The claim that a non-match necessarily "exonerates" a suspect of a crime such as murder is pure hokum. DNA can show (to a very, very high probability) that a suspect was not the source of some DNA that was left on, for example, a weapon such as a knife. But such DNA evidence does not exclude the possibility that other material on the knife was left by the suspect and it does not exclude the possibility that a different weapon (another knife) was used to kill the victim. DNA evidence "excludes" a suspect only when and only if other facts -- often many other facts -- are taken as true. An analogous situation with fingerprint evidence is when a fingerprint found on the window that was allegedly the window through which the suspect entered does not match the suspect's fingerprints. For such evidence to "exclude" the suspect it must be reasonably clear that there were no other fingeprints on the window and that the culprit in fact entered through that window and not some other window (for example).

The claim that a non-match necessarily "exonerates" a suspect of a crime such as murder is pure hokum. DNA can show (to a very, very high probability) that a suspect was not the source of some DNA that was left on, for example, a weapon such as a knife. But such DNA evidence does not exclude the possibility that other material on the knife was left by the suspect and it does not exclude the possibility that a different weapon (another knife) was used to kill the victim. DNA evidence "excludes" a suspect only when and only if other facts -- often many other facts -- are taken as true. An analogous situation with fingerprint evidence is when a fingerprint found on the window that was allegedly the window through which the suspect entered does not match the suspect's fingerprints. For such evidence to "exclude" the suspect it must be reasonably clear that there were no other fingeprints on the window and that the culprit in fact entered through that window and not some other window (for example).

The claim that a non-match necessarily "exonerates" a suspect of a crime such as murder is pure hokum. DNA can show (to a very, very high probability) that a suspect was not the source of some DNA that was left on, for example, a weapon such as a knife. But such DNA evidence does not exclude the possibility that other material on the knife was left by the suspect and it does not exclude the possibility that a different weapon (another knife) was used to kill the victim. DNA evidence "excludes" a suspect only when and only if other facts -- often many other facts -- are taken as true. An analogous situation with fingerprint evidence is when a fingerprint found on the window that was allegedly the window through which the suspect entered does not match the suspect's fingerprints. For such evidence to "exclude" the suspect it must be reasonably clear that there were no other fingeprints on the window and that the culprit in fact entered through that window and not some other window (for example).

My home was burglarized and the thieves left a wooden cane here. The police say there was DNA but not enough to get a comparison. Yet this show makes it sound a whole lot easier to get a profile.
In addition, the police swabbed me for “exclusion” DNA. Does this mean I’m now in the system? Not planning on committing any crimes but it makes me uncomfortable.

It appears that the lowering of standards and certification for law enforcement and their agents is the problem and not the DNA.