Cellmark Kocak Case Error

This was an actual sexual assault case analyzed by Cellmark. The vaginal swab apparently had DNA from only the victim. However, Cellmark switched labels on the known samples from the victim and suspect and thus declared a match between suspect and the DNA in the sperm fraction of the vaginal swab. Charlotte Word at Cellmark caught the error while testifying in court. Cellmark's spin on this is that (i) they ultimately caught the mistake and (ii) the DNA technology worked OK the only error was one of transcription. Does this mean that court testimony is now considered a regular part of Cellmark's review process? What if there had been a plea bargain before the Cellmark employee was asked to testify? In the end a report that erroneously says a person matches some evidence DNA does as much damage whether the error was clerical or had some deep scientific genesis. Kocak documents