Question

[BlueCrab]

:waitasec: How do you know the DNA-X doesn't match a Ramsey?

She can't know ; no one knows except the authorities who are sitting on this information. None of the DNA results have been made public. All we get are unsubstantiated leaks from those who have agendas to carry out, and an occasional crumb from the depositions.

Since the title of this thread is "Questions", I have this question:

Will the DNA samples from the JonBenet Ramsey crime scene be sent to DNAPrint Genomics, Inc., and be tested by that company using its "DNA Witness" technology to obtain the ancestral proportions of the person(s) who deposited the DNA?

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[why_nutt]

Imon, the package of panties was recovered by Ramsey investigators after the house was turned back over by BPD to the family.

Lin Wood obtained the package and turned it over to the DA (I think it was 2003, but I might be off a year). There was at least one article, with quotes from Wood, about the package of panties.

It is not probative of guilt or anything like it, but I find it an odd quirk of the Ramsey family priorities that they would give away their deceased daughter's bicycle, a precious item they gave her on the last day of her life and which she loved and wanted very much to enjoy had she lived, but they keep her underwear. No, not even her underwear. As intended, Polly's daughter's underwear, since JonBenet never wore the other pairs. What possible sentimental attachments can John and Patsy have to pairs of ill-fitting underwear their daughter never wore?

 

[Britt]

I believe a jury will convict whoever that DNA belongs to for JBR's murder.

I disagree. I don't think most juries are that simpleminded. They would look at the totality of the evidence, especially after the DNA experts finished explaining DNA to them.

The DNA, whether it belonged to a Ramsey or someone else, would have to be linked to the crime. If the connection couldn't be shown, there would be huge reasonable doubt. If the DNA came from innocent transfer - say, picked up in a public bathroom - and the donor were ID'd, there would likely be much to contradict the DNA "evidence," like an alibi for instance. If the DNA came from a Ramsey, it could be explained away because the Ramseys all lived and visited in the house and interacted with JB... again, reasonable doubt as to the killer.

 

[Imon128]

why-nutt, that's always bothered me...that the R's gave away JB's bike. Also, that they could so quickly walk away from the Boulder house, determined never to go back to the Hell Hole. I'd have wanted to be near anything close to JB, had it been my little girl (and I wish she had). I can understand if after having given it a shot, they'd have moved. But just like the quick decision (with no apparent discussion between J & P)where to bury JB, lots of things don't add up, IMO.

 

[Shylock]

The Ramseys do not match the foreign DNA on JonBenét, nor the DNA-X, wherever it may have been found.

LP, you quoted Thomas before, but you ignored exactly what he said. The DNA may be from more than one source (in addition to JonBenet's own DNA). If that is the case, then nobody can be eliminated as being a donor, not even the Ramseys.

And even though the DNA has enough markers to submit to CODIS there is still no identifiable source for it. It could be nothing more than a mixed-mash of contamination.

 

[Toth]

Discussion? Atlanta was there home; nothing much to discuss.
Stay in the home? Okay, what you are saying is that your reaction would be different, but surely you are aware that many react the same way as Patsy Ramsey and never set foot in the house again.

 

[why_nutt]

LP, you quoted Thomas before, but you ignored exactly what he said. The DNA may be from more than one source (in addition to JonBenet's own DNA). If that is the case, then nobody can be eliminated as being a donor, not even the Ramseys.

And even though the DNA has enough markers to submit to CODIS there is still no identifiable source for it. It could be nothing more than a mixed-mash of contamination.

The CBI DNA summary says the same thing. IF the minor component of the samples analyzed comes from one person, then the Ramseys are eliminated, IF the minor component is made up of DNA contributions from more than one person, the Ramseys are not eliminated. The CBI report did not eliminate the Ramseys unilaterally, under all circumstances.

Look at a portion of the report again.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/cbi_closeup.gif

See the WB on the first line? That belongs to the unidentified DNA present in the underwear. To the left of that position, though, is an empty space where a foreign marker was missing. Look on the line below. There is a WB on the right, and another WB to its left. Look at the third line below. There is a WB to the right, to its left another WB, and to that one's left a WA. If the samples belong to two or more people, the first line's WB may, if it were filled in, have a WA to its left, in which case the first and second lines of DNA markers would identify two different people. You could have this potential array, using only what we can see:

WB WA WB (in the underwear)
WB WB WB (under JonBenet's left-hand nails)
WA WB WB (under JonBenet's right-hand nails)

If any or all of the Ramseys have a WB in that third position, they would not be eliminated, but only it could be completely ascertained as to what the contents of the missing positions are.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Shylock and why_nutt, ST's assessment obviously does not apply to the male DNA specimen obtained from the 2nd spot of blood. The if's went out the window when the 2nd spot of blood was analyzed and a better DNA profile obtained.

