The whole problem with the intruder theory is that believing it requires relying on the idea that "child killers do crazy things" to explain away a series of actions that do not follow any known behavior pattern for this kind of crime...it would mean that this intruder is off the charts as far as behavior. It also apparently doesn't require the believer to be very particular about figuring out what order things occured in...its irrelevant...all they need to know is that an intruder did it and it can't be explained logically because the intruder was crazy.
While there are always exceptions to the rule, the rules and precedents are used as a guideline for the very good reason that in the majority of cases the perp's actions will fall within these parameters.
Why would the intruder intent on attacking JonBenet write the ransom note in advance while waiting for the family to come home and then leave her body? Or, alternatively, why would the intruder hang around the house after killing his victim to write a ransom note and still leave the body? He's crazy.
Why would the intruder attack her in the house in the first place, instead of abducting her? Oh yeah, he's crazy.
Why would the intruder who brutally attacked and murderered his victim redress her and then put a blanket on her? Again, he's crazy is the only explanation.
Now we are to believe the intruder wore gloves for everything he did except dress/undress his victim. Why? He's crazy. No One Knows.
How did the perp know about the $118K? The intruder theory advocates would say that he either found the info. while hiding in the house or he is someone who knew the family business well enough to know this number but was overlooked by police. I can only say not bloody likely.
This mindset that criminals are all crazy and so nothing they do can be seen to make any sense is pure BS. The FBI knows absolutely that when a victim is covered, arranged and left looking peaceful that it is usually a family member and/or a woman perpetrator. The FBI and LE also know that overwhelmingly when a child is killed and left in the house the killer is a family member. They further know that sex attackers do one of two things...they attack/kill the victim and leave them when they are done, OR they abduct the victim and attack/kill them in a location where they don't fear being caught. What they don't do is combine the two modes of crime and attack their victim in the house, move her around, redress her, put a blanket on her and leave a ransom note.
If the DNA is matched to someone who had opportunity, information and motive to commit this crime then I will admit that this is the exception of all exceptions to every criminal profile ever created.
If the DNA is matched to someone with an alibi who cannot have committed the murder, will those who believe the intruder theory be willing to change their minds?