The “Innocence” Project: Warner Case

On 22^nd July 1989, an elderly couple were murdered in their home on Gibson Road, Easthampton.

Mr Pool was found in the upstairs hall. He had been stabbed no less than 23 times to the chest and abdomen. A blood smeared knife was found with the body, but was not considered to be the murder weapon.

Mrs Pool was found in the upstairs bedroom. She had been stabbed 11 times in the chest and neck, and it was later revealed that she had been sexually assaulted. Saliva recovered from her left breast was inconclusive.

In March 1991, Neil Warner was convicted of murder at Easthampton Crown Court.

He appealed against his conviction and was refused twice due to “formidable” evidence against him.

Fingerprints were lifted off the dining room window, the supposed point of entry, as well as the drawing board of the kitchen unit. All prints matched Warner’s, who, in his initial statement claimed he never entered the house, but later admitted it as a “drunken intention to steal”.

A footprint found on a chair near the dining room window was said to have matched the pair of brown leather shoes Warner was wearing on the night of the murder.

No blood was found in or around Warner’s caravan where he lived with a Mr Knox. Mr Pool’s checked shirt, which was stolen from the scene, was recovered. Knox claimed the suspect was wearing it when he came home at around 2:45 am.

Warner appealed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in June 2003 with the defence that no blood was found on his clothes or in/around his caravan. There was also no evidence suggesting he had gone upstairs.

Under Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the CCRC requested the use of new forensic techniques to help identify the finger and palm prints lifted from the scene.

They concluded that:

Porch Front Door matched Martin Edward Smith, a witness who claimed to see a man matching Warner’s description acting suspiciously on Gibson Road at 12:30am on the night of the murder. Further investigation revealed inconsistencies in his statement that produced important evidence against Warner. The location of the print also raised suspicion on him as a potential suspect.

However, he had no obvious connection to the victims and there was no evidence to suggest he’d ever been inside the house.

With Warner later admitting that a V-neck jumper found at the scene was his, “indistinguishable” fibres, found on Mrs Pool’s bedsheets, suggested that he could have been in contact with items recovered upstairs, producing strong evidence against his appeal. It was once again, rejected.

The effectiveness of the CCRC is their determinism to approach every case with Scepticism. Under Section 19, they are able to follow other possible leads in a case, using forensic techniques that may not have been available during the time of the trial. In Mr Warner’s case, this evidence made him appear guiltier rather than proving his innocence.