Deathbed Confessions !

The police are under enormous pressure to put someone before a court when a lurid murder case grabs public attention.  Such was the situation when the media focussed on the Terry Falconer murder.

Falconer was on day release from prison when men posing as police turned up at his workplace and rearrested him.  It seemed to be a case of fellow criminals taking their revenge when his dismembered body was later recovered from the Hastings river.  This led to a high intensity police investigation - and eventually two suspects were charged and convicted of the murder, and sent to prison.

This murder had passed into history when one of the main witnesses at the trial made a deathbed confession in hospital, claiming that he lied in court and that he was the person responsible for Terry Falconer's murder.  It was the reasons given for this action that is causing great disquiet in both the public and legal circles.   It throws uncertainty of the methods used by the police in extracting evidence that leads to a conviction.

Witness "E  " as this person was known claims that he provided police with the verbal evidence they required to gain a conviction in exchange for a fifty percent reduction in the sentence he received for his own crime.   He further claims that police threatened him with revealing the location of his family to known enemies if he refused to cooperate.

Obviously, this confession must become grounds for an appeal, but as Witness "E " is now deceased, the deathbed confession can only be taken on it's merits.  It is entirely believable that a dying man might want to clear his conscience, but it is also possible that it is either a flight of fancy - or a malicious attempt to smear police.

It all seems to come down to the legality of  "plea bargaining ".    It is a powerful tool in the police armoury if they have the right to influence the length of a prison sentence. Many criminals claim that they are "stitched up " by the prosecution and subterfuge used to gain conviction - for crimes that they agree they were guilty.  It must be a huge temptation when police know they have the guilty party but lack the evidence for a conviction, and can gain a successful conclusion by persuading a third party to become the "missing link ".

Then there is the enormity of power in police hands.  A threat to tip off enemies about the location of threatened loved ones is no idle boast, as is the ability to dismiss prosecution of a range of charges in exchange for a guilty plea to a single charge that suits the police brief.  There is an expectation in the minds of the public that police powers will be used judiciously and fairly - and even an admission that sometimes the worst criminals deserve a taste of their own medicine - but dispensing justice can easily slip out of control unless the rules that apply are rigidly enforced.

This deathbed confession will inevitably reopen the Terry Falconer murder case.  Those convicted certainly have the right to launch an appeal and it is entirely likely that they may be aquitted.  If so, it points the finger at the police methods used to put evidence before the original jury and opens a can of worms about the entire spectrum of police prosecuting procedure.   Not only the option of plea bargaining to secure a confession, but the use of coercion and reward to impel others to go into the witness box and give evidence.

It is long been held that it is more important that the innocent remain free than the guilty be punished in our system of justice.  To achieve that, the prosecution must remain squeaky clean !