Barry George revisited.

[Nicholas]

APPEAL
@C4CrimAppeals
Professor Angela Gallop tells @APPGMJ that with fragmentation of forensic science, �There�s a risk of getting an incomplete picture� of cases.

4 key findings:

1.Fragmentation - lack of a joined up approach
2.Reduced accountability and responsibility
3.The model of the private market is unstable
4.More investment in research is needed in forensic science

Change and action are needed now.

�We�re forgetting how to solve complex cases,� Professor Angela Gallop says, because of lack of holistic approach.

�Forensic Science Regulator Dr Gillian Tully warns that increased sensitivity of DNA testing brings increased risk of contamination.

�Lack of �Time and money are big issues in forensic science,� says Forensic Science Regulator Dr Gillian Tully.

�Forensic Science Regulator Dr Gillian Tully says they�ve launched a confidential reporting line.

�We need statutory regulation� of forensic science, says Dr Gillian Tully.

�Whenever you have people, you get errors,� Forensic Science Regulator Dr Gillian Tully says.

�We need to make sure the disclosure process... is working well,� says Forensic Science Regulator Dr Gillian Tully. 

�Forensic science can be really helpful in correcting miscarriages of justice, but it can also sometimes cause them, says Forensic Science Regulator Dr Gillian Tully. 

Professor Angela Gallop:

�I would rather forensic science weren�t used in court than that it is used badly.�

�It is dangerous and promotes miscarriages of justice�

�There should be an automatic defence review where ever forensic science is critical� in a case, Professor Angela Gallop says.

�Professor Angela Gallop tells @APPGMJ ought to be a discussion about police insourcing of forensics. �We shouldn�t be sleepwalking into it.�

�Digital forensics is the �largest single challenge� facing forensic science and police investigation, says Professor Angela Gallop.
https://mobile.twitter.com/C4CrimAppeals/status/1224745787860582402

April 2015
�There is a growing sense of crisis inside the world of forensic science. Recent high profile cases such as Jill Dando and Amanda Knox have highlighted serious problems with the way testing is carried out.  Techniques from fingerprint analysis to DNA identification have been found wanting, as cases collapse and are overturned. Plummeting forensic spending by police forces has left a newly privatised industry in England and Wales on the brink of failure.  In this series, science journalist Linda Geddes investigates why forensic science has fallen into crisis, and what can be done to restore confidence in the field. 
Programme 1:  The UK was once a world leader in forensic research, with DNA fingerprinting invented at the University of Leicester in 1984, a technique which revolutionised the investigation of crime.  Now forensic scientists claim we are falling dangerously behind the rest of the world in terms of research and development, relying on outdated equipment and unvalidated techniques.  Linda Geddes hears from leading researchers who are speaking out to try and prevent more miscarriages of justice.

including comments from Tiernan Coyle https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b05r3tf1

May 2015
FORENSICS: CRISIS, WHAT CRISIS?
Forensics: crisis, what crisis?
A recent three-part series on BBC Radio 4 sought to investigate the perceived loss of confidence in forensic science and how it might be reversed. Forensics in Crisis is currently available on iPlayer at www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05stg0j#auto.

Journalist Linda Geddes interviewed scientists, police chiefs and lawyers, and cited past cases involving forensics, to argue that problems have arisen in three respects:

1. Some forensic techniques are not sufficiently supported by data, i.e. there is an inadequate research base.

2. Not all the forensic analysis that could and should be performed, is being requested by prosecutors and defence, and the spectrum is likely to continue to narrow.
3. The presentation of forensic evidence in court is always a matter of subjective expert opinion, allowing interpretation and evaluation by counsel and jury.

Whilst the series had a pretty good stab at identifying the problems, it rather shied away from how they might be rectified, save for encouraging research, expanding services and augmenting analysis, all of which would require financial investment in these times of continuing austerity.

Episode One, Crisis in Research, discussed miscarriages of justice that have resulted from evidence presented as scientific fact but unsubstantiated by research, starting with Barry George’s 2001 conviction for killing Jill Dando, which centred on a speck of gun residue found in his pocket. George was found not guilty at retrial, when it was agreed that the speck may have been transferred from firearms officers involved in the investigation.

In a second British case to undermine forensic evidence, former Scottish detective Shirley McKie was wrongly accused of visiting a murder scene. A subsequent inquiry exposed serious weaknesses in fingerprint evidence.

In the US, the flawed identification technique of hair morphology was used by the FBI to secure over 2000 convictions after which more than a dozen individuals have been executed. Donald Gates was convicted of murder on hair morphology evidence, an FBI expert claiming that there was a 1 in 10,000 probability that the hair came from anyone else but there was no data to support that. “That’s simply a made-up number,” said Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project. [See also News Round-Up, week ending 24.4.15: Guilty by a Hair in the News section of this site.]

A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 2009 concluded that bad science was to blame. Niamh NicDaeid, Professor of Forensic Science at the University of Dundee, said the NAS Report confirmed what many experts had feared, that there were deficiencies particularly in the interpretation of different findings, including fibre and hair examination. The same techniques are in use worldwide.

In the UK, hair analysis has been treated with scepticism, particularly since the development of DNA ‘fingerprinting’ by Sir Alec Jeffreys, but the closure of the Forensic Science Service in 2012 and its subsequent replacement by a private market has led to a dearth of research in the field.

Without research, often lengthy and costly, forensic techniques cannot be developed and validated. Tiernan Coyle, fibre analyst and owner of forensic firm Contact Traces, discussed the loss of a research budget. Naimh NicDaeid agreed, emphasising the particular need for a research basis when justice depends on forensic science. Former Labour MP Andrew Miller voiced concerns over likely wrongful convictions resulting from the lack of regulation of private forensic laboratories, the lack of coordination of primary research and the fragmentation of analytical work in individual cases. Inside Justice is aware that funding is available to police units; the Metropolitan Police won a bid for £6million for forensic research from the Police Innovation Fund last year but it is the small independent labs, undertaking defence and appeal work, with specialist techniques that can’t compete in the current climate.

The Home Office sent a statement to the programme explaining the financial basis for closing the FSS and trumpeting the success of DNA matching, but Angela Gallop of Forensic Access stressed the need for research in areas of forensics other than DNA analysis.
In the US, the vast majority of forensic work is handled by police-run laboratories. In the UK there are growing concerns over in-house testing and prosecution-bias. The second Radio 4 programme, Crisis in the Lab, described how established but expensive forensic techniques are falling by the wayside in favour of fingerprinting, DNA profile matching and digital forensics.

Predatory paedophile Umesh Kulasingham was eventually convicted with forensic textile techniques, the use of which may be dying out. One expert spoke of her fears for the future: “I think forensic science will be increasingly dumbed down to such an extent that we will just be doing the absolute basics.”

Fibre evidence, involving analysis of thousands of individual fibres, has been crucial in many high profile murder cases, including those of Damilola Taylor and Stephen Lawrence, and in the Soham killings. Tiernan Coyle was concerned that this field of forensics and others, such as toxicology, are under threat, with numbers of competent practitioners decimated. Part of the problem is access and testing of evidence by police in-house laboratories, not all of which are accredited and therefore may not have sufficient expertise in all forensic techniques.

Chief Constable Chris Sims, lead for Forensic Science in the National Police Chiefs Council, was not surprised at the relative drop in popularity of forensic techniques like fibre analysis but voiced concerned lest such expertise be lost.
An anonymous former police scientist considered the UK criminal justice system not best served with decisions over choice of technique being subject to budgetary constraints.

Professor Bob Green of the University of Kent concurred. Evidence is consequently going unchecked, meaning cases may be dropped and justice not served. Chris Sims disagreed, justifying in-house analysis, but Angela Gallop did not feel the police were best placed to objectively decide on submission of evidence for forensic analysis.

Interpretation of fingerprints, always in-house, is coming under the same accreditation processes as other forensic science, following cases like that of Shirley McKie.

Accreditation is compulsory for private labs but though police labs have to be accredited too, the system is less transparent on penalties for not doing so and the system does not cover everything, such as the selection of evidence for submission.

The third and final programme of the series, Crisis in Court, considered the potential for forensic evidence to be misrepresented or misinterpreted in court, citing the eventual acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Their earlier conviction hinged on DNA evidence. DNA matching is often held up as the gold standard of forensic identification but, as Tracy Alexander has explained in an earlier article for Inside Justice (DNA: Did Not Attend), it is not entirely objective and should never stand alone.

UCL Cognitive Neuroscientist Dr Itiel Dror conducted a study of objectivity in DNA matching and found it to be anything but, despite the advent of computer software programmes. Ian Evett, of Principal Forensic Services, described how interpretation of partial DNA profiles from real-life crime scenes is fraught with complications involving small quantities, degradation and contamination.

To obtain a DNA profile, highly variable regions in the sample are ‘bookmarked’ and amplified, and peaks identified.

