Thank God someone finally is telling the truth. Unfortunately the scientist won't let his or her name be used but she/he spells it out right here. From the Rocky Mountain News. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News May 18, 2004 A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample. "That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. Advertisement The DNA sample was found commingled with blood in the underwear of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist. "You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation." The sample does not match any member of the Ramsey family or any known suspects in Boulder's unsolved Christmas night 1996 slaying, according to Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner. Ramsey, 60, who now resides in Charlevoix, Mich., announced May 11 he is running as a Republican for the 105th House District seat in the Michigan State Legislature. On Ramsey's campaign Web site, www.supportramsey.com, visitors can click on an icon titled "Family Tragedy/Update." "On Dec. 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the (Boulder) D.A.'s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenet. Consequently, all of the state and federal DNA data systems now have the entire profile of the unknown deposit, thanks to the identification of the 10th marker." It also states the following: "It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child." But that's not necessarily the case, said the man who developed that tenth marker. "It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there." He also said there is no way to "age" the sample, to determine whether it was left in the underwear at the time of JonBenet's murder or at some other point. Ramsey campaign manager John Yob didn't answer a call and e-mail Monday seeking comment. But Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, who has represented the Ramseys for several years but is not associated with John Ramsey's campaign, defended the campaign's assertion. "I agree with the statements on the Ramsey Web site," said Wood. "There is no doubt in my mind, based on my knowledge of this case over the course of five years representing this family, that the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear is the DNA of the killer. "Anyone in a law enforcement investigation who is searching for an innocent explanation for foreign male DNA found mixed in the victim's blood on her underwear is either incompetent or prejudiced to the point of being unqualified to participate in a fair and objective investigation. "I am sure that explains in part why this case was taken away from the Boulder Police Department." Another state forensics expert, who also asked not to be identified, said the significance of the DNA profile must be weighed conservatively, based on where it was found, and in what substance. Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it." It is true that identifying the tenth genetic marker enabled Ramsey investigators to finally enter the unidentified genetic profile into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, a national database. As of March, the Ramsey sample was one of 78,475 unidentified forensic profiles entered in the CODIS system, where it is regularly searched for potential matches against genetic profiles of convicted offenders - 1.6 million of them, and counting. `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `` YES this is what was needed for the truth to finally start coming out.