Nothing is ever 100%, and you are correct that is accurate enough to be used in court, but you can get matches to other people, as found on this page from the Genetic Science Learning Center on University of Utah's domain.
It does confirm what you say a bit, but do not forget that we never really see anybody actually testing things other than fingerprints too often in the series, and even if things are handled properly, because of the obvious human error that exists everything.
Secondly, according to a PDF talking about direct and circumstantial evidence, which was originally on the Massachusetts' government website back in 2013, it is up to people to infer that the statement provided was the truth.
True, it does mark down the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing each kind of evidence, but direct evidence is out there saying that the present scenario is the truth, and circumstantial evidence, such as DNA and fingerprint evidence, must be pieced together so that the statement seems clearly obvious.
Also, the fingerprint might be of relatively poor quality or hard to get, which may prove utilizing fingerprints troublesome.
For now, I will concede to you, since this will only become more heated if it continues.
This part I can certainly agree with you on this part, and I would be a little disappointed if she does not become important, but what I meant was that she somehow becomes directly involved in the case, such as if Black Org was after her.