puzzledbyitall

Thanks! Do you find that experts seem to worry about their reputations when they file affidavits? My guess is they figure their reputations are based on their scholarly articles and books, and that most people don't read affidavits.

In the Avery case, I often hear Avery supporters say that renowned experts would not sacrifice their reputations by saying anything that could not be supported by good science. Is this true in your experience? For example, I have no doubt that James is an well-qualified blood spatter expert. . .but I find his suggestion that because blood is not on door handles, the steering wheel and the like, it must be planted to be ridiculous.

Nor does he address the fact that blood was found in the Monte but was not on the door handles and steering wheel.

Is it true that tests for prints often makes it difficult or impossible to test the same material for dna?

Also -- and this relates to a personal situation -- if dna is detected, but there is insufficient dna to create a profile, does that mean the results are useless?

Yes he did rather qualify it though it seemed the intent was to lend support to the defense theory. It was Zellner who claimed he concluded it was planted. Thanks for your thoughts.