London - The Old BaileyThe trial of Anjali Nirmala Perera came to a stunning end today inside The Old Bailey. What started as a high emotional and filled week as the trial entered the final stretch, with Ms. Perera taking the stand to testify in her defense, ended with Ms. Perera dead, after being fatally stabbed by Rebecca Carter. The final days of this emotional trial started with a lengthy timeline recap by an expert witness who specializes in crime scene reconstruction. Minute by minute and even second by second accounts in some moments were outlined for the jury, with the defense placing emphasis on how little truth has been presented in this case, with Ms. Malik reminding the jury of their duty to listen to the truth, not speculation and circumstance.After cross examination was finished, two former employers of Ms. Perera took the stand to give character statements on her behalf, with particular emphasis on the positive reference letters each of her former employers gave to the next. Mr. Markham attempted in vain to try and discredit Ms. Perera as a substandard caregiver by pointing out how many families she worked for, but this was swiftly put down due to each of her former employers' children aging out of needing a permanent caregiver. The final person to take the stand, in a lengthy multi day testimonial was Ms. Perera herself. Ms. Malik started the testimony with Ms. Perera going over  memories she had with Oliver and Sophie, helping them learn to walk, read and learn early maths lessons at home. It was obvious what Ms. Malik’s intentions were with the testimony, to let Anjali speak about her love and affection for those two children and how she would do anything to keep them out of harm's way.Ms. Malik’s questioning of Anjali finished with a definitive statement from the defendant. “I swear on my life, my mother’s life, on Allah himself that Ms. Carter swore to me she would keep an eye on Oliver and Sophie. If there was any doubt that she wasn’t going to be able to handle it, I would never have taken my eyes off of either of them.” Ms. Perera broke down into sobs at this point and the court took a small recess to let her calm down. Upon return, Ms. Perera finished her testimony stating, “I will live the rest of my life seeing their faces in my dreams and in my nightmares. I will spend every day and night regretting how I failed them, how I wasn’t there for them, how I couldn’t protect them. I will miss them every day, every minute, every second, forever. I loved them so much.” It was clear her testimonial had an affect on some of the jury members, but over half were seen stoic and determined not to let their personal feelings give away how they might decide Ms. Perera’s fate.Following this emotional testimony, Mr. Markham cross examined Ms. Perera and spent nearly six hours between two days expertly challenging inconsistencies, laying blame and carelessness at Ms. Perera’s feet, and besmirching her character for attempting to shift blame to the children’s devastated mother. He even went so far as to accuse Ms. Perera of feigning emotion at the deaths of Oliver and Sophie, and alluded to several negative pejoratives that would fall under racial discrimination. Mr. Markham ended his cross examination by again doubling down that Anjali was the “professional” entrusted with the children and that her incompetence and immoral character lead to the deaths of Oliver and Sophie and the blame nearly falling on their mother. “Responsibility cannot simply be transferred AFTER tragedy.” After nearly a month of heavy, emotional testimony, the fate of Anjali Nirmala Perera rested with the jury, or so she, and we all thought. The jury deliberated for over a day before returning with a shocking decision. With a majority vote, the jury stunningly rejected both Charges of Murder, instead finding her guilty of two lesser counts of Manslaughter. “We don’t know exactly what happened between these two women, but Anjali was the professional caregiver. We reached this decision because the onus fell on her to not leave both Oliver and Sophie without personally ensuring they were being properly supervised.” Both Anjali and Rebecca Carter broke down into tears, one for relief that she would not be put to death, the other out of sadness that in her eyes, her children’s killer wouldn’t see justice. The court adjourned for the rest of the day while Justice Ellingham considered sentencing recommendations from the jury.Early the next morning, a tense court room waited anxiously for the sentencing of Anjali Perera for the crime of Manslaughter. Justice Ellingham entered the court and first thanked the jury, then both the Crown Prosecutor and Ms. Malik for their professional conduct during this trial. She then gave her condolences to Ms. Carter for her children and hoped this sentencing would help her find peace. Justice Ellingham then spoke to Anjali, admitting that this was one of the more difficult trials she has presided over in her career and found sentencing to be just as difficult, due to the ambiguous nature of the case. She then read out the sentence. “For Count 1, Manslaughter of Oliver Carter, I sentence you to six years in prison. For Count 2, Manslaughter of Sophie Carter, I sentence you to six years in prison. These terms are to be served concurrently.” Obvious relief flooded the table of Anjali and her defense team, as Ms. Malik quietly hugged Anjali and whispered in her ear. But the moment of relief came to a swift and brutal end seconds later.Lunging from the witness area, Rebecca Carter in a clearly emotional rage jumped over the banister separating the witness area and the defense table and stabbed Anjali several times in the torso and abdomen with a previously hidden blade, while clearly shouting “MURDERING BITCH!” several times. Courtroom security quickly apprehended Ms. Carter, applying restraints to her as she was dragged out of the courtroom by several officers. Bystanders quickly tried to provide whatever medical aid to Anjali they could until medical personnel arrived on scene. However, the blood loss was quite severe and paramedics quickly pronounced her deceased at the scene. A stunning end to an intense and high profile case here in The Old Bailey. I am Eleanor Tribby, Senior Court Correspondent for The London Chronicle. 

