TEN unsolved murders are being re-investigated by 'cold case' detectives, the MEN can reveal today.
They include a bid to identify the brutal attacker who raped and then battered to death Manchester 17-year-old Dorothy Leyden 38 years ago.
Her body was found in Collyhurst in the early hours of April 25 1971. Advances in DNA analysis have meant that scientists have been able to build up a profile of her possible killer from samples taken from the crime scene.
These have been kept in the basement of GMP headquarters at Chester House until experts were able to extract the vital evidence. There has not yet been a match but further tests are being carried out.
Dorothy's sister Jill Hopkins said last night that the memory of her death 'never goes away'. She said: "All we want is for someone to come forward and say something to help. We want someone to have a conscience".
Officers from Greater Manchester Police's Cold Case Review Unit assessed 150 unsolved murders going back 40 years before selecting ten to focus on. Others cases may be scrutinized again at a later date.
The move follows extra funding from the government.
Former Det Supt Martin Bottomley, in charge of the unit, said: "We are looking at these cases because of advances in DNA data and technology which gives us potential to re-examine evidence in conjunction with the forensic science service.
"We don't forget, we hold the records, we hold the samples.
"Funding is being provided by the Home Office to kick start this process. They have allowed us to re-examine a certain number of exhibits from each case and if there's potential to reinvigorate the case then we will put some of our money in and they will put some of their money to review the whole case.”
Mr Bottomley's team are not only relying on science for breakthroughs. He said they are looking at gangland shootings of young men and boys which are notoriously difficult to detect.
"In gang shootings affiliations will change all the time as gang members change sides. Some will get in trouble for something else and want to do some plea bargaining.
"There may be some changes through love interest. A girlfriend who may have provided an alibi previously may have moved on, or matured enough to realise justice needs to be done."
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
the monkey, bolton (24/11/2009 at 10:55)
Luke O,zade, NRW Germany (24/11/2009 at 11:03)
I take it the MEN are running this story to tie up with the story running in todays Time Online.
A very interesting read about DNA Data Base.
Occasionally agreed with, Heald Green (24/11/2009 at 11:44)
Anyone thinking of posting a boring load of tosh about my civil liberties needn't bother; I am prepared to forego them so that the criminal scum get their cumuppence.
Simishine, Manchester (24/11/2009 at 11:58)
Black Flag (24/11/2009 at 12:00)
If you want to give up your civil liberties because you're too scared of the big bad world, that's up to you. It's your freedom to give up.
I, on the other hand, am not a bed-wetter and will not be giving up essentially liberty in an attempt to buy a little temporary safety.
Hellas (24/11/2009 at 12:13)
This would help to deal with over-populated prisons and would cut crime because people would know what would happen if they got caught (like that little **** that stamped on a woman's head, drove a car at a group of people and murdered someone; then that **** that murdered his fiancee with a hammer). These people won't bring anything to society and will just leach from it - if they have no hope of coming out of prison or integrating properly, exterminate them.
Someone's going to state "What about the 0.1% who are innocent? What of that 0.1% was you?". Tough!
The Devil's Advocate, M11 born and bred, East Stand Lower 104 (24/11/2009 at 12:30)
24/11/2009 at 11:44
Completely agree, I've been suggesting the same for years.
Black Flag,
24/11/2009 at 12:00
Explain to me how having your DNA on a database is affecting your liberty? Unless you can give me a valid explanation, I WILL see you as a bed-wetter. Oh and no abstract comments - just facts please.
Occasionally agreed with, Heald Green (24/11/2009 at 12:35)
Black Flag (24/11/2009 at 12:35)
That’s one of the most stupid things I’ve read in a long time. We might have the technology to determine with a high degree of accuracy whether one DNA sample matches another, but you'd have to be incredibly thick to think that equates to being able to be anything like 100% certain about who has committed a crime.
Take rape for example. DNA might be able to tell you that one person had sexual contact with another, but it doesn't tell you anything more; it doesn't tell you whether or not the encounter was consensual, for one thing. DNA might be a useful tool, but it certainly isn't a panacea.
ednaplate, Salford (24/11/2009 at 12:42)
Occasionally agreed with, Heald Green (24/11/2009 at 13:02)
the majority agree with us but in this world the minority with the big voice get their way. It's true in this case and lots of others.
You can ignore Black Flag - she's an habitual arguer who has a problem in agreeing with anyone and sees some glory in being the minority.
Black Flag (24/11/2009 at 13:05)
Maybe you aren't familiar with the principles of the British judicial system. I don't have to prove my innocence, it is for somebody making an accusation to prove my guilt. If that arrangement isn't to your liking and you want a system where the presumption is the other way around, I suggest you pack your bags and move to a country where the approach is more in line with yours.
citycentre, manchester (24/11/2009 at 13:07)
Wrong on all counts,
DNA identification is not even close to that accurate, check the case of the bombing in Ireland which DNA evidence revealed to be the work of a Nottingham schoolboy. Even with the number of people amready logged false positive identifications are croppong up; that number would increase hugely if we allowed this manic controlling government to take all our information.
