I just felt like the jury got fixated on the DNA evidence with no knowledge of the science behind it. They locked on to the DNA evidence as clear guilt but nobody questioned how much was detected and how common DNA transfer is among people living in close proximity.
I guarantee that every one of us here has fecal bacteria on our toothbrushes and I’d like to think that at least 90% of us don’t scratch out butts with our toothbrushes.
There was a case in Detroit a year or so back where a guy chased down a burglar and shot him. The jury convicted him and the judge ended up setting the verdict aside based on the fact that the circumstances surrounding the shooting were withheld by the prosecution. Turns out that the guy had been robbed 3 times in a week while he was at work. On day 4 he came home early, caught them and killed the slow one. The judge basically equated it with a Sheppard guarding his flock.
We are told all about DNA. But truthfully, who really understands it? We simply take the word of the scientific community.
A scientist could come up with PAP (physical air particles) and tell us that people leave particles in the air that proves they were at the scene. Within a few years people would be convicted on PAP evidence. No scientist wants to be outdone and seem to be out of touch.