I have heard explanations. For example, Ive heard Kolars, but IMO his explanation and his reasoning is, to be polite and minimalist, questionable.
There is the argument that the DNA may not be related to the case. Thats a good argument and it could be true, however, to-date, all attempts to trace the DNA to an innocent explanation have failed just as the likeliest innocent sources have all been ruled out. So, the innocent explanation becomes unlikely and the likely innocent source becomes unlikely. All the while the presumption (because of locations) that this DNA was probably left by the killer remains.
Enter the argument that the DNA must have an innocent explanation because the case against the Ramseys is so certain. This seems to be simply an argument of opinion that has never (Carnes notwithstanding) been tested in Court (which goes against the argument!).
There is the argument (also from Kolar) that the totality of the case is RDI. This is a much stronger version of the above argument. This doesnt just say that the RDI case is certain, it says that every piece of evidence, every aspect of it, down to the deepest core, with no room for doubt or alternative explanation, is all RDI. But, the DNA is part of the case. Therefore, the totality of the case cannot be RDI.
Some of the arguments actually go more towards the reliability of an identification and are of the type that would inform the identified persons defence: thats not my DNA.
But, it is still someones DNA. It is still found in incriminating locations, right where investigators believed that the killer would leave it, and despite effort, an innocent explanation or an innocent source has not been shown or identified. All the while the presumption (because of locations) that this DNA was probably left by the killer remains.
...
AK