Rudi Guede’s fingerprint was found in Meredith Kercher’s blood and his DNA found in the rented room where she was killed. Professor Peter Gill explained how DNA detection has improved since he and Alec Jeffreys first developed the technique. This improvement allowed prosecutors to identify minute traces of Meredith Kercher’s DNA on a knife found in Sollecito’s apartment, the programme explained, despite no preliminary chemical detection of blood. Amanda Knox’s DNA was also found on the knife and this was evidence enough to convict the two, in combination with what the court accepted was contamination of an  exhibit by Scene of Crime Officers; Kercher’s bra clasp, with Sollecito’s DNA.

Linda Geddes also described the cases of Merseyside taxi driver, David ‘Flaky’ Butler, who spent eight months on remand for murder after transfer of his DNA, and Devonian Adam Scott, who was accused of rape after a forensic sample was contaminated with his. However, Professor Paul Roberts of the University of Nottingham maintained that much of scientific evidence is as good as there can be, but emphasised that no evidence is ever conclusive or infallible.

Peter Gill is convinced that a prosecution bias exists in the private market now in the UK, certainly with the emergence of streamlined reports which were designed to expedite results but which contain no expert opinion as to their weight and relevance. He ended with a warning:

We are in danger of sleepwalking into another serious round of miscarriages of justice.
https://www.insidejustice.co.uk/articles/forensics-crisis-what-crisis/115

APPEAL
@C4CrimAppeals
Professor Angela Gallop tells
@APPGMJ
 ought to be a discussion about police insourcing of forensics. �We shouldn�t be sleepwalking into it.� #forensics
5:43 PM � Feb 4, 2020�Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/C4CrimAppeals/status/1224750455210872832

Which sounds very similar to Peter Gills comment in 2015


APPEAL
@C4CrimAppeals
2h
Inside Justice�s Louise Shorter: �There is guidance [on evidence retention] out there that police forces should be following.�

But her research shows �widespread confusion� amongst police

Louise Shorter of @insidejusticeUK outlines her research on police retention of forensic evidence - �there is still widespread confusion� - and inconsistency in approach by different forces

draws distinction between US and UK in relation to retention of exhibits.

In US lost or destroyed evidence can be a successful ground of appeal, but not here

Professor @ctmccartney tells @APPGMJ audience that failure by police to retain exhibits �stops miscarriages of justice being resolved�

[Nicholas]

🎀 Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
1h
The real killer is still at large and my have killed again. #StandAgainstInjustice
Robin Garbutt submits third application for review of Melsonby post office murder charge | The Northern Echo
https://mobile.twitter.com/Michelle_Diskin/status/1222861251216318464

Hanksoff03 Retweeted

Hanksoff03
@hanksoff03
3h
Criminals murdered Diana that dreadful day+despite overwhelming evidence supporting that, the powers that be made it fit around poor RobinGarbuttOfficial ~ Fighting ALL these years.The 23rd of March will be 10 years since that fateful day - Freedom for http://RobinGarbuttOfficial.com
https://mobile.twitter.com/hanksoff03/status/1224741413209935874

[Nicholas]

TED talk with Professor Ruth Morgan - �The dangers of misinterpreted forensic evidence�

You vs Science
Not all of us are going to commit a crime, but every single one of us could be accused of one, says Ruth.
Ruth paints the scenario � you sit in a seat at a cinema for example. A stand of your hair falls out and the hair is picked up by the clothing of the next person to sit in that seat. You leave the cinema and go home none the wiser. But that same night, the person who your hair is now attached to goes and commits a crime. Your hair is left at the scene, linking you to the crime. You�re stood in court while the expert explains to the judge how your hair, your DNA, is cast iron proof you committed the crime. But you know you�re innocent.
This, sadly, is a scenario too many people are all too familiar with.
Misinterpretation of forensic evidence is the biggest problem facing forensic science
For Ruth, forensic science is undeniably a technological success story. We can now identify smaller traces of material, more accurately and quicker than ever before.
But, forensic science has got a problem. It�s a problem that has gone under the radar and it�s a problem that has the potential to impact thousands of innocent people.
Ruth shared a shocking fact - 96% of forensic evidence is misinterpreted. That tells us forensic science has got a problem that technology alone can�t fix.
What we really need to know is if we find gunshot residue on you, how did it get there and when did it get there. Ruth explained the issue: that, at the moment, we don�t have the data that we need to be able to answer that question sufficiently.
Forensic science evidence isn�t always going to be interpreted accurately � so we need a change.
For Ruth, we need to change what our primary focus is, from being on what something is and who it belongs to, and we need to get serious about getting the answers we need to the �how� and the �when�.
If we can do that, then we will have the opportunity to dramatically reduce the chances of evidence being misinterpreted.
We need to do that so that each one of us never has to stand in court as that innocent person in the dock.
  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xclg8ikPAvI
https://o-behave.tumblr.com/post/173319397192/nudgestock-2018-professor-ruth-morgan

Ruth Morgan
Excerpts:
�Imagine you�re in court, accused of a crime that you know you didn�t commit. Now imagine a scientist takes the stand and starts explaining to the court how your DNA is on the murder weapon. (This sounds very similar to the old Simon Hall campaign website)

Forensic science is nothing short of a technological success story; it is possible to detect and identify forensic traces at greater levels of resolution and accuracy than ever before, and we can capture, retain and search more data than at any other time in history. These capabilities are transforming what forensic science can do. However, at the same time, forensic science is facing a huge challenge.

Forensic science sits at the intersection of science, law, policing, government and policy. It is a complex ecosystem that has competing demands and drivers to deliver science to assist the justice system. A recent inquiry by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee in the UK recognized that forensic science is in a state of crisis, to such a degree that it is undermining trust in our justice systems. This crisis is multifaceted, and while some of the results of the crisis have been reported, such as miscarriages of justice, instances of malpractice, and failures of quality standards, there is an aspect of the crisis that has been overlooked. A recent study in the UK identified all the cases upheld by the Court of Appeal where criminal evidence was critical in the original trial over a seven-year period. In 22% of those cases, the evidence was misinterpreted. These cases are only the tip of the iceberg and indicate a broader root cause of the crisis forensic science is facing.

�Given how the justice system shapes our societies, the stakes are far too high to ignore the crisis in forensic science. The integrity of the forensic science system is critical to the delivery of justice and public trust, and so this is an urgent challenge for the global community. Like plastics in our oceans, this is a problem that has gone under the radar for far too long. The time for action is now.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/why-forensic-science-is-in-crisis-and-how-we-can-fix-it/

Forensic fudging June 2017

Funding appeal for dedicated independent scientific evidence lab

�In recent years we have seen the privatisation of water, energy, railways and even the Royal Mail, which has led to soaring prices, cartel formation and a lack of competition, in spite of all the government claims to the contrary.

For prisoners, we even �enjoy� our own example of privatisation with the ever-soaring prices of prison canteen items whilst the last proposed pay rise for prisoners, which never happened, was more than 25-years ago.

While price rises may hit the prisoner and public in their pocket, there is one area where privatisation plays fast and loose with people�s lives and that is in the past privatisation of the Forensic Science Service (FSS).

The FSS was not perfect and provided a mostly independent and impartial service even if there were the occasional questionable practises in laboratories like Huntingdon. In one episode, a chemist turned firearms expert disappeared from Huntingdon Laboratories when he realised he was under investigation in 9 cases, only to turn up years later working for the Metropolitan Police in their Lambeth Laboratory.

However, with privatisation, impartiality and ethics is now lacking in some companies who seek to maximise their profits and secure closer business ties with their principle customers, the 43 police forces in the UK. Any laboratory which consistently supports police cases is going to enjoy regular business from their clients � the police. There are no checks, balances or regulations for rotating forensic laboratories.

As I write, more than 6,000 forensic samples are to be re-examined after two employees of Randox Forensic Services have been placed under criminal investigation by Greater Manchester Police on suspicion of manipulating data.

There are many thousands of cases affected which range from rape and murder to minor cases like drug-driving, with thousands of convictions suspected to be unsafe.

Helping the evidence along is an old practise in forensic science circles where a lab assistant or scientist �forms a view� of the evidence and particularly when giving evidence in court will seek to sway the jury by omitting or talking up forensic results to support their view.

This �forensic fudging� has long been recognised by academics involved in forensic science, like Ruth Morgan, Director of University College, London�s Centre for Forensic Services. Dr Morgan recently highlighted the fact that DNA sequencing and analytical chemistry has improved exponentially in recent years, with more than 55,000 genetic matches every year. What concerns Dr Morgan and her colleagues is detailed understanding of what this evidence actually means.

Misinterpretation of DNA evidence is very easy, shake hands with someone, your DNA is transferred to their hand and vice versa. Hand someone a coat and your DNA is now on the garment and their DNA is transferred to your hand. If your DNA is subsequently found on a victim or a murder weapon, how do you prove your innocence?

Dr Morgan�s views appear to be shared by the Metropolitan Police�s Director of Forensic Services, Gary Pugh, who warned that the system had reached a �low point� in the past 5 years, and was suffering �degradation� due to a lack of support.

There are many cases of forensic fudging that I could use as examples in this article. In 2015, the FBI admitted that its experts had overstated the evidence in 95% of microscopic hair sample analysis cases resulting in more than 200 unsafe convictions with 14 defendants dying in prison or executed.

