w
You know what, I don't know if eye opener is the correct term but you are right. I hope you had a little eye opener with the fingernail DNA but I suspect you won't admit that. I hope you do because we might be able to have some good discussions about some of this. I have read stuff on this case but I could never in good conscience read either a Ramsey book or ST's book. I can say that I am glad I purchased this book even though it is rehashed information. Coming from where he has been, I can accept some things better.
This case is tough. And it has taken its toll on a lot of people.
I agree that one important element of this book is the repeating of case evidence we have debated for so long. Having another voice at this time, from someone with the credibility of actual LE, is important.
Also there is new info, and whether we agree or disagree, it is "fresh eyes," which Lacy and Smit both claimed they wanted on the case, though they quickly changed their minds once the "fresh eyes" didn't come to their personal foregone conclusions.
As for the DNA, for the sake of argument, let's say the DNA on the underwear and on the waist bands of the longjohns does "match." So what does that prove? Only that someone handled those items in much the same way as Patsy did, if she put those longjohns on JB that night; in much the same way as Dr. Meyer did when he undressed and bagged the clothing, as well as when he examined the blood drops in the Bloomies against the child's own genitalia; in much the same way as the science techs who processed the evidence from the clothing handled them; in much the same way as the person who pulled them down that night to sexually abuse the child with a paintbrush, possibly peri mortem, wiped the blood from her genitals with some type of cloth did, and then redressed the victim by pulling all that back up; in much the same way JB would have herself pulled the clothing down and up if she dressed herself, contrary to Patsy's and John's story which only is their word--and we have Burke contradicting that, as well.
So it always is going to come back to the DNA on the clothing, at the crime scene, is only useful if it proves something. And this DNA proves nothing so far. It can't be dated, it can't be sourced, and some of it can't be identified as skin, semen, or blood with partial profiles so small, according to Kolar.
To dismiss all the remaining evidence based on this DNA is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you're that determined to prove it wasn't a Ramsey, then save yourself, save your time and sanity looking to prove it, and just believe that.
Because the DNA proves nothing, as there's just not enough of it and there is no evidence to indicate any intruder left it behind, much less six intruders.