Calm down rskkiya! I'm sorry I confused you. But don't reach for the indignant bold button just yet!
I don't mean the DNA evidence was doctored.
I mean there's obvious evidence that the
original identification of AA as FS (back around seventy years ago) was - at the very least - helped along with some dubious practices and was quite likely made up. And this seems to sit oddly with the DNA evidence, which (as we all know) suggests the identification is real.
As I said - every one of the three potential explanations for this anomaly seems so unlikely...
If AA was FS, then why is the non-DNA evidence for it so murky and so seemingly contrived and dubious? Why the evidence of tampering, both with witnesses and physical evidence? You don't need to tamper with evidence if you have the right girl, so why would they have done the tampering if AA really was FS?
See, it doesn't jive.
But...if AA
wasn't FS then why is there any DNA match at all when the odds are said to be at least 300-1 against it happening by chance? Could this really happen by simple coincidence? Does that make any sense?
Again, it doesn't jive.
But the third possibility - that the DNA was doctored

well that seems just as far-fetched, or even more so.
Okay all three explanations seem impossible - but one of them must be true. Or is there something I am missing which ties it all up?
BTW - I am not trying to claim AA was AN. I am totally agnostic about all of that, I am just quite troubled by the obvious inconsistencies in the evidence at this point and hope other people are too. Something isn't adding up. I have no idea why right now, does anyone else?
peace, calm and ever-open, searching minds to all!
Sokolova