I think it's not correct to say touch DNA is unreliable. It is no more or less reliable than DNA collected in any other fashion. The fact that it hasn't yet been matched is the problem.
I know that there is a form of centralised system here, where convicted criminals are DNA tested and there have been matches to DNA collected at crime scenes from unsolved cases.
We have to understand that there is an estimation of something like 90% of crimes committed by 20% of the population, so it stands to reason that convicted criminals would be responsible for many unsolved crimes.
However, there is also a large number of unsolved murders in every country and I don't think we can assume that they were all committed by serial 'criminals'. Many would have been a single instance, while others would have been committed by people who have never been under suspicion, but who have killed previously.
The latter is what I think may have happened in JBR's case. It seems incredible that so little 'evidence' has been found, but the DNA is just one indicator that yes, there was an intruder (not the parents), who murdered her. Just on this forum are people who have studied many unsolved crimes and it stands to reason that there are also criminals who have similarly set out to study how not to leave behind evidence. Having said that there are quite a few unidentified items, some may be just innocent, but others may be from the perp. Due to their nature, it may not be until after the murderer is identified (by DNA) that the evidence clicks into place. So, while I can see that the DNA is not the solving of the crime in itself necessarily, it will be a massive clue when it's source is discovered. Then the fiber, hair and other artifacts associated with the crime will become important in convincing a jury of his guilt.
We can argue the significance of the touch DNA and the presence or absence of other DNA for ever without coming to a solution. But it is no different to, say, having a photograph of someone who was seen at a crime. Unless and until that person is identified, this murder is not going to be solved.
Here is some more touch dna info:
Touch DNA doesnt require you to see anything, or any blood or semen at all. It only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of our skin.
Heres how it works: Investigators recover cells from the scene, then use a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to make lots of copies of the genes. Next, scientists mix in fluorescent compounds that attach themselves to 13 specific locations on the DNA and give a highly specific genetic portrait of that person. The whole process takes a few days, and forensic labs are often backed up analyzing data from other cases.
These 13 locations were carefully chosen because they are highly variable between people and do not give away any specific information, such as race, gender, personal health or genetic disease. The reason: authorities dont want personal health information being used for law-enforcement purposes, such as interrogations. The chance of DNA profiles from two different people having the same genetic signature is vanishingly small.
The trick to finding these cells: context. If clothing is removed from the victim, as it was in the Ramsey case, a forensic specialist could try to guess where it might have been handledperhaps the waistband of a pair of pantsand swab those areas with a Q-tip or a blade. But in cases like the JonBenet Ramsey murder, which has tripped up authorities for over a decade, it can provide information that leads to a killeror at least exonerates the innocent.
You know, the hair they found on the blanket, that was at first called a pubic hair, was found to be a frippen arm hair from Patsy. Wonder if the touch dna was mixed with Patsys touch dna and thats why they can't finc any matches.
You'll have to try much harder to convince me MF.