In Britain, we have cases like that of Barry George, convicted by a microscopic particle of gunshot residue, talked up by an expert with no mention of possible cross-contamination in a laboratory handling gunshot samples. We could look at the laboratory in Kent where for 2-years contaminated equipment had been routinely used. There are dozens of similar fiascos, but here is a specific example.

In 2000, shop assistant Rachel Manning had been found strangled on a golf-course near Milton Keynes. Her boyfriend, Barri White, was charged with murder and convicted due to the �compelling� evidence of a dozen micro-particles of the rare-earth elements Cerium and Lanthanum found on Rachel�s skirt and also found on the seat of a van belonging to Barri White�s friend, Keith Hyatt, who was also convicted.

At trial the prosecution forensics witness talked up the presence of Cerium and Lanthanum as highly unusual and stated that these materials could only have been deposited on the victim�s clothing minutes before her body was dumped.

In 2003, Ruth Morgan, then an Oxford University PhD student, found herself testing dozens of cigarette lighters to destruction, flicking them over and over again.

What the prosecution�s expert witness had failed to disclose to the court was that though Cerium is indeed a rare-earth metal of the Lanthanides series, atomic number 58. However, it is as abundant as copper, found in many ores and is 3-times more abundant than lead. It oxidises rapidly and strongly so is used in illumination, ignition and signalling devices such as flares. Misch metal, used in lighter flints, is 50% Cerium. Lanthanum, atomic number 57, is routinely found in Cerium oxide. Furthermore, each time a lighter is struck, the flint sheds up to 4,000 metal particles which can persist for at least 18 hours. A classic case of forensic fudging.

Barri White and Keith Hyatt�s convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2007 due to the evidence above, and in 2013, Shahidul Ahmed was convicted of Rachel Manning�s murder.

Dr Ruth Morgan and university College London are now asking the public to assist to raise �1million to fund a new laboratory housing a scanning electron microscope and liquid chromatograph for minute scrutiny of gunshot and other residues. The intention is to provide independent, bespoke scientific reports. One of the principal aims is to answer questions relating to transfer and persistence of DNA and other particles passing from one surface to another.

The establishment of such a facility will be academically driven rather than commercially driven as is now the case with privatised forensic companies seeking to make a profit.
https://insidetime.org/forensic-fudging/

Michelle Diskin Bates (10th Sept 2013)
�All of us who choose to stand up for justice need to take this on the chin, and move on�back to those who deserve to have their cases reviewed and quashed. Our justice system uses �smoke and mirrors�, rather than real honest evidence to convict. The B George case is one�but the parallels with the Barri White/Keith Hyatt conviction are evident; the case was fitted around the defendants, and not around the evidence. I eagerly await the government�s response to Barri and Keith�s new claim for compensation. Keith was released at the court of appeal, but Barri went on to re-trial. Does this mean that Keith will be successful but Barri�s claim will not? After all, if the legal view is that the CPS were not wrong to prosecute Barry George,because they had evidence, and he is not a MOJ because he went for re-trial, then poor Barri will face the same prospect�won�t he?
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2019/05/13/telling-public-statement-made-by-michelle-diskin-bates-sister-of-barry-george-following-simon-halls-confession/

2015 THIS IDEA MUST DIE:
Forensic evidence is always irrefutable
Forensic science still has a long way to go to always make a watertight case, says Dr Ruth Morgan.

Forensic science�s reputation is on trial. In April this year, the FBI admitted its hair comparison unit had given flawed testimony in trials going back 20 years, including 33 cases where defendants were sentenced to death. And in the UK, in 2007, Barri White�s forensic-based conviction seven years earlier for killing his girlfriend, Rachel Manning, was quashed. White was cleared of the murder, after which police resumed their hunt and ultimately convicted Shahidul Ahmed for the murder in 2013.

These, and other such cases, have thrust forensic evidence into the spotlight. If the proliferation of TV crime dramas � from �NCIS� to �Dexter� � are to be believed, the forensic scientist is king (or queen). Theirs is the most damning evidence, the result of highly specialist crime scene analysis that always delivers incontrovertible facts.

But however complex a fictional crime drama might be, what happens at crime scenes, in laboratories and in courts is far more complex � and more nuanced. Investigators and juries need to stop believing that forensic evidence is always irrefutable. And forensic science needs to continue addressing both the validity and the interpretation of forensic evidence. We need a stronger evidence base: more robust science to underpin the techniques and interpretations of evidence that people rely on in court.

In the majority of cases in which forensic evidence is critical, forensic science offers valuable intelligence evidence. However, I�m aware of the damage forensic evidence can do when people believe it is always infallible.

In 2007, the evidence in the Rachel Manning case was re-examined. In the original trial the most crucial evidence concerned some metallic particles found on Manning�s skirt � and in a van belonging to Barri White�s friend, Keith Hyatt. A forensic expert said the particles were extremely rare and this helped put White and Hyatt in prison. But our research found that far from being rare, the particles in question were incredibly abundant. At least 4,000 of them are produced each time a disposable cigarette lighter is used � and they can stay on people�s clothing for more than 18 hours. It was enough to quash the conviction and open the way for the real killer to be found.

That�s what the UCL Centre for the Forensic Sciences, part of the Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, is all about. Much forensic science in the UK is about developing new technology and new ways of finding more information. Our aim is to understand how evidence behaves and how we interact with evidence in casework, so we can ensure that our interpretation of what forensic evidence means in a case is robust and is based on empirical evidence; that�s crucial to preventing miscarriages of justice.

As well as looking at old cases, we also do a lot of work on DNA transfer. Fifteen years ago, DNA technology meant you needed a reasonable amount of material to get a DNA profile. Today, you can generate profiles from trace amounts of DNA. That sensitivity is powerful, but it also raises issues for the interpretation of that evidence in a forensic context.

In one project we�ve been trying to understand how much DNA the regular � as opposed to the last � wearer leaves behind on a garment. It�s been assumed the major DNA profile would be from the last wearer, but our research shows it depends on the person.

Miscarriages of justice like the Manning case are terrible examples of how forensic evidence can be misinterpreted and presented as unequivocal when it is not. For all our advances in technology, we still lack the evidence base for a lot of what�s being looked at. Our research is providing that evidence base for the robust interpretation of what trace evidence means when it is found. And that�s why I believe that the idea that forensic evidence is always irrefutable must die.

Dr Ruth Morgan is director of the UCL Centre for Forensic Science

[Nicholas]

APPEAL
@C4CrimAppeals
Professor Angela Gallop tells @APPGMJ that with fragmentation of forensic science,

�There�s a risk of getting an incomplete picture� of cases.

4 key findings:

1.Fragmentation - lack of a joined up approach
2.Reduced accountability and responsibility
3.The model of the private market is unstable
4.More investment in research is needed in forensic science

Change and action are needed now.

�We�re forgetting how to solve complex cases,� Professor Angela Gallop says, because of lack of holistic approach.

�I would rather forensic science weren�t used in court than that it is used badly.�

�It is dangerous and promotes miscarriages of justice�

�There should be an automatic defence review where ever forensic science is critical� in a case, Professor Angela Gallop says.

�Professor Angela Gallop tells @APPGMJ ought to be a discussion about police insourcing of forensics. �We shouldn�t be sleepwalking into it.�

�Digital forensics is the �largest single challenge� facing forensic science and police investigation, says Professor Angela Gallop.

https://mobile.twitter.com/C4CrimAppeals/status/1224745787860582402

I�m of the firm belief an �incomplete� picture was presented in the Barry George case.

In his book, �Crime Lab Report: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform� (p 177)

John M Collins stated,

�Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the most aggressive reform activists from the extreme fringe of the defence bar, including Barry Scheck and Peter Neufield, in my opinion, seemed committed to portraying the findings of the NAS committee as a formal validation of their previous criticisms of forensic science.

By portraying forensic science as a profession in need of reform, these activists could empower their defence colleagues in courtrooms around the country to attack forensic testimony with more success and vigor.
So what forensic science professionals hoped would stand as a good faith, objective examination of the forensic science community became a weapon with which forensic scientists could be attacked in the courtroom - and in the press - further advancing the innocence reform agenda.�

John Collins goes on,

�It would not be long before the report would be submitted as evidence in criminal trials all over the country where, in some instances, defence experts sought to prohibit the admission into evidence of some of the most commonly used and well-established forensic techniques - techniques they would repeatedly argue as being not reliable as forensic experts were making them out to be - because the NAS report said so.�
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZEOwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=NAS+report+consider+tgis+from+john+m+collins&source=bl&ots=fhnux7ulSm&sig=ACfU3U3Wt15pCG2Ou9_XgDRtV5xVaqjEPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjltsr8vbrnAhV2ShUIHUt_A9kQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=NAS%20report%20consider%20tgis%20from%20john%20m%20collins&f=false

Professor Angela Gallop Shaw, whose work helped overturn the murder convictions of both Barry George and Duaine George (not related)

(Angela Shaw NOT Angela Gallop assisted the defence in the Barry George case - Angela Gallops colleague Roger Robson also assisted the defence in the Barry George case

Angela Shaw = GSR expert in both �George� cases
Angela Gallop = �principle author� alongside Roger Robson who also worked on both the Barry George and Simon Hall cases re fibres https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/written-evidence-submitted-forensic-access-house-commons-dave-king
R v SIMON JOHN HALL  http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/Hall/index.html)

 Angela Gallop is now apparently saying,

�I would rather forensic science weren�t used in court than that it is used badly.�

Why is she saying this and what cases is she suggesting forensic science was used badly in? Her own maybe?

�Professor Angela Gallop tells @APPGMJ ought to be a discussion about police insourcing of forensics

�We shouldn�t be sleepwalking into it.�

Sounds very similar to Peter Gill�s 2015 comment of,

We are in danger of sleepwalking into another serious round of miscarriages of justice.
https://www.insidejustice.co.uk/articles/forensics-crisis-what-crisis/115

Peter Gill is convinced that a prosecution bias exists in the private market now in the UK, certainly with the emergence of streamlined reports which were designed to expedite results but which contain no expert opinion as to their weight and relevance.

A �prosecution bias� or his own �bias� maybe?
https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext

Excerpt:
�The reason I wrote the book was not just because of this case. This was something I had a growing concern about � how DNA profiling is used throughout Europe and beyond. I work very closely with my European colleagues, and I have to say that the view of forensic science from the public, the politicians, and also I believe judges and lawyers probably comes predominantly from TV programmes which talk about CSI (Crime Scene Investigation). So in the book I talk about the CSI effect. There is an important psychological influence at play.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/peter-gill-interview/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/videos/

Leading forensic scientist, Angela Gallop, in The Guardian, 29th May 2019:

On the cases she felt she could have contributed to, Gallop said she felt the parents of Madeleine McCann had been �badly served by forensic science, partly because some of it was done in a country that has got a little less structure than we have. But a little was done in this country, a very sensitive DNA technique was used, and I think it was overinterpreted. And I think that added to the problems�.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/29/police-cuts-could-see-rise-in-miscarriages-of-justice-says-angela-gallop-forensic-expert

[Nicholas]

�Forensic Science Regulator Dr Gillian Tully says they�ve launched a confidential reporting line.

🎀 Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Replying to
@C4CrimAppeals
@J4BenGeen
 and
@APPGMJ
Interesting, to report what? 🙂
10:37 AM � Feb 5, 2020�Twitter for iPad
https://mobile.twitter.com/Michelle_Diskin/status/1225005558476034052

�Forensic science can be really helpful in correcting miscarriages of justice, but it can also sometimes cause them, says Forensic Science Regulator Dr Gillian Tully. 

🎀 Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Isn�t THAT the truth!

Gill Tully is the governments current Forensic Science Regulator https://www.gov.uk/government/people/gill-tully

I once wrote an open letter to the previous regulator, Andrew Rennison - in November 2013 he became a Commissioner at the CCRC

�Five new Commissioners have been appointed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Chair of the Commission has been reappointed.

The newly appointed Commissioners are Alexandra Marks, Dr Sharon Persaud, David James Smith, Liz Calderbank and Andrew Rennison. Richard Foster CBE, who joined the Commission as Chair in November 2008, has been reappointed to serve for a further five years (see below for biographies of the Chair and each of the new Commissioners).
https://ccrc.gov.uk/five-new-commissioners-appointed-to-the-criminal-cases-review-commission/

Will be interesting to see if Gill Tully follows in the footsteps of her predecessor

�The Forensic Science Regulator is the regulator of forensic science activities within the United Kingdom's legal system.[1] The regulator is advised by the Forensic Science Advisory Council. The post dates from 2008.[2]

The office of Forensic Science Regulator was created without any statutory powers.[2] As of November 2013, the government was considering giving the Forensic Science Regulator statutory powers.[3][2]

The first Forensic Science Regulator was Andrew Rennison.[4] Dr Gillian Tully was appointed to hold the post for three years from November 2014.[5] In November 2017 Dr Tully was re-appointed for a further three years until November 2020. [6]. In her 2018 annual report, Tully urged the UK Government to put the role of the Forensic Science Regulator on a statutory footing. [7
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_Science_Regulator

[Nicholas]

Louise Shorter of @insidejusticeUK outlines her research on police retention of forensic evidence - �there is still widespread confusion� - and inconsistency in approach by different forces

draws distinction between US and UK in relation to retention of exhibits.

In US lost or destroyed evidence can be a successful ground of appeal, but not here

Professor @ctmccartney tells @APPGMJ audience that failure by police to retain exhibits �stops miscarriages of justice being resolved�

🎀 Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Replying to
@hanksoff03
 and
@WullieBeck
It�s very unlikely that an exhibit would go missing if it pointed conclusively to guilt. Hair missing in #RobinGarbutt and #JeremyBamber cases

[Nicholas]

By Katie King April 2016

�The factually guilty routinely �let off on a technicality�, while the factually innocent stay in prison

We�re now four months into the new year, and Netflix users are still talking about 10-part documentary series Making a Murderer.

Viewers were totally transfixed as filmmakers followed the trial, conviction and sentencing of Wisconsin-based uncle and nephew duo Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, for their part in the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach.

Regardless of the jury verdicts, the world is not convinced that the pair committed the crime. Over 520,000 people are so shocked by the �injustices� of the case that they have called for Avery to be pardoned.

Developments keep on coming. Kathleen Zellner � Avery�s new lawyer � hit the press last week when she reportedly claimed to have found �a couple� of suspects she believes may be the true murderer. And now it�s been announced that Dean Strang, lawyer and all-round good guy from the series, will be getting his own spin-off show.

There�s a wealth of documentaries on Netflix and other video sharing sites. Making a Murderer was one of many to be released in December � so why is everyone still talking about it?

Because the story screams �something needs to be done here�. There is � at least in the eyes of the viewers � a good chance that Avery and Dassey are innocent. That the men have been framed, set up by the police, that the real murderer is still on the loose.

Spectators have been quick to pile the blame onto the US criminal justice system, with words like �corrupt� and �shady� being bandied around. We�re quick to shake our heads and condemn the system�s handling of the case, and the fact that the men are still locked up. But had the very same verdict been returned across the pond under the English courts� jurisdiction, I�m not all that confident our criminal appeals system could handle it any better.

England has done its fair share of locking up innocent people � just look at the stories of Angela Canning and Sally Clark, and plenty others. As pointed out by criminal law lecturer Hannah Quirk earlier this year, the police are under intense media pressure to catch someone, anyone, and this institutional strain can lead to impulsive arrests.

The criminal justice system is far from infallible, and hence we have an appeals system to act as a procedural safety net for if and when things do go wrong. It�s pretty difficult to access: as pointed out by blogging barrister Dan Bunting, the US � compared to the UK, that is � �has much more to offer a convicted defendant� by way of appeal route. Here, there�s nowhere else to go but the Court of Appeal, and it�s not all that easy to get there. Very few reach the Supreme Court, and only then on technical questions of law.

But what might surprise the public more is the sort of cases that do reach the appeal courts. In law, it�s wrong to frame the conviction of a factually innocent person as a miscarriage of justice. The French legal system makes a distinction between an appel, an appeal on grounds of facts, and a cassation, an appeal on a point of law, but no such distinction exists in England. No matter what the media reports, miscarriage of justice victims are, in a surprising number of cases, factually guilty � but have managed to wangle themselves out of a hefty punishment because of a technicality.

A conviction handed down in the Crown Court can be appealed in the Court of Appeal under s1 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968. Under s2, the Court of Appeal can only allow an appeal against the conviction if it is �unsafe� � and it�s not the factual innocence or guilt of the convicted that determines this �safety�. In R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice, the Supreme Court made clear that the appeal courts� jurisdiction concerns due process, not factual guilt. Lord Phillips went as far as to say that it a principle of �great constitutional importance� that the Court of Appeal cannot and does not make a declaration on factual innocence. While the factually innocent are left to rot, it�s the victims of due process errors that are reaping the benefits of the appeal courts.

So how do you go about appealing the conviction of an innocent person?

Enter the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). Set up in 1997, the CCRC is an �independent� public body that has the power to send a case � one that has already exhausted the judicial appeal route � back to the Court of Appeal, if this case is a suspected miscarriage of justice.

Hooray, sort of.

The CCRC parades itself as a wholly independent body, but that it is not. It is effectively shackled to the Court of Appeal. The CCRC cannot send a case back to the court unless it considers that �there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made�, under s13(1)(a) Criminal Appeal Act 1995.

Professor Michael Naughton quips that this test is a �statutory straightjacket�, because it means that a case can only be referred to the Court of Appeal if the appeal is likely to be successful. And, surprise surprise, appeals are more likely to be successful if granted on technical, legal reasons, and not because of factual innocence.

The situation is undeniably unjust. Just have a read of Attorney General�s Reference (No 3 of 1999) https://swarb.co.uk/attorney-generals-reference-no-3-of-1999-lynn-hl-15-dec-2000/ where the offender was able to appeal his conviction for the rape of a 66 year-old woman � described by Lord Steyn as �horrendous� and �of the utmost gravity� � because of a technicality.

