If I can answer that, I'll take the so-called British mistake first. It's interesting to note—and you'll detect from my accent that I have some contacts back in my home country of the U.K.—that it's not referred to and not in fact known as the British mistake in the U.K. It's known in other countries as the British mistake, but my colleagues in the U.K. advised me quite properly that a data bank in that circumstance worked correctly as it should. It was using a technology at the time that was less discriminating between individuals, but notwithstanding that, as Ray has pointed out in his presentation, a hit to the data bank does not equal a conviction, does not equal guilt.
So in that case, a hit occurred to the data bank. The police investigated it. They did not charge the individual. He wasn't taken to trial because, as is included in our own legislation, a hit to the data bank is the first step and it is treated as an investigative aid. The police take the hit, they conduct their investigation of the suspect, they determine the significance of the hit in relation to the investigation, and they decide whether to charge or not.
I think your question is this. If there is a hit to the data bank, how accurate is that in terms of identifying the person responsible to the exclusion of all others? Right?
I think with the technology we have today, if there is a hit to the data bank, there is a theoretical possibility that that individual may not in fact be the source. However, that possibility is extremely, extremely remote, so you have the issue of science and theory and possibilities and practicalities.