Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?

[scipio_usmc]

The young girls' exposure claims formed a significant part of the case against SK and were highly relevant.  The perp (Ronald Castree) posed the victim's body, a young girl, and ejaculated on her underwear.

The trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, said:

"The judge praised the three girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations". Pamela Hind's evidence was read out in court. Park said that Buckley's "sharp eyes set this train of inquiry into motion"

My main reason for highlighting this case is to show that highly trained and experienced QC's can easily be hoodwinked by young women. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

Cumming on underwear doesn't implicate one who flashes or urinates in public. If that was the only evidence in the case it would have lead no where it would not even be able to justify a trial. The main reason he was convicted was because of his confession. His defense did a horrible job in the suppression of the confession and worse by missing evidence that made it impossible for him to be the criminal namely an alibi and the fact that he was infertile so it can't have been his sperm.  The girls lies should have meant nothing and he should have been acquitted if he had a decent defense.  What they claimed and what Julie claimed are not comparable at all.

 

[david1819]

Cumming on underwear doesn't implicate one who flashes or urinates in public. If that was the only evidence in the case it would have lead no where it would not even be able to justify a trial. The main reason he was convicted was because of his confession. His defense did a horrible job in the suppression of the confession and worse by missing evidence that made it impossible for him to be the criminal namely an alibi and the fact that he was infertile so it can't have been his sperm.  The girls lies should have meant nothing and he should have been acquitted if he had a decent defense.  What they claimed and what Julie claimed are not comparable at all.

To make matters worse Kiszko's defence lawyer went on to become the Home Secretary 

[scipio_usmc]

To make matters worse Kiszko's defence lawyer went on to become the Home Secretary

The Home Secretary is a politician.  Whether one is a skilled attorney is meaningless for such a position. Political positions are mainly about who you know not what you know and at most involve making overall policy though they usually do little by way of actually supervising let alone leading those in the trenches below them. Politicians are largely worthless in my experience.  That he is no longer defending anyone is a good thing if the kiszko case is representative of his work, maybe it was an aberration I don't know I never looked at any of his other work.  Failing to research an alibi is pretty ridiculous by any standard.

[david1819]

The Home Secretary is a politician.  Whether one is a skilled attorney is meaningless for such a position. Political positions are mainly about who you know not what you know and at most involve making overall policy though they usually do little by way of actually supervising let alone leading those in the trenches below them. Politicians are largely worthless in my experience.  That he is no longer defending anyone is a good thing if the kiszko case is representative of his work, maybe it was an aberration I don't know I never looked at any of his other work.  Failing to research an alibi is pretty ridiculous by any standard.

The Home Secretary is in charge of law enforcement. before the CCRC was established it was them that you had to apply for appeals or reviews.

Kiszko was an outrageous MOJ. They found the real killer in 2007, fifteen years after Kliszko died.

"First, that the additional unused material disclosed to the defence on the first day of the trial included crucial evidence, but the late disclosure had made it impossible for the defence team to pursue the ramifications of that evidence; the evidence, if pursued, would have cast doubt on the reliability of the confession.

Second, the matter of the two girls who identified Kiszko as the person who had exposed himself to them. Their statements had been read to the Court; they were not cross-examined. During the investigation in 1990, the girls (by then they were mature women) admitted that they had made up the story: they had simply seen the taxi driver urinating behind a bush.

Third, that the pathologist who examined Lesley Molseed’s clothing had found sperm in the semen stains on the underwear. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court.

Fourth,that the police had taken a sample of Kiszko’s semen at the time of the investigation: it contained no sperm at all. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court."

[Holly Goodhead]

Cumming on underwear doesn't implicate one who flashes or urinates in public. If that was the only evidence in the case it would have lead no where it would not even be able to justify a trial. The main reason he was convicted was because of his confession. His defense did a horrible job in the suppression of the confession and worse by missing evidence that made it impossible for him to be the criminal namely an alibi and the fact that he was infertile so it can't have been his sperm.  The girls lies should have meant nothing and he should have been acquitted if he had a decent defense.  What they claimed and what Julie claimed are not comparable at all.

