[michaelbuckbee]

The Innocence Project states that there have been 266 post conviction DNA exonerations in the US.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

I'm of the opinion that it's basically impossible to know how many wrongful convictions have taken place, but those 266 cases are surely the tip of the iceberg when you consider the difficulty in identifying the cases, determining if potential exculpatory evidence existed, testing that evidence and then pushing all of that through a courtroom.

[gnosis]

"The Innocence Project states that there have been 266 post conviction DNA exonerations in the US."

But were they really innocent?

DNA evidence can be misused in the courts:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300-how-dna-e...

[pessimizer]

Did you read that article and decide that people are getting off due to questionable statistics? As far as I can tell, the article is about calculating the probability of random people matching a particular DNA sample, not about excluding people, which is a lot easier.

[gnosis]

"As far as I can tell, the article is about calculating the probability of random people matching a particular DNA sample, not about excluding people, which is a lot easier."

No.

The article is very clearly questions the role of DNA evidence as a whole.

A couple of relevant quotes:

"Defence experts were trusting that the scientists had interpreted the data correctly. This perpetuated the myth that DNA is infallible."

"There's a considerable lack of understanding, not just from the public, but from the judges and lawyers."

[pessimizer]

"This week we show how, even when analysts agree that someone could be a match for a piece of DNA evidence, the statistical weight assigned to that match can vary enormously."

This seems to be the author's opinion about what the article is about.

[gnosis]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

Make of it what you will. The article speaks for itself.

[pessimizer]

It does, and when it speaks, it speaks of different statistical methods for calculating the probability of a random match to partial DNA samples.

edit: BTW, it's a very interesting article - thanks for pointing it out.

[RobGR]

There's this fellow who posts by the name "gnosis" on the interwebs, and I'm pretty sure he's the real killer of JFK. The DNA evidence for his innonence is . . . wait for it . . . NONEXISTENT !!!11!!! OMFG CALL NANCY GRACE NOW !!!