&gt; ... DNA from the crime 
scene was matched to 
his client with a 
certainty of more than a 
million to one. That 
is, you&#x27;d have to go 
through more than a 
million people to find 
somebody else who&#x27;d 
match the sample.<p>Nope.  False.  Grotesque,
outrageous, brain-dead incompetence.
Instead, even with the &quot;certainty&quot;
of one million to one, might
find a &quot;match&quot; in the next
person or not in 10 million people.<p>Also, where&#x27;d they get this <i>certainty</i>
stuff?  I have an excellent background,
thank you, in pure and applied probability,
and we don&#x27;t use <i>certainty</i> like that
or, really, hardly at all.<p>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?<p>With me on a jury, as soon as the 
prosecutor presents
evidence from a police 
lab and&#x2F;or collected by 
the police, especially 
DNA evidence, I&#x27;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!<p>As soon as a prosecutor presents
DNA evidence, I know he&#x27;s talking
total nonsense and, then, tough to
get 
a conviction.<p>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&#x27;t convict; have to acquit.<p>(1) Police departments?  (2) The 
biochemistry and probability
theory of work with DNA?  
Two things that should never
be combined!<p>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!