So according to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22310186

"Mathematician" Coralie Colmez claims that if you do a DNA analysis on an
unreliably small piece of evidence and get the same result as the first
time, this strengthens the case that the original result is correct and uses
some coin-tossing explanation to "prove" her case.

I disagree, her corroborating example repeats the same tests on *different*
data whereas doing the DNA test again would be repeating it on the *same*
data (and as such, is completely worthless extra information).

I think that she has fundamentally missed the point about the unreliability
of the source data here.

Anyone any better ideas than me, what is the right answer here?

(I should really be posting this to ul, but I think the science experts are
in this group?)

TIA

tim