Question

New Posts

B

Barbara

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
741
Reaction score
23
Website
Visit site
Defenders of the Ramsey have made much effort to convince the rest of us that the DNA from JBR is MALE AND NON RAMSEY.

In 1998 or 1999, the authorities came to take a sample of DNA from ARIANA PUGH?

What is the explanation for this? Since some are emphatic that this is male, non Ramsey DNA without any legitimate source to back that up, what is the explanation for taking FEMALE DNA samples?
 
As I posted on another thread, the taking of DNA from Ariana Pugh ties in with the discovery and testing of DNA-x.

Beckner said:-

Here Beckner is talking about Chris Wolf's DNA

21 Q Was it compared to DNAX?
22 A The lab would have to answer that.
23 Q Well, would you have expected it to be?
24 A Not necessarily.
25 Q Why?


128

1 A Well, if -- hypothetically?
2 MR. MILLER: No, not hypothetically.
3 Q (BY MR. WOOD) I would rather you --
4 A I don't know how to answer it without
5 giving away information.
Click to expand...

I hypothesise that DNA-x was female and that is why it wasn't necessary to test Wolf's DNA.

Ariana Pugh's DNA sample was taken in January 1999.
 
Thanks Jayelles,

What is the explanation for this a la Lin Wood, Ramsey defenders, etc? Anyone know?
 
DNA-x, whether male or female, may be further narrowed down to ethnic ancestry by the new DNA Witness analysis developed in 2003 (please refer to the Susanna Chase thread).

JMO
 
Jayelles said:
I hypothesise that DNA-x was female and that is why it wasn't necessary to test Wolf's DNA.

Ariana Pugh's DNA sample was taken in January 1999.
Click to expand...

And we have this from the December 4th, 1998 Rocky Mountain News:

Police will collect DNA samples and palm prints from five relatives of JonBenet Ramsey in the Atlanta area next week.

...

Pam Paugh, JonBenet's aunt, said she is among the five relatives who will provide mouth swabs and palm prints. She said the other four are Don and Nedra Paugh, JonBenet's maternal grandparents, Polly Paugh Davis, and Polly's husband, Grant Davis.

...

Pam Paugh said it was her understanding that the DNA evidence, which will be compared to the DNA from the five relatives, "is not the DNA found under her fingernails."

So if the DNA in the panties has been deemed by the Ramsey defense to be the same DNA as under JonBenet's nails, and the DNA taken from the Paugh relatives was not to be compared to the nail DNA, then, as history has shown, the likelihood is large that DNA-x was the comparison standard, and perhaps was itself degraded in a way which prevented its gender from being known, requiring both male and female DNA samples to be taken, with Arianna Pugh caught up in the renewed net of sample-taking.
 
I don't know that they took a sample from Ariana Pugh but if they did it might be because they were unable to get a sample from her father or because they feel it is remotely possible that more than one intruder was present that night.
It is also possible that certain items found in the home such as the rope or the paper sack were swabbed and yielded dna which might or might not have been from the intruder.

Anyway, the dna from the fingernails and from the panties: is NOT Ramsey dna.
 
BlueCrab said:
DNA-x, whether male or female, may be further narrowed down to ethnic ancestry by the new DNA Witness analysis developed in 2003 (please refer to the Susanna Chase thread).

JMO
Click to expand...

There is a monkey wrench waiting to be thrown into those works, I believe. What would the DNA results show for someone who is of a multi-racial background? What would these tests make of Tiger Woods, whose mother is half Thai, one-quarter Chinese, and one quarter European, and whose father is half black, one-quarter American Indian, and one-quarter Chinese?
 
why_nutt said:
There is a monkey wrench waiting to be thrown into those works, I believe. What would the DNA results show for someone who is of a multi-racial background? What would these tests make of Tiger Woods, whose mother is half Thai, one-quarter Chinese, and one quarter European, and whose father is half black, one-quarter American Indian, and one-quarter Chinese?
Click to expand...

IMO the example you gave would considerably narrow down the donor of that DNA to very few people and perhaps down to only one suspect, depending on the circumstances of the case.

This DNA Witness thing may become BIG.

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
IMO the example you gave would considerably narrow down the donor of that DNA to very few people and perhaps down to only one suspect, depending on the circumstances of the case.

This DNA Witness thing may become BIG.

JMO
Click to expand...

With a good, clean, strong DNA sample, perhaps. Have you looked at the site for DNAPrint? They require two thousand markers in a sample to conduct what they call pan-genome coverage. The Chase case is not known to have had problems with degraded samples, just with no matches to be found in the information they had. But if the Ramsey case can barely eke out 10 markers, well, you can see why the Ramsey case may not benefit from this particular magic bullet.
 
