Police and CPS had key DNA evidence 16 years before Andrew Malkinson cleared of rape

It stinks to high heaven.

I feel so sorry for the man, no amount of money is going to give him back those 17 years or the untold damage to his life and reputation.
 
Bent is the word that I would use.
I can understand why you may take that view, but I don't agree.

The presence of the DNA isn't a golden bullet in terms of identifying the offender in this case and it has to be judged against the evidence available that convicted the guy in the first place.

It's poor judgement, but I can understand how it's happened.

Suggesting it's 'bent' is effectively implying a really wide ranging conspiracy between many people across three different organisations.
 



 
I can understand why you may take that view, but I don't agree.

The presence of the DNA isn't a golden bullet in terms of identifying the offender in this case and it has to be judged against the evidence available that convicted the guy in the first place.

It's poor judgement, but I can understand how it's happened.

Suggesting it's 'bent' is effectively implying a really wide ranging conspiracy between many people across three different organisations.

I think only a tiny, tiny minority of those in the organisations who convict criminals are definitively corrupt, but I believe a culture has evolved where results, statistics and finances are everything.
I believe because of this often, what becomes important is that someone is convicted of a crime, rather than the right person.
Which is why you get scenarios like the tragedy of Andrew Malkinson, where despite very convincing evidence that he was innocent those prosecuting don't want to waste time and resources and proceed despite knowing there is ample reason to doubt his guilt.
 
I think only a tiny, tiny minority of those in the organisations who convict criminals are definitively corrupt, but I believe a culture has evolved where results, statistics and finances are everything.
I believe because of this often, what becomes important is that someone is convicted of a crime, rather than the right person.
Which is why you get scenarios like the tragedy of Andrew Malkinson, where despite very convincing evidence that he was innocent those prosecuting don't want to waste time and resources and proceed despite knowing there is ample reason to doubt his guilt.
Have you got any evidence for suggesting that often all that matters is someone is convicted of a crime rather the right person?

It’s a very strong statement and I am keen to know what the basis for it is.
 
Last edited:
375 DNA exonerations - The vast majority (97%) of these people were wrongfully convicted of committing sexual assault and/or murder. Although these individuals were innocent of these crimes, approximately 25% had confessed and 11% had pleaded guilty. These exonerees spent an average of 14 years in prison–10% of whom spent 25 years or more in prison for crimes they didn’t commit.

innocenceproject

As for - any conviction will do - Casey Report into MET
 
Grim reading that.

I don't know the details of the case, or why the evidence that convicted him was believed to be so strong
The victim identified him (I cant recall whether it was an identity parade or selection of photos) but it is intimated that the police influenced her decision.

I feel for rape victim as well, she's thought the rapist has been caught, convicted & safely locked up for 17 years and now finds out they've been free (and still are free?). That must reopen a lot of old wounds for the poor lady.
 
Last edited:
I think only a tiny, tiny minority of those in the organisations who convict criminals are definitively corrupt, but I believe a culture has evolved where results, statistics and finances are everything.
I believe because of this often, what becomes important is that someone is convicted of a crime, rather than the right person.
Which is why you get scenarios like the tragedy of Andrew Malkinson, where despite very convincing evidence that he was innocent those prosecuting don't want to waste time and resources and proceed despite knowing there is ample reason to doubt his guilt.
I think you're right about what's gone on, and I think custodial sentences should be brought in for those committing what are crimes against an individual if those hiding the facts are found guilty. No hiding behind the institution.
 
Have you got any evidence for suggesting that often all that matters is someone is convicted of a crime rather the right person?

It’s a very strong statement and I am keen to know what the basis for it is.

I maybe put it a bit clumsily. I don’t think that the Police etc are deliberately prosecuting knowing for a certainty that people are innocent, but a culture where there is incredible pressure to achieve targets and save resources means that once prosecuting forces decide who they believe is responsible for a crime, those pressures mean they are very reluctant to charge their mind.
 
375 DNA exonerations - The vast majority (97%) of these people were wrongfully convicted of committing sexual assault and/or murder. Although these individuals were innocent of these crimes, approximately 25% had confessed and 11% had pleaded guilty. These exonerees spent an average of 14 years in prison–10% of whom spent 25 years or more in prison for crimes they didn’t commit.

innocenceproject

As for - any conviction will do - Casey Report into MET
I’m not sure about referencing a report from another country helps understand what has gone wrong in the English and Welsh criminal justice system.

As for the Casey report I have not read it but just reading the report on the BBC it doesn’t appear to be about “ any conviction will do”
 
I’m not sure about referencing a report from another country helps understand what has gone wrong in the English and Welsh criminal justice system.

As for the Casey report I have not read it but just reading the report on the BBC it doesn’t appear to be about “ any conviction will do”
expected, my point with the Casey report - many, many other places including the full report in PDF - was the conclusion draw of the MET - that the police routinely employ inept, corrupt & at best dubious people ( as they are drawn from society ) & that they take those traits into the job..

The US info I think - can - be used to highlight British failings.. how long does it take in the UK to get justice?? [ 1980's contaminated blood, Hillsborough, WMD, Post Office ]

The US, for all it's failings, does seem to get things done.. I think it points more to human nature & for some - so long as someone is guilty - that is often enough: case closed..
 
I can understand why you may take that view, but I don't agree.

The presence of the DNA isn't a golden bullet in terms of identifying the offender in this case and it has to be judged against the evidence available that convicted the guy in the first place.

It's poor judgement, but I can understand how it's happened.

Suggesting it's 'bent' is effectively implying a really wide ranging conspiracy between many people across three different organisations.
To sentence someone where there is a lack of DNA of that person present is truly worrying. It proves straight away that it was someone else if the DNA doesn't match.
 
The victim identified him (I cant recall whether it was an identity parade or selection of photos) but it is intimated that the police influenced her decision.

I feel for rape victim as well, she's thought the rapist has been caught, convicted & safely locked up for 17 years and now finds out they've been free (and still are free?). That must reopen a lot of old wounds for the poor lady.
Absolutely, as if it wasn't difficult enough for her.
To sentence someone where there is a lack of DNA of that person present is truly worrying. It proves straight away that it was someone else if the DNA doesn't match.

With respect none of that is actually correct.
 
Back
Top