Rapaire, yeah, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. So? What, precisely, has that got to do with any point under discussion here?
Foolestroupe, by some coincidence you refer to two cases I happen to know a little about. The voluntary DNA sample donors in the Bundy backpacker murder case would hardly be likely to include the perp, now would it? As a means of eliminating suspects that method was haphazard, slow and expensive. With a database, however.. (Oh, look, you're supporting MY case, here!) DNA technology, like most sciences, is improving daily. If you're waiting for perfection to be achieved in this field or any other you'll outlive Methuselah. However, 'normal policing' techniques would surely be enhanced by the database proposal.
The case of the Scots policewoman was settled financially out of court, most probably(according to the grapevine) to hush up the the alarming level of stupidity prevalent among senior police officers. The Peter Principle seems to be the real cuplprit there, and as soon as the police locate Peter I'm sure he will be arrested and charged. :-) The fingerprint lab used in that case was/is regarded as alarmingly ill-run, (allegedly).
The third case, that of the father resposible for the death of his children, is too unspeakably tragic to comment upon.
Giok, so it will increase the conviction rate and the prison population while failing to reduce the crime rate? Would you like to take another shot at that, perhaps phrase it so that it makes sense? And the DNA/internet fraud comment? You're struggling, now. What's up, no genuine argument to support your case?
Bert, you obviously feel aggrieved over a matter you perceive to have involved corruption. See a lawyer, tell him everything, and listen to his advice. If you don't like what he tells you get a second opinion. Once the situation is resolved you'll feel better, honest. Good luck.