As you say,A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives. Therefore, I am correct in my assessment of Kolars DNA argument:
On page 426 of his book Kolar writes,If I understand the DNA evidence correctly, I would propose that this trace evidence could be interpreted in either of two ways.
The first of his two ways is to say that the intruder theory must be expanded to incorporate the existence of six perpetrators His second way is to legitimately argue that the numerous unidentified DNA samples collected in this case are explainable, and that their origin has nothing to do whatsoever with the death of Jonbenet.
These two positions are extreme positions and there is a range in between them that Kolar ignores either purposefully or out of ignorance.
As for Laceys reasoning regarding ALL the unidentified DNA, I have no comment. I dont know her reasoning and Im not much of a supporter of hers. I can only tell you my reasoning it ALL represents (because of locations found!) potential suspects who must be identified and investigated. Although I do not know how Lacey views all the DNA, I do know from her letter that the DNA was only one aspect of her exoneration of the Ramseys. And, please, lets not argue over the exoneration, I dont think its a meaningful document or worth much as far as further investigation or any possible indictment, etc. goes.
Also, I am not presenting a false dichotomy when I say that they Ramseys would have walked had there been a trial. A dichotomy presents two usually extreme (opposite) options, I am only stating one: they would have walked. Of course, I could be wrong; right?
I admire, what I perceive to be in you, an effort at being open minded. However, if science has advanced to the point where we're going to scrape around on victim's clothing for stray DNA, then, we must not let this unknown DNA (which is clinging to all of us) to override the abundance of other evidence which points in a different direction.
It has been pointed out, in various articles presented heretofore, that, when dealing with trace DNA evidence and amplification, etc., a good amount of subjectivity enters into the equation. How do we know if Bode did not interject subjectivity into it's opinion that this scraped DNA sample really matched the amplified DNA in JBR's panties? We don't. Mary Lacy, for whatever reason, was hellbent on an intruder. I, for one, am not going to be sidetracked by an amplified source of panty DNA being matched to a DNA source found by scraping around on clothing 15 years after the crime. The other evidence, overwhelmingly, points to parental cover-up.