Cleared on DNA
 

Here's something interesting. This was on Tracey's documentary. The camera panned a case document and it discussed who had been cleared if the foreign DNA was from a single person.

There were three names blacked out and I think they were Fleet White, Priscilla White and Mervin Pugh. The third was wasn't blacked out as effectively as the other two and I'm 99% certain it's Mervin Pugh.

Check these out. I have made a double graphic for each - one showing the blacked out portion and one showing how the names fit. I made the names in negative so that they stand out against the blacking out. I have lowered the names slightly because you can see the tops of the letters and how they match.

http://people.delphiforums.com/Jayel...rvin%20DNA.jpg

Note the position of the comma after Fleet White. It delineates the end of the first person's name.

[IMG]http://people.delphiforums.com/Jayel...illa%20DNA.jpg[/IMG]

100%
 

I think youre dead on Jayelles!!

Nice work Jayelles. I wonder who's hiding what, and for what reason.

My guess
 

Is that these names have been blacked because Tracey is only interested in showing that the Ramseys were cleared. Perhaps there was a thought that these people might not like it known that they were investigated or considered serious enough suspects to have their DNA tested?

OTOH, a cynic might consider that as long as its not officially known that folks like the Whites and old Merv were also cleared, there will always be people who will suspect them - hold them up as viable suspects. It keeps the waters muddy if you like. Remember too that the RST mantra is that the police only focused on the Ramseys when clearly they WERE testing other suspects at a very early stage .....

It's like I heard on one of the morning shows a couple of weeks ago. A prominent defense lawyer was being interviewed regarding the Peterson case, and he said that the defense's best defense is to always cry that the police too quickly zoomed in on family, or whoever is on trial. He said that is now common and the best "defense". It worked so well with OJ, that they are all using it now. I see the Ramsey case as doing this, a la Haddon's strategy from the very beginning.

IMO

In the real world, the police are rewarded for years of experience and are commended when they focus on the person/s that they feel are responsible and prove it. That's what all the "experience" is for. Seasoned police investigators know what they are looking for, know what is hinky and what is suspicious from ALL THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

In today's society, the police are now condemned for looking in the right place right away. This is not to say that other areas should not be explored or that the focus of an investigation should be exclusive, but what is wrong with the police getting it right the first time and not wasting the taxpayer's money by chasing leads that are bogus? How much money was wasted on frozen underwear or whatever was sent in on the Ramsey case?

When legitimate leads have been followed, and it leads LE back to their original suspect/s, it is a GOOD thing.

Despite what the RST and other defense lawyers like to spew, the police in the VAST majority of crimes, do NOT want to convict the wrong person. In real life, the VAST majority of LE are hard working, dedicated people who want to find the right perpetrator. They do NOT find a suspect and force the evidence to fit.

Our LE in this country gets way too many black eyes by the likes of the RST, Lin Wood and others like him.

This "rush to judgement" catch all phrase is terribly abused.

Again, just because there may be a teeny speck of some "unidentified" DNA in JonBenet's underwear does NOT equate to it belonging to some "intruder" that killed JonBenet!!
You MUST look at the total picture and ALL evidence and circumstances in this case to evalutate whether or not this speck of DNA is related to the crime!!!
It drives me crazy all this attention and focus just because it is "DNA."
Like Dr. Henry Lee said - "This is NOT a DNA case."

Were there some strange intruder that killed JonBenet and lingered in that house "for hours" as the Ramseys claim - his DNA would be EVERYWHERE.
It is not.
Get a clue!! This is nothing but a distraction concocted by the RST.

Angel,

I agree the DNA has nothing to do with an intruder, because the Ramseys would not lie and cover up for an intruder. However, it IS foreign male DNA on JonBenet. It has to be fully investigated.

My guess is the foreign male DNA is either from Burke (they've never released Burke's DNA analysis) or from a male friend Burke let into the house that night or a male the parents invited in as an overnight guest.

JMO

Barbara
 

I agree. It's no longer politically correct to be in LE.

IMO

Burke's DNA
 

Burke's DNA analysis has never been released.

I'd like to expound on my comment about the DNA in JonBenet's underwear possibly being Burke's. The DNA elimination of "male Ramseys" could technically NOT include Burke Ramsey, despite tricky wording by the Boulder authorities to make it appear just the opposite.

Some people say all Ramsey males have been excluded as the possible contributor of the degraded DNA in JonBenet's panties. But if the DNA extraction had used the mitochondrial (mtDNA) method, then Burke would technically be a "male Paugh", and not a "male Ramsey".

The mtDNA method is from the mother's ancestral line only, and is used when only small or degraded samples are available, such as the DNA sample in JonBenet's panties. The mtDNA method would exclude John B. Ramsey and John Andrew Ramsey (who is not Patsy's child) as possible contributors, but would not exclude Burke as a possible contributor.

So by saying all "male Ramseys" have been excluded, it would techically not include Burke if the mitochondrial method of DNA extraction had been used. Burke would be a "male Paugh" so to speak.

