I agree it is a qualifier but doesn't mean they don't think it is his. I think it speaks more to where it was found and a presumed innocent till proven guilty and that need for more evidence. If it were under her fingernails it would be more definite. If they were able to tell that it was on her body after her death or that it was under her body somehow. But there are a lot of places it could be found that would allow a reasonable doubt.
JMO.
The way LE has phrased everything about the possibility of them having the perp's DNA has been nebulous and qualified.
When a person or an entity says they "believe" something, it means nothing. A person can say they believe the earth is flat. It doesn't make it so. Believing something does not make it a fact. That is why it is used as a qualifier. It is the same as any poster here putting JMO or MOO on their posts. That shows the post is our opinion, as in "I believe" or "I think" ... to separate our beliefs about the case from the facts.
I understand keeping evidence and details of a case under wraps, and of course, I understand why, but the evasiveness about the DNA is unnecessary
if they have a good, viable sample.
I am not trying to undermine LE, but why would they say (in the April press conference two weeks ago) they are just now "beginning" if they had a whole and usable DNA sample from the perp? It doesn't make sense.
We also have to quit assuming any possible SA would include DNA. I hate to write this, but SA can be performed with an object. In addition, if the perp wore gloves and kept his face and body covered with clothing, it would be very difficult for his DNA to be left under the victims' fingernails, especially if their hands were bound first.
I hope they DO have the perp's DNA, but we are fooling ourselves if we trying to extrapolate meaning from what LE has said about the DNA into stating they have the perp's DNA
as a fact. That was my point.
Which leads me to a larger point ... we need to listen more closely to what is said in the public arena. We need to divorce opinion from fact. People are controlled by what they want to hear, and governments and politicians know that. The media knows that, and since the dawn of advertising, product companies have known that. Every message is tailored to an audience. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and our own life experiences, personality, processing of stimuli, etc. color our viewpoints and what we perceive as truth.