The DA who agreed to Bromguard's release:

Paxinos, informed of McGrath's views, said, "I had [Bromgard] cut loose because his DNA did not match the DNA in the case. He could not be the perpetrator unless you believed the 8-year-old was having sex with multiple men. That would be far-fetched."

McGrath's speculation:

McGrath, testifying in a deposition taken in a lawsuit brought by Bromgard, cited several possibilities, including that the victim was sexually active with someone else or that her 11-year-old sister was sexually active while wearing her younger sister's underwear.

The veteran prosecutor also suggested that the DNA could have been from the child's father and that the girl's parents had sex on their daughter's bed and left DNA, or that the father assaulted the girl.

The victim's father is outraged:

The victim's father, whose identity is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim, accused McGrath of making "reckless statements that will cause more harm to the victim and her family. ... Needless to say, we are deeply offended by his remarks. Deeply offended."

Bromgard's attorney, Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, says:

McGrath's answers [are] "the most remote, absurd, speculative theories to explain evidence that otherwise ... exonerates Mr. Bromgard."

Consider the evidence that convicted Bromgard: eyewitness identification, which is the largest cause of wrongful convictions, and the testimony of a since discredited lab examiner:

Arnold Melnikoff, then-director of the Montana state crime lab, who said hairs on the girl's bed were similar to Bromgard's hair. Testimony from Melnikoff, who no longer works at the lab, was later determined to be false in the Bromgard case. Lawyers for Bromgard then requested a review and retesting of hair evidence in every Melnikoff case.

As the State's Attorney General, McGrath's comments appear to be truly irresponsible and damaging to criminal justice.