TeessideCleveland
Well-known member
![www.theguardian.com](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/594e5b56a659b83e547413b16e31965ae89c7ad8/0_94_3500_2100/master/3500.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc&enable=upscale&s=a916c8e2a254d7e5d812e38be01bb367)
Police and CPS had key DNA evidence 16 years before Andrew Malkinson cleared of rape
No action taken despite 2007 discovery of searchable male DNA profile on rape victim’s top that did not match Malkinson’s
Bent is the word that I would use.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, but this case demonstrates how our criminal justice system can occasionally be so flawed.
Yes, I can't imagine the mental agony he has gone through being stuck in prison when innocent.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.
I can understand why you may take that view, but I don't agree.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.
Have you got any evidence for suggesting that often all that matters is someone is convicted of a crime rather the right person?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.
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.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
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.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.
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.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
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..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”
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.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.
Absolutely, as if it wasn't difficult enough for her.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.
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.