~>  ~> Too bad the evidence exonerates them, isn't it.  
 
~>  EC> You apparently don't know any more about the case than he did.  There
~>  EC> was ample evidence against Osbourne.  He was convicted.  One small part
~>  EC> of that evidence against him was a low-grade DNA test.  The defense
 
~> If that evidence proves he was not the ione involved, he should walk.  

You should have read further.  You would have learned that the evidence
proved that he WAS the one.  One small part of that was the low-grade DNA
test that showed that the semen did not come from his accomplice but could
have come from him.  The defense had an opportunity to get a better test
that would get down to the range of 99.99% exclusion rather than 84%, but
intentionally chose not to based on the belief that it would ALSO be
positive and thus seal his conviction.
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a