DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

[Steely Dan]

Were JonBenet's panties brand new and never washed before?

 

[UKGuy]

Were JonBenet's panties brand new and never washed before?

Steely Dan,
Well the size-12's originated from a brand new pack of Bloomingdales size-12's, that Patsy claims she placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her personal use.

Nearly everyone and their dog believes the size-12's were brand new, never washed before, and never worn before that night!

The 64K question is why was it important to redress JonBenet in a Wednesday tagged pair of size-12's which were patently too large?


.

 

[Steely Dan]

Steely Dan,
Well the size-12's originated from a brand new pack of Bloomingdales size-12's, that Patsy claims she placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her personal use.

Nearly everyone and their dog believes the size-12's were brand new, never washed before, and never worn before that night!

The 64K question is why was it important to redress JonBenet in a Wednesday tagged pair of size-12's which were patently too large?


.

Who wears something right out of the box? Doesn't, almost, everyone wash new things before wearing them?

 

[brit1981]

You've summed it up pretty well.

There will never be a trial of anyone in this case. Not without a confession which details exactly what happened and in which the confessor is able to put him/herself right there with the evidence.

As to the media brouhaha, when the Ramseys chose to go on TV the day after they buried their child, at a time long before they finally showed up 4 months later to be interviewed by the investigating agency, the BPD, they made themselves public figures. Here we are allowed to join the debate in the media and public once people use that same media for their own public relations events.

The Ramseys also held their second press conference the day after their 1997 interview with law enforcement: complete with a small group of invitation only media allowed to be present; allowing questions only on specified topics not involving the investigation or any of their lawyers, family and friends present; including a 30 minute cut off for the whole shebang; and with a secret location and password to even get in.

Then they wrote a book and released it in 2000, doing one of the most viewed book tours on national television, with only the most prestigious interviewers. After that, their "savior" Lou Smit went on another binge of "intruder" media presentations, guaranteed to favor the Ramseys and put forth only case information they chose to spread their propaganda for their own agenda: to present themselves as innocent.

Fine. It was their legal right, if many things about it are questionable.

But to allow only the Ramsey's and their representatives to "have the playing field alone," as the judge who dismissed their lawsuit against Fox News said after one small news report by Carol McKinley aired which included evidence not favorable to them, is hardly conducive to "equal justice under the law." It's the cornerstone of our freedom of the press to be able to communicate without censorship. The Ramseys were all about censoring anything they didn't want the public to hear, IMO.

John Ramsey once said he wanted to change how we get our news. In fact, he went a long way to that goal when he silenced others who don't have the money to fight the Ramseys' "slap suits," designed and effective in keeping people from saying something other than what the Ramseys want people to hear.

But that's still de facto censorship, and as an American who believes without a free press and freedom of speech our Democracy would fall by the wayside, and fast, I resent that as much as anything about the Ramseys.

The Ramseys have been staging this crime since the moment it happened, IMO, and it's why the rare person like Thomas or Kolar is so important. There's more at stake here than this one case. If our legal system is not one of blind justice, if rich people can manipulate our courts, our DAs, our judges, and our media so that they are given preferential and biased treament, then there is no Democracy and we are lost because even the hope of justice is a sham.

First of all this case is not about the Ramseys, it is about a Ramsey: JonBenet Ramsey.

Yes, there is a right to freedom of speech, but even in the US that is not an overriding right. Doctors do not have the right to talk freely about their patient's medical conditions to anyone they want to, the patient's privacy overrides the doctors right to free speech. People do not have the right to harrass someone else, the victims right to not be haressed, overrides the harrassers right to freedom of speech. We would not be happy if some random person decided to go around accussing us of something horrible on the basis we could not prove it was untrue. Proving a negative is nearly impossible.

Also we have to remember that whist there might be a right to freedom of expression, we also have a duty to be responsible with our rights, because grown adults have decided to exercise their right to freedom of speech, this case has been turned from a murder investigation to a reality TV show, and a six year old girl has been robbed of justice. people can talk on the internet, self publish all they want, but because of the media the chances of the person who took Jonbenet down to a cold basement the day after Christmas, sexually assaulted her (agony if she was conscious), garrotted her (that would be agony), and then hit her on the head, and just left her there is never going to be taken to court and face justice and hear a judge sentence them to prison for life.


back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible

1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found

or

2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall

 

[Chrishope]

First of all this case is not about the Ramseys, it is about a Ramsey: JonBenet Ramsey.

Yes, there is a right to freedom of speech, but even in the US that is not an overriding right. Doctors do not have the right to talk freely about their patient's medical conditions to anyone they want to, the patient's privacy overrides the doctors right to free speech. People do not have the right to harrass someone else, the victims right to not be haressed, overrides the harrassers right to freedom of speech. We would not be happy if some random person decided to go around accussing us of something horrible on the basis we could not prove it was untrue. Proving a negative is nearly impossible.

Also we have to remember that whist there might be a right to freedom of expression, we also have a duty to be responsible with our rights, because grown adults have decided to exercise their right to freedom of speech, this case has been turned from a murder investigation to a reality TV show, and a six year old girl has been robbed of justice. people can talk on the internet, self publish all they want, but because of the media the chances of the person who took Jonbenet down to a cold basement the day after Christmas, sexually assaulted her (agony if she was conscious), garrotted her (that would be agony), and then hit her on the head, and just left her there is never going to be taken to court and face justice and hear a judge sentence them to prison for life.


back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible

1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found

or

2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall

Or

3) There never was an intruder.

 

[brit1981]

Or

3) There never was an intruder.

But, my two scenerios do not exclude anyone intruder, parent or otherwise.
A person did this, a solid flesh and blood human being who would sweat, shed skin cells, drop hair, maybe even spittal if they were in a rage, it was not an air and vapour ghost. That is the one thing we know for certain about the killer. yet hardly any DNA (stranger's, or belonging to a ramsey other than Jonbenet) was found. Surely twisting the garrotte would cause skin cells to come off on to the rope. Therefore I think it is fair to say whoever did it was prepared for this and made sure they did not leave anything behind, or that it would be worth having everything examined again (in 1996 it was only eight years since DNA had first been used in a criminal case) because something was missed.
I also think it would be worth looking at the cothes of anyone who got blood on them to see if there were skin cells on them as I have heard this shoudl happen to the person who actually hits the victim, and that they do not show up for a while.

 

[KoldKase]

First of all this case is not about the Ramseys, it is about a Ramsey: JonBenet Ramsey.

Yes, there is a right to freedom of speech, but even in the US that is not an overriding right. Doctors do not have the right to talk freely about their patient's medical conditions to anyone they want to, the patient's privacy overrides the doctors right to free speech. People do not have the right to harrass someone else, the victims right to not be haressed, overrides the harrassers right to freedom of speech. We would not be happy if some random person decided to go around accussing us of something horrible on the basis we could not prove it was untrue. Proving a negative is nearly impossible.

Also we have to remember that whist there might be a right to freedom of expression, we also have a duty to be responsible with our rights, because grown adults have decided to exercise their right to freedom of speech, this case has been turned from a murder investigation to a reality TV show, and a six year old girl has been robbed of justice. people can talk on the internet, self publish all they want, but because of the media the chances of the person who took Jonbenet down to a cold basement the day after Christmas, sexually assaulted her (agony if she was conscious), garrotted her (that would be agony), and then hit her on the head, and just left her there is never going to be taken to court and face justice and hear a judge sentence them to prison for life.


back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible

1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found

or

2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall

The Ramseys and their shills certainly have publicly accused many people of committing this crime. The Ramseys, with all the fame and fortune they earned with their choice to become public figures, wrote a book naming several people very publicly as suspects. John Ramsey still continues to point his finger at his old ex-friend, Fleet White.

With their fame and Team Ramsey promoting this suspicion by way of half a dozen TV "documentaries" and countless TV media blitzes, printed publications, etc., exactly why do you think it's then not fair for the public to examine their hidden agendas and propaganda with a critical eye? Why shouldn't we publicly discuss their own role in this crime and its investigation when they have done so themselves since the day after they buried their child?

I call it hypocrisy to do something and then blast someone else for doing the same thing.

And relating it to private medical records is rather like comparing apples and bananas: the Ramseys CHOSE to go public, and they CHOSE to do that many, many times. If they didn't want people talking about the crime, maybe they should have instead have gone to the BPD and done interviews without an unending list of conditions and evasions and finger-pointing. As anyone who investigates crimes can tell you, if you don't know, the longer it takes to solve a crime, the less likely it will be solved.

So the Ramseys stalled the investigation from DAY ONE, and then they refused to cooperate with LE--PERIOD. The reason for that, I maintain, was so their lawyers could work on weak and easily manipulated, if not downright corrupt, Alex Hunter, and get the evidence reports so the Ramseys would know WHAT TO SAY in those interviews.

You may believe the Ramseys are innocent. That's your opinion. I don't, and that's mine. And until they actually do something HONEST in this investigation, I can't see that changing for me.

And maybe you're not aware, but the head blow came before the strangulation. Just FYI.

 

[brit1981]

I do not have any opinions on whether the Ramseys did it or not, but at the end of the day they are as legally innocent as anyone else as they have not been found guilty in a court and in sixteen years they have not been charged and it is therefore unlikely they ever will be unless new evidence is found.

I do not particulary agree with the Ramseys going onto TV shows as there was nothing particulary to gain for Jonbenet by this. I cannot comment on US practices, but it would not be uncommon in the UK to see the parents at a police arranged press conference asking for potential witnesses to come forward. Was this done there?

If The Rameys have named people as suspects then yes it serves them right if they get named back. However that does not change the fact that grown adults have turned this into a reality TV show and have been aided and because of this a child will not get justice. The killer will get away with it.
From what I read in the pm report strangulation was the primary cause of death.

And my point about medical records was that people can cry freedom of speech, but the reality is that this is not a unconditional right. All those involved in the Ramsey case should have exercised responsibility and refrained from making this a reality TV programme in the way it was. Jonbenet is the one who has lost out.

 

[Chrishope]

But, my two scenerios do not exclude anyone intruder, parent or otherwise.
A person did this, a solid flesh and blood human being who would sweat, shed skin cells, drop hair, maybe even spittal if they were in a rage, it was not an air and vapour ghost. That is the one thing we know for certain about the killer. yet hardly any DNA (stranger's, or belonging to a ramsey other than Jonbenet) was found. Surely twisting the garrotte would cause skin cells to come off on to the rope. Therefore I think it is fair to say whoever did it was prepared for this and made sure they did not leave anything behind, or that it would be worth having everything examined again (in 1996 it was only eight years since DNA had first been used in a criminal case) because something was missed.
I also think it would be worth looking at the cothes of anyone who got blood on them to see if there were skin cells on them as I have heard this shoudl happen to the person who actually hits the victim, and that they do not show up for a while.

It would be nice if better forensics were done, but it's now almost 16 years later. I guess they could check all the evidence that is still being held (assuming it hasn't become contaminated in the process)

 

[Mysteeri]

Uhh..here we go again..another try.

I listened to the radio show and was disappoínted. The touch DNA was not even discussed though that is the reason why M.Lacey "exonorated" the Ramseys. I already knew that the panty DNA had only ten markers, but if the markers match those of the touch DNA then I understand why it is relevant. There may be an innocent explanation for the DNA but it should not be "laughed off". 10 markers is not a full profile but what are the odds that these 10 markers match in the panty DNA and in the touch DNA? The markers reveal genetic features and people can be at least excluded based on that information (in JBR case the DNA belongs to a male for example so women can be excluded as the source).

Here is a description of DNA forensics and the significance of markers:

"How does forensic identification work?

Any type of organism can be identified by examination of DNA sequences unique to that species. Identifying individuals within a species is less precise at this time, although when DNA sequencing technologies progress farther, direct comparison of very large DNA segments, and possibly even whole genomes, will become feasible and practical and will allow precise individual identification.

To identify individuals, forensic scientists scan 13 DNA regions, or loci, that vary from person to person and use the data to create a DNA profile of that individual (sometimes called a DNA fingerprint). There is an extremely small chance that another person has the same DNA profile for a particular set of 13 regions.

Some Examples of DNA Uses for Forensic Identification

Identify potential suspects whose DNA may match evidence left at crime scenes
Exonerate persons wrongly accused of crimes
Identify crime and catastrophe victims
Establish paternity and other family relationships
Identify endangered and protected species as an aid to wildlife officials (could be used for prosecuting poachers)
Detect bacteria and other organisms that may pollute air, water, soil, and food
Match organ donors with recipients in transplant programs
Determine pedigree for seed or livestock breeds
Authenticate consumables such as caviar and wine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is DNA effective in identifying persons?
[answer provided by Daniel Drell of the U.S. DOE Human Genome Program]

DNA identification can be quite effective if used intelligently. Portions of the DNA sequence that vary the most among humans must be used; also, portions must be large enough to overcome the fact that human mating is not absolutely random.

Consider the scenario of a crime scene investigation . . .

Assume that type O blood is found at the crime scene. Type O occurs in about 45% of Americans. If investigators type only for ABO, finding that the "suspect" in a crime is type O really doesn't reveal very much.

If, in addition to being type O, the suspect is a blond, and blond hair is found at the crime scene, you now have two bits of evidence to suggest who really did it. However, there are a lot of Type O blonds out there.

If you find that the crime scene has footprints from a pair of Nike Air Jordans (with a distinctive tread design) and the suspect, in addition to being type O and blond, is also wearing Air Jordans with the same tread design, you are much closer to linking the suspect with the crime scene.

In this way, by accumulating bits of linking evidence in a chain, where each bit by itself isn't very strong but the set of all of them together is very strong, you can argue that your suspect really is the right person.

With DNA, the same kind of thinking is used; you can look for matches (based on sequence or on numbers of small repeating units of DNA sequence) at many different locations on the person's genome; one or two (even three) aren't enough to be confident that the suspect is the right one, but thirteen sites are used. A match at all thirteen is rare enough that you (or a prosecutor or a jury) can be very confident ("beyond a reasonable doubt") that the right person is accused. "

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml

Again, it is my understanding that the ten markers match (same genetic information) in the panty and in the touch DNA. Is it enough to conclude that the source of DNA is the same? I believe so if you consider that they happen to be on JB`s clothes.

I also believe that the totality of evidence points to RDI but I`m tired of hearing about the "degraded DNA that means nothing". Yes there is foreign DNA on JB`s clothes and of course it is relevant to the case, meaning it should be considered as evidence. The degraded DNA in the panties does not provide enough genetic information to make a definite match to an individual but it is enough to exclude people as the source. From the touch DNA on the other hand 13 markers are found and an identification can me made.

This is how I understand the situation, do correct me if I`m wrong.

 

[BOESP]

<snip>
back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible

1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found

or

2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall

It's unlikely all the test results have been made public.

Being somewhat familiar with criminalists and their work I doubt the crime scene was not examined properly. I've never understood why people think that. They are highly trained in gathering physical and/or trace evidence.

As to item 2 above, maybe I'm misreading, but it sounds like you believe an Intruder could have worn gloves. The same would hold true no matter who did it and iirc there is speculation Patsy may have used gloves of the type she used when using hair-coloring.

 

[brit1981]

It's unlikely all the test results have been made public.

Being somewhat familiar with criminalists and their work I doubt the crime scene was not examined properly. I've never understood why people think that. They are highly trained in gathering physical and/or trace evidence.

As to item 2 above, maybe I'm misreading, but it sounds like you believe an Intruder could have worn gloves. The same would hold true no matter who did it and iirc there is speculation Patsy may have used gloves of the type she used when using hair-coloring.

I am not excluding the family on the basis of someone perhaps wearing gloves - I cannot thing of any household that would not have some sort of rubber gloves in. It just seems for such a violent attack not much was left behind (an d an intruder or a ramsey should have left something behind)

As for the crime scene not being examined properly. It is always worth looking at that possibility. But I mainly think the fact that sixteen years worth of advances have gone by in the field of DNA analysis makes it worth looking again at the material. Why not? It has been sixteen years and no-one has been charged, surely it is worth someone going in and just looking at things afresh and having new examinations done. perhaps there is something that could be pixked up with the new advances.

 

[cynic]

For some of the partial samples is it not impossible these came from the same person, going by the info provided?

In my first post I relate that Kolar tells us that there were 6 genetically unique partial profiles.

one way to test out the underwear dna theory is to trace where the underwear was made, and packaged. If they had the original packaging then it should not be impossible. A lot of this sort of clothing is manufactured in places like China. The dna may be able to be examined (depends on quantity and quality) to determine the race and likely origin of the donor. If the underwear was made in china, and the donor was a white male of northern european extraction then the chances are it was not put there during manufacture. It is not a foolproof idea, but it could help exclude some possibilities.

Kolar's understanding is that it was traced to Taiwan.
The markers used in CODIS were not selected with the purpose of determining racial identity. The selection of a given marker was based on the polymorphic characteristics, that is, the variability between human beings at that particular genetic location and therefore its usefulness in uniquely identifying a person.
It’s true that while some studies have shown some alleles in the loci (or markers) that comprise a CODIS profile can be found with a slightly greater degree of frequency in some races, no definitive conclusions can be made.
Here is a reference that bears out what I said:
But while CODIS is good at linking the criminals who are already catalogued from other crimes, the system is useless in identifying physical characteristics. It says nothing about race. It has been specifically set up to reveal no racial information whatsoever, in part so that the test would be consistently accurate irrespective of race.
But non-scientific considerations also factored into how the system was established. When the national DNA Advisory Board selected the gene markers, or DNA sequences which have a known location on a chromosome, for CODIS, they deliberately chose not to include markers associated with ancestral geographic origins to avoid any political maelstrom.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all

the thing I find odd about this case is not the dna that was found, but the lack of it. Jonbent was killed by another person that is beyond doubt. Another person hit her head, tied the garrote around her neck and twisted it, and sexually assaulted her and had to undress and dress her. Whoever did it, how did they not leave dna - more hair, skin cells on the rope, etc. It makes me think that the person who did it was quite prepared. HOWEVER, this was back in 1996, when forensic use of dna was not so good and people were not so aware of it.

1996 was 2 years later than 1994 when the OJ Simpson case made DNA a household term.
It would not be terribly unusual for elementary precautions to be taken, such as wearing gloves.
Keep in mind that there was very damaging fiber evidence pointing to the Ramseys, including the following.
Trujillo advised me that lab technicians had identified eight different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape used to cover JonBenét’s mouth. They included red acrylic, gray acrylic, and red polyester fibers that were subsequently determined by laboratory examination to be microscopically and chemically consistent to each other, as well as to fibers taken from Patsy Ramsey’s Essentials jacket. Further, fibers from this jacket were also matched to trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 228

I think it would be worth re-examining all of the material to see if there is anything that could be used. (if this has already been done I apologize).

It was publicized that when the JonBenet case was returned to the Boulder Police Dept. in 2009 that a task force would be convened to take a fresh look at the evidence.
James Kolar was a part of that task force and a presenter.

One thing I read once was that when a person hits another person and damages the skin, as well as blood splatter there may also be tiny fragments of skin found on their clothes, which can help differentiate between innocent blood transfer, and transfer as the result of being the person who hit the victim. apparently it does take time to appear. I wonder if this is accurate and if it was done with any of the ramsey's clothing.

JonBenet suffered blunt force trauma that fractured her skull but her skin was not lacerated.

 

[BOESP]

Cynic said: JonBenet suffered blunt force trauma that fractured her skull but her skin was not lacerated.

That is one of several elements that point to a low velocity-high pressure type trauma. That type wound fits with Steve Thomas's version of events. I'm at a loss why no one seems to accept Thomas's scenario.

 

[BOESP]

I am not excluding the family on the basis of someone perhaps wearing gloves - I cannot thing of any household that would not have some sort of rubber gloves in. It just seems for such a violent attack not much was left behind (an d an intruder or a ramsey should have left something behind)

As for the crime scene not being examined properly. It is always worth looking at that possibility. But I mainly think the fact that sixteen years worth of advances have gone by in the field of DNA analysis makes it worth looking again at the material. Why not? It has been sixteen years and no-one has been charged, surely it is worth someone going in and just looking at things afresh and having new examinations done. perhaps there is something that could be pixked up with the new advances.

Fibers from John and Patsy were found in places unlikely to be found unless they were involved. There are some good discussions available here concerning this.

In answer to your question "Why not?" I'd say investigators probably already have a good idea who did it. I'd love to see someone prosecuted. The cross-fingerpointing defense discussed elsewhere here is one reason why not.

 

[twinkiesmom]

And maybe you're not aware, but the head blow came before the strangulation. Just FYI.

Source? I've read several opinions on this and tend to go with Wecht since his theory makes the most medical sense. An intracranial injury that severe should have bled severely if flow hadn't been cut off at the neck.

 

[cynic]

Source? I've read several opinions on this and tend to go with Wecht since his theory makes the most medical sense. An intracranial injury that severe should have bled severely if flow hadn't been cut off at the neck.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Wecht and have found myself agreeing with him in many instances, this is not one of them, though.
I agree with Koldkase, the head injury occurred first.

Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist with the Philadelphia Children’s Hospital, helped explain the timing of some of the injuries sustained by JonBenét. She told investigators that the blow to the skull had immediately begun to hemorrhage, and it was not likely that she would have regained consciousness after receiving this injury. The blow to the head, if left untreated, would have been fatal.
The presence of cerebral edema, swelling of the brain, suggested that JonBenét had survived for some period of time after receiving the blow to her head. Blood from the injury slowly began to fill the cavity of the skull and began to build up pressure on her brain. As pressure increased, swelling was causing the medulla of the brain to push through the foramen magnum, the narrow opening at the base of the skull.
Dr. Rorke estimated that it would have taken an hour or so for the cerebral edema to develop, but that this swelling had not yet caused JonBenét’s death. “Necrosis,” neurological changes to the brain cells, indicated a period of survival after the blow that could have ranged from between forty-five (45) minutes and two (2) hours.
As pressure in her skull increased, JonBenét was beginning to experience the effects of “brain death.” Her neurological and biological systems were beginning to shut down, and she may have been exhibiting signs of cheyne-stokes breathing. These are short, gasping breaths that may be present as the body struggles to satisfy its need for oxygen in the final stages of death.
The medical experts were in agreement: the blow to JonBenét’s skull had taken place some period of time prior to her death by strangulation. The bruising beneath the garrote and the petechial hemorrhaging in her face and eyes were conclusive evidence that she was still alive when the tightening of the ligature ended her life.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 64 – 65

Kerry Brega, chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center, said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding.
"We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said. "So it is actually possible to get a skull fracture without getting an underlying bleed in the brain."
The Daily Camera, May 3, 2001

Also:

Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault
Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says
By Charlie Brennan

BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.
The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.
"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.
"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''
Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
Wright noted that the presence of "birefringent (shiny) foreign material'' in JonBenet's vaginal tract could be consistent with someone penetrating her while wearing rubber gloves.
That, combined with prior disclosures that someone appeared to wipe down the body, is inconsistent with a typical child sex offender.
"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.
"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''
Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.
Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.
Rocky Mountain News, July 16, 1997

 

[cynic]

Uhh..here we go again..another try.
I listened to the radio show and was disappoínted. The touch DNA was not even discussed though that is the reason why M.Lacey "exonorated" the Ramseys.

There were many questions that many people wanted answered but unfortunately time constraints prevented getting into things too deeply. At one point Tricia said I probably had 300 questions waiting and that wasn’t a bad guess.

I already knew that the panty DNA had only ten markers, but if the markers match those of the touch DNA then I understand why it is relevant. There may be an innocent explanation for the DNA but it should not be "laughed off". 10 markers is not a full profile but what are the odds that these 10 markers match in the panty DNA and in the touch DNA? The markers reveal genetic features and people can be at least excluded based on that information (in JBR case the DNA belongs to a male for example so women can be excluded as the source).

Just to be clear. There are no full profiles in this case. There are only partial profiles and mixed partial profiles.
The “strongest” DNA in this case is from Distal Stain 007-2. It made it into CODIS by the "skin of its teeth" with 10 markers.
With respect to “matching,” the DS007-2 does match the TDNA from the waistband on the leggings/long johns, however, even though marker counts were given for some items at the Cold Case Task Force presentation in 2009 which Kolar attended, Andy Horita was very tight lipped about how many markers were found on the leggings. Why??? I’m guessing it’s because he was ashamed, but, regardless, he did say that it was weaker than DS007-2, therefore, less than 10, it could even be 5 or less for all we know. (Which would explain why he didn’t share the amount.)

Again, it is my understanding that the ten markers match (same genetic information) in the panty and in the touch DNA. Is it enough to conclude that the source of DNA is the same? I believe so if you consider that they happen to be on JB`s clothes.

