Ask the average jurist, “we found the suspect’s fingerprints at the scene, is it possible the suspect wasn’t there?” the answer 12/12 times will be no.
It’s even worse with DNA which could have been transferred.
It’s even worse with DNA which could have been transferred.
This is a perfect example of "begging the question"! Hopefully we can ammend the question with "we found a fingerprint at the scene that matches the suspect" and get that number down to 11/12.
A jurist is lawyer or otherwise an expert of law. You'd most likely get a panel of 10-12/12 jurists agreeing that it's possible the suspect wasn't there at the time the crime was committed.
You'd probably get a different answer if you asked a juror, but you still wouldn't get 12/12. Jurors are familiar with the concept of time. It's not even to prove that the suspect was there at all (especially if they have an explanation for why they were at the scene of the crime), the prosecution must establish they were specifically there at the time of the crime.