STOP right there.
You used the word 'match'. Do not do that.
It is a meaningless word in forensics, whether you are talking about dna, fingerprints, footprints, descriptions of perpetrators, or whatever. Do NOT use the word 'match'.
Now as to dna in 'a random package from the factory's assembly line'..yes. its possible. Though with the factory being in Vietnam I don't think the dna is that of the intruder.
Now as to dna in THE package, the BPD/CBI had no interest in taking that package, but Ramsey investigators eventually did obtain it so as to preserve any evidence. My understanding is that there was no such evidence.
Now as to the dna panties and fingernail dna.
The original sample from the panties was a partial profile and it did not exclude the source of the dna from the fingernails as being the same as the source of the original panties.
My understanding is that the second dna sample from the panties provided a FULL 13 points and does not exclude the fingernail dna either.
But please,,, don't use the word 'match'.
If you take your thumb and put it on an inkpad then make TWO separate impressions of your thumb on a piece of paper... the two prints are NOT a match, but obviously your thumb made each of them. Yet they are NOT a match.
avoid the word 'match' when discussing forensics unless you are talking about a device often used for lighting cigarettes.