The Old Bailey, London - The name of the game in any trial is Doubt. The prosecution casting doubt over the Defense’s argument and the Defense casting doubt over the Prosecution’s argument. Casting doubt over whether evidence is credible and relevant to the case at large. Who can put more doubt into the jury is who wins the trial. Much to the detriment of those accused of crimes, doubt is often the more valuable currency in a trial than character, evidence or even circumstance. And circumstance was what Crown Prosecutor Markham introduced as evidence in an attempt to try and wrestle the doubt away from the jury. Much of what Mr. Markham presented, was digital evidence and photographic records from the earliest days of the investigation. But again, much of it was very circumstantial in nature, easily disproven or worse, more ambiguous to the reality of the situation. A digital recreation of the Carter home with a moving blue dot that was meant to represent Anjali walking about the home with her phone. But time stamps showed that the phone wouldn’t move for long periods of time, which contradicted very suspect digital records of kitchen appliances. Upon cross examination by Ms. Malik, the Crown’s digital forensic evidence expert, was raked across the proverbial coals in regards to the accuracy of these digital records. “Most modern appliances have a small computer built into them, it’s just a facet of the new modern digital world we all live in.” The expert explained. “But can you explain the reliability of these small electronics built into these appliances? Isn’t it true that, since appliances have moved to a more digital based system, the electronics inside are prone to failure or consistent error more than all the other components inside combined?” Ms. Malik posed to the forensic expert. His answer didn’t matter at that point. Not because it wasn’t relevant, but because the follow up question dismantled any idea that it mattered. “How often have you been called upon to testify on the efficacy and reliability of ‘kitchen appliance electronics’ in relation to a murder trial?” Ms. Malik asked, who herself seemed surprised to be asking a question like that at all, let alone in a murder trial. “Well, I must say Ms. Malik, this is a first for me. I wasn’t surprised to be called upon to testify, but I was surprised at the nature of the evidence I was asked to review, normally there is more than this.” A distinct murmur could be heard moving through the jury and witness area, and Crown Prosecutor Markham could visibly be seen trying to restrain himself at the Prosecution desk. He had been struck two deceive blows in one question and reply. Not only was most of the Crown’s digital evidence convincingly weakened, but now the jury had been shown the lengths the Crown was willing to go to try and pin Anjali as guilty, instead of letting actual evidence tell the story.Following the digital forensic expert, came the testimony of a pool safety expert, who works for a moderately large sized company that installs fencing and gating for home and community pools. His testimony revealed that after a fence/gate is installed, customarily, customers are recommended to get the fence/gate serviced every 18 months. No receipts or copied invoices were found in the Carter family home, and the Pool Safety company, which had also installed this fence in the Carter home, had no record of any maintenance requests.The Crown Prosecution attempted in vain to challenge the testimony as irrelevant to the case due there being no legal binding to require the pool fence/gate be serviced. But Justice Ellingham wasn’t having any of the Prosecutions challenge, immediately dismissing it. That challenge dismissal left the door wide open for the defense to deal a massive blow to the prosecution. “I’d like to take the jury back to the testimony of Rebecca Carter, specifically the very end of cross examination.” Ms. Malik used the opportunity to present the taped testimony of Ms. Carter on the video screen. The video started and the cracked emotional voice of Rebecca Carter blared through the speakers, “NO! I don’t drink