Inaccurate DNA analyses carried out between 2006 and 2016, which led to at least two incorrect convictions being quashed, may represent one of the worst miscarriages of justice in Bermuda’s recent legal history.

It is possible that those two cases — plus a third where the Director of Public Prosecutions was unsuccessful in getting a conviction quashed — are the only instances where faulty analysis led to people being wrongly accused and convicted of major crimes. But it is also possible that there are more.

There is no way of knowing which of these possibilities is true because the full details of a review by DPP Cindy Clarke have not been made public. As a result, doubt is sown, and this, more than anything, discredits the system of justice.

Problems with DNA analysis came to light when the convictions of Julian Washington for murder and attempted murder were overturned last year. At his trial, DNA analyst Candy Zuleger testified that there was a one-in-46-million chance that his DNA was not on the bullet casings found near the murder scene.

However, his appeal revealed “significant errors” in the methodology used and in the calculation and explanation of the statistical weight attached to the DNA. In fact, an independent expert said the testing was inconclusive and Ms Zuleger’s evidence should have been excluded.

By the time of the appeal, the DPP had carried out her own independent analysis that concurred with Mr Washington’s expert. Prosecutors did not oppose the appeal.

Ms Clarke also, rightly, launched a review of all cases carried out during this period. According to the Privy Council judgment, the DPP undertook to carry out a full review of all cases containing DNA evidence from Ms Zuleger and her company, Trinity DNA Solutions, identifying which resulted in convictions and sending those cases to an independent analyst to determine if they contained the same flaws identified in Mr Washington’s case.

The final stage would be to notify the individuals concerned.

However, this does not appear to be the process Ms Clarke followed once the review was under way.

The 273 cases involving DNA were indeed identified and reviewed. They included cases that led to acquittals and cold cases.

Ms Clarke and her office, according to the methodology she made public in August, assessed the cases with convictions to see which were safe if the DNA evidence was excluded. In other words, the prosecutors determined whether there was a reasonable prospect of conviction, based on the rest of the evidence. The only cases to be sent to the independent analyst for forensic review were those where it was determined there wasn’t a reasonable prospect of conviction without the DNA evidence.

No reason has been given for the apparent change in approach. Neither the DPP’s office, nor Andrew Murdoch, the Governor, who has supported the approach, have revealed how many cases were sent for review to the independent analyst, Barbara Llewellyn.

What is known is that two cases, those of Anwar Muhammad, who was convicted of attempted murder and possession of a firearm in 2012, and Kofi Dill, who was jailed for eight years after admitting he handled a firearm, were determined to be miscarriages of justice.

Mr Muhammad’s conviction was quashed, but Mr Dill’s was upheld on the basis of his guilty plea. Mr Dill has said he only pleaded guilty because he believed a jury would accept expert DNA evidence over his own denials.

It is perhaps widely assumed that prosecutors measure success by the number of convictions that they achieve, but the truth is more nuanced, at least for good prosecutors. The best only bring cases where they believe the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that a suspect is guilty.

They are, or should be, seekers of truth, not conviction rates. That is why politically motivated prosecutions cause such unease when they stop being about the truth and become about vengeance or power.

That in turn is why, in this island at least, the DPP is a separate and independent branch of government.

To that end, Ms Clarke deserves credit for embarking on this monumental review when it became clear that Mr Washington was wrongly convicted. Others might have defended Ms Zuleger’s analysis or tried to downplay the errors.

She also deserves credit for seeking to have convictions quashed where she believes faulty DNA evidence may have been central to the convictions.

But there must be doubts about whether all of the other 271 cases were untainted by faulty DNA evidence.

It is possible that more cases were faulty, but because Ms Clarke and her colleagues determined that the convictions achieved in those cases would have been achieved without the DNA evidence, it was decided that those cases should not be reopened.

This places a great deal of weight on the experience and judgment of Ms Clarke and her department. It assumes an ability to read the minds of jurors and magistrates in not one case but in more than 200.

Anyone who has covered or attended jury trials will attest to the fact that jurors can spring surprises, acquitting when it appears the evidence is against the defendant and convicting when the evidence might seem thin.

There is not space here to debate the merits of the system but it does assume a great deal to believe that the cases that were not sent to the analyst were all certain to end in conviction.

It may be that the three cases identified the only ones where Trinity DNA’s analysis was flawed. It may also be that other cases that led to conviction were referred to Dr Llewellyn and the analysis was found to be sound. But the public has no way of knowing.

Without knowing, it is impossible to know if Trinity DNA’s work was generally correct or hopelessly flawed. Determinations about whether the errors should have been caught earlier or if the monitoring of outside contractors is flawed cannot be made. There are still more questions than answers.

The only way to know for certain is for the review to be made public. If there are concerns about privacy, then names of individuals can be redacted if necessary.

Without it, the credibility of Bermuda’s justice system hangs in the balance.