The Five Demands

Massereene DNA ‘may be from Shivers’ (UTV)

DNA profiles uncovered on two burnt matches and a mobile phone found inside the car used by the men who killed two soldiers at Massereene barracks could have come from Brian Shivers, a Belfast Crown Court judge heard on Wednesday.

Shivers, of Sperrin Mews in Magherafelt, denies the murders of sappers Mark Quinsey, who was 23 and from Birmingham, and 21-year-old Londoner Patrick Azimkar, who were gunned down in a deadly ambush outside the Co Antrim army base on 7 March 2009.

The 47-year-old also denies the attempted murders of two other soldiers, two civilian guards and two pizza delivery men, and possession of the two AK assault rifles used in the Real IRA shooting.

Mr Justice Deeny heard evidence that a DNA profile uncovered on a single match found beside a partially burnt out Vauxhall Cavalier had component parts consistent with Shivers’ profile – but that a forensic scientist could not confirm whether it was his or not.

The gunmen made their escape in the car, which was later found partially burnt out in a laneway seven miles away.

The court has heard how two burnt matches and a mobile phone were found inside the car and crime scene investigators also found a partially burnt match outside the car.

Giving evidence at the Diplock, no jury trial, a senior forensic scientist said he had conducted tests on all of the items to ascertain if there was any DNA profiles on them.

Taking the two matches uncovered inside the Vauxhall Cavalier first, he told the senior prosecutor that he found a DNA profile which matched Shivers’ and that the likelihood of it having come from a person unrelated to him was “less than one in one billion”.

He said that having been involved in DNA analysis and the interpretation of results since 1992 and having been involved in hundreds if not thousands of cases, he was of the opinion that given the amount of DNA he found, it was more likely to have been put there by primary transfer rather than secondary transfer.

Turning to the match which was found outside the car, the scientist said while DNA components which were uncovered were consistent with Shivers’ profile, from the tests he conducted: “I am unable to exclude him as a possible contributor”.

In relation to the mobile phone, the court heard how swabs were taken from the front, back and inside the phone and were submitted for analysis.

A DNA profile from swabs taken from the inside of the phone, the scientist told the court, matched all 17 components of Shivers’ DNA. Profiles were found on swabs from other parts of the phone but were of such small amounts that they were unsuitable for analysis.

Under cross examination from defence QC Orlando Pownall, the scientist agreed that some people shed more DNA than others and that there was no consistency as to how much DNA a person shed.

The lawyer suggested to the scientist that DNA could be transferred onto an item without touching it, citing examples of his DNA being found on the microphone in front of him if he sneezed “or merely by talking”.

Agreeing with the suggestion, the scientist further agreed that a person may not even know if their DNA had been transferred onto an item and that in such circumstances, it would be very difficult for them to explain how their profile came to be on the item.

The trial continues.