Indication vs. Proof
"[Meg Hillier] also stressed the fact that a person's DNA was held on the database was not an indication of guilt."
The phrase "an indication of guilt" would've been better put as "proof of guilt". A politician; as is now usual, of the unLaboured variety; uses description slippage to soften up the public, for the next stage of whatever it is, yet again.
Geoffrey Orchard would've had his DNA collected as evidence, at the very least, potential evidence. So, how is this evidence not being used as a past, present or future indicator, exactly? If DNA serves no purpose as evidence/indication of guilt, then why do the police need to collect it, hold it & generally waste their own time with it? The fact is that the police would use it as evidence/indication of guilt, in court, if they thought that they could get away with making use of it; as with a doctored photograph, in the de Menezes case. Ms. Hillier has stressed a non-fact (i.e. a big, stinking pile of it), from the point of view of police evidence. Everyone, when in use on that database, is considered to be guilty until discounted as innocent; something which is completely contrary to English, though not European/Napoleonic, law! What purpose does it serve in maintaining this database, which Joe Public is not being told by an elected official, if DNA is not being used as an indication of guilt? No spoken purpose, so scrap it or come clean.