[gnosis]

"As far as I can tell, the article is about calculating the probability of random people matching a particular DNA sample, not about excluding people, which is a lot easier."

No.

The article is very clearly questions the role of DNA evidence as a whole.

A couple of relevant quotes:

"Defence experts were trusting that the scientists had interpreted the data correctly. This perpetuated the myth that DNA is infallible."

"There's a considerable lack of understanding, not just from the public, but from the judges and lawyers."

[pessimizer]

"This week we show how, even when analysts agree that someone could be a match for a piece of DNA evidence, the statistical weight assigned to that match can vary enormously."

This seems to be the author's opinion about what the article is about.

[gnosis]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

Make of it what you will. The article speaks for itself.

[pessimizer]

It does, and when it speaks, it speaks of different statistical methods for calculating the probability of a random match to partial DNA samples.

edit: BTW, it's a very interesting article - thanks for pointing it out.