Exactly. I have zero faith in the DNA evidence, for the very reason that the Boulder Keystone Cops were the ones who "managed" the crime scene. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if all of this "DNA touch" evidence you guys have been quibbling about, came from one of Boulder's finest. They completely bungled the scene, every step of the way.
This is where I'm heartbroken over this case. Linda Arndt was brought in to be an investigator for sexual crimes. Boulder is partly a college town. Police departments in college towns treat college crimes with special gentle attention. Linda Arndt was there to be the one to communicate with women of sex crimes. She had no experience with murder or kidnapping. They treated her as...well...female and a novice. She took orders. Either she was a novice or she was a detective. Her title gave her credibility over a novice when what she focused on was sex crimes. This is where she got confused and her authority was overrated.
She instantly sympathized with Patsy on the morning she entered the crime scene. She immediately suspected the 'man' which was John. After the ransom, note time had come and gone she wanted to help John in his nervousness and told him to look for things out of place (but not to touch them). Everyone says this is Linda's biggest mistake, but it wasn't even close. After JonBenet was found, her instincts told her John was involved. After that, she went back into her victim defense mode and insisted that since John and Patsy were in Boulder and the police could interview them any time--this is equivalent to Officer French's not searching the windowless room or even not closing that one door in Constantinople during an outside attack. What happened is that Patsy drugged-up and the Ramseys layered-up. The case was over and no one could overcome that mistake ever.
Touch DNA exists, but not on a level you understand. We shed about 1 million skin cells every day. Those skin cells travel through the air or attach themselves to surfaces we touch. They get into our clothing. We touch them and transfer them every day. What we confuse about DNA and touch DNA is the possible source. In the past, DNA came from saliva, ripped skin, blood and seamen. Touch DNA can come from as little as 7 skin cells (my source is 3 years old so it may be smaller now). That means you can't see it with the human eye. To add confusion to that, the tDNA process can come from multiple sources. That means more than one person can be attributed to the DNA source. To add insult to injury, tDNA doesn't completely come out of a wash cycle. And the samples used to create tDNA are actually so small that they can come from the wash, from that elevator you just rode in or from that bar you just visited. That changes DNA profiling entirely. If your DNA is found, it means you need to put many more pieces of evidence to put you at the crime scene. If however, they find seamen or blood, then the defendant has a lot of explaining. So tDNA is a completely different critter.
Now let me point out that anyone who lives in the house had DNA or tDNA everywhere. There's always a reason for the source (unless it's blood or seamen).
So now we have to look at tDNA samples that come from multiple sources. One source for JBR's touch DNA is a family member (that includes JonBenet). Okay, scratch that one. So let's now look at the attributes that we think are not specific to her. Hmm... We have these attributes that we know are specific to this race and we have these attributes that are specific to that race and we could have another or another. Hmm... We have multiple possible contributors to this sample. But wait, this sample could have been contaminated at some point along the way. Wait a minute. It's isn't 1 out of 2, but one out of 3 or 4 or what??? What type of DNA evidence is that? Well, it's statistically someone it could possibly...be. Aargh!!!
Now let me introduce you to Mary Lacy. She presents the DNA evidence as a 1 in 1 match. The only reason why we think she did this was to stop the pressure the press and the Ramsey defense was putting on her. She excluded critical information from her findings and wrote a letter to apologize to the Ramseys. Now we come to discover that Mary Lacy left out important information regarding the tDNA evidence in order to...well no one knows her motives, but we know she chose to exclude all the DNA evidence facts. She lied to everyone.
So what do we know? The DNA evidence could have come from 7 different sources. Some of those sources can be contaminated because the corner didn't follow the necessary protocol and used the same clippers for JB's fingernails. We also know that JB's blood was mixed with possible saliva in her panties. From the tDNA we know the sources could have been from 3 or more people. Aargh! And tTNA can come from anywhere. So what do we know?
Nothing. We don't know anything from the DNA. Experts said this was contingent on DNA and it's not. This case demands a solution beyond DNA and, God forbid, circumstantial evidence. This is DNA evidence. This isn't the DNA evidence of my childhood. It should be a one on one match (or at least a one in a family match.) How can it possibly be 2, 3 or more people. Our science should be better than that. Only, it isn't. This is what we have. We need to go back to the evidence and use DNA as a piece, but not a determining factor (especially when it comes to family members because they can't be excluded. If you live there, it doesn't put you at the murder scene, but it doesn't exclude you.)
This is what we have by relying on DNA exclusively. So stop. DNA is only a small part of the solution no matter what anyone tells you. Look at the evidence no matter how confusing it may be.
