Excerpt is from a journal paper and a bit dense, but you can skip the math to get an idea of what they're talking about.
Don't have blind faith in DNA testing to ID suspects through database searches. It's one thing if you ID a suspect and THEN do a DNA test, quite another for a DNA "dragnet" because in that case, circumstantial evidence is believed to be more credible.
But, but, but what did the woman say?? That is the most important thing /s
Interesting.
As a former leader of a hazmat team I do not have experience with DNA testing, but I do have experience using sophisticated equipment to identify unknown substances.
This may not be completely relevant to the specifics being discussed. But to me it feels similar. Using various sophisticated and incredibly expensive equipment and techniques we would sometimes find evidence of a very small amount of a very harmful substance and my crew would fixate on that and lose sight of the larger amount of a much less hazardous substance that actually made up the bulk of the threat to the public.
It reminds me of drowning in polluted water. Who cares about the pollution in the water when the real problem is that you can’t breath?