“DNA was used and it was an asset.”

The above, from the lips of an RCMP spokesman in the wake of an arrest in the cold-case rural Manitoba homicide of Chantelle Rikheim, 16, Friday.

This same morning, I came across a case where DNA analysis also loomed large, but in a weird way that justice officials were kind of stumped, at least initially, about what to do with it come time for sentencing.

A few years back, Andrew Dempsey did a smash and grab, was caught and ultimately convicted of it.

Given he was being sentenced for one offence, he got the benefit of a conditional sentence — which he served without issue — in the community.

That sentence included an order he provide a sample of DNA for the RCMP databank.

It appears that when that sample hit the lab in 2009, bells started ringing.

Not long after, Dempsey — a recovering crack addict — was rearrested for a veritable string of B&E’s between 2004 and October 2006 where he left his blood at each of nine crime scenes.

Judge Sid Lerner referred to it as a “calling card” left for forensic cops to decipher.

The facts are dumbo: Dempsey worked with a cleaning company and scoped joints while on shift. He’d go back, bust in and steal stuff.

The Crown asked that this time, he be given jail — a short hit of between four and six months, given that he’d already done the year-long CSO on the first crime that subsequently led to his being identified in the much longer string of crimes.

But the passage of time, and an offender’s willingness to change, can do a lot when it comes to getting a break from the courts.

Since 2006, Dempsey has taken great steps to “turn his life around,” has held the same job for 10 years and has no record of being reinvolved, court heard.

Lerner said that in terms of the crimes and the breach of trust they involved, it appeared a stint in prison of roughly four years would ordinarily be in order (Consecutive 6-month terms on each of nine break enter charges). Adjusting that for the principle of totality, however, he said two years less a day (provincial time) would be where he’d land, all said and done.

That means a further conditional sentence was open to Dempsey.

Lerner granted it to him, saying to send him to jail now would run the risk of deleting the gains he’s made personally in recent years.

His point was: Looking at public safety as a whole, it would more likely be hampered in the long run if Dempsey was sent to jail as the Crown requested.

“I don’t think much would be gained by sending him to jail for 4-6 months,” Lerner said.

He may be right. In fact, I’m certain he is.

But how lucky was Dempsey that he didn’t get caught for all the crimes all in one go?

Below is the RCMP’s latest chart of what their DNA lab has been up to in the last year (published Feb. 6, 2012)

Note how many B&E investigations DNA was used as a tool for — nearly four times those of sexual assaults, and nearly 8:1 over homicides.

 

Tags: andrew dempsey, break and enter, conditional sentence, crime scene, dempsey, dna, judge sid lerner, justice, matching, police, RCMP, winnipeg