Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BluH2o

Evidently. They found dna in her underwear. It was not sexual dna, so it could have been left by sneezing, drooling, etc. It matches the dna of the suspect.


153 posted on 08/16/2006 5:39:32 PM PDT by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]


To: MizSterious

"t was not sexual dna, so it could have been left by sneezing, drooling, etc. It matches the dna of the suspect."

It makes me think of all the weird pervs stealing panties, that I've read about over the years. They liked to smell of them, as I recall. Disgusting, I know, but that sort of behavior might shed some light on this, too.


159 posted on 08/16/2006 5:42:38 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

To: MizSterious
It matches the dna of the suspect.

Not according to FOX News this evening ... they don't have conclusive DNA evidence.
You, like many others, are jumping the gun.

164 posted on 08/16/2006 5:46:24 PM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson