No surprise: DNA is a dud.

Shylock

Former Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
39
Website
Visit site
Article Published: Friday, June 04, 2004


DNA found on JonBenét yields no match

By Mike McPhee Karen Augé and Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writers

A DNA profile of blood taken from JonBenét Ramsey's underpants does not match any of the more than 1.5 million DNA profiles in the FBI's database, according to the Denver Police Department's crime lab.

"I can tell you that the entire database has been searched, and not one profile was a match," said an officer familiar with the proceedings who did not want to be named.

[snip]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~56~2191170,00.html
 
Our Foreign Faction Killers, have never been caught before. Gee they really are good!
 
They must be "foreign factory faction" suspects....you'd think they would have foreign faction DNA database to go thru also. LOL
 
The DNA has been a red herring all along. Dr. Lee was correct when he said, "This is not a DNA case."
 
Petronella said:
The DNA has been a red herring all along. Dr. Lee was correct when he said, "This is not a DNA case."


Yep No DNA case "Rice aready cooked" Henry Lee
 
Correct - this is not, has never been, and never will be a DNA case.
Why is that significant? Simple. Because for as much T-I-M-E the killer spent with JonBenet and the things he did to her - there SHOULD be a lot of foreign DNA. There is not. There is but a teeny, weeny, microscopic speck that could have come from ANYWHERE. And did.
It did not come from the person who killed her.
And any DNA from her 3 family members in the house that night found on her would be explained away by any defense attorney as "belonging" there as they lived in the house with her. Easily explainable.

So... we have never heard how much DNA they extracted from JonBenet's body and clothing that matched her father, mother or brother have we?
There could be a plethora.
Yet they focus soley on some teeny tiny speck found that could barely be stretched enough to call a sample - and lead you (the public) to believe that THIS is the "only" DNA found on her and at the crime scene.

Forget the DNA angle. DNA is not a factor in this case. But plenty else is....
 
K777angel said:
Correct - this is not, has never been, and never will be a DNA case.
You got that right. Some people are so ignorant they think just because DNA contamination was entered into the CODIS database that makes it a valid DNA case. They'll go to there graves waiting for it be be matched to a non-existant person...LOL
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
698
Total visitors
770

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,699
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top