Blog entry 15th September 2013
For this blog I'm going to deal with several areas of evidence in my case that the prosecution failed to disclose at my trial. Worse still, they continue [to refuse] to hand over this evidence still.
Two years after my conviction (2002), I used the data protection act and forced the prosecution to release around 400 pages of documentary evidence that they had failed to hand over for my trial. Much of this dealt with the forensic evidence in my case.
Amongst this documentary evidence is a very brief reference to an item seized from the crime scene and listed as MJP/15 described as a 'knife matching the murder weapon. Found to be damp'. At trial the prosecution told the jury that the murder weapon hadn't been recovered. Since 2002 I have made a number of requests through solicitors and by myself requesting full disclosure on this item. Particularly I've requested all statements from the officer identified as 'MJP' by the evidence item label. Each request has been ignored or refused by Kent Prosecution Service.
Shortly after my conviction the Police Custody log for the period in which I was questioned was released. This confirms that prints of the bare soles of my feet were taken as they would either confirm or refute my involvement in Susan Kent's murder. Obviously no match could or ever would be made. What this evidence confirms though is that a footprint of a significant nature must have been discovered by the police at the crime scene. Yet again the prosecution have failed to disclose any evidence relating to this crucial item of crime scene evidence. In particular they ensured that my jury knew nothing of it. Again, despite numerous requests, through various channels, Kent Prosecution Service continue to refuse to hand over any documentation or evidence relating to the footprint(s) at the crime scene.
We also know that Kent Prosecution Service continue to withhold crucial evidence that undermines the acclaimed dna match that they presented to my jury. Requests for this have also been ignored and refused.
Had any of this evidence assisted the prosection's case they would have paraded it before the jury at my trial. Instead they did their best to hide it and continue to do so.