Yeah, but in the same way he isn't sure if the trunk was his aunt's or not, which I find to be fake uncertainty and thus indicating deceptive communication. Perhaps I am wrong, in which case it would be awesome if DR could clear this up. I'm open to him being innocent.
I have assumed cadaver digs hit on it. I hope nobody took my message about that from much earlier as a fact. Just my opinion after putting together DR's words from that interview with other vague reports. It could have also been a blood luminol test, if indeed there is blood, but I believe/think/feel that a cadaver dog had hit on it first. And why a cadaver dog? Because what other kind of dog would you bring from across the country to search for human remains decades after a person is abducted?
All JMO.