At about 1:26 in the video at this link, there's a statement by Jeffrey Ban of the Va Dept of Forensic Science about the clothes found with the remains. He's actually talking about retrieving DNA from clothing, and an "AHA" effect of finding DNA that shouldn't be there. I get the impression that he is speaking in a general way about evidence collection, especially DNA on skeletal remains and clothing. Then in what sorta seems like a separate, second statement, he says, "the bloody clothes were found out in the woods, so they've been sitting out in the environment for a long time, so you've got degradation, you've got sun, you've got moisture, you've got chemical...thing...you know, that could cause degradation..." and that's where the video ends.
Do you get the impression that he is speaking generally or specifically in the second statement? The reason I ask is because if he's speaking specifically, he's just told us that the clothes found with the remains are bloody. And I think another poster mentioned earlier this week that he may have slipped when he started to speak about the "chemical...thing." He does hesitate fairly noticeably there.
