I just finished watching a Discovery ID episode on the case. They were discussing the Lacy "DNA" exoneration. A DNA expert stated that they use 13 markers, that generally are needed to be sure that there is a match. This expert said that, in this case, they moved the required markers down to 4 and claimed a match using only 4. Is this correct? Did we already know this and did I just miss such an important item of note? At any rate, this expert said the DNA, in this case, should never be used to convict or exonerate by itself.