One of the commentators put it all together......."He's 99% sure on bones that were lost decades ago and were never really tested for DNA and whose forensic analysis of them contradicts his beliefs. So someone did a forensic analysis on the bones and it wasn't him. But he contradicts their findings based on no new evidence and without the bones for testing". Enough said.
I thought the bones had been lost so no DNA was ever tested? Regardless, it's one thing to say the bones probably of a female vs a male but I'm pretty sure there have been other females is that area for quite a long time.