Well, I don't think it completely exonerates the CCRC. They don't seem to be intelligent customers of forensic science. At the very least, you'd think they'd have a policy of repeatedly reviewing this type of case to see if the science has moved on. But then I guess resources are a limitation.
see the statement from the CCRC ccrc.gov.uk/news/ccrc-re...
for me its a question of attitude to risk, the CCRC consider testing to be a risk.
That's a very lawyerly attitude: don't ask a question unless you know the answer. Do you know if any of the CCRC investigators have a background in forensic science (or science of any kind)? To me the CVs of the commissioners don't reveal any great expertise in scientific criminal investigation.
yes indeed. They say they have former forensic scientists reviewing cases
The commissioners appear to be the usual establishment types who end up in nicely paid part time government jobs. I wonder who their forensic science reviewers are?
I also think they were specifically wary of DNA after the Hanratty debacle.
is fairly incredible that you couldn't go back on the PACE breaches and crappy bitemark evidence... but that's just me guessing. Still means there are MASSIVE holes in our supposed 'safety net' for miscarriages.
Yes. I quoted from the report. Without knowing the exact nature of the semen sample available, I can't comment on the potential for successful testing in 2008. But in 2008, I'd have been very sceptical of a "no" from the organisation whose failings in DNA profiling were revealed by Operation Cube.