The only information we have from this case are those gathered and published by the British and Polish newspapers, both seem to be vogue and biased. The British press seemed to judge him guilty long before the verdict was announced and the polish press seemed to pay much bigger attention to the hard situation of Jakubs family rather than to the suffering of this poor British woman. (I haven’t seen any Polish articles and reports that would say that he was innocent, though, as some posters on this forum seemed to suggest). A very disappointing state of affairs if you ask me.
I’m not going to undermine the courts decision. I feel really disgust about the whole assault and ashamed that it was committed, not only by my fellow countryman, but by a Wielkopolanin at that. But maybe it would be better if some posters would put their emotions aside and start to be a little bit more objective? After all, as I stated at the beginning, we know only what the press told us. Did anybody actually saw the whole footage from the CCTV’s cameras? Does anybody know anything about the whole t-shirt with the number 8 thing? I read in some articles that the British police claimed that the rapist was wearing that kind of t-shirt, but it seems that they backed off from that idea later. Also, what about the fact that the blood of the rapist found on the face of the victim didn’t match Jakub’s blood? Anyone know more about it? A mature response would be appreciated.
mong wrote:
DNA match of 1 in a billion for semen found on the victim is evidence of what?
Here is a very interestig article. It wasn't written by a polish journalist BTW.
Various press reports released in early February make mention of a British case wherein a local police department confessed to having identified an innocent person as a criminal by a DNA test that was said to be in error. A U.K. police agency that had secured near 100 convictions on the basis of DNA testing, admitted that, as far back as April of 1999, they had matched a sample taken from the scene of a burglary to six loci on the DNA molecule of one of 700,000 persons whose DNA was collected in the national database. The suspect was a man with advanced Parkinson's disease, who could not drive and could barely dress himself. He lived 200 miles from the site of the burglary. His blood sample had been taken when he was arrested, and then released, after hitting his daughter in a family dispute. He was arrested despite his protestations of innocence and alibi evidence that he was babysitting a sick daughter at home. Police dismissed these protestations stating that "it had to be him" since the DNA matched. The odds of the arrestee's DNA being wrongly matched against that of the crime scene were said to be one in 37 million.
It is only when the suspect's solicitor demanded a retest using additional markers, after the suspect had been in jail for months, that further testing was done. This testing, using a total of 10 loci, showed an exclusion at the additional four loci. The interpretation of the original test's results, given by law enforcement officials, were proven to be inaccurate. The suspect was then released from custody. The new British ten-loci test, it is said, only "offers a one in one billion chance of a mismatch" according to Scotland's Evening News of February 9, 2000!
sourceAnd one more thing; does anyone know if the test thatwas used in Jakub's test was the LCN DNA test?
DNA test halted after Omagh case; Police have suspended the use of a controversial DNA technique following the Omagh bomb verdict.
source
top of page