alcohol for God’s sake! My children are dead and you are asking if I drink alcohol!” “Those are the words, the words spoken under oath, that what Rebecca Carter had to say was the truth. Now, I’m not going try and paint Mrs. Carter as having lied or that she intentionally mis-spoke. But what I am going to try and do is show you what the evidence says in contradiction to what Mrs. Carter.” With that, she pointed to the video screen which showed a photo of several pieces of paper. “For the jury’s viewing pleasure, five individual, verified retail receipts. Each of them from the same store, each of them from a different day, all before and within a ten day period of the drowning of Oliver and Sophie. Each receipt has at least one standard sized bottle of wine, with two of the receipts, including the one bought the day before the day of the drowning, having three bottles of wine.” She turned from the video screen, to face the jury.“Now I have a good guess as to what anyone in your position might ask? ‘Maybe she was buying them for her husband? Maybe they were gifts for some friends of hers? Maybe they were for Anjali?” Ms. Malik clicked a button on the screen clicker and the picture changed. A single piece of paper showed on the screen, reading “TOXOCOLOGY REPORT FOR ANJALI N. PERERA”. “During the initial investigation, we established early on that Detective Inspectors quickly focused almost entirely on Anjali as the primary suspect. Because of that, they requested a blood sample to be taken to screen for alcohol and drugs, to which Anjali gave without argument. This report on the screen shows that Anjali did not have any alcohol in her system or any other illicit drug for that matter. And for posterity, Anjali is a devout Muslim, which means, she is prohibited from drinking alcohol.” “So, the question still remains, if Rebecca Carter doesn’t drink, as per her sworn testimony, who were the wine bottles for? Her husband? Her husband, as has been noted for the record, travels frequently for work and was not in the house for 4 days before the incident and did not arrive back until the next day. 4 days before the incident. Based on the amount of wine that was purchased by Rebecca, there were at least 4 bottles of wine, with the potential to be upwards of 7 bottles of wine in the Carter home.”“Respectfully, we can be sure Oliver and Sophie didn’t drink them, we have probable belief that Anjali did not drink them, and can be certain Mr. Carter did not drink them. But another question remains, were there even wine bottles in the house? Did she give them away as a gift? I ask you to turn your attention to the video screen one more time please, members of the jury.” Ms. Malik clicked her clicker again, and the picture changed once more. “This is an official Investigative Photo, taken by the Forensic Scene Investigation team in the Carter house. This photo shows the kitchen and a portion of the dining room.” She clicked again, and a large red circle popped into place on the screen. “Inside this lovely attention drawing red circle, you can see several wine bottles. By my count, and I don’t have the best eyes, I count 5 bottles. Two are very clearly empty, another looks empty or mostly empty, the two in the back, I can’t say.”“Now, we have established, they weren’t given away as a gift, at least not all of them, they were not consumed by either Anjali or Mr. Carter. That leaves one possible person who could have drank that wine. Rebecca Carter. Earlier in our testimony Mrs. Carter testified under oath that the reason she said she “passed off responsibility” for watching Oliver and Sophie to Anjali was because she was tired. Alcohol consumption has been proven, for the record, to be a depressant, which can lead among other symptoms, drowsiness/tiredness.”“I can not prove, with verifiable evidence, what exactly happened that day. But more importantly, neither can the prosecution.” Ms. Malik stated firmly, looking directly at the jury. Doubt. Doubt was now the major theme of this trial. And its shadow loomed large over this trial.I am Elanor Tribby, Senior Court Correspondent for The London Chronicle. 

