4/19/04 Globe: DNA is saliva and mucous from runny nose

BlueCrab · Apr 9, 2004

In the 4/19/04 Globe now on the stands with JonBenet on the front cover, Ramsey private investigator Ollie Gray describes some of the foreign DNA found on JonBenet as "saliva and mucous from a runny nose, along with traces of sweat and tears -- but no semen".

Gray also said "Nobody in that family matches the DNA that was found". He added "It matches very clearly to some male person outside the family".

The gist of the Globe article was that an intruder broke in and killed JonBenet, but the evidence cited in the article can also be applied to a fifth person being invited into the house that night. For instance, forensic expert and criminal profiler Brent Turvey said the intruder knew the house well and "was completely comfortable being in the house".

Turvey also believes the death was an accident and the garrote was not meant to kill. "The rope was a tool, probably part of a sexual fantasy. This person wanted to spend time with her engaged in sexual activity."

"Completely comfortable in the house and saliva and mucous from a runny nose"? Children hate to blow their noses and have runny noses most of the time they have colds. IMO the Globe article was describing a juvenile as a fifth person invited into the house more than it was describing an intruder.

JMO

Ivy · Apr 9, 2004

It could also apply to the possibility that Sum Yung Gai had a cold and sneezed on the panties in the factory.

imo

Nehemiah · Apr 9, 2004

BlueCrab said:
Gray also said "Nobody in that family matches the DNA that was found". He added "It matches very clearly to some male person outside the family".

JMO

I almost hate to open up this can of worms, but is it possible that the DNA is so degraded that "matching" it to anyone is impossible? IOW, nobody in the family being a match is entirely correct, as well as nobody at all being a "match"? Or can someone be "clearly a match"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I live on a farm.

IMO

Britt · Apr 9, 2004

Ivy said:
It could also apply to the possibility that Sum Yung Gai had a cold and sneezed on the panties in the factory.

Exactly, Ivy, just as the investigators have stated:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html

BTW, how is it possible to deposit all that - "saliva and mucous from a runny nose, along with traces of sweat and tears" - and not manage to leave a single full DNA sample?

BlueCrab · Apr 9, 2004

Ivy said:
It could also apply to the possibility that Sum Yung Gai had a cold and sneezed on the panties in the factory.

imo

Not likely. The DNA in the panties is male. Asian garment workers are 99% female.

JMO

MysteryMomma · Apr 9, 2004

I don't think the parents killed her.......but even if they did the Denver police did a poor job of protecting the crime scene so it would be hard, in my opinion, to convict anyone of this terrible crime. Sorry I meant Boulder....I think they sucked...

Britt · Apr 9, 2004

MysteryMomma said:
I don't think the parents killed her.......but even if they did the Denver police did a poor job of protecting the crime scene so it would be hard, in my opinion, to convict anyone of this terrible crime.

Hey, don't blame Denver for this debacle... lol

BlueCrab · Apr 9, 2004

MysteryMomma said:
I don't think the parents killed her.......but even if they did the Denver police did a poor job of protecting the crime scene so it would be hard, in my opinion, to convict anyone of this terrible crime.

MysteryMomma,

The Boulder Police Department had total jurisdiction over this crime. The City of Boulder has its own police department and the crime occurred in the City of Boulder.

JMO

Shylock · Apr 9, 2004

BlueCrab said:
Ollie Gray describes some of the foreign DNA found on JonBenet as "saliva and mucous from a runny nose, along with traces of sweat and tears -- but no semen".

Well I guess we can add Ollie to our list of incompetent strokers. :crazy:

Seriously...I think he was misquoted by the tabloid scum. He probably said that IT COULD BE "saliva, mucous from a runny nose, sweat or tears -- but not semen". That's nothing new, we've known all along that there is no identifiable source for the DNA and any one of those could be possible.

Of course even if it was one of those sources, doesn't mean it's related to the crime. (Ivy and I have pooled our money and bet on Sum Yung Gai...)

LOL

TLynn · Apr 10, 2004

saliva and mucous from a runny nose, along with traces of sweat and tears

sounds like someone was extremely emotional. Tears...runny nose...sweat.

don't think a factory worker fits all those elements.

or someone with a cold...

BlueCrab · Apr 10, 2004

Shylock said:
(Ivy and I have pooled our money and bet on Sum Yung Gai...)

LOL

You're gonna lose. Since almost all Asian garment workers are female, it wasn't likely that Sum Yung Gai did the sneezing on the panties; it was more likely Sum Yung Gal.

JMO

Shylock · Apr 10, 2004

BlueCrab said:
Since almost all Asian garment workers are female, it was more likely Sum Yung Gal.

What? BlueCrab, tell me you've never heard of all those Chinese laundry workers who came here in the 1800's?

