Category Archives: Western Europe

Thursday’s Quick Clicks…

  • The Exonerated (the play) in ebook format
  • From the AP:  The Texas state fire marshal has volunteered to turn over more than a decade of his office’s casework to advocates so they can examine them for wrongful convictions.  Fire Marshal Chris Connealy has been working with the Innocence Project of Texas for more than a year to review old cases.  But now he’s sent 24 cases from 2002 to 2004 to the Innocence Project so the Lubbock-based group can vet his office’s work, with a pledge to turn over all of his more recent case files. He says it’s an important step for the public “to have confidence in the criminal justice system.” Several high-profile arson cases have come under scrutiny in Texas, including that of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed for the fire deaths of his three daughters.
  • Oscar nominated director to direct The Brian Banks Story
  • Two new books about wrongful conviction by Morrison Bonpasse
  • Summary of Amanda Knox appeal
  • The latest from the Innocence Project of Singapore

Irish Court of Criminal Appeal declares that Martin Conmey’s conviction was miscarriage of justice

Today, the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal declared that the 1972 conviction of Martin Conmey for manslaughter was a miscarriage of justice. Conmey had been acquitted in 2010 but has served three years in jail. Read more about this case in the Irish Times’ write-up here. The Irish Times reports that the Court’s miscarriage of justice decision was based on the fact that Conmey had been convicted for his involvement in a joint enterprise, but there was no incriminating evidence against him about this. It found that three original statements of other parties “were suppressed by a person unknown, but connected with the prosecution”. Conmey’s lawyers will be lodging a claim for compensation.

In Netherlands, New Evidence in the Deventer Murder Case

From the Knoops Innocence Project in the Netherlands:

Further research into Deventer Murder Case

On Monday July 7, 2014, Attorney General D.J.C. Aben of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands granted a request for further research in the Deventer Murder case. The request was submitted by Mr. G.G.J. Knoops and P.B.A. Acda of the Knoops’ Innocence Project on March 21, 2013.

Under a new law, which was enacted in the Netherlands on October 1, 2012, it is possible to request the Attorney General to conduct further research into a case, if there are “indications” that a novum exists. A novum is necessary to successfully reopen a criminal case before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. It is a new “finding” that was not known to the judge, and this finding must be of such a nature, that if the judge was aware thereof, it would have most likely resulted in a different verdict.

A request for further research on the basis of “indications that a novum exists” must be directed at the Attorney General, who has the authority to initiate a new investigation if he beliefs that there are sufficient indications of a novum.

The defense team of Ernest Louwes in the Deventer Murder case established sufficient indications, upon which the Attorney General decided to have the case re-investigated. The new research will focus on three aspects: the blouse of the victim, telephone data between the victim and Mr. Louwes and the time of death estimation.

The blouse of the victim

Small traces of touch DNA were recovered from the blouse of the victim, which traces turned out to match with Mr. Louwes. Louwes, who worked as a tax consultant of the victim, had visited her on the morning of the murder.

The defense team convincingly argued, on the basis of new forensic reports prepared by two DNA experts from the United States, that Louwes’ DNA on the victim’s blouse was the result of a peaceful (instead of a violent) encounter between the two. The defense could only do so after a lawsuit against the State because the Dutch Forensic Institute was initially unwilling to provide the underlying forensic data.

The Attorney General has requested the Dutch Forensic Institute to comment on the new DNA reports. If the Dutch Forensic Institute agrees with the “peaceful contact claim” the reports will be submitted to a third independent DNA expert for further examination.

Telephone data

The defense, backed by forensic experts, demonstrated in its request for further investigation that the telephone data used to convict Mr. Louwes, were wrongly interpreted. Louwes’ mobile telephone communicated with a base station near the crime scene. This “evidence” was used to convict Mr. Louwes. The judges did not know, however, that the “evidence” was presented without an accurate report on the weather conditions at that time, which may explain why a mobile phone does not communicate with the nearest base station.

Mr. Louwes has always claimed that he was in a traffic jam at the “alleged” time of the murder. This was, according to the Prosecutor and appellate judges, an indication of his “deceptiveness”, as it did not correspond with the telephone data. Yet, as it turns out now, the precise location of Mr. Louwes at that time could have caused a mobile phone to communicate with a base station further away than the one expected (i.e. the nearest station). The fact that there was a traffic jam had not been on the news, so this de facto supported the story of Mr. Louwes, as it was insider information.

The Attorney General has now decided to (re)investigate the impact of the weather conditions and the geographical position of Mr. Louwes at that time on the likelihood of communicating with a base station further away than expected in the case of Mr. Louwes.

