CCRC decision

I’m uncertain as to whether the CCRC made the right decision with the Warner case. On the one hand I think that with the amount of cases that the CCRC has to deal with then in their experienced eyes this may seem like a case where it’s most likely that Warner is guilty of murdering the Pools. But seeing it from an outside, objective viewpoint I’m not certain that there is clear enough evidence that he did.

                There is definitive evidence that Warner was inside the house, which he admits to, but only very small amounts of evidence that he was ever upstairs, where he claims not to have been. The evidence for him being upstairs is that some fibres matching those of his jumper and Caucasian hair were found upstairs. I can’t help but think that were he upstairs, stabbing an elderly couple, there would be more physical evidence that he was there. Similarly I think it possible that since there wasn’t a great amount of evidence saying he was upstairs that the fibres could’ve got there through contamination of evidence. Warner’s jumper was downstairs in the house, so fibres could have been transferred while collecting evidence.

                There is also a second suspect in the form of Mr Smith. Smith’s fingerprints were found on the scene but the CCRC says that there was no reasonable reason for him to be in the house. There was no connection between Smith and the Pools and he would not have come into contact with them through his work, which was as a fireman. Smith had a history as a peeping tom and in March 2004 Smith appeared in court for allegations of harassment. Smith also worked as a Police officer so could potentially know how to make a crime scene appear as if he’d never been there. There is also the case that Warner claims that the front door to the house was already open, hence his decision to rob the house. This could imply that someone had either already been inside the house, or were still inside. Since Warner apparently never went upstairs, where the two bodies were found, he could have missed them.

                However, this is all speculative and on the 6^th of February 2008 the CCRC decided not to refer Warner’s case to the court of appeal because they believed that there was no real chance of his case being overturned. This again highlights the difference between the way the CCRC operates and my view of the case. The CCRC has to work in accordance with the Real Probability test, whereas I’m viewing the case from a viewpoint not restricted by codes of conduct or practice. Therefore I believe that there is potentially sufficient evidence for the Warner case to be taken to the Court of appeal, but understand why, because of  the methods of the CCRC, his case was taken no further.