“Anything less than 100% completely exonerates me.”
Tell it to the jury.
You seem to believe that DNA testing is perfect.
It’s never 100%. The more cops rely on database dragnets, the more of a problem there is going to be.
Here’s a paragraph from the article I linked to that might shed some light. The article is dense but you can get the gist of it:
“Consider, for example, the hypothetical cases illustrated in Table
1 in which the prior odds that the suspect is the source of an evidentiary
sample are 1:1000 and the random match probability is
one in one billion (109). If the probability of a false positive is
zero, then the posterior odds are a million to one in favor of the suspect
being the source, which certainly seems high enough to justify
confidence in that conclusion. In other words, the DNA evidence
has more than enough probative value to make up for the low prior
probability. However, if the false positive probability is even 1 in
10,000, the posterior odds in favor of the suspect being the source
are reduced drastically to only 10:1. It is very important for those
evaluating DNA evidence to understand that a false positive probability
on the order of 1 in 10,000, which may seem low enough to
be “safe,” may nevertheless undermine the value of a one-in-a-billion
DNA match sufficiently that, when combined with a low prior
probability, there is still room for doubt about whether the suspect
is the source of the matching sample.”
Sweet dreams.
So I’m supposed to worry about an extremely low probability of a false positive, combined with a crime scene that I have access to, combined with me having a motive to commit that crime and having some connection to the instruments used to commit that crime.
You’re right, this can and does happen to someone in this country, maybe even once a year. Odds one in 300+ million per year...yawn...it’s making me sleepy. Goodnight Honey...