Did you read that article and decide that people are getting off due to questionable statistics? As far as I can tell, the article is about calculating the probability of random people matching a particular DNA sample, not about excluding people, which is a lot easier.
"As far as I can tell, the article is about calculating the probability of random people matching a particular DNA sample, not about excluding people, which is a lot easier."
No.
The article is very clearly questions the role of DNA evidence as a whole.
A couple of relevant quotes:
"Defence experts were trusting that the scientists had interpreted the data correctly. This perpetuated the myth that DNA is infallible."
"There's a considerable lack of understanding, not just from the public, but from the judges and lawyers."
"This week we show how, even when analysts agree that someone could be a match for a piece of DNA evidence, the statistical weight assigned to that match can vary enormously."
This seems to be the author's opinion about what the article is about.
There's this fellow who posts by the name "gnosis" on the interwebs, and I'm pretty sure he's the real killer of JFK. The DNA evidence for his innonence is . . . wait for it . . . NONEXISTENT !!!11!!! OMFG CALL NANCY GRACE NOW !!!
But were they really innocent?
DNA evidence can be misused in the courts:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300-how-dna-e...