DNA match over boy's 1985 murder

[tuglet]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8243...

Seems a bit unfair to name a dead man who will never have the opportunity to clear his name. Can't put my finger on exactly why, but it just seems "wrong" to me. If the police and victim's family are satisfied with the DNA evidence then close the case and move on, but keep the alleged perpetrators identity secret.

[Parrot of Doom]

You can't libel dead people.

[Frankeh]

Parrot of Doom said:

You can't libel dead people.

Which explains the media circus that erupted around Michael Jackson when he died.

[tuglet]

Parrot of Doom said:

You can't libel dead people.

I know you can't libel the dead, but it just seems unfair on his seven kids to label their father a child rapist and murderer without having to prove it. Like I said, I can't put my finger on exactly why, but reading the story at lunchtime offended my sense of fair play.

[peterperkins]

I imagine the victims family want closure. Can't have that without an offender. No way they would keep that a secret either IMO.

If we speculate some rather compelling evidence like dried j*zz dna on said victims underpants. That didn't get there using a star trek transporter did it?

If the evidence is compeling why not ID the suspect dead or alive.

If he had been alive he would presumably have been arrested and charged by now as well.

Lots of horrendous offenders in jail now thanks to old cases being solved with DNA, bring it on I say! I hope they enjoy waiting for the knock on the door for all those years.

Edited by peterperkins on Tuesday 8th September 17:13

[Frankeh]

"The scientists who conducted the DNA tests said there was a one in billion chance of the person responsible not being Morley, a father-of-seven."

That sounds like total bullst to me, considering the number of getting a standard wrong match is lower than that. The odds of a match through a family member being wrong must be even lower.
Not saying he didn't do it, just don't agree with BS stats.

[tuglet]

peterperkins said:

I imagine the victims family want closure. Can't have that without an offender. No way they would keep that a secret either IMO.

If we speculate some rather compelling evidence like dried j*zz dna on said victims underpants. That didn't get there using a star trek transporter did it?

If the evidence is compeling why not ID the suspect dead or alive.

If he had been alive he would presumably have been arrested and charged by now as well.

Lots of horrendous offenders in jail now thanks to old cases being solved with DNA, bring it on I say! I hope they enjoy waiting for the knock on the door for all those years.

Edited by peterperkins on Tuesday 8th September 17:13

If he was still alive he would be tried and the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty; he would have a chance to defend himself. It runs contrary to the principles of natural justice to make such allegations without giving the accused the opportunity to challenge the evidence.

[peterperkins]

However being dead does not mean that he was not the offender.

So for instance that bloke who shot his wife and daughter and the horses and then burnt the house/ buildings/cars to the ground and shot himself a while back.

He's dead does that mean we should not name him as the suspect/offender?

I agree it's not ideal but we don't live in an ideal world.

[tuglet]

peterperkins said:

However being dead does not mean that he was not the offender.

So for instance that bloke who shot his wife and daughter and the horses and then burnt the house/ buildings/cars to the ground and shot himself a while back.

He's dead does that mean we should not name him as the suspect/offender?

I agree it's not ideal but we don't live in an ideal world.

You make a good analogy, but my intrinsic sense of fair play is telling me that it's okay to name one but not the other; that is what I'm trying to rationalise.

Perhaps in situations like this, a judge could rule on whether to publish the identity of the deceased based on the preponderance of evidence. In the example you cite, I imagine there was a wealth of high quality contemporaneous evidence gathered using modern techniques, stored and analysed using the latest methodologies. IIRC there was CCTV footage of him carrying a gun and setting fire to the outbuildings. In my case, there seems to be one piece of 24 year old DNA evidence.