Serious DNA discussion

Hello All,

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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

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.

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

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! :dance:

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.

"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!

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.

Holdontoyourhat said:

"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!

Click to expand...

Read the #3 post on this thread: the DNA found in JB's underwear did not match the DNA under her fingernails.

rashomon said:

Read the #3 post on this thread: the DNA found in JB's underwear did not match the DNA under her fingernails.

Click to expand...

Hello to all:
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?
Thanks !!

Nuisanceposter said:

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! :dance:

Click to expand...

Yes, the case DNA cannot be assumed to be uniquely that of the killer.

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.

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.

Nedthan Johns said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perfectly expressed guv'nor.

You have nailed it completely.

magnolia said:

Hello to all:
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 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?
Thanks !!

Click to expand...

In this link, they mention both DNA but do not say they match:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4940501,00.html

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:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/dna-a-battleground-in-jonbenet-slaying/20060816163809990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001


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.

Here is a link to detailed info about the DNA:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1554639,00.html

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:
http://www.halcyondays.com/dna/how_many_markers.htm

http://www.clanlindsay.com/genetic_dna_glossary.htm

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.

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?

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/county_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2423_4937937,00.html

DNA may lead to dead end


By Vanessa Miller, Camera Staff Writer
August 23, 2006

DNA swiped from John Mark Karr after his arrest last week in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey murder might be irrelevant, in part because "something got screwed up" when samples were taken from the crime scene in 1996, a former investigator on the case said. Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.

Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.


"It had foreign DNA on it," he said. The other "minuscule" sample, which is probably blood, was mixed with JonBenet's DNA, he said. That leaves investigators with the daunting task of trying to match a partial DNA strand with a sample from John Karr.

So when you get people like Mary Lacy who has NO Scientific background and you team it with an old cronie detective like Lou Smit who has an impeccable history solving homicides, you get a DA that is easily convinced without proof. Problem was even though Lou’s stun gun theory was sort of compelling. It wasn’t scientific to the point of positively matching those marks. It was just ONE explanation. I have pointed out time and time again, it could have been from the snaps inside the suitcase, which ironically he agrees with me that she may have been placed inside. The ones on her back are CLEARLY impressions. And like the rest of us Lou only had the photographs to work off of. He didn’t have the child to match them up to or to of have her skin tested for proof. It’s a shame the coroner didn’t remove her skin in that area to be tested later. We all live and learn.

So Mary Lacy is going on the reputation of Smit and the degraded DNA because like most of us, we don’t want to believe parents could do something like this to their child. WE have to focus on what IS in this case, and not on what isn’t. Although Smit’s theory is interesting, he is going to need more than pigs to convince me. The more people educate themselves about DNA and genetic markers, the more they will understand Henry Lee much better. Because God knows this guy’s English isn’t getting any better.

Another problem is we have slick Southern talking lawyers like Lin Wood that hog up TV time because he talks in a way people can understand. He repeats himself over and over again, until that is all folks remember. The DNA doesn’t match John Ramsey and MUST belong to the killer. Then you get Henry Lee up there and you can’t understand a fricken word he is saying, so people turn of their tv sets and only remember the words of Lin Wood. Lin Wood makes friends with people like Larry King and such, so they will have him back on his program. Larry King wants guests that make good tv so his show gets high ratings. Brining on a Scientist who actually can explain this stuff may bore people to the point that they don’t tune in. Ever see Chicago????

Give them the ole Razzle Dazzle. Lin Wood fits the part perfectly. Too bad I like the part better of Roxy than I do of Patsy.

"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."

He's right. But don't beat yourself up over it.

"Read the #3 post on this thread: the DNA found in JB's underwear did not match the DNA under her fingernails."

Even if it did, it would be easy: JB scratches herself, picks it up, badda-bing.

SuperDave said:

"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."

He's right. But don't beat yourself up over it.

"Read the #3 post on this thread: the DNA found in JB's underwear did not match the DNA under her fingernails."

Even if it did, it would be easy: JB scratches herself, picks it up, badda-bing.

Click to expand...

Bada boooooooooooom...

Yep, ole southern fried Lin Wood (actually, I've never heard him drone on) has been dutifully spin-doctoring reality to the point that I could believe that Oswald acted alone, OJ was innocent and JBR was really killed by her bewitched Mytwinn devil doll.

When I said the Ramseys have been suspects for ten years, I am correct. They may not have been the only suspects, but in the absence of any clear evidence of an intruder and any truly convincing DNA evidence, even the geniuses in the DA's office can't afford to rule out that the Ramseys simplied lied their wealthy, influential asses off after being in some way responsible for their daughter's death.

Yes, the police have followed up quite a number of leads - some of them generated by the Johnny Ramsey/Lin Wood Big Ole Propaganda Machine. So what?

Having lost heavily to a blindfolded one-legged man in an *advertiser censored* kicking contest, the DA's office seem to be all set to bumble on, with a reassuring cheery smile - hats no doubt tilted at a jaunty angle.

The king is dead, long live the king...

I read quite a bit of references being made to Markers as being used as the foundation for DNA testing.

Does anyone know anything about some of the latest advances of DNA testing such as PCR and the use of Str's which requires less sample?