurors' sensitivity to witnessing factors.⁵². The reliance on witness confidence as a proxy for accuracy would be helpful if it were a good marker of accuracy. The experimental findings cast some doubt over this proposition. Studies show that the statistical relationship between identification accuracy and witness confidence is about 0.4.⁵³ While positive, this correlation by itself is not strongly diagnostic. To illustrate, where the base rate of accuracy is fifty percent, a coefficient of 0.4 means that only seventy percent of witnesses who claim to be absolutely confident are in fact correct.⁵⁴ (p. 158; edited to remove one paragraph break)

Professor Simon continued, "Confidence has also been found to be inflated by communication with co-witnesses,⁶⁴ exposure to identifications by co-witnesses,⁶⁵ and by exposure to other inculpatory evidence against the suspect.⁶⁶ By the time witnesses testify in court, they are generally less accurate and more confident than warranted, thus making the identifications appear more reliable than they really are." (p. 160)

[Nicholas]

Dan Simon “The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials” Vanderbilt Law Review 64(1):143-223.  Dan Simon teaches criminal law at the University of Southern California.  The article covers several areas that are of interest in the Mitchell case.  I want to focus on one question, namely how the claimed certainty of a witness affects the jury.

Where’s the evidence any of the jury members who reached a guilty verdict were influenced by any witness sighting?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Professor Simon also wrote, "Finally, jurors' ability to decipher identification testimony is hampered also by the practice of in-court identifications. As discussed elsewhere, identifications performed in open court provide no meaningful test of witnesses' memory, and all but guarantee the identification of the person sitting in the defendant's seat. As such, these procedures are uninformative at best and highly prejudicial at worst.⁶⁷"

The case against Mitchell is almost entirely made up of witness testimonies.  Some commenters here have said that the certainty that RW, for example, expressed is a factor in their thinking.  Nicholas has indicated a belief that victim correctly identified Malkinson based on her certainty.

[Nicholas]

Professor Simon also wrote, "Finally, jurors' ability to decipher identification testimony is hampered also by the practice of in-court identifications. As discussed elsewhere, identifications performed in open court provide no meaningful test of witnesses' memory, and all but guarantee the identification of the person sitting in the defendant's seat. As such, these procedures are uninformative at best and highly prejudicial at worst.⁶⁷"

The case against Mitchell is almost entirely made up of witness testimonies.  Some commenters here have said that the certainty that RW, for example, expressed is a factor in their thinking.  Nicholas has indicated a belief that victim correctly identified Malkinson based on her certainty.

 

Hypocrite & Gaslighter Neal Keeling Of Manchester Evening News & His Memory Verses The Memory Of Violent Rapist, Former Amateur Boxer & Convicted Fraudster (Thailand 2001) Andrew Malkinson’s VICTIM (Part 12)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/19/hypocrite-neal-keeling-his-memory-verses-the-memory-of-violent-rapist-andrew-malkinsons-victim-part-12/

[Chris_Halkides]

In the Kirk Bloodsworth case five witnesses placed Mr. Bloodsworth with the victim.  According to Wikipedia,  "Two of the witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during the lineup but in fact saw him on television after the crime was committed.[3][4]"

[faithlilly]

In the Kirk Bloodsworth case five witnesses placed Mr. Bloodsworth with the victim.  According to Wikipedia,  "Two of the witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during the lineup but in fact saw him on television after the crime was committed.[3][4]"

We must also never underestimate the effect of duress in the identification of individuals by witnesses.

A case in point.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/22/cardiff-three-perjury-law

“The flawed conviction of the Cardiff Three revealed police techniques described by then lord chief justice, Lord Taylor, as "almost passing belief". It emerged police had used oppressive and bullying techniques in interviewing the suspects. "It is hard to conceive of a more hostile or intimidating approach by officers to a suspect," Lord Taylor said.

However, while the Cardiff Three were released after more than four years in prison, last week the witnesses whose false evidence helped to convict them each began 18-month prison sentences, despite the fact that it was not disputed that similar police tactics had been used against them.

Two of the witnesses, Vilday and Psaila, who at the time had also been prostitutes and who have been acknowledged as having been vulnerable, pleaded guilty to perjury. There was evidence that Vilday had been subject to particular pressure from police who convinced her to give evidence against the Cardiff Three, and that she was threatened with jail, losing custody of her young child, should she fail to give the evidence they sought.

The third witness, Grommek, contested the charge of perjury, pleading the defence of duress.

Despite the undisputed role of police bullying and intimidation - Gaon Hart, prosecuting, stating in court that "it is clear that the defendants were harassed into lying" - all three witnesses were convicted on the basis that duress was not available as a defence.“

Perhaps this is why Bryson, Fleming, Walsh, Janine Jones, Steven Kelly et al have never attempted to change their testimony? That they knew that a lengthy prison sentence may await them if they did? And explains Shane Mitchell’s reticence in court to testify to the truth.

[Mr Apples]

We must also never underestimate the effect of duress in the identification of individuals by witnesses.

A case in point.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/22/cardiff-three-perjury-law

“The flawed conviction of the Cardiff Three revealed police techniques described by then lord chief justice, Lord Taylor, as "almost passing belief". It emerged police had used oppressive and bullying techniques in interviewing the suspects. "It is hard to conceive of a more hostile or intimidating approach by officers to a suspect," Lord Taylor said.

However, while the Cardiff Three were released after more than four years in prison, last week the witnesses whose false evidence helped to convict them each began 18-month prison sentences, despite the fact that it was not disputed that similar police tactics had been used against them.

Two of the witnesses, Vilday and Psaila, who at the time had also been prostitutes and who have been acknowledged as having been vulnerable, pleaded guilty to perjury. There was evidence that Vilday had been subject to particular pressure from police who convinced her to give evidence against the Cardiff Three, and that she was threatened with jail, losing custody of her young child, should she fail to give the evidence they sought.

The third witness, Grommek, contested the charge of perjury, pleading the defence of duress.

Despite the undisputed role of police bullying and intimidation - Gaon Hart, prosecuting, stating in court that "it is clear that the defendants were harassed into lying" - all three witnesses were convicted on the basis that duress was not available as a defence.“

Perhaps this is why Bryson, Fleming, Walsh, Janine Jones, Steven Kelly et al have never attempted to change their testimony? That they knew that a lengthy prison sentence may await them if they did? And explains Shane Mitchell’s reticence in court to testify to the truth.

Doubtless an abject state of affairs. However, as I've already stated, it sets a dangerous precedent drawing parallels between cases; more importantly, our legal system is considerably more efficient and admittedly superior than English law (used in the Cardiff 3 case, I believe). Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence used in the LM case is far more robust and compelling than that of the C 3 case -- and there's not a chance in hell that JANJ was lying about SK's whereabouts on the evening of 30.06.03, and nor is there a chance in hell that JOSJ had anything to do with it as he was eliminated forensically and circumstantially.

Yet more glib and obtuse reasoning from you, FL. It won't do.

[Chris_Halkides]

Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims eyewitness evidence still stands

She told the jury that before Malkinson rendered her unconscious she had told him she would “never forget” his face!

She also said she was “more than 100% certain” Andrew Malkinson was her attacker

She also said that she scratched her attacker's face, and yet the Appeal document said that Mr. Malkinson had no scratch.  The existence of fingernail DNA is highly probative (Peter Gill's book is a good source of information) and consistent with contact with her attacker.   The existence of DNA from a source (saliva) is generally more probative than subsource DNA.