If Boulder authorities used trick wording such as this to try to exclude Burke as the contributor of the DNA in JonBenet's panties, it would fall in line with some of the other tricks used, such as the fraudulent affidavit signed by Alex Hunter trying to make it appear that Burke had been cleared when he has never been cleared.

It would also fit with Mark Fuhrman's off-the-cuff comment on nation-wide T.V., and tacitly approved by Dr. Michael Baden on the same show, that the DNA "has Ramsey family markers".

By using trickery to shield Burke from suspicion only adds to the likelihood that Burke killed JonBenet or is deeply involved and therefore knows who killed her.

JMO

Au contraire my friend. Here is the result of Burke's DNA analysis showing that he has been cleared:-

http://people.delphiforums.com/JAYEL...r%20upload.jpg

An unidentified "case document" was flashed on the screen during a Tracey documentary on the Ramseys, the purpose of which was to make the Ramseys look innocent, which read:

" The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey. If the minor component from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M were contributed by a single individual, then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, Fleet White, Patricia White and Mervin Pugh would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits."

Several comments:

1. Being a Tracey documentary with a goal of favoring the Ramseys, the authenticity of the "case document", conveniently flashed on the screen, is certainly in question.

2. Even if the document is legitimate, the people excuded as a possible contributor of the DNA are dependant on the minor component coming from a single individual; otherwise they are not excluded.

3. Why isn't Douglas Stine not listed as excluded? His DNA was analyzed.

4. If the mitochondrial method of DNA extraction was used (which uses only the mother's ancestral line), then Burke Ramsey could be deceptively but nevertheless technically excluded as a male Ramsey contributor because technically he is a Paugh.

JMO

Got to give you 10/10 for trying Bluecrab.

I will say that this does appear to be the Cellmark document that ST quotes from in his book. I think it is almost certainly authentic.

Good question. Could his name be one of the blacked-out names?

I will check the possibility.

Spacing
 

The font used in the lab report has a set # of picas for ech letter. That means that each letter is the same width.

The space allowed for the names (including space betwen the names, is as follows:-

1st name = 11 (10 characters + space between the names)
2nd name = 15 (14 charcters + space)
3rd name = 11 (10 characters + space)

Fleet White = 5 + 1 + 5 = 11
Priscilla White = 9 + 1 + 5 = 15 (I think she is the only one who fits #2)
Mervin Pugh = 6 + 1 + 4 = 11
Douglas Stine = 7 + 1 + 5 = 13 so he doesn't fit any of them. The question is, was he one of the people tested in the first batch of tests?

Assuming the documents are legitimate, for the time being this means Douglas Stine cannot be excluded as the donor of the DNA found on JonBenet's panties, unless another document emerges that says he has been excluded.

JMO

OR ...

That he wasn't considered such a serious suspect as to require his DNA be tested at an early stage in the investigation :eek:

In either event, Michael Tracey has his tit caught in the wringer, and I for one am not going to help him get it out. He flashed on purpose that part of the DNA report that showed the Ramseys were excluded as the contributors of the DNA in JonBenet's panties, so now he has to flash to the public that part of the report that shows Doug Stine has been excluded.

Glen and Susan Stine's bizarre behaviors following the murder of JonBenet sent up a red flag in regard to Doug. The Stine's behaviors coupled with the Ramsey's behaviors suggest a conspiracy to shield the two boys.

Unless Tracey or someone else reveals the rest of the DNA report showing that Doug Stine has been excluded, then Doug Stine becomes the prime suspect as the fifth person in the house that night and the contributor of the DNA in JonBenet's panties -- and therefore the likely killer.

JMO

We have no info that Doug was ever considered a suspect OR had his DNA tested. Given the BPD's blindness toward Burke as a suspect, I doubt either ever happened.

It's in DOI, but I can't come up with the page number off-hand. As I recall, Patsy described a police officer coming to the door at the Stine's house and swabbing Doug's mouth for DNA.

JMO

Okay, here it is. Doug Stine's DNA sample was obtained by the cops. Death of Innocence, hb, pg 232:

"Our concern deepened when we saw what happened when the police showed up at the Stines' home. Once the detective had taken a swab sample from Doug Stine's mouth, the officer discovered that he had forgotten to bring any sort of container for carrying the sample back with him to the police department."

(A little bit of misinformation thrown in there by Susan Stine -- the detective didn't forget anything. DNA swabs are to be hand-held and air-dried before putting them into their containers.)

JMO

Hunter: "You'd be surprised if you knew who we were investigating now."

I wouldn't be surprised. It was likely Doug Stine. Hunter made his statement shortly after I wrote to the governor stating that, IMO, there were two juveniles involved in this crime and there was a good chance that Burke Ramsey is the sole witness to the murder of JonBenet, and therefore his life could be in danger.

In that Doug Stine's DNA, at least from what we know to date, apparently cannot be excluded as contributing to the foreign male DNA in JonBenet's panties, I'm convinced more than ever that Hunter was referring to Doug Stine.

JMO