Ronald Laidiar

1. 1. missing wedding ring

   “The daughter of the deceased maintains that her father was wearing a wedding ring which he always wears. In the crime scene photographs, this ring is not apparent and there was no evidence to where it might be. There was no investigation as to whether it had been stolen. Local pawn shops were subsequently visited but with no success. The fact that this was missing does not seem to have been a factor in the assessment as to whether this was a crime scene.”

2. 2. overlooked evidence

   “The body was allegedly searched by detective officers and crime scene investigators at the scene. The clothing of the deceased was also similarly”

3. 3. inconsistent testimony

   “The sergeant initially gave evidence that the trousers of the deceased were round his ankles. When shown the crime scene photographs proving this not to be the case, he then said”

4. 4. unidentified blood sources

   “At the scene there was a lot of blood about the deceased's body and elsewhere. In answer to a question put by the coroner, the police officer confirmed that no checks had been made to test whether the blood was all from the deceased or whether there was anyone else's blood present.”

5. 5. misattributed blood source

   “The officer confirmed that they (the police) were told the deceased suffered from frequent nosebleeds and therefore assumed this accounted for the blood. The consultant pathologist confirmed there was no sign of any blood in or around the nose or mouth.”

6. 6. unexplained scalp laceration

   “The sergeant gave evidence that there were no marks to indicate or support third party involvement. The consultant pathologist found”

No published response was found on judiciary.uk.