I recall reading that you are correct. DNA was originally used as confirming evidence for a case that already had a suspect. They'd identify a suspect the traditional way and then do a DNA test to confirm it. In that scenario it's pretty good evidence. To take a crime scene sample and compare it against the entire population is bound to turn up several near matches. At that point you're up against a common tendency to see things as corroborating the case. Add in the recent discovery that people leave their DNA all over the place and others can leave it in their fingerprints and the value of this approach is very low. One would hope even though they identified him via DNA that they can make a solid case without it now that they know where to look. But I fear the cornerstone of the evidence is going to be the DNA.