SEVEN KEY FAILINGS
Damning verdict by the family of victim let down for 25yrs
HEARTBROKEN dad Joe Duffy has lived his nightmare for more than 25 years, and he knows now that it will never end.
In May 1992, his precious 19-year-old daughter Amanda was brutally robbed of her young life – stripped, beaten, strangled and left on waste ground like a piece of rubbish.
Strong evidence pointed to a jobless mechanic by the name of Francis Auld. He admitted approaching Amanda at a taxi rank in Hamilton, and later inflicting a bite mark on her breast that experts said was deep and painful.
But Auld, then 20, claimed Amanda consented to being bitten. He called it a love bite.
He also claimed the young drama student was alive and well when he left her, and that someone else must have murdered her soon after.
Auld’s story seemed so palpably false that there was horror across Scotland when a jury cleared him on a majority not proven verdict.
Joe, wife Kate and Amanda’s sisters and brother fought on to bring him to justice. The years dragged on but they never quit.
But they often felt badly let down by the efforts of Scotland’s prosecution service, and they were shattered last year when a major attempt to put Auld back in the dock fell apart in embarrassing circumstances.
Joe and the family kept quiet about their many concerns. They felt they needed the Crown’s help to put Amanda’s murderer where he belonged.
But Auld is now permanently beyond the reach of the courts. Cancer killed him this month.
Amanda will never get justice. Joe’s nightmare will last as long as he lives.
And he and the family feel ready, finally, to angrily condemn the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for a sorry catalogue of alleged failures they believe saved Auld from jail.
The Duffys spell out their concerns in a damning letter to Scotland’s senior prosecutor, Lord Advocate
People need to know about the mistakes and disasters which have brought us here JOE
James Wolfe QC. It accuses the Crown of seven crucial failures: l FAILING to prepare properly before announcing their intention to use double jeopardy law to put Auld back on trial. l LOSING most of the original evidence from the 1992 trial. l LOSING the vital transcript of the trial. Incredibly, Amanda’s family had to give the Crown a copy. l FAILING to keep the promises they made. Joe says they repeatedly made pledges to the family, only to renege on them later. l FAILING to maintain any continuity at the top of the double jeopardy investigation. The detective in charge retired midway through it. l CHOPPING and changing the Crown lawyers involved – and constantly backtracking over which evidence they felt could be admitted. l CHANGING the advocate in charge of presenting the plea for a new trial at almost the last moment.
The Crown took four years to prepare the double jeopardy case. The family pinned all their hopes on it.
But to win a new trial of a previously cleared accused, you need new evidence. And in February last year, three senior judges threw out the Crown case.
Prosecutors based their argument for a new trial on new evidence of incriminating remarks Auld made to several people after his acquittal.
The reports raised stark questions about his character. A girlfriend said she asked if he was involved in Amanda’s murder, and he replied: “It doesn’t matter. She was ugly anyway.”
The Crown claimed Auld then threatened the girlfriend, telling her she was “next”.
But the appeal judges said none of Auld’s reported statements, however vile, amounted to new evidence or were admissions of guilt.
And Joe believes the Crown chose to leave the real new evidence buried in their paperwork for the case.
Auld’s 1992 trial heard that hairs matching his DNA profile were found at the murder scene. But the science was relatively new back then, and there was a one in 12 chance the hairs came from someone else.
Later, more advanced tests made it clear that the odds of the hairs coming from anyone but Auld were one in more than a billion.
In his letter to Wolfe, Joe describes that as “overwhelming” new evidence. He believes it points unerringly to Auld’s guilt.
But he says the Crown failed to use it as part of their double jeopardy application – although they did make a reference to new DNA in their paperwork.
He describes this as a “nudge nudge, wink wink” strategy that was never going to impress the Court of Appeal.
One of the judges, Lady Dorrian, told the Crown she could not make a judgment based on evidence she had been made aware of but hadn’t been presented in court.
Joe says the Crown lawyers who decided not to use the DNA evidence lacked “the courage of their convictions”. And he slams the attempt to sneak it into the case “by the back door”.
He told the Record: “We’ve been reticent over the years about what we’ve said in relation to the Crown’s performance. We’ve tried to keep a working relationship with various lawyers and officials, in the forlorn hope that Amanda might get the justice she deserves.
“We’ve had many false dawns. But it’s now clear to us that it will never happen.
“We have written this letter because people need to know about the consistent catalogue of mistakes and disasters by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service which has brought is to this day.
“In particular, we cannot accept the decision to regard the DNA evidence as ‘not new’.
“It was utterly conclusive. But it was only referred to in court in an amateurish way.”
Joe, 67, wrote the letter jointly with wife Kate, 64, and surviving children Lynne, 47, Angela, 42, and Paul, 40.
It tells how the family learned from journalists, not the Crown, that Auld had died. Meetings with the police and prosecutors then made clear that the family’s hopes for justice were gone for good.
The family believe the least the Crown can do now is to state publicly that Auld killed Amanda. But they refuse to do so. Joe writes: “We have been informed they will not make any formal statement regarding what everyone knows to be Auld’s guilt.
“So, yet again, Amanda has been let down, as she has been by the Crown throughout the process.
“It appears they are more concerned with upsetting a murderer’s family than stating the truth.”
Joe now wants a major shake-up of the double jeopardy process. And the family are continuing their 25-year struggle to get the not proven verdict banned.
They said: “With the quality and quantity of evidence, it’s inconceivable to think the jury could have found Auld not guilty if the unique Scottish verdict of not proven had not been available.”
Summing up their years of dealings with the Crown Office, the family added: “We are pretty sure many other families will know what we have gone through.
“The standard of justice being delivered by the Crown is woefully short of what Scotland deserves.”
A Crown spokesman confirmed the family’s letter had been received and added: “The Lord Advocate will give careful consideration to the letter before providing a full response.”