General DNA question

[Rik]

If the Police have clothing from a complainant about an alleged incident, if the DNA results showed a matched with the accused, wud this be brought up in the interview?

[lawlessone2009]

What you are saying depends on many factors.

When is the interview taking place? (immediately after the alleged offence, some years after?).
What 'type' of DNA has been discovered.
What is to be gained from bringing up the DNA results at interview. (Denial of contact/contested consent)
What the actual allegation is.


There are so many different questions that would need to be asked before any form of qualified answer could be given. A Police interview can take many different 'roads' as well from simple questioning to boxing the suspect into a corner.

For instance;

If during interview the suspect denies ANY contact with the accuser BUT the DNA says otherwise and the Police have it all recorded in interview that the accused has denied ANY contact then it would mean that the DNA would basically sentence him at trial as it would verge on impossible to change a plea to one involving contested consent... It could also be a case that the 'type' of DNA shows a different story from the one that the accused is sticking too.


The question you are seeking an answer for is incredibly difficult to answer. It is completely dependent on circumstance and also questions at interview. Even I cannot provide an answer and I've been through an extremely similar type of situation by the looks of it. If there is DNA there then it depends on what it is, what's alleged, what's been said in answer to the allegation etc as kind of detailed above.

A straight denial of 'contact' with the accused which later shows as 'probable contact' doesn't sit too well with a jury, especially where DNA is present.

If you could expand slightly then a more specific answer may be possible.

[Rik]

Thank you.

Ok cut to the chase.

I attended 2 police interviews. First interview one day after the attempted rape allegation and then another 2 months later.

It 'appears' swabs from the accuser were taken within a short time of the allegation and her clothes kept. Please note that at least several other people had close contact with her after the alleged incident.

Also, the bits of food was discovered several hours later in her garden and kept.

At no time did any dna confirmation come up in both police interviews. There was an attempt to say the food was mine based on a takeaway owner's statement saying he served the same food to me that night. The accuser is the only person saying the perp is me from a photo ID.

I was not charged at any interview but there was heavy attempts for the mobile I had that night.

A further 2 months later, when attending my bail, I was charged with touch without consent.

A couple of months later, I received a letter stating I could collect my clothes, computer, etc etc.

I received a disclosure bundle for my first County Court hearing, but no evidence shows any DNA. Just that the accuser's clothes were swabbed and frozen and the food was frozen.

What is your view?

[lawlessone2009]

Thank you.

Ok cut to the chase.

I attended 2 police interviews. First interview one day after the attempted rape allegation and then another 2 months later.

It 'appears' swabs from the accuser were taken within a short time of the allegation and her clothes kept. Please note that at least several other people had close contact with her after the alleged incident.

Also, the bits of food was discovered several hours later in her garden and kept.

At no time did any dna confirmation come up in both police interviews. There was an attempt to say the food was mine based on a takeaway owner's statement saying he served the same food to me that night. The accuser is the only person saying the perp is me from a photo ID.

I was not charged at any interview but there was heavy attempts for the mobile I had that night.

A further 2 months later, when attending my bail, I was charged with touch without consent.

A couple of months later, I received a letter stating I could collect my clothes, computer, etc etc.

I received a disclosure bundle for my first County Court hearing, but no evidence shows any DNA. Just that the accuser's clothes were swabbed and frozen and the food was frozen.

What is your view?

I would say that a jury would struggle to convict.

If there is no DNA and it's a 'present day' allegation (clothes etc taken within hours) then DNA would, in my opinion, be crucial for a jury to convict. Nothing is set in stone though but DNA, or lack of, is something that any good defence lawyer would make a big thing about.

As for 'touch without consent', it sounds a little odd to change from attempted rape to basically a low indecent assault. It could be that they are clutching at straws and hoping simply to get 'something' on you?

I am assuming you have a legal team in place?

If disclosure is through and the DNA isn't there then it's not there/been found where it shouldn't be. If it was there it'd probably be on the front page and you'd be charged with attempted rape.

[Rik]

many thanks,


That's exactly what the overall opinion is. And yes if there was incriminating DNA on the food or her then things would be different. I have had all my clothes back fromt he police etc so nothing found on them.

Yes I think the original "attempted rape" would stand with dna and witnesses.

I think it's guess work to incriminate me.

[lawlessone2009]

If you simplify it all...

A car salesman needs to sell cars.

A Police Officer needs to find and charge crimes...


What appears to have happened with you is that they've had a report in, investigated (not in any real sense!) and put forward their opinion.

