why docg of solvingjonbenet is an idiot

View previous topic View next topic Go down

why docg of solvingjonbenet is an idiot

Post by redpill on Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:53 pm

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-touch-dna.html


In sum, the DNA evidence -- all of it -- means nothing. A real intruder would have left all sorts of signs of his presence, including gobs of DNA (unless he was wearing gloves), and a real intruder, as I've already argued, would not have done all the things this intruder is supposed to have done. This DNA, like all the other "intruder evidence," is simply one more red herring to be added to all the rest in a long long story of obfuscation, delusion and denial.

that's not what Mark Beckner said

• "The suspect is the donator of that unknown DNA, and until you can prove otherwise, I think that's the way you've got to look at it."

please tell us what a real "intruder" would do ?

"obfuscation, delusion and denial" do tell.
docG wrote:
with the intruder theory that have never been explained: why would a kidnapper leave the body in the house; why would he go to the trouble of hiding it in a remote basement room; and why if he had no way of removing the body, would he leave a note behind even when it no longer could serve any purpose? Also, how did he get in and out, and why wasn't there more evidence of his presence than just some odd snippets of DNA?

why not? maybe kidnapping wasn't his intention or he changed his mind? why not leave a note behind? maybe he thinks its funny?

as for more evidence are you aware there is evidence in the form of multiple forms of unsourced fiber, hair, cord, tape, shoeprint, ligature?

please tell us what a real "intruder" would do ?

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum