So, touch or trace DNA is basically next to useless, because of how it transfers and innocent explanations for it's whereabouts, especially when quantity comes into play. On rare occasions it may be of use - like I heard on one podcast someone said an assailant shoves a man on the chest and his complete DNA profile was found and it put him at the scene when he claimed he wasn't there and it was an in public, stranger on stranger crime. So it was applied via skin touching a surface but was not "trace" dna per se and there was no reasonable explanation for it being there except he applied it via the shove. This is obviously a very different scenario from what was found on JonBenet. So now when I consider the fibre evidence for JonBenet I wonder if we run into similar problems. Like the entwined fibre in the cord. I hug Patsy goodnight in her red jacket and then I go get the cord and put it under my arm as I trot off down to the basement. Patsy's fibres are on my sleeve, and then they are on the cord, and then they are entwined in the knot. The jacket was worn by someone in the house the same day the knot was tied, many transfers could occur. Then I just red that fibres were vacuumed from JonBenet's bed. How is contamination prevented in this scenario? A new vacuum for every evidence bag? How do you ensure that what was vacuumed in place A doesn't get into place B's bag? I am thinking that much of the fibre evidence cannot necessarily inform my opinion on what occurred that night. Your thoughts?