DOUBT CAST OVER THE EXPERTISE OF OMAGH TRIAL WITNESS
Doubt cast over the expertise of Omagh bomb trial witness
BY DEBORAH McALEESE
CRIME CORRESPONDENT
dmcaleese@belfasttelegraph.co.uk
APPEAL Court judges have thrown doubt on the expertise of a forensic scientist who challenged a controversial DNA technique at the Omagh bomb trial.
The technique for analysing minute amounts of DNA was a key part of the failed case against Sean Hoey and following his acquittal the testing of Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA was temporarily suspended.
Delivering his verdict in 2007, trial judge Mr Justice Weir decided the technique was not at a sufficiently scientific level to be considered evidence after Prof Allan Jamieson, who appeared as a defence witness for Mr Hoey, testified LCN DNA was unreliable.
However appeal court judges in another case this week said that challenges to the science behind LCN DNA testing should no longer be permitted in most trials.
The Court of Appeal in England said that Prof Jamieson's expertise on the interpretation of DNA profiles "is limited, without any relevant first hand laboratory or research experience".
The judgment added it is "impossible to understand" how he had sufficient expertise to give evidence in the Omagh case, "let alone to assist in the attack made in that case on the LCN process".
The judges had considered Prof Jamieson's opinions in the course of two other cases where LCN DNA helped secure convictions. They said that much of Prof Jamieson's knowledge of DNA and the analysis of low template DNA is based on reading scientific papers and discussion with other scientists, as opposed to carrying out laboratory research himself.
The judges added that they "retain clear reservations about the extent of his expertise in relation to DNA profiles".
During the Omagh bomb trial Prof Jamieson and another scientist argued that the science of low copy DNA had not been "validated" by the international scientific community. He said it was "unreliable" and test results were open to interpretation.
In a statement to the BBC Prof Jamieson said:" As a senior member of the scientific community, I delivered [at the Omagh trial] my opinion regarding the deficiencies in the validation process for LCN. These deficiencies were considered by the court, and by many scientists in this and other jurisdictions, serious enough to warrant further investigation.
"They were not the basis upon which the verdict was delivered."
factfile
This is a relatively new scientific technique and requires painstaking levels of forensic precautions. Using the technique forensic experts have been able to link offenders to a crime from sweat, skin or fingerprint traces one million times smaller than a grain of salt. It has been successfully generated from items such as tools, matchsticks, weapon handles and clothing. Critics claim because it relies on the magnification of tiny samples the potential for error is also magnified.
BY DEBORAH McALEESE
CRIME CORRESPONDENT
dmcaleese@belfasttelegraph.co.uk
APPEAL Court judges have thrown doubt on the expertise of a forensic scientist who challenged a controversial DNA technique at the Omagh bomb trial.
The technique for analysing minute amounts of DNA was a key part of the failed case against Sean Hoey and following his acquittal the testing of Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA was temporarily suspended.
Delivering his verdict in 2007, trial judge Mr Justice Weir decided the technique was not at a sufficiently scientific level to be considered evidence after Prof Allan Jamieson, who appeared as a defence witness for Mr Hoey, testified LCN DNA was unreliable.
However appeal court judges in another case this week said that challenges to the science behind LCN DNA testing should no longer be permitted in most trials.
The Court of Appeal in England said that Prof Jamieson's expertise on the interpretation of DNA profiles "is limited, without any relevant first hand laboratory or research experience".
The judgment added it is "impossible to understand" how he had sufficient expertise to give evidence in the Omagh case, "let alone to assist in the attack made in that case on the LCN process".
The judges had considered Prof Jamieson's opinions in the course of two other cases where LCN DNA helped secure convictions. They said that much of Prof Jamieson's knowledge of DNA and the analysis of low template DNA is based on reading scientific papers and discussion with other scientists, as opposed to carrying out laboratory research himself.
The judges added that they "retain clear reservations about the extent of his expertise in relation to DNA profiles".
During the Omagh bomb trial Prof Jamieson and another scientist argued that the science of low copy DNA had not been "validated" by the international scientific community. He said it was "unreliable" and test results were open to interpretation.
In a statement to the BBC Prof Jamieson said:" As a senior member of the scientific community, I delivered [at the Omagh trial] my opinion regarding the deficiencies in the validation process for LCN. These deficiencies were considered by the court, and by many scientists in this and other jurisdictions, serious enough to warrant further investigation.
"They were not the basis upon which the verdict was delivered."
factfile
This is a relatively new scientific technique and requires painstaking levels of forensic precautions. Using the technique forensic experts have been able to link offenders to a crime from sweat, skin or fingerprint traces one million times smaller than a grain of salt. It has been successfully generated from items such as tools, matchsticks, weapon handles and clothing. Critics claim because it relies on the magnification of tiny samples the potential for error is also magnified.
Further Information
Publisher: BELFAST TELEGRAPH
Ref: BT/1179
Published Date: 23-Dec-09
Related Images
