In a recent Australian TV magazine feature on the Meredith Kercher case, the British journalist Nick Pisa said something I found a little odd. In his view, it seems, the case would never have come to court had the murder taken place in the UK, because the evidence is just insufficient.
Now, there are worse things in the world than being a little chauvinistic about standards of justice. But I don’t think that’s exactly what’s going on here. Many people who seek to defend Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito do so, in my opinion, on the basis of a wholly unrealistic view as to how much evidence ought to be enough to convict someone in a court of law.
There’s a lot of evidence in this case. You only need to be able to to count to know that. Of course, for each item of evidence there’s a defence argument, with greater or lesser plausibility, that it doesn’t say what it might appear to say. But the whole purpose of taking the matter to court is to have those arguments adjudged. No prosecutor has ever dropped a case on the grounds that footprints found near a body which tests say were probably made in blood might actually have been made in fruit juice. Or that falsely accusing someone of a murder is a relatively normal thing to do if you are suffering from stress.
I thought I’d take a look at a British case which, in my view, was prosecuted on evidence which was far thinner than in the Kercher case.
Robert Kennedy is a former prostitute, convicted in 1991 of murdering a client. He has always maintained his innocence and has unsuccessfully appealed his conviction twice, the last time being in 2007.
The only physical evidence linking Kennedy to the scene of the crime, the victim’s home, came in the form of two cigarette butts. These were believed by police to have been left by the culprit because a taxi driver had called at the house a short time before the murder, and he testified that the ashtray in which the butts were found was empty at that time. The butts were not initially examined for DNA, but saliva on them was found to be of a type matching Kennedy and also matching about 25% of the population. This evidence was admitted at trial. Years later, the saliva was tested for DNA and it turned out not to be Kennedy’s, but that of an unidentified person.
The main evidence against Kennedy comes from two witness statements relating to a conversation that took place at Kennedy’s shared house. The first witness said that she walked into a room in the middle of a conversation between Kennedy and four other people. They were, according to her, discussing a murder that had happened locally. Since news of the murder had not yet broken in the media, it is unclear how they knew about it. The witness also recalled Kennedy mentioning something about an ashtray and then being told to shut up by someone else present. This is significant, because a large glass ashtray (not the one with the cigarette butts in) was missing from the scene of the crime and may have been the murder weapon. Witness number one also seemed unsure about whether the conversation had taken place on the day of the murder or the day before, but that does not seem prevented her testimony being accepted by the trial jury.
Witness number two was party to the same conversation, but did not hear the word “murder” used, only talk of some incident or other involving two men and a woman. She said that Kennedy had been told to “shut up”, but that this was not anything to do with him mentioning an ashtray. She couldn’t remember what night the conversation had taken place on. She also recalled seeing a pullover with blood-stains on it, but wasn’t completely sure whether that was on the same night.
According to the police, Kennedy had lied to them on two occasions. Firstly, he had at first denied, then later admitted, having had sex with the victim. I think it seems obvious that even an innocent person might have told that lie. Secondly, he told police that he had read in the newspaper that a large glass ashtray was missing from the scene (a fact that had indeed been reported in the media) and offered a description of it from his recollection, saying that it was oval and had a label saying “Hofmeister”. But enquiries with the makers of Hofmeister lager revealed that they had never produced an ashtray fitting the description given by Kennedy.
On remand, Kennedy had also been alleged to have confessed to three fellow inmates. One of these was applying for parole and had agreed with the police that he would try to get information for them by talking to Kennedy. A second was also applying for parole and told the police he had information about Kennedy but would not tell them anything further until he found out whether or not he was going to be released. A third had no parole hearing in process, but had given details about Kennedy’s alleged account of the crime which describing things which were known not to have happened. Kennedy’s story was that he had spoken to all three of the witnesses about his case, which is how they were able to concoct accounts for the police. But he denied having confessed to any of them.
The defence produced evidence that the victim had been wearing a wind-up watch which had stopped a certain time after the murder. Unless this was almost fully-wound when the crime occurred, Kennedy could not have been the murder, because he had a solid alibi.
Those are the facts of the case. It might seem to you like an enormous miscarriage of justice. After all, prisoners, particularly those who might be trying to bargain for a release, are not always reliable witnesses. The witness who heard Kennedy talking about a murder and an ashtray is clearly contradicted by another witness. And surely it is possible that Kennedy just made an honest mistake in describing the ashtray to police. Add this to the dispositive evidence in terms of the DNA and the thing about the watch, and there must be reasonable doubt. Mustn’t there?
I’m not saying any of that is wrong. But perhaps it makes incorrect assumptions about the normal standard of proof in criminal cases. Presumably, the jury heard and evaluated the witnesses, took the evidence before them into account and felt able to make a decision. “Reasonable doubt” is not the same as “no possible objections”.
In the Kercher case, as well as the DNA evidence which is currently the subject of debate, we have all the evidence of a staged break-in, footrprints made in blood (or, possibly, pear juice), Knox’s DNA found mixed with the victim’s blood, her false accusation that someone else committed the murder, two witnesses who saw Knox and Sollecito near the murder scene at times when they claim to have been elsewhere. Maybe the court will eventually decide that all the evidence was misleading. But the process is more-or-less the same as it would be for a British jury. How much do you trust the witnesses? How certain do you feel you need to be about the science? And, for prosecutors, the decision about whether to go to trial is mainly based on making a guess as to what the chances of conviction are, on that basis. I think the idea that all that evidence was never enough to even put before a court just doesn’t show common sense.
By the way, apologies to anyone who Googled in here expecting to find information about a link between Amanda Knox and the other Robert Kennedy.
R v Kennedy  EWCA Crim 3132