Thank god for technology just seen this in local paper.
www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/jail-for-double-leeds-rapist-33-years-after-attacks-1-4658085
I know the bloke as a guy at work only bit of a ladies man glad they caught him, now lets catch the rest.
Id love to know how the police do it ?
|
If the police have 'detected' him after 33 years before matching DNA as proof, that doesn't say much for the original investigation.
Perhaps more likely that they DNA sampled the evidence from the crime and matched it to DNA on file already.
Still a result though.
|
|
Any result like that is a good result, even if its a bit late. Victims need to know that nobody gets away with it if the Police can help it.
|
|
So what do we think about the sentence. Womans life effectively ended early, and anothers life ruined. And what did he get.
|
|
Ten years is a long time for a 51 year old to spend behind bars, even if he is out on licence after seven. Sex offenders are on the bottom rung of the ladder in jail and he'll be in constant fear of attack.
|
|
The Great Train robbers got 30.
|
>> The Great Train robbers got 30.
>>
Property is more important than people in the real world, or so it seems.
Mind you, modern sentencing is often derisory for all sorts of crime.
|
>> If the police have 'detected' him after 33 years before matching DNA as proof, that
>> doesn't say much for the original investigation.
It says nothing of the sort.
DNA testing didn't start until the mid 80's. 33 years ago = 1979, so there was no DNA investigation back then. When it did start it was fairly crude and used up or needed a lot of sample, if you had one. Since then the techniques used and the technology have gradually got better and better, so it could easily have had to wait until modern times.
The other thing is his (or a family member's) DNA might not have been on file until recently. No match on file = no suspect.
|
>> >> If the police have 'detected' him after 33 years before matching DNA as proof,
>> that
>> >> doesn't say much for the original investigation.
>>
>>
>> It says nothing of the sort.
You missed my point, which was that if the police examined 33 year old evidence and found the suspect without benefit of DNA...etc.
It seems more likely as you suggest that the physical evidence has been re-examined and found to match a subsequent record on the database, either the offender's or a familial one - nothing wrong with that, provided supporting evidence can then be found.
|
...and found to match a subsequent record on the database...
I did one in which a rapist was arrested for urinating in the street about 10 years after the rape.
Routine DNA sample taken, routinely run through the database.
Match found, with the result that seven years for rape was added to his £30 fine for pointing percy at the pavement.
|
This DNA thing has to be understood. Firstly there was no such thing as DNA testing 33 years ago. This was introduced in the mid 80's. Secondly DNA chemistry has progressed with profiles being made from smaller and smaller samples.
Cold case reviews churn over historical offences. Eventually DNA lifts can be undertaken, processed with the advancing technologies and profiled. Matches come to light many years after the original offence when the suspect gets themselves arrested and DNA taken as a matter of course. They may have never been the subject of attention from the Police until that point. Bingo you have a match.
|
|
Is there an echo in the backroom? :)
|
Of course there needs to be more than simply DNA evidence to convict.
Plenty of people have (successfully) used the "it was consensual" defence to thwart DNA - thorough investigating and record keeping is always vital to achieve convictions.
|
>> Plenty of people have (successfully) used the "it was consensual" defence to thwart DNA -
>> thorough investigating and record keeping is always vital to achieve convictions.
And how do you prove/disprove consent?
|
...And how do you prove/disprove consent?...
Difficult, so you stick it before a jury and hope for whichever is the right result for you.
There's not much in the way of direction from the judge, although it has now been more or less established that a woman can be too drunk to give consent.
|
This is a difficult one for me....
The original crimes are horrific and have ruined 2 lives. If caught at the time, he would have served some time and now be free. Part of that time served would be punishment and part of it would maybe be regarded as trying to "help" him to prevent re-offending.
If my reading of this is correct, he has now went on to have 33 years crime free (although I do wonder why they suddenly have got his DNA?). If he left prison and went on to have a normal family life and no more crime, the prison authorities would have been delighted with the outcome.
At this stage does it do anyone any good to have him locked up? There are a lot of people who it won't benefit including the taxpayer, his family, friends and employer. In a way, he might be safer inside though.
If it was a member of my family that he had raped, 33 years aon I would probably still want him hung. But being remote from it does give me mixed thoughts.
|
Well done to the Police............ - Manatee
