I have no more faith in this verdict than when poor Stefan Kiszko was fitted up.

"It was him that killed Leslie" the media pronounces about Ronald Castree and the family rejoices - just as they all did 30 years ago before Kisko spent 16 years and shortly later died.

"Tonight they have finally got the answers..." they say. Why should we believe them this time?

DNA will be discovered in due course to be flawed. Or they will find (probably won't actually) that it was planted.

Every time the media goes for the simplistic obvious - just as they condemned Sally Clark.

And so will you until it happens to you.

The first thing that crossed my mind was "How do we know they got it right this time?" In 10 years they might find that DNA wasn't as exact a science as they thought it was and so end up letting this guy go too. They say that the chances of the DNA not being his is a million to one. How many million people are in the world? Those odds suggest there are quite a few people who could have done it.

No reasonable doubt?

I'm not saying he isn't guilty. None of us could possibly know that. But I do question the reliability of the evidence.

Thank God for your post PBS. I was beginning to think I was mad.

Not one paper has carried this viewpoint.

I'm 100% with you. It is perfectly possible that he is guilty.
But it is equally possible the DNA was corrupted or even (dare I say it?) PLANTED.

Perhaps the one thing that has improved in 30 years is the ability for corrupt cops to stitch someone up.
Planted DNA is far easier than beating a fake confession out of a retard.

Yet NOBODY in the media dares suggest they may have gotten it wrong again, either by mistake or through someone wanting to get brownie points, promotion, media fees or whatever.

You would think Barry George was guilty. Or Sally Clark...

Or Paul Blackburn. Or Stuart Gair. I could fill this board with miscarriages of justice (usually 25 years too late).

And there is NEVER any accountability or media suspicion.

No wonder they are cancelling ROUGH JUSTICE. As a society we are far too busy not caring.

I do hope someone makes an allegation of rape against David Cameron twenty years ago when they were 15.

This is something that was told to me by a friend in the police force, although I know many will dismiss it as it most probably cannot be proven. A couple of years ago investigators found a match to DNA found at an old crime scene, but then realised that the suggested culprit would have been only 2yrs old at the time of the incident. This tells me that DNA cannot always be reliable.

Was there more to the Leslie Molseed case than just a DNA match?

If records were kept of the above case, then I'm sure they'll be made public in around 50 years time. Too late for many who may have been wrongly convicted on such evidence, and too late for anyone to be held accountable.