The Guardian's Emily Dugan wrote, "A description of the rapist was released to the public, but Malkinson did not match key parts of it: he was 3in taller, had chest hair when the victim said her attacker had none, and he had prominent tattoos on his forearms but none were mentioned. She also said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek, but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day." DNA was found in scrapings from the victim's fingernails, and a photograph shows a difference in one of her nails.
The Malkinson case is a cautionary tale with respect to the Mitchell case. Offhand, I would point out that the former case shows that police cannot be relied upon not to destroy evidence, that even old evidence can be probative, that many lawyers believe that the CCRC is not fit for purpose, that eyewitnesses can be very confident yet very wrong, that the police sometimes withhold key information, and that it is important to follow correct eyewitness identification procedures.
EDT
There is also the question of whether or not majority verdicts (10-2 in the Malkinson case) contribute to wrongful convictions.
