I was convicted in 2003 of an historical rape that happened in 1989. I spent 4 years in jail maintaining my innocence and still do, despite continual blackmail, threats, and intimidation. The original description of the attacker was 6'0" tall with ginger hair, sporty physique and no tattoos, I am 5' 8" with black hair overweight and plastered in tattoos with my name on both knuckles. I was found guilty due to a partial DNA match. This is wrong. DNA completelty obliterates all other evidence in this country with the prosecution allowed to say its a full profile when in fact it is partial. I will be vindicated one day. Has anyone ever been asked how many matching profiles are twinned on the database i.e 2 people with the same profile, as the database grows the likelehood of that happening grows, but will anyone admit that that has already happened, 10 loci I was convicted on and one of those is the M/F gene !!! my case is currently being looked at by the innocence project at Cardiff Univ

Nick, london, U.K

Full marks to Mr Hoey's lawyers for 'daring' to challenge the forensic evidence, and complements to Judge Weir for being brave and open minded enough to consider that DNA evidence may not always be the gold standard it is cracked up to be. Unfortunately it seems that forensic science needs judgements like these to keep it honest. As a practising forensic scientist myself (not DNA) I am of the opinion that the fundamental failing of forensic science (as practised in the UK) is that the evidential significance (or lack thereof) of evidence presented in Court is not fully understood/made explicitly clear to the Court. When unchallenged/incorrectly challenged such forensic evidence may be 'over-valued' by the Jury/Court, resulting in potential miscarriage of justice. It cannot be emphasised enough that forensic evidence MUST be challenged and one would hope that equal amounts of taxpayers' money would be available to both the Prosecution and the Defense's efforts. Who gaurd the guards?

Etienne van Zyl, Drayton-St Leonard, Oxfordshire

Full marks to Mr Hoey's lawyers for 'daring' to challenge the forensic evidence, and complements to Judge Weir for being brave and open minded enough to consider that DNA evidence may not always be the gold standard it is cracked up to be. Unfortunately it seems that forensic science needs judgements like these to keep it honest. As a practising forensic scientist myself (not DNA) I am of the opinion that the fundamental failing of forensic science (as practised in the UK) is that the evidential significance (or lack thereof) of evidence presented in Court is not fully understood/made explicitly clear to the Court. When unchallenged/incorrectly challenged such forensic evidence may be 'over-valued' by the Jury/Court, resulting in potential miscarriage of justice. It cannot be emphasised enough that forensic evidence MUST be challenged and one would hope that equal amounts of taxpayers' money would be available to both the Prosecution and the Defense's efforts. Who gaurd the guards?

Etienne van Zyl, Drayton-St Leonard, Oxfordshire