Now...how can they be so sure he left them at the scene? Without DNA, unless they were actually ON her...I don't see it. So does this tell us the thong may have been used to strangle her after all?!
I think that may be the case. I thought it was curious for them to go public with evidence like that, but there is more to it than a pair of panties discarded in a field. Even if they were in close proximity to the victim, I would not think that LE would show evidence that did not have a huge connection to the case.
There are a few curious things that I have noticed. The first being the panties. I can not read a news story about the case without a huge detailed picture of them taking half of my browser. The word got out that the Perp's DNA was on them. That might be true and it might not. The idea of the police going in front of the media and saying that there was a blunder in one way or another especially with something that could be a key piece of evidence, possibly might be a communication or an attempt to draw the perp out.
We know nothing factual about the site, the body or what evidence they really have.
To my knowledge they have not even stated factually that they have not found the bear. For all we know the bear was placed near the body, or was left with the panties on it.
I think that they have reason to say some of the things the way they say them in the media. While they want information from the public, aside from identifying the owner of the panties, I think that they are using some misinformation or twisting of the facts to try to communicate with the perp.
However, I have stated it before, and it could be the case here, there is a huge human error factor in DNA collecting and processing, so it could be a huge mess up on many different levels.
I just don't feel that with a serial criminal who is raising the stakes and still running loose, that they would even comment on many of the things that have been reported.
Can you say...Denial?!