Actually, It was my father who told me 25 years ago that he stopped going to a Chinese laundry because (supposedly) they would spit on the shirts while ironing them. His story seems confirmed by the following:

"Bing Chong, more commonly known as "Bang", owned the Hop Sing laundry and was the best-known inhabitant of Chinatown. Bang would wash linen for the King Edward Hotel, businessmen, and wealthy families.
Bang would fill his mouth with water and spit it out of his missing tooth gaps, instead of using a sprayer for ironing. He had a little stove with brackets on it to hold warming irons."
http://www.sjs.sd83.bc.ca/museum/thepast/ethnic/chinese.htm

Peter Kwong, an Asian American Studies professor at Hunter College in New York: "Sometimes, the success of the Chinese angered rivals, who claimed that the immigrants spit into the laundry water."
http://hnn.us/comments/6930.html

Not that the point of manufacture was the only place where the foreign DNA could have been deposited. I think that there is just as much chance that someone could have sneezed on the panties (or the packaging) at the point of sale. Maybe they were even purchased by a customer and returned when they didn't fit.

BlueCrab · Apr 10, 2004

Shylock said:
Not that the point of manufacture was the only place where the foreign DNA could have been deposited. I think that there is just as much chance that someone could have sneezed on the panties (or the packaging) at the point of sale. Maybe they were even purchased by a customer and returned when they didn't fit.

Please. Occam's Razor has to come into the picture sooner or later here. Sure, Prince William of England could have bought the size 12 panties and tried them on but decided they didn't fit snug enough and the pink flower design on them wasn't big enough, so he returned them.

But Occam's Razor says the male DNA from saliva and mucous on JonBenet's panties is from oral sex performed by the killer.

JMO

Shylock · Apr 10, 2004

BlueCrab said:
But Occam's Razor says the male DNA from saliva and mucous on JonBenet's panties is from oral sex performed by the killer.

Come-on BC, there was no "saliva and mucous" found anywhere on JBR or her panties. There is no known source for the DNA. That's why the experts say it might not even exist at all and just be stutter effect.

When saliva is involved, it usually yields a complete DNA profile - not the degraded garbage found in the Ramsey case. Ever hear of the "Brown's Chicken Massacre"? It was one of the crimes that nutcase RHGC tried to pin on that guy Pachaly. The police found one of the killers DNA from saliva on a half-eaten piece of chicken in the garbage can. Other complete DNA profiles from saliva have come off the tip of a cigarette butt.

More importantly, the BPD has already proven that DNA exists in identicle panties right off the shelve in control samples they bought and tested. That's a fact. You can call it "Prince William of England's Razor" if you want...

sissi · Apr 10, 2004

I thought the "stutter effect" opinion was dead after the sample proved sufficient and of good enough quality to send to the fbi?

Shylock · Apr 10, 2004

sissi said:
I thought the "stutter effect" opinion was dead after the sample proved sufficient and of good enough quality to send to the fbi?

Not at all. Why would you think "stutter effect" would be limited to less than 13 markers? The FBI "CODIS" database is not a standard for measurement of quality control. It's nothing but a database.

BlueCrab · Apr 10, 2004

I'll stick with Occam's Razor and say the 10 markers are most likely from the killer.

And 10 markers meet the FBI minimum standard to be used in its DNA database. Some police agencies use as few as 6 markers to include or eliminate persons as suspects.

JMO

K777angel · Apr 10, 2004

There is NO way that DNA was left by saliva, sweat, tears and nose mucous - and at the same time be true that the DNA amount was so miniscule that they cannot obtain more than 10 markers from the sample!
C'mon! Both cannot be true!
Someone is feeding a big line of B.S.

At this point, they could not pin that speck of DNA on ANYONE! Ramsey or not. So this claim of it "not belonging to a Ramsey" is just verbal engineering.
And why don't they also say that it doesn't "belong to a Paugh" either?
Patsy has NO "Ramsey" DNA in her body. It's Paugh DNA.

Shylock · Apr 10, 2004

BlueCrab said:
I'll stick with Occam's Razor and say the 10 markers are most likely from the killer.

BC, don't tell me you're going to be like DocWatson and have a problem understanding Occam's Razor. One of the first rules of that theory analysis is that you don't introduce any additional variables into the equation besides what already exist. Occam's Razor demands that one of the THREE KNOWN people present during the crime is the person responsible:

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Therefore, to avoid multiplying unnecessary entities the simplest explanation is probably the right explanation."
and
"If the consequences are the same it is always better to assume the more limited antecedent."

SisterSocks · Apr 10, 2004

MysteryMomma said:
I don't think the parents killed her.......but even if they did the Denver police did a poor job of protecting the crime scene so it would be hard, in my opinion, to convict anyone of this terrible crime. Sorry I meant Boulder....I think they sucked...

I agree here Mamma...

Although, this is new stuff so lets give a shot. Great job Blue crab...

4/19/04 Globe: DNA is saliva and mucous from runny nose

New Member

Inactive

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Inactive

New Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

Member

Former Member

What a wild and crazy trip its been

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics