British Embassy Pledges Help In Snaring Griffiths

[Markham]

I agree in that it is going to be very interesting to see how all of this plays out. Giving the prosecutors a practice trial with Santos is not going to help Griffiths in my opinion. I would think that his lawyers would be out looking for evidence of innocence like what the first arrested couple did and eventually were released. As from what I have seen so far, the only thing that his and her lawyers have done is talk about how weak the prosecutors case is. Every defense attorney says that, so nothing new or interesting there as far as I am concerned.

Proving innocence is more often that not really rather difficult. Berger and Esdrelon were extremely fortunate in that their movements on the day Ellah Joy was abducted and murdered were verifiably documented. Griffiths and Santos do have witnesses to account for their assertions that they were at home - as was their Pajero - for the time in question but, so far, that has not been checked on the grounds that those witnesses are simple alibis. Under the Philippine system, alibi evidence is discounted if it contradicts other live witnesses. Under the English criminal justice system, alibi evidence is not automatically discounted: it along with all the other facts of the case are equally weighed. The one thing the Prosecution do not have is hard physical or forensic evidence. Nothing was discovered at Santos' house, nor in her Pajero, that proves Ellah Joy was there and nor was any evidence found to support the Prosecution's assertion that she and Griffiths were engaged in a porn ring. The whole case has been built on suspicion and innuendo and, I suggest, is completely manufactured. It is known that PNP officers were present at Ellah Joy's funeral and were actively canvassing attendees to "point the finger" at a foreigner and from the accounts given, it seemed that any foreigner would do. You may be interested to know that the photograph used to identify Griffiths - obtained from Santos' home - was taken some six or seven years ago when he was in his early 40s. There were almost certainly other much more recent photographs there but of a somewhat older man and I believe the PNP chose to use the early photo since the original witnesses all said the Pajero driver was in his late thirties/early forties. Mark

[Garpo]

Proving innocence is no more difficult than proving guilt and in most cases is even easier. There are many things that he and his lawyers could do to gather evidence of innocesce that is much better than alibi type witnesses. For example in the other couples case, it was the video that was the solid evidence, not the alibi eye witnesses. As far as no forensic evidence found in the vehicle or the home, any investigator and most likely the judge will know that there was more than enough time for any such evidence to be removed or destroyed by the time that Santos and Griffiths became suspects. In fact some of their actions would make some suspect that they may very well have been trying to get rid of or hide such evidence. Because there is no forensic evidence found at this point certainly should not lead to an indication of innocence. There is a big difference between not enough evidence to convict and good evidence of innocence. Right now it looks like the defense is hanging their hats on the case not having enough evidence to convict, rather than putting their own case that has evidence of innocence. There is a lot of things that his defense team could and should be doing in regards to gathering REAL evidence of innocence. They could very well have already obtained it and are sitting on it and keeping it out of the media or they just as well could be looking for such evidence of innocence and as of yet, not been able to find any.

[Mr Lee]

IMO the most damning thing Santos did was sell her vehicle.

[Garpo]

That and Griffiths leaving the country day does not look good. I would think if he had a good reason for that they it would be known by now. He very well could have but I have not read or seen anything that answers the question of why he left when he did. While not wanting to personally get involved in the case. If I were his lawyer, one of the first things I would have done is found out when his ticket was purchased. If it had been purchased several weeks before he left like most tickets are then I think that would be good evidence of innocence as I have hinted at before in prior posts. If however they have already looked into that and found that it was obtained shortly after the estimated time of the murder then this could that could be evidence of guilt. Ether way, I would sure like to know and would hope that both the prosecutors and the defense have looked into it. If both sides are doing their jobs then that information is already known.

[Markham]

Proving innocence is no more difficult than proving guilt and in most cases is even easier. There are many things that he and his lawyers could do to gather evidence of innocesce that is much better than alibi type witnesses. For example in the other couples case, it was the video that was the solid evidence, not the alibi eye witnesses.

