Hi Hoosen_Fenger,
I'm not sure that you're in that much of a minority.
FWIW I also believe in SA's guilt, although with so many people convinced of his innocence I find myself compelled to look at the other side and make my own mind up.
To date I haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise, but I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong if and when something new comes to light.
As for BD - I don't know. I believe that he helped SA in some shape or form but I'm not completely sure of exactly how involved he was.
The nice thing about this forum though, is that people from both sides of the fence are able to have a sensible, constructive discussion without the personal insults that you see elsewhere - and I have to say that I do enjoy debating the evidence and hearing different perspectives.
Anyway back to the DNA question :lol:
I know it's not an exact science, but I can't help thinking that if the result was inconclusive or there was insufficient quantity to fully test, the prosecution still wouldn't have missed an opportunity to go down the road of "There was female DNA on the cuffs and we can't rule out that it belonged to TH".
Either way, I'm starting to think that these weren't the new cuffs purchased a couple of weeks before so I guess that becomes a moot point.