In June 2003, Mr Warner applied to the CCRC for a review of his conviction to prove his innocence. There was no blood found on Mr Warner's clothes or at his caravan however there was evidence that he had taken Mr Pool's jumper to wear. At first Mr Warner had denied ever entering the home of Mr and Mrs Poole but later on backtracked his statement to admitting he had gone into the house on the night that they were 'murdered'. He stated that the front door was already open so he thought that this would be an easy way to break in. He was drunk on the night and left via the window as he didn't want to seem suspicious walking out of the front door again. Already this idea seems to be unclear as he hadn't stolen anything from the house. The question arises as to why he would have been worried about leaving out of the front door as he claimed he was unaware that a couple had been murdered upstairs.
His fingerprints had been found above the knife in the kitchen (the murder weapon) which was a key piece of information the CCRC would have taken into account. The defence also stated that Mr Warner's house mate Mr Martin Knox had lied when he said that on the night in question Mr Warner had arrived home around 2:45am. This evidence links with Mr Reardon who also stated that at around 2:45am he had seen a man fitting Mr Warners description heading towards the park which was on route to his caravan. The day after the murder bearing in mind he allegedly had arrived home at around 2:45am his jeans had been washed and he had left Easthampton taking the same pair of shoes he had worn the night before with him.
The defence stated that Mr Warner had entered the house before or after the murder due to the amount of blood found at the scene and the lack of evidence against Mr Warner. The fact that he later admitted he had entered the house was due to a a spur of the moment drunken intention to steal. He also stated that he was in the Pool's home around 12:45am and was only in the home for 5 minutes, he later mentions he arrived home around 1am. It seems correct to point out the fact that he was drunk and weather he could have got out of the window of the home and back to his caravan in the space of 5 minutes. It was also explained that Mr Rodgers known as the 'vampire' a runaway rapist may have been around the area at this time. Also Mr Smith who was local to the area and known for harassment had fingerprints in the porch of the home. However it appears that these assumptions aren't strong enough evidence to compete against the evidence against Mr Warner.
The CCRC had taken into account the defence case and decided to get a senior officer to carry out a section 19 investigation. A full forensic review was directed by a Investigating Officer who found more formidable evidence. Fibre from the blue jumper was found to have been in contact with items recovered from upstairs. These new findings carried out by the investigation provided strong evidence to support overturning Warners assertions that he did not go upstairs. Therefore it seems that although the CCRC already had evidence against Mr Warner, by doing further investigations they strengthened their case against Mr Warner. In my opinion the CCRC were in correct to leave the investigation as they built up enough evidence (including fresh evidence from section 19) to prove beyond reasonable doubt it was Mr Warner.
His fingerprints had been found above the knife in the kitchen (the murder weapon) which was a key piece of information the CCRC would have taken into account. The defence also stated that Mr Warner's house mate Mr Martin Knox had lied when he said that on the night in question Mr Warner had arrived home around 2:45am. This evidence links with Mr Reardon who also stated that at around 2:45am he had seen a man fitting Mr Warners description heading towards the park which was on route to his caravan. The day after the murder bearing in mind he allegedly had arrived home at around 2:45am his jeans had been washed and he had left Easthampton taking the same pair of shoes he had worn the night before with him.
The defence stated that Mr Warner had entered the house before or after the murder due to the amount of blood found at the scene and the lack of evidence against Mr Warner. The fact that he later admitted he had entered the house was due to a a spur of the moment drunken intention to steal. He also stated that he was in the Pool's home around 12:45am and was only in the home for 5 minutes, he later mentions he arrived home around 1am. It seems correct to point out the fact that he was drunk and weather he could have got out of the window of the home and back to his caravan in the space of 5 minutes. It was also explained that Mr Rodgers known as the 'vampire' a runaway rapist may have been around the area at this time. Also Mr Smith who was local to the area and known for harassment had fingerprints in the porch of the home. However it appears that these assumptions aren't strong enough evidence to compete against the evidence against Mr Warner.
The CCRC had taken into account the defence case and decided to get a senior officer to carry out a section 19 investigation. A full forensic review was directed by a Investigating Officer who found more formidable evidence. Fibre from the blue jumper was found to have been in contact with items recovered from upstairs. These new findings carried out by the investigation provided strong evidence to support overturning Warners assertions that he did not go upstairs. Therefore it seems that although the CCRC already had evidence against Mr Warner, by doing further investigations they strengthened their case against Mr Warner. In my opinion the CCRC were in correct to leave the investigation as they built up enough evidence (including fresh evidence from section 19) to prove beyond reasonable doubt it was Mr Warner.
0 comments:
Post a Comment