Police Knew DNA Wasn't His Years Before Release: Shocking Details of Andrew Malkinson's Injustice

Summary:

• New details emerge about the wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson, who spent years in prison for rape.
• Police and prosecutors were aware of potential DNA evidence that could have exonerated Malkinson, but took no action.
• The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) declined to pursue an appeal based on the DNA evidence.
• Failure to thoroughly investigate inconsistent evidence raises concerns about the criminal justice system's approach to miscarriages of justice.
• Calls for reform and better leadership within the CCRC in addressing wrongful convictions.
• Ongoing investigation and broader implications for the pursuit of justice.

New revelations emerge about the wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson, who spent years in prison for a rape he may not have committed, as evidence suggests police and prosecutors knew about potential DNA evidence years before his release.

Discovery of DNA Evidence

Three years after Andrew Malkinson was imprisoned for rape, a startling revelation has come to light. Police and prosecutors uncovered evidence that could have exonerated him, but failed to take action. The evidence involved DNA found on the victim's vest, near the bite wound inflicted by the attacker. Despite this discovery, no significant steps were taken to address the potential miscarriage of justice.

Inconclusive Meeting

A meeting involving police, prosecutors, and forensic scientists took place regarding the DNA evidence. During this meeting, a case worker made a surprising statement, suggesting that if the saliva found on the clothing came from the offender, it could not have come from Malkinson. This revelation raises questions about the handling of critical evidence in the case.

Missed Opportunities for Appeal

Andrew Malkinson had the opportunity to appeal his conviction through the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). However, despite the DNA evidence suggesting a potential wrongful conviction, the CCRC declined to pursue further action. This decision was based on the belief that the DNA evidence alone would not lead to a successful appeal, given the weight of other identity-related evidence that had been presented in court.

Failure to Investigate DNA Evidence

The CCRC's failure to commission DNA testing and thoroughly investigate the new evidence has raised concerns about the commission's approach to miscarriages of justice. The importance of considering inconsistent evidence, even in the face of strong identification testimony, was highlighted by legal experts. The failure to explore this avenue has led to continued injustice for Malkinson.

Systemic Issues and Calls for Reform

This case sheds light on deeper issues within the criminal justice system. Former officials, including a solicitor general, have criticized the CCRC's lack of action and called for better leadership, resources, and dedication to addressing miscarriages of justice. The case of Andrew Malkinson underscores the reluctance within the system to admit mistakes and rectify them, perpetuating a cycle of potential injustices.

Ongoing Investigation and Implications

The impact of these revelations continues, as a man arrested in connection with the same rape case last year has been released but remains under investigation. The Andrew Malkinson case serves as a reminder that even in the face of new evidence, the criminal justice system must strive to uphold fairness and accountability.

As the legal system grapples with the aftermath of this case, questions arise about the broader implications for justice and the need for reform. The mishandling of crucial DNA evidence highlights the potential for wrongful convictions to persist, even in the presence of contradictory information. The case of Andrew Malkinson serves as a stark reminder of the importance of rigorous investigation, careful consideration of all evidence, and a commitment to rectifying miscarriages of justice.