Well, if you've been following the Bin Laden scenario meltdown as I have, you'll be aware that the whole story of the "proof" of the dreaded terrorist leader's demise is a bit shaky, at best. Now, it seems, there's a new problem, namely, one of the FBI's former DNA forensics analysts is having a few problems with the "story":
The article zeros in on the essential problem with the story: If there was to be a DNA identification of Bin Laden, then for the highest probability of identification, the USA would have had to have a DNA sample from Bin Laden himself, or (2) for a lesser probability of identification, DNA samples from many of his large family.
Therein is the rub: just where and when did the USA get these samples, and how? No one yet has answered this question. Did the DNA test include comparisons from "Bin Laden's" DNA to an earlier sample of it? Or did it compare it to his relatives? Surely this is an easy question to answer, if in fact one has actually done DNA testing. So, one would think that in order to buttress their claims and put any doubts to rest, that they would publish the hard data, and have already addressed what type of DNA comparison was done, and assured the public - and especially the scientific public - of when the actual results would be published.
Yet these basic steps were not undertaken, and that, again, raises my suspicion meters into the red zone, for one could not possibly contrive a sillier story so full of evident holes, unless, of course, one were the Warren Commission. It took JFK researchers years, if not decades, to pull down that house of cards, and yet this one began to blow apart even as the President was speaking. Again, to me, it appears that the story was deliberately designed to collapse almost as soon as it appeared.