DNA comments from a correspondent.....

Oh yes the fallacy odf dna
>
> In the mark lundy trial prosecution was 6 weeks of evidence defence was 3
> days .
> The enormous amount of blood in the room particularly the daughters
> where there was a blood shadow across the curtain where the offender
> stood.There were also bloody footprints .Yet the witness claimed to
> see him fleeing the scene in a shirt and tie which when inspected was
> not contaminated.nor his footwear nor anything of his.Later a minute
> speck of dna was found on a polo shirt originally said to be in the
> trunk of his car.But it was retreived from the exhibit room by an
> unsupervised officer.Esr in nz australia and uk refused to acknowledge
> the existance as brain tissue but the crown found a texan dr. that
> experimented on a chicken and confirmed it.No one else in the world
> has presented this evidence.
>
> In the jules mikus trial who appealed was only refused last week the
> dna evidence was claimed by the crown to be 60 million times more
> likely to be him.Yet this is equivalent to only a 7-8 loci dna
> match.His father in jail for rape would be the exact same.Parent
> siblings match approx 13 loci dna.He claims his dna profile does not
> match the suspect profile but was refused further dna testing at his
> appeal.By comparison nicholas reekies dna was stated as 700 billion
> approx 10-11 loci match. NZ testing has a 15 loci maximum reading
>

I can't confirm all the detail of this, nor to claim to be more than an amateur in understanding dna profiling, but I do recall that the police had to search high and low for a scientist to make the confirmations in the Lundy case. I also recall there was a problem with dna profiling or forensic findings in the Barlow case, and no doubt the whole country remembers Jules Mikus snr was a serial sexual offender.