Seeker
Former Member
Here is why the new DNA evidence is just another red herring.
The microscopic DNA residue that was found under JBRs fingernails was degraded plus it was so minute that they could not even get a full code string of markers from it.
The DNA in her panties that was mixed with her own blood was the same, so minute that it couldnt give a full set of markers.
Now the new touch DNA is the same not a full set of markers. Now, from what I understand that without the full set of markers you cannot determine an exact match for where those markers fall into the entire coding sequence of the DNA strand.
So we have some minute trace of DNA with a few markers that match. But where in the genome coding sequence do they fall? 500 people could have several of the exact same markers, but if they dont fall in the same sequence in the entire strand well you get the idea. They don't match.
Also Mary Lacy is forgetting some crucial information. Patsy dressed JB in those long johns and not only that she wore them all that afternoon.
Jon Benet received many gifts that year, among them a My Twinn doll and a new bike.
Plus they were at the Whites for dinner with the girls (Daphne and JB) playing on the FLOOR at the Whites.
It is entirely possible that JB got that DNA under her nails from playing with anything that day. She could even have gotten it off the banister of either the front or spiral staircase! Remember the Ramseys opened their home for those Christmas tours where anyone could walk in and walk through the home so anyone who went through the house could have deposited his DNA on the banister.
Or perhaps the person who put JBs bike together for her left his DNA and she got it from there
Or it could have been anyone else who handled any of the presents that were put into packages (think factory worker) for the kids that year.
Then JB goes to the bathroom, pulls down the long johns dislodging some of the skin cells onto them, then pulls down her panties and the same thing happens, then when shes assaulted her blood drops onto the panties trapping the microscopic skin cell fragments into it. Its called cross contamination.
The plain and simple fact is that there is no way to prove that this very microscopic DNA belongs to the killer at all.
Why is this microscopic DNA not found on the blanket she was wrapped in, or on the Barbie nightgown (her favorite) that was near her when she was found?
Mary Lacy should be ashamed of herself for providing yet another lame excuse to try and exonerate the Ramseys. But all she has done is make her self and her department the same laughing stock she was a year ago when she tried to pass off JMK as the killer
MOO
The microscopic DNA residue that was found under JBRs fingernails was degraded plus it was so minute that they could not even get a full code string of markers from it.
The DNA in her panties that was mixed with her own blood was the same, so minute that it couldnt give a full set of markers.
Now the new touch DNA is the same not a full set of markers. Now, from what I understand that without the full set of markers you cannot determine an exact match for where those markers fall into the entire coding sequence of the DNA strand.
So we have some minute trace of DNA with a few markers that match. But where in the genome coding sequence do they fall? 500 people could have several of the exact same markers, but if they dont fall in the same sequence in the entire strand well you get the idea. They don't match.
Also Mary Lacy is forgetting some crucial information. Patsy dressed JB in those long johns and not only that she wore them all that afternoon.
Jon Benet received many gifts that year, among them a My Twinn doll and a new bike.
Plus they were at the Whites for dinner with the girls (Daphne and JB) playing on the FLOOR at the Whites.
It is entirely possible that JB got that DNA under her nails from playing with anything that day. She could even have gotten it off the banister of either the front or spiral staircase! Remember the Ramseys opened their home for those Christmas tours where anyone could walk in and walk through the home so anyone who went through the house could have deposited his DNA on the banister.
Or perhaps the person who put JBs bike together for her left his DNA and she got it from there
Or it could have been anyone else who handled any of the presents that were put into packages (think factory worker) for the kids that year.
Then JB goes to the bathroom, pulls down the long johns dislodging some of the skin cells onto them, then pulls down her panties and the same thing happens, then when shes assaulted her blood drops onto the panties trapping the microscopic skin cell fragments into it. Its called cross contamination.
The plain and simple fact is that there is no way to prove that this very microscopic DNA belongs to the killer at all.
Why is this microscopic DNA not found on the blanket she was wrapped in, or on the Barbie nightgown (her favorite) that was near her when she was found?
Mary Lacy should be ashamed of herself for providing yet another lame excuse to try and exonerate the Ramseys. But all she has done is make her self and her department the same laughing stock she was a year ago when she tried to pass off JMK as the killer
MOO