The Old Bailey, London:Responsibility. That was the only word that mattered this week inside the Old Bailey, as the murder trial of Anjali Perera got underway. With the jury sworn in by Mrs. Justice Margaret Ellingham.“Who was ultimately responsible for the deaths of Oliver and Sophie Carter? The prosecution will attempt to shift blame to the mother of Oliver and Sophie, Rebecca Carter. But the truth is, Anjali Perera is responsible, as she failed in her responsibility to properly take care of those two sweet innocent lives.” Those words were how Crown Prosecutor Julian Markham chose to open his comments to the jury, immediately laying the blame at the feet of Anjali Perera. And while the question of who was responsible figure in this murder case was looming over the court, the responsibility of a fair and impartial trial was firmly in the hands of Justice Ellingham as she had to remind Mr. Markham during his opening remarks. “This was not an unavoidable accident. Two children were placed into the care of someone like Anjali Perera…..” “Mr. Markham I would advise you to have care in how you refer to the defendant, as she is to be treated with dignity and respect in this and any courtroom.” Justice Ellingham cautioned Mr. Markham. Following Mr. Markham was Ms. Sarah Malik of the defense, standing before the jury, peering at them intently for several moments before finally speaking. “In a conventional trial, the most important pieces of evidence are what is factual. What can be proven to be true without a shadow of a doubt, with expert analysis and investigation. But this is not a conventional trial.” Ms. Malik conveyed to the jury. “There is no doubt Oliver and Sophie Carter drowned. That is one of the only indisputable facts, that ironically will do nothing for either side in this case.” “The most important piece of evidence in THIS trial is going to be your intuition as jurors. How you respond to what is said, and shown to you over these next few days. Mr. Markham is going to do everything in his power to portray Anjali as dangerous, incompetent and someone who is incompatible with “Traditional English Values”. He is going to TRY and paint her as a murderer.” “My job, and I am very good at my job, is to show the truth of who Anjali is. A kind, caring, and dedicated woman, who gave every ounce of being to caring for, not just Oliver and Sophie, but the entire Carter family. And that on that fateful day, Ms. Perera was not a murderer, but another victim in this accident. The Crown has to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt Anjali intentionally murdered Oliver and Sophie. My job is to put doubt into that theory.” With opening comments to the jury concluded, the trial moved directly into witness and expert testimonies. The first of several expert witnesses were the basis for the foundation of this trial, with the first responding officer on the scene, the paramedic team and the forensic pathologist all giving into evidence the fundamental facts of the case. Police Constable Thomas Mercer described the scene as he arrived, narrating over his own body camera footage, as he arrived, and called for medical personnel on scene. His own footage showed both the defendant and the mother of the children in hysterics at the sight of the children’s motionless bodies, which is the first piece of evidence to cast doubt onto the prosecution’s claims.“Was there anything unusual that you witnessed while at the scene, Constable Mercer?” Posed Ms. Malik. “No. When I arrived, both the defendant and Mrs Carter were in the middle of attempting to pull both children from the pool. Mrs. Carter was visibly struggling, while the defendant almost had Oliver Carter out of the pool.”“And you didn’t find Mrs. Carter’s struggles to pull her own child from the pool at all unusual Constable? Wouldn’t any person, let alone their mother, have such a sense of motivation to gather strength to pull a 50 pound child from a few feet of water?” While Ms. Malik’s question was one that relied on the personal opinion of the Constable, the question was clearly intended as one the jury was meant to weigh as part of the whole question of this trial. Both the paramedic team and the forensic pathologist’s official statements both corroborated that the children died of drowning, and that the autopsies showed no signs of foul play, while the testimony of David Carter, husband to Rebecca and father to Oliver, Sophie and Emily, proved to be more neutral towards regarding the portrayal of Anjali. “I honestly didn’t interact with her too often. I travel for work, so Anjali spends more time in the house than I do. The handful of times I can honestly remember talking with her, she was polite, respectful, a bit…..blunt is the best way I can describe it. Our paths usually crossed when the children were already in bed, so I can’t honestly remember any interactions between her and the children.” But it was the testimony of Rebecca Carter that both the prosecution and the defense viewed as the center piece of their strategy. Mr. Markham by all accounts was very passive with Ms. Carter, floating questions that