DNA From JonBenet's Clothes Given to FBI

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V4577.AP-JonBenet-DNA.html



DENVER (AP)--A sample of male DNA found on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear has been submitted to FBI investigators seven years after the 6-year-old was slain in her parents' home, the family attorney said Friday.

``The Ramseys have a lot of hope that the DNA will solve the case,'' said their lawyer, L. Lin Wood.

The DNA sample was taken from two drops of blood on the garment, which has been in storage with authorities since the investigation began into the child's murder

I was reading that at *******'s forum. Mame was warning Fleet White and Spade that Lou Smit is going to be their worse nightmare. Was does that mean?

I can't access that link. It says I have to be an aol member or something. Is the story anywhere else?

It's at the thread called "Actual News" at the 2B WS.

...thanks for the link, Jack!

...feme.

Thanks Jack. That is a different article from the one I read.

This is exactly what I said at *******'s forum....

I haven't taken a trip there in awhile...but, I'm told Spade is suggesting ******* didn't require Lou Smit's services. Ha. Spade could only hope that's the case! If I were Spade or Fleet White I'd sure be worried that Lou is still on the case!!! He might just be their worst nightmare!

Click to expand...

Yes, I think Spade is highly questionable. Yes, I think he should be investigated. His involvement in this case has been sketchy from day one...

And, yes investigators like Lou Smit and Tom ******* could end up being Spade's worst nightmare. Especially now when accurate DNA comparisons can be made with the DNA extracted from the clothing!

Well, Longmont Times published a much longer article with quotes from Tom ******* who is not so optimistic about solving the case. Ironic since he is the only full time investigator.

No mention of Lou, and Ollie has not been spoken to since June. Alot of quotes from Tricia of FFJ.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/regionstate.htm

I think both articles are filled with interesting information.

I would say that Tom ******* is cautiously optimistic. ******* knows the work involved in taking over this case. It was a mess...and going back to reinvestigate and set things right is a long arduous job. Lou Smit is on the case and always will be. Ollie not speaking to them? He's not on the investigative team, he's a private investigator. I'm sure he shared what needed to be shared a long time ago. I spoke with Ollie a few weeks ago and he continues to work on the case...day in and day out.

Everyone is right where they should be...and now the DNA sample is off to the FBI. The sample will not only be submitted to the national database...but, will be retested against old comparisons with known suspects whose tests came back "inconclusive". The old suggestion that the DNA is degraded and worthless can now be put to bed.

This is all great news for the case.

Originally posted by Mame
This is all great news for the case.

Click to expand...

It sure is. Let's file those articles someplace handy so a year from now on the 8th aniversary we can email them to Limp Wood and ask him where his big bad intruder is.
I'm hoping the FBI will do a full analysis of the DNA and finally put this BS to bed for good. Of course if they do, the Ram$eys will just start crying that the FBI is in cahoots with the BPD.

What's interestimg is this information coincides with the filing of the Fox lawsuit, and the interviews were given by no other than Lin Wood. Doesn't anyone see what is happening here?

A DNA data bank search is akin to a Google search and is no great complicated or time consuming feat. In fact,one of the articles mentions there has been "no hits" which seems to imply that searches have already been done. The Longmont article mentions that the sample JUST passed the standards (because of improved technology ?) yet the BPD never submitted it, which is b.s. The BPD has not had the case for a year, nor did they have the "improved" technilogical sample. If Mary Keenan is so competent why has she waited one year to submit it if the technology was there? It wasn't, yet Wood tries to blame the BPD.

And odd that there is no mention of the "defensive flesh" as forum posters claiming "insider information" stated in the past. Whatever happened to that? Figment of the imagination?

Is this new blood that was never deliberately tested (which Mr Wood would like us to believe)or is it the same mixed sample of unidentified male DNA mixed with JonBenet's blood that could only be recently tested by a refined method because of advancing DNA technology?

Instead of explaining what this announcement is exactly about, there are lots of smoke and mirrors here.

AND is it just coincidental that the big anouncement seemingly generated by Lin Wood comes 2 days after the Fox suit is filed. Mr. Wood must think the public is a bunch of morons as it is as clear as a bell to me as to what is going on here.

``I do believe the single most important evidence in the case is the DNA,'' Wood said in a telephone interview from his office in Atlanta, where John and Patsy Ramsey now live. ""

The AP writer must not know that the Rs moved to Charlevoix?

Hold the horses! What is this story actually saying? Has NEW testing been done on her underwear? Or is this story kind of misleading?

CODIS is the name given to the FBI DNA database system. It sets the standard for DNA analysis around the US. DNA has many "markers", but CODIS identifies 13 which will be the standard for comparison.