Perhaps the reason Beckner alluded to the fact that Chris Wolf's DNA would not have to be compared to DNA-x had nothing to do with gender.

For instance, maybe the GJ had indeed solved the crime in 1999 and there were children involved. But DNA evidence and other evidence existed that someone, an unknown but older accomplice, had slipped between the cracks and, because of known circumstances, that unknown accomplice could NOT have been Chris Wolf.

JMO
 
The first explanation for foreign DNA being in JonBenét's panties was that she had "exchanged panties" with a playmate. Since the underwear was feminine, that would indicate a girl playmate. Girl playmates' parents were contacted for DNA samples.

I suppose the male dna was hoped to be innocent parent or SO dna in the playmate's panties.

None of that ever made sense to me.
 
Toth said:
I don't know that they took a sample from Ariana Pugh but if they did it might be because they were unable to get a sample from her father or because they feel it is remotely possible that more than one intruder was present that night.
It is also possible that certain items found in the home such as the rope or the paper sack were swabbed and yielded dna which might or might not have been from the intruder.

Anyway, the dna from the fingernails and from the panties: is NOT Ramsey dna.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they get a sample from Merv? The Pughs were more cooperative than the Ramseys and they didn't even have lawyers, knowing full well that they were thrown under that bus. As drunk as you like to paint Merv, there was never an instance where he was too out of it to speak to the investigators, something that cannot be said about the parents who had, or should I say should have had the most motivation to speak to investigators and CHOSE not to.

As for your last statement, we DONT know that yet. What if it turns out to be a Ramsey? I realize of course that the RST is not yet willing to accept the palm print and hair belonging to Melinda and Patsy respectively as there is no official source. Fair enough. But along those lines of thinking, we also do not know for sure if the DNA is Ramsey or non Ramsey.

With all due respect Toth, your word isn't enough to make it fact.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
The first explanation for foreign DNA being in JonBenét's panties was that she had "exchanged panties" with a playmate. Since the underwear was feminine, that would indicate a girl playmate. Girl playmates' parents were contacted for DNA samples.

I suppose the male dna was hoped to be innocent parent or SO dna in the playmate's panties.

None of that ever made sense to me.
Click to expand...

What doesn't make sense to me is having such degraded DNA in a crime scene only 24 or so hours old, when JBR's DNA was intact at the same location.
 
Barbara said:
What doesn't make sense to me is having such degraded DNA in a crime scene only 24 or so hours old, when JBR's DNA was intact at the same location.
Click to expand...

Do you not mean 12 hours or so? - which is even more puzzling...
 
Barbara said:
What doesn't make sense to me is having such degraded DNA in a crime scene only 24 or so hours old, when JBR's DNA was intact at the same location.
Click to expand...


The age of the DNA is not the only factor that tends to degrade DNA. For instance, a large wet sample may degrade as it's drying and be in worse shape than a tiny sample that dried quickly.

JMO
 
When Hunter ordered a sample of Ariana Pugh's DNA be taken, it was during the time he was presenting evidence to the grand jury. He might have just been tying up loose ends, making sure all the i's were dotted and t's crossed in his presentation. Ariana's fingerprints had been taken soon after JonBenet's death. Maybe she was inadvertently overlooked when DNA samples were being taken from the Pugh family and friends.

OTOH, Ariana and JonBenet had spent quite a bit of time together on December 23, putting on makeup, and maybe Hunter suddenly realized that if JonBenet's undies hadn't been changed in a couple days, the mystery DNA could be Ariana's through secondary transfer.
 
Jayelles said:
Do you not mean 12 hours or so? - which is even more puzzling...
Click to expand...

Thanks Jayelles,

Yes, I meant 12 hours or so. Maybe the perp/s used self destructing DNA :)
 
LP, I think the problem is that they didn't, and maybe still don't, know how many contributors there were to that DNA. If it's really mixed, it will be hard to determine which markers belong to which contributor.

My theory on why the DNA was degraded is that the degraded DNA was old stuff that just happened to be under JBR's fingernails when she scratched herself. I've seen so many little girls do that. The big question is is there was also fresh foreign DNA. Even then, the DNA seems to be such a tiny trace that it really is not a typical DNA case. There is just too much wiggle room for any potential defendant to say the tiny trace was deposited innocently via secondary transfer.
 
My theory is that the DNA isn't degraded.

The testing of the 2nd spot of blood apparently was able to recover at least 10 markers of DNA sufficient to submit to CODIS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 217 more.
Total: 3,354 (members: 218, guests: 3,136)

Online statistics

Members online
218
Guests online
3,136
Total visitors
3,354
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,826
Messages
17,959,667
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top