"Katie Wheatley, partner at Bindmans and Head of our Crime, Fraud and Regulatory team, comments on the case and the issues of relying on eye witness evidence when making a conviction...'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.'"
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/Appeal.org wrote, "Firstly, with help from pro bono lawyers from firms Ropes & Gray and Latham & Watkins, APPEAL identified numerous flaws in the way police carried out the identity procedures, rendering this evidence unreliable."
https://appeal.org.uk/andy-malkinsonIn another thread I wrote a number of comments about eyewitnesses using specific cases, quotes from another country, and citations to the literature. In this case the investigators flagrantly disregarded the guidelines covering eyewitnesses. Now we see another case in which justice would have been better served by playing by the rules.
