.
I can't shake the idea that the killer planted evidence that led LE down the wrong path. Based on some comments LE has made, one being.....
Ives said: 'Even though at the crime scene there was a lot of physical evidence of one sort of another which would lead logically to one person or another, it never led to one particular person.'
So what did the evidence lead to? Logically, it would have lead to one person, or another person, but never led to one particular person? Twins? Cousins? Family members? Father/Son?
Was this DNA evidence? Possibly. Was it planted? Possibly? But by who? and why? And how would the killer have obtained this DNA?
And if this evidence was NOT DNA, then it was what? Articles of clothing? Household items? Driver's licenses? Hunting gear? Something particular to a person, or another person, but when checked out, they had a solid alibi?
How would BG know these individuals that the evidence supposedly led to, but was not specific enough to arrest? If that's even the case? How would BG have obtained such evidence? Friend of their family? Coworker? Classmate? Organization colleague?
Was LE duped for two years?
MOO
They said they were onto something in the beginning... Think of what has changed.
1) BG's portrait. Two years into the investigation. This is where, I think, LE were sent on a wild-goose chase.
So some information LE received initially, be it from the witness or from the phone, was wrong. Maybe the phone was left intentionally?
2) What was left on the CS. I don't know what it was, but it either implied the wrong motive, or was simply person-specific. Think of someone leaving syringes or certain paraphenalia with someone's DNA, and that would logically lead them to the whole group of people (and this is what these local policemen should know well, who uses, what). And then they found out that they were duped. Or, a weapon could have been left that was criminal-specific.
3) At a certain point, either DNA was processed (they were going to fast-track it), or some evidence was introduced, or they got a tip that was intentionally wrong.
4) About DNA - I know it is not something you can "pour out", but in general, I have a relative who has exceptionally common mitochondrial DNA. Each time I get a notification, "a mito relative has been found", I know whose relative it is. Another one has very typical european Y-DNA, same thing.
So I think that if one could plant a "common" mito, or a Y, it would lead to a cluster of people. But I can't imagine it can be done without autosomal material.
5) Another way would be to manipulate this is the much-discussed "touch" DNA. Imagine "touching" someone so that it is left on a video, and then substituting the hoodie for an identical one, only with the "touch" of another person. This would be easy to do, I think.
I ran out of ideas for today, lol.
P.S. Maybe even a Bible with someone's ex libris? So the LE started investigating that person, where he was (and he could have well been nearby), and it took two years to clean the person.
P.S.x2 Hair without a bulb. This is where you basically get only mito DNA as of today. So god forbid if you get mitoDNA like my distant relative's one. It would lead you to some European aristocratic houses + Slavs + Lithuanians + half of Western Europe... I think in Delphi, it simply would lead to several families with common direct maternal relative, i.e., lots of people. (However, they are now learning how to extract nuclear DNA from such hair). Anyhow, maybe with time LE found out that that very DNA was planted.