The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.
Paragraph 120 from the judgment:
Dr Evison [the Defence expert] seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen.
Whether he was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?
Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?