Outcry as charges dropped in rape case despite DNA link
Paul Nutteing
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1738622005
Sat 6 Aug 2005
Outcry as charges dropped in rape case despite DNA link
NICOLA STOW
CRIME REPORTER
A MAN charged with raping an Edinburgh schoolgirl after a DNA test linked
him to the alleged attack 13 years ago has been told the case against him
has been dropped.
Police charged Iain Orr, 33, with the offence in June last year after he was
arrested for another minor non-sexual assault and provided a mouth-swab
sample.
But the procurator fiscal has decided it is "not in the public interest" to
proceed with the rape case, and has refused to explain why.
Politicians today demanded an explanation be given for why the case was
dropped, saying that the public had a right to know.
Analysis of the DNA swab taken from Orr using the national database, found a
direct match with the alleged rape of the 15-year-old girl in a common
stairwell at the top of Leith Walk back in 1992.
Orr, understood to be a contractor from the Drumbrae area of the city, was
unaware his DNA had been stored on the database until his arrest last year.
Samples taken from the crime scene at the time were not put into the
national database until six years after the alleged rape, during a "cold
case" review by police and forensic scientists.
Police arrested the man after the results of the extensive DNA search came
back in June last year with a positive match.
A report was then sent to the procurator fiscal but no further action is to
be taken.
A Crown Office spokesman said: "After examining the case, the fiscal has
decided it is not in the public interest to proceed with this in court."
Neither the Crown Office or the police would say why the case had been
dropped.
However, politicians today criticised the decision.
SNP justice spokesman, Kenny MacAskill, said: "Maybe there is a good reason
why the fiscal decided not to proceed with this case. However, the fiscal
also has a duty to satisfy the public and they are entitled to know why.
"After all, most people would expect this crime to be pursued rigorously no
matter what the passage of time, irrespective of whether this man is
currently serving a sentence. This should not be a difficult case to
prosecute - DNA is usually bang-on."
Despite extensive police inquiries at the time, no-one was arrested for the
alleged rape of the teenager in the summer of 1992.
It was alleged the youngster was attacked in the stair of a block of flats
in Elm Row on July 20.
DNA was taken from the scene, but no means existed at the time to carry out
extensive searches based on DNA samples. It wasn't until 1995 that a
national DNA database was set up and samples taken from arrested males began
to be collected at police stations across the country as a matter of course.
The database has DNA samples from across Scotland, but can also be linked
into the UK system.
Three years later - and six years after the attack - forensic scientists
took the sample and put it on the DNA database as part of a wide-reaching
cold cases review.
Mr Orr's arrest after a nightclub brawl in August 2003, and the subsequent
routine sample taken from him, was enough at the time for police to link him
to the alleged rape 12 years before.
A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman today said the force was unable to
comment on the fiscal's decision.
Scottish Tory justice spokeswoman Annabel Goldie said she could not comment
on individual cases, but added: "The fiscal may have very good reason for
making this decision, it is important for public confidence that the reasons
for not proceeding with prosecution are made clear."
End Quote
Edinburgh added
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
Paul Nutteing
message
news:pan.2005.08.07....@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk...
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:50:03 +0100, Paul Nutteing wrote:
>
> > Perhaps its a Celtic thing - this is a very rare example of
> > enlightened judiciary
> > http://www.online.ie/news/viewer.adp?article=%203040050
> > Man freed after DNA evidence deemed not enough
> >
> > 2003-10-14 12:50:04+01
> >
> > A Dublin man on trial for murder walked free today when the Central
Criminal
> > Court jury was directed to acquit because DNA evidence alone could not
be
> > relied upon.
> >
> > Mr Justice Butler's direction to the jury to acquit on murder and
firearms
> > charges followed defence submissions that, as there was no corroborative
> > evidence to support the DNA evidence, the jury should be instructed to
> > acquit the accused Frederick Howe.
>
> Well maybe LJ Butler is mathematically literate.
>
The following is a recent response to same posting on
the main forensic 'science' group
Wait a minute--If he was "unaware that his DNA had
been stored on the database until his arrest last
year" , how did the authorities get his DNA in the
first place? There's no mention that his DNA would
have been in their database other than the fact that
he left it at the scene of a rape. Perhaps those who
are worried about possible misappropriation of their
genetic material should be a little more careful about
where they deposit it.
My reply
I would have expected far more precision on this
group.
"HIS" DNA has not been found anywhere.
A set of numbers that may reflect the biology of a miniscule
subset of his DNA has been matched via a computer database
to the same set of numbers derived from a crime scene
sample stored, more than likely in less than ideal
circumstances, which may or may not reflect
a miniscule subset of SOMEONE'S DNA left at
a crime scene 13 years previously and analysed
many years later.
Norma
> Sat 6 Aug 2005
>
> Outcry as charges dropped in rape case despite DNA link
>
> NICOLA STOW
> CRIME REPORTER
>
> A MAN charged with raping an Edinburgh schoolgirl after a DNA test linked
> him to the alleged attack 13 years ago has been told the case against him
> has been dropped.
>
> Police charged Iain Orr, 33, with the offence in June last year after he was
> arrested for another minor non-sexual assault and provided a mouth-swab
> sample.
>
>
> But the procurator fiscal has decided it is "not in the public interest" to
> proceed with the rape case, and has refused to explain why.
