08-15-2018, 11:39 PM
Here's one of his...
"
DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation."
He is talking about the DNA of an unknown male that was found under JonBenet's nails, on the sides of the longjohns she wore to bed that night - and the same DNA was found comingled with the blood in her panties. That blood was the result of the sexual assault that took place just before she died - it had not started to heal.
He discounts this as evidence. God save us from people like him who become detectives.
"
DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation."
He is talking about the DNA of an unknown male that was found under JonBenet's nails, on the sides of the longjohns she wore to bed that night - and the same DNA was found comingled with the blood in her panties. That blood was the result of the sexual assault that took place just before she died - it had not started to heal.
He discounts this as evidence. God save us from people like him who become detectives.