Or her kids '.<| sep |> Farewell , dear rgifscomments 5 enggthello ! You were submitted by uismokejonny to rgifs and you were taken away from us way too early . You achieved a lot in your life . The 659 score will always be remembered . Your 7 comments will miss you dearly . Rest In Peace . Please note that this bot has nothing to do with the deletion of your post . It just detects successful posts that were deleted . <| sep |> The people complaining about the updates aren ' t voting for the test of time award . <| sep |> Why not 11 Sept . Nothing much ever happened then . <| sep |> They can ' t just say oh this clothing has some unknown DNA on it from some unknown source . That must be the murderer . Well actually , I think they can say that , not about the long johns of course , but definitely about the panties bloodspot DNA . I say this because , in spite of what most people seem to think , the panties bloodspot DNA was not ' Touch ' DNA i . e . deposited in the form of skin cells by someone handling the panties . In addition to this , amylase testing that was performed on the panties showed heavy deposits of saliva only in the 2 areas of the panties that contained the 2 bloodspots and nowhere else on the panties . The autopsy evidence indicates that the bloodspots were of blood that fell onto the panties from the vaginal wound and DNA evidence proves that it was , in fact JonBenet ' s blood . Given that the amylase testing showed no other areas of heavy saliva deposits besides the bloodspot areas it not only rules out the ' Asian sneeze ' theory it becomes most reasonable to conclude that the saliva was deposited in or close to the opening of JonBenet ' s vagina . There can be no innocent explanation for the presence of that saliva . It was either the murderer or at the very least , someone present at the murder .