My good mate HOTYH thinks we are blaming science for proving Ramsey innocence and just blaming Lacy for being the messenger. Can I summarise this RDI's actual view of the DNA evidence in this case and why I think I think Mary Lacy made an appalling mistake: The DNA evidence may be that of the killer. It may not. Until you can definitively place the DNA holder in the Ramsey house on Christmas night, you can't know either way. It was short-sighted of Mary Lacy effectively to eliminate every body except the DNA-holder from suspicion. That is exactly what she has done. If the DNA is that of someone with guilty knowledge of the crime, then that, by itself, does not prove that the Ramseys had no knowledge or complicity before, during or after the crime. It just shows that someone else was involved, too. It was just plain wrong of Mary Lacy to ignore the circumstances of this crime and eliminate the possibility of any Ramsey knowledge of the crime. If the DNA is not that of the killer, then it actually doesn't increase the evidence against the Ramseys or make the case any more prosecutable in their regard so I don't know why IDI are so pig-headed about the issue. If the DNA is ever used in court proceedings, then you will have to have a lot of other evidence too, because a half-decent defence lawyer will make mincemeat of this DNA evidence on its own. However, as far as I am aware, no RDI is saying that the DNA cannot possibly be that of the killer.