Thank you for the concise clarification.<p>I think one other thing we can take from this is that DNA alone is insufficient to establish guilt, we need corroborating evidence.  Just because someone&#x27;s DNA was probably on a knob does not imply that person was the burglar.  Maybe they were a repair person, but they could have been a burglar, if they returned afterwards and broke in, for example.  Of course lawyers will point that out, but sometimes people think DNA = guilt.<p>The issue with npr is they like to have the image of being unbiased.  If you can suffer through their pledge drives, you hear their listeners fawn and claim them to be the purveyors of truth and unbias and they, the journalists and interns, truly seem to believe they are.<p>Lets say an underdog commits a crime, something if done by a top dog, they would take it at face value)  They did the crime, jail them.  If it&#x27;s an underdog, well, maybe there were deficiencies in society which contributed to their criminal behavior and thus perhaps that should be taken into account when they are tried.