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

Shock horror, not.

The trust in our police has just been eroded further and further but apparently on another thread, people trust the police explicitly.

I trust not a single of of the boys or girls in blue.
 
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.
 
TeaCider said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can't imagine the mental agony he has gone through being stuck in prison when innocent.
 
Trug said:
Bent is the word that I would use.
Click to expand...
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.
 
news.sky.com

Andrew Malkinson criticises apology from Criminal Cases Review Commission after he was wrongly jailed for 17 years

Andrew Malkinson was wrongly convicted of rape in 2003 and spent 17 years in jail before his conviction was quashed after years protesting his innocence when new DNA evidence emerged.
news.sky.com news.sky.com



www.theguardian.com

Criminal Cases Review Commission apologises to Andrew Malkinson for handling of case

Chair Helen Pitcher says she is ‘deeply sorry’ for failing man jailed for 17 years for rape he did not commit
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
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...

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 Card Cheat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
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
Click to expand...
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:
The Card Cheat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Angus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BobUpnDown said:
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
Click to expand...
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”
 
Angus said:
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”
Click to expand...
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..
 
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...
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.
 
newusername said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, as if it wasn't difficult enough for her.
jetpropelledgiraffe said:
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.
Click to expand...

With respect none of that is actually correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top