Thank you.
To make it as simple as possible, we want to get the bad guy. DNA gives you, when it relates to an identified person, or in other words, the suspect.... In our courts, along with other evidence, if the suspect's fingerprints match the scene, that's generally the bad guy, the person who did it. Would it be correct to say that a DNA match to the person who's at the scene in the samples taken from the scene is not only as good as a fingerprint--if I go back to Mr. Prime's reference to the American science community--but actually better? Or at least it's as good, but probably it's better. Is that a good statement to make?