TexasCHLforum.com

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/10/10 ... -the-code/

The science:

That reality check, brought to you courtesy of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which was aware of the problem for a while but finally got around to making it public, is that DNA mixture analysis not only failed to meet the one in gazillion probability to which prosecution analysts typically testified, but was in fact one in fifty.

Not science:

Chubbs sought to determine whether the code properly implements established scientific procedures for DNA matching and if it operates the way its manufacturer claims. But the manufacturer argued that the defense attorney might steal or duplicate the code and cause the company to lose money. The court denied Chubbs’ request, leaving him free to examine the state’s expert witness but not the tool that the witness relied on. Courts in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and elsewhere have made similar rulings.

So you want to have a business that makes you rich by creating some code that puts people in prison? How nice for you. That this is your position, that your secret code is magic and wonderful, but you can’t reveal it or someone else is going to steal your loot, is a perfectly viable argument to make in a capitalist society where making money is an admirable goal.

Expert opinions must be "scientfically reliable."...To hide behind some kind of "secret code" would seem to violate a defendant's due process rights and in addition not be admissible unless it can be shown to be scientifically reliable and hence known, observable, and testable.

If the defendant is convicted will be sure to track that one on appeal and see how the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handles it.

dlh

I have a problem with the professors in Chicago and other places for the last 20 years and this DNA deal getting folks out of jail 30 years later.
I am not a sceintest but a skeptic because the Professors are Progressive or liberal Liberal Lies as we ccan see daily with liberal news folk and pols and progressives are not any better