Yes DNA was found. But we know that JB was sexually assaulted sometime before Christmas. That DNA could be from the sexual assault. That person is not necessarily the person that killed her. Could be two separate crimes. You also have to remember that a lot of time passed between JBs death and the time the DNA was actually discovered. How many people handled those garments? How many people handled them without anybody knowing? This was a big case and we have already heard of the morgue delivery guy that was posing and photographing bodies. JBs delivery sheet was stolen before her body was even cold. This case was a media extravaganza and the tabloids were throwing big money around to get scoops, is it that hard to believe that someone may have secretly photographed her clothing after her death?
This term "commingled" seems to imply for some that their fluids being mixed together could have only happened at the time of death, but I have never seen anything conclusive that says if someone were to cough or sneeze on to a blood spot, the DNA would not be commingled.
If JB was wiped down with a workers sweaty shirt that may have been left at the house, could that not have left DNA on the body? And when JB bled, couldn't that DNA become commingled?
The DNA is one piece, and a small piece at that because from what I can see, there was very little of it and they were hard pressed to even get a sample that met CODIS standards. I knew you would answer my question with "DNA" because thats what IDI's always say. You said "much evidence", so bring it on. I expect to hear crickets because there is no other solid evidence of an intruder besides the microscopic specs of DNA.
It is not known that Jonbenet was sexually assaulted before Christmas, or at any time prior to her murder and the assault of that night.
While I provisionally accept as true that Jonbenet suffered from some sort of prior abuse, no one has been able to say what form that abuse took (innocent play by children; sexual abuse by mother and/or father; corporal punishment by mother and/or father; etc).
IOWS, while we can say that “something” probably happened, we can’t say exactly what that something was.
.
One can imagine all manner of wild scenarios to explain away the DNA, but the matching tDNA makes them all very unlikely and barely believable.
.
Besides the male, foreign DNA found in incriminating locations there are 2 and ½ pages of unidentified handwriting. Say what you will about Mrs Ramsey not being excluded (she was not unique in this regard) butt none of the credible (as decided in Court) experts identified ANYONE as author.
There are un-sourced, brown, cotton fibers found in incriminating locations.
There are items missing from the house; for example: a brown, cotton item probably used to wipe the body, pages from notepad, roll of tape, length of cord, end of paint brush.
There are items not sourced to the house; for example: cord and tape, various fibers and hairs found in incriminating locations.
These are all intruder indicators. There may be innocent explanations for each and every one of them, but so far none have been found, or, at least, none have been shown to be true.
Some intruder evidence is evidence inferred; if they didn’t do it, an intruder must have. Kane said, "The things that would normally say it was somebody on the inside were certainly very much there," but, “"On the other hand, you had things that said there is no way it could have been somebody on the inside." Garnett said the case file was equivocal and, iirc, pointing in no direction; there’s no prior history, no motivation, no sense to it.
Additionally, the case against the Ramseys is weak, non-specific, nebulous and bizarre. The only consensus there seems to be is that one of them did it.
...
AK