were designed to pull at the strings of not just the Jury, but also Ms. Carter, with the intention of getting an emotional reaction out of her to show the jury that her grief is so honest and genuine that there was no question of her belief that she passed responsibility of her children to Anjali, and the repercussions of that decision would be haunting her for the rest of her life. Yet, despite all the grandiose attempts by the defense and Ms. Carter to emotionally manipulate the jury, ever like an apex predator with the smell of blood in her mouth, Sarah Malik, a seasoned Criminal Defence Solicitor moved in to strike a massive wound into the Prosecutions argument. “You stated that you were laying in a lounge chair in your garden, which for the record, overlooks your pool. You stated that despite passing off responsibility of watching YOUR children to Anjali, YOUR children played in the garden, the same garden you were sitting in. If the children were so close by, why did you pass off the responsibility to watch them to the one person in the house, who had more responsibilities than just watching them?” “I was tired. Yes the children were in the garden, but I was tired and felt distracted, so I told Anjali to watch them while they played.” Ms. Malik continued to press, despite Ms. Carter’s repeated assurances that she passed off responsibility for the kids to Anjali. “You were tired? I’m sure a stay at home mother with a full time Au-Pair in the house is very tiring Ms. Carter? Why were you so tired at roughly half past 1 in the afternoon? Did you do anything physically taxing that morning? Go for a run? Do you have a medical condition that results in periods of excess tiredness during the day? Do you get a full night's sleep every night? Do you drink alcohol?” The rapid fire questioning did what it was supposed to do. It got under Rebecca Carter’s skin. With each answer of “No”, followed by another question immediately after, her attitude changed. The terseness with each subsequent answer grew. She started shifting in her seat. When the question of alcohol came up, she finally cracked. “NO! I don’t drink alcohol for God’s sake! My children are dead and you are asking if I drink alcohol!” A firm rebuke and reminder of court room conduct to Ms. Carter came from Justice Ellingham. The defense, to much of the courtroom’s surprise, ended questioning at that point.To an untrained eye, it would seem a curious move, that Ms. Malik is letting a flustered and compromised key witness off the stand at a time when she should continue pressing. But my eye was trained directly on Sarah Malik as she stepped away from questioning Rebecca Carter, and back to the defense table, taking her place next to her client. There are layers to a high profile murder trial. And only the best litigators know how to peel back the layers at just the right moment to reveal the most damning evidence when it will do the most damage. Ms. Sarah Malik knows what layer she wants to reveal, and when, and it will be one that has a massive impact on this trial. Responsibility was the theme of this article much as it was the theme of the early portions of this trial. But themes never last. As we continue to follow the trial of Anjali Nirmal Perera, we will see how the theme shifts from “Responsibility” to “Doubt”. I am Eleanor Tribby, Senior Court Correspondent for The London Chronicle.  

The Old Bailey - London The trial of Anjali Nirmala Perera is set to go forward after she made her appearance in High Court at the Old Bailey today. Ms. Perera and her legal counsel, Sarah Malik appeared in court alongside Crown Prosecutor Julian Markham. The Honorable Justice Margaret Ellingham will be presiding over the trial. Proceedings were by the book, with the defense filing a Not Guilty plea to the court today. Ms. Perera has been charged with two counts of Murder, and two counts of Child Cruelty by Wilful Neglect in the 26 June death of Oliver Carter, aged 8, and Sophie Carter, aged 6. Ms. Perera was working as an Au-Pair for the Carter family in Surrey. On that fateful summer day, Oliver and Sophie Carter managed to slip into the gated pool area in the Carter house, with Sophie going into the pool to retrieve a toy. When she began to struggle, her older brother then entered the pool, but quickly began to struggle himself.Ms. Perera, who has vehemently maintained her innocence in this case, told investigators that the children’s mother, Mrs. Rebecca Carter, 38, had verbally told Ms. Perera that she would “keep an eye on the children” while Ms. Perera attended to the youngest Carter child, Emily, aged 2. The full details of what happened next have not been disclosed by the Metropolitan Police Service due to the on-going investigation before the trial fully starts, but the end result was the drowning of two children with full lives ahead of them. A set trial date has not been set, but Justice Ellingham has indicated that Jury selection is tentatively scheduled for early in the new year, and a tentative trial start date in early Spring, next year. Eleanor Tribby, Senior Court Correspondent for The London Chronicle.