« View all News
News Round-Up Week Ending 24.4.15
(Posted on 26/04/15)Share:
Justice for Janner!
The Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to prosecute Lord Janner. Those calling foul included the Daily Mail's Stephen Glover:
â€œThis pillar of the community, and apparently admirable man, is also alleged to be a paedophile, and stands accused of 22 sexual offences, said to have taken place from 1969 to 1998, involving nine children and young adults. These range from indecent assault to buggery.
â€œSo says the Crown Prosecution Service, which regrets it canâ€™t bring a case against 86-year-old Janner as he is suffering from dementia. This hasnâ€™t prevented him from attending the House of Lords hundreds of times since the diagnosis was first made in 2009, his most recent attendance being little more than a year ago. Nor has he been deterred from claiming more than Â£100,000 in parliamentary expenses and allowances during this period.
â€œIndeed, Janner signed a letter saying that he wanted to remain a peer just a week before he was judged unfit to face child sex charges. Either his dementia is not as severe as it is said to be â€” or someone induced him to sign a letter he could not understand.â€
Guilty by a Hair
Ed Pilkington wrote in the Guardian from New York this week about â€˜hair comparison evidenceâ€™: â€œa â€˜dirty bombâ€™ of pseudo-scienceâ€ responsible for at least 268 cases of flawed convictions, including that of George Perrot, jailed for nearly 30 years for a rape he did not commit.
â€œIn July 2013, the FBI admitted that the foundations of what it called â€˜hair comparison evidenceâ€™ â€“ a technique that its agents had used in hundreds of criminal cases nationwide and spread through the training of state-based detectives potentially through tens of thousands of other cases â€“ were scientifically invalid.
â€œMicroscopic analysis of hair â€“ the very analysis that put George Perrot and so many people behind bars â€“ is virtually worthless as a method of identifying someone. It can only safely be used to rule out a suspect as the source of crime-scene materials or in combination with the vastly more accurate technique of DNA testing.
â€œThe [US] government has identified almost 3,000 cases in which FBI agents may have given testimony involving the now-discredited technique. So far only about 500 of those cases have been reviewed.â€