Here&#x27;s the thing, DNA can accurately identify the source, if there is no &quot;contamination&quot; with other DNA, if there is contamination, then they have many orders of magnitude less accuracy in reconstructing the DNA and thus identifying the sources.  But the issue is juries tend to think of accuracy in terms of uncontaminated DNA samples.<p>Now, npr, they always, always, ALWAYS take the side of the underdog, no matter the less favorable actual odds.  They put more faith in soft science results (child psych says this is good for kids) than results from scientific studies (study showed none to negative impact).<p>Example, people in Seattle placing signs saying No Californians, it gets a chuckle, could you imagine a similar sign saying &quot;No [insert poor country demonym].  NPR would be outraged, with reason, but you don&#x27;t see the outrage when the same bias is projected against the relatively better off.