One of the biggest problems with our justice system at the minute is the way DNA evidence is being misused to convince juries - the fact that there is a Select Committee gathering evidence about the failings of forensic evidence as it's used in our courts demonstrates the extent of the problem.
The claim that Matthew Hamlen "could not say 100% that he did not have sex with the victim" was the result of police manipulation (the nature of police interrogations is designed to elicit specific answers, not necessarily the truth).
Matthew could not remember where he was on the day the murder happened (it was two years earlier). The interrogating officers kept insisting that he couldn't be sure of anything if he couldn't remember the day (which, of course, is true of all of us). From there, they then suggested he "could not be sure" he didn't have sex with the victim. Matthew replied that he was "as sure as it was possible to be" that he had never had sex with an old lady - any old lady - ever. The police then introduced the subject of percentages of certainty. By then, there was no way Matthew could say 100%, because they had already made it clear they would not accept absolute certainty about anything, on the basis that Matthew could not remember the day.
What makes all of this so much worse is that there was no suggestion, or evidence, that Mrs Edmonds was sexually assaulted - there was no evidence of sexual activity whatsoever.
The DNA used to convict Matthew was so-called "touch DNA" - the big problem with this is that items of Matthew's were transported in the same bag as items from Mrs Edmonds (including the blouse on which the DNA was "found"). The slide from which the DNA was extracted was in a bag that had been slit and re-sealed by an unknown person at an unknown time and had been removed from secure storage for 5 days - there is no record of where it was during those 5 days. The DNA that was finally used to convict wasn't "found" until 6 years after the murder. The possibility of contamination is enormous.
The suspicion must remain that Hamlen thought Police could place him at the scene and was hedging his bets to cover himself against a murder charge. There was surely no reason to pick up a rolling pin had he been on the premises with the intention of a quick entrance and exit for burglary. We are told in the Sun newspaper of 20 March 2017 that Hamlem had a history of domestic violence and cocaine use. It seems strange that DNA was found both on the rolling pin and on the blouse. As far as forensic examination was concerned there's always the possibility of contamination, but the exhibits were placed in sealed plastic bags even if the outer bag had been slit.
An alternative explanation is that another suspect (in the Crimewatch video) was stalking the house and committed the murder, with Hamlen the same day entering the premises to steal her handbag and mobile telephone. It's stated that there was a hostel for offenders in close proximity to the Kingfisher Lodge. It's not clear who ATM man is and I wasn't clear how the Defence worked out his height. The video wasn't shown at the first trial.
Sandra did you say the Crimewatch video was inaccurate? I understand you're not implicating the son, and I learned from the Russ Faria case that it's best not to judge how individuals react to a particular stressful situation.
https://youtu.be/5luEqyXgAe0
