Free David Ferguson

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

Image of David Ferguson

Blog entry 14th December 2017

Happy 2018 to everyone who visits this site. Regular visitors will know that in the latter months of 2017 the re-testing of the crime scene DNA exhibits revealed that the police and CPS had significantly exaggerated the DNA match statistics at my trial

Despite this, my barrister is of the opinion that the new test results may not be sufficient on their own merit to achieve an appeal application. However a study entitled "A systematic analysis of misleading evidence in unsafe rulings in England and Wales" (Smit, N., Morgan, R., and Lagnado, D. University College London.) has found that 22% of decisions in Magistrates and Crown Court cases were unsafe because of "misleading evidence". The study also revealed the following facts:

  • 76% of successful appeals were a result of different interpretations of evidence conflicting the claims of the prosecution at trial.
  • One third of successful appeals involved problems with how the prosecution presented evidence at trial, leading to judges and juries being misled as to evidence's value of proof or its relevance being misinterpreted.
  • This led to 26% of these appeal cases resulting in juries being misdirected by judges.
  • The study's authors also identify that DNA evidence is not infallible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation to gain a wrongful conviction. They state that the identified cases are "only the tip of the iceberg and can no longer be attributed to simple individual 'bad apples' in the system"

If the prosecution massively exaggerating the crime scene DNA match probability in my trial doesn't fall into the spectrum of facts revealed by this study, what does? In this aspect a key question should be asked:-

  • If my trial jury were now informed that the crime scene DNA match probability is a 'weak match' at best and would also match 1 in every 3500 of the male Western European population and not the 'extremely strong' and '1 in a billion' of it matching anyone other than myself, that was claimed by the prosecution at my trial, would they still convict me?

Also, in view of this question, it would be interesting to ask my trial jury if, in view of the new DNA test results, they would now feel that Kent Police and CPS misled them at my trial as to strength, validity and reliability of the crime scene DNA matching myself, according to their forensic expert.

Other questions could also follow in view of evidence that Kent Police and CPS withheld at my trial:-

  • Why did they mislead the jury about the existence of item MJP/15 a knife described as matching the murder weapon, recovered at the crime scene.
  • Why did they mislead the jury about evidence that established my presence at a chemists at a time crucial to the time of death according to the coroner.
  • Why did they not inform the jury about the trial forensic expert for the prosecution attending case conferences with Kent Police where his own notation identifies that Kent Police were pressuring him to make a DNA match to me, rendering any of his supposed impartiality utterly invalid.

In September I served a formal request on the CPS requesting that they release all of the evidence that they withheld at my trial. They gave an initial response of 19th September stating that the deadline for their completed response to my request was 28th October. To date they have failed to adhere to their lawful duty to comply to that request. I have written to them again respectfully insisting that they hand over all of the evidence that they withheld at my trial in line with the law.

To end with, lets return to the theme of the University College London study, misleading of juries by the police and CPS to achieve wrongful convictions and imprison innocent people. Ask this question, considering the facts, and they are facts, did Kent Police and CPS knowingly deceive and mislead the jury at my trial. If you decide that the answer is 'Yes', then ask yourself why?

Recent Blogs

  • 2019
    • 28th April 2019
    • 1st March 2019
    • 11th January 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
    • 14th December 2017
    • 21st October 2017
    • 6th September 2017
    • 8th August 2017
    • 18th July 2017
    • 14th June 2017
    • 13th April 2017
    • 31st March 2017
    • 15th February 2017
    • 6th January 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012

The Free David Ferguson website is maintained by The Friends of David Ferguson ©2012-2019