"a deliberate choice was made to not address the unknown male DNA at the crime scene. That particular bit of evidence has always been a monkey wrench in the KR, ETJ, and now TM theories."
Not exactly. They talked about the male DNA evidence, the fact that some 800 people have been swabbed and mentioned that this or that suspect, e.g., ETJ, has been cleared in connection to it. They simply didn't place the same emphasis upon this evidence that others do.
The question is: why would that be?
You think that they were being disingenuous and taking a shortcut of sorts so as to have a more definitive theory of the crime (the KR theory) at the end. I don't agree; I think the two investigators sincerely believe the preponderance of the evidence points to KR; I just think they believe there's an explanation for the male DNA that they didn't fully lay out.
As for what this explanation is, I will admit that I haven't the foggiest.
Not exactly. They talked about the male DNA evidence, the fact that some 800 people have been swabbed and mentioned that this or that suspect, e.g., ETJ, has been cleared in connection to it. They simply didn't place the same emphasis upon this evidence that others do.
The question is: why would that be?
You think that they were being disingenuous and taking a shortcut of sorts so as to have a more definitive theory of the crime (the KR theory) at the end. I don't agree; I think the two investigators sincerely believe the preponderance of the evidence points to KR; I just think they believe there's an explanation for the male DNA that they didn't fully lay out.
As for what this explanation is, I will admit that I haven't the foggiest.