In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > The DNA evidence against OJ was overwhelming, but the jury rejected
> > it.
> > http://www.bxscience.edu/publication...na/r-dna02.htm
>
> In the long run this has been good for convictions. The members of the
> jury were widely hailed as morons and everyone who remembers that time
> now knows the value of DNA evidence. AS there have been cases of DNA
> tampering maybe even too much so. That's a pendulum that will settle
> down over time.

Did either of you read the whole cite quoted above?

My wife used to work with a woman who only read the first sentence of
anything. It used to frustrate my wife to no end.

The first half of the cite above, discusses what the DNA results were.
The second half brings up questions about whether the samples were
tampered with or contaminated.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA