A more interesting use of DNA in a murder trial, actually three trials of the same person for the same crime - lots of appeals etc, was the matter of Thomas Keir, eventually found guilty for the murder of his wife in 1988. It took 10 years for the DNA techniques to identify the bones found under his house as those of Jean Keir.

The DNA techniques in this trial being developed by the US Armed Forces DNA laboratory, to identify the remains of US military personnel found in Vietnam.

A good account of the series of trials can be found at:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2007nswcca.nsf/a16acdaf45f305714a256724003189f5/63d14a895442ce1cca2572e80082d2c6?OpenDocument

The interesting thing in this one was that the appeal system functioned to protect justice, not the conviction. The first trial was appealed, successfully, on the basis of 'the prosecutor's fallacy'. The second trial because some jurors acted contrary to the instructions given to them by the judge.

Eventually Thomas Keir was tried by a judge alone, who found him guilty, but then this decision was confirmed by a panel of three judges sitting on the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. It was also the CCA who had previously sent the matter back for retrial, in spite of the CCA describing the Crown case as a very strong one.

There were no witnesses to the killing, the only motive was the alleged jealousy and possessiveness of Thomas Keir. Most of the evidence was forensic in nature, being fairly small parts of bones. The defence alleged that the DNA has been contaminated, but the Crown was able to show that this was not the case.

Few people championed Thomas Keir's cause, maybe because he was not an author or a spiritualist. He comes across as something of a brute; but the law does not depend on a person's attractiveness or intelligence for a fair trial. The Appeal system worked in his case, his trial was heard three times. No-one can doubt the fairness of the process.

They already had Andrew's DNA profile BEFORE they took his blood sample. How can they prove that his blood matched the crime scene sample and not the sample that they had already obtained from Andrew, unless they release the actual crime scene evidence for retesting.

If their case only needed to be based on DNA, why didn't they look for more to seal the deal? Why wasn't the car tested? Surely after such a vicious attack, (and if you knew Andrew, you would know that he wouldn't have had the physical strength to overpower a woman like that) he would have been covered in blood. He didn't walk home...

Witnesses who claimed to have seen Andrew approching her house holding a cat (the colour of which they couldn't agree on) were mysteriously absent from the trial. Witnesses that saw Kathleen on Friday testified, so why wouldn't they put up their star witnesses placing Andrew at the house? Why would that be?

It's scary, very scary. Make sure you keep every cell from your body. Never discard your cigarette butts in a public place. If you blow your nose on a tissue, don't throw it in the bin - burn it immediately. Someone could take that tissue, place it the scene of THEIR crime for collection as evidence, DNA intact, and tip off the police. You're forced to provide a "voluntary" blood sample to "eliminate yourself as a suspect" and BINGO - you've just been placed at the scene of the murder. If you decline the voluntary sample, they'll be back on your door step that night raiding your house for sheets, tissues, toothbrushes, hairbrushes and your coffee cup. They won't look for anything else that might actually corroborate your guilt, which by now is not in doubt, they just want that DNA.

I agree it is more difficult to "plant" blood, but if one DNA sample from this crime scene was enough to convict, a few cells off a cigarette butt, strand of hair or tissue would surely be just as effective. Go on, prove that you weren't there....