DNA breakdown?

I suspect that many CAAFlog readers are far more familiar with Luke and Eckard than am I, so I hope that you will collectively, wiki-style, fill in the gaps on the orders that were posted on CAAF's web site today.

On 26 April, CAAF had granted review on this Grostefon issue in United States v. Eckard, No. 06-0001/AR:

WHETHER APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE MR. [M], WHO TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS ON DNA, HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE MADE SEVERAL MISTAKES IN HIS HANDLING OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND HAS MADE FALSE ENTRIES IN REPORTS FROM THE CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY OF THE ARMY CID AT FT. GORDON.

But in an order dated Friday and posted today, CAAF remanded Eckard to ACCA. CAAF wrote:

On further consideration of the granted issue, the Court has determined that it would be appropriate to remand the case to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration in light of the findings in the DuBay hearing in United States v. Luke. See, 64 M.J. 193, 193-97. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Hearing Notice issued February 5, 2007, is hereby vacated, and that the case is remanded to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration in light of the DuBay hearing in Luke.

I'm sure it's happened before, but when is the last time you saw a case remanded due to a DuBay hearing in a different case--particularly when that different case is from a different service? Well, CAAF remanded that other case -- Luke -- to NMCCA on Friday (though, oddly enough, it spelled DuBay "Dubay" in the Luke order, which appears two cases above the daily docket entry for the Eckard order, which spelled DuBay "DuBay." See United States v. Luke, __ M.J. ___, No. 05-0157/NA (C.A.A.F. March 9, 2007).

So now we seem to have the same issue based on the same factual record before two different Courts of Criminal Appeals.

Can anyone tell us what the Luke DuBay hearing tells us about "Mr. M"?

Also, was the issue in Luke raised as a Grostefon issue or raised by counsel? If, as I suspect, the latter, any idea why it was a Grostefon issue in the Eckard case?