angelwngs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 5,038
- Reaction score
- 482
What if the DNA is someone who was in the home and has an alibi?
Not the DNA of a known sexual predator but the DNA of someone who knew JonBenet, could have come into casual contact with her/her clothes and can not have committed the crime?
Does that mean 'science does lie' or that just maybe, 'touch DNA' on the clothes of a victim, in and of itself, doesn't prove or disprove any theory of the crime?
Exactly. That was my point with my theory of the "possibility" of the unidentified male dna coming from the paintbrush which had to have been touched by the killer, thus the possibility of transfer to both places the unknown male dna was found.
I do not understand anyone not considering "posibilities" which do not justify their own positions.
I genuinely feel strongly in my position of who I think is primarily responsible for JBR's death, but I still entertain all 'possibilities' which could indeed prove me wrong. I recently posted here that I think JBR's undies could have 'possibly been contaminated' by 'innocent' transfer fibers from JR's sweater, which would, if proven correct, exclude that particular 'evidence' against JR in my own long list facts pertaining to this case.
In the words of Super Dave... 'keep an open mind...'
Stubborn, 'brick walled' attitudes rarely solve cases, IMO, and they sure are giving me a headache. (I think I'll take some advil, now.)