Well to get to the nitty gritty. The pubic hairs recovered from the victim of that rape DNA matched another man who also confessed to having done the rape after the statute of limitations for the crime had passed but while he was serving another long sentence for some other crime.
The victim of that assault picked Avery from a lineup and her id of him was key to the conviction.
Like you I don't care why the put him away all those years ago I am just glad he was locked up then to. My only regret is he ever got out at all.
Hmmm...seems a little convenient....dont you think?
Perp confesses after the fact....dna matches sample tested...poof..instant freedom...
screw what the witness said...
I mean really....it's not like anyone ever faked anything in a lab....for money...
call me a cynic..
The guy just happens to turns out to be a killer and rapist?
That's another one of those fact sets where a claim is made that DNA 'proved innocence', when, in fact, it didn't. What it proved is that the victim was with someone else who could have been one of a number of individuals who assaulted her. The court then subsequently determines that without the DNA evidence there is not enough evidence for a conviction.
There was another highly touted case in California a few years back where an individual the media claimed was innocent was released based on the discovery that the DNA recovered from the victim wasn't his. Several weeks after his release, the lab found a match: the victim's husband. Clearly, the individual who assaulted her hadn't left any evidence.
The courts need to be really careful about getting wowed by the science and deciding it 'proves' more that it actually proves.