The CODIS database is used for several different functions:-

1) To permanently store known perps' DNA
2) To permanently store unmatched DNA from crime scenes
3) To compare DNA from new crimescenes with both of the above (these profiles may then be stored permanently or not depending on the number of markers)

It is my understanding that CODIS requires a minimum of 10 markers before the DNA profile can be stored on the database. Comparisons can however routinely be done with fewer markers. Sabrina is absolutely correct in saying that it's like a Google search to check a DNA profile with existing DNA records on CODIS. The database can also be searched by different bodies. A comparison would take minutes.

I'm not an expert on DNA, but I wonder what this latest story is all about. The investigators have had several samples of DNA since early in the investigation. One wonders if this is a new sample and if not, why the delay in submitting one of the existing samples. There is no good reason for a delay.

I do wonder about one thing. If the DNA in JBR's underwear has too few markers to be permanently stored on the CODIS database and can only be compared with existing DNA profiles, could it be that this story is merely reporting that yet another routine comparison has been made? Patsy Ramsey is supposed to have stated that a sample was being submitted for comparison last year. Samples which have too few markers cannot be stored permanently and so routine comparisons would have to be instigated. Perhaps Patsy reported one routine comparison and Wood has reported another of the same?

It would be lovely if there were a match, but I'm not overly optimistic. I think this person knew the Ramseys in some capacity and probably isn't in the FBI database.

THere have been a couple of cases in the UK where all of the males in a town have been asked to give DNA samples to exclude them from a crime. It's a pity Boulder couldn't do that.

Originally posted by Jayelles
Hold the horses! What is this story actually saying? Has NEW testing been done on her underwear?

Click to expand...

It probably refers to what Wood said on LKL a few months back. Something about the second blood stain was never tested until recently. We would have to check that transcript.

I agree that dealing with the Ramseys and with Lin Wood has been like handling a bunch of slippery eels, but we have no choice other than to accept what's told to us. The article stated that Wood "confirmed that the DNA sample had passed standards required for submission within the last several months."

IMO the evidence is overwhelming that there was a Ramsey somehow involved in the death of JonBenet -- and there was a fifth person in the house that night. Therefore that male "intruder" was a friend or relative of a Ramsey. Since the male foreign DNA apparently doesn't match a Ramsey, then I have a good idea who it does match.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Originally posted by BlueCrab
Therefore that male "intruder" was a friend or relative of a Ramsey. Since the male foreign DNA apparently doesn't match a Ramsey, then I have a good idea who it does match.

Click to expand...

BlueCrab, one problem with your "friend" theory is that if it's true, the Ramseys really wouldn't have their legal bloodhound out there hammering away about the DNA to anyone who will listen. The last thing they would want is that DNA tested and they would tell Wood to "shut-up about the frick'n DNA!"
Remember that if it's ever found out that it was a family friend as you suspect, then the Rammers were involved in the coverup and know exactly who did it, and they owe the City of Boulder MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that were spent because of their actions.

JMO

Jayelles, I reread all the articles and have come to the conclusion that this is not anything really new.

Due to new technology, another marker or two was able to get extracted and read. DNA technology gets more sophisticated everyday. This was announced several months ago.

The DNA previously has been checked against the database and "there were no hits. It can be checked against the database with less markers than it needs to be permanently entered into the database. Some of the articles state that there have been no hits. It is now entered permanently because of the 10 markers or whatever and new entries will be checked against it.


The RST is banking on a future entry of matching DNA -- I.E. that the perp will commit another crime. So far he hasn't left his DNA at another crime scene, and we know he isn't a convicted felon of a sex crime.


In today's Daily Camera article, the following is stated:

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2422_2534571,00.html

"Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan confirmed Friday that the DNA had been entered into the Combined DNA Index System since she took over the investigation from Boulder police last December.

But Keenan, who hired a full-time investigator for the JonBenet case in June, said she didn't know when that task was accomplished and hasn't heard any news in the case.

"As far as I know there is nothing major going on," she said. "


This tells us that this is nothing new. I think it's a PR campaign.

We knew the entry into the databank was about to happen, or did happen a few months ago.

This did not just happen yesterday. Mr. Wood must have issued a press release to coincide with the FoxNews lawsuit filing. The average citizen does not understand the logistics of DNA testing and the articles were somewhat ambiguous about timing if one was not familiar with previous statements and information about the DNA.

It is no new relevation, it is something we have known about--it's just a press release that was intended to be intruder-oriented to coincide with the Fox filing. This also was a method to get in another barb to the Boulder police a day or two after the announcement of the Fox lawsuit whereas Carol M. stated that police sources say there is no evidence of an intruder, and a barb to infer that the police held on to this DNA and were negligent to get it tested.

I've heard about that town getting tested, in fact I thouht I saw something like that on "New Deectives' or "Cold Cases". Problem is, Boulder and much of the U.S. has a very transient population, unlike many of the villages and towns in the U.K. I forget the latest count, but there has been an incredible number of DNA samples taken in the case, in spite of what the RST would like the public to believe.