Yet the reason for this discrepancy is depressingly predictable: judicial resources are scarce, and the Court of Appeal doesn�t want to busy itself with time consuming, fact-based appeals.

Disapprove and denounce the convictions of Avery and Dassey all you like, but it doesn�t seem our criminal appeals system is all too hot on factual miscarriages of justice either.

It�s difficult to see a way out of this hole. This certainly isn�t just a case of simple legal reform. Criminal trials are, and always have been, highly technical affairs � a shift in institutional focus is at best unlikely. The CCRC, on the other hand, is a recent development. It�s more amenable to change, more able to accept wide-ranging reforms, and more able to fulfill its public mandate.

So focus here (http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/criminal-justice-system-still-failing-the-innocent) The Innocence Network UK has a pretty good suggestion � repeal the real possibility test, and replace it:

with a test that allows the CCRC to refer a conviction back to the Court of Appeal if it thinks that the applicant is or might be innocent.

Only then will we have a proper recourse available to the factually innocent, the Averys and Dasseys of England.

Sources
Naughton, M (2009). The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Hope for the Innocent?. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-journal-posts/making-a-murderer-is-our-criminal-appeals-process-any-better/

[Nicholas]

�Barry had previously been convicted for attempted rape and indecent assault some years earlier, and he lived in the vicinity of Dando�s flat. When I ask Michelle about these serious charges, she doesn�t respond defensively or try to protect her brother; instead she explains, gently, that she too was horrified when she discovered the truth � and told her brother so: �I�m afraid he was given quite a tough time from me; he didn�t enjoy that visit one bit,� she says, briskly. �But I think it needs to be understood that Barry is like a nine-year-old boy living in an adult�s body. These things should not happen, and he knows right from wrong, but at the same time, he has a whole host of disabilities
https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2019/April-2019/My-brother-was-wrongly-convicted-of-murdering-Jill-Dando

Wonder if this is how Michelle Diskin Bates has always treated Barry George?

[Nicholas]

Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
It is shameful that Cheshire police refuse to apologise to Paul Blackburn for his 25 years in prison, but they have no shame. They simply don�t care: �Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction.�
Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction
Evidence of Cheshire force that led to 1978 imprisonment of Paul Blackburn �absurd�
theguardian.com
5:54 AM � Jan 14, 2020�Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1216961832625287168

The Paul Blackburn case reminds me in parts to that of Stephen Downing. The police appear to be suggesting there aren�t other suspects?!

However Michael Naughton needs to look at his own behaviour before casting aspersions. The fact he chooses to not publicly discuss �innocent fraud� suggests to me his personal agenda/s outweigh the truth!?

The Stephen Downing case exposed - including Matt Barlow the reporter assigned to report on the CoA hearing

Episode 8 here might be helpful https://www.wirelessstudios.co.uk/podcast/reporter/

Some in the town of Bakewell are clearly affected by the �illusionary truth effect� manufactured by Don Hale/Stephen Downing

An example of �innocent fraud�

Yet in 2013 Dr Dennis Eady, following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt and confession, claimed,
�In 20 plus years of studying miscarriages of justice, while there may have been a few cases where people have for a short time maintained innocence before admitting guilt, I can think of no other high profile, widely supported case where the person has maintained innocence over many years and pursued the case through legal avenues (CCRC, Court of Appeal) and then admitted guilt.
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2019/05/11/the-clues-that-point-to-barry-georges/

Since Stephen Downing�s murder conviction was deemed �unsafe� and he was released from prison he�s made confessions. The police have these on record. He wasn�t retried because he�d served 27 years in prison.
(All in the podcast)

The case of Stephen Downing - The worst miscarriage of justice in British history by Stephen Downing https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/The-Case-of-Stephen-Downing-Paperback/p/16828

Reviewed by Dr Mike Sutton
​�This book, published by Pen and Sword in 2019, authored by Stephen Downing, sets out the facts and its author�s opinions and personal insights surrounding his arrest in 1973, conviction for murder, 27 years served in prison and eventual release in 2001. Stephen�s conviction was overturned based on his confession to murder (as a 17-year-old, with the reading age of an 11-year-old) resulting from illicit police coercion/induced duress and from forensic blood splatter pattern evidence being unsafe. Downing also reveals that further key knowledge about the evidence that the murder victim, Wendy Sewell, was strangled prior to being bludgeoned was not revealed by the prosecution.
https://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/book-reviews

[Nicholas]

The case of Stephen Downing - The worst miscarriage of justice in British history by Stephen Downing https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/The-Case-of-Stephen-Downing-Paperback/p/16828

Reviewed by Dr Mike Sutton
​�This book, published by Pen and Sword in 2019, authored by Stephen Downing, sets out the facts and its author�s opinions and personal insights surrounding his arrest in 1973, conviction for murder, 27 years served in prison and eventual release in 2001. Stephen�s conviction was overturned based on his confession to murder (as a 17-year-old, with the reading age of an 11-year-old) resulting from illicit police coercion/induced duress and from forensic blood splatter pattern evidence being unsafe. Downing also reveals that further key knowledge about the evidence that the murder victim, Wendy Sewell, was strangled prior to being bludgeoned was not revealed by the prosecution.
https://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/book-reviews

�Stephen Downing grew up in the small Derbyshire town of Bakewell. His life was uneventful until the age of 17 when he was arrested and subsequently convicted of murder. Stephen didn't know it at the time but ended up serving 27 years in various prisons before being released by the Courts of Appeal. On release from prison Stephen moved back to the town he grew up in only to find that the police were very unforgiving and would continue to hold blame over him together with the authorities would take the unprecedented action to withold all evidence from him and his supporters for 95 years preventing any investigation to completely prove his innocence.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Stephen-Downing-Miscarriage-Justice/dp/1526742020

Book review:
�Stephen Downing was convicted of the 1973 murder of Wendy Sewell. The jury at his trial in February 1974 heard how Downing had the means, motive, and opportunity. His alibi was deemed flimsy and the forensic evidence stacked up against him. The judge sentenced Downing to life in prison. He languished in the system, knocked about from prison to prison, and refused parole because he would not confess his guilt. After a sustained public campaign led by a local journalist, Don Hale, who based his argument on prosecutorial misconduct, including suppression of an eyewitness account and tainted expert testimony, the Appeals court finally overturned the verdict and Downing walked free in 2002. But legal freedom and innocence in the eyes of public opinion are two different things. The Press lined up against Downing, his mother was assaulted, and Downing struggled to come to terms with his post-prison years, labelling it as another life-sentence. The Case of Stephen Downing: The Worst Miscarriage of Justice in British History is Downing�s memoir of a troubled man and a blighted life.
They say you should never be your own lawyer. In defending himself through this medium, Downing illustrates that dictum by generating more questions than answers. There is no doubt that the prosecution of Downing was a disgrace to the concept of justice, and as an aside, a useful reminder of why the death penalty must never be reintroduced in the UK. But Downing�s rehashing of the crime is at times extraordinary, and the story of the man threatening him in the graveyard simply unbelievable. His explanations for his conduct with various women throughout his life are similarly problematic. Without going into too much detail in a short review, at various points in his book, Downing manages to cast doubt on his own innocence when simple silence, or at least the advice of counsel, might have helped further his cause in a more positive direction. We must sympathize with Downing, his life was turned upside-down through no fault of his own, [/i]and it is no surprise that he has struggled to come to terms with all he has been through. But if this was Downing�s effort to extinguish all the doubts about his past and provide closure, then unfortunately he has failed. If you want to know more about Downing�s case, though, or about the English prison system, then this is a worthwhile read.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47355628-the-case-of-stephen-downing

[Nicholas]

The case of Stephen Downing - The worst miscarriage of justice in British history by Stephen Downing https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/The-Case-of-Stephen-Downing-Paperback/p/16828
https://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/book-reviews