Well thank goodness Griffiths' case may be examined by Judges in London where suspects enjoy the right to be presumed innocent of any crime!

As far as no forensic evidence found in the vehicle or the home, any investigator and most likely the judge will know that there was more than enough time for any such evidence to be removed or destroyed by the time that Santos and Griffiths became suspects. In fact some of their actions would make some suspect that they may very well have been trying to get rid of or hide such evidence. Because there is no forensic evidence found at this point certainly should not lead to an indication of innocence. There is a big difference between not enough evidence to convict and good evidence of innocence. Right now it looks like the defense is hanging their hats on the case not having enough evidence to convict, rather than putting their own case that has evidence of innocence.

What actions?

IMO the most damning thing Santos did was sell her vehicle.

Whilst presentationally it might not look good, there was no reason why she should not have sold it. The Judge, at that time Judge Pareides, had already taken the view that it was not the vehicle used. I am pretty sure that Santos would have discussed her desire to sell it with her lawyers and that they, as well as Griffiths' lawyers in London, would have given the go-ahead.

That and Griffiths leaving the country day does not look good. I would think if he had a good reason for that they it would be known by now. He very well could have but I have not read or seen anything that answers the question of why he left when he did.

He left to return to his job in Singapore. He should have left on 7th February but arrived at Mactan airport too late. His booking was with SilkAir, a budget carrier and had to rebook for a flight on 9th February, the flight for 8th February being sold-out. At that time, he most certainly was not a suspect - indeed the Police didn't have any suspect at that stage.

While not wanting to personally get involved in the case. If I were his lawyer, one of the first things I would have done is found out when his ticket was purchased. If it had been purchased several weeks before he left like most tickets are then I think that would be good evidence of innocence as I have hinted at before in prior posts. If however they have already looked into that and found that it was obtained shortly after the estimated time of the murder then this could that could be evidence of guilt. Ether way, I would sure like to know and would hope that both the prosecutors and the defense have looked into it. If both sides are doing their jobs then that information is already known.

To call that "evidence of guilt" is a bit of a stretch! Mark

[Garpo]

It is very common for somebody that commits a murder to flea if possible, long before they are ever identified as a suspect. That is why criminal justice systems have extradition agreements. It would be nice if all murderers would just stick around until they are caught but fair to say that they don't. I also firmly believe in the presumption of innocence and have never said that I believe that Griffiths is guilty. I am only suggesting that a good defense attorney would be gathering evidence of innocence. That is what happened with the first couple. Maybe if he had as good of a defense attorney as them and he is not involved then the police would be looking for somebody else. I could give you a long list of things that could be investigated for evidence of innocence but I would hope that the defense attorney and or their private investigators would already be aware of what would and should be on that list. If Griffiths and Santos have any type of reasonable and believable story then it usually or in many cases, not hard to find such evidence to support their stories. So in my opinion, they either are not doing a very good job,or they are not able to find any supporting evidence to their clients stories. The defense is much more than just attacking the prosecutors case as presented by them. If that was all that they had to do then there would never be a defense witness called. By investigating and finding evidence of innocence, I can not think of a better way of attacking the prosecutors case. It does not make any difference to me if the judge is in London, or in Cebu. Evidence is presented and weighed as to how strong it is. There is probably just as many bad judges in London as there is in Cebu, and probably just as many good ones in each place. This is not a pissing contest between the UK and Philippine justice systems. I would suggest that if he is found guilty in one place that he would most likely be found guilty in the other. Same could be said for not guilty.

[MikeB]

I thought the burden of proof was solely on the prosecution. Isn't that a part of the "presumption of innocence"? The defense doesn't have to prove anything.

