OK that's fine, I appreciate your comment. I will try to explain what I think in more detail. To start with James Kolar is a detective, there is no evidence that he has even a basic grasp of DNA analysis. I wonder if he even finished secondary school science when I read the comments he makes. I think rather he has talked to other people about DNA. I know he has talked to Gregg La Berge an expert who worked on the DNA and is extremely knowledgable about both DNA and the case itself having been the one who determined the 2003 profile. But it seems to me Kolar really didn't understand what La Berge told him. Listen to Kolar in this interview talking about DNA, start from about 7 minutes in to 11 minutes. He can hardly assemble a coherent sentence around the subject - http://thegenerationwhypodcast.com/podcast/james-kolar-43-generation-why.
Then there is Henry Lee and the scientists quoted by Brennan. While I would agree are experts wrt DNA, I think there is good reason not to take everything they say as gospel about the case
Henry Lee who I think is very smart but loves media attention and will always offer some comment when asked that people interpret in their various ways. But I don't believe I have ever heard a comment from him that denounces the DNA outright, even in that recent Clemente and Richards documentary you will notice that he doesn't ever say the DNA is rubbish despite heavy editing that tries to make it look as though he does. If you disagree with me please find any relevant quotes from him and I'd be happy to discuss further.
Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centre is quoted by Brennan as saying -
"looking at the profiles in this case, it seems pretty clear that their idea of this 'unknown male' — this could easily be a composite profile. Meaning that we have multiple contributors. But because of the low sensitivity of the kit, they interpreted those multiple contributors as being just one extra person."
"If there was this unknown male DNA on the underwear, you would expect that Bode would have been able to reproduce that. Now, are there any possible explanations why they would not be? Sure."
You have to wonder what Danielson is talking about here, not that he is talking nonsense but which piece of evidence is he referring to? The panties DNA or the long johns DNA? I can't tell.
If he is talking about the panties DNA, well we know that the panties DNA was composite DNA but it was a composite of only 2 people and one of them was JonBenet, whose individual profile was able to be determined by analysing her own blood sample. So, simplified a bit, once the scientists have identified her 20 alleles from her blood sample, they can go back and look at the composite DNA mixture from the panties, deduct her alleles from from the 40 alleles in the mixture and the 20 alleles that are left are, by deduction those from the unknown male. That is a perfectly acceptable way of determining a profile for entry into CODIS and that is how it was done in this case.
If he is talking about the long johns DNA, we have been told that it is a composite of 3 or more males, and that is not a problem because that DNA has never been entered into or tried to be entered into CODIS.
The thing is, I can't really understand what his point is, it's as though is being misquoted or probably more likely he had been told that it is on the basis of the composite profile in the long johns DNA that people claiming to have identified the profile of the 'unknown male'. But that is not what they are claiming at all.
As for Danielson's comment about reproducibilty, it is highly unlikely there was any panties blood stain material left after the 1997 testing first by CBI, then by Cellmark and the 1998 and 2003 testing by Denver Police Forensics. But I don't suppose Brennan went to the trouble of explaining that to him
I don't think I've covered all the experts but this post is getting too long. But what I think has happened with Danielson and the others is that they have not been told the complete picture, that is they has been presented with only some of the evidence in order to get a comment that favours what the presenters of the evidence want i.e. a comment that supports their view. In my time watching this case I have seen what appears to me to be a lot of instances of this and by both sides I should add, although mainly from the RDI side. It really is highly dishonest when journalists do it but when investigators do it, it's far worse than that