Data Retention Regulations in the Lords

[John Brazier]

Roland Stated:

>I was under the impression that most of the time DNA evidence was used 
>to prove which of a fairly small number of suspects had done the crime, 
>rather than doing a country-wide trawl that turns up completely random 
>people (random in the sense you never otherwise suspected them). I 
>realise that the "CSI" model, and several "cold cases" we read about in 
>the papers, give the impression that completely "random" people turn up 
>as suspects, but once you've filtered out really trivial alibis like "I 
>was only seven at the time" how often is someone prosecuted who lives 
>300 miles away, and has absolutely no connection with the victim?

Well, there's this case:
<http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4NMgAMsdpNEC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=DNA+Ray
mond+parkinson+burglar&source=bl&ots=m5E5tMN9VU&sig=3cDvLxA4PZgiK6da8OMDk7wC
rXQ&hl=en&ei=IaDRSZCKOebKjAfj15X3Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result>
(Judicial Error and Forensic Science, Huff & Killias, p43)

There's also:
http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/DNA_Watters.html
although one could argue that the person in question had been arrested for a
similar offence, and he was in the same city!

That's two UK cases in two years.

JB