I think you're misrepresenting the text a bit. It says:
> What’s interesting about solving such a case is how it relies on concepts that may seem counterintuitive to forensic biologists but are quite straightforward to an electronics engineer.
They're only claiming it's "counterintuitive" to biologists trained in other methods.
Imputation is a fairly common technique that would be familiar to most molecular or computational geneticists, especially those used to working with poor samples. There are software packages to assist in the calculation.
The point is imputation is used regularly in genetics, just not on forensics. And for good reasons. This case is old enough to be a curiosity, an amusing reading. But 70 years ago it was a potential murder case.
Imagine a forensinc lab using imputation to identify some samples and arresting someone based on them. It takes only a slighly interested lawyer to destroy that evidence at trial, saying that imputation is, literally, making up a good amount of data. In fact, defendant lawyers put a lot of effort in invalidating evidence, and imputation is quite easy to attack.
This case is a good sample to build upon it, to try to introduce imputation as a victim identification. But forensics move slowly.
> What’s interesting about solving such a case is how it relies on concepts that may seem counterintuitive to forensic biologists but are quite straightforward to an electronics engineer.
They're only claiming it's "counterintuitive" to biologists trained in other methods.