Peter Sullivan has been cleared of murder.

catsmate

No longer the 1
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
32,971
Sullivan was convicted in 1987, aged 30, of the murder of a 21 year old Diane Sindall, a florist who's van had broken down.
His case is the UK’s longest running miscarriage of justice case with a surviving victim.

Ms. Sindall was sexually assaulted and bludgeoned to death.

Sullivan has always protested his innocence and lawyers have tried twice before to get his conviction overturned. But the Criminal Cases Review Commission had previously refused to authorise new genetic tests. Now the tests have revealed that Sullivan’s DNA was not present on samples preserved at the time.

The Court of Appleal quashed the conviction this morning with Lord Justice Holroyde (sitting with Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Bryan) stating they had “no doubt that it is both necessary and expedient in the interests of justice” to accept the new DNA evidence, and “In the light of that evidence, it is impossible to regard the appellant’s conviction as safe.”

James Burley, who led the investigation by the charity Appeal into the case of Andrew Malkinson said:

Peter Sullivan’s exoneration today after nearly four decades of wrongful imprisonment provides further evidence that our current appeals system cannot be trusted to swiftly identify and rectify miscarriages of justice.
Between them, Peter Sullivan, Andrew Malkinson and Victor Nealon spent over 70 years wrongly imprisoned before finally being exonerated by compelling DNA evidence.
Each had their cases previously rejected by both the court of ppeal and the CCRC – the institutions which are meant to act as our justice system’s safety net. The case for an urgent overhaul of the appeals system is now overwhelming.
 
I had come here to start this thread but you beat me to it.


Both the CCRC and the SCCRC seem to regard their function as keeping appellants away from the Court of Appeal by any excuse they can find.

It's pretty much the same story every time. Bite marks. God give me strength.

1747146872774.png
 
Last edited:
It was a sex attack. The semen found on the victim's body was agreed to have been deposited by the murderer. There was no evidence that it was a joint attack. The DNA did not belong to Peter Sullivan. They're now trying to find out who it does belong to. Time to talk to Ancestry.com and 23-and-me, I think - although the latter has filed for bankruptcy.
 
I am sure that he will receive swift compensation - of course after having his housing costs deducted as its expensive to keep a violent rapist and murderer in a class A prison so he of course should be paying for that - shouldn't have got himself found guilty!
 
I am sure that he will receive swift compensation - of course after having his housing costs deducted as its expensive to keep a violent rapist and murderer in a class A prison so he of course should be paying for that - shouldn't have got himself found guilty!

They should be giving him a big enough settlement to keep him in comfort for the rest of his days. They won't, of course.
 
Well, colour me surprised...
I mean, there's a huge difference between "we found DNA, and it wasn't the victim's and it wasn't the accused's", and "we didn't find any of the accused's DNA".

Catsmate doesn't even cite a source for their post, so I can't even check to see if there's more details in the original report.

Would we even expect there to be viable DNA traces on the samples preserved at the time?

Were the samples taken with DNA preservation in mind?

Is there *any* DNA on the samples?

Is there DNA of some third individual, not the victim and not the accused, on the samples?

Is this a scenario where we must absolutely see the accused's DNA on the samples, such that if it isn't clearly there then he logically and physically cannot be the perpetrator?



Maybe all these definitive and conclusory details are spelled out in the original report, in which case it's a shame catsmate didn't link it for our edification.
 
Last edited:
I had come here to start this thread but you beat me to it.


Both the CCRC and the SCCRC seem to regard their function as keeping appellants away from the Court of Appeal by any excuse they can find.

It's pretty much the same story every time. Bite marks. God give me strength.

View attachment 60796
Bite marks were dubious enough back then.
A mentally deficient man refused access to a solicitor.
No proper tests in 2008.
 
Thanks, @catsmate ! Rolfe posted between the time I wrote my post and the time I submitted it. I didn't realize she'd provided the cite missing from the OP.

"fresh testing found a DNA profile pointing to an unknown attacker in semen samples preserved from the crime scene."

This is literally the only thing that needed quoting, which is why its absence stood out to me.
 
He's lucky they didn't do a Central Park Murders on him. That is, maintain that maybe the semen was somebody else's (it was), but he must have been an accomplice.

