Yes, I used the word presumption, but I also DEFINED the word - that which must be disproved, it is that which is assumed to be true because in most cases it is true. Presumption is the “assumed fact when lacking evidence to the contrary.” The presumption is that trace evidence found in incriminating locations are the result of transfer during the most recent contact with those areas.
I also noted that IDI do not used the DNA as PROOF of anything. It also seems as if you are commenting on my post without actually having read it fully.
And, no, we don’t get to presume that it must be a family member because in most child murder cases it is a family member. We may presume that family members should be investigated because in most child murder cases it is a family member, but to claim that it must be a family member as based on statistics is a fallacy (as I explained in my reply to Meara’s post).
It is also misleading to say that the DNA proves nothing. It tells us something, it is trace evidence found in incriminating locations that has not been traced to any innocent source. The DNA is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match. It does not prove anything in itself, but it is a piece of a body of evidence that
that excludes the Ramseys and includes an intruder.
...
AK