DNA gets the killer
The Herald reports:
An $8.20 roll of salami proved to be the downfall for the killer of Marie Jamieson and allowed police to crack one of Auckland’s most mysterious unsolved murders.
Ms Jamieson, 23, was last seen crossing a service station forecourt in Kingsland on February 10, 2001. Her naked body was found nine days later behind factory buildings in Ranui. …
But seven years passed and police were no closer to solving the case – until Joseph Reekers was convicted of theft in April last year.
The conviction for shoplifting salami from Pak’n Save in Henderson allowed them to issue a compulsion order to take DNA from Reekers.
And there is no doubt it was Reekers as he pleaded guilty.
Yesterday, in a surprise move, the 52-year-old pleaded guilty in the High Court at Auckland to murder. The Crown withdrew the rape charge.
Now Reekers was not unknown to the Police
Reekers was already a “person of interest” to the inquiry. …
Now there has been debate about the desirability of a law change allowing DNA to be taken from suspects for serious crimes.
It occurs to me this is a good example of why that would be desirable. If he had never stolen the salami seven years later, then he may have got away with it, and the killer would never have been caught.
But if the Police had been able to DNA test the suspects, he would have been identified earlier on, with no need to rely on the chance he may steal salami one day.
Now I do not favour no limits on Police being able to demand a DNA sample. Otherwise we end up in a Police state where everyone at birth has their DNA added to the Police database for future crime solving.
But where someone is suspected of involvement in a serious crime (such as rape and murder), I support the Police being able to get a DNA sample – so long as it is destroyed if they are not charged or found not guilty at trial.
Anyway well done to the Police for getting a good result.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
What’s so wrong with everyone at birth having their DNA recorded? We register the birth. Everyone has an IRD number. And a name.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
So, now we have to feed, house, care for, educate, employ and supervise this low life for the next ten to fifteen years.
Why don’t we just shoot or hang the wanker?
And while we are at it, give the parents or partner of the victim the choice of firing the gun or pulling the trap door handle.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:43 am
BB, I’m against capital punishment – it is the state’s job to assist and protect it’s citizens – but I’m damned sure they should leave a rope tied to a rafter in his cell and let the bastard help himself.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Sure. But why does this argument mean that compulsory DNA testing needs to avoid judicial checks and balances? The result you seek could still have been obtained if the police could have gone to a judge, established reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in the murder and obtained a judicial warrant for DNA testing for this crime only.
At present your argument seems to be “We need to do something. This is something. We must do this.”
December 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Because going to a Judge means that it would be fought by the suspect (if guilty) all the way to the Supreme Court with appeals and delays and end up costing tens of thousands of dollars everytime they want a sample.
December 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Just like applications for wiretaps and search warrants are fought by suspects? If police have to apply to a court every time they want to obtain evidence from someone’s house the suspect (if guilty) will fight it all the way to the Supreme Court with appeals and delays.
I think you’ve misunderstood my suggestion here. I was basically suggesting the same level of judicial oversight of DNA searches as there is for other searches. As with a search warrant or a phone tap, you wouldn’t give the suspect advance notice of the application. The police would take their evidence to a judge/JP/registrar and either have their application for a warrant to seize DNA evidence approved or rejected. They’d then turn up at a suspect’s house at 6am – as they do for a search – hand over the warrant and either:
(i) take the DNA (using reasonable force if necessary); or
(ii) arrest the individual and take them somewhere to obtain the DNA (using reasonable force if necessary)
You need a warrant from a judicial officer to search and seize evidence from within a house. Why shouldn’t you need a warrant from a judicial officer to search and seize evidence from within a person?
[DPF: The mitigating factor here is the DNA is destroyed if not charged, while copies of physical evidence can be kept indefinitely]
December 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I am extremely pleased with this result, good work by the police for keeping the case active for all this time – also I hope that this brings some amount of closure to the victims family.
In regards to what is suggested regarding DNA testing, I would not support the police being able to take my DNA against my will, if I were a suspect in ANY crime – without the authorisation of a warrant signed by an independent body such as a judge or JP. There is currently no line to be drawn where the police could take DNA, or what is done with it.
I am not advocating that any person should be forced to provide DNA even if they have “nothing to hide”, even at the time of the enquiry or in the future. That is not the point. The simple point is that DNA is mine. It belongs to me. And if I have done nothing wrong then I will be the one who decides who gets it.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
David Farrar “Because going to a Judge means that it would be fought by the suspect (if guilty) all the way to the Supreme Court with appeals and delays and end up costing tens of thousands of dollars everytime they want a sample.” I think I heard this in the 1940′s – wasn’t it from Moscow and Berlin?
December 17th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
eop, “And if I have done nothing wrong then I will be the one who decides who gets it. ”
The “if” word makes your quote a hypothetical statement.
In reality when you are found in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong reason, there are at least 3 wrongs that should say that a DNA sample is required.
Your claim of “ownership” of spit on an oral swab is childish.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Graeme, this is the ‘new David’ , you are thinking of the ‘old david’ , where the all the hassles were a reason ‘not to do something’ . eg Election Finance Act
In politics its called a ‘pivot’.
[DPF: 20 demerits trolling and off topic]
December 17th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
BAHAHAHAHAHA they should serve the prick salami for lunch everyday.
No problem with the police being able to get a warrant to test for DNA. but yeah, i dont want them taking it from anyone they like. not cool.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
So stealing salami is a serious crime now?
December 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
If you’re charged with a crime and not convicted, the police are also meant to destroy your photograph and fingerprints. You are, after all, as innocent as anyone else in the community.
Funny, then, how several people have told me they’ve seen photographs of me in the hands of different police officers.
But sure, David. We can trust the cops to destroy our DNA once we’re found not guilty. Because of course they never plant evidence, perjure themselves or do anything else to obtain a conviction, so of course they’ll treat our most personal data with the utmost respect.
Come to that, I’m sure I must have misheard the recent conviction of a cop in WA for using the vehicle registration database to access details of “hot” women he spotted driving around, then approach them on the pretext of needing their help with an official inquiry.Not to mention accessing other data on behalf of his girlfriend.
The only way what you’re suggesting would be remotely acceptable is if the government established an independent laboratory which collected and stored the data and merelt gave the results, and not the raw data, to police. And the penalties for a laboratory employee misusing (i.e. giving to the police) or not destorying it when a “not guilty” verdict is delivered being set as a lengthy jail term.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Why are you all so afraid of your DNA? It should be taken at birth and stored for ever. There are lots of good sensible reasons other than crime and a sensible non police storage of the information would bring some sense of order to its use. This guy had 87 convictions which is almost standard for this type of crime.
We still have the unsolved case of Claire Hill who was burnt to death in her car. The person that did that was evil and there is no way anyone can justify suppressing that persons DNA. If that young lady or this one had been your daughter consider then if you would want DNA as a mandatory test. Like a lot of these things its easy to dismiss these things until it comes close to home.
If its use puts pressure on the criminal fraternity then that can only be good.
Today as it happens I had a conversation with a customer who was returning from DNA testing dairy cows, 850 today alone. I asked why it was done. The answer, because pedigree cows are worth a lot of money and in large herds its difficult to always identify the calves and their mothers and it is really easy for those that are less then honest to drop a calf over the fence and substitute another. Now who would have thought?
Makes you think though. If it makes sense to DNA test valuable animals then surely it makes sense to DNA test the human race.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Rex
You strike me a rational type of guy, you are certainly smart and, well educated.
However, what is this thing you have about the cops?, for some reason you seem to think they are all crooks and all hell bent on ‘fitting’ us up.
From my point of view I would like to see the cops have access to a complete DNA data base, every single person should have their details recoded, I support the cops, they do a shitty job and not one I would want to do under any circumstances.
December 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Good work. This law is new:
Why not make it retro-active on anyone who’s been convicted of such offences in the past? If that was done, this bloke would most likely have been caught earlier.
She really is an idiot that lady.
Anyway, what’s the point of all this if the people only spend 10 years in prison?
December 17th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Seems like the foulest of crimes are always committed by sickness beneficiaries, so why don’t we make it compulsory for sickness beneficiaries to give a sample of their DNA?
December 17th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Why was he known to the police anyway? I suspect he may have committed a violent crime in the past. At the first criminal conviction I would have little problem with that. As for everyone being sampled I am not a criminal so I strongly object to being treated like one same as drug testing on the job. This assumption that every one is guilty when it’s fairly obvious who are
December 18th, 2009 at 1:06 am
And the greens comment in the select committee report re bodily samples bill was that it was on the nose testing minor offence chargees and lacked any link to serious crime. The dna is only kept if convicted and for youth 10 years.
Not much point in having the dna sample though since it won’t be used to get a conviction – he plea bargined out of the rape despite them having proof. This means a lesser sentence – done for salami and murder but scot free on rape. Like she consented – Tui. But as of now we can’t call him a rapist, just a murderous stranger kidnapping “lover-boy”!!! This plea bargaining without family consultation must stop. Or can rape only get pinned if the witness is live in NZ’s silly system?