Kolars book makes it pretty clear it didnt come from a factory worker
Really?????
Please source your statements when presenting them as fact.
While Im on the subject, I still require a source for the following statement from post #70
Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigative scene, the FBI laboratory had already conducted random DNA tests on underwear purchased off the shelf. They determined that DNA samples could be obtained from new, unopened packages of children s underwear, suggesting the possibility that the genetic material deposited there had come from the manufacturing / packaging end of the line. I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
Under those circumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. Its presence was puzzling, but I felt that this single piece of DNA evidence had to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that had been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 272 - 273
[SNIP]
Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in off-the-shelf childrens underwear to determine if trace biological DNA samples could be obtained from brand new clothing that had been shipped from the manufacturer. He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenéts underwear.
The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear.
It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article. Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion. We talked about some other aspects of the case, and he pointed out that he was only a scientist and not familiar with the details of the investigative side of the case.
It was my understanding that the Bloomies brand of underwear, worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body, was manufactured and produced in Taiwan, making it entirely possible that this article of clothing was produced in a garment sweatshop. Sweatshops have historically employed child labor, and as there is currently no scientific method available that allows us to determine the age of a contributor, I had thought it feasible that the unknown forensic sample of male DNA found in JonBenéts underwear could belong to a Taiwanese boy. Furthermore, there is no scientific method to determine when a biological specimen was placed at the scene of a crime.
Under those circumstances, I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 - 305
....
