LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-04 AT 04:21 PM (EST)
 
There are so many little things that need to be mentioned regarding all the confusion surrounding this subject. I'd like to 'collect' them under this thread.

TO CONSIDER

1. A poster or two has referred to URINE or FECES - from secondary transfer in JonBenét's travels into washrooms in the days leading up to this crime - as a possible source of the DNA. Urine is NOT a good DNA source. It is not the urine itself that will provide DNA evidence, but shed epithelial cells IN the urine that might give (weak) forensic hope. A 'drop' of either feces or urine under the nails would not be of much forensic value IMO.

2. The common refrain for dismissing the significance of the DNA as having forensic value has been that it was 'degraded'. Questions arise as to 'how' it could have degraded in a 12-24 hour period. We don't KNOW if it was degraded or contaminated. JonBenét's own urine may have contributed to degradation/contamination. Collection procedures may have contributed to degradation/contamination. Lab procedures may have contributed to degradation/contamination.

3. Multiple donors to the mixture found in this case has been speculated upon. Labs deal with this 'problem' all the time. Dr. Henry Lee and others have provided forensic DNA specialists with ways in which to evaluate a multiple donor mixed DNA sample. It is not an insurmountable problem at all.