Saturday, 19 January 2013

I Guess This Is Why We Need A National DNA Database?

An unfaithful wife has been jailed for two years - almost a decade after she cried rape just to hide a one-night stand from her husband.
Ten years?!?
Gaynor Cooke, 41, had told police she was violently attacked by a taxi driver to cover up her fling with him, and her former lover was due to stand trial next month.
No-one was arrested in 2003 because a forensic sample taken from her at the time failed to find a similar profile on the national DNA database.
But when in 2011 the man, who she claimed was a stranger, was detained for a minor offence his DNA threw up a match.
Ah. Good old vital national DNA database, eh?

Still, I guess some good detective work led to the police's suspicions?
The man she slept with was charged with rape and faced trial at Nottingham Crown Court in February.
However detectives received information that Cooke had lied to conceal her infidelity. And when police went back to speak to the 41-year-old about the new evidence she told them: 'You've got me'.
Oh.
Recorder Smith told her: 'It's a complete pack of lies. It may only have been for a short period of time, but you destroyed an innocent life.'
Hey, don't place ALL the blame on her. She had help...

H/T: Mark Wadsworth via email
at

7 comments:

  1. MTG19 January 2013 at 09:53

    I adore women...knowing they are only liars, manipulators and backstabbers out of a sense of low self-esteem, Julia.

    To protect us all, women should be placed on the National DNA database, long before puberty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Pickworth19 January 2013 at 09:57

    An unfaithful wife has been jailed for two years

    And the innocent taxi driver faced a possible jail sentence of...?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bucko19 January 2013 at 10:46

    Scary stuff isn't it.
    The illiberal among us will say the database is worth while if 'it saves just one live'.
    I don't think the counter argument, Can we scrap it if one innocent person is put in prison, will deter them somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous19 January 2013 at 12:25

    And the comment from the feminist lobby is.......?

    They, i presume are still pushing that a womans word alone is enough for conviction.

    On the flip side, it may well be the case that DNA prevents an innocent person from going to jail based on the word of one woman.

    If DNA was dispensed with, how many men would get convicted just on the word of a woman?

    ReplyDelete
  5. John Pickworth19 January 2013 at 13:45

    I don't have a problem with DNA being used as an investigation tool. But I do object to the cataloguing and the indecent desire of the police to record the profiles of the entire population. If the DNA database was truly a protector of the innocent, then lets see every serving and retired police officer added to it without delay. After all, if they've nothing to hide?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bucko19 January 2013 at 14:26

    "On the flip side, it may well be the case that DNA prevents an innocent person from going to jail based on the word of one woman. "

    Rather than using one wrong to counter another I think we should get rid of both wrongs. The DNA database and the word of a woman as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JuliaM20 January 2013 at 05:29

    "And the innocent taxi driver faced a possible jail sentence of...?"

    Well, quite! If he'd only got two years (and it wouldn't be two years, remember, due to automatic discounting) the Sisterhood would be screeching the place down...

    "Rather than using one wrong to counter another I think we should get rid of both wrongs. The DNA database and the word of a woman as evidence."

    Quite so.

    ReplyDelete