Today's Rocky Mountain News:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4940501,00.html
The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case is solid, and there's a strong possibility it points to the killer, a self-proclaimed neutral observer and expert on DNA analysis said Wednesday.
Rock Harmon, a senior deputy prosecutor in Alameda County, Calif., said there's been spin regarding the DNA from two sides - those arguing for the Ramseys' guilt, and those promoting an intruder - but that attention must be paid to the biological evidence in JonBenet's underwear.
"It's there, it can't be avoided," Harmon said. "Strange male DNA shouldn't be anywhere around a dead young girl."
The most important sample, experts appear to agree, is a piece of DNA that was mixed with a spot of JonBenet's blood on her underwear. That DNA, recovered in 1999, comes from an unidentified male, and includes 10 genetic markers, enough for it to have been submitted into an FBI database that can match unknown DNA samples with other offenders.
That piece of DNA evidence is separate from poor quality DNA recovered from underneath JonBenet's fingernails and an earlier sample, taken in 1997, from another bloody spot on JonBenet's underpants that yielded fewer genetic markers, Wood told the News on Wednesday.
Another view of the DNA in JonBenet's underpants has been offered by the prosecutor who ran the original grand jury investigation into the murder that yielded no indictments when it was ended in 1999.
Michael Kane conjectured in 2002 that the male DNA in JonBenet's underwear might not be critical evidence and could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture.
Harmon, who called Kane's theory "reaching," pointed out that the various sides are painting themselves into a box. For example, if the DNA doesn't match Karr's, then - under Wood's view - Karr almost assuredly isn't the killer.
By the same token, law enforcement personnel who want to discount DNA that doesn't point to the Ramseys could also find themselves stuck if the DNA doesn't match Karr. Under their view that the existing DNA isn't important and could have been left by a source outside the crime, Karr could still be guilty.