I think the real point here is not that the testing should have been done sooner, it couldn't have been, and if they'd tried before the technology was up to it they could have destroyed the sample. It's that the evidence he was convicted on couldn't possibly have been BRD at the time.
 
Last edited:
He's lucky they didn't do a Central Park Murders on him. That is, maintain that maybe the semen was somebody else's (it was), but he must have been an accomplice.

I think the real point here is not that the testing should have been done sooner, it couldn't have been, and if they'd tried before the technology was up to it they could have destroyed the sample. It's that the evidence he was convicted on couldn't possibly have been BRD at the time.
That makes sense.

In US court cases I see, it's very difficult to get rid of your public defender. You can't just say you don't want one. You have to go in front of the judge and speak coherently about your intent to represent yourself.

It's also not uncommon for the *prosecutor* to request a competency evaluation, even if the defense doesn't. But I'm dealing with a selection bias; not all courts record and publish their proceedings. I'm sure a lot of these judges and lawyers are on their best behavior because they know they're going out to an audience of millions.

The older I get, the more I think all court proceedings should be recorded and streamed. I understand it wouldn't have helped in this case, which was tried forty years ago. But I'm increasingly peeved that our federal courts and the UK courts are still dragging their feet.

ETA: My bad. I see he did have a defender at trial. He just waived his right to counsel during questioning. That's a little difference, there's no protection from being stupid. Can a confession given freely without counsel be quashed by a later finding of incompetence?
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why he was still in prison - shouldn't he have been let out on licence long ago? Or was it the fact that he refused to show sufficient remorse (for something he hadn't done) that kept him in prison?
 
That's a good point. That's what happened to Stefan Kiszko - he refused to show remorse, so they wouldn't release him. Perhaps more about that will emerge in due course.
 
They are rowing back on that now though. One man who murdered a woman in England in circumstances remarkably similar to David Gilroy's murder of Suzanne Pilley (except that there was forensic evidence in that case) has been released, I believe, despite protesting his innocence and refusing to say what he did with the victim's body. It's likely that David Gilroy will also be released when the time comes despite also protesting his innocence and refusing to say what he did with the victim's body. Both of them are guilty as hell, and both victims' families have campaigned unsuccessfully for them to stay in jail until they reveal where the bodies are hidden.

That sucks, but on the other hand it suggests that Luke Mitchell may also be released even though he also continues to protest his innocence. Except there is evidence that the prison authorities, in retaliation for Luke's attempts to have his story heard more widely and talking to people outside the prison system, are blocking his path to release.
 
Very strange that they didn't mention it. And what an indictment of the "wide-ranging, circumstantial case".
 
There are more such cases to some.

A lawyer who led a review into the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s work has said it is “absolutely inevitable” there will be more miscarriages of justice after Peter Sullivan was released from prison after spending 38 years inside for a murder he did not commit.

 
The Guardian reported, "Duncan Atkinson KC, for the Crown Prosecution Service, told the court of appeal that analysis of the DNA showed it came from someone known as “unknown male one”, and that it was “one billion times more likely that the sample originated from unknown male one, rather than someone else, and it did not match the appellant”." The murder occurred shortly after DNA evidence was first used in the Colin Pitchfork case.

The CCRC wrote, "Mr Sullivan had applied to the CCRC in 2008 questioning DNA evidence. Experts from the Forensic Science Service (FSS) advised at the time that any further testing would be very unlikely to produce a DNA profile. Mr Sullivan’s case was not referred to the Court of Appeal. The techniques used in the testing that led to Mr Sullivan’s case being referred were not available at the time of his first application."

This is very puzzling. At first I was inclined to think that the new tests were YSTR, but that seems unlikely for two reasons. I really do not know what they meant.
 
Last edited:
The Independent reported, "Eyewitnesses, who later failed to identify him, claimed to have seen him at Bidston Hill, where her burned clothes and handbag were found. He said he had gone there to urinate." This is not the first time that faulty eyewitness testimony has played a role in a wrongful conviction.

The NYT reported, "After another application was lodged in 2021, the commission decided that, because of technological advances, it was worth testing the semen samples preserved from the crime scene in 1986. They did not match Mr. Sullivan’s DNA."
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom