Viewpoint

Give evidence in murder case a thorough review

From Edward Friedland of Charlotte:

July 27, 2008 marked 18 years since my wife Kim was murdered in our home. As those who have followed this case know, I was arrested in July 1994 and charged with her murder. During pretrial hearings in March, 1995, the charge was dismissed at the request of the prosecutor, after our side brought out the details of evidence in the police files that pointed toward Marion Gales as a possible suspect, and further demonstrated that the State's supposed “scientific evidence” against me was bogus. I filed a civil suit against Gales won a large judgment with the jury holding Gales liable. During the proceedings, Kim's family seemed to express all kinds of sympathy for Gales as if he were some sort of misguided juvenile delinquent. I then went on to file a malicious prosecution suit against the Charlotte police and was deposed by some of Charlotte's best (and based on the $4 million the police spent defending themselves – most expensive) attorneys for several hours under oath . Despite this, the state has brought no new case against me. Thank heaven we still live in a country where it's hard to get a murder conviction against an innocent citizen who's ready, willing and able to fight back.

Now comes the report that the state believes that Marion Gales is a murderer (Charlotte.com July 22, 2008). Here's the man portrayed by the Charlotte police as a ne'er-do-well thief, chosen by me to provide cover, accused of murder. Now the state says he's a killer. Yet the local media report that the Charlotte police have no intention of “reopening” the Kim Thomas case in light of this recent event.

Can there be any explanation as to why recent events should not prompt an intensive review of the evidence linking Gales to Kim's murder? Granted, if it were now established that Gales is guilty of Kim's murder, there would be a lot of explaining that would need to be done by the police and the DA, not least of all to the family of his latest alleged victim. Even minimal standards of professionalism demand that such concerns be put aside and that evidence linking Gales to Kim's death be given a thorough review.

  Comments