Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[admin]

POST DATE
15/04/2010 22:31:02

Dawn Walker was murdered in February 2005, of that there is no doubt. Her partially naked body was found beside a path which runs along the river Lark in Bury St Edmunds on Friday the 4th. There had been various attempts to conceal her identity which included cutting off her hair and burning her body.

Her ex-boyfriend Kevin Nunn was charged with her murder in March along with Nigel Hill who was charged with assisting him rather than the murder itself. In June of that year they were brought to court for a pre-trial hearing whereby the Judge ordered that there was no case and unless more evidence was brought before the court there could be no trial.

There then followed months of further statements being taken from witnesses and meetings with scientists before eventually in 2006 both Kevin and Nigel were brought to trial. Nigel was acquitted when the Judge accepted his defence teams submission of no case to answer but bizarrely Kevin was found guilty of Dawns murder.

There are several quite ridiculous factors in the prosecution's case but somehow they still achieved a guilty verdict. For example, Nigel Hill and Kevin Nunn were not friends, Nigel was in fact a work mate of Dawn Walker's. If you were silly enough to murder someone, would you really ask a friend of the victim who you didn't know to help dispose of the body?

Regardless, we have studied this case in great detail and are absolutely convinced in Kevin's innocence. The same cannot be said for around 6 far more credible suspects, none of whom have alibis.

Please visit Justice for Kevin Nunn and lend your support to yet another innocent person currently serving a life sentence in prison for a crime he did not commit while the guilty person(s) walk free.

[Stephanie Hall]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1483121/Fitness-fanatic-may-have-been-murdered-jogging-by-the-river.html

"One theory we are investigating is that she was out jogging or exercising," said a police source. "As her body was found so far from the road, it seems unlikely the killer carried it there. However, there are other possibilities and we are keeping an open mind."

[admin]

Kevin Nunn's site has recently been updated and now contains some more information including still images of the CCTV footage from the leisure centre. The importance of these will become clearer when you have read the other details of the case, one where sperm found on the naked body of a murder victim is seen as insignificant by the police and prosecution and one where the innocent man serving a life sentence for her murder has had a vasectomy.

Please visit Justice for Kevin Nunn and lend your support to all of those affected by his wrongful conviction.

[Toth]

where sperm found on the naked body of a murder victim is seen as insignificant by the police and prosecution and one where the innocent man serving a life sentence for her murder has had a vasectomy.

Why are these police and prosecution viewpoints getting less and less surprising?

[HaveHope]

Kevin Nunn readily admits that he was on the footpath, his bootprint is found there, he claims to have taken this route to see if he could see Dawn.  It is put forward by the prosecution that Dawn is taken and dumped by two persons away from the path.  The bootprints found showed that KN did not deviate from the path at any time and kept walking forward.  There was no signs of him being with another person on the path or near where the body was found, there was no evidence of his footprints from the alleged burn site to the deposition site .

A witness says he saw two men struggle with a carpet or similar outside her house.  Is he suggesting that she was rolled up in the carpet alive?

It is claimed he murdered her in a jealous rage but yet probable cause of death is hypothermia due to exposure, which sounds to me that she was alive when she was at the path, and not killed at her home as was suggested.  The Pathologists reported there were no signs of a struggle,  or defence wounds, or any injury that would have caused death.

How on earth did they get a conviction?

[HaveHope]

Why would he not be entitled to legal aid, just curious?


R.I.P. Dawn Walker 

[nugnug]

wasnt there somone else sperm found on the body how was this explined.

[Toth]

wasnt there somone else sperm found on the body how was this explined.

I could not find any reference to this dna.

The prosecution witness seemed to believe that the boyfriend was guilt and she provided "good" testimony to secure a conviction. I don't consider her believable at all.

[FrankG]

As with so many cases one assumes the minimum amount of investigation would be carried out just enough to establish some creditable link between all involved. We can assume those facing prosecution would have been ignored during the investigation whilst the Crown would have created what evidence it could to justify its action. This means there is the least amount of evidence available to re-examine the case and almost impossible to challenge. This is a good trick they play, by not investigating properly there is less chance of someone else ripping the conviction to pieces.

My guess then would be Crown would have gone for the old game of "could have done it" cos there was nothing specifically to say they hadn't or didn't do it nor that anyone else did. This case would hinge on Defence and what they said and how they challenged these points from the start of the case to establish what facts and how accurate and truthful they were - my guess being they would have done NOT A LOT.

