Douglas Prade was previously considered for release in 2013, “….. based on advanced DNA testing that excluded Prade from crucial crime-scene evidence — a bite mark under a lab coat worn by Dr. Prade [the defendant’s wife] on the morning of the slaying.” This was immediately appealed by the prosecutor who convinced the higher courts “arguing that her [the judge in 2013] findings were meaningless because the lab coat most likely was contaminated over time, and Akron’s 9th District appeals court strongly supported the government’s argument.”
I love it when lawyers use “most likely” as an argument against scientific evidence that doesn’t support their arguments. Its like they can pull facts and conclusions out of thin air at the drop of a hat whenever they need it. Its a lawyer’s opinion, not a scientific one.
Note worthy is the prosecutor’s silence about the State’s bitemark dentist’s opinion of Prade’s teeth making the bitemark (another total guess). Maybe that dentist might need to re-review the latest judicial opinion out of Illinois aligning bitemark experts with astrologers. Plus the White House director of Sci and Tech Policy very recent public statement that bitemark evidence should be “eradicated.”