1301 users online (258 members and 1043 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 167

Dna

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    42

    Dna

    Can someone clear up for me exactly what DNA/forensic evidence was found on JB's body? I know of the touch DNA in her underwear (which I understand is a very miniscule amount that could be from the manufacturer even...), then there was the scrapings under her fingernails (did this match the sample from the underwear?) and I heard talkings of some blood? Sorry i've read some many things it's hard to keep up so I figured i'd ask the experts TIA!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Stef88 View Post
    Can someone clear up for me exactly what DNA/forensic evidence was found on JB's body? I know of the touch DNA in her underwear (which I understand is a very miniscule amount that could be from the manufacturer even...), then there was the scrapings under her fingernails (did this match the sample from the underwear?) and I heard talkings of some blood? Sorry i've read some many things it's hard to keep up so I figured i'd ask the experts TIA!
    The only blood found on JB was her own. There was evidence of blood having been wiped from her pubic area and thighs, there was blood on the forchette of the vagina and small amounts in other area of the vagina. There were a few DROPS of blood on her panties- which the coroner said did NOT correspond to the areas of blood found in the vagina (had the panties been on her during or right after the attack). This is further evidence the panties were put on after the fact- on a dead or dying JB.
    There was NO usable DNA from under her fingernails. What was found was old and degraded (meaning not from that day or night). There was NO blood or tissue found under her nails - she did NOT scratch her attacker or herself in a struggle. NO matching DNA was found under her fingernails.
    There was male DNA found inside the panties, in the area where the blood drops were. It was never stated what form this DNA was in but it WAS stated that it was not blood or semen. But NO other blood was found belonging to anyone other than JB. It could be skin cells.
    There was touch DNA (from skin cells) on the waistbands of the panties and longjohns.
    If the skin cells were on the hands of JR, it would be very possible for them to have been transferred to all three places from JR's hands- as his shirt fibers were inside her panty crotch, this is something to consider as a means of transfer for the DNA.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The only blood found on JB was her own. There was evidence of blood having been wiped from her pubic area and thighs, there was blood on the forchette of the vagina and small amounts in other area of the vagina. There were a few DROPS of blood on her panties- which the coroner said did NOT correspond to the areas of blood found in the vagina (had the panties been on her during or right after the attack). This is further evidence the panties were put on after the fact- on a dead or dying JB.
    There was NO usable DNA from under her fingernails. What was found was old and degraded (meaning not from that day or night). There was NO blood or tissue found under her nails - she did NOT scratch her attacker or herself in a struggle. NO matching DNA was found under her fingernails.
    There was male DNA found inside the panties, in the area where the blood drops were. It was never stated what form this DNA was in but it WAS stated that it was not blood or semen. But NO other blood was found belonging to anyone other than JB. It could be skin cells.
    There was touch DNA (from skin cells) on the waistbands of the panties and longjohns.
    If the skin cells were on the hands of JR, it would be very possible for them to have been transferred to all three places from JR's hands- as his shirt fibers were inside her panty crotch, this is something to consider as a means of transfer for the DNA.
    DeeDee249,
    If the skin cells were on the hands of JR, it would be very possible for them to have been transferred to all three places from JR's hands- as his shirt fibers were inside her panty crotch, this is something to consider as a means of transfer for the DNA.
    Or from his shirt? The most likely source is Patsy, she claims to have changed JonBenet into the longjohns.

    From there the touch dna may have been deposited during the autopsy, by simple transfer via gravity, the touch DNA would never ever make it into a court of law.


    .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    42
    Thanks for clearing it up! It's hard to get your head around it all! Eek! SO much info on this case to process!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    I watched a documentary where the investigator said she had scratched herself. he said there were little half moon marks around the material that had been tied around her nec, and blood under her fingernails. He claimed this would match up to the mars someone would make whilst struggling against being garrotted. The phrase he used was very sad, he said she had tried to save her own life.
    I think the documentary was called in the Uk "who killed the pageant queen"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    I watched a documentary where the investigator said she had scratched herself. he said there were little half moon marks around the material that had been tied around her nec, and blood under her fingernails. He claimed this would match up to the mars someone would make whilst struggling against being garrotted. The phrase he used was very sad, he said she had tried to save her own life.
    I think the documentary was called in the Uk "who killed the pageant queen"

    here are some crime scene photos. http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

    Here is the autopsy report. http://zyberzoom.com/JBRAutopsy.html

    As far as I know the marks are petechial hemorages, not scratches.

