I do understand now.
I just don't understand why in the world they were allowed to make public statements saying that it exonerated anybody when it clearly did not.
But I guess that's what you can expect from this case.. Sigh.
I think I misunderstood UKs comment about the DNA from John Ramsey but he has cleared that up now.
You have to remember that the last time I read about this case was a few years ago.
I have thought about re reading material such as PMPT and Steve Thomas book & Death of Innocence and going through it all again but can't find any interested parties.
I guess I thought the touch DNA was stronger than other DNA and a breakthrough & otherwise why would they have mentioned it but I can see now it still isnt a DNA case.
I just don't understand why in the world they were allowed to make public statements saying that it exonerated anybody when it clearly did not.
But I guess that's what you can expect from this case.. Sigh.
I think I misunderstood UKs comment about the DNA from John Ramsey but he has cleared that up now.
You have to remember that the last time I read about this case was a few years ago.
I have thought about re reading material such as PMPT and Steve Thomas book & Death of Innocence and going through it all again but can't find any interested parties.
I guess I thought the touch DNA was stronger than other DNA and a breakthrough & otherwise why would they have mentioned it but I can see now it still isnt a DNA case.