Review
�The other equally important, more precise, perplexing questions raised are numbered in what follows in this book review, with relevant page numbers provided:
1. On page 18 we are told that the local, Bakewell in Derbyshire, police officer PC Charlesworth took a dislike to Stephen Downing from the boy�s earlier childhood. But why did he do that? Based on what? What is/are their relevant prior shared experience/s?
2. Why on Earth would Stephen�s father believe his son has committed the crime of attacking an innocent woman from the outset and say he was proud of him for confessing to it? Stephen says that because his confession to attacking Wendy Sewell (who subsequently died of her injuries) pleased his father, he took two weeks to retract it (see page 117).
3. Did Stephen ever once before or else occasionally, regularly go home in his lunch break and do such things as ask his mother to buy him a bottle of lemonade, as he did on the day of the murder? If not, this could be taken as circumstantial evidence of possible fabrication of an alibi.
4. Did Stephen ever once before, occasionally or regularly go home to change his shoes/boots at lunchtime as we are told on page 13 that he did on the day of the murder? More so, were the boots he changed out of at lunchtime, at home, taken for forensic analysis? Were any of his shoes/boots/clothes � or anything else - taken from his home for forensic analysis? Did he tell the police about this lunchtime change of his dress boots into heavy work boots? This question is important because on page 24 we are told the pathologist�s report said it looked like the victim had possibly been kicked in the head by heavy boots.
5. Why does the book hardly at all deal with what must have been innocent young man�s years of sense of absolute outrage for being imprisoned for a crime he did not commit? Why would he say on his release (see page 120) that he does not feel any bitterness for Derbyshire Constabulary because they are today a different force? Why would he say �...let�s just forget it�?
6. Does Stephen not realise that to write of considering �accepting the guilt� (page 66) to get parole is arguably not the best turn of phrase for an innocent man to use?
7. Stephen has been accused (but denies) making obscene phone calls by several different women. Is it usual for men innocent of this offence to be accused by several different women of doing this? See page 85.
8. We are told by Stephen that he has been wrongly accused of confessing to the murder by admitting to it to two prison doctors (see p. 116). Are there any known cases where prison doctors have fabricated such confessions?
9. Why does Stephen, who mentions it several times in the book, and why does the writer of the foreword to the book (retired police officer Chris Clark) not address the elephant in the room - regarding Clark�s theory that the Yorkshire Ripper was the murderer? Said �elephant� being that Stephen writes on page 14 of being threatened by a male with a sharp object stuck in his back, as he tried to help the injured victim and that this same mysterious person threatened to attack Stephen�s sister and then ran off and escaped by jumping over a wall. And that this mystery person, of tall athletic build with sandy coloured hair, was accompanied by another mystery person with a high-pitched voice, who might have been a woman.
10. Did Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, who was 5 foot 8 inches tall and with dark hair, ever somehow fit the above physical description? Is there any hard evidence Sutcliffe, who always claimed he acted alone, ever committed his murders with an accomplice?

[Nicholas]

I�m of the firm belief an �incomplete� picture was presented in the Barry George case.

In his book, �Crime Lab Report: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform� (p 177)

John M Collins stated,

�Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the most aggressive reform activists from the extreme fringe of the defence bar, including Barry Scheck and Peter Neufield, in my opinion, seemed committed to portraying the findings of the NAS committee as a formal validation of their previous criticisms of forensic science.

By portraying forensic science as a profession in need of reform, these activists could empower their defence colleagues in courtrooms around the country to attack forensic testimony with more success and vigor.
So what forensic science professionals hoped would stand as a good faith, objective examination of the forensic science community became a weapon with which forensic scientists could be attacked in the courtroom - and in the press - further advancing the innocence reform agenda.�

John Collins goes on,

�It would not be long before the report would be submitted as evidence in criminal trials all over the country where, in some instances, defence experts sought to prohibit the admission into evidence of some of the most commonly used and well-established forensic techniques - techniques they would repeatedly argue as being not reliable as forensic experts were making them out to be - because the NAS report said so.�
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZEOwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=NAS+report+consider+tgis+from+john+m+collins&source=bl&ots=fhnux7ulSm&sig=ACfU3U3Wt15pCG2Ou9_XgDRtV5xVaqjEPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjltsr8vbrnAhV2ShUIHUt_A9kQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=NAS%20report%20consider%20tgis%20from%20john%20m%20collins&f=false

And something very similar went on in relation to �confessional evidence, here is Sandra Leans feeble attempt at dismissing Simon Halls confession

She goes on:
�We will never know if Simon Hall�s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.� You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie�s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, .......

She stated this in January 2017, yet back in 2014 she claimed to me, �I�ve wasted 10 years of my life!� amongst other disclosures.

This self serving stance was a quite obvious strategic move designed to achieve HER long-term and overall aim, which for me is not grounded in truth-seeking or fact finding - its game planning.

Following the news MOJO Scotland are being investigated by the governments criminal justice division

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place. https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Following my experiences and having learned I was conned by Simon Hall;

�In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people's belief in you.�

Why We All Fall for Con Artists
�Con artists surround us: Bernie Madoff. Nigerian princes. Psychics. But we never think we�ll fall prey to their wiles. We can spot a gimmick a mile away, while those who become victims are foolish, or greedy, or both. Well, that�s not quite the case. If the NSA can be hacked, so can the average � or even exceptional � human mind. Our capacity to trust, which makes us successful, also makes us vulnerable � as does the natural bias to overrate our own bullshit detection.

Are certain types of people more skilled or motivated in conning?
�In my book I talk about the dark triad of traits: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Any of those can predispose someone to being a con artist. In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people�s belief in you, and psychopaths don�t really have a conscience, so it�s much easier for them to take that step. Narcissism, you have to have an overinflated sense of self in order to rationalize conning other people, especially if you�re not a psychopath. If you�re someone who feels emotion normally, narcissism will protect you, because you say, �Well, I deserve it.� And finally, Machiavellianism is a textbook definition of a con artist, because it�s someone who is like Machiavelli�s �ideal prince,� someone who uses the tools of persuasion and deception and connivance to get what he wants. The ends justify the means. But a lot of it, as with so many things in psychology, is a meeting of predisposition and opportunity.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/why-we-all-fall-for-con-artists.html

It�s clear who have been using �the tools of persuasion and deception and connivance� in attempts to get what they want

Stephen Downing, clearly not happy with all the attention he received following Don Hales campaign to overturn his murder conviction, has gone on to write a book called, �The case of Stephen Downing - The worse Miscarriage of Justice in British History� even though in the eyes of the law he was �wrongly convicted�

Michelle Diskin Bates chose to not refer to her brother Barry Georges case as a �miscarriage of justice� instead referring to it as a �wrongful conviction�

Following Operation Noble the Matlock Mercury reported,

�Last week the police said that they were not looking for anyone else for Mr* Sewells murder and Mr Downing remained the only suspect for the crime.� (Sic)

* Clearly a mis-print and referring to Wendy Sewell

https://www.matlockmercury.co.uk/news/police-murder-probe-given-the-all-clear-1-866863/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Retired Detective Chief Superintendent David Gee talks about Operation Noble here https://play.acast.com/s/reporterpodcast/bb68b4af-dbb4-4b78-bcf8-c4edfdaa22d4��
and explains how Stephen Downing refused to be questioned under caution regarding his further murder confession/s

David Gee also explains how they used Don Hales book as the foundation to their re-investigation into Wendy Sewells murder.

I�ve no doubt the police have done the same with Michelle Diskin Bates book, alongside that of her uncles Michael Bourke

It was made clear during the BBC documentary last year the police aren�t looking for anyone else in relation to Jill Dando�s murder.
 

Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
It is shameful that Cheshire police refuse to apologise to Paul Blackburn for his 25 years in prison, but they have no shame. They simply don�t care: �Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction.�
Police reject judge's call to apologise over wrongful conviction
Evidence of Cheshire force that led to 1978 imprisonment of Paul Blackburn �absurd�
theguardian.com
5:54 AM � Jan 14, 2020�Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1216961832625287168

The Paul Blackburn case reminds me in parts to that of Stephen Downing. The police appear to be suggesting there aren�t other suspects?!

However Michael Naughton needs to look at his own behaviour before casting aspersions. The fact he chooses to not publicly discuss �innocent fraud� suggests to me his personal agenda/s outweigh the truth!?

Paul Blackburn
Stephen Downing
Barry George

Three cases where the police aren�t looking for other suspects.

Last year Professor Carolyn Hoyle stated, re the Criminal Cases Review Commission,

�437 peoples lives that have been changed around by the commission, many people who would otherwise be in prison and are out and those people are left to rebuild their lives that is not easy as research by one of my doctoral students has shown but none the less they have the opportunity to do so�
https://ox.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Embed.aspx?id=69d464e5-e28a-4400-b964-a9dd01201ea0

Barry George is monitored under MAPPA
Stephen Downing appears to also be being monitored
Paul Blackburn was monitored following the overturning of his convictions

I'd been locked up since I was 15 years old. I'm now getting out at the age of 40. Never mind the movie, I was a 40-year-old virgin. It was scary shit for me. And there was nobody there to help me. My probation officer was decent in her way but she was embarrassed to speak to me about some things."

🎀 Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Replying to
@hanksoff03
People who are not guilty often try to have there wrongful convictions overturned. Funny that...you�d think they�d just lie down and take it...wouldn�t you?
#robingarbutt is not guilty! ! !
2:52 PM � Feb 8, 2020�Twitter for iPad
https://mobile.twitter.com/Michelle_Diskin/status/1226156869024174082

My concerns remain that �hanksoff03� has been �groomed and conned�

Would be interested to know what Michelle Diskin Bates has told her (hanksoff03) about Simon Hall and what red flags she should look out for in Robin Garbutt

Interesting to note she�s chosen to not yet retweet the following

MTC & Co Solicitors
@MTC_Solicitors
6h
An amazing night! We had a great line up of speakers who have been fighting for woman Justice
@Michelle_Diskin,Naima @C4CrimAppeals @SinnKandiah & Antonia, Anesta Weekes QC, Julia Smart QC and
@NikkiAlderson2
@WomenBarristers
A Special tks to 
@lynne_townley
@samirpasha
https://mobile.twitter.com/MTC_Solicitors/status/1226096479040876549

But tweeted about her �fingers� in a photo from a news article on convicted murderer Robin Garbutt

🎀 Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
1h
Replying to
@Michelle_Diskin
 and
@hanksoff03
What�s wrong with my fingers...their, not there 🤓


I feel another blog coming on

[Nicholas]

�Almost two decades of research on miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions, and over a decade of direct engagements with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) with the Innocence Network UK (INUK) and the University of Bristol Innocence Project,
https://www.thejusticegap.com/please-forgive-me-but-i-wont-be-holding-my-breath/

Yet Dr Michael Naughton hasn�t recognised �innocent fraud� being perpetuated in the UK. I don�t believe it!

