Per the DA, the newly tested DNA was collected from three places on her underwear & her longjohns & matched the DNA previously found under her fingernails; all four samples were of the same unidentified male. You're not claiming the chinese factory worker who packed her underwear also conveniently happened to pack her longjohns from another label? How'd it also get under nails for pete's sake?
From a CNN report today:
Late last year, Lacy ordered a test using new methodology known as "touch" testing on genetic material found on a pair of long johns that had been pulled up over the girl's underwear. That material matched DNA that was found on the girl's underwear and under her fingernails in a test conducted in 1998. The DNA belongs to an unidentified man, Lacy said.
And . . . ? So where's the new evidence that clears the Ramseys? There's nothing that tells us anything new here. Just a screw-up Boulder DA who's been in the tank for the Ramsays all along and wants all this behind her.
Lacey is a joke in Colorado, and everyone from prosecutors to forensic scientists are calling her press conference at best "unprecedented" and at worst a "travesty."
Where has common sense gone? How does this "touch" DNA, which could easily be transfered from person to object and onto yet another person clear the Ramseys? How does it explain, for instance, the ransom note?
Let's look at that note. First, some stranger supposedly breaks into the house (through a broken window too small for an adult and not found to be broken on first examination), finds JonBenet's room in the rabbit warren that was that house, and kills her.
Second, rather than running, the killer then sits down to write a draft of a ransom note and then the full 2 1/2 page ransom note. He murders her then sits in the house, with the family supposedly asleep, writing a ransom note he knows he can't collect on.
Third, the note said that the kidnapper was watching the house and if the Ramsays so much as spoke to a "dog," let alone called the police, Jon Benet would be "beheaded." So what do they do? They call two sets of neighbors, their pastor, then the police. And police cars park right out front. Hmm, doesn't seem the note bothered the Ramsays much, does it?
Here's more for you. Why was Patsy Ramsay wearing, at 5:30 a.m. the same thing she wore at the party the night before and why had she applied new makeup over her old? She claimed she undressed and went to bed. And why did the Ramsays lie about Burke being awake at the time? Why did they lie about something as seemingly simple as Jon Benet going directly to bed after the party (they said she did -- she didn't). Why were the batteries in the flashlight that smashed her skull wiped clean?
Not enough? Okay, why did Patsy's mother say the handwriting on the ransom note looked like Patsy's? Why did the CBI call it an 82% match? How did the mysterious intruder know where to find Patsy's paintbrush?
I remember watching Polly Klass's father being interviewed on TV after his daughter's death. The police at first suspected him, and he basically said "Have at me." He told them to ask anything, to shove a camera up his **s if they had to. To this day he's suspicious of parents of murdered children who evade police questions, let alone outright friggin lie. It's not normal, he says. And again, common sense tells you that.
The point is that there is no new evidence sufficient to clear anyone, and there's plenty of evidence pointing at the Ramsays. If you want to be lead around the nose by the mainstream media (which knows virtually nothing about this case), fine. Not me.