For this question, I am going to assume that I am correct in my assessment that there was an unexplained DNA sample found in Stacey Burns’ house during the investigation. If I were to be asked why I a assuming that, I’d have to say that it is simply because no one has denied it. It would be a simple matter for the authorities to dismiss this (and many other of my conclusions) but they choose not to do so. Until that happens, I’ll proceed along my current path with Murder in a Small Town: The Tragic Death of Stacey Burns.

All right, here is the question based on the mystery sample. Have the police obtained DNA samples from more than just the obvious players in this case? For example, surely they would have done so with Ed Burns and Jim Vittum. They also must have done so with family and friends of Stacey’s just for exclusionary purposes. My question refers to people whom I would call peripheral, people outside of the obvious circle.

Here is my logic for raising this question. Clearly, the early focus of the investigation was the ex-boyfriend or the ex-husband. Therefore, the police likely figured they had their suspect in the first 48 hours, a likelihood that would tend to send the investigation in a specific direction. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then anyone who was not available for questioning or interviewing until days or even a week later could have been overlooked, especially if that person or persons fit into the peripheral category. Without an arrest five years later, maybe it is time, to use a tired cliché, to begin to think outside the box. If the evidence is insufficient to arrest anyone, one has to wonder if maybe that is because some of those “peripheral” people should be examined more closely.

Just wondering . . .