Founder and Director
Dr Michael Naughton

Champions
Michael O� Brien (one of three men who were wrongly convicted in the case known as the Cardiff Newsagent Three for the murder of Cardiff newsagent, Philip Saunders)

Michelle Bates (sister of Barry George who was wrongly convicted of the murder of British journalist, television presenter and newsreader, Jill Dando)

Case  researchers
Amna Bokhari (2019 � )
Alisha Jackson (2019 � )
Malavika Ramanand (2019 � )
Ellen Rees (2019 � )
Bill Studholme (2019 � )

http://michaeljnaughton.com/?page_id=3707

�Empowering the Innocent Magazine

Empowering the Innocent Magazine: Giving voice to alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions.

#1 planned for Spring 2020 � watch this space!�


�SUB-POSTMASTER Robin Garbutt told the jury that he would never have hurt his wife, Diana.
The 45-year-old wept as he spoke of how he missed her �now more than ever� and �just wanted her back�.
The eight men and four women listened as the softly spoken defendant talked of the couple�s �caring and loving relationship�.
They listened again as the defendant became hysterical while on the phone to the 999 operator (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BJFgCQNRsQE), and again as he cried in the dock and then in the witness box.
They listened and they watched and then they agreed that the 45-year-old had bludgeoned his wife to death in her bed.
Read the full background to the Garbutt murder in Wednesday's Northern Echo, including:

� Diana Garbutt's secret life behind closed doors.

� The robbery that never was.

� What drove Robin Garbutt to kill.

� The anguish felt by friends and family.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8982424.robin-garbutt-denied-wifes-murder-last/

[Nicholas]

�Empowering the Innocent Magazine

Empowering the Innocent Magazine: Giving voice to alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions.

#1 planned for Spring 2020 � watch this space!�


�SUB-POSTMASTER Robin Garbutt told the jury that he would never have hurt his wife, Diana.
The 45-year-old wept as he spoke of how he missed her �now more than ever� and �just wanted her back�.
The eight men and four women listened as the softly spoken defendant talked of the couple�s �caring and loving relationship�.
They listened again as the defendant became hysterical while on the phone to the 999 operator (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BJFgCQNRsQE), and again as he cried in the dock and then in the witness box.
They listened and they watched and then they agreed that the 45-year-old had bludgeoned his wife to death in her bed.
Read the full background to the Garbutt murder in Wednesday's Northern Echo, including:

� Diana Garbutt's secret life behind closed doors.

� The robbery that never was.

� What drove Robin Garbutt to kill.

� The anguish felt by friends and family.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8982424.robin-garbutt-denied-wifes-murder-last/

stevenbones
@stevenbones1
Oct 22, 2014
Dr Michael Naughton: Claims of Innocence: http://youtu.be/HUsFwSdmQZw via
@YouTube

Listen to Dr Michael Naughton referring to �empowering� others including sharing the �claims of innocence� booklet with �grassroots� groups such as �progressing prisoners maintaining innocence� to �empower prisoners�, highlighting Simon Halls forthcoming appeal at the Royal Courts of justice, with Michael Mansfield, the Neil Hurley & Paul Blackburn cases,
Barry George and his attempts at getting compensation, Michael O�Brien of the so called Cardiff Newsagent 3 receiving �1,000,000 etc

Interesting to see a solicitor, who I presume isn�t involved directly with the case, to be seen to openly support Bamber

dean kingham
@deankingham
A very good 2018 for the @SwainSolicitors prison law team. Highlights include cat a downgrades, convictions quashed, innocent people released by the Parole Board, accused individuals found not guilty. 2019 will be better. I have a feeling Bamber and Stone will have good years.
1:04 AM � Jan 1, 2019�Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/deankingham/status/1079906216472653824

Does he know the ins and outs of the Bamber case or is he �blindly supporting� the campaign?

�Well known to Parole Board members, Dean is highly experienced in challenging prison authorities. His reputation of being fearless in arguments to the board has led to him to represent some of the most high profile prisoners. Dean is passionate about miscarriages of Justice and is committed to assisting prisoners who maintain their innocence. He writes articles for organisations assisting those whom maintain their innocence.
https://www.associationofprisonlawyers.co.uk/employees/dean-kingham/

Dean Kingham, Head of Prison Law, Public Law and Crime, Swain & Co. Parole Board Lead for the Association of Prison Lawyers (APL):
�Swain and Co specialise in dealing with prisoners stuck in the system, high profile, and complex cases. We instruct psychologists regularly and require forensic psychologists at the forefront of their profession. We have always found Tully Forensic Psychology to be leaders in the world of forensic psychology. The team is lead by Dr Ruth Tully, whom has developed psychological research applicable to prisoners and rehabilitation. The reports are of great assistance to us in arguing that prisoners should move through the system, progress to open conditions, or be released. The team often face very probing questions from The Parole Board and are able to explain and develop the evidence within their reports extremely well. We have found the assessments and reports to be key components in arguing clients� applications to The Parole Board. They are leaders in the world of forensic psychology.�
https://tullyforensicpsychology.com/testimonials/

�On Monday 10th December, I attended the House of Commons at the Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence (PPMI) Annual Lecture, �Is the Parole Process Fit for Purpose? Releasing Safe Individuals Promptly.� This event was attended by guest speakers, Dean Kingham, Head of Prison and Public Law at Swain & Co, Ruth Tully, forensic psychologist from Tully Forensic Psychology and two ex-prisoners, Chris and Cookie.
It was a thought-provoking evening and it was great to meet so many passionate people who work helping those wrongly convicted, and as well many inspiring families who have been gravely affected by miscarriages of justice.
Dean Kingham was the first to answer the ever-important question, �Is the Parole Process Fit for Purpose?� Dean was instructed by Mr Worboys in the Judicial Review, is in front of the parole board daily at oral hearings, and has been involved in many poignant cases in the past few years, namely The Queen (on the Application of Wakenshaw) v The Secretary of State for Justice, where the High Court made a declaration that the Justice Minister had interfered with the independence of the parole board.   This is a clear example of how the Justice Minister has no respect for constitutional values that are deep rooted in this society, namely the doctrine of the separation of powers and Dicey�s Rule of Law.
Dean stated in reply to the question,
�It is not about whether the parole board is fit for purpose for those maintaining innocence, the question is whether the Secretary of State for Justice is fit for purpose.�
Dean exclaimed that although we are not where we would ideally like to be with the parole board and how it effects those who maintain innocence, improvements have been made and the parole system is better than it used to be, in that the likes of HORIZON and KAIZEN are now offered as offending behaviour courses, where one will not have to discuss the index offence. Ultimately however, the problems of the system seem to always fall back into the Justice Minister�s hands, and problems with parole are the same. When one is recommended for open conditions by the parole board, the Secretary of State inevitably has the final decision, which in a case we worked on recently was turned on us negatively.
Dean spoke at length about the troubles with progressing those who are category A, and the issues with the category A team in that they essentially penalise those who maintain innocence. Dean also discussed the major cuts on probation and the effect that this has had on the parole process itself, and moreover discussing that HMPPS in its entirety completely misunderstand maintaining innocence. Often it is naturally assumed that maintaining innocence equates to risk, but it has been evidenced that maintaining innocence is often a protective factor.
It was also mentioned that despite the slight dip in release rates post-Worboys, release rates have in fact gone up, and the number of oral hearing have rocketed, given the rulings in Osborn, Booth and Reilly. Only today did we at Swain and Co get a release decision for someone maintaining innocence.
On a final note, Dean mentioned the cost of keeping people incarcerated� �40,000-�60,000 per year, and �70,000 for those in the high secure estate. Thus, he detailed how necessary it was to progress those in prison to be able to have their risk managed in the community, and moreover the importance of progressing prisoners maintaining innocence.
Following on from Dean, Ruth Tully, a forensic psychologist of Tully Forensic Psychology, discussed the linked with psychology and progressing prisoners maintaining innocence. Ruth is an independent psychologist who often creates psychological reports of offenders who go in front of the parole board, at the instruction of solicitors representing them. An independent psychological assessment is an assessment by a psychologist who is independent of the system that detains them, and an assessment which is conducted by those who will present their truthful professional opinion of the offender.
Ruth depicted an often-common situation in which a prisoner may have had a very bad experience of prison psychology, and how that will often affect their engagement with psychology in general. Ruth clearly stated that the relationship between denial and increased risk is objectively unclear, and that denial doesn�t necessarily increase risk - the research is inconclusive overall.  Ruth also spoke at length at about enabling a good rapport with offenders to be able to complete a full assessment of them, and this involves progressing those who maintain innocence, who often do not want to discuss the index offence they maintain they have never committed. Psychology often involves discussing the index offence, but an understanding of their stance and their view that they have never been involved in that, will improve the quality of report writing.
Offending behaviour courses are often �sold� as being the only way to reduce risk in many prisons, however, Ruth discussed that offending behaviour work is not the only pathway to progression and thus a reduced risk of serious harm.
The event then heard from Chris, who was released 6 weeks ago after spending 20 years incarcerated for Joint Enterprise. The injustice of Joint Enterprise is well known, from the old case of Derek Bentley to the most recent case of Laura Mitchell and is brought to public knowledge and fought against daily by the wonderful grassroots campaign that is JENGbA.[/i]
Read more here: https://www.swainandco.com/prison-law/progressing-prisoners-maintaining-innocence-annual-lecture-10th-december-2018-at-the-house-of-commons/