Of course the claims are not comparable.

I identified a case where four 13 year old girls, all friends, provided false testimony at a criminal trial.  They lied simply for "a laugh". The defending QC, David Waddington, was unable to expose their lies during cross examination.  The assumption that if prosecution witnesses lie the judicial system will expose them by careful and skilled cross-examination by highly trained and experienced QC's is wrong.

[scipio_usmc]

The Home Secretary is in charge of law enforcement. before the CCRC was established it was them that you had to apply for appeals or reviews.

Kiszko was an outrageous MOJ. They found the real killer in 2007, fifteen years after Kliszko died.

"First, that the additional unused material disclosed to the defence on the first day of the trial included crucial evidence, but the late disclosure had made it impossible for the defence team to pursue the ramifications of that evidence; the evidence, if pursued, would have cast doubt on the reliability of the confession.

Second, the matter of the two girls who identified Kiszko as the person who had exposed himself to them. Their statements had been read to the Court; they were not cross-examined. During the investigation in 1990, the girls (by then they were mature women) admitted that they had made up the story: they had simply seen the taxi driver urinating behind a bush.

Third, that the pathologist who examined Lesley Molseed’s clothing had found sperm in the semen stains on the underwear. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court.

Fourth,that the police had taken a sample of Kiszko’s semen at the time of the investigation: it contained no sperm at all. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court."

Being in charge of the various law enforcement agencies among other things is broad supervision of the heads below them and they usually don't even do much in that regard. His ineptitude as a defense attorney means little in that regard.

He should have fought for suppression of the confession outside of the presence of the jury. To argue in front of the jury was absurd.  Regardless of whether or not he thought the state examined the semen and sperm he should have had independent experts examine them.  In any event while speaking to his client he should have been able to find out they took his sperm and figured out it was to examine it. He should have been able to learn about the people who saw he and his aunt in the cemetery and knew he had a medical condition which would have prevented him from dumping the body but failed to raise it. He didn't put much effort in the case it seems his main strategy was to argue diminished capacity. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Being in charge of the various law enforcement agencies among other things is broad supervision of the heads below them and they usually don't even do much in that regard. His ineptitude as a defense attorney means little in that regard.

He should have fought for suppression of the confession outside of the presence of the jury. To argue in front of the jury was absurd.  Regardless of whether or not he thought the state examined the semen and sperm he should have had independent experts examine them.  In any event while speaking to his client he should have been able to find out they took his sperm and figured out it was to examine it. He should have been able to learn about the people who saw he and his aunt in the cemetery and knew he had a medical condition which would have prevented him from dumping the body but failed to raise it. He didn't put much effort in the case it seems his main strategy was to argue diminished capacity.

The late David Waddington was made a life peer you know and very highly decorated shouldn't we be showing him the respect he deserves

The Right Honourable
The Lord Waddington
GCVO PC QC DL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Waddington,_Baron_Waddington

What a complete travesty.  David Waddington should have been stripped off everything for ruining the lives of Stefan Kiszko and his mother, Charlotte Kiszko, through his own ineptness. 

"In February 1992, Kiszko's mother said that it was David Waddington who ought to be "strung up" for his pro-capital punishment views and for the way he had handled her son's defence at the 1976 trial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

[Angelo222]

That's the age old problem with lawyers, they just aren't accountable for their mistakes.  They get paid handsomely win or lose.

[Holly Goodhead]

That's the age old problem with lawyers, they just aren't accountable for their mistakes.  They get paid handsomely win or lose.

I agree.  How are they measured?  Who would know if they were abysmal? 

[scipio_usmc]

That's the age old problem with lawyers, they just aren't accountable for their mistakes.  They get paid handsomely win or lose.

Malpractice lawsuits...