Seems impossible...If I'm not wrong that means absolutely no DNA evidence was found of anyone external to the apartment.
Maybe the perpetrators used string and tape from the house precisely because it wouldn't have their DNA on it?
Of course! Not to mention crawling through the window and destroying all evidence - if there was any. Why didn't they break the front door? I mean police surely know how to open doors.I think the crime scene was compromised. So, the police come in and find the dog, then husband, and wife with baby on the bed trying to rouse her mother. Of course they had to untie him, they also will have checked her vitals and removed and comforted the child. There's three police officers who are in an unprecedented situation they have not experienced before and an exceptionally gruesome and emotionally challenging one. I think securing the crime scene was probably not the first thing that occurred to them. There might well have been evidence that was destroyed but it would not be good PR to admit that...
It would indeed. And it’s definitely known who took the tape down from the victim, in that case the DNA of that policeman would be used to eliminate his DNA from the sample, B’s DNA would be known too and therefor could be eliminated from the sample, so whatever would be left would be the perp’s who put the tape on them. How I interpret those statements is that there wasn’t any stranger’s DNA found, which is very remarkable after handling that tape, taping around B’s head.Yes but after they used it, wouldn't it possibly then have their DNA on it ?
I think if they had a sample where they had an unknown DNA mixed in but without enough markers in it to make it usable to identify the person at a later time, we would hear there was an unidentifiable or unusable sample. But I’m definitely not the Greek police so this is a guess on my part and definitely not factual.I think 'no DNA' doesn't mean no DNA. It means no usable DNA or no DNA that you can link to the crime scene in a way that will stand up in court.
But, by the same token, if the tape had only been handled by a person of the household, there would be more than just the one palm print by the husband on it. Especially as they could not have disposed of any gloves once tied up.It would indeed. And it’s definitely known who took the tape down from the victim, in that case the DNA of that policeman would be used to eliminate his DNA from the sample, B’s DNA would be known too and therefor could be eliminated from the sample, so whatever would be left would be the perp’s who put the tape on them. How I interpret those statements is that there wasn’t any stranger’s DNA found, which is very remarkable after handling that tape, taping around B’s head.
All IMHO
According to one of the articles in the beginning LE did not found glove prints which they found strange.But, by the same token, if the tape had only been handled by a person of the household, there would be more than just the one palm print by the husband on it. Especially as they could not have disposed of any gloves once tied up.
My money is on 2 or 3. If it was 1, then there would be more than one palm print. There would be multiple prints.According to one of the articles in the beginning LE did not found glove prints which they found strange.
There are four options I can see:
1, The tape was handled only by someone who was living there, therefor only that persons print(s) was found on it (except LE’s)
2, Local LE might not be good in collecting and/or preserving evidence.
3, The lab processing the evidence might not be exceptionally good at their job.
4, The perps were aliens who doesn’t have any DNA and fingerprints, so they can’t leave traces as we know them behind.
IMHO
I suspect there are more prints of him, but only one was mentioned because of the placement of it.My money is on 2 or 3. If it was 1, then there would be more than one palm print. There would be multiple prints.
But the police mentioned so called "orphan DNA". Sb outside the household.Maybe an alien accomplice who does not leave DNA.