It seems that the attempted rape isn't 'provable' but since they've spent that much time doing what they view as their job (open to question) they have to do something to justify it all so they still charge you with something... Something that doesn't take much in the way of quantifiable evidence and which 'could' result in a conviction.

You need to do the ground work to ensure that 'conviction' never materialises.

[Rik]

Thank you everyone.

It appears the reall crooks to the case is.

There was no rape etc. How could there be!

Its a drunk girl who made a complaint about being hit and touched in her garden by a guy with food.

Unfortunately all fingers are pointing at me coz i was alleged to have been in the area and alleged to have bought the same food as alleged.

The only person saying it is me is the girl but has given a open and vague description that could apply to any minority group.

All witnesses conflict in every way.

I am just scared that a girl has said someone and because I was to have been in the area, male, ethnic, etc I must be guilty.

I dont know how these things work coz Ive never been in this situation.

I dont atttack people with food for a "feel".

Ps - It was interesting watching the film "12 Angry men" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RelOJfFIyp8

[whatsgoingon?]

Hi Rik. I can understand your disbelief and distraught... we've been there. The whole process is so wearing that it's easy to doubt yourself when others are lying about you and to get confused by it.

The only thing I can say which I and others have already said to you is - unless you were too pissed to remember exactly what happened, write a clear list of the order of events as they happened that night entirely from your perspective (try forgetting the accusations for a moment).
-If you ate at home -what did you eat? Is there anyone in the building who remebers you cooking?
-If you don't eat kebabs, meat or certain types of meat, do you have anyone who can vouch for that (eg one of your parents)? - In court, you are entitled to have witnesses to speak in your defence.
-If you're allergic to kebabs - get a doctor's certificate.
- If that's not your route home or you took another one, is there anyone who can vouch for that?

You must get as much ammunition as possible to counter the claims.

I've just posted a very interesting talk on false memory under 'false allegations in the news ' you might care to look at - it seems it's relatively easy to suggest false information to people and they end up believing it themselves, so the fact she identified you may not be as solid as you might think.

Theoritically, you are innocent until proven guilty and it's for the defence to bring the evidence to prove it, but in these cases you must bring up as much solid evidence as possible. Ask your solicitor for to get a copy of any film available eg from the kebab shop or the street and study it carefully. Can you be clearly identified or not?

Your solicitor is also entitled to call on the help of an 'expert witness' eg to study the forensic reports/the identification on the CCTV. If you think this could help ask him/her about it.

[Rik]

Hi

Brilliant advice and support.

I do remember my full movements within reason. The CCTV is not clear at all. You cannot make out anything about clothes or features etc.

The police have used people who dont like me which was a shock because they were OK with me before.

What is the link to the talk you said? Ps i found this talk interesting - http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_frase...tml?quote=1856

Well u r right. Its because I felt worn out and what they must be saying is true - right?

Yes everything that I have said is true. I think you made me feel better by saying they need to get something on me.

You dont spend several months on a case and simply let it go - too many cogs turning.

I valuable my life and freedom and now people want to take it away.

[stressed out]

What you are saying depends on many factors.

When is the interview taking place? (immediately after the alleged offence, some years after?).
What 'type' of DNA has been discovered.
What is to be gained from bringing up the DNA results at interview. (Denial of contact/contested consent)
What the actual allegation is.


There are so many different questions that would need to be asked before any form of qualified answer could be given. A Police interview can take many different 'roads' as well from simple questioning to boxing the suspect into a corner.

For instance;

If during interview the suspect denies ANY contact with the accuser BUT the DNA says otherwise and the Police have it all recorded in interview that the accused has denied ANY contact then it would mean that the DNA would basically sentence him at trial as it would verge on impossible to change a plea to one involving contested consent... It could also be a case that the 'type' of DNA shows a different story from the one that the accused is sticking too.


The question you are seeking an answer for is incredibly difficult to answer. It is completely dependent on circumstance and also questions at interview. Even I cannot provide an answer and I've been through an extremely similar type of situation by the looks of it. If there is DNA there then it depends on what it is, what's alleged, what's been said in answer to the allegation etc as kind of detailed above.

A straight denial of 'contact' with the accused which later shows as 'probable contact' doesn't sit too well with a jury, especially where DNA is present.

If you could expand slightly then a more specific answer may be possible.

your absolutely right there. in my case, my so called friend had lied in the interview that he wasn't with me. after 3 weeks, he gave the interview again and he said, he wasn't with me. but police found dna of his near by the incident. that prove, that he was with me. so CPS must have thought, why is he lyng? that's mean he is hiding something. Now if he tells the truth, jury might not believe him because he lied in past.

sorry i just brought my case into this thread..