Skids are not evidence

[Gob]

A man accused of defecating during a burglary at a Canberra coffee shop has been found not guilty, despite his soiled underpants being found at the scene of the crime.

Wesley Matthew King was charged with four counts of burglary-related offences after a Braddon cafe was broken into in late 2014.

When police investigated the break-in they found a pair of soiled underpants in the shop's office, along with papers smeared with faeces.

Nearly $4,000 cash, an iPod and car keys were stolen from the office safe, while an EFTPOS machine and till drawer were missing from the cafe.

DNA tests on the underpants concluded they belonged to Mr King; however, the ACT Supreme Court found that was not enough to prove he was responsible for the break-in.

Tests on the underpants found the DNA of another person, but police were not able to identify them.

In her judgment, Chief Justice Helen Murrell said she could not discount the possibility that someone else had been wearing Mr King's dirty underpants.

"I am not satisfied that guilt is the only available rational inference," she wrote.

"There is, for example, a reasonable [albeit small] possibility that the burglar was someone else who was wearing unwashed underpants that had previously been worn by the accused."

She found Mr King not guilty of all charge

[rubato]

"...
In her judgment, Chief Justice Helen Murrell said she could not discount the possibility that someone else had been wearing Mr King's dirty underpants.

"I am not satisfied that guilt is the only available rational inference," she wrote.

"There is, for example, a reasonable [albeit small] possibility that the burglar was someone else who was wearing unwashed underpants that had previously been worn by the accused."

Oh that is too goddamn funny. To this jurist it is reasonable that they were swapping dirty underwear? But the standard for what is 'reasonable' appears to vary a lot.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

But surely the papers smeared with faeces would have given the same result? Maybe the judge would have thought someone had borrowed Mr. King's arse.

[Lord Jim]

In her judgment, Chief Justice Helen Murrell said she could not discount the possibility that someone else had been wearing Mr King's dirty underpants.

Wouldn't a better argument have been that the thief acquired Mr. King's nasty underpants and then planted them at the scene in order to frame him? And then absconded with the unfound 4000 quid, guilt for the crime being sent in another direction?

And of course they have no idea who this second person is...

I'm sorry, we just got through watching the first three seasons of the Brit Crime series, Line Of Duty so I'm inclined to view this sort of thing in terms of a clever frame up...

[RayThom]

Oh, man, this ruling just stinks. They should have bought in renowned forensic scatologist, Ivana Poopchecz, as an expert witness. Number two in her field, IIRC.

Obviously Lady Justice is not only blind but suffers from anosmia, too.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Anosmia is the medical term for loss of the sense of smell. It's usually caused by a nasal condition or brain injury, but some people are born without a sense of smell

I suffer from that. Jumped off a moving car on Halloween 1980. Did not land very well.