>NOWHERE did I say that I doubted they could link DNA-x to
>the crime. I said it WOULD point to an intruder IF it was
>found at the crime scene AND matched the markers from the
>other DNA found in her underwear and under her fingernails.
>We don't know where it was found or whether it matched the
>other DNA, but it would be an indisputable fact pointing to
>an intruder if it did.
>
>This is the fourth time in two months (three times in the
>last two weeks) that you have misquoted me and attacked me
>on the misquote.

OK. If DNA-x doesn't match a Ramsey and if the markers which are present in the degraded DNA in her underwear and under her fingernails MATCHES the corresponding markers on DNA-x, then I would say there is no doubt that an intruder killed JonBenet.

PROVIDED that the source for DNA-x was crime scene related - i.e. that it wasn't on a loo seat or something where it could have been deposited innocently and transferred via contact.

Is this a FACT? Well we don't know unfortunately. We don't know anything about DNA-x except that the Ramseys' DNA was compared to it along with some other folkses.

Indisputable fact counter = 0
Maybe fact counter = 1

Seems to me that you are not looking for evidence but for a way to discount what points to an intruder. Say what you want, I believe I read it all right - especially when taken in context with everything else you write.