I know that DNA is and has been a thorn in the side of RDI for years.
Not as much as you'd think.
But there's just no way to read into the CNN article what you've stated here.
Not from the way it's worded. But anyone who goes back a ways in this case would know it. The DA would know it, too, if she bothered to read the case file.
I tried, but I get nothing about PI's or R lawyers in the article.
It's sound bite media, Holdon. You can fill volumes with what you don't read in it. But that one was cooked up by Michael Tracey taking the lawyers at their word. It's an old lie that has gone unchallenged, so it's accepted as truth. But no case insider outside of them has ever claimed that the fingernail DNA is anything but slag. A westword.com article says, quote: "sources in the district attorney's office have described the fingernail sample as too contaminated or degraded to be meaningful." The source was Tom Bennet, just so you know.
Maybe with some other media sources, you can further your cause that the 2007 test did not find the fingernail DNA to match the longjohn DNA.
Most of the articles I've read don't mention the fingernail DNA at all. But a lot of articles have been written up until now and they say the same thing I'm saying. The clippers used on her nails weren't even sterile.
I believe there was a ranting, somewhat rambling article I read from an obvious RDI follower who went on and on about how the 2007 test was meaningless.
Which one was that?