What got me was, if it's not 100% accurate, how do you explain their ability to hunt down the golden state killer using his family tree? They narrowed the possibilities to 1,000 or so, then checked all 1,000. Straightforward police work. Then a final DNA match confirmed their hypothesis that they'd found him, which turned out to be true.
I don't know. I'm vividly aware that if the matching isn't accurate, innocents will go to prison. But the truth seems less simple than that.
It's the same thing with IAFIS. If you think you're going to trial and winning with just a fingerprint match in the database you're gonna be sorely disappointed. These tools are better understood as "lead generation" than any kind of proof.
I don't know. I'm vividly aware that if the matching isn't accurate, innocents will go to prison. But the truth seems less simple than that.