Summing Up
Incorrect summing up by The Judge – RH Mrs J Cox QC The judge in her summing up ( which took a week) asked the Jury to disregard the Co defendant as he was no longer part of this trial as it was Kevin Nunn charged with the murder.
How could this be when for the last 18 months the prosecution did everything they could to connect the two of them?
The Judge also said it would have taken 2 people to carry out this murder. The main witness, Dale, said she supposedly saw 2 people struggling with a heavy object. Dawn Walker's (DW) body was found along a footpath nearly ½ mile from the road, no easy access from any other point. A hard task for two people let alone one.
Where is this other person? There are no telephone records or sightings of Kevin with anyone that has been involved in this ‘murder’ investigation apart from a couple of calls to the Co defendant on the Thursday .
Sperm found on DW’s body – Kevin had vasectomy in 1993 There were continuous delays in accessing unused material and it was only a matter of weeks before trial did we find a further pathology report stating that sperm heads were found on DW thigh and pubic area. This was the main intensive burn area, which was to the genitalia. This was to obviously an attempt to destroy any DNA evidence after the death of DW.
The Forensic Science Team stated that they were unable to extract DNA from these degraded SPERM HEADS samples!
Kevin Nunn had a vasectomy in 1993 and had sperm count sent to a reputable Lab in London sent via courier at the beginning of the trial. These results proved that NO sperm were present. This was put to the jury who failed to take this vital piece of evidence on board. Prosecution stating that DW could have picked this sperm up from gym club from transference from dirty towel or sat on a bench with sperm present! This was the findings of Forensic Scientist, Helen Haworth. (Please read transcript by clicking link button)
In Helen Haworth's many statements, she admitted that sperm was likely to be washed off as DW had shower around 8pm 2nd February 2005. It was alleged that DW also had been immersed in water at some stage prior to her death, therefore any "sperm transference" would have been washed away. Another scientist in the investigation stated she “was unhappy with the Forensic Lab used and their working practices”.
A few neighbours stated they had heard an argument but didn't actually recognise Kevin when they looked out from their windows. On house-to-house enquiries state that teenagers said it may have been them larking around the close. Many other neighbours in the close when asked did not hear any argument.
Work colleagues of DW’s saying she had told them that Kevin was jealous of the attentions of her ex boyfriends?
DW told them Kevin did not like DW receiving bouquets of flowers from other man. Who would? DW would either make a point of bringing them into her workplace or give the flowers to her next-door neighbour. DW also told a few of her work colleagues she would like to be a Call Girl. DW often took erotic magazines into work and showed them to her many male colleagues as well as attending Erotica Exhibitions.
The case for Prosecution
So what evidence did the prosecution actually have to charge and convict Kevin Nunn of murdering DW?
Plainly no forensic evidence but they did have a great deal of assumptions and heresay.
The hair from the laundry basket was less tham 1mm in length, had been cut and not shaved and was "similiar" to DW. If you look up similiar in the English dictionary it means 'not the same' It could be 'similiar' to thousands of other people.
One of DW’s ex boyfriend’s, May (the perfect murder) lied continually on the witness stand. He denied he was ever violent to DW, despite many others statements to the contrary and witnesses who spoke on oath. DW’s family knew about the violence in their relationship and mentioned it in their statements. This ex boyfriend stated he had seen Kevin in the Close on the Saturday after DW was found. At that time Kevin was being interviewed by Suffolk Police. He also stated he saw Kevin walking towards the 'site' on Thursday evening at 8.30pm, however Kevin has a reciept to prove he was elsewhere at the time.
Kevin Nunn’s Barrister Micheal Wolkind QC accused this man of the murder of DW during the trial but he obviously completely denied any involvement.
Kevin's ex wife provided the prosecution with a statement. They divorced 12 years ago, Kevin agreeing to a quick divorce as she was seeing another man at the time. Kevin had concerns after the divorce about the boys. It was known that she befriended some of the users of a local mental health charity and brought them home. On occasions they looked after the two boys. The boys had also made some odd comments, which alarmed him. He telephoned social services for advice only but they had apparently interviewed his ex wife at length. It would appear she continued to hold a grudge against Kevin. There was never any violence in the marriage but his ex wife made him out to be jealous, saying that he didn’t really want her but didn’t want anyone to be involved with her either. This was the main theme of the trial. The ex wife also stated that Kevin had told her, that DW had gone over to his house in the early hours of Thursday morning banging on his door. This again was incorrect, as this occurred in January and the ex wife had got confused over when this actually occurred.
DW had made her decision to the newly acquainted ‘old flame’ White, that she wanted to be with him so why would she go over to Kevin’s house that evening? Despite working at Arriva ( he has since left ) this 'old flame' was unable to provide police with details of his movements on Thursday 3.2.05 and Friday 4.02.05, apart from being in Oaks Close Thusday morning.
Again he was not brought in for questioning or had any searches of his work, property or the vehicles he had access to.
A sighting by a neighbour (Dale) supposedly of 2 men struggling with a heavy object, despite NO forensic evidence to support this, across DWs lawn in front of this witness, who was driving her car, 'looking straight at her' and under a street light? The street light is actually 20 feet away from DW's drive!
In the ID parade, the main witness states she had not seen press or media coverage but in her statement contradicts herself and states she bought a local paper, as the "boyfriend had not reported DW missing" when in fact he had.
Dale was asked to pick out "the boyfriend" during this photo fit ID!
The Summing up
The judge in her summing up stated Kevin was recognised in the Close arguing – this had been disputed during the trial and proven by the CCTV footage, Kevin was seen leaving the Gym in casual clothes, the sightings were of a man in a suit and a lot taller than Kevin Nunn. The witness failed to recognise Kevin in the picture line up, "as the man arguing had his back facing me"!! He had ASSUMED it was Kevin Nunn. This was demissed as a ID at the Court of appeal.
The judge also said the jury must disregard the Co defendant as Kevin Nunn was charged with the murder – this is not right. The co defendant had been charged with assisting an offender for the last 10 months, his motor vehicle was the only claim the prosecution had to tie these 2 men together.
Text Message – DW was still alive on Thursday 3 February 2005 A text message sent by DW at 4.50am Thursday 3.2.05 that was accidentally deleted by Kevin. The prosecution stating Kevin made DW send the message to him as part of his cover up. Why go to the lengths of making this message only to delete it?
Incorrect CCTV footage The prosecution said he had lied about his movements on the night of Wednesday 2.2.05 when in fact Suffolk police knew that the CCTV at the Suffolk Golf Club was incorrect by at least 46 minutes by the 12 the February 2005.
The receptionist at DW’s workplace stated Kevin had told her that he and DW argued and had a ‘bust up’. Kevin would not in any way discuss his personal details to a stranger on the telephone. This was just untrue. Would he really want to draw attention to the fact, if he had argued with DW, if he wanted to cover his tracks as the prosecution were so keen to point out.
These are the facts! Kevin Nunn is an innocent man wrongly convicted.
