Once again proving that a dedicated police force and forensic scientists can solve cold cases dating back almost 60 years, today a British court sentenced 92-year-old Ryland Headley to life in prison for the 1967 rape and murder of 75-year-old Louisa Dunne. He was convicted on Monday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgk3jyl5prvo

Rather than get the “poor old man” treatment afforded many Catholic priests convicted of sex crimes and sentenced to a year in prison, the judge in this case told the defendant that he will die in prison.

An investigator in the case told the press this arrest and conviction was “proof offenders ‘can never stop looking over their shoulder.'”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36xw0ryw51o

Consider this:

Boxes and boxes of evidence from the original police investigation remained in storage, until Ms Smith of Avon and Somerset Police’s major and statutory crime review team took a fresh look in 2023.

“Murder and rape is the most horrific crime anyone can commit against another person and I think time makes no difference for us. We will keep searching and searching,” she said.

Ms Smith said she was amazed how well key evidence, such as Mrs Dunne’s clothing and samples of pubic hair had been preserved, as well as all the crime scene photographs and the thousands of pages of statements.

It was forensic scientist Andrew Parry, of Cellmark Forensic Services, who established a definitive DNA link to Headley.

Mr Parry cut a square of cloth from the back of Mrs Dunne’s skirt, having assessed the position she was found in and realised that, if semen had been left behind, it would be on that section of the fabric.

“Semen that is deposited on clothing can persist for a long time,” Mr Parry said during his evidence in court.

“If you wash it thoroughly, you may get rid of it, but it may persist even if you wash it. It can last for many years.”

Police also matched a partial palm print that was left on Ms. Dunne’s bedroom window to Headley’s palm print, taken after he was in custody.

The State of Michigan steadfastly refuses to retest the children’s clothing and belongings in the OCCK case. The implication is that their previous testing, done years before current DNA testing advancements, was good (or bad) enough, or is a tacit admission that the evidence in this case has been so poorly handled, stored and evaluated that it has been deemed worthless.

That’s why that “babysitter” myth–clothing washed and pressed (what an evil genius!) has really come in handy over the decades. Even if true, which we know in Mark Stebbin’s case is very far from the truth, somebody or somebodies touched the kids’ bodies when they were dressing them and dumping them. That’s why there was an unknown hair on Kristine’s jacket. They have argued over the years that such a hair could have come from any cop, ambulance attendant, lab or morgue worker who came into contact with Kristine’s body, or some form of cross-contamination. So rule such a person or situation out if that’s what shows up. You really have to wonder about all of the excuses.

For today, simply compare the OCCK case to the homicide of Louisa Dunne. I don’t think anybody in Michigan is looking over their shoulder in the OCCK case.