why docg of solvingjonbenet is wrong

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.

• "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."

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?