"THE APPEAL COURT AIRED CONCERNS ABOUT MR VAN DER LUGT'S EXPERTISE. HE WAS A POLICE OFFICER OF 27 YEARS EXPERIENCE BUT HAD NO FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS. HE HAD "SIMPLY BECOME INTERESTED IN EAR PRINT IDENTIFICATION".
THE JUDGES RULED DALLAGHER'S CONVICTION UNSAFE BUT ORDERED THAT HE REMAIN IN PRISON PENDING A RETRIAL.
THAT HEARING BEGAN IN MANCHESTER LAST JUNE BUT WAS HALTED AFTER THE RECEIPT OF NEW EVIDENCE AND THE LAUNCH OF A FRESH INQUIRY. IT RESUMED YESTERDAY WITH THE CROWN SAYING IT WOULD OFFER NO EVIDENCE. THE DEFENCE REVEALED THAT DNA FROM ONE OF THE ORIGINAL EARPRINTS SHOWED IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY DALLAGHER."
THE TELEGRAPH:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unravelling of earprint evidence in Europe and North America was described in a story which appeared in The Telegraph on January 22, 2004, without a by-line, under the heading, "'Breakthrough' looks less and less convincing."
The sad part of the story is that Mark Dallagher remained behind bars for seven horrific years as a murderer while the reputations of Cornelis van der Lugt and his pseudo science became unravelled.
Although several people had been convicted in England because of earprint evidence - which the courts had begun to accept as fact - it had become apparent, however, that there is little scientific basis for this.
The reality was that experts did not have a database of earprints, nor a scientific method of comparing prints, apart from laying the suspect's print on top of the one found at the scene and examining them for differences.
Prof Peter von Coppen, of Leiden University in Holland, had issued a paper disputing earprint evidence in which he said: "There has been no research done in which you can say, for instance, what the national distribution of lobes is, so you don't know if the earprint is one which would match 80 per cent of everyone else's or whether it has unique characteristics."
Far too many innocent persons would have been avoided horrific consequences - including the death penalty - if judges had exercised their gate-keeper function and protected them from so-called experts such as, Charles Smith, Michael West, Steven Hayne, Louise Robbins and Cornelis van der Vugt.
"Two smudged earprints made by a burglar who pressed his head to Dorothy Woods's window before jemmying it open were the only clues police found when they discovered the 94-year-old spinster murdered in her bed," the Telegraph story began.
"The West Yorkshire police turned to Cornelis van der Lugt, a Dutch former scenes of crime officer who had made himself the world expert in the fledgling science of earprint identification," it continued;
"At the trial of 26-year-old Mark Dallagher, it was the Dutchman's testimony that sealed a conviction.
Prof Peter Vanezis, a leading British forensic scientist, did not go quite as far as Mr van der Lugt in saying the evidence pointed to Dallagher, but said he thought it "highly likely" that Dallagher left his earmarks on the window above Miss Woods's bed.
The case was hailed as representing an important breakthrough in forensic techniques. "We now have another weapon in our arsenal against crime," said one investigating officer.
The Crown Prosecution Service went further, claiming in its 1999 annual report that the case had "made legal history".
But even as that report was published, the scientific evidence underpinning the conviction was unravelling.
A court in the United States upheld an appeal by David Kunze who had been convicted of aggravated murder on the evidence of Mr van der Lugt that his earprints had been found at the crime scene. The judges said Mr van der Lugt's theories on earprints were "not generally accepted in the forensic science community" and his evidence should have been inadmissible.
In May 2000 a court in Amsterdam overturned a conviction in another case where van der Lugt had given expert evidence. The Dutch court said that the infant discipline of earprinting should be treated "with caution and reservations".
Dallagher continued to protest his innocence, claiming that he had been at home with his girlfriend on the night of the killing in 1996. His appeal was heard in July 2002.
The Appeal Court aired concerns about Mr van der Lugt's expertise. He was a police officer of 27 years experience but had no formal qualifications. He had "simply become interested in ear print identification".
The judges ruled Dallagher's conviction unsafe but ordered that he remain in prison pending a retrial.
That hearing began in Manchester last June but was halted after the receipt of new evidence and the launch of a fresh inquiry. It resumed yesterday with the Crown saying it would offer no evidence. The defence revealed that DNA from one of the original earprints showed it could not have been made by Dallagher.
Despite Dallagher's acquittal, Mr van der Lugt told The Telegraph that his faith in earprinting remained strong. He is involved in a multi-million pound European Union-funded research project that aims to produce European earprinting standards."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
