The Old Bailey, London -
The name of the game in any trial is Doubt. The prosecution casting doubt over the Defense’s argument and the Defense casting doubt over the Prosecution’s argument. Casting doubt over whether evidence is credible and relevant to the case at large. Who can put more doubt into the jury is who wins the trial. Much to the detriment of those accused of crimes, doubt is often the more valuable currency in a trial than character, evidence or even circumstance.
And circumstance was what Crown Prosecutor Markham introduced as evidence in an attempt to try and wrestle the doubt away from the jury. Much of what Mr. Markham presented, was digital evidence and photographic records from the earliest days of the investigation. But again, much of it was very circumstantial in nature, easily disproven or worse, more ambiguous to the reality of the situation.
A digital recreation of the Carter home with a moving blue dot that was meant to represent Anjali walking about the home with her phone. But time stamps showed that the phone wouldn’t move for long periods of time, which contradicted very suspect digital records of kitchen appliances. Upon cross examination by Ms. Malik, the Crown’s digital forensic evidence expert, was raked across the proverbial coals in regards to the accuracy of these digital records. “Most modern appliances have a small computer built into them, it’s just a facet of the new modern digital world we all live in.” The expert explained.
“But can you explain the reliability of these small electronics built into these appliances? Isn’t it true that, since appliances have moved to a more digital based system, the electronics inside are prone to failure or consistent error more than all the other components inside combined?” Ms. Malik posed to the forensic expert. His answer didn’t matter at that point. Not because it wasn’t relevant, but because the follow up question dismantled any idea that it mattered.
“How often have you been called upon to testify on the efficacy and reliability of ‘kitchen appliance electronics’ in relation to a murder trial?” Ms. Malik asked, who herself seemed surprised to be asking a question like that at all, let alone in a murder trial. “Well, I must say Ms. Malik, this is a first for me. I wasn’t surprised to be called upon to testify, but I was surprised at the nature of the evidence I was asked to review, normally there is more than this.”
A distinct murmur could be heard moving through the jury and witness area, and Crown Prosecutor Markham could visibly be seen trying to restrain himself at the Prosecution desk. He had been struck two deceive blows in one question and reply. Not only was most of the Crown’s digital evidence convincingly weakened, but now the jury had been shown the lengths the Crown was willing to go to try and pin Anjali as guilty, instead of letting actual evidence tell the story.
Following the digital forensic expert, came the testimony of a pool safety expert, who works for a moderately large sized company that installs fencing and gating for home and community pools. His testimony revealed that after a fence/gate is installed, customarily, customers are recommended to get the fence/gate serviced every 18 months. No receipts or copied invoices were found in the Carter family home, and the Pool Safety company, which had also installed this fence in the Carter home, had no record of any maintenance requests.
The Crown Prosecution attempted in vain to challenge the testimony as irrelevant to the case due there being no legal binding to require the pool fence/gate be serviced. But Justice Ellingham wasn’t having any of the Prosecutions challenge, immediately dismissing it. That challenge dismissal left the door wide open for the defense to deal a massive blow to the prosecution.
“I’d like to take the jury back to the testimony of Rebecca Carter, specifically the very end of cross examination.” Ms. Malik used the opportunity to present the taped testimony of Ms. Carter on the video screen. The video started and the cracked emotional voice of Rebecca Carter blared through the speakers, “NO! I don’t drink alcohol for God’s sake! My children are dead and you are asking if I drink alcohol!”
“Those are the words, the words spoken under oath, that what Rebecca Carter had to say was the truth. Now, I’m not going try and paint Mrs. Carter as having lied or that she intentionally mis-spoke. But what I am going to try and do is show you what the evidence says in contradiction to what Mrs. Carter.” With that, she pointed to the video screen which showed a photo of several pieces of paper.
“For the jury’s viewing pleasure, five individual, verified retail receipts. Each of them from the same store, each of them from a different day, all before and within a ten day period of the drowning of Oliver and Sophie. Each receipt has at least one standard sized bottle of wine, with two of the receipts, including the one bought the day before the day of the drowning, having three bottles of wine.” She turned from the video screen, to face the jury.
“Now I have a good guess as to what anyone in your position might ask? ‘Maybe she was buying them for her husband? Maybe they were gifts for some friends of hers? Maybe they were for Anjali?” Ms. Malik clicked a button on the screen clicker and the picture changed. A single piece of paper showed on the screen, reading “TOXOCOLOGY REPORT FOR ANJALI N. PERERA”.
“During the initial investigation, we established early on that Detective Inspectors quickly focused almost entirely on Anjali as the primary suspect. Because of that, they requested a blood sample to be taken to screen for alcohol and drugs, to which Anjali gave without argument. This report on the screen shows that Anjali did not have any alcohol in her system or any other illicit drug for that matter. And for posterity, Anjali is a devout Muslim, which means, she is prohibited from drinking alcohol.”
“So, the question still remains, if Rebecca Carter doesn’t drink, as per her sworn testimony, who were the wine bottles for? Her husband? Her husband, as has been noted for the record, travels frequently for work and was not in the house for 4 days before the incident and did not arrive back until the next day. 4 days before the incident. Based on the amount of wine that was purchased by Rebecca, there were at least 4 bottles of wine, with the potential to be upwards of 7 bottles of wine in the Carter home.”
“Respectfully, we can be sure Oliver and Sophie didn’t drink them, we have probable belief that Anjali did not drink them, and can be certain Mr. Carter did not drink them. But another question remains, were there even wine bottles in the house? Did she give them away as a gift? I ask you to turn your attention to the video screen one more time please, members of the jury.” Ms. Malik clicked her clicker again, and the picture changed once more.
“This is an official Investigative Photo, taken by the Forensic Scene Investigation team in the Carter house. This photo shows the kitchen and a portion of the dining room.” She clicked again, and a large red circle popped into place on the screen. “Inside this lovely attention drawing red circle, you can see several wine bottles. By my count, and I don’t have the best eyes, I count 5 bottles. Two are very clearly empty, another looks empty or mostly empty, the two in the back, I can’t say.”
“Now, we have established, they weren’t given away as a gift, at least not all of them, they were not consumed by either Anjali or Mr. Carter. That leaves one possible person who could have drank that wine. Rebecca Carter. Earlier in our testimony Mrs. Carter testified under oath that the reason she said she “passed off responsibility” for watching Oliver and Sophie to Anjali was because she was tired. Alcohol consumption has been proven, for the record, to be a depressant, which can lead among other symptoms, drowsiness/tiredness.”
“I can not prove, with verifiable evidence, what exactly happened that day. But more importantly, neither can the prosecution.” Ms. Malik stated firmly, looking directly at the jury.
Doubt. Doubt was now the major theme of this trial. And its shadow loomed large over this trial.
I am Elanor Tribby, Senior Court Correspondent for The London Chronicle.
