I find this information quite compelling and we can all be assured if they had this type of forensic evidence in any other case where the DNA profile was done and it hit on a match it would be used by the DA in the trial of the matching DNA suspect to show his DNA was the one found on the clothing of the murder victim.
I can certainly understand because to totally disregard it as meaning nothing is reckless. Jurors are very reluctant to give defendants coincidences in murder trials and imo it is no coincidence that it is HIS DNA that is present there.
It means nothing that this same male DNA was found under the victim's fingernails?
It means nothing that this same male DNA was found in the victim's panties in the blood on them?
It means nothing that now the same male DNA was found on the outer garment wear worn by the victim, inside the waistband and down the hip areas?
How convenient for this unknown male that it is his DNA that is on the very clothing of this poor murdered child and it is thought by some to mean absolutely nothing.
imoo