The fundamental weakness in the UK and US systems is that the courts are required to determine guilt rather than what happened. Courts that are run on the inquisitorial principle have vastly wider scope to call for and examine all the evidence rather than merely that which relates to the potential guilt of those charged.

The inquisitorial system benefits from being less personalised on the defendant(s) and does not reult in the absurdity of certifying innocent parties "not guilty." It lends itself much more readily to the re-examining of cases where there is an obvious public interest. And when a case is re-opened, there will usually be much more evidence availabe for re-examination than is the case in the wake of a trial under the adversarial system.

I am fascinated by the unqestioning faith in DNA. There can be very few jurors who have even a hazy grasp of the science. Instead they must depend on experts, and experts have been found to be fallible and even corrupt.

At the least they will sometimes be predisposed under the adversarial system to help justice along, by going too far in helping convict whoever the police have convinced them is guilty.

There is also a much greater risk of cross-contamination with DNA than with much other forensic evidence.