I’m having trouble understanding why people get upset when new DNA tests frees someone. The wording of these statements troubles me. This guy was a former cop that lost 14 years in prison. You’d think his former colleagues would be happy for him. This guy was a respected and trusted member of the community before his wife’s death.
I’d be less thrilled if a lifetime criminal got released. But even in cases like that I respect the science behind DNA testing. If the DNA don’t fit you gotta acquit. The gang banger may have killed other people, but he didn’t kill the one he’s locked up for.
People gladly throw people in jail based on DNA. Why the reluctance to correct a mistake made in a trial years ago?
The bite mark was a critical part of the evidence. DNA proves that this guy didn’t make that bite mark.
Emotional investment? People are generally content if someone is indicted for a crime, regardless of who it is.
And obviously tangible evidence is a lot more conclusive then the new-fangled science shmience stuff they’re pulling out of their asses just to protect the criminals :rolleyes:
Do you know what other evidence there was? The CNN article only mentions the bite mark, and “substantial amount of other evidence” with no other description. I’m not very trusting of bite mark identification, myself.
Ironically bite mark analysis was presented in the trial. The accuracy of bite mark id has been questioned for awhile. Now, they discover this guys DNA wasn’t in the wound.
The prosecutor will have a tough time convincing a jury that someone else bit the victim and the accused shot her. It’s the state’s right to retry the case, but it may be a waste of money.
Heck some states have passed laws limiting new DNA testing. It’s like justice doesn’t matter. They want to keep people locked up no matter what.
This reminds me of perhaps the stupidest thing I can recall a “smart” person saying. Said person was a legal scholar of some sort. The topic of discusion was “lie detectors”. Now, in real life there is no doubt “lie detectors” have some serious issues, even if one assumes they are way more reliable than current evidence seems to indicate.
Said person was against lie detectors period. Even if they were 100 percent accurate. And not because of some sophisticated legal/ethical/gotcha/catch 22 reason.
They were against them because using them would “undermine the jury process”
People shouldn’t use DNA testing as some magic talisman that divines the truth. Rather, that’s what a trial is for–both sides get to present all their best evidence and cross-examine the other side, and then the jury decides, and that’s the truth. It ain’t perfect, but it’s better than a lot of other ways of doing it. I can see how people could get upset when that whole process gets de-railed years later just because of some DNA evidence and arguments from doe-eyed undergraduates or law students (i.e., the Innocence Project).
For example, in the case discussed in the OP, all we have now is that DNA evidence shows this guy didn’t bite the victim’s arm. That doesn’t mean he didn’t kill her. There must be more going on here than the article discusses–I don’t see how a judge could simply say “oh, he wasn’t the biter? Then he wasn’t the shooter–release him.”
It depends on the crime. Rape is pretty much you did it or didn’t do it. If the collected samples point to another person then its pretty conclusive you didn’t deposit the sample.
Murders are more tricky. I can see circumstances where someone could shoot and not leave any of their own DNA. Clean themselves up, burn their clothes and shoes then with luck the victim’s dna won’t be on them. Forensic Science is making that harder and harder to pull off.
Apparently the ex-cop didn’t leave any dna on the victim. You’d expect to find dna in that bite wound. I guess a new jury will soon decide.
I wish the reporting was better. I’m curious whether they got an identifiable dna sequence. If they did then that points to a new suspect. Finding him and getting a match could be hard, but they won’t even try if the cops & DA are focused on retrying the ex-cop.
It’s also disturbing to know that, if they did get the wrong person, the actual killer is still out there. And that’s scary. Not that that makes it okay, but it’s probably on peoples’ minds.
If there was someone elses DNA in the bite mark - and the bite mark was substantially used to convict him - then there shouldn’t be an issue - he should go free. If there was no DNA detected - well that shouldn’t make a difference - obviously someone bit her - and someone was convicted for that crime.
I don’t tend to think there really is that much outrage. If anything I think I hear more outrage directed against the system than anything else. Most normal people know the system makes mistakes - and these cases are shedding light on the abuses in the system and how crappy stuff like eyewitness testimony can be.
I was taking a class (right at the start of these line of cases a long time ago) in criminal justice - taught by a former prosecutor. One of these cases was in the news and a prosecutor said something like “we still think he’s guilty”. I asked our teacher why he said this - based on what appeared to be pretty convincing new evidence. His answer was simply “well what did you expect him to say”.
So (as someone else pointed out) it appears to me that some people - no matter what training they have had - still have a hard time admitting they were wrong.
Some years the AG of Florida was representing the state against an apparently innocent man who had been convicted of rape/murder and the DNA evidence that was later examined showed it was not his DNA. The AG argued that the good citizens of Florida had determined that this guy should be executed and even if he was shown “absolute proof of innocence” (I think they were his exact words), it was his job to see the man executed and he would fight in court to do so.
There seems to be a belief in some legal circles that a verdict and sentence are like decrees from god and not to be questioned.
Perhaps some people are upset* about this ruling because they’re convinced on other grounds that Prade was guilty. The trial news link posted earlier shows that he was a stalker who entered the victim’s home and made death threats against her:
"Douglas Prade responded with verbal abuse, calling Margo Prade a “fat bitch,” and making threats against her.
“I can do away with you and nobody will know,” he said. “I’ve got something for your ass,” he said on another occasion."
It doesn’t sound to me like the DNA evidence points to anyone else, but that it doesn’t match the ex-husband. I was under the impression that you could not 100% conclusively determine that a bite mark matches someone’s teeth, so there was likely prosecutorial overreach on that point. Little choice but to free someone who likely was guilty in the first place.
*What puzzles me are people who get upset about DNA evidence being used to match suspects to crimes and who wave their hands about “lab errors”, but are perfectly satisfied with the science when it exonerates someone. :dubious:
All well and good, so he was a stalker and threatened her. It is not outside of the realm of possibility that someone else capped her, IMHO. I got in a bar fight after leaving my asshole abusive fiancee[the one that threw me across a room hard enough to concuss me] so I could have died as a result of the fight, or in absence of the fight brought home a ‘Mr Goodbar’ and been killed with my ex as the ‘only possible person who had motive to kill me, and could have convinced me to let him in to my new flat with the bait of a reconciliation’ plunking the jerk in jail and letting my actual killer go free to kill again.
Just because someone has a stalker does not mean that they are unable to be killed by someone else.