The touch DNA would not have got her acquitted.
Touch DNA occurs everywhere, and the presence at a scene is not considered proof of anything - except to Mary Lacey that is.
That woman has done the biggest knowlegable disservice to justice that I have ever seen. Touch DNA is "junk science" and should NEVER have been used to acquit.
But it is the use of DNA profiling that raises the greatest public concern in regard to its accuracy, ethical use and impact on privacy...There are hints that the use of DNA evidence might be reined in, albeit temporarily. Some experts believe that it is now time to take stock and ensure that DNA profiling meets the fundamental rule for evidence used to convict criminalsthat it is correct beyond all reasonable doubtbefore further extending its use. In fact, the field faces a test case later this year when the Australian High Court hears the appeal of Benjamin Forbes against his conviction for sexual assault, which was based on DNA evidence as the victim was unable to identify her attacker. The appeal was inspired partly by an earlier Australian case, when a 22-year-old man was eventually freed in December 2009. It turned out that he had been wrongly convicted of rape in 2006 based on DNA evidence that turned out to be seriously flawed. This led Forbes' council to argue that conviction based on DNA evidence alone was unsafe for various reasons, such as incorrect procedures being followed or the prospect that future improvements in technology would shed a different light on it.
The Forbes appeal coincided with a paper published by the Australian Institute of Criminology, which stated that DNA evidence made convictions 33 times more likely in sexual assault cases (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010). The paper also found that jurors were generally more likely to convict based on DNA evidence even though they often did not understand the science involved. The authors even suggested that the safety of these verdicts might be compromised by widespread misconceptions about the infallibility of DNA evidence by jurors who are overawed by the scientific garb in which the evidence is presented and attach greater weight to it than it is capable of bearing. If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility..
If successful, Forbes' appeal could have a profound impact on the use of DNA evidence in court if jurors lose confidence in its infallibility
The controversy has arisen partly out of confusion between the use of DNA profiling as an investigative tool and as evidence in court. Its power as an investigative tool continues to increase, but its reliability as evidence will always vary depending on the exact nature of the DNA profile obtained and the state of the sample from which it was derived. The very fact that it is possible to obtain DNA profiles from degraded samples means that there are borderline cases in which the accuracy of DNA profiles is doubtful.
Having more loci increases the statistical power of DNA matching as a tool and decreases the chance of suspects being falsely identified. But other factors play a role too, notably the state of the sample. The older and more degraded the biological material is, the less loci can be amplified and the higher the risk of laboratory error. In such cases, the actual probability of a match between the partial DNA profile and an entry in a DNA database is a matter of intelligent guesswork; in fact this is the reason why the Forbes case was appealed.
There is also considerable risk arising from basic laboratory errors, as the hunt for the elusive phantom of Heilbronn' demonstrated. For years, German, French and Austrian police investigators pursued a female suspect who, according to DNA evidence, had committed dozens of crimes and several murders over the course of 14 years including shooting two police officers in Heilbronn in 2007. Eventually, however, they discovered that the DNA profile retrieved from 40 crime scenes in three countries actually came from an employee of the Austrian company that produced the swabs police used to take samples at the crime scenes.
source -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892330/
Clearly, the chain of evidence for JBR is pretty much shot, as she laid undiscovered for hours then was moved, carried, touched by several people once found. The scene was not secured, and PR's sister was allowed in to remove items from the home and do God knows what else unmonitored. The Colorado "justice" system of the time was inept, out of their depth, and completely blindsided by this crime. Mary Lacey compounds the embarrasment and confusion by claiming an exoneration that is far from certain in the eyes of any DNA expert.
She needs to hang her head in shame. She has ensured this case will likely never be solved, which was part of the plan all along. No one wants it solved, as too many heads will roll.:banghead: MOO.
