Prade denied second request for DNA t...

Prade denied second request for DNA testing

There are 25 comments on the Akron Beacon Journal story from Jun 5, 2008, titled Prade denied second request for DNA testing. In it, Akron Beacon Journal reports that:

Douglas Prade, the former Akron police captain serving life in prison for killing his ex-wife, has been turned down for a second time in his attempt to get access to DNA testing.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Akron Beacon Journal.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
concerned citizen

Oshkosh, WI

#23 Jun 7, 2008
Boston Hts Girl wrote:
Why Deny? Its EXPENSIVE!!!!
Estimated post-conviction DNA testing costs::
The Office of the Attorney General has previously estimated the cost for a post-conviction DNA test to be about $1,500. Given the above estimate of approximately 2,268 or so eligible inmates, the maximum total one-time expense for post-conviction DNA tests would be up to around $3.4 million. This maximum estimated one-time expense could be further reduced by two additional realities. First, the bill will only allow a post-conviction DNA test to be conducted if there is a useable sample for testing and a protective chain of custody that has kept the sample intact, and that the identity of the inmate was a key issue at the original trial. Many of the felony crimes, for which inmates are serving sentences, had no DNA samples collected because it was not relevant to the identification of a defendant. While there is no way to accurately calculate such a number, it would further reduce the number of eligible inmates.
Second, presumably those who are guilty of the crime for which they were convicted will rarely seek a DNA test that would simply reconfirm their guilt. Given these factors, it is possible that the actual number of eligible inmates that will petition for the post-conviction DNA test could be perhaps as low as a few hundred. If, for example, the number of inmates filing a petition were 200, the one-time DNA testing cost would be $300,000.
Upon the effective date of the bill, inmates currently in the prison system would have one year to request the post-conviction DNA test. Since the billís effective date is uncertain, it is difficult to ascertain which fiscal year or fiscal years the costs associated with these post-conviction DNA tests will fall. Notwithstanding this issue of timing, this is a one-time expense involving a single test and a fixed number of inmates. The bill is silent on who would pay for the one-time post-conviction DNA tests.
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, But as soon as Prade or any other inmate for that matter is executed or released, Another takes his place...So if its not HIS living expenses you're paying, it will be someone elses.
This Country incarcerates more than any other country on the planet. Big Brother needs to re-evaluate!!
In child support, they are doing 3 person dna for $400
More to the story

Aurora, OH

#25 Jun 7, 2008
DNA isn't always the answer. This woman was a doctor. She saw sick patients every day. Patients who coughed on her, patients who may have bled on her, patients who shook her hand. She was in very close contact with many people every day. She did not live in a sterile environment. No one does. Just because someone else's DNA may have been found on her, does not mean someone else killed her. There are many other factors involved in solving a crime. If a person standing across the street shoots you, their DNA will not be found on you. But if an eyewitness saw the crime occur, this is also evidence. Crimes were solved before DNA and other computer-aided testing was available.

Pasadena, CA

#26 Feb 1, 2013
I wonder if any of these commenter are eating their words now that DNA evidence exhonerated Douglas Prade. All these calls for his execution, especially given the new ruling of his factual innocence, are unsettling.

United States

#27 Feb 2, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Eyewitnesses identification: Shown scientifically to often be one of the most unreliable forms of evidence available.
Bite marks: Highly suspect as well.
DNA: Extremely accurate.
Sunnit County Prosecutor: Has a history of sometimes convicting innocent people in the past, and then actively opposing justice when those false convictions are threatened. Clarence Elkins had to force his own release from prison by surreptitiously acquiring the real murderer's DNA himself.
If there is still DNA evidence available that would either exonerate Prade or affirm his conviction, why not order the testing?
A prosecutor is sworn to pursue and uphold justice, not potentially false convictions.
oath takers are different than oath keepers.

United States

#28 Feb 2, 2013
Appraisit wrote:
<quoted text> Excuse me Duke, but why would suggest bite marks as "suspect" records are used all the time for's like a fingerprint...each persons own ID ?
how much of that would a bite mark really tell you about fillings?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Uniontown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
SORRY HONEY, NO RAISE FOR You! (Apr '14) 8 hr The Donald 16
Akron PD (Aug '16) Thu OP GLADIO 6
Election Who do you support for County Auditor in Ohio (... (Oct '10) Thu zio-bot israeli 5
News Police wary of Akron program meant to ease jail... Mar 20 Fearless Freep 1
News Akron Mayor Dan Horrigan establishes Akron Civi... Mar 20 Fearless Freep 1
News Child rapist receives four life sentences (Oct '11) Mar 16 Jebduxuxb 7
News Deadly Accident in Portage County; Man Leaves D... (Aug '09) Mar 13 serafini 79

Uniontown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Uniontown Mortgages