I think this post from the same thread you linked gets to the nub of the issue the best:
DNASI claimed: Our report also specifically stated that DNA profiles obtained from additional reference specimens and evidence items were being retained pending instructions.
nonimouse corrected the record: Here's the second major thing that jumps out at me. The report doesn't specifically state "that DNA profiles obtained from additional reference specimens and evidence items" are being retained. What is says is "Individual DNA profiles for non-probative evidence specimens and suspect reference specimens are being retained at DSI pending notification of the client." (emphasis added) There is a huge difference between these two statements.
This statement does NOT make it clear that there was additional DNA recovered that didn't match any of the reference samples. Generally, "non-probative evidence" would be something like samples from a case in which someone has confessed or has already been convicted, or duplicate samples (multiple cuttings from the same blood stain that has already been tested.) It is not evidence that you expect to have any value to a court case. In a situation like this case, finding a match to the AV on her own clothes would be considered non-probative evidence.
The very misleading wording of that sentence is very problematic for several other reasons as well: First, the DNA lab is supposed to report EVERY DNA result regardless of whether it is nonprobative. Second, the DNA lab has NO BUSINESS making judgements about what evidence might have probative value in an open case. If the DNA lab is making its own decisions that finding DNA from multiple men on and in the AV is non-probative, that shows that their objective was not to find the truth, but rather to prove that the "suspects" did it. That evidence is only "non-probative" to the prosecution.
For my money nonimouse caught DNASI in a lie in their statement and shows they are in serious spin mode.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/12/nifong-dna-excludes-except-when-it.html[snipped here and there for brevity]
In early 2000, two rapes occurred in the Trinity Park neighborhood, off Duke's east campus. Acting under strong pressure from the Trinity Park "community", police charged a black homeless man, Leroy Summers, based solely on an identification from the second woman who was raped.
After Summers was charged, the police sent a rape kit to the State Bureau of Investigation lab. When the results came in, no match existed for Summers' DNA. But a male DNA specimen was found. Technicians ran the result through a national crime database, revealing the DNA of Jeffrey Lamont McNeill, who subsequently was charged with the crime.
According to the July 12, 2000 N&O, the prosecutor issued a definitive written statement: "Results of DNA testing exclude the defendant as the perpetrator of this crime."
The prosecutor's name: Mike Nifong.