In June of 2014 the Houston Chronicle reported how a former Houston Police crime lab technician had resigned after an internal investigation found evidence of lying, improper procedure and tampering with an official record. Former DNA lab technician Peter Lentz worked on 185 criminal cases, including 51 murders or capital murders. “It’s a mess,” said Gerald Bourque, an attorney who has several cases in which the lab technician tested the DNA evidence, including two capital murder cases, one of which went to trial earlier this year. “If you’re not following protocol, there’s potential for contamination, transference, all kinds of stuff.” 
There has been an interesting fellow using an apparent pseudonym who keeps responding to Ersjdamoo’s alternate interpretations of the supposed “mass murder” of the Romanovs on July 16-17, 1918. This person has an abounding faith in DNA evidence. The responses by the DNA-evidence worshipper, who I refer to as “Bright Boy”, appear in the alt.conspiracy newsgroup with a Google notice: “Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in [X] days.” So, if you were researching for historical purposes, you might find Bright Boy’s DNA-evidence totem messages to be no longer extant. (My responses to him are not suppressed from the archives, so they might still appear.)
Today’s Ersjdamoo’s Blog entry gathers some contrary information which tends to cast doubt on worship of the DNA-evidence totem. Hopefully I can henceforth just refer Bright Boy to this blog entry whenever he issues another of his Hosannas to DNA evidence.
On November 22, 2013, Associated Press reported on a former chemist at a Massachusetts drug lab who admitted faking test results in criminal cases.  This faking of science did not involve DNA, yet it shows an underlying principle: Science is only as good as the scientist. “DNA doesn’t lie,” says Bright Boy. Granted. But sometimes the scientists lie. And sometimes the scientists make mistakes.
“Crime labs under the microscope after a string of shoddy, suspect and fraudulent results” reported the American Bar Association Journal on September 1, 2013. Eight-hundred rape cases from a 10-year period involving DNA evidence may have been mishandled by a lab technician. An internal review uncovered problems with her work. Elsewhere, the St. Paul, Minnesota police department’s crime lab was found to have “major flaws in nearly every aspect of the lab’s operation, including dirty equipment, a lack of standard operating procedures, faulty testing techniques, illegible reports, and a woeful ignorance of basic scientific principles.” In fact, reported the ABA Journal, a long line of forensics lab scandals has roiled the U.S. criminal justice system over the past two decades or more. 
On December 15, 2010 the SFWeekly News reported problems at the San Francisco Police Department Crime Laboratory. A “mixup of test tubes containing DNA evidence, reportedly in a homicide case, had been concealed by officials at the crime lab for close to two years. Documents obtained by SF Weekly revealed that records of the 2008 sample switch had been destroyed at the direction of the DNA unit’s former supervisor, who — along with the crime lab’s then-director — nevertheless denied knowledge of the incident when confronted by investigators from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD), which accredits forensics facilities.” 
More to the point as to the much trumpeted and ballyhooed “DNA evidence” relating to the supposed “mass execution” of the Romanovs in 1918 is a study led by Alec Knight, a senior scientist in the Stanford lab of anthropological sciences. Knight argued circa 2004 that previous DNA analyses of the purported Romanov remains were invalid. Knight and his colleagues based their claim on molecular and forensic inconsistencies they saw in the original genetic tests, as well as their independent DNA analysis of the preserved finger of the late Grand Duchess Elisabeth — sister of Tsarina Alexandra. 
In late 2011 a group of former members of the Russian government commission investigating the fate of Nicholas II and his family, as well as the remains found and their dubious origins, decided to make public a series of facts which reveal serious problems with respect to the mass grave “discovered” in Ekaterinburg. In a book written in Russian (Whom To Believe?) Andrei K. Golitsyn reveals the mistakes made from the very moment that the bones were exhumed, until the DNA tests were performed. The content of such book suggests many wrong doings to hide the true facts and close the controversial case. 
And the Vladimirovichi, descendants of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, younger brother of Tsar Alexander III, themselves have doubts about the validity of the much trumpeted and ballyhooed “DNA evidence” relating to the supposed “mass execution” of the Romanovs in 1918. In August 2010, at the request of the self-proclaimed Head of the Russian Imperial Family, Maria Vladimirovna Romanova, Moscow’s Basmanny District Court ordered the government of Russia to re-open the investigation into the case of the death of Tsar Nicholas II and his family, given the controversy that has existed since they disappeared in 1918, and also because during all these years of mystery, there have been strong rumors that support the theory of the survival of other members of the Romanov family. 
As of this point in time, the Vladimirovichi seem to be wooed by both the forces of the Fourth Reich European Union and also by the opposing Russian resistance. (Background: Return of the Vladimirovichi, Ersjdamoo’s Blog entry of September 7, 2014.)
——- Sources ——-
 “Scores of cases affected after HPD crime lab analyst ousted Investigation finds evidence of lying, tampering by tech”, by Brian Rogers. Houston Chronicle (online), June 18, 2014. (Updated: June 19, 2014)
 “Annie Dookhan Expected To Plead Guilty Plea In Massachusetts Drug Lab Scandal”, by Bob Salsberg. Associated Press. Posted: 11/22/2013 8:05 am EST Updated: 01/25/2014 4:01 pm EST
 “Crime labs under the microscope after a string of shoddy, suspect and fraudulent results”, by Mark Hansen. ABA Journal, September 1, 2013
 “SFPD crime lab’s DNA evidence could be tainted by concealed mistakes”, by Peter Jamison. SFWeekly News, December 15, 2010.
 “Finger points to new evidence: Remains may not be Romanovs'”, by Esther Landhuis. Stanford Report, March 3, 2004. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/march3/romanov-33.html
 “The Lost Romanov Icon”, http://www.thelostromanovicon.com/background.html