Dear interested parties,
I was introduced to a miscarriage of justice about a year ago via a professional associate and have been working on this case ever since. I am not legally qualified, neither am I the fanatical sort who believe that everyone convicted is innocent - but this man has served 21 years of a 30 year sentence for a crime committed by someone else - that I am absolutely sure of.
The case, in totality is rather complicated and beyond the scope of this posting, however there is a key element in the case that forum members may have an opinion on.
It was alleged by the prosecution that the convicted man shot the victim at close range in the head then placed the body in the victims own year 2000 Subaru Impreza 2.0 WRX turbo GD and drove to a remote location whereupon the vehicle was set on fire.
It is the identification of a vehicle, said to be the victim’s that forms the basis of my query to forum members.
Attached, are snapshots of the alleged Subaru being driven away by the accused (allegedly)
The prosecution’s expert was essentially a photographer who had bought - yes! bought qualifications to bolster his qualification status. They were available to anyone to buy for about £50 each. After failing to convince the jury that the vehicle in question actually was a Subaru Impreza (which it may, or may not be) he decided to concentrate on the light beam anomaly which can clearly be seen on the attachment 19-02-10. The accused and I are convinced that this narrow shaft of light was produced by an obstacle on the road surface like a grid or a rut in the road. Not so, according to this 'expert'. He maintains, as can be seen in the excerpts from his testimony, that this narrow shaft of light was a unique identifier of that vehicle in that the nearside fog light was a wrongly fitted offside light twisted at 90 degrees as that was the only way for it to fit on the mounting brackets and that this unique fault with the car produced the unique narrow beam ‘akin to a fingerprint of the car’ as quoted to the jury by the residing judge.
It is my contention that had this been the case, the twisted fog light would not shine on the floor at all, but would shine predominately to the side horizontally. I also question whether an offside light would fit in the other side as with some mounting brackets, the holes are off-set, and even the recess that the fog lights fit in is not uniform. Certainly with my 1999 WRX Sti, my mechanic has said it is not possible, but I understand this is a year 2000 bug eye. Subaru compound.pdf (attached) of it in the police compound after it had been recovered.
What makes the prosecutions allegations even more ridiculous is that the very same Subaru produces a typical conical shaped beam from both fog lights a few seconds before! see 19-02-06 attached. There is no doubt in my mind that this man is completely innocent and that the prosecution have conspired to fit him up. NB in the pic 19-02-06 the alleged Subaru is the middle car which doesn't display well in the attachment, but downloaded maybe it will be OK.
So to clarify, is it members opinion that the vehicle at 19-02-10 (its the car just about to leave the frame) can be identified as a Subaru Impreza with a low mounted spoiler? and, more importantly;
1. Could an offside fog light be fitted to the nearside at all? and give the appearance as seen in the Subaru at the police compound (attached)?
2. If, the ans to 1. above is possible,
A. would there be any beam directed onto the floor?
B. would the beam be a concentrated bright beam as seen at 19-02-10?
or,
C. would the majority of the beam be directed horizontally, such that if the car was housed in a large garage, the nearside with the twisted fog light would direct a conical beam at the wall?
which is completely at odds with the prosecution stance.
Here are some excerpts of the expert prosecution witness:
“The vehicle is a Late model Subaru Imprezza with medium sized fixed spoiler”
“apparent to me fairly quickly that the nearside fog light on that vehicle had been fitted incorrectly, such that it was90 degrees rotated. Fog lights should shine a beam which is flat across the front. The fog lights on the nearside had been fitted 90 degrees wrongly so it was actually shining a vertical narrow beam rather than a horizontal spread.”
“the nearside lights being mounted 90 degrees incorrectly, is then shining a vertical narrow beam.”
“what was fitted on the near side was an off-side fog lamp which had been fitted on the near side and because of the pattern of the mounting bolts the only way for it to fit was for it to be re-rotated through 90 degrees. The near side fog lamp incorrectly mounted gives this bright narrow shaft of light.”
“The fact that the shaft of light that we see is reflecting off the road some distance away from where the headlights, this is indicative of it being a very bright source being directed”
“The other point of note is that the large fog lights, which are a feature of Subaru's are here illuminated low down, underneath, the main headlights. The fact they are spaced wider than the main headlamps would also concur with the fact this is a late model, the earlier models having been mounted slightly in board.”
.................................................................................................................................................
I will of course elaborate and answer any questions should they be asked.
Many thanks in anticipation.
Subaru compound.pdf