    DeeDee would know more than I, but I'm pretty sure the clippers used to remove material from under her fingernails were not cleaned from the previous autopsy and not cleaned between scrapings of JB, so any fingernail material is contaminated. The autopsy does not mention blood under her nails.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    here are some crime scene photos. http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

    Here is the autopsy report. http://zyberzoom.com/JBRAutopsy.html

    As far as I know the marks are petechial hemorages, not scratches.

    DeeDee would know more than I, but I'm pretty sure the clippers used to remove material from under her fingernails were not cleaned from the previous autopsy and not cleaned between scrapings of JB, so any fingernail material is contaminated. The autopsy does not mention blood under her nails.
    Further, a DNA expert I recently heard speak said he always laughed when he read about fingernail scrapings being used in trial.

    He said that fingernail scrapings deteriorate more quickly than any other type of DNA, so quickly that you essentially have to do it within an hour or two of death for it to be useful as evidence. Anything after that is pretty much unreliable...a scientifically accurate result literally is impossible to obtain.

    I will try and find the link.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    yes, also most people who have long enough fingernails to get stuff underneath them are going to have other stuff there and bac in 1996 the technology was not good at seperating out different DNA sequences. I now it is still awful, but I would be glad if it was the case that she was not struggling. It made me so sad when I head the guy say "she tried to save her own life". Whoever it was who killed her Jonbenet did not deserve such a violent, and lonely death in a basement on boxing day. This is going to sound really weird (and pelase do not lynch me), but in a way there is a part of me that thins in some ways it would be better if it was the parents, simply because as a parents I cannot imagine the horror of coming down on boxing day and finding my child like that. And I cannot imagine how much more scary for a child being trapped there with a stranger. I know thats foolish, and we should all hope that Jonbenet did at least have parents who never harmed her and loved her, but it is just the ultimate nightmare and do hard to comprehend how they must feel.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    here are some crime scene photos. http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

    Here is the autopsy report. http://zyberzoom.com/JBRAutopsy.html

    As far as I know the marks are petechial hemorages, not scratches.

    DeeDee would know more than I, but I'm pretty sure the clippers used to remove material from under her fingernails were not cleaned from the previous autopsy and not cleaned between scrapings of JB, so any fingernail material is contaminated. The autopsy does not mention blood under her nails.
    They were NOT scratches, they were petechiae. There was NO blood or tissue found under her nails, even her own.
    The clippers were contaminated - correct. The coroner ADMITTED that not only was the same pair used on all ten fingernails, but the same pair was used on other dead bodies autopsied before JB. Proper protocol requires a separate pair be used for each fingernail and of course, sterilized between bodies. This alone, on a witness stand or not, should prove to anyone with a brain that the DNA found on JB's clothing likely came from contamination at the morgue. It is one of the ways to explain why that male DNA was not found on HER (or anywhere else at the crime scene -only on her clothes- which were removed during the autopsy.
    That DNA should have been on the paint brush, the paint tote, the cord, the cord KNOT and the tape on her mouth. ALL these were touched by whoever killed her and/or staged the body.
    Needless to say, that DNA was never tested against any male corpses autopsied using those same clippers or during the time just before JB was autopsied. If the coroner was so unprofessional as to re-use unsterile clippers in a CHILD MURDER (this wasn't just a routine autopsy- this was pretty important, no?) then he very likely never changed his gloves either. Hmmm-let's see- that WAS "TOUCH DNA", wasn't it? Right....
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    yes, also most people who have long enough fingernails to get stuff underneath them are going to have other stuff there and bac in 1996 the technology was not good at seperating out different DNA sequences. I now it is still awful, but I would be glad if it was the case that she was not struggling. It made me so sad when I head the guy say "she tried to save her own life". Whoever it was who killed her Jonbenet did not deserve such a violent, and lonely death in a basement on boxing day. This is going to sound really weird (and pelase do not lynch me), but in a way there is a part of me that thins in some ways it would be better if it was the parents, simply because as a parents I cannot imagine the horror of coming down on boxing day and finding my child like that. And I cannot imagine how much more scary for a child being trapped there with a stranger. I know thats foolish, and we should all hope that Jonbenet did at least have parents who never harmed her and loved her, but it is just the ultimate nightmare and do hard to comprehend how they must feel.

