New article but no new news

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238904,00.html


Article today about the case.

Watching FOX news this morning, they did a spot on JB with Carol reporting from Boulder as she often does. The topic was the new interest in solving the case w/ the DA wanting to hire another full time investigator.

At the very end of the spot Carole said there is one fact that has been a given in the case ever since the JB investigation started. I have been racking my brain to remember what that was {was baking cookies at the time while listening}, and heard Carol say this which might it.

She said the DNA in JB's underpanties was male. There was such a small amount of this DNA that it was never tested. It was only enough for one test, and they didn't want to use it up.

Does that sound like something no one here has heard before as a change in fact? Maybe Carol will do the spot again on The Big Story. I'll be listening. LOL Scandi

I've never heard that before. If their reasoning for NOT testing it was because there was such a small amount, and they didn't want to use it all up, well, then what would they be saving it for if NOT for a DNA test?????

julianne said:

I've never heard that before. If their reasoning for NOT testing it was because there was such a small amount, and they didn't want to use it all up, well, then what would they be saving it for if NOT for a DNA test?????

Click to expand...

I can assure if it wasn't tested then its so degraded it does not exist in any real sense now. I live here and never heard that. JMHO This sounds like so much malarky. If they had it they'd of tested it. I can't believe otherwise . As to Lacey wanting to hire another full time investigator. She better do something to make this case look like its still investigator. Can we spell new Governor Bill Ritter is preparing his oath of office speech. :doh: Yet only $40 grand. cmon
lets spend more than that.......thats silly.

That's what Carol McKinley FOX News did say, stupid as it sounds as to why thay never tested it.

I thought they sent another DNA sample to somewhere in the Midwest to be examined, Not the panty DNA but some other fluid they found with JonBenet. Anyone know about that?

I don't mean to be gross but in my house, all of the undies are pretty much washed together. Some are bleached if possible. If it was the same in the Ramsey house, isn't it possible that some of John's "stuff" got on JB's underwear just from laundering? Or Patsy's stuff? Or Burke's stuff? I am a germ freak and I have done some basic reading about American washers. They are notoriously poor rinsers so I try to rinse my clothes twice just to make sure. Even if there was testable DNA, would that conclusively prove anything?

Nancy Grace is reviewing JonBenet's case tonight ~ on now!

I thought I read that the DNA on JBR's underwear matched DNA under her nails. Wouldn't that mean DNA tests were done? I heard the test may have been botched (nail clippers may not have been cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails). I've heard that various people tested via DNA were not a match. Since these are all things I've heard, sometimes beyond here-say I don't know what to think.


Was DNA tested or not tested, and if so, from where? I'm confused :waitasec:

JR says he beleives this case will be solved (yea..IMO,only if he confesses as to what really happened).
Smit the schmuck says we need to wait for the dna databanks to fill up (with what? the kind of **** he spits out??????)
..and that dna can solve this case???He knows it can't,it can only eliminate.

kidzndogznme said:

I don't mean to be gross but in my house, all of the undies are pretty much washed together. Some are bleached if possible. If it was the same in the Ramsey house, isn't it possible that some of John's "stuff" got on JB's underwear just from laundering? Or Patsy's stuff? Or Burke's stuff? I am a germ freak and I have done some basic reading about American washers. They are notoriously poor rinsers so I try to rinse my clothes twice just to make sure. Even if there was testable DNA, would that conclusively prove anything?

Click to expand...

Laundry would not explain John's shirt fibers found in her crotch. They did not get there from his shirt! John had to have direct contact with her undressed body that night. I think he molested her and he probably was her killer- I don't know how much Patsy was involved in the killing, but Patsy wrote the cover-up "ransom note" IMO.

LionRun said:

I thought I read that the DNA on JBR's underwear matched DNA under her nails. Wouldn't that mean DNA tests were done? I heard the test may have been botched (nail clippers may not have been cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails). I've heard that various people tested via DNA were not a match. Since these are all things I've heard, sometimes beyond here-say I don't know what to think.


Was DNA tested or not tested, and if so, from where? I'm confused :waitasec:

Click to expand...

The fingernail DNA has not been matched to the underwear DNA. That the DNAs match is something that has only been said by these two RST PIs Gray and Augustin, and Lin Wood's not saying it, so I think he knows it doesn't match as well. There aren't enough markers found in the nail DNA to conclusively match it to anything. There are standard similarities in DNA - that's why we need a certain number of markers to make a definitive match. If there has been a match made, it was with those standard similarities, and it isn't a conclusive match because they would need more markers to make that match - and there aren't more.

The coroner's office failed to use a sterile set of clippers for each nail as they are supposed to. They used the same set of clippers for all nails, so yes, there is a question of contamination.

There is no proof that any DNA under JonBenet's nails came from the killer. Patsy said JB hadn't had a bath that day, and that she wasn't fond of washing her hands, so that DNA could have been there from the day before, or even the day before. If it had come from JonBenet scratching her killer, it would have been more complete and easier to obtain markers from because it would have been fresher.

Same with the underwear DNA. It was fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete. Had the foreign DNA sample been deposited at the same time as JonBenet's, it would have been as fresh and complete. It wasn't. It's extremely likely the foreign DNA was already on the underwear before they were ever put on JonBenet's body. Dr Henry Lee obtained identical underwear, brand new and unwashed, and when he tested them, he found DNA on them.

That's another important thing about these underwear JonBenet was wearing when she was found - they were brand new, unwashed, never been worn underwear right out of the package. They had never been laundered. They were size 12/14. JonBenet's drawer was full of her underwear, size 4/6...why was she found in underwear that were way too big for her? Who put them on her?

As for Nancy Grace, she's about to get a nasty emnail from me for her shoddy show that basically highlighted the case from the JMK point of view. I normally like Nancy, but seeing a show about JB that pretty much focused on JMK was more than I could handle. That sick jerk doesn't deserve any more air time, and I'm thoroughly disgusted that he's gotten what he wanted, and now he's an integral part of the JBR investigation. That along with the announcement that the Rs "were eventually cleared" (they weren't and she should know that) is going to earn the Nancy Grace show an email from a less-than-satisfied viewer.

Just a way out there thought. JB was known to have a bed wetting/soiling problem. I personally know kids younger than 6 who are potty trained during the day and become highly embarrassed at the idea of having to put on a pull-up at night or at naptime. The mothers of these children often put panties on overtop of the pull-up so the child still feels like a big girl. Is it possible that the larger undies were used overtop of the pullup? The 4-6 size probably wouldn't have fit over a pull-up. This case has so many inconsistencies that it makes my brain hurt.

Nuisanceposter said:

The fingernail DNA has not been matched to the underwear DNA. That the DNAs match is something that has only been said by these two RST PIs Gray and Augustin, and Lin Wood's not saying it, so I think he knows it doesn't match as well. There aren't enough markers found in the nail DNA to conclusively match it to anything. There are standard similarities in DNA - that's why we need a certain number of markers to make a definitive match. If there has been a match made, it was with those standard similarities, and it isn't a conclusive match because they would need more markers to make that match - and there aren't more.

The coroner's office failed to use a sterile set of clippers for each nail as they are supposed to. They used the same set of clippers for all nails, so yes, there is a question of contamination.

There is no proof that any DNA under JonBenet's nails came from the killer. Patsy said JB hadn't had a bath that day, and that she wasn't fond of washing her hands, so that DNA could have been there from the day before, or even the day before. If it had come from JonBenet scratching her killer, it would have been more complete and easier to obtain markers from because it would have been fresher.

Same with the underwear DNA. It was fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete. Had the foreign DNA sample been deposited at the same time as JonBenet's, it would have been as fresh and complete. It wasn't. It's extremely likely the foreign DNA was already on the underwear before they were ever put on JonBenet's body. Dr Henry Lee obtained identical underwear, brand new and unwashed, and when he tested them, he found DNA on them.

That's another important thing about these underwear JonBenet was wearing when she was found - they were brand new, unwashed, never been worn underwear right out of the package. They had never been laundered. They were size 12/14. JonBenet's drawer was full of her underwear, size 4/6...why was she found in underwear that were way too big for her? Who put them on her?

As for Nancy Grace, she's about to get a nasty emnail from me for her shoddy show that basically highlighted the case from the JMK point of view. I normally like Nancy, but seeing a show about JB that pretty much focused on JMK was more than I could handle. That sick jerk doesn't deserve any more air time, and I'm thoroughly disgusted that he's gotten what he wanted, and now he's an integral part of the JBR investigation. That along with the announcement that the Rs "were eventually cleared" (they weren't and she should know that) is going to earn the Nancy Grace show an email from a less-than-satisfied viewer.

Click to expand...

I have nothing to add but my own e mail to surely the slew of mails Nancy Grace is going to get. Eventually Cleared really sent me sky high. Also I totally agree about the JMK. He was not in Boulder that night and till that can be prove. Somebody get the shepherds hook and get him off stage ok.

Nuisanseposter,

During the JMK period of the case, I did some reading on the case. I remember reading about another DNA sample that had been sent to a lab in the midwest that they felt they would have success with. Do you know anything about this.

About the same time I read that Dr Lee was on a talk show and said DNA would determine who the killer was in JB's death, and that is the last thing I had learned here at WS about the importance of DNA in the case.

Scandi

scandi said:

Nuisanseposter,

During the JMK period of the case, I did some reading on the case. I remember reading about another DNA sample that had been sent to a lab in the midwest that they felt they would have success with. Do you know anything about this.

About the same time I read that Dr Lee was on a talk show and said DNA would determine who the killer was in JB's death, and that is the last thing I had learned here at WS about the importance of DNA in the case.

Scandi

Click to expand...

I heard the above also. Can anyone elaborate on it? Also, this is the first I heard of size 12/14 underwear on JBR. Not only would I like to know why they were put on; but, who'd were they? Were there any more like it in the home?

Bless you LionRun! I'm not loco afterall.

See you tonight! Scandi

LionRun said:

I heard the above also. Can anyone elaborate on it? Also, this is the first I heard of size 12/14 underwear on JBR. Not only would I like to know why they were put on; but, who'd were they? Were there any more like it in the home?

Click to expand...

I have not heard that on Dr. Lee but Lou Smit keeps saying that DNA will prove the killer we just need to wait for the DNA databanks to fill up. In fact Dr. Lee was saying that this was NOT a case for DNA. That the DNA could be artifact and of no consequence in this case. He purchased a pack of underwear and proved that there was existent dna on the unlaundered underwear. So I am thinking someone has confused Dr. Lee with Lou Smit....jmho

Actually I don't recall hearing anything recently about a lab in the midwest in connection to the DNA. I'm going to see what I can find out that.

The size 12/14s...there has been much discussion here about them. Basically the story is - Patsy took JonBenet to NYC on a trip around Thanksgiving 96, where they visited Bloomies, and Patsy bought two packages of Bloomies day-of-the-week underwear, in size 4/6 and size 12/14. They were identical except for size. The larger size was intended to be sent to Patsy's niece Jenny, but for some reason, and Patsy is inconsistent in her interview as to why or how, the underwear were never sent, and may have possibly ended up in JonBenet's drawer.

The package the pair of undies JonBenet was found in was the only package of size 12/14s they had, or I would be inclined to believe that they were meant to cover up pull-ups. All of the other pairs of undies police found in her drawer were size 4/6, although Patsy claimed later that JonBenet may have had size 6/8 or even 8/10 underwear. It was later discovered that the Bloomies package the undies on JB came from had been in possession of the Rs for years, while police were trying to find them and figure out what was going on.

Please take the time to go through Jayelles' very enlightening thread where she actually obtained the same size undies and made a model of a child the same size and demonstrated how JonBenet would have been drowning in the size 12s and it seems very doubtful that JonBenet herself would have actually chosen to dress herself in those underwear.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128

It should also be noted that the size 12/14s were the Wednesday undies, and that Christmas had been on a Wednesday. The word Wednesday was written in script, and as there was some question as to how well JonBenet could read (apparently she needed Burke to help her read name tags on gifts), I find it doubtful that JonBenet could read the script and chose those undies because it was a Wednesday. The Wednesday undies would have been in the middle of the pack as well - why not peel a pair off of either end? Why get the ones that say Wednesday? Who cared that much about what day of the week it was?

Someone put them on her - why? Why the larger size? Suppose they had been in her drawer...why would an intruder, trying to escape before he was discovered, go past pairs of undies lying about folded and readily accessible to get a pair from a package that hadn't even been laundered yet, and was several sizes too large for the child? Would an intruder really go hunting through the drawers of the child he's assaulted and seek out a clean pair of underwear for her, when he's worried about being heard and getting caught?

Then there's the theory PagingDrDetect had - there was a box of partially opened gifts in the basement, as noted by Lou Smit (IIRC). PDD theorized the size 12/14s had been already been wrapped as a gift and were in a box in the basement ready to be sent, and the person who redressed JonBenet knew they were there and went to get those undies to dress her in, as the ones she had had on had to be gotten rid of - perhaps they contained evidence. It seems unlikely that a pedophiliac kidnapping intruder bent on savaging a child sexually would even bother to redress her after he was done - many experts feel that act was consistent with a parent staging a crime scene, along with the wiping down. A murderous intruder bent on getting revenge at JR through assaulting his daughter would have most likely have posed her body naked and brutalized for shock value.

So I'm left asking - who dressed her in those larger size undies, and why?

In ref. to the underwear saying Wed. on them,and JB knowing that,JR seems to have intentionally made a comment in DOI about that when he says that "Burke passed out the gifts b/c he could read and JB couldn't."

JMO8778 said:

In ref. to the underwear saying Wed. on them,and JB knowing that,JR seems to have intentionally made a comment in DOI about that when he says that "Burke passed out the gifts b/c he could read and JB couldn't."

Click to expand...

JR stating that "Burke passed out the gifts b/c he could read and JonBenet couldn't" ---- How does THAT statement turn into JR intentionally making a comment about the Wednesday underwear????? Apples and oranges. Especially since JonBenet not knowing how to read was revealed waaaaay before DOI was even written.