By Racquel Porter
Attorney Christopher Townsend yesterday criticized the police investigation in the Noel Maitland murder trial, expressing his annoyance in his closing address to the jury.
Mr Townsend scrutinized the testimony of Donna-Lee Donaldson's brother, who claimed he was able to identify his sister's background during their last conversation.
According to the defence attorney, the witness was shown a single photograph rather than a selection of images to choose from, to say whether it was what he saw.
The witness testified that he spoke with his sister via FaceTime.
However, Mr Townsend argued that the witness had only a limited view of the background during that call.
He further contended that the procedure used by police did not resemble a proper identification parade and questioned how easy it would have been for the witness to simply agree with what was shown to him.
Mr Townsend asked why investigators failed to follow established identification procedures, noting that they had sufficient time to do so. He also pointed out that no attorney was present during the process to protect the interests of the accused.
Mr Townsend argued that the witness never positively identified the background, but instead said it "looked similar."
Comparing the testimony to the standards of an identification parade, he said such an answer would have been disqualified.
He stressed that saying something "looked similar" is not the same as confirming it was the same location.
Mr Townsend added that bad police work could have a negative impact on the defence, as it left them responding to a "half-done investigation."
He argued that investigators had the opportunity to seize the witness's phone to confirm the FaceTime call and verify the evidence.
Mr Townsend questioned why the police failed to do so while relying on the call as evidence, and suggested the omission was intended to mislead jurors.
He said, had police been thorough, the phone would have been examined by a cyber-forensics expert and presented in court.
Mr Townsend told the jury that the evidence was unreliable and should be disregarded.
He warned that convicting Mr Maitland, based on such evidence, would amount to a grave injustice.
comments powered by Disqus
All feeds
