DNA is unique. Your DNA is like a fingerprint but better... If you took 6 lottery numbers and the winning combination is 23, 27, 32, 40, 43, 50 many people will have two three or four numbers only a limited number of one or two might have the 6 numbers, this making it unique to those that have the lottery numbers
If you only had 5 numbers then this is not unique to you.
The LCN DNA test is less reliable that of the SGM test.
If you compare the test results done in the Madeleine M case her markers were set at 19/20 this was one short of it being unique to her.
If you take Shelia's result at 17/20 then this is less likely to be unique with her. However, it does not rule out that there was a mixture of DNA in the silencer. What is does confirm is that the DNA was not unique to Shelia. If this is the case and, based on this evidence alone then the evidence that was submitted in court in 1996 falls....because the jury that asked questions about Shelia's blood being on the silencer were told that it belonged to Sheila.
The outcome of the LCN DNA should therefore be deemed inconclusive like in the MM case. 
Hello Patti
As far as I'm aware the outcome of the LCN DNA has been confirmed by all concerned as inadmissable as evidence as a % cannot be applied to the 17/20 rendering it meanginless.
Chapters 44 and 45 of Roger Wilkes' book provide an excellent explanation re the blood/silencer. I will endeavour to re-read them in the next few days and provide a summary explanation. According to the book the blood might not have been exclusive to Sheila but a combination of June and Nevill's as previously discussed on the forum. However, assuming Jeremy is innocent, which is what I believe, I can't get my head round how the silencer was used and then replaced back in the gun cupboard before Sheila took her own life. Bearing in mind that the silencer was said to be tucked away neatly at the back of the cupboard. That to me is too far fetched. I personally do not think the silencer was used period as per the recent submissions to the ccrc. Still begs the questions of what the substance was in the silencer and how did it get there?
I found this interesting too:
"The Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon was opened two years before the Bamber case in May 1983 by the then Home Secreatary, William Whitelaw. The new laboratory cost £4million and was built to serve ten police forces in the east of England, from East Anglia to Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire. When it opened, it employed nearly seventy experts in all brances of forensic science, including biology, chemistry, toxicology, blood sereology and the examination of firearms. In theory, the service provided at Huntingdon is equally available to prosecution and defence teams in a criminal case. But in practice, because of the structural and informal links with the police, the service at Huntingdon (as at the five other regional Home Office laboratories) is identified almost exclusively with the prosecution. Defence lawyers trying to gain access to laboratory resources often find themselves thwarted at every turn. Even obtaining samples for independent testing can be very difficult."