Time of Death Estimation

According to Dutch forensic experts, certain marks on the victim’s body signaled that the initially accepted time of death estimation was incorrect. The time of death was supposedly later than the time of death assumed by the appellate court. The Attorney General will appoint a team to investigate to what extent different experts diverge or correspond in their professional opinions in this regard.

The Knoops’ Innocence Project has been investigating the Deventer Murder case since 2003. Mr. Louwes was acquitted by the lower court in 2000, the Court of Appeals in Arnhem convicted him in 2001. In 2003, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands granted a request for review on the basis of wrongfully conducted dog scent line ups. Yet, the Court of Appeals in Den Bosch, who was appointed to retry the case, convicted him again. In 2007, a new request for review was submitted to the Supreme Court; this request was rejected in 2008. This is the first request for further investigation in this case under the new law.

Knoops’ Innocence Project

G.G.J. Knoops, Counsel
P.B.A. Acda, Counsel

Tuesday’s Quick Clicks…

In Netherlands, New Evidence Shows Innocence in Hilversum Showbiz Murder case

Submitted by the Knoops Innocence Project, Professor dr. G.G.J. Knoops, lead counsel, Carry Knoops-Hamburger, co-counsel, Lizette Vosman, co-counsel, Trix Vahl, paralegal:

On Tuesday July 8, 2014, the defense team of Martien Hunnik, as well as the attorney general of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, filed a request for review of his criminal case. Hunnik has been convicted in 1984 for second degree murder on Bart van der Laar, a then famous music producer, in 1981 in Hilversum. Both requests are based on the results of a new criminal investigation into the case, which was initiated after the Knoops’ Innocence Project had filed a request thereto on March 19, 2013. The Knoops’ Innocence Project has been investigating the case of Mr. Hunnik since 2011.

On the basis of Article 461 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure the defense may request the attorney general to conduct further research into a case, if there are indications that a novum exists. A criminal case can be reopened in the Netherlands on the basis of a novum, which is a new “finding” that was not known to the judge, and this finding must be of such a nature, that if the judge was aware thereof, it would have most likely resulted in a different verdict. Thus, under the new Article 461 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, which is operative since October 1, 2012, the defense may request for further research if there are indications that a novum exists, which may eventually lead to a request for review on the basis of a novum and consequently to the reopening of a criminal case.

The defense request for further research of March 19, 2013, was based on several indications that demonstrated that Mr. Hunnik could not have committed the crime in 1981. The Board of Procurators General, the highest authority in the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, supported this defense request with its own request for further investigation, because the Board also doubted the guilt of Mr. Hunnik.

Under the leadership of Attorney General D.J.C. Aben of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, a new criminal investigation has been conducted from September 2013 till May 2014. As part of this investigation, many witnesses were heard and new tactical-technical research has been conducted. This led the Public Prosecutor to believe that Mr. Hunnik could not have committed the crime, but that others have done so.

On July 2, 2014, the results of the new criminal investigation have been revealed to the defense and Mr. Hunnik, which led the defense to submit a request for review to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.

The request for review is based on three nova, which imply that Mr. Hunnik would not have been convicted if the judge was aware of these nova. Particularly the fact that a scenario arose with a different perpetrators, while excluding Mr. Hunnik as the perpetrator, was decisive. This scenario was already known to the Public Prosecutor in 2004, but only revealed to Mr. Hunnik and his defense team in 2012, when the Knoops’ Innocence Project was investigating the case.

Mr. Hunnik was very relieved when he was informed of the results of the new investigation, and the fact that also the Attorney General petitioned to reopen his case. Mr. Hunnik has been fighting for justice for over 30 years. He recanted his initial (false!) confession of January 18, 1983 already in April 1983; yet, the judges did not accept this. He has maintained his innocence since then. Unfortunately, he was not believed by the judges and was convicted primarily on the basisof his false confession. The new criminal investigation into the case demonstrated that virtually all elements of his confession, were already publicly known due to outlets in the media.

This request for review is unique, not only because it is the oldest review case in the Netherlands (33 years), but also because the new investigation case identified other perpetrators; yet, the court no longer has jurisdiction over the crime, due to the Statute of Limitations (since 1999).

Four decades later, Iceland confessions defy belief

“The methods of the Icelandic police weren’t unique. They convinced themselves that a group of petty criminals on the fringes of society were a gang of hardened killers. But they didn’t find the evidence to back up their hunch, they were left with just the confessions that were extracted after months of solitude and mental torture.”

That’s the conclusion of a remarkable BBC News multipedia presentation here about how six young people in Iceland confessed to two murders in the mid-’70s despite a total lack of evidence or memory of the crimes.

Friday’s Quick Clicks…