How a Forensic Psychologist can help with your Parole Collette Blake and Ruth Tully  30th October 2017

�A Forensic Psychologist is a Psychologist concerned with aiding the Court, Parole Board, or any aspect of the criminal justice system concerning offenders/alleged offenders, or victims. It is a common mis-

conception that they all work with the police when in fact the police employ few Forensic Psychologists. Forensic Psychologists, in the content of this article, can make a real difference to inmates satisfactorily addressing the issue of risk, and with progression and release. For the vast majority of inmates, access to a Forensic Psychologist can be achieved in cases through legal aid.

Forensic Psychologists are experts in their field and their conclusions are relied upon because of that expertise. It is easy for non-qualified people involved with inmates to form opinions and impressions of them very easily, often based on very limited interaction, and once those opinions are formed they can be very difficult to shake off. Inmates with mental health conditions, personality disorders, learning disabilities or developmental disorders, inmates with addictions or who have been victimised or experienced psychological trauma in some way and even the unfortunate few who find themselves homeless can all be stigmatised and in many ways seen to be penalised throughout their sentence for their individual problems. Once an inmate within any one of these categories is considered a risk, however high, it really can be difficult to reduce that perception. This can adversely impact upon progression and release. The instruction of an experienced expert, such as a Forensic Psychologist, who understands the penal and prison system, who understands the correlation between lack of social, emotional and economic opportunity and the issues of progression and risk, can really make a difference.

It is not difficult to see how �labels� and �negative opinions� can adversely affect inmates when it comes to progression and release. Forensic Psychologists are experts; they are under a duty not to mislead and must provide honest and professional opinions unaffected by bias or prejudice. This is very important when it comes to parole and recall cases which are all concerned with a perception of risk, often assessed by people who know nothing about you, haven�t met you and who base their conclusions on nothing more than what they have read about you. Almost every decision nowadays made by prisons and those connected with prisons is based on some form of risk assessment. The trouble with this is that once your risk is perceived to be high, it can be very difficult to persuade the prison and parole board that your risk has been reduced, or that it is much lower than how it looks on paper. The parole board is so risk averse and is petrified of making what it feels �might� be the wrong decision.

There are very few parole cases which can be regarded as �clear cut� where you can confidently predict the outcome. The parole board is very unpredictable. It is because of this uncertainty and unpredictability that instructing an independent Forensic Psychologist is even the more important. Readers will be well familiar with how the parole board can base its findings and conclusions based on mere �perceptions� of risk which can all too often seem to be very much against the weight and strength of evidence available. Instructing an independent Forensic Psychologist will allow you to have the confidence in knowing that any reports on you will have been viewed impartially and without any preconception of you or your personal circumstances.

This month I want to introduce readers to Dr Ruth Tully, Forensic Psychologist. In this first of two articles, Dr Tully will this month set out in basic terms the role of a Forensic Psychologist.

Dr Tully writes

I am an independent Forensic Psychologist not employed by the prison service/NOMS. I am totally �independent� and impartial from the organisation involved in your detention. I can be instructed in a variety of cases and for a variety of purposes. For example, you might already have had an assessment which you disagree with. Or you might feel that with a pending parole case you would like a report from someone instructed by you with a view to helping the parole board make their decision about progression.

When I am instructed, my team and I would visit you personally in prison. I would base my opinion and conclusions both on our discussions and the content of any parole dossier and other relevant paperwork. I have vast experience. I know how the parole board works. I know what it looks for when considering release and although I remain loyal to my professional duty at all times not to mislead and to offer my honest opinion, I am not afraid of disagreeing with the prison on issues of risk or in disagreeing with the conclusions of other professionals if I disagree with them.

My company, Tully Forensic Psychology Ltd, is a leading provider of independent psychological assessments with a team of Forensic Psychologists and Clinical Psychologists across the UK. We have worked with leading firm Wells Burcombe, and many leading law firms nationwide, on a wide range of issues. We provide a range of types of assessments for parole, Court, and other proceedings. Our psychologists and therapists are experts through their practice and academic/research publications, and importantly we are all down-to-earth people who treat service users with dignity and respect.

If you wish to have an independent psychological assessment, or perhaps instruct Dr Tully or any one of her team of 18 Forensic and Clinical Psychologists who work with her, please write to �The Prison Law Department� at either offices of Wells Burcombe Solicitors. We offer a nationwide service.

Next issue: Dr Tully and I address the process of psychological assessment/types of assessment and the benefits of an independent assessment.

Collette Blake is a Senior Prison Consultant at Wells Burcombe and Ruth Tully is a Forensic Psychologist
https://insidetime.org/how-a-forensic-psychologist-can-help-with-your-parole/

David Wells, a criminal defence specialist from Wells Burcombe Solicitors, was at the police station when Barry reported the sinister threat.
David said: 'He was incredibly distressed... sweating, out of breath and in quite a state.
I'd seen Barry on many occasions and I had never seen him this distressed.
Later that year Barry fled to Ireland where he hoped the harassment would end.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5961027/Man-acquitted-killing-Jill-Dando-told-watch-walking-free.html

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.555

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg495654#msg495654

[Nicholas]

The Stephen Downing case exposed - including Matt Barlow the reporter assigned to report on the CoA hearing

Some in the town of Bakewell are clearly affected by the �illusionary truth effect� manufactured by Don Hale/Stephen Downing

An example of �innocent fraud�

Yet in 2013 Dr Dennis Eady, following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt and confession, claimed,
�In 20 plus years of studying miscarriages of justice, while there may have been a few cases where people have for a short time maintained innocence before admitting guilt, I can think of no other high profile, widely supported case where the person has maintained innocence over many years and pursued the case through legal avenues (CCRC, Court of Appeal) and then admitted guilt.
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2019/05/11/the-clues-that-point-to-barry-georges/

Dr Dennis Eady here mentioning the Duaine George case https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y5rr4FXX0_0

�Duaine was actually not present at all when the shooting took place he was having tea round at his friends mothers house�

�A MURDERER jailed for life for shooting a teenager in the back and another in the hand has failed to win his freedom.
The relieved mother of Daniel Dale, the 18-year-old who died after the bullet pierced his heart, said she hoped her family would now be able to grieve in peace without fear of further legal appeals.
Two years ago, Dwaine Simeon George, 20, of Anfield Road, New Moston, was found guilty of murdering Daniel, attempting to murder of his 17-year-old friend and possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life.
Lawyers this week took his case to the appeal courts in London saying his conviction was "unsafe" because a jury in the original trial had been told that another man, Nathan Loftus, had earlier admitted possessing a gun and that identification evidence relating to George was weak.
But senior judges disagreed and upheld the conviction. They said there was no reason why the jury should not have been told about Loftus saying his conviction was "but a small part of the jigsaw". They also said the original judge had properly explained issues about the identification of George to the jury.
Today Daniel's mother Lynn Hayes said: "Everybody has the right to appeal except the victims. Maybe now my devastated family can start to grieve in peace.
"We never doubted the police had got the right person for Daniel's murder and we have always had faith in them."
Daniel, who had never been in trouble with the police, collapsed in an alley off Farnborough Road, Miles Platting, after being shot in July 2001.
He was due to be called as a witness in a crown court trial into the killing of friend Paul Ward, 16, who was stabbed to death in Cheetham Hill in January 2001. But the accused pleaded guilty at the last moment, so he did not need to take the stand.
Daniel was shot days after a fight broke out at the court between supporters of the accused and those of victim Paul.
As well as rejecting George's appeal, judges at London's Criminal Appeal Court at the same time considered an appeal by 20-year-old Ryan Brown, of Kesteven Road, Harpurhey, Manchester.
Following the original trial in April 2002 at Preston Crown Court, Brown was sentenced to eight years for the wounding of Daniel's 17-year-old pal with a concurrent seven-year sentence for possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life.
Appeal Court Judges Lord Justice Clarke'Mr Justice Jack and Judge Fabyan Evans, dismissed his challenge on the firearms offence but ruled the wounding charge was "unsafe". They reduced his eight-year sentence to seven years.
Brown had originally been charged with murdering Daniel and attempting to murder his teenage friend. He was acquitted by a jury but found guilty of wounding with intent.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/murderer-fails-to-win-freedom-1109988