Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax
I still don't get it. The new DNA matches the drop of blood from the previous DNA. If that is the case then would not the previous DNA have excluded the family? Wasn't there also a hair found on the body that didn't match the family?
|
I really don't know the answer to what you are asking, of course.
My guess is that a hair not matching the family isn't that unusual, particularly because I don't think their was any DNA evidence to match it to anyone else in particular. It's gross to think about, but I think other people's hair being on your clothing isn't nearly as uncommon as we'd like to think.
I suspect that the blood was highly suspicious but that coupled with the evidence that the same person apparently also pulled down her long underwear (not PJs strictly speaking I guess), made the possibility that the family was responsible completely unbelievable.
And there's also the possibility that the letter isn't really based on a significant change in evidence, just the confirmation of existing evidence, and the prosecutor simply felt that the Ramseys had lived under a cloud in the public mind too long considering the evidence that existed. And it's a different DA too from the initial investigation.
Hybrid Mode
