Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ALMOST 23 YEARS after he raped and battered to death Phyllis Murphy, former Army sergeant John Crerar was convicted of her murder in 2002 thanks to DNA analysis carried out at the Forensic Science Laboratory in Dublin.
A match was discovered between the DNA in his blood samples and the DNA in the semen found in Phyllis Murphy’s body. Advances in DNA profiling have certainly changed the landscape in the last 25 years when it comes to reopening dormant criminal cases.
DNA vitally important
There have however been recent criticisms of DNA testing – not least that DNA can be manufactured in a laboratory setting so falsifying DNA evidence. It remains however extremely unlikely that such a “perfect storm” of events involving corrupt lab technicians would ordinarily arise.
In the land of cold cases, DNA still remains the king.
The gardaí, like most police forces around the world, have a dedicated Cold Case Unit set up in 2007.
A team of about 15 sifts through old files. Like all Cold Case Units however, the garda unit is not responsible for re-investigating the cases as such but rather they review the original investigation and see if anything can then be added to it.
Requests for reviews of investigations come from various groups including retired garda whom may submit a case for review because they were never content for the file to lie dormant when they were working and now believe it needs to be revisited.
150 cold case murders on the books in Ireland
Reviewing old cases can often attract appealing newspaper headlines but in reality may be extremely difficult to crack.
It was recently reported that more than 150 cold case murders, mainly gangland and in Dublin, over the past 20 years are still unsolved and despite a massive review, little if any progress was made.
There are a number of reasons why stagnation may the catch phrase in cold case units around the world.
Firstly, without fresh evidence – especially of the DNA variety - ploughing through old files can often simply be a repetitive process that, with the best will in the world, is unlikely to throw up any new leads.
Secondly, there is well established research evidence that show that police investigators often enter cases with “confirmation bias” – in other words they have made their decision as to whether the accused for example is guilty or not.
Generally speaking when police officers’ make arrests, it is their “bias” that the arrestee is in fact guilty – a natural enough human emotion – especially when it is verifiably known the accused is actually guilty.
Carlo Hutto murder, 1976
The case of 16-year-old Carol Hutto’s murder in Florida in December 1976 is a case in point. Her body was found in a lake near an abandoned house in Largo, Florida.
Police eyes immediately fell on her half-brother who had stayed out all night and whose route home took him past the house and lake.
He also had a long record of troublemaking and violence. As a result, the police ignored every other possible suspect resulting in the more likely offender – her boyfriend – not coming to trial for almost 18 years.
Therefore, well-meaning police officers, notwithstanding some unrivalled initial enthusiasm, may soon come to believe that the cold case they are investigating can never be resolved – especially when they hit a brick wall.
Police cold case units cannot however be blamed for this. They do the best they have with the information available and fresh eyes can of course, see new angles that were not heretofore explored or even identified.
Fresh eyes on old cases
However it takes more than police officers to successfully re-open a case.
Multi-disciplinary teams working alongside, police officers, such as lawyers, forensic psychologists’, criminologists, and forensic archaeologists’ and others, may soon create a truly fresh case.
Has anyone for example examined the psychological profile of the main suspects? Is there anything that can be gleaned from the known movements of suspects in the light of what we now know about the habits of recidivist and non-recidivist offenders?
Perhaps the position of the remains that were found were not forensically considered by an archaeologist or anthropologist at the time.
Alternatively, can a team of lawyers, apply new evidential developments to an historic case? If so, what if any difference will this make to this specific cold case?
The truth is that no criminal case can or should ever be finally closed. Scientific developments continue apace and witnesses – with the right encouragement – may always give damming evidence, even after decades of silence.
No serious criminal offence in Ireland should ever be left in the bottom drawer and least of all – no family whom has suffered at the hands of a horrific crime – should ever be treated with the disrespect that such action implies.
A truly fresh approach needs to be taken to cold cases where differing experts can cast a specialist eye over what might seem insurmountable cases. There is after all no such thing as failure – only those that don’t try.
It’s time for us to try harder.
John O’Keeffe is a Criminologist and Chief Executive of AdVIC (Advocates for the Victims of Homicide). This article first appeared in the September edition of The Garda Review.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“Give me unlimited power” but you don’t get to know what power I get until I have it
@Adam Rekio: They can hide from their incompetence behind these laws. Restrict peoples freedoms and make it seem like they’re doing a good job, but in reality they’re doing nothing to improve things in any sector that its needed for people to be able to “live with covid”. They’ve also now got people in to such a fearful state that the majority are willing to freely give up those freedoms and not ask questions. It has taken long enough for the opposition to start to ask these types of questions, I wonder will they be labelled anti-vaxxers now?!
@bob hope: whist or you’ll have the ‘what freedoms have we given up’ brigade then be laballed an anti vaxer for voicing an opinion that offends them as they do not want to acknowledge what is happening in front of their very eyes.