    You can rest easy. It was almost certainly the parents.
    Last edited by Chrishope; 07-01-2012 at 11:30 AM.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    You can rest easy. It was almost certainly the parents.
    Do you really think so. It just seems so strange. The Pm report said Jonbenet died from garroting, not even strangulation. Someone had actually constructed a garrott to use on the child, that seems such a bizzare thing for a parent to suddenly do, so premeditated, yet according to the PM she did not have old bruises or signs or abuse or neglect. Why would a parent suddenly decided on Christmas day to duct tape their child up and then garrott them, and then hit her on the head after the garrotting. Garrotting, especially using something constructed for it, does not sound like a crime committed in a rage, just slow hatred. How could a parent suddenly do that? What happened, was she a favourite of one of them in particular and it was done in hatred of the other parent?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    Do you really think so. It just seems so strange. The Pm report said Jonbenet died from garroting, not even strangulation. Someone had actually constructed a garrott to use on the child, that seems such a bizzare thing for a parent to suddenly do, so premeditated, yet according to the PM she did not have old bruises or signs or abuse or neglect. Why would a parent suddenly decided on Christmas day to duct tape their child up and then garrott them, and then hit her on the head after the garrotting. Garrotting, especially using something constructed for it, does not sound like a crime committed in a rage, just slow hatred. How could a parent suddenly do that? What happened, was she a favourite of one of them in particular and it was done in hatred of the other parent?
    brit1981,
    Not quite, COD was asphyxiation in tandem with skull trauma. We would need the Coroner on the stand to find out his actual opinion, as to which came first or had the major impact?

    It might be more helpful to consider the garrote as staging, since it is not required to actually kill JonBenet, bare hands would suffice.

    The wine-cellar is really a place to hide JonBenet away, so to effect a kidnapping whilst her actual person represents a crime-scene that has been completely staged.

    Moving from the staged clues to crime-scene conclusions is really redundant irrespective of the pet theories employed.

    Why would a parent suddenly decided on Christmas day to duct tape their child up and then garrott them, and then hit her on the head after the garrotting.
    Because they did not want JonBenet to talk, hence no 911 call. everything was done to hide the fact that JonBenet was being sexually abused, this was the big secret, familial abuse probably on an generational scale, the R's knew they would face jail if the abuse was evident!



    .

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    Do you really think so. It just seems so strange. The Pm report said Jonbenet died from garroting, not even strangulation. Someone had actually constructed a garrott to use on the child, that seems such a bizzare thing for a parent to suddenly do, so premeditated, yet according to the PM she did not have old bruises or signs or abuse or neglect. Why would a parent suddenly decided on Christmas day to duct tape their child up and then garrott them, and then hit her on the head after the garrotting. Garrotting, especially using something constructed for it, does not sound like a crime committed in a rage, just slow hatred. How could a parent suddenly do that? What happened, was she a favourite of one of them in particular and it was done in hatred of the other parent?

    Oh yes, I definitely think so.

    The things done to JBR are strange and cruel and weird and shocking no matter who did them. No use thinking it's more/less likely to be the parents/intruder based on what was done.

    The best thing is to ask what's most likely. And as poster SuperDave says, it's the totality of the evidence, not any one piece.

    Aside from minute amounts of touch DNA on the longjohns, there is absolutely no evidence at all of an intruder. There is no other DNA anywhere that matches the touch DNA on the longjohns. No "intruder" DNA on the garrote, the RN, or any other crime scene objects. No CODIS match after all these years. In all probability the touch DNA was transferred by the crew that took the body to the morgue, or by the coroner's sloppy procedure.

    No one ever came in the basement window that night -we know because the grate was in place and the spider web was undisturbed.

    There are no intruder fingerprints.

    Everything used in the crime was sourced in the house.

    The RN is, imo, a good match for PR's handwriting and phrasing. The RN makes no sense with a dead body being found in the basement. Real kidnappers take the victim with them. Real kidnappers might kill the victim -that is not unusual - but they don't leave the body behind when the are attempting to collect ransom at a later time.

    Real ransom notes are seldom 2.5 pages in length.

