GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #13

[kINGFISHER]

How can we be sure of anything CJ is released VT in the dock. We know nothing about why CJ was arrested, released or anything else, we know even less about VT the main suspect. We do know that particular area has more of its fair share of like minded people both at 44 and 42 , clever people, who know what they are doing. The person crying that gave information to the police about VT is vital in this case I would imagine and it may be someone not even mentioned before . We can only put our trust in the police cps etc , but then again we have already discussed that issue.

 

[mrbond]

What next in the newspapers, details of the LL's flat currently on sale, (hasn't he suffered enough?) JY's will, (how do they find this information?) It occurred to me when I was reading from the text highlighted below, how can any member of a jury that’s been chosen for VT’s up and coming trial remain impartial. Answer, they can’t! Taking into account the past TV footage ,UK newspaper stories revealing everything about the case which almost certainly they will have seen/read, it’s impossible.
They will have formed some sort of an opinion before they even sit in court and that isn’t right in my book. They should ban press coverage as soon as anyone is suspected once and for all, nothing should be allowed to be aired/written until after the trial is over. Whatever any of us think of VT, he should be given a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty. We all want justice for J, but also we want the person responsible for this terrible crime convicted and jailed .

Jurors must not talk about the case with others not on the jury, even their spouses or families, and must not read about the case in the newspapers. They should avoid radio and television broadcasts that might mention the case. The jury's verdict must be based on nothing else but the evidence and law presented to them in court.

http://www.flnd.uscourts.gov/jurors/jurorAttire.cfm

I would have thought a jury these days get more influenced by discussion forums than the press as the analysis of known facts and the presentation of theories are incisive and bountiful respectively.

 

[goldielox]

The trial's at least another seven months away. We won't see anything much about VT in the press before then and we haven't really seen much about him prior to him being charged either.

I think, because all of us are so interested in the case and know so much about it because we've followed events so closely, its easy to think it would be hard to find a jury who hasn't also done likewise.

The reality of it will probably be that most of the jury didn't pay that much attention to the case at all at the time it was in the media. If I've mentioned the case to friends, family or colleagues I've been met mostly with blank looks, then a disinterested "oh yeah...that girl in Bristol". That was when the case was still "hot news". By October I doubt they'll even remember it was "that girl in Bristol" if asked before the trial starts and is in the media once more.

 

[aneurin]

Can the courts still get a conviction using LCN DNA as evidence against the accused? The use of it was suspended for a few months during a review of it's soundness but reinstated.

Well to get a conviction all you really need to do is persuade at least 10 out of 12 jurors to agree on a guilty verdict. As things stand a LCN DNA match could well be at least part of the argument used to achieve that result.

Personally I don't think that there is anything wrong with LCN as such, it's more of a case that with LCN the forensic techs have pushed the available technology to the limit. Hence you have to pay even more attention than usual to the answers to the standard questions. (Whose DNA is it? Where did you find it? How did it get there?)

As i understand it if I dance with a someone in a club my DNA from my skin cells will quite possibly get onto her clothing and hands. If later she is found murdered on her way home and my DNA is discovered and I am on the DNA database I will get arrested.

The DNA is yours, it was found on the victim's clothing, it got there whilst you were dancing together in the club. Hence the discovery of your DNA traces on her clothing is of no particular importance. (Of course, it would help if you could prove that you were dancing together.)

Where are the safeguards?

Try http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_checklist.html

 

[mrbond]

Thank you aneurin. I read the link and it is more to do with scientific integrity than anything else. I might have a problem convincing my innocence if I had a few drinks was seen chatting to her. She could well have lots of other DNA on her but no match as the other DNA is not on the database. It's a bit scary

 

[veggiefan]

Thank you aneurin. I read the link and it is more to do with scientific integrity than anything else. I might have a problem convincing my innocence if I had a few drinks was seen chatting to her. She could well have lots of other DNA on her but no match as the other DNA is not on the database. It's a bit scary

DNA evidence has acquired a status that it doesn't always deserve. Read the case of the man with advanced Parkinson's, who can barely dress himself, let alone drive, who was arrested for carrying out a break-in 200 miles from his home in the middle of the night, on the basis of DNA:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/guilty-by-a-handshake-crime-scene-dna-tests-may-not-be-as-accurate-as-we-are-led-to-believe-1.21671

If LCN DNA is involved in this case (and I don't know if it is), it is doubtful that it would play a significant role in conviction - it is more normally used to eliminate suspects rather than convict them.

