(Please try not to laugh until the end)
1) The Adult Pool
2) DNA from kid's room
3) Semen Stain
4) The Blond Man
5) The Visit.
Okay - those are the factors upon which she bases the rest of her lunatic theories. So don't laugh, we ought to pause for a moment out of respect for the rapier-sharp mind that has cut through this case to get to what's really important. There will now be a moment's silence, of a length commensurate with the importance and value of Textusa's work in this field.
''The DNA found in this room was too little when compared with what was expected to be collected''
''In terms of what was expected to be found versus what was collected one could say that room was “forensically aseptic”. The room was subject to an exaggerated cleaning.
The forensic evidence collected was way too scarce and that’s a fact.''Nonsense .
These statements display a total lack of understanding of DNA, of crime scene processing and of basic science
The room was processed in line with accepted protocols - UV light sources used to look for body fluids, special chemicals sprayed on surfaces to reveal the presence of biological residues, hair and fibres identified and collected - all absolutely normal. She claims there was too little DNA yet provides no evidence to back this up
The room was NOT subjected to ''exaggerated cleaning'' - in fact, the evidence points at precisely the opposite, with ample hair and fibres collected and no 'void' spaces identified.
So for her to have the bare-faced cheek to say
''The forensic evidence collected was way too scarce and that’s a fact.''...is just a bare-faced lie. Simple as that. She really should not use terminology she does not understand.