Free David Ferguson

Blog entry 18th July 2017

In this blog I am going to return to the subject of the forensic evidence in my case. As of yet the results of the re-testing still haven't been handed over. However the tests that were performed on the crime scene sample have produced new information.

1. At trial the CPS and police presented evidence from the swabs taken from Susan Kent's body very specifically. Namely that:-
   1. They produced a full profile reading that matched the sample taken from me;

   and

   2. The sample from Ms Kent's body was spermal in origin and that it was that sperm's DNA profile that matched me.

Both of these implications by the police and CPS were grossly misleading and designed to mislead the jury.

2. The re-testing of the DAR/6&8 sample now proves the following:-
   1. That the crime scene sample failed to yield a full profile reading.
   2. That the components within it originate from more than one source.
   3. Many of the components making up the sample are missing.
   4. Whilst sperm heads are present in the combined DAR/6&8 sample they are
   • Few (only 3 or 4 heads).
   • Unattributed to myself.

The factors listed in section (2) are unquestionable facts. None of these facts were included by the police or CPS in the evidence they presented to my trial jury, even though the police and CPS would have known their relevance. So what is that relevance?

3. Most juries have little real understanding of the complexities of DNA. If a lay person hears that DNA yields a match in a trial to the accused they will assume that the accused must be guilty more often than not. Having been told by the prosecution in my case that the DNA evidence is a '1 in a billion match' it is very likely that this was the cornerstone of why my jury convicted me. This would have been further bolstered by the prosecution telling the jury that the source of the DNA in the DAR/6&8 sample that matched me at a '1 in a billion' statistic was spermal in origin.
4. Presented in such a way as set out in (3) the forensic evidence is damning. This falls apart though when you consider the points set out in 2(a) to (d) previously. It is most likely that a jury would have:-
   • Questioned how a '1 in a billion match' is claimed if a full profile reading is not achieved.
   • If a sample comes from more than one source (person) how are the DNA readings appointed to the potential contributors (people concerned)?
   • If components (readings) from the crime scene sample are missing what can that imply/mean?
   • If the sperm heads are so few what does that imply/mean?
   • If the sperm heads are unattributable to me what does that mean/imply?

The last 3 parts of this section could have been challenged thus:-

1. Any one missing component could exonerate the accused. This was admitted by the former head of the Forensic Science Service at another murder trial.
2. So few sperm heads across four samples combined together can indicate that the sample is degraded, old, comes from someone with a low sperm count, had been affected by a spermicide (of which there was no evidence of such presence) etc...
3. That being unattributable specifically to me the sperm heads present in the crime scene sample could have come from anyone.

The factors set out in 2 (a) to (d) and 4 (a) to (c) considerably weaken how the police and CPS presented the DNA evidence to my trial jury. Clearly this is why the police and CPS "omitted" to include these facts. Had these facts been presented to my jury would they have convicted me?