Eric Faddis

It will certainly be a challenge.

So the courts like science that has been generally accepted, that has widespread acceptance, scientific consensus, and when we have new technology, there just hasn't been enough time for the scientific community to reach that position.

And so certainly what defense would do in court is say, hey, the principles behind this are not reasonably reliable.

They have not been tested enough for this to be admitted into evidence at what could be a very high profile criminal trial.

I think there is a ton of public pressure on this sheriff, not only in that community, but nationally, perhaps internationally.

They're looking for developments.

What are y'all doing?

What progress have you made?

And so I think that that is probably the motivation behind this announcement.

And it also perhaps shows that the investigation has enough information

to rule out these folks, whether that's on a timeline basis, on a forensic basis, or some other basis.

And so it sort of telegraphs to the world, hey, we're trying to make progress and we believe we are, and we believe we can exclude the family as potential perpetrators.

Oh, that's exactly right.

I mean, in order to enter evidence at a trial, there has to be a sound chain of custody.

There has to be proof that what you're giving to the jury is authentic, that it hasn't been contaminated, that it hasn't been tampered with.

And that is always a significant issue when there are scene containment problems like in this case.

And if they're doing this now, why now and not 12 days ago?

This would seem to be something that crime scene specialists would do on the first or possibly second day.

You know, someone knows something here that this was not done in a way where only the kidnapper is aware of this.

I am relatively certain that someone around them, a friend, a family member, an acquaintance, a coworker, somebody knows something.