>
> Politicians today demanded an explanation be given for why the case was
> dropped, saying that the public had a right to know.
>
> Analysis of the DNA swab taken from Orr using the national database, found a
> direct match with the alleged rape of the 15-year-old girl in a common
> stairwell at the top of Leith Walk back in 1992.
>
> What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
> and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
> http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
> or nutteingd in a search engine
> Ignoring the widespread posting and the 'Arent telling you' bit - which suggest an agenda behind this post - it mayvery simply be that the complainant
has had a chance to rebuild her life after a shocking experience and now
sees no reason to put herself into the spotlight once more. Yes - we
should be told why but in cases such as this where offensive
cross-examination is likely, I am prepared to trust those who know.
Unless someone can produce evidence that it is the accused who is being
favoured rather than the victim, I'm content. Justice does NOT always
have to be seen to be done.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Paul Nutteing
news:dd4mh2$6gl$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Paul Nutteing wrote:
> > Sat 6 Aug 2005
> >
> > Outcry as charges dropped in rape case despite DNA link
> >
> > NICOLA STOW
> > CRIME REPORTER
> >
> > A MAN charged with raping an Edinburgh schoolgirl after a DNA test
linked
> > him to the alleged attack 13 years ago has been told the case against
him
> > has been dropped.
> >
> > Police charged Iain Orr, 33, with the offence in June last year after he
was
> > arrested for another minor non-sexual assault and provided a mouth-swab
> > sample.
> >
> >
> > But the procurator fiscal has decided it is "not in the public interest"
to
> > proceed with the rape case, and has refused to explain why.
> >
> > Politicians today demanded an explanation be given for why the case was
> > dropped, saying that the public had a right to know.
> >
> > Analysis of the DNA swab taken from Orr using the national database,
found a
> > direct match with the alleged rape of the 15-year-old girl in a common
> > stairwell at the top of Leith Walk back in 1992.
>
> >
> > and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
> > http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
> > or nutteingd in a search engine
>
suggest an agenda behind this post - it mayvery simply be that the
complainant
> has had a chance to rebuild her life after a shocking experience and now
> sees no reason to put herself into the spotlight once more. Yes - we
> should be told why but in cases such as this where offensive
> cross-examination is likely, I am prepared to trust those who know.
> Unless someone can produce evidence that it is the accused who is being
> favoured rather than the victim, I'm content. Justice does NOT always
> have to be seen to be done.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
If the victim has moved on then fair enough.
Her name has not been divulged to the media
and no hindrance for this as an explanation to be
released to the media.
Exposing corrupt Wiltshire social workers
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm
or nutteing3 in a search engine
Norma
> If the victim has moved on then fair enough.
> Her name has not been divulged to the media
> and no hindrance for this as an explanation to be
> released to the media.
Doubtless the authority has learned that when they release one bit of
additional
information, the do-gooders and trolls seize upon this to poke their
little rodent like noses into and keep chipping away. No is no. Live
with it.
Paul Nutteing
news:dd5svd$lnm$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Paul Nutteing" <nutt...@quickfindit.com> wrote in message
> news:3lkab4F...@individual.net...
> >I reckon I know why - anyone else care to speculate?
> > http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1738622005
> >
> > Outcry as charges dropped in rape case despite DNA link
> >
> > NICOLA STOW
> > CRIME REPORTER
> >
> > A MAN charged with raping an Edinburgh schoolgirl after a DNA test
linked
> > him to the alleged attack 13 years ago has been told the case against
him
> > has been dropped.
> >
>
not
> or the crown may not be able to proceed.
>
> There are a lot of possible reasons: -
>
> The victim may be dead.
>
> The victim may not want to press charges.
>
> Consent might be an issue (e.g. if there was claims of a drug deal or
> whatever)
>
> There might be alibi - e.g if the defendant was elsewhere at the time of
the
> alleged offence, but had had consensual (in so far as that is possible
with
> an allegedly underage girl) intimacy with the [alleged] victim in the
> preceding 36 - 48 hours.
>
> Plus any other grounds a good lawyer might come up with!
>
>
>
>
All of which are valid scenarios but are any of them
grounds for non disclosure of the reason by the Fiscal ?
None of the reasons would if released in general tems would
disclose the victim's identity any more
than the recent announcement has informed any relatives
etc previously aware of the original crime.
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Norma
Why does non-disclosure require any grounds? i.e. What legislation or
regulations require the authorities to give reasons for following a
course of action which is delegated to them? To what degree of
explanation does a bus driver have to go when he says 'bus is full'?
He is man who has duty of controlling passenger numbers and he has
announced his decision. He is not required at ever stop to parade the
passengers for counting by the discredulous or produce all the Acts and
Regulations that govern the passenger load of his bus. Presumably, the
self-righteous would then demand he prove his actual bus was exactly as
stated in the regulations and that none of these had been incorrectly
drafted or badly promulgated. Declare an interest in this exercise or
just accept it. There are - surely - other things in life that you could
be pursuing to greater common good.
Paul Nutteing
news:3lulqqF...@individual.net...
> Paul Nutteing wrote:
> > Who is going to believe whatever a rapist says
> > in is own defense to friends and family.
>
> the procurator fiscal, evidently....
>
>
I posted the same article to the forensic 'scientists' on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science/messages
open access to read.
It stirred up a hornet's nest
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm