Body being wiped down

[otg]

OTG, I'm addressing this to you because if anyone would know, it's you.

I could swear that I remember hearing somewhere that the family actually could NOT be ruled out on that DNA sample (Or they couldn't be ruled out for something else). I can't remember where, or why, but I always wondered why no one ever talked about it. Does this ring any bells or am I totally confused? TIA

:waitasec: I think I know what you're remembering. Seems like there was something like a caveat on at least one of the DNA samples saying something to the effect of, "if the sample is (or maybe, 'is not') from a single donor then a Ramsey family member can't be ruled out." (And I don't remember where that statement came from.) Forgive me, Nom, I'm not very good at the DNA information. If someone else doesn't chime in soon with an answer, I'll do some digging.

 

[Anyhoo]

Her panties were never found.

Very interesting. What that tells me is that the panties may have been taken to conceal the same evidence that was the motivation for wiping down JB's body. You can effectively wipe down a body to remove evidence, but removing evidence that has soaked into cloth would be difficult if not impossible. Therefore to me there is a linkage/common cause in taking the underwear, putting new underwear on her, and wiping down at least her pubic region. Here is my "read" of this whole subject: JB was thoroughly wiped down. That microscopic smear of blood on her leg was missed. Before she was wiped down there was a lot more blood and possibly other substances such as seminal fluid that someone was very careful to remove. The reason for changing her panties and wiping her down was to hide incriminating evidence that would point LE to her murderer.

 

[otg]

(snipped for relevance)

In the same context Coroner Meyer opined that JonBenet had been subject to Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration.

UKG, you keep repeating this, and I keep telling you it's WRONG. It gives others who don't know you're misstating it the wrong idea. There is no "and" in Meyer's observation. Here are his exact words that you are getting that from:

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. ​

The first is his observation. The second is his opinion. Receiving "an injury consistent with digital penetration" IS "sexual contact". They are not two separate assaults.

 

[Venom]

:waitasec: I think I know what you're remembering. Seems like there was something like a caveat on at least one of the DNA samples saying something to the effect of, "if the sample is (or maybe, 'is not') from a single donor then a Ramsey family member can't be ruled out." (And I don't remember where that statement came from.) Forgive me, Nom, I'm not very good at the DNA information. If someone else doesn't chime in soon with an answer, I'll do some digging.

Cynic would be the person to ask. It was talked about in the one DNA thread, maybe the one that had questions for the DNA expert and Kolar being on Tricia's radio show.

 

[UKGuy]

(snipped for relevance)
UKG, you keep repeating this, and I keep telling you it's WRONG. It gives others who don't know you're misstating it the wrong idea. There is no "and" in Meyer's observation. Here are his exact words that you are getting that from:

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. ​

The first is his observation. The second is his opinion. Receiving "an injury consistent with digital penetration" IS "sexual contact". They are not two separate assaults.

otg,
His consistent with digital penetration of her vagina is also opinion, so that is two opinions.

Others might wish to factor in Coroner Meyer's remarks written in the AR after his above verbatim opinion:

Excerpt

Vaginal Mucosa
...
A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material.

...

Was the birefringent foreign material deposited at the same time as the injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina?


.

 

[otg]

OTG, I'm addressing this to you because if anyone would know, it's you.

I could swear that I remember hearing somewhere that the family actually could NOT be ruled out on that DNA sample (Or they couldn't be ruled out for something else). I can't remember where, or why, but I always wondered why no one ever talked about it. Does this ring any bells or am I totally confused? TIA

:waitasec: I think I know what you're remembering. Seems like there was something like a caveat on at least one of the DNA samples saying something to the effect of, "if the sample is (or maybe, 'is not') from a single donor then a Ramsey family member can't be ruled out." (And I don't remember where that statement came from.) Forgive me, Nom, I'm not very good at the DNA information. If someone else doesn't chime in soon with an answer, I'll do some digging.

Found it! From the early DNA Report:

BASED ON THESE RESULTS, THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B,
14I, 15A, 15B, 16A, 17A, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.

THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX-
TURE OF WHICH THE MAJOR COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
COMPONENTS FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL, THEN JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY,
PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE,
AND MERVIN PUGH WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED ON
THOSE EXHIBITS.

DNA PROFILES COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED FROM THE SPERM FRACTIONS FROM
EXHIBITS #23A OR 23B. THE DNA PROFILES FROM THE EPITHELIAL FRACTIONS
FROM HXHIBITS # (here the screen capture is cut off)

​

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=185839#post185839"]Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence - Forums For Justice[/ame]

 

[Anyhoo]

Found it! From the early DNA Report:

BASED ON THESE RESULTS, THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B,
14I, 15A, 15B, 16A, 17A, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.

THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX-
TURE OF WHICH THE MAJOR COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
COMPONENTS FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL, THEN JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY,
PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE,
AND MERVIN PUGH WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED ON
THOSE EXHIBITS.

DNA PROFILES COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED FROM THE SPERM FRACTIONS FROM
EXHIBITS #23A OR 23B. THE DNA PROFILES FROM THE EPITHELIAL FRACTIONS
FROM HXHIBITS # (here the screen capture is cut off)

​

Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence - Forums For Justice

sperm fractions?? What exactly does that mean?

 

[Nom de plume]

Found it! From the early DNA Report:

BASED ON THESE RESULTS, THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B,
14I, 15A, 15B, 16A, 17A, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.

THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX-
TURE OF WHICH THE MAJOR COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
COMPONENTS FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL, THEN JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY,
PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE,
AND MERVIN PUGH WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED ON
THOSE EXHIBITS.

DNA PROFILES COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED FROM THE SPERM FRACTIONS FROM
EXHIBITS #23A OR 23B. THE DNA PROFILES FROM THE EPITHELIAL FRACTIONS
FROM HXHIBITS # (here the screen capture is cut off)

​

Ramsey Case - DNA report & miscellaneous evidence - Forums For Justice

:loveyou: Thank you OTG!! That's it! You just made my day!

"IF the minor components were contributed BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL"

But there's no way to know if they were contributed by a single, or multiple individuals! So this COULD be Ramsey DNA after all! It may not be from anyone else but family! And IF it's a mixture of more than one person, it will NEVER be identified in CODIS no matter what!

So much for "DNA proof" of an IDI! Ha!

 

[otg]

otg,
His consistent with digital penetration of her vagina is also opinion, so that is two opinions.

Others might wish to factor in Coroner Meyer's remarks written in the AR after his above verbatim opinion:

I'm not doing this any more. You know it's wrong, but you won't admit it. Surely you understand the difference between an observation (based on his knowledge and experience) and an opinion (drawn as a conclusion based on all this). Yet you continue to promulgate this misconception knowing its inference. If it is your theory that there were two separate insults with two different objects, that's fine. But that is not what Meyer is stating.

Was the birefringent foreign material deposited at the same time as the injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina?

Not knowing the exact source or nature of the birefringent material, we can't surmise the answer to that one. It could be, it could be not.

 

[teeandcee]

sperm fractions?? What exactly does that mean?

Me too! Whaaaat??

I found the info below in a manual on forensics. If I'm understanding the manual correctly the above screen capture is saying semen was detected on exhibits 23A/B, there was sperm in it, but no DNA could be extracted due to no intact sperm. Or cells. Or something. I'm confused about this part.


Semen detected: semen is present but may not necessarily contain intact
sperm cells. If a male has had a vasectomy or is
incapable of producing sperm, then
sperm would be absent from the semen.
For successful DNA typing, intact
sperm cells must be present in the
semen. Semen stains undergo a special
technique to separate the sperm from any
other body cell (male and/or female) that
may be present. The goal is to isolate
the sperm cells. Sometimes, complete
sperm isolation cannot be achieved,
resulting in mixtures in either separation.

Sperm fraction: of the two semen
separations, the one containing sperm is
called the sperm (or male) fraction; may
contain no male DNA if no intact sperm
cells are present in the semen.
nonsperm fraction:
of the two
semen separations, the one containing
all of the cellular DNA (female and/or
male) other than intact sperm is called
the nonsperm (or female) fraction.

 

[otg]

:loveyou: Thank you OTG!! That's it! You just made my day!

"IF the minor components were contributed BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL"

But there's no way to know if they were contributed by a single, or multiple individuals! So this COULD be Ramsey DNA after all! It may not be from anyone else but family! And IF it's a mixture of more than one person, it will NEVER be identified in CODIS no matter what!

So much for "DNA proof" of an IDI! Ha!

If you read the FFJ thread I linked, the OPs were identifying the numbered "exhibits" with their matching samples. I'm not sure where those came from. But they identified #7 as the mixed sample from her panties, and #14L and #14M were her left and right fingernail scrapings (That's right, all five fingers on each hand were combined).

