Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

472 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
has now been discredited (Mansfield, 1993). After her conviction, Ward did not
apply for leave to appeal against her conviction, and it was not until 1986, 11
years after her conviction, that she began to consistently deny her involvement
in the offences (Gudjonsson & MacKeith, 1997). The reason why she did not
deny her involvement in the offences earlier has not been established, but it
may relate to her need for a sense of notoriety within the prison setting.
DAVID MACKENZIE—INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH
FACTS FROM FANTASY
The background to this case and the psychological findings were discussed in
detail in Chapter 9. In this chapter a brief summary of the case and the outcome
of the Court of Appeal hearing will be presented.
At his trial in 1990 David MacKenzie was convicted of murdering two elderly
women. He had confessed to both murders during police questioning. He had
also confessed to 12 other murders, which the prosecution did not believe he
had committed (R. v. MacKenzie, [1993], 96 Cr.App.R). At trial, first during a
voire dire and then again in front of the jury, Dr Nigel Eastman and I testified
on behalf of the defence. Dr Paul Bowden testified for the Crown. The trial judge
had ruled the confessions to the two murders admissible, because they were not
obtained by police pressure.
The appeal was heard in July 1992 before Lord Chief Justice Taylor, Mr Justice
Simon Brown and Mr Justice Roch. The main ground of appeal was that
the jury’s verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, having considered the unreliability
of MacKenzie’s confessions and the absence of other evidence of guilt.
The prosecution argued, as they had done at trial, that the facts disclosed by
MacKenzie in the confessions could only have been known by the murderer.
Without this special knowledge the jury would not have been entitled to rely
on the confessions. Therefore, at the appeal the principal issue was whether on
close inspection Mr MacKenzie had revealed special knowledge in his confessions
to the two murders. The appeal judges concluded:
We have carefully reviewed the knowledge contained in the confessions, the errors
contained therein and the omissions, some of which are striking. We also
bear in mind the appellant’s general credibility is diminished by his confessions
to other killings, at least some of which he could not possibly have done, and
by his motivation to say that which would ensure his confinement in Rampton
(p. 110).
The judges also pointed to the surprising absence of any evidence against the
appellant from other sources. There was also scientific evidence, not available
at trial, that MacKenzie could not have committed a further much publicized
murder, which the jury had been told he was suspected of and might be charged
with. At appeal there was also evidence from a clinical psychologist, Mr John
Hodge, that since the trial he had been able to assess MacKenzie and was of
the opinion that his inability to recall significant details of the crimes was not