Just another example of how BAD or justice system is and how the laws are bent evidence misused and accusations made to fit a specific crime objective - yet no FACTUAL evidence to say it was those convicted. Crowns arguments would have to be pulled out sentence for sentence and crossed with what evidence they was to support them, my guess would be much was said (implied) yet little to support what they said as the Oath means nothing and perverting the course of justice and perjury ignored, Crown Barristers lie for fun at trials cos no one ever stops them.

[HaveHope]

wasnt there somone else sperm found on the body how was this explined.

I could not find any reference to this dna.

The prosecution witness seemed to believe that the boyfriend was guilt and she provided "good" testimony to secure a conviction. I don't consider her believable at all.

ADMIN......Kevin Nunn's site has recently been updated and now contains some more information including still images of the CCTV footage from the leisure centre. The importance of these will become clearer when you have read the other details of the case, one where sperm found on the naked body of a murder victim is seen as insignificant by the police and prosecution and one where the innocent man serving a life sentence for her murder has had a vasectomy.

Please visit Justice for Kevin Nunn and lend your support to all of those affected by his wrongful conviction.
 

[Toth]

> A great deal of time and effort was given at the trial in detailing her academic
>qualifications and experience, therefore making her a very valuable and credible
>witness for the Prosecution in an effort to provide that vital link to the time of
>9.30 pm of Ms Walker leaving the club.

She was called as a fact witness not an expert and I don't see how English law allows the prosecutions to dwell extensively on her training and education.

As to the dna:
I finally found it in the discussion of Witness Testimony.
It seems the unverified practice of men ejaculating onto a bench was set forth.
This appears to have been done without any forensic testing of that bench or other benches in the locker room of a sporting facility.
Then there was the suggestion that since male workmen were in the women's lockeroom, the victim had entered the male lockerroom and sat upon a bench thus receiving a quantity of sperm. (I think the judge and jury should be commended for having kept a straight face during that testimony). This is the manner in which the presence of semen and sperm on the female corpse was declared irrelevant to the identity of the killer.
I guess the victim must have been really in need of a bench to sit on one that contained a semen stain. I wonder if she had a chat with the man who had deposited it there and then sat on the bench. On this side of the pond, most young women do not sit on benches that contain semen stains, now I make no statement whatsoever as to the habits of young women on that side of the pond. Readers will have to make up their minds on that issue themselves.

[nugnug]

so there saying some guy wanked over the bench and without realsing it she sat on it.

makes you wonder what sort of gyms the proscuter frequents.

[Toth]

> and without realizing it she sat on it.
I suppose that forum posters can imagine just how many women sit astride on gym benches and manage to get semen on their inner thigh without realizing it. Of course the posters can also imagine how many women sit astride a gym bench and manage to get semen on their inner thigh and do realize it but express no shock or horror and do not take a shower.
I wonder what the jury thought about this matter but most of all I wonder what sort of a prosecutor would allege such a thing and what sort of a defense lawyer would just sit there during that part of the trial.

>makes you wonder what sort of gyms the prosecutor frequents.
No. It makes me wonder what sort of women the prosecutor frequents!

[admin]

so there saying some guy wanked over the bench and without realsing it she sat on it.

makes you wonder what sort of gyms the proscuter frequents.

Well nugnug, according to the prosecution QC's closing speech there's no sense laughing at it and the idea that the bench must have been masturbated on first is nonsense. Nope, according to him, it's no less bizarre a suggestion than rubbing up against someone at the bus stop. He says Helen Howarth thinks it's possible so that's fine and that if you want to dispute it you should "tell somebody who has gone into the sterile ward of a hospital and contracted MRSA that she can’t pick things up in these sort of situations; well, of course you can."

[Toth]

He says Helen Howarth thinks it's possible so that's fine and that if you want to dispute it you should "tell somebody who has gone into the sterile ward of a hospital and contracted MRSA that she can’t pick things up in these sort of situations; well, of course you can."

Well, it is possible to be struck on the head by a falling meteorite but its rather rare. Such comments about picking up semen from a bench would normally be a question for a scientist and I do wonder if Howarth would be qualified. Also I wonder if other such benches were ever examined forensically and found to be dripping with semen.