He may be referring to DNA, a contaminated or partial profile which cannot identify any one person.
Thank you. I spend time every day thinking of these girls. I check in on this thread almost daily, and read about every post. The wording 'a lot of physical evidence', for me, very well may not be DNA evidence, rather, other evidence, of which possibly DNA could be a part. If only DNA was what he was referring to, then they would have 'a lot of DNA'. And if they have a lot of DNA, then they simply have not found the match. Unless they have a lot of partial and questionable DNA.
How could a lot of DNA evidence, you know, from what I understand, the stuff doesn't lie, I mean, if you have a lot of it, so how could a lot of DNA evidence logically (to me, this is not even a proper word to use in terms of DNA identification, as logic does not play in to it) lead to one person or another but not do so? Doesn't make sense to me.
Are we saying they may have had a lot of DNA evidence, both solid and partial DNA, that logically would lead them to the people to whom it belonged, however, when investigated, each of those people were found to have solid alibi's? This makes sense to me.
Then might they have no DNA of the killer himself? Or as said earlier, they DO have unidentified DNA, so simply have not found the person to whom it belongs?
Or could obvious DNA have been planted, leading surely to one person, or another, but when investigated, it was clear those persons were not involved?
I still think the scene had plenty of stuff strewn about. It's just speculation, as none of us really know. However, he does say 'a lot'. To me, that means, well, a lot
of physical evidence.
So what evidence, other than DNA, would logically lead to one person, or another but doesn't, if it were NOT planted? Items that the killer left at the scene, that belonged to or were identical to items known to belong to one person, or another?
Something has to account for the 'change in direction'. And if LE was heading in the wrong direction, then the question for me becomes, why?