That's weird, because the sentence before your bold claim discusses possible remains, and then you claim there were no remains on the acreage... DNA or not, you're still making the same unsubstantiated claim that was initially refuted.
Please Google "Where does DNA come from" and "fish in a barrel definition".
I'm confused. If a skin cell has been found, can it be said that bodies have been found?
As I've said before, I believe that dismemberment is a possibility. When I state "remains", I mean bodies, bones, partial bodies ... something more substantial than a skin cell; something that can be easily seen and identified with the naked eye. A skin cell may indicate that someone was at a specific location, but it does not mean that there has been a murder.