On Drudge now--banner headling about the Jon-Benet case,
"DNA might not match".
If so, that would prove that the accused, Karr, is not guilty.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060823/2006-08-23T213304Z_01_N16192785_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CRIME-JONBENET-DC.html
"DNA evidence, found in JonBenet's underwear and under her fingernails, is likely to prove crucial to the case.
But People Magazine on Wednesday quoted Karr as telling Thai authorities while in their custody; "The DNA might not match, but you can't trust the test." (my comment--Kart wants to be considered guilty--see below)
"But an ex-wife has said that on the night of JonBenet's murder Karr was at home with her and their children in Alabama.
"According to People, Karr dismissed the alibi, telling Thai officials: "It's normal that people in a family protect you."
(Maybe the public will get a little education about what DNA matches mean?)
I think most people have a general understanding of how DNA works, or certainly should have after all the high-profile cases that have been solved through DNA, but that may not include Durhamites.
Based on the conflicting media stories about Karr, it's difficult to know yet what drives him, but I agree with you that he wants to seem guilty. If he isn't guilty, this has to be among the most bizarre false confessions ever to occur, even when considering how deeply he wants to insinuate himself into the case. Have you heard any of the tapes of his conversation with that snitch for the Sonoma County Sheriff's office from several years ago? Blood-chilling.