Don’t you think there’s a bit of a contradiction there? Under the law, the prosecution is required to prove their case. If the prosecution fail to organise their case well- and they did - then returning a not guilty verdict is the right decision.
Absolutely. It’s a good point but I feel that as bungled as the prosecution was, the DNA was so overwhelming that there really couldn’t be any other conclusion reached. It was a decision based more on emotion than on logic.
I dont remember the details, but IIRC the DNA analysis followed some sloppy lab procedure, where there was a good chance of contaminating the samples.