It's crucial to remember that "DNA evidence" does not mean "DNA sequence". It's much less technical than that. Basically, you look at some set of sequences that vary a lot among populations and individuals. The choice of sequences, and the total number, varies. And it's generally increased over time.
So anyway, if they were doing a total DNA sequence, fakes would be a lot harder. Because you'd need to synthesize (or assemble from some library) the sequence for each chromosome. And that's still a lot harder than doing a complete sequence. For now, anyway.
True. But they'd need physical access to the target.
And actually, back in the day when I mailed cash, that was part of my OPSEC. I had a jar full of dust from public places. Working with disposable gloves, I'd put the cash in a new plastic bag, toss in some public dust, and shake well.
My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if they don't know where $TARGET is. Or know anyone who does. But if they can obtain $TARGET's DNA test results, they could fabricate evidence.
We've already discussing the situation that someone is committing an actual crime for which they want to frame another. Compared to that, getting "physical access" to someone's hair saloon is a trivial part.
>My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if they don't know where $TARGET is.
Why wouldn't they know where $TARGET is? That's the easiest thing to know. That would only be a problem is they wanted to implicate fugitives already on the run or in hiding, or Waldo.
So anyway, if they were doing a total DNA sequence, fakes would be a lot harder. Because you'd need to synthesize (or assemble from some library) the sequence for each chromosome. And that's still a lot harder than doing a complete sequence. For now, anyway.