Thank you Tom for posting the link.  I was able to find it & saved a copy.  I am not surprised that Grisham misrepresented himself and his facts in testimony, and unfortunately also not surprised that mainstream media is ignoring this issue.  It is is much more popular to blame forensics than to be fair.  

Grisham misrepresents his "Innocent Man" as non-fiction, but the number of errors and misrepresentation of facts makes it a work of fiction.  He maligned District Attorney Bill Peterson, forensic serologist/criminalist Mel Hett, and latent print criminalist Jerry Peters.  Peterson not only was "quick to agree to DNA testing" he actively sought it when the case was reversed and remanded for new trial.  Hett steadfastly refused to overstate the significance of microscopic hair comparison. Grisham also conveniently omitted incriminating actions of Williamson and Fritz.  

Much is made of the cases that are reversed based on DNA analysis, but frequently little information is given on the probative value (or lack thereof) of the items tested for DNA, and no media attention when DNA confirms the original conviction.  Although forensics gets the proverbial black eye, I have found that investigator error is far more frequently the culprit than forensics – including in this case.  Had the information from statements been audited according to today's standards, I believe it is unlikely Williamson and Fritz would have been charged.

It was the forensic analysis requested by Peterson that cleared Williamson and Fritz, not the Innocence Project.  It was the continued diligence of forensic professionals – the same persons vilified by Grisham – that made the additional testing possible.