Case Study: Dlugosz

Question 1

Summarise the case of Dlugosz

Answer 1

• Convicted of burglary and manslaughter.
• Sentenced to imprisonment and public protection for seven years.
• Subsequently retried and convicted of manslaughter and robbery and sentenced to 9 years in prison.

Question 2

What were the key details of the crime committed?

Answer 2

• 27th November 2008; an elderly woman’s house was burgled.
• On 1 January she was found dead.
• She had been tied up and died from hypothermia.
• Her ankles and wrists had been tied up with silver tape, and was gagged with the same tape.
• House had been ransacked.

Question 3

How did the Treaty of Prum aid investigators in identifying Dlugosz?

Answer 3

• The treat of Prum was adopted to enable European countries to exchange data regarding DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registrations with eachother.
• It allowed the UK to access Dlugosz’ DNA profile as he was wanted for European arrest.
• This data given to the UK allowed them to identify Dlugosz.

Question 4

What was obtained from the Forensic Examination?

Answer 4

• No fingerprints found; assumed offenders wore gloves.
• Only forensic evidence was a very small quantity of DNA on two of three chisels left at premises.
• The amounts were less than 200 picograms, and the results showed a mixed profile.
• When Duglosz was arrested, he answered no comment to all questions.

Question 5

What did the DNA profiles consist of?

Answer 5

Both profiles from BRW/1/3 and BRW/1/4 contained alleles which were possibly contributed by Dlugosz.

The experts agreed that it was impossible to provide statistical/numerical assessments via likelihood ratio, due to the mixtures.

They could not determine the number of contributors and could not resolve the mixture into individual profiles.

Question 6

Why did the defence seek to exclude the DNA evidence?

Answer 6

The defence sought to exclude the evidence of DNA because without statistical evaluation, the significance of the DNA could not be evaluated; it should not be put before the jury.

Question 7

What did the two experts conclude of the DNA profiles?

Answer 7

One expert said that the fact the individual had all alleles present in a mixed profle was rare, and the other said it was unusual.

The jury heard the evidence and could use that evidence in accordance with a clear and careful summing up bearing in mind the difference between the two experts was not that great.

Question 8

What did the appeal say about the safety of the original conviction?

Answer 8

• There was a real danger that the jury had taken weak DNA evidence and was prejudiced by the previous convictions of Dlugosz, even those 8 years old.
• The view of the experts that finding all of the individuals alleles in a mixed sample was either “rare” or “somewhat unusual” was of real assistance.
• Taking the evidence of the phone calls and previous convictions, there was sufficient evidence to safely convict