[Garpo]

Mike, Yes, you are right. But if it were you on trial or being accused and you could produce evidence that you were innocent then would you not want your attorney to obtain and present that evidence? It just very well could get the charges dismissed and no need for a trial. If the evidence was strong enough just as was the case of the video that cleared the first couple that was arrested. While the defense does not have to prove anything, they certainly do want to produce evidence of innocence if and when they can obtain it. While I agree that there certainly does seem to be a lack of evidence to convict in this case. If it were me, I would want my lawyer to throw everything he or she can in such a way as to make sure that there was no way that I could be found guilty. If I was in fact not involved in a crime that I was suspected of, I would not just sit back and wait for a judge or jury to determine that the prosecution does not have enough evidence. I would seek out to clear my name and prove my innocence as soon as possible. A good defense lawyer will always try to find as much evidence of innocence as possible. A lazy one will just sit back and tell you not to worry because there is not enough evidence to convict. While the defense does not have to present any evidence, it sure makes it a lot easier when they can and do. If I was Griffiths I sure know what I would want my lawyer to do. The burden of proof is and should always be on the prosecution but there have been more than one innocent person convicted because their attorney did not do a good job.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Garpo

[Mr Lee]

IMO the most damning thing Santos did was sell her vehicle.

Whilst presentationally it might not look good, there was no reason why she should not have sold it. The Judge, at that time Judge Pareides, had already taken the view that it was not the vehicle used. I am pretty sure that Santos would have discussed her desire to sell it with her lawyers and that they, as well as Griffiths' lawyers in London, would have given the go-ahead. Mark

Mark it seems you presume a lot in your statements. It also seems to me that Santos does not listen to her attorneys or she would never have been making all the supposed statements attributed to her, including the ones she has made on camera, and that I have watched on TV news. Mark I am sorry but an innocent person does not dispose of a vehicle quickly after getting it back in most cases that I have seen. In this case, if what was written in the news is correct, the judge said the search warrant did not include the vehicle because of the wrong plate number on the warrant, not that the vehicle was cleared of being used in the crime, Giant Giant difference, and a probable reason for her selling the vehicle so quickly. A vehicle suspected of being used in a crime would have little resale value because most would not wish to own it, especially in the Philippines where ghosts are sooooo up there in beliefs, so I would first have to ask why Santos felt the need to sell the vehicle so quickly after it was returned to her, next, again if the news is to be believed, why she sold it to a dealer in Manila for peanuts compared to what it was worth, and on top of that, to one who reconditions vehicles and supposedly promised to totally tear the vehicle apart and put in new interior, carpet, paint etc, but even if the news was full of bull on all those points, her just rushing to sell it would have gotten the least amount of money for it, so therefore what was the rush if not to get rid of a vehicle that she might have no longer wished to ride in? Most average income people in the Philippines seem to keep their vehicles forever, so why did she even feel the need to sell it? I am sure the prosecution is going to make the most of that and if she does not have a believable answer, guess what the judge and other people will think. Now most important of all, I would like to know what income tax Santos has been paying to support herself and have a vehicle and home such as the ones she had. I feel that is where the prosecution will find the ammo to convict, since following the money trail is usually an easy way to find sources of illegal income, if there was any, and if not, then proof of what money Griffiths had been sending to support her should be easily available, and then his income source and amount and expenses will probably be examined for discrepancies. Of course unless the UK prevents that too, and then I would have to wonder why they would. There is still a lot to come out in this case that has not even been touched on and if the prosecutors do not touch on how she was supporting herself, then I would be amazed at their incompetence.

[Markham]

Of course she has to be guilty because she sold her car and she's rather too outspoken and not a shy, meek Filipina as many are. And let's not forget the possibility of dodgy finances. I'm surprised you've omitted to mention that she is a former bar girl and sex toys were found in her home. Let's all pack-up and go home because Lee has solved the case! And you accuse me of presuming a lot! I know you are hoping against hope that the PNP hasn't botched this investigation for the second time and that Griffiths and Santos are guilty of the crimes. Be prepared to be bitterly disappointed. Mark