We aren’t talking about the absence of *anything*. Take one of the most common cases resolved by DNA: Rape.
The victim states the perp is not familiar to her. The victim states there was only a single perp and there is no evidence to the contrary - nor does there *need* to be. The rape-kit collects *ample* viable DNA that could *only* have come from the perp — unless you want to argue that the woman somehow magically produced semen bearing a single, male DNA profile.
If there are two potential suspects matching the physical description given by the victim and the DNA fully and definitively excludes one of them and matches the other — You are *STILL* arguing that innocence was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt for the suspect *excluded* by DNA comparison?
I’m now looking forward to your next feeble, idiotic attempt at sticking to your utterly destroyed argument that DNA can’t prove innocence. Let’s hear it...
It takes an idiot to believe that simply because someone left no evidence, that he could not have been there.