True Crime

over a quarter century. One would expect a serious person to have developed some relevant expertise in that time, and yet using the phrase "100% DNA match" is an enormous red flag. That is not a correct or useful descriptor of the type of evidence supposedly on offer.

And the article you linked provides nothing but Russell Edwards saying it is so. Which he's been saying for a long time.

Maybe he's got good evidence. Maybe the evidence he's got is legit and correct. That would be very interesting. But only examining the evidence itself will provide that insight, this guy's say so is basically worthless at this point.