If that's correct, the inverse of the report's statement would be:

IF THE MINOR COMPONENTS FROM DNA in her panties, and the fingernail scrapings
from her left and right hands WERE not CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL, THEN JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY,
PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE,
AND MERVIN PUGH WOULD not BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED ON
THOSE EXHIBITS.
​

Is that not correct? Like I said, I'm not very knowledgeable on the DNA stuff. Hopefully Cynic will drop by and lend us some insight on the subject.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not doing this any more. You know it's wrong, but you won't admit it. Surely you understand the difference between an observation (based on his knowledge and experience) and an opinion (drawn as a conclusion based on all this). Yet you continue to promulgate this misconception knowing its inference. If it is your theory that there were two separate insults with two different objects, that's fine. But that is not what Meyer is stating.


Not knowing the exact source or nature of the birefringent material, we can't surmise the answer to that one. It could be, it could be not.

otg,
Well the conjunction in my and sentence was intended in a collective sense not a temporal sense.

i.e. Coroner Meyer said these things. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and you are right.

I usually use that quote to establish that JonBenet had been acutely sexually assaulted.

I'm agnostic regarding the plurality of assaults, one is sufficient to establish a motive for the staging.

Anything else can be the subject for debate.


.

 

[Anyhoo]

Me too! Whaaaat??

I found the info below in a manual on forensics. If I'm understanding the manual correctly the above screen capture is saying semen was detected on exhibits 23A/B, there was sperm in it, but no DNA could be extracted due to no intact sperm. Or cells. Or something. I'm confused about this part.


Semen detected: semen is present but may not necessarily contain intact
sperm cells. If a male has had a vasectomy or is
incapable of producing sperm, then
sperm would be absent from the semen.
For successful DNA typing, intact
sperm cells must be present in the
semen. Semen stains undergo a special
technique to separate the sperm from any
other body cell (male and/or female) that
may be present. The goal is to isolate
the sperm cells. Sometimes, complete
sperm isolation cannot be achieved,
resulting in mixtures in either separation.

Sperm fraction: of the two semen
separations, the one containing sperm is
called the sperm (or male) fraction; may
contain no male DNA if no intact sperm
cells are present in the semen.
nonsperm fraction:
of the two
semen separations, the one containing
all of the cellular DNA (female and/or
male) other than intact sperm is called
the nonsperm (or female) fraction.

I find this extremely interesting. Could this situation be the result of a very thorough clean-up of the vagina, so that the only traces of semen left at the end of that clean-up was these sperm fragments?

IMO, regardless of the case, if these were found it is proof that an adult male had sexual contact with JB. Does anyone want to dispute that?

 

[questfortrue]

Me too! Whaaaat??

I found the info below in a manual on forensics. If I'm understanding the manual correctly the above screen capture is saying semen was detected on exhibits 23A/B, there was sperm in it, but no DNA could be extracted due to no intact sperm.

Semen detected: semen is present but may not necessarily contain intact
sperm cells. If a male has had a vasectomy or is
incapable of producing sperm, then
sperm would be absent from the semen.
For successful DNA typing, intact
sperm cells must be present in the
semen. Semen stains undergo a special
technique to separate the sperm from any
other body cell (male and/or female) that
may be present. The goal is to isolate
the sperm cells. Sometimes, complete
sperm isolation cannot be achieved,
resulting in mixtures in either separation.

Sperm fraction: of the two semen
separations, the one containing sperm is
called the sperm (or male) fraction; may
contain no male DNA if no intact sperm
cells are present in the semen.
nonsperm fraction:
of the two
semen separations, the one containing
all of the cellular DNA (female and/or
male) other than intact sperm is called
the nonsperm (or female) fraction.

Reading the blurry screen shot from the link OTG furnished (Thank you, OTG!) it seems the specimens from 23A&B were from the "black" blanket and attributed to JAR. But someone else look at the screen shots, that's what I deciphered. It's in the top portion of the screen shot, titled Laboratory Report.

 

[otg]

otg,
Well the conjunction in my and sentence was intended in a collective sense not a temporal sense.

i.e. Coroner Meyer said these things. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and you are right.

:toast:
You do see the difference between what the coroner said and your paraphrasing of it, don't you?

I usually use that quote to establish that JonBenet had been acutely sexually assaulted.

That's been well established, my friend. Even IDI do not dispute the acute sexual assault.

I'm agnostic regarding the plurality of assaults, one is sufficient to establish a motive for the staging.

Anything else can be the subject for debate.

Agree completely. I'm glad we had this talk, UKG. From now on, if you state that again, I'll just post the :facepalm: . I won't bother bringing it up again.

 

[Tadpole12]

This might not be relevant to anything, but I thought I would post it anyway. We have all heard about how JB's body had been found to be "wiped down", without any real indication of what that specifically means. One can envision someone taking a wet rag and wiping down the body with that to removed evidence so it would not be discovered by LE. For a long time I envisioned that someone brought a wet rag, etc. to the location of JB's dead body (in the basement) and did the wiping down there. Later, I thought that it would be more logical for someone who wanted to clean the body to physically bring the body to a location where it could be thoroughly cleaned, such as to a bathtub in a bathroom. If I wanted to clean a body and make sure it was done right, that is how I would do it. So I thought that, assuming the murder happened in the basement, that JB's body would have been carried to a bathroom upstairs to be cleaned prior to the staging. But then I read somewhere that there was a shower stall actually in the basement and I had one of those Aha moments, where I thought: that's how they did it. They brought her to that shower stall in the basement and cleaned her up there prior to the staging of the body.

The only reason I bring this up is that I have never read anything about this "wiping down" and this may be somehow significant.

Does this make sense to anyone? Am I off-base with this? Please share your thoughts on this.

Heyya Anyhoo,

No, it's an interesting line of speculation.
IMO PR would have been part of a generation that used douching, the diaphragm and the pill as methods of contraception.


http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=320146.xml

Following are some of the solutions to be used for the douche, which, when carefully used will kill the male sperm or prevent its entering the womb:
Lysol--is a brown oily liquid which added to water forms a clear soapy solution. One teaspoonful of lysol to 2 quarts of water (warm) makes a good solution for douching. Mix into a pitcher or vessel before placing it in the bag.

......

Salt solution--Mix four tablespoons of table salt in one quart of warm or cold water and dissolve thoroughly. This is good and cheap.
Vinegar solution--Many peasants in Europe use vinegar as an antiseptic almost exclusively. One glassful to two quarts of water is the strength usually desired. Cider vinegar is preferred. Douche afterward with clear water.
Cold water douche--This will sometimes remove the semen quite effectively without the aid of an antiseptic. But as the semen can hide itself away in the wrinkled lining of the vaginal cavity, the cold water will only impede its progress for a time. As soon as the warmth of the body revives its activity, the semen continues on its journey to meet the ovum.


afterthought: she would have had to be washed in a manner that did not remove the lint on her feet

 

[otg]

I find this extremely interesting. Could this situation be the result of a very thorough clean-up of the vagina, so that the only traces of semen left at the end of that clean-up was these sperm fragments?

No.

IMO, regardless of the case, if these were found it is proof that an adult male had sexual contact with JB. Does anyone want to dispute that?

The DNA sample did not come from anywhere on JonBenet's body, so it's not "proof that an adult male had sexual contact with JB." Questfortrue deciphered a little more from the link. Those samples were taken from JAR's blanket. This report was developed early in the case. The semen was old and degraded, and couldn't be used to get a DNA profile at that time (IIRC). As time passed and lab testing methods improved (?), they were later able to connect the DNA in the dried semen to JAR. This has been public knowledge for some time now. Teeandcee posted how samples of semen have to be processed.

 

[Mama2JML]

Reading the blurry screen shot from the link OTG furnished (Thank you, OTG!) it seems the specimens from 23A&B were from the "black" blanket and attributed to JAR. But someone else look at the screen shots, that's what I deciphered. It's in the top portion of the screen shot, titled Laboratory Report.

This is exactly as I interpret it.

 

[Mama2JML]

:loveyou: Thank you OTG!! That's it! You just made my day!

"IF the minor components were contributed BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL"

But there's no way to know if they were contributed by a single, or multiple individuals! So this COULD be Ramsey DNA after all! It may not be from anyone else but family! And IF it's a mixture of more than one person, it will NEVER be identified in CODIS no matter what!

So much for "DNA proof" of an IDI! Ha!

Not exactly. This applies to the Polymarker + DQA1TM testing conducted in 1997. The STR results from 2003 & 2008 indicate the forensic male DNA profileS in CODIS belong to one male.

 

[Mama2JML]

If you read the FFJ thread I linked, the OPs were identifying the numbered "exhibits" with their matching samples. I'm not sure where those came from. But they identified #7 as the mixed sample from her panties, and #14L and #14M were her left and right fingernail scrapings (That's right, all five fingers on each hand were combined).

If that's correct, the inverse of the report's statement would be:

IF THE MINOR COMPONENTS FROM DNA in her panties, and the fingernail scrapings
from her left and right hands WERE not CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL, THEN JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY,
PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE,
AND MERVIN PUGH WOULD not BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED ON
THOSE EXHIBITS.
​

Is that not correct? Like I said, I'm not very knowledgeable on the DNA stuff. Hopefully Cynic will drop by and lend us some insight on the subject.

I don't think so. The left hand sample and the right hand sample differ in the # of markers identified.