It depends, if the marker count is 5, as an example, it may be coincidental.
If it’s closer to 9, then it’s likely the same, but given that these two items were in contact with each other on her body and that we are not privy to evidence storage procedures, the result may the consequence of contamination via transfer.
It may also be from transfer at the morgue through sequential handling by the coroner.
There is a very good discussion thread over at FFJ outlining a number of issues that could lead to the type of DNA problems seen here.
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9966"]Problems with DNA results & DNA tutorials - Forums For Justice[/ame]

I also believe that the totality of evidence points to RDI but I'm tired of hearing about the "degraded DNA that means nothing". Yes there is foreign DNA on JB`s clothes and of course it is relevant to the case, meaning it should be considered as evidence. The degraded DNA in the panties does not provide enough genetic information to make a definite match to an individual but it is enough to exclude people as the source. From the touch DNA on the other hand 13 markers are found and an identification can be made.
This is how I understand the situation, do correct me if I`m wrong.

I’m not tired of hearing that the DNA means “nothing” because, although it may be hyperbole, it’s a nice change from John Ramsey, Lin Wood and a cadre of Ramsey shills saying it means everything.
You are absolutely right about examining a case and forming conclusions based on the totality of the evidence. This is standard investigative procedure, or at least it should be. We cannot allow our heads to be turned by every stray, broken strand of DNA if the evidence points elsewhere.

 

[Roy23]

There were many questions that many people wanted answered but unfortunately time constraints prevented getting into things too deeply. At one point Tricia said I probably had 300 questions waiting and that wasn’t a bad guess.
Just to be clear. There are no full profiles in this case. There are only partial profiles and mixed partial profiles.
The “strongest” DNA in this case is from Distal Stain 007-2. It made it into CODIS by the "skin of its teeth" with 10 markers.
With respect to “matching,” the DS007-2 does match the TDNA from the waistband on the leggings/long johns, however, even though marker counts were given for some items at the Cold Case Task Force presentation in 2009 which Kolar attended, Andy Horita was very tight lipped about how many markers were found on the leggings. Why??? I’m guessing it’s because he was ashamed, but, regardless, he did say that it was weaker than DS007-2, therefore, less than 10, it could even be 5 or less for all we know. (Which would explain why he didn’t share the amount.)
It depends, if the marker count is 5, as an example, it may be coincidental.
If it’s closer to 9, then it’s likely the same, but given that these two items were in contact with each other on her body and that we are not privy to evidence storage procedures, the result may the consequence of contamination via transfer.
It may also be from transfer at the morgue through sequential handling by the coroner.
There is a very good discussion thread over at FFJ outlining a number of issues that could lead to the type of DNA problems seen here.
Problems with DNA results & DNA tutorials - Forums For Justice

I’m not tired of hearing that the DNA means “nothing” because, although it may be hyperbole, it’s a nice change from John Ramsey, Lin Wood and a cadre of Ramsey shills saying it means everything.
You are absolutely right about examining a case and forming conclusions based on the totality of the evidence. This is standard investigative procedure, or at least it should be. We cannot allow our heads to be turned by every stray, broken strand of DNA if the evidence points elsewhere.

The TDNA found in 2008 is stated to be matching the panty DNA. It is that simple unless they are lying about it.

 

[cynic]

The TDNA found in 2008 is stated to be matching the panty DNA. It is that simple unless they are lying about it.

It isn&#8217;t that simple.
The word &#8220;match&#8221; is virtually meaningless unless the number of matching markers is given.
Once upon a time, Lou Smit, Ollie Gray and John San Agustin (Ramsey shills) were running around talking about matching DNA when the amount &#8220;matching&#8221; was only 2 &#8211; 4 markers and to make matters worse they were in some cases comparing incompatible markers.
As I indicated in my previous post, the man who briefed Jim Kolar and the Cold Case Task Force in 2009, while being very forthcoming about the number of markers in the TDNA on the &#8220;garrote&#8221; and wrist bindings all of a sudden clammed up and would only say that the TDNA on the leggings was weaker than the 10 marker profile from the panties. Why? Could it be because he was too ashamed to say it was maybe only 4 or 5 markers?