I get the impression that some of you think the Ramseys' DNA sample results were never compared to the male DNA found on JonBenét. Or you think that it was compared, matched, but law enforcement has continued to compare it with characters like Oliva, Helgoth, and the CODIS data bank. I have to say that I don't find either way of thinking reasonable or supported by evidence.

 

[Jayelles]

Shylock and why_nutt, ST's assessment obviously does not apply to the male DNA specimen obtained from the 2nd spot of blood. The if's went out the window when the 2nd spot of blood was analyzed and a better DNA profile obtained.

I get the impression that some of you think the Ramseys' DNA sample results were never compared to the male DNA found on JonBenét. Or you think that it was compared, matched, but law enforcement has continued to compare it with characters like Oliva, Helgoth, and the CODIS data bank. I have to say that I don't find either way of thinking reasonable or supported by evidence.

Regarding DNA-x. Nowhere has it been said that the ramseys didn't match it. Margoo/MIBRO also argued that it didn't match the Ramseys, but when backed into a corner, the only 'proof' she could offer was that they would have been arrested/charged if it had.

Playing Devil's Advocate ..... It IS possible that DNA-x does match a Ramsey but that because of where it was found, it may not be strong enough evidence on its own. For example, (and this is just an example off the top of my head - Toth, I am NOT earnestly touting this as my theory)... if it had been on the baseball bat handle... well, it's not certain the baseball bat is connected to the murder and so more evidence than that would be needed.

 

[why_nutt]

Shylock and why_nutt, ST's assessment obviously does not apply to the male DNA specimen obtained from the 2nd spot of blood. The if's went out the window when the 2nd spot of blood was analyzed and a better DNA profile obtained.

No, I think the ifs are still present. The second specimen is not being described as matching or even overlapping with the third-line markers from JonBenet's right hand, as they are displayed on the report. So even in the event we have better markers appearing on JonBenet's underwear, a jury would still have to have explained to it why it should care about these markers on a piece of fabric given that they do not actually appear in the same form on JonBenet's body itself. You saw the Dirk Greineder trial, you know how that would work. There were three unidentified DNA samples on a glove belonging to his murdered wife, and the jury still convicted her husband, throwing away all defense explanation that the unidentified DNA may have belonged to her real murderer(s).

The major problem with the DNA is that the part of JonBenet's body which the underwear touched does not, itself, contain unidentified DNA. A jury will have trouble making sense of that. No amount of wiping with a cloth could effectively sterilize JonBenet's body surfaces in her genital area, and a jury knows this. So how does an intruder explanation arrive at DNA on her underwear, but not on her genitalia?

 

[Imon128]

You never cease to amaze me, why_nutt!

 

[Toth]

No amount of wiping with a cloth could effectively sterilize JonBenet's body surfaces in her genital area, and a jury knows this. So how does an intruder explanation arrive at DNA on her underwear, but not on her genitalia?

I don't see any issue here. Whatever JonBenet did to the intruder such as scratching him is unknown, but perhaps caused him to foolishly put his hand to the scratch thus getting blood on his finger which he then used to pull down her panties, transferring the small amount of blood to the panties.
I think the wiping down may have been to remove his saliva and its possible he did that effectively.
or he may have wiped her down simply to remove any possible evidence even though he felt he had left none.

 

[Imon128]

The autopsy shows no signs of JB scratching her assailant, or is there any proof of saliva, nor has it been shown she was wiped down. There was blood smeared on her leg, but that could have come about merely by pulling her longjohns back up, IMO.

 

[Ivy]

Right, Imon. And the blood smear could also have come from the wiping cloth brushing her leg.

 

[why_nutt]

I don't see any issue here. Whatever JonBenet did to the intruder such as scratching him is unknown, but perhaps caused him to foolishly put his hand to the scratch thus getting blood on his finger which he then used to pull down her panties, transferring the small amount of blood to the panties.

