The undies and DNA

[sissi]

Not quite Sissi, but the FACT that the DNA is NOT on CODIS and is in such miniscule (not to mention degraded) quantities should be given a value rating. Investigators should not ignore good suspects on the basis of evidence which is possibly unrelated to the crime.

Should be , if what you say is fact!

 

[ellen13]

Thank you for clarifying! I'm learning a lot!

 

[sissi]

The dna WAS entered into CODIS, the dna was NOT contaminated, there were sufficient markers, it was from one source. When foreign dna is found in the underwear of a victim and under the nails of a victim , it's pretty safe to suspect it's from the killer.

 

[Nehemiah]

Where did the "DNA from a factory worker" originate in this case? Was it in ST's book?

 

[why_nutt]

Where did the "DNA from a factory worker" originate in this case? Was it in ST's book?

Charlie Brennan broke the story in the November 19, 2002 Rocky Mountain News:

Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
November 19, 2002

Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture.

In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.

If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.

And, investigators know the DNA found in the underwear - white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band - was not left by seminal fluid.

"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.

"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."

Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.

And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."

The autopsy report in JonBenet's slaying indicates her pelvic area was swabbed for potential DNA. There has never been any report that those swabs yielded any foreign genetic material. But any significance that might have must be weighed against the fact that the coroner, Dr. John Meyer, observed that the killer may have wiped JonBenet's body with a cloth.

 

[Seeker]

If the killer wore gloves could the new panties have minute or one marker of cross contamination from wherever the gloves were worn - over a period of days in the winter? The outside of gloves pick up an endless supply of minute DNA I would imagine...

OK this now just gave me a new idea on how the DNA got under her nails! Thanks Cranberry!

What if the DNA found under JonBenet's nails were from her own gloves, or the gloves from a friend that she wore, or even just tried on? When she went to the bathroom and pulled down her panties she would have shed some of those cells into her underwear IMO.

 

[Cranberry]

OK this now just gave me a new idea on how the DNA got under her nails! Thanks Cranberry!

What if the DNA found under JonBenet's nails were from her own gloves, or the gloves from a friend that she wore, or even just tried on? When she went to the bathroom and pulled down her panties she would have shed some of those cells into her underwear IMO.

Yes, I wonder if JBR's gloves were found or if they were left in her coat pocket. I remember reading her coat was left in the Jag (PR identified it in a photo)which IMO lends more weight to her not falling asleep in the car if she had it on that cold night when they left the party.

 

[trixie]

Yes, I wonder if JBR's gloves were found or if they were left in her coat pocket. I remember reading her coat was left in the Jag (PR identified it in a photo)which IMO lends more weight to her not falling asleep in the car if she had it on that cold night when they left the party.

Interesting. Didn't both John and Patsy say in their interviews that John carried her upstairs and laid her on the bed and then he took off her coat, and he said maybe her shoes. But I know he definately said he took off her coat and then Patsy came in and took over and changed her clothes. Hmmmm!

 

[Jayelles]

This question was asked on another forum (referring to Patsy):-

I am waiting to hear them explain how she disguised her DNA - - making it male.

One might also ask the following questions:-

How did she also make it degrade so quickly?
How did she manage to shed such a miniscule amount?
And - What is the most up to date and official line about the DNA?

 

[IrishMist]

This question was asked on another forum (referring to Patsy):-


One might also ask the following questions:-

How did she also make it degrade so quickly?
How did she manage to shed such a miniscule amount?
And - What is the most up to date and official line about the DNA?

What is the most up to date and official line about the DNA, Jayelles?

 

[Jayelles]

What is the most up to date and official line about the DNA, Jayelles?

This is:-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=76483&postcount=1

The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

.......may NOT be from the killer.

Tom Bennett was the official investigator on the Ramsey case until Jim Kolar took over this year. Bennett had access to the case file and most up to date lab reports and expert opinions. This was (I think) the only statement he made about the case and I think he was driven to it because TeamRamsey were increasingly commandeering the media and making statements and documentaries which claimed the DNA was definitely the killer's.

 

[Nehemiah]

This is:-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=76483&postcount=1


.......may NOT be from the killer.

Tom Bennett was the official investigator on the Ramsey case until Jim Kolar took over this year. Bennett had access to the case file and most up to date lab reports and expert opinions. This was (I think) the only statement he made about the case and I think he was driven to it because TeamRamsey were increasingly commandeering the media and making statements and documentaries which claimed the DNA was definitely the killer's.

Jay, what was the latest said about DNA X? Has that ever been further addressed outside Beckner's depo?

 

[Jayelles]

Jay, what was the latest said about DNA X? Has that ever been further addressed outside Beckner's depo?

Nothing that I am aware of Nehemiah. Zippo.