Free David Ferguson

Help to right a grave miscarriage of justice....

Image of David Ferguson

Blog entry 14th May 2015

Progress has been made with the forensic report. The instructed forensic scientist Ms Jarman, has supplied the first part of the report.

In this she confirms the following:

  1. Only two sperm were identified over the two combined samples labelled as DAR/6 & 8.
  2. Of 20 bands that are read in a DNA sample only 3 match my profile.
  3. Her match statistic between myself and the crime scene sample is less than 1 in a billion

Dealing with each of these points in turn:

  1. For only two sperms to be found in two evidence samples described as 'spermal' by the prosecution is highly questionable. When a fertile male ejaculates tens of millions of sperm are deposited, so for only two to appear over two samples raises a number of possibilities.
    1. The samples are significantly older than the crime event (murder) itself.
    2. The depositor is all but infertile.
    3. The depositor wore or used spermicide.
    4. The DAR/6 & 8 samples have been contaminated either maliciously or through malpractice.
    As I am not infertile and there was no evidence of spermicide at the crime scene only scenarios a) and d) are left as reasonable explanations.
  2. Ms Jarman states in her report the 3 bands of the 20 that do match me are not common in the populus. However, this leaves 17 bands which do not match me. One of these bands does give a reading that doesn't match Susan Kent or myself. Other bands give no reading at all. Any of the missing bands could produce readings that completely exonerate me. This is a viable scenario that my trial jury were denied knowledge of by the prosecutions actions.
  3. At my trial the prosecution's evidence was that the match between myself and the crime scene and myself was 1 in a billion or more likely higher.

Ms Jarman is now making enquiries about being able to re-test the original crime scene samples. She will also produce a report exploring the different possibilities of how only 3 bands of my DNA could appear in the crime scene sample. This report should explore the points I have raised in respect of points 1 to 3

I have also asked Ms Jarman to address the fact that other unexplained DNA's are present at the crime scene, but other than the 3 bands out of 20 in the DAR/6 & 8 sample there is no other physical evidence to place me at the crime scene. I now feel very strongly that there are sufficient grounds to argue that the DAR/6 & 8 samples were most likely contaminated after they were removed from the murder scene.

There is additional evidence to support this position:-

  1. Kent Police's DC Causer admitted taking my DNA samples home with him, but gave no reasonable explanation for doing so. Prior to this the DAR/6 & 8 samples had been tested and gave no match to me. After this event the samples were re-tested and suddenly 3 bands out of 20 did match me.
  2. The prosecution's forensic scientist admitted in a later trial that his working practices could leave evidence in his charge open to cross-contamination
  3. Her match statistic between myself and the crime scene sample is less than 1 in a billion

I now await the next stage of Ms Jarman's investigations.

The Free David Ferguson website is maintained by The Friends of David Ferguson ©2012-2017