I am not familiar with touch DNA. But it stands to reason that since the child had been out riding her bike with her friends, DNA from her friends' hands (from the handlebars) could have been transferred from her hands to her leggings and underwear when she used the bathroom.<quoted text>Sorry, LE, but that's not correct. DNA was found underneath her nails and mixed with her blood in her panties, and this DNA matched what was found on her pants.
Also, most young children hold the toilet seat when they are on the commode. If someone had sneezed and sat on that seat could DNA have been transferred when Jonbenet wiped (back to front)and touched the crotch of her underwear? Or even if her underwear touched the edge of the toilet bowl where droplets of spray from a sneeze was deposited? Then touch DNA from skin cells could have been transferred from her hands when she tugged to pull her underwear and leggings up. Just in the places a pedophile would have tugged to pull them down.
No matter what solutions they come up with where DNA is considered--they cannot dismiss the ransom note. It was too familiar and personal to be something a stranger would think to write. And since all the friends' and helps' DNA was collected, one should look for a rational, logical means by which the DNA could have been deposited besides that of a kidnapper turned pedophile/murderer who camped out in the home, and attempted to frame Patsy for the murder by using her pen and paper and the phrase "and hence" in the ransom note. If there was an intruder, he was one crafty, brazen individual.