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

Jonny Ingbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your final point, sadly, is not as outlandish as we would like it to be in England.
If we have learnt anything from Hillsbrough, Grenfell, Post Office etc - it is possible.

Specifically, as the article says, the failure to investigate the DNA looks to be totally incompetent.

Last point for those rightly saying no sum of money can make amends - he hasn’t had any yet.
He’s on benefits, I believe.
Justice eh?
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
With respect none of that is actually correct.
Click to expand...
In this particular case it pretty much was though. As the Guardian article put it:

During the attack, the victim suffered a bite that partially severed her left nipple, meaning saliva staining on the vest above the left breast was considered “crime specific” by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Click to expand...

"Crime specific" means here that it was DNA that could only have plausibly been left during commission of the crime. And the point is that the police and CPS knew it wasn't Malkinson's DNA, and that this virtually excluded the chance of him having been the rapist, 16 years before he was released.

The eye witness identification of him was also highly flawed. As another Guardian article stated:

Malkinson did not match key parts of [the victim's description of her attacker]: he was 3in taller, had chest hair when the victim said her attacker had none, and he had prominent tattoos on his forearms but none were mentioned. She also said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek, but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day.
Click to expand...

Andrew Malkinson is still fighting to clear his name 20 years after rape case
 
Liamo said:
In this particular case it pretty much was though. As the Guardian article put it:
Click to expand...
The point I was referring to was when you started "It proves straight away that it was someone else if the DNA doesn't match".

That view is absolutely wrong.

The presence of DNA alone is often not an indication of guilt in itself.

Rather, the context needs to be understood; DNA can be transferred via many different means, in many different scenarios and sometimes by an individual who had no involvement in the crime.
 
Liamo said:
In this particular case it pretty much was though. As the Guardian article put it:



"Crime specific" means here that it was DNA that could only have plausibly been left during commission of the crime. And the point is that the police and CPS knew it wasn't Malkinson's DNA, and that this virtually excluded the chance of him having been the rapist, 16 years before he was released.

The eye witness identification of him was also highly flawed. As another Guardian article stated:



Andrew Malkinson is still fighting to clear his name 20 years after rape case
Click to expand...
They also destroyed the evidence (luckily an independent lab had kept some) after agreeing to his request not to, as it could prove his innocence
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
The point I was referring to was when you stated "It proves straight away that it was someone else if the DNA doesn't match".

That view is absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...
I think you're getting me confused with somebody else. I never stated that.

The post of mine that you're replying to was my first post on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top