Hmmm. So I am back to believing that LE has no DNA from the crime scene where Abby and Libby were killed. That makes this case so very difficult. This article raises all kinds of questions for me. So, clearly finding DN's DNA on the trail is significant and places him near the crime, but it can't tell LE when he was there, or even prove he was the murderer ( thinking about a possible trial) I can only assume that witnesses that day reported someone fitting BG's description camping near the trail and when they came up with no DNA at the crime scene they found the current sample on the trail they will compare with DN. Theoretically, the killer of Abby and Libby might not even be the man witnesses saw camping and if not has LE been clearing RSO's based on DNA found away from the murder site? I understand they have to go on what they have available, but to me that means that whomever this turns out to be will have a mostly circumstantial case against them. I am back to that hatchet, it may turn out to be better evidence than DNA found a 15-20 minute walk away from the crime scene, if they can match the blade to injuries...All of this is MOO.