Data Retention Regulations in the Lords

[Roland Perry]

In article <016b01c9b1bd$bcf7c6e0$36e754a0$@co.uk>, John Brazier 
<prunesquallor@proproco.co.uk> writes
>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)

I'd much prefer the judicial system to have reforms such that people 
weren't locked up for "several" months, without bail, for a reasonably 
minor offence such as burglary, while protesting that kind of innocence. 
Irrespective of why they were initially accused.

>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!

It's not clear from skimming that article why the brothers were 
overlooked.

>That's two UK cases in two years.

Have things improved since 1999? I hope so. Like routinely testing the 
brothers too.
-- 
Roland Perry