[OakOak]

My guess is the sample didn't contain enough genetic markers for a MATCH. Same genetic pool and consistent are a much lower standared.

I said earlier that I suspected from the wording that the DNA was actually weaker than the article portrayed. Scientists won't call it a match, but the media has.

This also explains why the SBI didn't find any matches.. Without the requisite genetic markers, they weren't going to give this any type of classification regarding Identification.

[Perdogg]

So unlike the OJ case, where you a match in 999,999 out a 1 Million, there might be a match of 1 out of 50, correct?

[Law is not justice but process]

"This also explains why the SBI didn't find any matches.."

If the NC SBI is anything like my state's equivalent, they always will make the most conservative determinations. With fewer than 6 (if I recall correctly) loci, they will not run statistics at all. Similarly, they will not calculate probabilities on paternity tests, because, conservatively, they can only say it does or does not exclude the suspect as the parent. If I want a paternity number, I have to send the results to LabCor to have the numbers run (they only do the calculation, they do not rerun the samples). A partial profile would explain why the prosecutor sent the samples to a private lab. The SBI took the conservative line of not declaring a match, whereas LabCor will calculate a probability.

The reason the SBI and other state forensic labs are conservative is that it heps their credibility when they testify. In essence they say "I gave all the benefits of all the doubts to the defendant and the sample still matches." That forecloses reasonable doubts about iffy assumptions. Private labs do not have to do that, as they do not work exclusively for the prosecution. The prosecutor leaves himself open to more lanes of attack when using the broader assumptions needed to find a match in this case.