All scientific evidence has been dropped from the case against the Birmingham Six, the Court of Appeal in London was told last week.
The six men were convicted of the Birmingham pub bombs in 1975, partly on the evidence of Home Office forensic scientist Frank Skuse, who told the trial that the men had handled nitroglycerine.
In 1985, a television programme revealed that the solvent Skuse had used in the test for nitroglycerine, 1 per cent caustic soda, would also have produced a positive result if the men had handled nitrocellulose. Skuse did not keep notes of his tests, and the Home Office retired him days after the TV programme.
At the men's first appeal hearing in 1987, Skuse said he used a 0.1 per cent solution of caustic soda, which would not dissolve nitrocellulose, but which would also reduce the sensitivity of the test for nitroglycerine.
In September 1990 a Home Office review concluded that there was no forensic evidence against the six. Last week the Director of Public Prosecutions formally told the men's second appeal court hearing that he was not going to rely on the scientific evidence.
The case against the six now depends on confessions. Scientific evidence shows that some of these have been altered.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
