This connects with the DNA part of a current high profile murder case. DNA might prove that you have had some contact with another person, even if indirect, but it will rarely prove that you committed a crime. As this poor guy's case shows, the police rely more on DNA than on facts. The victim described her attacker as black, but the police seem to have dismissed her word in favour of the mythical infallibility of DNA. So often facts are disregarded for either this reason or because some psychological profiler reckons that a person he/she has never met best fits the desired picture.

The current murder case poses the authorities a dilemma. DNA shows that the accused had contact with the murdered girls. The accused admits to having known them intimately, but denies murdering them. Aside from DNA they have little evidence against him. Have they located other 'clients' of these girls and compared their DNA too, or have they just settled for the quicker and easier option?

The police need to get back to the basics of crime investigation, checking timings, locations, motives, eye witness testimony, and other traditional forms of evidence.

The Cat wrote:

The police need to get back to the basics of crime investigation, checking timings, locations, motives, eye witness testimony, and other traditional forms of evidence.

...and if that doesn't work - then just fabricated the "evidence" as they usually do (safe in the knowledge that they will never be punished even if caught out).

We are regularly told that DNA is infallible - but it all depends on the "spin" you put on the "evidence", doesn't it?

Forget about injustice,forget about gross stupidity....what about the costs? What about the wsted money to employ fools?....And the crux....what about the real evil criminal walking free,laughing in the face of stupidity,free to continue to Rape another innocent victim!
Oh and yes,don't forget the first 2 points either.
Well spotted JK,I doubt if the government and police wanted this story out in the open.
We used to believe that dna evidence was 100% guaranteed...that's long gone out of the window...like any tool it's only as good as the person who uses it.

Solihull Exile wrote:
it's only as good as the person who uses it.

... or abuses it ?

Regardless of the case mentioned above DNA evidence is still one of the best and reliable tools available to the police.
The chances of two people having the same DNA is ONE BILLION to ONE.
I accept the case JK mentions was a terrible ordeal for the man concerned, however compared to the many thousands of crimes which have been solved using this technique this surely has to outweight the very few cases we hear about where mistakes are made.
Crimes are now being solved from decades ago where the perpetrators have thought they were home and dry and safe from prosecution.
I'm sure if you guys had a daughter or female relative who was the victim of a rape or sex attack then you would probably be grateful that this technique may help catch the offender, I know I would.

Silver Bullet Justice never works. It just helps the Police to improve their "clear up rates"

I was crashed into on Thursday night on the Hollaway Road by an unmarked White van which drove off at speed.

I rang the Police - I was in a Bus Lane on a red route with the most CCTV cameras in the UK on that road according to The Sun.

The police response was - without a reg number for the van they can do nothing. They sent no - one - they did no offer to contact CCTV to try and get the dangerous life threatening driver of that White Van.

Finally - if the "crime" is to be reported then I have to go to a Police Station and fill out a load of forms. The Police Stations in the area are locked and you cant now visit often outside of limited office hours.

This is not the "police's" fault.....it is our society as engineered by those in charge.

The papers are trying to turn us against the Police as far as I can see.......who would wish that to happen ? and against The Church ( Archishop story )

Our way of life is under threat. Wake up and smell the coffee.

I'd only be grateful if I was 100% confident that DNA was totally reliable, and if it was backed up with factual evidence. I wouldn't just want "someone" to take the blame. In the case mentioned, if the victim had not seen her attacker then this innocent guy would have served a long sentence, effectively losing his life.

The reliability of DNA has been called into question a few times, quite notably in the Omagh trial. People believe that old cases have been solved by DNA because we have been told that DNA is reliable. There are very few scientific certainties. People believed they had accurately calculated the age of artefacts using carbon dating, until platinum dating was developed which cast serious doubts on the reliability of carbon. For all we know, new discoveries might further discredit DNA. We have been told of the billion to one chance of a mistake, then another report made a claim of a million to one. In an experiment in the USA the DNA of one Native American was found to match almost exactly with that of another member of his tribe. There are so many variables, and very few certainties. When people's lives are at stake, there needs to be more to a case than mere DNA.

Carl wrote:
I accept the case JK mentions was a terrible ordeal for the man concerned, however compared to the many thousands of crimes which have been solved using this technique this surely has to outweight the very few cases we hear about where mistakes are made.

We DON'T KNOW yet exactly how many of these other cases will be false convictions or frame-ups !

BR wrote:
by an unmarked White van

... it was probably a police van !

Al wrote:
...People believed they had accurately calculated the age of artefacts using carbon dating, until platinum dating was developed which cast serious doubts on the reliability of carbon.

Sorry to side-track but do have an online reference to "Platinum dating" please? All I've found is dating (As in boy meets girl) sites

Cheers.

Back on topic...

It seems there is an attitude here that newspapers don't let the facts get in the way of a good story - unless it chimes in with your own preconceived prejudice.

Mark Minick doesn't seem to appear anywhere else except the Daily Mail (The same article appears on This is London, credited to the Daily Mail and a straight lift. This is London is directly associated with the DM).

The story doesn't add up, it seems very selective. I couldn't tell you where I was a year ago but I could tell you where I was working. Having found a hair belonging to the man it doesn't seem too hard for him to realise he was working at the hospital that night - providing a double alibi, his whereabouts and how the hair got there.

The DNA test wasn't flawed, it was accurate. Blaming DNA testing is wide of the mark here.

I have no idea on the reliability of rape victims immediate statements and if anyone here has please site references. It may be quite usual for someone who has just been raped to give a confused account.

As has been pointed out on this forum numerous times taking a newspaper story as a fair, balanced and comprehensive review of the facts is not a good idea.

It still isn't a good idea.

No one said DNA wasn't accurate - we were criticising the total reliance that the police place on it.

Remind me ... was i Sally Clarke (or the other lady whose name now escapes me) that was told (in Court) that DNA showed she was a 77 million to one certainty the killer of her children (shortly before being acquitted altogether)?

In The Know wrote:
No one said DNA wasn't accurate - we were criticising the total reliance that the police place on it.

Remind me ... was i Sally Clarke (or the other lady whose name now escapes me) that was told (in Court) that DNA showed she was a 77 million to one certainty the killer of her children (shortly before being acquitted altogether)?
No, it was flawed statistical reasoning.