@Hear me now: Baa baa black sheep have you any wool!
It’s all about keeping control folks
@Maurice O Neill: can you expand?
@Paul Clancy: Join the dots yourself Einstein
@James Daly: all we ever hear is “it’s about control” no one has ever said exactly how. Simple one liners are the bread and butter of conspiracy theorist.
@Paul Clancy: I’m not helping you Paul. You’ll have to join the dots by yourself.
The emergency powers should have been phased out months ago. The vaccine uptake has been great. It’s ridiculous that these powers need to be extended again and again. Time to just live with Covid for everyone, vaccinated and non vaccinated. Its been two years.
Donnelly is so incompetent giving him free reign does seem a bit much….
Does no one else see how odd this is ? This makes no sense at all.
@Bobby Jones: Odd that it’s taken them so long to start asking questions about the violation of people’s civil liberties?
It almost like some crazy tin foil hat conspiracy theory that was only recently being ridiculed, just came to life…
@David Van-Standen: Next they will have to stop general elections as it could spread covid
@Adam Rekio: there’s a reason there hasn’t been election in quite some time.
@neuromancer: since last year,you mean?
@Adam Rekio: not possible to stop them.
I think we’re going down the wrong road with this. This is dangerous. There are precedents being set here. Under no circumstances should any elected official have powers that are not open to scrutiny. It only takes one headbanger to abuse these powers and you’re living in tyranny where discrimination and coercion are the norm. Minorities will be isolated and redeculed. Bodily integrity will become meaningless.Your freedom of choice will be out the window. Who wants to live in a world like that.
@James Daly: have an old read of the constitution. You’re some man for scare mongering.
@Paul Clancy: sure the constitution gives you your fundimental rights but, and big but.. Fundamental rights are not absolute – they can be limited or restricted by the Oireachtas for certain reasons, for example, for the common good or public order. Then all bets are off. The safeguards against headbangers like Donnelly abusing his position in such instances are debate and scrutiny. Exactly what he doesn’t want to happen. Wonder why?
Donnelly is like a dog with two knobs at this stage…. Too much control for one TD to hold and that’s the problem with this whole Covid crapola show is for all parties to work together to find solutions not just the ones that hold the house….
How has it taken two years for opposing TD’s to start asking the right questions. The mind boggles how we have people out there that are “fully vaccinated “and are supporting these restrictions. These are the types of klowns that start their comments with “ I’ve had my two jabs and I’m getting my booster on Wednesday “
Smacking of arrogance as this undoubtedly does and desirable as it would be to have Dáil scrutiny would it make any difference to the outcome? Most T.D.’s are terrified of speaking out in any meaningful way against these emergency powers in case they’re labelled ‘anti-science’ or of playing politics with people’s health and lives. It’s a very easy stick to beat them with. It would definitely be interesting though to see how it would go…
@William Tallon: Any decision any government makes should be open to scrutiny, and any resistance to that scrutiny should set more alarm bells ringing than the decisions themselves. TDs are only people who are in the position they’re in because of people who voted them in to the position. Some people go on like they’re gods who must be obeyed at all costs!
@bob hope: Not all Government decisions are open to scrutiny though. Article 28.4 of the Constitution states “The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter…” I think this is a principle most democratic governments subscribe to and probably for good reason in many cases. That doesn’t mean by the way I don’t favour more transparency…
@William Tallon: That states Government discussions, and not decisions. Regardless this would be superceded by our own constitutional rights and civil liberties, hence the reason why things like this need to be backed by a majority in a vote by TDs and other levels, and hence the argument at hand. They also need to be signed off by the President, who only recently raised a concern about some of the things being pushed through by this government without the time for proper scrutiny. Without a doubt trying to take advantage of the situation as it is and the penny ot seems is only starting to drop in certain quarters!
@bob hope: Discussions are a prerequisite for decisions so if you want to scrutinise Government decisions you’ll need to know how they were arrived at which would mean having access to those Cabinet level discussions and that is precluded by the Constitution. So far as I can tell there is no other provision in the Constitution that grants the individual the right to supersede this provision. I’d be interested to know if you’re aware of such a provision though.
@William Tallon: It’s one of the main principles of democracy, so will always supercede any decisions that go against that principle. I wouldn’t have thought that would need an explanation?
“Health Minister Stephen Donnelly said to have debate and scrutiny on the emergency legislation would more or less take 33 weeks, six hours a day, three days a week.” – I don’t see how it would take that long. I liked Donnelly when he was an SD, I was skeptical when he jumped ship to FF but decided I would give him a chance, he’s had his chance now and has proved to be useless and a hypocrite
Where was Alan Kelly from Labour in this debate? No word from him about democracy and Civil Rights?
If there is hope it lies in the proles.
Paradoxical that
have your say