[ptaipale]

Interesting that you get downvoted for saying that.

There are good grounds to be somewhat suspicious of forensic evidence; however, my understanding is that technical evidence like this is usually far, far more reliable than e.g. eyewitness statements. Those are horribly unreliable, and experienced investigators (or should we say "investigators") are able to convince their witnesses of having seen things that did not really happen at all.

[notahacker]

Eyewitness statements aren't reliable (hell, I've given an eyewitness description that wasn't that reliable, judging by the reaction of the police officer who had just taken a statement from somebody else), but I'd see it quite hard for a court in a pre-DNA testing era not to have convicted when a reasonably certain and consistent testimony from a rape victim is supported by the supposed forensic experts at the time, especially not if the chief argument for the defence was a weak alibi offered by the accused's mother.

Though since they've had DNA techniques sufficient to overturn the expert witness evidence for rather a long time now it's surprising it took this long to overturn.