 There is intuitive resistance in basing a conviction on a cold-hit match, but this resistance is less strong in case of an ordinary match (more on this later in  Section 6).  This preference for convictions based on an ordinary DNA match seems in tension with the claim that a cold-hit match is stronger evidence of guilt than an ordinary match. There is a way to reconcile both sides, however. The key is to keep in mind that the evidentiary strength—measured by the likelihood ratio—should not be confused with the posterior probability of guilt given the evidence. If the cold-hit match is the only evidence of guilt, the posterior probability of guilt may well be lower compared to cases in which other evidence, such as investigative leads, supplements the DNA match. This lower posterior probability would justify the intuitive resistance towards convictions in cold-hit cases despite the stronger probative value of the cold-hit match.