I think there is something seriously amiss with this tactic you are employing of denial. There is absolutely no point in anyone other than you and those with whom you agree posting cites.
I have found that any I have supplied of late have been subject to your derision of denial.
You cite the Mail - and that is kosher.
I cite the Mail - and you question if the report ever happened.
It is not an edifying tactic which you have employed in the past as now and in my opinion reeks of dishonesty.
I cited a story by Martin Brunt, as did you. In my cite he quoted Wolters. In your cite he quoted no-one. It's also possible to check what samples were collected during the first investigation and I could only find one sample described as saliva, the DNA from which was extracted by the Portuguese Forensic Institute and matched to the DNA of a British child by the FSS in the UK.
That sample was originally identified as semen by the Portuguese Forensic Institute, but the FSS matched it to a two year old boy, and on that basis concluded that it was saliva, not semen.
Perhaps that process is what the Germans wanted to check out?