 

[aneurin]

Thank you aneurin. I read the link and it is more to do with scientific integrity than anything else. I might have a problem convincing my innocence if I had a few drinks was seen chatting to her. She could well have lots of other DNA on her but no match as the other DNA is not on the database. It's a bit scary

In this hypothetical example, the discovery of DNA traces on the vitim's clothing shows that you were in close physical contact with the victim at some point prior to her death. Which you were.

After all, the minute you became aware of the police appeal for information regarding the murder, and you recognised the victim as being the girl you were dancing with that night, you did contact the police and provide them with a witness statement didn't you? You do realise that the police will be tracing her movements prior to her death, and that DNA or no DNA they will eventually be looking for you?

I'd agree with that.

Read the case of the man with advanced Parkinson's, who can barely dress himself, let alone drive, who was arrested for carrying out a break-in 200 miles from his home in the middle of the night, on the basis of DNA: http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...elieve-1.21671

Oh, I can do better than that. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12310494

If LCN DNA is involved in this case (and I don't know if it is), it is doubtful that it would play a significant role in conviction - it is more normally used to eliminate suspects rather than convict them.

In principle DNA testing always provides exculpatory rather than inculpatory evidence. It is an investigative tool that is used to eliminate suspects. Until that is you've found someone that you can't eliminate using DNA, at which point they become a member of a very small suspect pool indeed.

As to what role any particular piece of evidence might or might not have in securing any particular conviction, that is entirely a matter for the jury. Given that the Forensic Science Service claims that LCN has featured in over 20,000 cases, I would imagine that it is very possible that LCN evidence was pivotal in securing a conviction in at least some of those cases.

 

[mrbond]

After all, the minute you became aware of the police appeal for information regarding the murder, and you recognised the victim as being the girl you were dancing with that night, you did contact the police and provide them with a witness statement didn't you? You do realise that the police will be tracing her movements prior to her death, and that DNA or no DNA they will eventually be looking for you?

I had a few drinks I don't remember who I was talking to. I had the misfortune to talk to her and have a dance. I can see how LCN DNA can go wrong. I still think it's scary.

 

[Cherwell]

I had a few drinks I don't remember who I was talking to. I had the misfortune to talk to her and have a dance. I can see how LCN DNA can go wrong. I still think it's scary.

What's the relevance of LCN in this scenario, though? If someone innocently came into contact with a victim and left their DNA as you describe, then it's their DNA, no argument. All it proves is that they had contact.

 

[mrbond]

What's the relevance of LCN in this scenario, though? If someone innocently came into contact with a victim and left their DNA as you describe, then it's their DNA, no argument. All it proves is that they had contact.

In an ideal world where the police are not under extreme pressure due to media frenzy already having arrested the wrong suspect and don't take professional misjudgments where the defence are doing their job, where the jury are not bamboozled with science., nothing can go wrong can it?

 

[aneurin]

I had a few drinks I don't remember who I was talking to. I had the misfortune to talk to her and have a dance. I can see how LCN DNA can go wrong. I still think it's scary.

Yes, but the LCN hasn't 'gone wrong', has it? It is your DNA after all.

From your point of view perhaps the LCN DNA has 'gone wrong' because it has enabled the police to identify and trace you, but from everyone else's point of view it has gone very right. We'd like the murder solved thank you very much. You're either the perp or a potential witness, and we want the police to find you and interview you.

 

[aneurin]

In an ideal world where the police are not under extreme pressure due to media frenzy already having arrested the wrong suspect and don't take professional misjudgments where the defence are doing their job, where the jury are not bamboozled with science., nothing can go wrong can it?

It's very rare for the police to arrest the 'wrong suspect'. Usually they at least manage to arrest the right people. Arresting suspects is what the police do during a criminal investigation. Sometimes the arrest results in the suspect being charged with a crime, sometimes it doesn't.

