From a trial finishing up here and on the inside page of the Austin American Statesman is the title:
TRIAL: Defense tells jury DNA evidence isn't foolproof.
The title comes from the closing arguments of the defense attorney:
Defense attorney XXXXXXX said the prosecution failed to prove that Torres was at the scene when Graeber died. His fingerprint on the lamp did not have blood on it, and the newspaper coupon should have had a crease on it if Torres had leaned on it with his hand, but it didn't, xxxxx said.
He also told jurors that they should be skeptical about the DNA evidence. "People have been set free from DNA results ... people that a jury just like you have convicted," xxxxxx said.
Apparently all DNA evidence is not scientifically sound. Still want to use it to test Latent Prints?
Interesting how DNA is absolutely foolproof when used to exonerate the defendant, i.e "Innocence Project." When DNA shows the defendant was there at the scene, it's shaky, frail, and subject to contamination.
When someone in jail is "exonerated" by DNA analysis, the defense attorney for the "exonerated" guy jumps up and down and says, "See how great it works?" But when that same DNA incriminates a new guy, the defense attorney for the NEW guy says, "Contamination! Planted!"
If consistancy is so desired in the Latent Print world, how about the Defense world?