> ... DNA from the crime scene was matched to his client with a certainty of more than a million to one. That is, you'd have to go through more than a mi

> ... DNA from the crime scene was matched to his client with a certainty of more than a million to one. That is, you'd have to go through more than a million people to find somebody else who'd match the sample. Nope. False. Grotesque, outrageous, brain-dead incompetence. Instead, even with the "certainty" of one million to one, might find a "match" in the next person or not in 10 million people. Also, where'd they get this certainty stuff? I have an excellent background, thank you, in pure and applied probability, and we don't use certainty like that or, really, hardly at all. Police work with DNA and associated probability calculations? This is from a Saturday morning TV rerun of some old movie of The Three Stooges, right? With me on a jury, as soon as the prosecutor presents evidence from a police lab and/or collected by the police, especially DNA evidence, I'll be tempted to stand in the jury box and call for acquittal via acclamation, dismissal of the prosecutor and police for incompetence, and their prosecution for fraud! As soon as a prosecutor presents DNA evidence, I know he's talking total nonsense and, then, tough to get a conviction. Or, commonly a prosecutor will want to show that the defendant has a background of lying, etc. Well, as soon as a prosecutor presents DNA evidence, I have to strongly suspect that he is lying or at least incompetent. Can't convict; have to acquit. (1) Police departments? (2) The biochemistry and probability theory of work with DNA? Two things that should never be combined! Police? Working with advanced, delicate topics in science and math? What a joke -- what The Three Stooges could make of that. Now definitely material for SNL!