    Real kidnappers do not ask for $118,000 from a millionaire.

    It's not a "kidnapping gone bad" whatever that is supposed to be. If the mysterious "intruder" got the girl out of her bed, he'd be able to get her out of the house.

    Small foreign factions do not kill 6 year old girls, stage the murder as a kidnapping, all in an effort to show their displeasure with the United States.

    The parents who are victims of a real murdering intruder would do everything they could to cooperate with police. The R's, to put it mildly, covered their asses and did not cooperate well.

    The FBI predicted that the body would be found, and CASKU said it was likely an inside job.

    That's just hitting the highlights, and not even all of them. As you continue to investigate the evidence you'll be more and more convinced the parents did it.

    IMO the probability that the parents did it is extremely high, the probability that an intruder did it is extremely low.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    Do you really think so. It just seems so strange. The Pm report said Jonbenet died from garroting, not even strangulation. Someone had actually constructed a garrott to use on the child, that seems such a bizzare thing for a parent to suddenly do, so premeditated, yet according to the PM she did not have old bruises or signs or abuse or neglect. Why would a parent suddenly decided on Christmas day to duct tape their child up and then garrott them, and then hit her on the head after the garrotting. Garrotting, especially using something constructed for it, does not sound like a crime committed in a rage, just slow hatred. How could a parent suddenly do that? What happened, was she a favourite of one of them in particular and it was done in hatred of the other parent?
    The autopsy report said it was "ligature strangulation", not garroting, and the so-called garrote was not an actual functioning garrote either. It was simply a cord tied around her neck and wound multiple times. Anyone could have tied it. The duct tape was put on her mouth after she was already dead, and meant to add to the staging of a fake kidnapping. There were OTHER family members in the home that night- not just the parents. No one suggests the parents "just decided" to do this. There was sexual assault of JB that night- proven by the autopsy (which I really wish you would read). Her death, likely caused primarily by the head bash, was not intended. She was bashed to shut her up when she screamed. (a neighbor heard the scream about midnight- the approximate time of death). After her collapse, the entire crime scene was staged to look like a kidnapping/murder, and the ransom note was written by Patsy. Please LOOK at the note, then look at Cina Wong's comparisons of the note to Patsy's handwriting. There is a thread here showing the comparisons.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The autopsy report said it was "ligature strangulation", not garroting, and the so-called garrote was not an actual functioning garrote either. It was simply a cord tied around her neck and wound multiple times. Anyone could have tied it. The duct tape was put on her mouth after she was already dead, and meant to add to the staging of a fake kidnapping. There were OTHER family members in the home that night- not just the parents. No one suggests the parents "just decided" to do this. There was sexual assault of JB that night- proven by the autopsy (which I really wish you would read). Her death, likely caused primarily by the head bash, was not intended. She was bashed to shut her up when she screamed. (a neighbor heard the scream about midnight- the approximate time of death). After her collapse, the entire crime scene was staged to look like a kidnapping/murder, and the ransom note was written by Patsy. Please LOOK at the note, then look at Cina Wong's comparisons of the note to Patsy's handwriting. There is a thread here showing the comparisons.
    Yes, please do look at Cina Wong's analysis of the handwriting, and look over the autopsy report. You can't really rely on the mass media for info, they don't really fact check and they are not really up on the details of the case. They regurgitate what they are told and that's about the extent of their "investigation".

    Her death, likely caused primarily by the head bash, was not intended. She was bashed to shut her up when she screamed. (a neighbor heard the scream about midnight- the approximate time of death).
    This is a good solid theory that fits well with the known evidence. It is however a theory, not a fact. We don't really know if the blow to the head was intended to kill or not. We don't know if she was struck to shut her up - quite possible, even quite likely, but not an absolute fact. We don't really know why she screamed. In fact, we don't know if she screamed. A neighbor heard "A" scream. We don't know, absolutely, it was JBR screaming.

    One of the problems with discussing the case is that things are presented as fact when they are theory. Good, sound, sensible theory, but still, just theory.

    The intent of the perp is difficult to deduce. I would argue that the blow to the head - an 8" skull fracture- was so severe that it was likely done in extreme anger/hostility. If the purpose was to quiet a 6 year old girl, why not place a hand over her mouth? Why not tape her mouth before death, rather than after?
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast