DNA ‘match’ in Massereene murder case
The High Court has heard that soil found on a boot belonging to high-profile republican Colin Duffy matches a sample in the getaway car used by terrorists who murdered two soldiers outside a Co Antrim military base.
Prosecutors also claimed the chances of a DNA profile on a latex glove particle recovered from the floor of the vehicle belonging to anyone else were less than one in a billion.
Duffy, 41, of Forest Glade, Lurgan, Co Armagh, is charged with the murders of sappers Mark Quinsey, 23, and Patrick Azimkar, 21, who were gunned down by dissident republicans at the gates of Massereene army barracks in March.
He is also accused of five counts of attempted murders and possession of firearms with intent in connection with the Real IRA ambush of soldiers collecting food from pizza delivery men.
Opposing his application for bail, a Crown barrister said on the night of the attack two masked gunmen fired more than 60 rounds at the victims before escaping in a waiting car.
Tessa Kitson told the court it was later found partially burnt out in Randalstown, with forensic examinations carried out on the tip of a glove retrieved from the front passenger side of a vehicle said to have been purchased the previous month.
She said: “The result from that is the chance of obtaining a matching profile of DNA other than that from this applicant would be less than one in one billion.”
Mixed profiles from up to three people were also found on a seatbelt buckle. A forensic scientist concluded that one of them could have come from Duffy, according to the prosecution.
Further searches of a glove compartment located the same type of ammunition used in the attack, while a hold-all found in the boot contained camouflage jackets, trousers and more bullets, the court heard.
Mrs Kitson revealed detectives believe the bag was taken from an unidentified hide.
“It’s clear this attack was neither spontaneous nor opportunistic. It involved a considerable degree of planning,” she said.
“It was an attack in which all of the injured parties… had no opportunity at all to defend themselves.”
The barrister claimed that because of the length of sentence Duffy faces should he be convicted there would be an “almost overwhelming” temptation to flee the country if released on bail.
“It is felt this applicant is very much involved in a dissident group which is bent on causing complete destabilising in the community.”
She also disclosed that soil comparisons were carried out after footwear was seized during searches of his home.
“The forensic expert concludes that the soil taken from the applicant’s boot matches the soil found in the car at that time.”
But Mark Mulholland, defending, claimed the report only stated the earth may have come from the same location.
Mr Mulholland contended that this reflected the “paucity” of the case against his client, and stressed that eight months after the murders the authorities have still to decide whether to press ahead with the charges against Duffy, who denies any involvement in the attack.
“Mr Duffy makes no bones about the fact, and never has done, that he is known as a prominent republican, in the mainstream sense of the word, in Lurgan,” the barrister said.
“But at no time did the police ever arrest him in relation to dissident republican activity prior to his arrest on March 14th this year.”
Death threats
The court was told that Duffy himself has received death threats from rogue republicans in the past.
Mr Mulholland added that the accused, a father of six, was prepared to put up the deeds of his home – with an equity of up to £90,000 – as surety in a bid to be granted bail ahead of any trial which could be a year away.
After hearing both sides Mr Justice Weatherup adjourned the application until prosecutors can confirm whether or not a case is to proceed against Duffy.
Although the judge said he was not satisfied that no risk existed by releasing the accused, he stressed that any potential delay in bringing the case to trial was unacceptable.
He added: “This situation cannot continue without specific justification for continued detention. Therefore I require that justification to be presented when this matter next appears before the court.”
