Where do we start...how about this. Let's make this as simple as possible. The DNA is a red herring. It is "touch" DNA meaning it's not bits of flesh or big blood stains. What is "Touch DNA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA Remember how excited people became because the DNA in JonBenet's panties (touch DNA) had to belong to the Intruder because the panties were brand new so where else could the DNA have come from? From James Kolar's book Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet : Page 272 Even former Boulder DA Mary ( I never met a Ramsey intruder I didn't love ) Lacy had to admit that the DNA could be an artifact. She thought John Mark Karr was the killer and was just thrilled to parade him around. Of course, his DNA didn't match. So what does Mary Lacy say? She says, "The DNA might be an artifact". Even Mary Lacy is forced to admit there is a chance the DNA doesn't mean anything. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Press-Conference-About-John-Mark-Karr-8-29-06 Simply put I don't think it takes an expert to realize we all have touch DNA on use. All over us. It means nothing. It means we have come in contact with dust, air, and other people in our day to day routines. What about the DNA in the underwear matching the DNA on the long johns? Ok, easy explanation. When putting the underpants on JonBenet the underwear brushed up against the long johns. Transferred touch DNA. This is very easy to understand. There are so many members who are oodles smarter than I am. Please weigh in on the DNA. Let's put the DNA to rest once and for all. To pretend that the touch DNA is the key to solving this case you have to IGNORE the ransom note, IGNORE the pineapple and the bowl, IGNORE the Ramsey lies, IGNORE all the strange things that went on with Burke, IGNORE the beaver hair on the tape, IGNORE so many other things that they slip my mind. DNA, it can mean nothing in a criminal case.