The reason I like it is the fact that suspects get eliminated very quickly.
This one didn't....Sometimes it's the forensic investigators themselves who accidentally contaminate the evidence. The guide shares the bizarre example of Adam Scott, a man wrongfully convicted of rape when his DNA was found in a genital swab. Scott's DNA was a perfect match — a one in a billion probability — and it was the only evidence used to convict him, despite Scott's claim that he was more than 200 miles (322 kilometers) away the night of the incident.
Scott spent five months in custody before the truth came out. A technician in the crime lab had reused a plastic plate that contained a sample of Scott's saliva from an unrelated "spitting incident." Phone records also corroborated Scott's claim that he was in his hometown at the time of the attack.
I don't need to, Ive read more than enough on it..It really doesn't ask the boards top legal eagles.
The "CSI effect" is strong enough that many jurors in criminal trials — and even some judges — have to be convinced that DNA found at a crime scene does not automatically mean that the person matching that DNA is guilty.
You have read one website article by the looks of it and that is american so not directly relevant to the UK.I don't need to, Ive read more than enough on it..