Here is what I don't understand though, and I'm not arguing and I'm not snarking, just typing and thinking:
jmo imo At the point the PCA was written, LE had already processed the crime scene. IF they had so much more evidence, why not include it? Esp if they had more DNA, then why focus solely on the sheath? Why not just use other DNA from the scene? It makes no sense to me. The defense was going to see it anyway, and if there were something sensitive, it could be redacted (much to my chagrin lol). jmo imo icbw
So the DNA, like the partial footprint, why roll the dice like that with nothing to be gained from it? I don't get it, and I'm not arguing, just sharing my confusion. I also think that if there were bloody footprints everywhere, the Dailymail would have gotten a few long shots of it. We saw nothing out the back door where the killer apparently left covered in blood but didn't drip? this just doesn't make sense to me. jmo imo icbw
There seem to be two camps -- and that's okay, too, we need different perspectives. Some of us can assume that LE has more and make the argument that LE didn't need to share more. Others of us refuse to make that assumption, because that is what it is. We just don't know, and I guess we all deal differently with that liminal space, but until I see more and this makes more sense, I will continue to question this bizarre set of circumstances. jmo imo icbw
On another note entirely, I hope your town is finding some peace after all this. I always like seeing you posting here.