I think you're simply giving DNA evidence a "status that it doesn't always deserve". So the lab techs have swabbed the victim's clothes, run some tests on the DNA traces, and come up with your name. Thus you may find yourself in a windowless room being questioned by some detectives from the Murder Squad. But if you had the bad luck to have danced in a nightclub with a woman who turned up dead shortly afterwards, that would have happened anyway. The forensic evidence has just provided the police with a convenient method of tracking you down. Otherwise they'd have to put your photofit on the front page of the newspapers. And that really would upset your mum.

 

[mrbond]

Yes, but the LCN hasn't 'gone wrong', has it? It is your DNA after all.

From your point of view perhaps the LCN DNA has 'gone wrong' because it has enabled the police to identify and trace you, but from everyone else's point of view it has gone very right. We'd like the murder solved thank you very much. You're either the perp or a potential witness, and we want the police to find you and interview you.

I'm innocent and I'm convicted, who has it gone right for? My mum would be the only one as she is glad to get me out of the house.

 

[mrbond]

It's very rare for the police to arrest the 'wrong suspect'. Usually they at least manage to arrest the right people. Arresting suspects is what the police do during a criminal investigation. Sometimes the arrest results in the suspect being charged with a crime, sometimes it doesn't.

I think you're simply giving DNA evidence a "status that it doesn't always deserve". So the lab techs have swabbed the victim's clothes, run some tests on the DNA traces, and come up with your name. Thus you may find yourself in a windowless room being questioned by some detectives from the Murder Squad. But if you had the bad luck to have danced in a nightclub with a woman who turned up dead shortly afterwards, that would have happened anyway. The forensic evidence has just provided the police with a convenient method of tracking you down. Otherwise they'd have to put your photofit on the front page of the newspapers. And that really would upset your mum.

I thought it was clear I was talking about going down for a crime I did not commit not suspicion.

 

[whiterum]

How can we be sure of anything CJ is released VT in the dock. We know nothing about why CJ was arrested, released or anything else, we know even less about VT the main suspect. The person crying that gave information to the police about VT is vital in this case I would imagine and it may be someone not even mentioned before. /QUOTE]

Will we ever know who the crying woman was either, or will she keep her anonymity. If so, who knows it could be a crying man, someone in desperation to get a result :banghead: if you get my drift :shush:

 

[whiterum]

I'm innocent and I'm convicted, who has it gone right for? My mum would be the only one as she is glad to get me out of the house.

Since you were wrongly convicted, it has gone right for the real culprit mrbond. Your mum might not be so glad when she has to visit you in prison for the next 20 years.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Will we ever know who the crying woman was either, or will she keep her anonymity. If so, who knows it could be a crying man, someone in desperation to get a result :banghead: if you get my drift :shush:

I do, get your drift , but what do you make of the web photo? Always thought some involvement but not the sole perpetrator. I think your view may be different not involved at all, am I right. Not too obscure I hope, difficult to know how much we can discuss at this stage.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Sorry I am thinking you know which one I mean but you may not.

 

[aneurin]

I thought it was clear I was talking about going down for a crime I did not commit, not suspicion.

I thought it was clear I was talking about going down for a crime I did not commit not suspicion.

Well, no actually.

So anyway, basically what you're saying is this, 'I might be wrongly convicted of murder because the criminal justice system will misinterpret some scientific evidence.' Well that's perfectly true ... stuff happens. But I'm not so sure that I'd be that worried about being convicted for murder just because I'd been dancing with the murder victim shortly before her death. (There is at least one person who danced with Melanie Hall in a nightclub shortly before her murder in 1996, and they're still free and unconvicted.) I think you should more worried about being wrongly convicted because of dodgy witness IDs or the application of the common purpose doctrine. That's far more likely to get you a season ticket to HMP Wakefield.

 

[Myserty64]

We are into March.
Why hasn't VT's legal team applied for bail? If the case against him is as weak as some suggest then surely a bail application is a given.

I presume the first suspect arrested is still on police bail. If so, it's been a while.