I don't think it requires a PhD to understand the forensic DNA results in this case, though. What hasn't helped, IMO, is the fact that various people (including bloggers, some media outlets, certain "researchers" and a certain PJ coordinator of "we policemen, experts" fame) have disseminated their muddled understanding for reasons best known to themselves.
Maybe not, I wasn't actually suggesting that it did. My thrust is that Googling is a recipe for disaster without at least a basic knowledge of what one is looking up otherwise one is likely to fall into this trap:"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
The basic knowledge is better acquired from an authoritative book or preferably short training courses with a competency test at the end. That's how most companies outside the "PdL McCann Bubble" operate.
Which is not far removed from what you appear to be saying