I, too, believed that the question WAS of a forensic nature. Clearly, if one had all the money and time in the world, one could pay Celera Genomics to sequence the entire unknown sample, compare it to GenBank, and probably come up with a definative answer. The question was one of practicality, can one reasonably, using standard sequencing techniques, determine whether a DNA sample is human or simian. The answer appears to be no.
The underlying assumption many of you are making is that forensic = practical, implying that non-forensic = impractical, which is both incorrect and somewhat offensive. If the question is whether human DNA can be distinguished from other primates practically, and by practically, I mean in an inexpensive and timely manner, the answer is yes, it can be done to scientific certainty. If you give me a DNA sample and ask me to check if it’s human, I could probably do it within a week.
On the other hand, if you gave me a DNA sample and asked me to determine what species it was, I could not do it practically. But this is not the original question; this is a tangent we’ve wandered off onto.
I didn’t mean any offense, Noose, I thought that you (and Hawk) had made the distinction between practical (forensics) and academic (molecular biology). And I mean no offense to the academic, Lord knows, I was once such myself.
Actually, I’m more offended in your assumption that I’m academic-- there are plenty of molecular biologists in industry, you know, 
The distinction I was making was between forensics and molecular laboratories. To label one as practical and the other not is unfair, because what may be impractical in in a forensics lab may be quite practical in a molecular lab, and vice versa. To differentiate between human and ape DNA may not be practical in a forensic lab, but it would not be too much of a stretch to do so in a typical molecular lab.