Also DNA evidence gives no indication whatsoever that a person commited a crime, merely that a DNA sample matching theirs was found somewhere a crime may have been commited. I do hope people are clever enough to see the difference.
"So we should, therefore, bring back hanging"
Many countries still emply the death sentence for a range of crimes, however these crimes are still commited, and often in rates higher than in this country, so even that argument is weak.
Andanotherthing, Mcr (24/11/2009 at 13:40)
They do make it easier for the state to control the actions , and curtail the liberties of the law abiding majority.
News reported this morning that people are being arrested just to obtain DNA samples, No crimes committed.
The Devil's Advocate, M11 born and bred, East Stand Lower 104 (24/11/2009 at 14:02)
Britt/Canada (24/11/2009 at 14:11)
24/11/2009 at 13:07
So what is your answer to trying to solve these crimes & bringing closure to the victim's family,& has any of your family or friends been impacted by one of these crimes...You are also wrong about DNA only when it is contaminated or incorrectly analysed do these errors arise.
betting "haven't a clue" to the first part & "of course not to the second"...
Blank Flag...you seem to play the "pack your bag & move to another Country card quite often" surely a person with your education paid for by the honest taxpayers of the UK could come up with something a little bit more sensible???
david duck (24/11/2009 at 14:14)
The Devil's Advocate, M11 born and bred, East Stand Lower 104 (24/11/2009 at 14:16)
Andanotherthing, Mcr
24/11/2009 at 13:40
How? Or are you like Black Flag? Make random abstract statements and hope people don't look too inquisitively at your reasoning.
Occasionally agreed with, Heald Green (24/11/2009 at 14:19)
Black Flag: you are incorrect of course about presumption of innocence in all cases. You will find that when dealing with prosecution by HMRC, it is up to you to prove your innocence. You must do better.
The Devil's Advocate, M11 born and bred, East Stand Lower 104 (24/11/2009 at 14:23)
24/11/2009 at 14:14
The ID Card system is not compulsory, if it was I would not have a problem with having one. However, I would definitely object to having to pay for one. So what's your point?
Hellas (24/11/2009 at 14:26)
'Anybody who says yes is advocating the invasion of bodily privacy to satisfy their own whims and is therefore morally on par with a rapist.
Black Flag, 24/11/2009 at 12:05'
Taking a DNA sample is akin to being a rapist? How crazy you are! I take it you sit there on your own and hate the world! From what you state, nobody could ever be imprisoned for rape - so let's take everyone out of prison that's in there for rape because you state it's not a viable conviction (though we can all hope they say they did rape, so we can keep them in).
If one of your nearest and dearest were raped or murdered and the police found DNA matching three hulking brutes that had a history of rape and murder at the scene and all over the place (when they shouldn't have been there in the first place), you would tell the police you didn't agree with DNA matching and not to prosecute. You clown, wake up and see what you're standing in!
david duck (24/11/2009 at 14:42)
Black Flag (24/11/2009 at 14:52)
Somebody who supports the idea of forcibly DNA swabbing somebody when there is no evidence that person has done anything wrong very clearly has the same sick lack of respect for bodily privacy as a rapist.
"I take it you sit there on your own and hate the world"
No, there's plenty about the world I like. What I do hate is stupidity and you appear to be a cheerleader for it.
"From what you state, nobody could ever be imprisoned for rape"
No, I said DNA on its own doesn't offer 100% proof that somebody is guilty of rape. Tell me how DNA establishes whether or not a particular act occurred with consent if you think it does.
"If one of your nearest and dearest were raped or murdered and the police found DNA matching three hulking brutes that had a history of rape and murder at the scene..."
Oh, so now you're moving the goalposts. Before, the DNA on its own was enough, now your sneaking in a few previous convictions.
"and all over the place (when they shouldn't have been there in the first place), you would tell the police you didn't agree with DNA matching and not to prosecute."
I'm not aware of many people who would object to the retention of DNA samples for those convicted of serious offences and I'm certainly not one of them. The objection I have is to a universal database, something which you said you disagreed with as well.
Black Flag (24/11/2009 at 14:57)
Ah Diddums! I get several comments directed at me and because yours isn't the first one I reply to, you get in a sulk. How awful for you.
"Explain to me how having your DNA on a database is affecting your liberty?"
Because it's my body, not yours. You don't have any right to it, however much of an inflated sense of entitlement you might have.
Hellas (24/11/2009 at 15:13)
Did you tell all your friends (the two Persian cats sat in front of you) about your witty little one-liner? You seem to be one of those people that brings problems, problems, problems all the time and never has a solution! Do you have any solutions? I thought not.