In homicide trials where the defendant pleads not guilty despite what seems to be overwhelming evidence, the defense team faces the challenging task of creating reasonable doubt. Skilled defense attorneys are often adept at using various strategies—even when the evidence appears “damning”—to persuade a jury that there is another explanation or that key evidence is unreliable. These approaches can appear in many different cases, and similar patterns often emerge repeatedly.
Outside of trials, these tactics can also be seen utilized by justice organizations like the “Innocence Project”, which used them to free convicted killer Sheldon Johnson. Shortly after Johnson’s “exoneration” he proceeded to murder and dismember another person. It is also commonly used by armchair detectives, which is covered in depth in the linked article.
Below are some commonly observed defense tactics:
1. Crime scene contamination
E.g. “Of course my client’s jacket fibers (or DNA) were found on the victim! The scene wasn’t properly secured, and investigators’ carelessness resulted in a ‘transfer’ of evidence.”
A defense team may attempt to undermine the reliability of physical evidence by arguing that the crime scene was mishandled by investigators or contaminated through poor evidence collection procedures. By casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence, the defense hopes jurors will question whether incriminating fibers, DNA, or other traces truly link their client to the crime—or if investigators inadvertently introduced them.
Examples:
- Jonbenet Ramsey:
Intruder-theory proponents often highlight the chaotic conditions in the family home following the discovery of JonBenét’s body. They argue that this chaos could explain suspicious fibers (for instance, fibers matching Patsy’s jacket worn on the night of the murder, which were found in the paint tray from which the paintbrush (also belonging to Patsy) used to create the strangulation device was taken) or other evidence attributed to household members, casting doubt on the reliability of physical evidence linking family members to the crime.
Wallace case: The defense attempted to explain bloodstains found in unusual places (e.g., notes in a jar upstairs, blood on a toilet pan) as the result of inadvertent contamination. The intention is to lead a jury to believe that evidence more suggestive of Wallace’s guilt than the existence of a burglar might have been introduced or mishandled by the authorities.
2. Alternate suspects
Gordon Parry is the strongest “alternate” suspect in the Wallace case, albeit the evidence of his involvement is weaker than those proposed in the other example cases listed.
E.g. “The investigators only focused on my client. What about this other suspicious individual who had a reason to commit the crime?”
When evidence strongly points to the defendant, another approach is to shift attention onto other individuals who may have had motive, opportunity, or suspicious connections. By suggesting plausible “real killers,” the defense can attempt to fragment the prosecution’s narrative and introduce uncertainty into the jury’s mind.
Examples:
- Sam Sheppard case:
The defense raised convicted thief Richard Eberling as a potential killer, arguing that Sheppard’s wife’s murder could be attributed to him rather than Dr. Sheppard. - James Krauseneck case:
Defense attorneys pointed to Ed Laraby, a local criminal who once confessed to the crime. Although this argument failed to persuade the jury, it illustrates the attempt to redirect suspicion. - Jonbenet Ramsey case:
A litany of suspicious alternate suspects are proposed as being the “true murderer” of Jonbenet Ramsey. These alternate suspects include Bill Reynolds who knew Jonbenet from playing Santa Claus; the housekeeper Linda Pugh who also had stationary from the Ramsey house (Ramsey stationary was used to write the ransom note) and had asked the Ramsey’s for money shortly before the murder; Michael Helgoth who owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots matching a print found in the cellar where the body was found, a taser proposed by detective Lou Smit to have been used in the crime, and who had various other suspicious links to the crime such as having a literal shrine to Jonbenet; John Mark Karr who confessed to murdering Jonbenet, and various others not listed for sake of brevity.
Jonbenet had told the Whites that Santa had promised to pay her a “second visit” AFTER Christmas. Bill’s wife had written a play some years before about a dead little girl being found in a cellar much like how Jonbenet was found. Bill also gave a bizarre speech about wanting his remains cremated with glitter given to him by Jonbenet, and stated that he feels closer to her than to his own children. Given the right framing, various tertiary characters like this can very easily be portrayed as being the “true culprit”.
Of course, the reality is that only one person (or small group) actually committed the crime, meaning MOST alternate suspect theories are red herrings despite their suggestiveness in isolation. - Adnan Syed case:
Some defense supporters have highlighted Bilal Ahmed as a possible perpetrator based on ambiguous police notes. However, the interviewing officer clarified the meaning of his notes, a clarification ignored by those advocating alternate suspect theories.
Wallace case: In the Wallace case this is seen very clearly with Gordon Parry, an opportunistic criminal with numerous convictions, a falsified alibi (for the call night, not the murder night for which he has numerous witnesses placing him at the Brine’s house from 5.30 to 8.30 PM), and some suspicious and relevant knowledge of the Wallace house, chess club, and Prudential insurance agency.
Secondarily it is seen with characters such as Joseph Caleb Marsden, who has been portrayed as a murderer based on some knowledge of the Wallace house and a singular line, seemingly regarding his alibi (written in a margin, beside where a number of suspects including Marsden were listed) being that he was “in bed with flu”. Flimsy evidence like this, and even grander police conspiracies involving him, are often used to cast him as a potential culprit.
Particularly striking in the Wallace case, is that Gordon cannot even be portrayed as the sole murderer due to his alibi for the crime. Hence, theories involving his guilt, unlike the far more suspicious individuals in the listed examples, always involve numerous parties deciding to cover for him, or conspiracies involving him PLUS various others (the “others” sometimes being entirely nameless and thus without any evidence tying them to the crime).
3. Malicious police
Hugh Moore is accused by some of knowingly aiding and abetting Gordon Parry in the murder of Julia.
E.g. “The lead detective hated my client”, or, “the police were ‘under intense pressure’ (another common buzzword in these cases) to make a quick arrest and fabricated evidence.”
Another tactic is to challenge the integrity, competence, or impartiality of the police, arguing that the defendant was “framed” or that the police held biases which tainted the investigation. Painting the investigators as malicious or deeply flawed can, if successful, lead jurors to dismiss even strong evidence as planted or fabricated.
Examples:
- OJ Simpson case:
Detective Mark Fuhrman’s racist remarks were used by the defense to suggest that he might have planted incriminating evidence (like a bloody glove) on O.J.’s property. This line of attack helped sow doubt about the authenticity of the physical evidence.
An entire book was even written about Fuhrman supposedly being the true killer, claiming that he did it all just to frame OJ. The book is titled “Iago in Brentwood” (Iago being the villainous character in Shakespeare’s play “Othello”).
Wallace case: Some defenders of Wallace’s innocence claim there was a conspiracy within the police force to protect another suspect or quickly close the case by convicting Wallace. The notion that police risked their careers or lives for trivial reasons (like Moore’s daughter Imelda having a typist job with Gordon Parry’s father) is a central argument of these claims. Without substantive evidence, these conspiracy allegations remain tenuous at best. Particularly in the “Imelda Moore typist” case, where I find no documented evidence supporting the claim she ever worked for the Parrys whatsoever.
Other far-fetched theories involve individuals like “Duckworth,” described as a relative of Marsden with police influence, who supposedly also stepped in to aid and abett the “true killers” Gordon and Marsden. Some point to officials’ refusal to release case files to tabloid journalists in the 1970s as proof that high-ranking officers deliberately withheld and altered records to protect Parry and frame Wallace.
However, upon contacting Merseyside police myself for the files some time back, I was informed through them directly of the pruning, and was told that this was standard archival practice to save space. This is a century-old solved murder case in which all involved are long deceased, and the police must manage their resources for current investigations rather than maintain outdated files for long-solved cases which now serve only as a matter of curiosity.
The patterns noted—unsupported conspiracy claims, invented employment connections, and misinterpreted archive policies—closely mirror defense tactics seen in other cases where supporters struggle to reconcile strong evidence of guilt with a narrative of innocence. In the absence of credible, contemporary documentation, these conspiratorial theories serve more as storytelling devices than as legitimate challenges to the historical record. They should be treated with skepticism, and any genuine evidentiary claims must stand up to scrutiny and verification.
4. “Tunnel vision”
E.g. “The police decided right away that my client was guilty and refused to consider other suspects or evidence that might prove otherwise.”
The “tunnel vision” argument alleges that the authorities latched onto one suspect early on and failed to fully explore other leads, ignoring or downplaying evidence that didn’t fit their theory. Generally speaking, police follow the principles of Occam’s Razor and follow evidence to build a prosecutable case against a particular suspect. The evidence “tunnels” detectives straight to the guilty murderer in every case where a guilty person is arrested and prosecuted.
Examples:
- Jonbenet Ramsey case:
Some argue that investigators were fixated on the family, ignoring outside suspects. However, investigative records and detective accounts suggest that other leads were indeed pursued, including potential intruders, suspicious vehicles, and DNA testing.
Wallace case: Detective Moore stated that police did explore various avenues, including local criminals and suspicious individuals, halfway houses, and even documented newspaper appeals to hunt down persons of interest, before focusing on Wallace. Additionally, the fact that Wallace was initially allowed to remain alone in the crime scene house—a risky move if the police were certain of his guilt—undercuts the tunnel vision claim.
5. Spurious testimony
Parkes, the sole witness to an alleged confession by Gordon.
Defence teams will frequently cite spurious witness testimony to bolster their claims.
Examples:
- Jonbenet Ramsey case:
Decades after the child’s murder, self-proclaimed witnesses and even “confessors” like John Mark Karr emerged. Karr claimed to have killed JonBenét, yet the physical evidence did not back him up. His confession was ultimately dismissed as baseless. While not a defense witness in court, these sorts of late, spurious claims are commonly wielded by advocates outside the courtroom to cast suspicion away from the likely culprits—often the family, in popular theories—and onto unverified, convenient suspects.
Wallace case: John Parkes went public, 50 years after the murder, with his story that Gordon essentially confessed to the crime to him the night of the murder. He was the sole witness to this alleged confession, and documentation corroborating his claims (such as police staking out his garage to catch Gordon) are not found anywhere. If they did stake out the garage, then it contradicts the notion that his claim was dismissed and not properly investigated.
Parkes did not voluntarily choose to go public with his alleged statements; instead he was hunted down and cornered into retelling it by tabloid journalists who had heard of his story through the grapevine, and asked him to appear on their show.
It is very noteworthy that according to Parkes, he had heard about the murder of Julia before seeing Gordon that night, and instantly connected Gordon to the crime, saying “Wallace?! That’s Gordon’s friend!”. In other words he was already having thoughts about Gordon in connection to this murder before Gordon ever showed up and made his supposed confessions. Parkes shared various tales like this and theories about Gordon wearing waders with other townsfolk.
Note: In the Wallace case, while tentative testimonies are often used to support Wallace’s innocence, when it came to his guilt, witness credibility was purposefully diminished. The defence team were furnished with a statement which could have helped add credibility to Lily Hall’s statement. In it, a resident of Richmond Park named Mr. Greenlees provides a sketched map and statement corroborating the sighting of a man similar in description to the one Lily Hall claims to have seen talking to Wallace, within minutes of the time Lily claimed to have made the sighting.
This statement is found in Hector Munro’s (defence solicitor) case files, and not in the police file. Mr. Greenlees was never called as a witness.
It is critical to notice that these elements are not unique to the Wallace case, and are used continuously by proponent’s of a suspects guilt. By noticing their existence in almost every other criminal trial, their presence in the Wallace case can be seen as less surprising and far more trivial.
It is important to practice critical thinking and be aware of deception tactics. It is important to learn to quickly identify them to properly verify their credibility.