Look at your own words and consider their consequences. If JonBenet scratched an intruder, intact skin cells would have been trapped under her nails, and we would not be talking about degraded DNA there. If she scratched him deep enough to lacerate and draw blood, then we would not only find intact epidermal cells from the intruder, we would likely find intact dermal cells and possibly even a hair or two.

http://www.bmb.psu.edu/courses/bisci004a/tissues/skin.jpg

The magic in this potential scratch-transfer also assumes that somehow the intruder would put a finger on the inner crotch portion of JonBenet's panties, but manage to completely avoid the waistband or any other part of the fabric of her underwear.

Finally, look at your fingers. See the pads where your fingerprints are? If an intruder touched his own scratch, blood would be on the pads, not on the nail side of the finger. Now, if you want to propose that an intruder transferred blood from a scratch on himself to the crotch of JonBenet's underwear, you also have to propose that the intruder did not do what was natural, and slide his hand inside her underwear so that he turned the pads of his fingers towards her body; rather, he would have to turn the pads of his fingers away from her skin and body and towards the fabric of the underwear, causing the nail side of his fingers to touch her skin. You can see how absolutely no pleasure is to be derived from molesting JonBenet's underwear instead of her body.

 

[popcorn]

"transferring the small amount of blood to the panties. "

I don't think you have any concept of how miniscule this droplet was. I believe it's less the size of even one human blood cell. If they tried to purposely deposit such a small amount it's likely they couldn't. The suggestion it wasn't even related to the crime, old, undatable, and more or less residue from a previous stain fits the accepted verbage, degraded.

 

[BlueCrab]

The CBI DNA summary says the same thing. IF the minor component of the samples analyzed comes from one person, then the Ramseys are eliminated, IF the minor component is made up of DNA contributions from more than one person, the Ramseys are not eliminated. The CBI report did not eliminate the Ramseys unilaterally, under all circumstances.

Look at a portion of the report again.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/cbi_closeup.gif

See the WB on the first line? That belongs to the unidentified DNA present in the underwear. To the left of that position, though, is an empty space where a foreign marker was missing. Look on the line below. There is a WB on the right, and another WB to its left. Look at the third line below. There is a WB to the right, to its left another WB, and to that one's left a WA. If the samples belong to two or more people, the first line's WB may, if it were filled in, have a WA to its left, in which case the first and second lines of DNA markers would identify two different people. You could have this potential array, using only what we can see:

WB WA WB (in the underwear)
WB WB WB (under JonBenet's left-hand nails)
WA WB WB (under JonBenet's right-hand nails)

If any or all of the Ramseys have a WB in that third position, they would not be eliminated, but only it could be completely ascertained as to what the contents of the missing positions are.

Why_Nut,

Sorry, but that DNA image you show, apparently from the CBI's analysis of the Ramsey crime scene DNA, doesn't make any sense to me. It looks like gibberish and your written explanation doesn't follow what the image shows.

JMO

 

[K777angel]

"transferring the small amount of blood to the panties. "

I don't think you have any concept of how miniscule this droplet was. I believe it's less the size of even one human blood cell. If they tried to purposely deposit such a small amount it's likely they couldn't. The suggestion it wasn't even related to the crime, old, undatable, and more or less residue from a previous stain fits the accepted verbage, degraded.

I was reading some very old published articles and transcripts of interviews on the case the other night and one really struck me. It talked about how the blood stain(s) in JonBenet's panties were NOT fresh stains - but old ones.
There have also been reports of brown stains on that white blanket of JonBenet's.
I do not recall where I read this or who stated it, but I do remember thinking how interesting it was because the person was credible who was stating it.
Whoever it was. Sorry.

 

[popcorn]

Where is there an interview where Patsy is questioned about the panties? (nowhere) There is a quote from LHP that they were kept in a drawer in the bathroom, that's about it. It was alluded to that they were brand new, from Bloomingdales, size 12, but with no backtrackable source that's likley all spin. Look how it takes the heat off the Ramseys if you believe they were pristine brand new from an unopened package.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Popcorn, it may be that you doesn't understand the size of the blood drops on JonBenét's panties. From the autopsy report:

The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.


A pencil's eraser is about 1/4 inch in diameter. A dime is about 3/4 inch in diameter. The spots of blood on the crotch of the panties measured up to 1/2 inch in diameter--hardly miniscule.

Edit to add: PR was asked about the panties in the Atlanta interviews in Lin Wood's office. If you have not read those transcripts, you probably should.