"The case concerns Derrick Chappell, 41, Morton Johnson, 44, and Samuel Grasty, 47, who each were convicted in separate trials of second-degree murder [of a 70 year old woman near Philadelphia] and other charges in 2000 and 2001 and sentenced to life in prison...Tests on the DNA from the semen, however, did not match with any of them, according to the filing...Modern DNA testing techniques, particularly “touch DNA,” have revealed that the DNA from the semen matches several other items of crime scene evidence, including more semen on the green jacket and on the bedsheet and items in the jacket’s pocket, according to attorneys for the defendants."
Aside from the probable misuse of the term "touch DNA," the CNN report is a good article. I had thought that prosecutors would no longer put forth a theory of the crime involving an unindicted co-ejaculator (which is not a strictly accurate term). There is a good chance that Richard McElwee gave a false confession/accusation; his testimony seems to be by far the most significant evidence against the three. The NYT reported that an assistant district attorney is trying to uphold the convictions, writing "'Absent compelling evidence of innocence, the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed,' she wrote. 'The post-conviction DNA evidence is neither compelling nor is it evidence of innocence.'" The notion that the jury verdict should not be disturbed and the craving for finality are serious barriers in overturning wrongful convictions IMO.
Aside from the probable misuse of the term "touch DNA," the CNN report is a good article. I had thought that prosecutors would no longer put forth a theory of the crime involving an unindicted co-ejaculator (which is not a strictly accurate term). There is a good chance that Richard McElwee gave a false confession/accusation; his testimony seems to be by far the most significant evidence against the three. The NYT reported that an assistant district attorney is trying to uphold the convictions, writing "'Absent compelling evidence of innocence, the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed,' she wrote. 'The post-conviction DNA evidence is neither compelling nor is it evidence of innocence.'" The notion that the jury verdict should not be disturbed and the craving for finality are serious barriers in overturning wrongful convictions IMO.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/9XmFQRS
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire