One of this week's news articles posted by Ms Potter reads, in part,
"On Tuesday, Moses said he did not agree with testimony in the trial from another forensic scientist who previously testified that fingerprints found at the crime scene were a "probable or not possible" match to Casillas.
While the other scientist also agreed that the fingerprints were inconclusive, Moses said associating Casillas with the prints created bias.
"It is improper and unethical to call a print 'probable' or 'possible identification,'" Moses said. "If a print is not identified or excluded, it can almost be anyone's. ... Simply associating someone with an unknown is scientifically untenable, and it creates bias."
The defendant was "associated" to the fingerprint through a "probable" identification?
Is this where the science of fingerprint identification is going when the old guys like Ken Moses are not able to stop it?
"The times, they are a changin' "
-- Bob Dylan, 1964
It doesn't really matter according to this article due to the DNA evidence...
On April 20, 2014, detectives again collected DNA from Casillas, and it was sent to the county sheriff's crime lab. A match was made.
"The profile to the defendant and feces match was so rare and was an absolute match to the defendant," Day said. "There was no doubt the person who left the feces was the defendant."
DNA is the gold standard so attorneys can say 'absolute' and 'no doubt' because......science
