unfounded, the Court does not find it necessary to examine the same under the VCCR. ii. The allegation that the investigation was improper and insufficient 97. The Applicant claims that the Respondent State did not ensure a "proper, fair, professional and diligent investigation of the matter" given especially that "core evidence" that could have led to other potential suspects were not investigated or were destroyed. He alleges that if the evidence referred to had been presented in court it would have proved that he did not commit the crime. 98.lt is also the Applicant's contention that two other bodies had previously been discovered at the same place where his wife's body was found, but there was no investigation into whether there was a connection between the three (3) victims, which could have raised a reasonable doubt as to his involvement. 99. The Applicant further avers that extraneous evidence was used to convict him, such as evidence that he had previously beaten his wife and that he was allegedly having an extra marital affair. He also claims that emalls allegedly between him and his lover were admitted as evidence, despite the fact that no investigation was conducted to verify their origin and the Applicant denied being the author. 100. In his Reply, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent State failed to investigate several contradictions. First, the Applicant avers that he was convicted on only circumstantial evidence as the Respondent State failed to find evidence directly linking him to the crime. Second, he claims that no investigation was conducted on the deceased's car from which the police did not take fingerprints because they were convinced of his guilt since he had been seen driving it and he was the last person to drive it. 101. Finally, the Applicant alleges that, due to the fact that he was not represented by a lawyer at the time he gave his statement to the police, the said statement was manipulated and used against him during the trial. He further alleges that the fact 26