08-31-2006, 09:25 AM #1
Serious DNA discussion
I've been lurking here for a few weeks, and have found your discussions enlightening.
However, out of all the theories and evidence discussed, I have found one subject seriously discounted- and that is the DNA evidence.
From what I have read, many of you think the DNA in the panties could come from a factory worker who sneezed- a very plausible explanation. Except for the fact that the panty DNA MATCHED the DNA under her fingernails.
Therefore, it doesn't really make sense that the DNA sample is weak, tainted, or otherwise unusable, because they had enough to match it. It also doesn't make sense that the panty DNA came from a sneeze at the factory- because how would it end up under her nails?
I suppose it is possible that the Ramsey's knew the killer, or knew information about the crime. However, I believe the evidence speaks for itself as to who assaulted/killed her. It wasn't them.
Please feel free to refute.
08-31-2006, 09:28 AM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
i have often wondered if under her fingers and the panties matched. did not know it did - changed my thoughts somewhat.
how did someone commit the perfect crime and leave virtually not a trace - not a hair, fiber, nothing. so very very stranger
08-31-2006, 09:34 AM #3
The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails has not been matched to the DNA in her underwear. That was reported by Ramsey-hired PIs, and no one other than someone in the RST has ever reported that there was a match. They also reported that the DNA came from a Caucasian male, and DNA tests cannot confirm race. You've been lied to.
The fingernail DNA was compromised because the coroner's office did not use a sterile set of clippers for each nail. They were even known to use the same set of clippers on more than one body.
The underwear DNA was fragmented and degraded and has only ten of the thirteen markers but it was entered into the DNA databank anyway.
The underwear JonBenet was wearing that the DNA was obtained from were brand new, unwashed, fresh out of the package Bloomie's underwear. Dr. Henry Lee obtained a package of the same kind of underwear, and guess what? He found DNA on the brand new, unwashed, fresh out of the package underwear.
Let me ask you this: if the foreign DNA and JonBenet's DNA were deposited in her underwear at the same time, why is her DNA fresh and complete and the foreign DNA isn't?
ETA: Welcome!Where is Trenton Duckett?
08-31-2006, 09:35 AM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Southern Cal
I had asked this question on another thread and was told no they didn't match.
Like Kelly said, this has changed some things for me.
08-31-2006, 09:41 AM #5Former Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
"Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person."
That's one tricky factory worker, that can get his/her DNA in JBR's fingernails and mix it up in her blood stain!
08-31-2006, 10:00 AM #6
Do you have any links/further info. as to what reports state the DNA doesn't match? Is that on the autopsy report, etc.?
Thanks for the welcome.
08-31-2006, 10:06 AM #7Registered User
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
08-31-2006, 11:46 AM #8Originally Posted by rashomon
I have also been reading on WS infrequently for a long while, until just recently when the News that JonBenet's killer had possibly been found.
For the past two weeks, I have accessed the site to read here several times a day.
I am very interested in the DNA found on JB's body and would like to ask if anyone can provide a link to a credible source stating the DNA under JB's fingernails and the DNA found on her panties were not a match?
I ask this because every source of information I have been privy to, states the DNA from both the nails and panties did indeed match.
Nuisanceposter, I appreciate the information you provided, but can you perhaps provide a link to the source of your information?
Last edited by magnolia; 08-31-2006 at 01:36 PM.
08-31-2006, 11:57 AM #9Registered User
Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
When I have previously referred to ten years of smoke and mirrors and angry lawyer outburts, I was referring to the Ramseys' attempts to create a self-serving mythology supported by rumor, to perpetuate the myth of the Intruder.
It seems that no matter how many times you point out the weakness of the case DNA, people keep going around in circles and saying the same things over and over.
Yes, it was worth testing Karr against the limited DNA sample because of the extent of the idiot's claimed physical contact with JBR, but in every other way, it is unlikely to ever be a factor in the future.
It may not be completely useless, but it cannot ever be considered definitive.
08-31-2006, 12:21 PM #10
There is NO way the DNA from the panties could have been matched to that found under her fingernails. I reported this years ago when this statement first came out, it had me convinced there had to have been an intruder. Fact is the DNA under her nails was contaminated and the DNA found in her panties was degraded. They do not have a complete set of markers to clearly identify it. Even IF John Mark Karr had been the killer, he would only have been one possibility of many to match that DNA. At this point the DNA can only be used to “exclude” a suspect, not “identify” one. If you only have partial DNA you can only partially match it.
08-31-2006, 12:24 PM #11Registered User
Originally Posted by Nedthan Johns
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
You have nailed it completely.
08-31-2006, 12:34 PM #12Originally Posted by magnolia
What was found in the investigation
DNA evidence from the JonBenet Ramsey murder:
• DNA from under her fingernails, poor quality.
• Foreign male DNA recovered from a spot of her blood in her panties, of only moderate quality.
• Foreign male DNA recovered from another spot of her blood in her underwear, with 10 genetic markers and considered of significant value. This DNA has not been tied to anyone in the Ramsey family.
Again, here's mention of both, but no mention of it matching:
After JonBenet's father, John Ramsey, found her body in the family's basement on Dec. 26, 1996, police collected DNA from blood spots in her underwear and from under her fingernails.
Investigators have said that some of the DNA was too degraded to use as evidence, but that some was of sufficient quality to submit to the FBI in 2003. The sample did not match any of the 1.5 million samples in the agency's database at the time, according to the Ramsey family attorney.
The DNA too degraded to use is the contaminated fingernail DNA. No one other than RST has ever said that the fingernail and underwear are a match to each other. I'll keep looking - I'm pretty sure I read an article that had someone specifically stating they did not match.Where is Trenton Duckett?
08-31-2006, 12:35 PM #13
08-31-2006, 12:41 PM #14
The truth about the DNA
To make this more understandable. There has been reports that the DNA belongs to a white Caucasian male. I don’t know if this has been confirmed or not. You can’t believe anything Lin Wood says because he is a defense lawyer and it’s his job to put a spin on everything to keep the focus off his clients and I think he is the only one I have heard say this. Let’s say John Mark Karr matched 10 of the 10 known markers there are still more unknown markers. Go here for a better explanation:
Each marker has it own genetic makeup that tells us a little more about the person it belongs to. So each time a marker is identified, it narrows down the search.
For instance, lets say John Karr’s DNA was:
A, d, d, e, c, k, k, p, r, s, w, w, t
And the DNA on the panties is:
A, d, d, e, c, k, k, p, r, s…… but we don’t have the rest to make a complete match, therefore John Karr would be a viable suspect, but it only narrows it down, because if the DNA in the panties complete genetic marker was known it could be:
A, d, d, e, c, k, k, p, r, s, m, r, k therefore that would completely rule out that John Karr was involved.
So we don’t even know if any of the markers matched for certain from that found under her nails to that found in her panties. We don’t know for sure if the genetic makeup or race marker was identified in this case. Lin Wood says so, but that doesn’t make it true. And the only thing that the two could have in common, is that they are both from a Caucasian male and that is what Lin Wood is basing his fact on that they are one and the same. Truth is they CAN’T be one and the same when we don’t have a complete profile from the panties to compare it to.
Hope that explains it.
08-31-2006, 12:53 PM #15
Jolynna: Thanks for that link.
Wood said the DNA from the underwear was commingled with a spot of blood, making any theory of point-of-manufacture contamination "nonsensical." He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails
So there you have it. Lin Wood puts a spin on it by saying there are a half-dozen genetic markers in common, but as you now know that really means nothing. It only narrows down the search from 1-2 million people to 20-30 thousand people. That’s Lin Wood’s job. It takes more than just a dozen markers to clearly identify it. i.e. There are hundreds of thousands of people whose markers match the known markers in this case. What the DA’s office it trying to do is fiddle with finding this pretend intruder by looking for known pedophiles and nuts like John Mark Karr and then trying to match those known markers so they can so, “look he is a partial match.” Then they would need to put him in Boulder at the time of the killing, etc. The DNA will never be a slam dunk in this case, because it’s degraded. Unlike in the OJ case where you have his DNA completely identified all over the place. Go figure. Think about it. In that case you had blood everywhere and there is OJ’s DNA at the crime scene found hours later. It was exposed to outside elements, was in the sun, mixed with Nicole’s blood, etc. yet they were able to clearly identify it. In the Ramsey case it’s so degraded they can only get a partial read, yet the child was in a windowless room, and covered. What made it degrade so quickly had it been deposited the day of the crime?