Kiwiblog

The ODT report:

Euthanasia law-reform activist Sean Davison is shaken but unfazed despite death threats and an attack on his Dunedin residence over the weekend.

A brick, with a note attached, was thrown through the window of his Kaikorai address at 11.05pm on Friday, landing 4m across the living room floor. The note said: “Leave Gods [sic] laws or be struck down dead”.

How lovely.

“They’re obviously from people who are opposed to the law change I’m seeking. They’re obviously not very bright, because they glued all the letters, but hand-wrote the address on the envelope,” he said.

Dumb and dumber.

The offender picked the wrong target in Davison, who is head of the University of Western Cape forensic DNA laboratory in South Africa.

“I’m going to get the letters DNA-tested at our laboratory in Cape Town … you can easily get profiles from stamps and envelopes,” he said.

“Then I’ll provide the results to the police.”

Excellent. Great initiative.

The Herald reports:

Yesterday a 24-year-old Pacific Island woman, who did not want to be named, told the Herald she had been pressured into giving a sample at Auckland Central police station earlier this month.

She was driving in Grey Lynn without a licence and was stopped by police, and then taken to the station.

“An officer wanted me to give a DNA sample. I told him I didn’t want to do it, but he told me if I wanted to go home quickly, then I would have to give the DNA,” she said.

“He said all the officers were doing it and were trying to get everyone to do it in case I was raped or murdered, so they could identify my body. I felt violated and like I had no rights, like I was forced to do it and they could have done anything to me if I didn’t do it.”

The woman, who is facing a charge for driving while forbidden, said she did not remember the names of the officers, but she would discuss laying a complaint with her lawyer.

This allegation should be investigated. The Police file will reveal the names of the officers.

Merilyn McAuslin told the Herald her son was under duress when he gave a DNA sample in 2005, when he was 17 and in high school.

He was out with friends, one of whom graffitied a building, and their car number plate was reported.

When he went to the Newmarket police station with his mother, he was intimidated by an officer to identify the person who had done the graffiti.

He started to have a panic attack and was taken outside for some air and water. Mrs McAuslin said within a couple of minutes, a female police officer said a driving charge against her son would be dropped if he gave a DNA sample. “She got the DNA in a real moment of weakness for us.”

This case is five years old. I have some doubts over this, as the mother uses the terms”intimidation” in regards to her son revealing who did the graffiti. And why stay quiet for five years?

However the first case happened just this month, and people arrested for driving without a licence shouldn’t be coerced into giving DNA samples.

But there are two sides to every story – the Police can request samples. Where it becomes improper is if they attach consequences to a refusal to voluntarily comply – that turns it into coercion.

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.

I have a poll in the sidebar asking under what circumstances you think the Police should be able to take a DNA sample. You can choose multiple options.

It’s good to see two New Zealand sites getting Honoree Selections in the Webby Awards . Stuff was named an Official Honoree in the news category and  ACC’s www.activesmart.co.nz (developed by Wellington companies DNA and Signify ). Well done.

The Herald reports on a bill by United Future’s Judy Turner that will allow DNA testing of children for paternity tests. At present a parent can block such a test for a child under 16.

The Government doesn’t seem that keen on it, but the Law Commission backed such a move in 2005.

I would make the point that a court ordered DNA test should only be ordered, if agreement can not be obtained.  It is a last resort, not a first resort.  But it is important that they can be ordered when paternity is in doubt.