Supergrass: Courts Find Police Informer Not Only Had 51 Convictions But Is A “Pathological Liar”

The use of informers by police have always been criticized, particularly jail house snitches who will implicate anyone for a better deal. Scotland Yard has used 158 “supergrasses” used since 2006, including Gary Eaton, 51, who is now the center of a scandal over such procured testimony. Called a “pathological liar” by two courts, the Metropolitan Police still used Eaton to the trial of various people of murder. While records show the police were aware of his prior record, pathological lying, and mental instability, Scotland Yard has announced that no officers or prosecutors will be punished for his use as the star witness in two murder trials.

Gary Eaton was used in the trial of four men for the murder of the private detective Daniel Morgan. Critics say that the police did not care that Eaton lacked any credibility in their rush to convict the men of the killing of a fellow officer.

Chief Constable Jon Murphy, head of crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers, criticized the use of such men as Eaton as “dancing with the devil”.

It is a view shared by judges who looked at Eaton and found him to be a liar. Among the facts found by the courts, police failed to disclose Eaton’s history of psychiatric problems, heavy drinking, and violence. Police took Eaton to a covert location to coach him on details that he clearly did not know. Eaton and his girlfriend were paid £72,000 in 11 months and used despite a 27-year sentence for 51 crimes including conspiracy to murder, bribery, supplying drugs, blackmail and possession of firearms reduced to three years.

The other details in the article below are shocking — and all to familiar to people working in the criminal justice system in both the United States and England.

Source: Guardian

11 thoughts on “Supergrass: Courts Find Police Informer Not Only Had 51 Convictions But Is A “Pathological Liar””

  1. OT, related to Dredd’s earlier posting:

    Chatham County District Attorney Larry Chisolm is Davis’ last hope, apparently.

  2. When most police investigations begin with a quick deciding of guilt, rather than the pursuit of all leads, “snitchers” become useful to back up pre-conceived notions. Since advancement is based on “clearing caseloads” there is incentive to get the job done, even if it isn’t right.

  3. raff,

    This is one of the concerns I have for the “Terrorism Trial” here in the US of the MCJ…. These folks will not and I repeat will not get a fair trial…. The Federal System is worse in use of snitches in drug cases…

    If you wanna think in terms of the Amanda Knox’s case….The Prosecutor was under indictment and was to serve some sentence for something else during her trial…The informant that they used was as incredible as this case….But they were still able to get a conviction…I still don’t know why the Prosecutor was allowed to handle this case….

    I think I recall reading something about an evidentiary hearing and the Prosecutor tried to get more DNA testing admitted….The Appeals court said no….

    There are just some people that will try and bring you down to their level because they themselves are in trouble….that is 90% wrong with Jailhouse snitches…

  4. Well said AY. The reliability of these snitches is tenous at best, but the police still use them. At least the court should require some additional evidence to prove that the snitch is telling the truth. 51 prior convictions?!

  5. I do not think that even the police have uses for snitches. And to think that they are used in abundance in the US…..How many people are on death row because of folks like these….

Comments are closed.