Heartland

R.I.P Stephen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953

Flagg

Well, partial justice. There's another three of the scumbags still walking free.

Strange to think it was the Daily Mail that made the murder into a cause celebre.I think any half-decent lawyer could get those two released on appeal though. The DNA evidence isnt that convincing, and apart from them being two very unpleasant people I don't see what else there really is.

The Daily Heil came damn close to prejudicing the trial(s) with that "Murderers" headline.

Well, quite. I dont honestly see how the convictions can stick if they claim they could never have recieved a fair trial and that the evidence could easily have been cross-contaminated. Mind you, cant see any lawyer wanting to touch their case with a bargepole.

DeWinter wrote:they claim [...] the evidence could easily have been cross-contaminated.

Well, that's the thing isn't it? AFAIK the cross-contamination claim doesn't stand up. This was all gone over in the trial. To get an appeal, don't they have to bring in new evidence?

And all the alleged prejudice in the world doesn't excuse Stephen Lawrence's DNA being found on Dobson's jacket.

markfiend wrote: Well, that's the thing isn't it? AFAIK the cross-contamination claim doesn't stand up. This was all gone over in the trial. To get an appeal, don't they have to bring in new evidence?

And all the alleged prejudice in the world doesn't excuse Stephen Lawrence's DNA being found on Dobson's jacket.

Chances are they are guilty, but the evidence as far as I can see is shonky. Leaving bags of evidence open in the same room and having it handled by people with no formal training isnt permitted now for that very reason. And the fact that this was the smallest amount of DNA evidence used in a British prosecution does at least offer doubt on how reliable that evidence really is.

DeWinter wrote:Leaving bags of evidence open in the same room and having it handled by people with no formal training isnt permitted now for that very reason.

Like I say, I understand that the cross-contamination thing was brought up at trial and found not to stand up.

DeWinter wrote:And the fact that this was the smallest amount of DNA evidence used in a British prosecution does at least offer doubt on how reliable that evidence really is.

The amount is irrelevant though. It's not like a fingerprint where a partial print is of less evidential quality than a full print. Every cell (except red blood cells) has the full complement of DNA for the whole person.

I'm not exactly sure how good PCR DNA amplification has got these days, but in principle, a single cell's DNA is all that's needed for a match.

markfiend wrote:I'm not exactly sure how good PCR DNA amplification has got these days, but in principle, a single cell's DNA is all that's needed for a match.

In ideal circumstances! But a friend of mine analysed old corpses' DNA for her biology master not too long ago, and from what she explained me, I understand that DNA breaks, falls into pieces, decomposes etc., just like any other thing organic. She said you'd typically find some broken pieces, shred them to powder, make it into a pudding, and then analyse that. She said that's why cross-contamination is such a problem, cause in real life conditions, you'd typically find a mess of snippets of different peoples' DNAs including your own and the neighbours' cat's.