Hang on, am I'm missing something - guy is a suspect, they have yet to find proof he is the Killer and he has been arrested based on a second attempt of trying to match the DNA after the first was inconclusive. Why does the article read like they found the killer?
The evidence sounds pretty damning to me. I'm curious why you think it's wholly inconclusive
>Investigators then obtained what Anne Marie Schubert, the Sacramento district attorney, called “abandoned” DNA samples from Mr. DeAngelo. “You leave your DNA in a place that is a public domain,” she said.
>The test result confirmed the match to more than 10 murders in California. Ms. Schubert’s office then obtained a second sample and came back with the same positive result, matching the full DNA profile.
The first discarded item could have come from a blood relative, i.e., his kids, or been intermingled with his wife's DNA, which could have yielded an inconclusive match (i.e., similar to the killer but not an exact match). They already knew that someone in the house was related to the killer--for their purposes, they needed an exact match.
