Flip, as in flipping the two headed coin that the DA used to decide what to do with lab report.
Heads its an intruder, tails its a mix. Well, what do you know; it came up heads.
The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey.
If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.
1. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the underwear. As per the lab report, yes
2. There was a mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns. They both contacted the long johns. JBR's, PR's, and JR's skin cells would be present. JR grabbed JBR by the waist. The longjohns didn't necessarily have to reach that high at that time. That JR contacted the longjohns is an assumption on your part, stated as fact.
3. JR and PR were both involved in murder. I believe that is not in serious dispute. Yes it is. RDI believes there was NO MURDER.
4. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA looks like unknown male DNA. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add.
5. A mix of JR DNA and PR DNA was mistaken for unknown male DNA by 2 independent labs. No, the lab report gives two possibilities; the DA chose the one that would keep them on the Ramsey payroll. Bode simply looked for and found the CODIS profile. Are you accusing the DA's office of a crime? Or is 'on the payroll' just a figure of speech?
6. A profile of a nonexistent person was provided to CODIS. As per the lab report. you will have to contact them to plead your case. I will? You're the one contesting the results, not me. You're the ONLY one, I might add.
8. The mix of JR DNA and PR DNA on the longjohns was identical to the mix in CODIS. The lab report makes this a possibility, like it or not.
9. The DNA in the underwear and on the longjohns are both skin cell DNA. No evidence whatsoever that it is not. (Presumptive tests for saliva have been around for a long time.) Aha! Your premise involves the assumption that both are skin cell DNA. Just as I suspected. Your argument is based on assumption not fact, that is the lab could simply blow it away in a word. Unless you wish to modify your theory that they mixed saliva with skin and came up with the same DNA match, you've no idea that this mix theory is even a remote possibility.
10. Bode touch DNA has no more markers than CODIS DNA. As I said before, it is hardly likely if they had more that it would not be announced. I doubt ML would have been able to control herself. More assumptions. I'd say the reverse is more likely, based on the strength and wording of the exhoneration letter.