Evidence to Convict?

[Ravenshire]

I understand where you are coming from.   And with DNA, the false convictions, was mostly the result of human error and contamination.   I do think that there are other issues, that we are just starting to come up concerning DNA, but they are more false negatives, which is what is preferred in a criminal case.  Although my understanding of the process of DNA testing, is that it is not quite as objective as is sometimes thought.  See Here  

Your argument here is a bit disingenuous since you're linking to a page regarding the difficulties of determining guilt based on DNA mixtures, yet you're applying the arguments from the link to all DNA testing. Yes, there will always be trouble determining guilt when the DNA of three or four (or more, a DNA mixture) people are taken in a swab, but a clean sample compared to a clean specimen is going to be far more accurate than you're trying to depict.

Going to ignore this forever RR?

Something else has occurred to me as well. DNA testing has resulted in hundreds (at least) of overturned convictions, just in the last couple decades. How many for eye-witness testimony? Googling it gets you plenty of eyewitness misidentification and little else. See here.

Your "case" is falling apart RR. It's not because we're atheists and want to deny your gawd through denial of testimony. It's because eyewitness testimony by itself sucks huge monkey balls.