Free David Ferguson

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

Image of David Ferguson

Blog entry 15th June 2015

At the time of writing this there haven't been any new developments regarding the forensics review or my appeal. In view of this I'll recap on some specific points and facts relating to the crime scene and the prosecution's case against me.

Key to this is the fact that the prosecution only presented a single piece of evidence to link me to the crime scene physically. This is item DAR/6 & 8, two dna swabs taken from Susan Kent's external vaginal and anal locales. The prosecution's case states that these swabs are spermal and were deposited in the process of a sexual assault. It is also the prosecution's case that the assault and murder took place in Susan Kent's bedroom between the hours of 10:30am and 13:00 hrs.

All of the crime scene was forensically examined, not just the bedroom in which Susan Kent was found, but the entire property. Despite this the only physical linking evidence the prosecution could produce was what could only be best described as trace evidence on Susan Kent's body. The two combined 'DAR' samples only yielded 2 sperm heads and failed to produce a full genetic profile, the latter information being withheld from the jury by the prosecution.

As the prosecution's case is that the murderer carried out a sustained sexual assault over a period of up to 3½ hours, centred in the one room of the victim's home, it is illogical that the murderer did not leave significant forensic evidence behind. Instead the prosecution's case is that only two minute samples that fail to give a full profile is all that was left at the crime scene. Further to this both samples were supposedly found on the external areas of the deceased's body. Is it therefore not logical that some form of transfer would have occurred on anything that those areas of the decesed's body come into contact with. For example, the bedding upon which the deceased's body was found? Yet there is none. In fact, there are no other forensics of any kind that can arguably place me ever having been inside the deceased's home.

It is due to these unavoidable facts that I now strongly believe that the DAR/6&8 samples were at some point contaminated. Most likely this occurred at the prosecution's chosen forensic laboratory; that of Dr Chapman. After all, during the trial of Roy Whiting for the murder of Sarah Payne, Dr Chapman confessed that his laboratory working practices could leave crime scene evidence susceptible to transference and cross-contamination.

Hopefully there may be some developments with the second part of the forensic report for my appeal by the end of July; uopn which I will update this blog again.

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