In my last post, the first nail in the coffin, I showed how Judge Atkins made (in my opinion) an incorrect ruling regarding hearsay evidence. In this post, you can listen to the damaging hearsay evidence that ultimately convinced a jury to ignore all exculpatory evidence and convict the wrong person.
As you listen to each witness, you’ll hear Tom Griffiths object on the basis of hearsay each time. Atkins had already ruled that he was going to allow the hearsay testimony. Tom was objecting so that there would be a record of his objections.
There is no question that the hearsay testimony given by the four witnesses was detrimental to Kit. Still, there were a few things Tom Griffiths could have done to lessen the damage. He could have asked all three of them if Calvin or Pam had said anything about Kit Martin making specific threats? There was no mention of threats in the statements given to the police. He could have asked what steps did Calvin and Pam take for their safety? Did they install security cameras? Did they ask the police to check in on them? Isn’t it possible that their fear was a simple manifestation of built-up anxiety of having to be involved in such a consequential trial? Unfortunately, Tom Griffiths didn’t ask any of those questions.