The DNA

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Jayelles, Aug 3, 2005.

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do we know about it?

    1) That there were at least three samples of foreign DNA found - in her underwear, under her fingernails and a third sample which is a secret and which is known as DNA-x.

    2) That the DNA under her fingernails was very fragmented and yielded only 3/4 of the necessary 13 markers.

    3) That the panty DNA was tested twice and that both samples were fragmented and did not yield the full 13 markers. The second sample yielded more than the first sample (perhaps due to improved testing techniques). The second sample yielded 9 good markers and a weaker, but just-useable 10th marker.

    4) That DNA-x was not found on her body or her clothes.

    5) That the people who have actual access to the lab results and testing of the DNA have made an official statement to say that the DNA may NOT be the killers and that it is so minute that it could have come from a cough or a sneeze during the manufacturing process. This statement was made after Ramsey supporters repeatedly claimed that the DNA was the killer's.

    6) That the testing process for the panty-DNA would result in JonBenet's DNA and the foreign DNA being "co-mingled" but that this does NOT mean that they were deposited at the same time. One way of understanding this is to think of two solutions of water - one contains dissolved sugar, the other contains dissolved salt. Pour one solution onto a piece of fabric and let it dry. Take it to another State, wait a week and then pour the other solution on top and let it dry. Now soak the fabric in water and test the water. It will contain both salt AND sugar - but they were not deposited at the same time OR even in the same State. Ramsey supporters who claim that they had to be desposited at the same time are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes (either that or they genuinely "don't understand")

    7) The foreign DNA is not Ramsey - or anyone else who has been tested.

    8) If the foreign DNA is not the killer's then it means that none of the good suspects are indeed eliminated after all (but that means Ramsey too so their supporters cling to the notion that it is the killer's).

    9) DNA fragments over time. Fresh DNA should not be fragmented - certainly not within a few hours. This is why the experts have described it as "old" DNA.

    What else do we know?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Camper

    Camper New Member

    Messages:
    9,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great thread Jayelles. What other thing do we know, welllll we know that we don't know who did it. Sorry.

    Back later.



    .
     
  4. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We also know that according to the initial CBI lab summary, the Ramseys were only ruled out definitively as having contributed to the underwear and nail samples IF the unidentified DNA came from just ONE person. The wording of the report implies strongly that if the unidentified DNA is itself a "mixture" of two or more samples from people, then the Ramseys are not ruled out as having contributed one or more of the markers.

    I take this to mean that one or more members of the Ramsey family do, in fact, have markers in common with the unidentified markers, but no individual Ramsey has all of the markers in common. For example, if John Ramsey matches marker A and C, and Patsy matches marker B and D, then both of them can be ruled out if the sample comes from one person who has markers A, B, C, and D. But if the sample is a mixture coming from one person who had A and C and another person who had B and D, then it may be Ramsey DNA.

    Of course, any intruder theorist worth their salt would not want to call attention to this, thus the distinct lack of emphasis on the CBI summary's emphasis that the results are based on an assumption that only one person contributed the unidentified DNA.
     
  5. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it's important to consider that, according to sources, the DNA in the panties matches the DNA under the fingernails. If this is true, and I for one think it is, it would greatly lessen the probability that the foreign male DNA found on JonBenet is from a sneeze or similar innocent source.

    Also, a lot of mention is made of the fact that "only" nine clear markers, plus one somewhat unclear marker, can be identified from the DNA in the panties, whereas the FBI prefers 13 markers, and 10 markers at the minimum, to be identified before the DNA sample can be entered into CODIS, the national DNA data bank. But the minimum number of markers allowed is primarily an effort to limit the number of samples so that the CODIS system does not become buried and unmanageable. Thirteen markers may reduce the probability that the DNA at the crime scene is none other than the suspect's DNA down to perhaps one in several billion, but nine markers reducing the probability down to perhaps one in a million is not exactly shabby evidence either. Juries have been known to convict suspects using as few as six matching DNA markers.

    BlueCrab
     
  6. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I beg your pardon Bluecrab, but there is no credible source which says that the fingernail DNA "matches" the panty DNA. We've seen the lab reports of the DNA and there appear to be just a tiny number of markers in the fingernail DNA - certainly not enough to claim a match.

    There has been no official statement about that fingernail DNA either. The only official statement we've had about the panty DNA is at it might NOT be the killers (Tom Bennett).

    Common sense tells us that if the DNA under her fingernails matched the DNA in her underwear then it would not have come from a sneeze in the factory. I cannot see Tom Bennett breaking his silence to state something completely daft.

    The "match" comment came from Lou Smit when went on TV to talk excitedly about the intruder evidence - which I may also remind you - included a packing peanut and a blue mark left on her body by a blue electrical arc LOL

    Believe me - if the fingernail DNA and panty DNA matched, the RST would be screaming it from the mountain tops! As it happens, no-one is willing to do that - because it ain't so!
     
  7. Becba

    Becba Former Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought the reason the DNA was so minute was because her body was washed or cleaned up.

    I know her upper thigh appeared to have residue of some body fluid but it seemed to have been cleaned up.

    It is hard for me to think that someone sneezed long ago on her underwear and they are picking up that DNA. It makes me wonder why this doesn't come up often in cases.

    And couldn't "old" DNA be a wild card that sets a killer in prison free if this is true? They could find "old" DNA and compare it to the real killer, no match, so the killer walks out of prison.
     
  8. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Jayelles,

    I agree the fingernail DNA was degraded and not nearly as convincing as the panty's 10 DNA markers, but even several matching markers from the fingernails, let's say three for the sake of argument, can be important. Three matching markers are not enough for a jury to convict on, but they can sure as hell raise eyebrows and cause investigators to take second and third looks at a suspect. Please remember that Mark Fuhrman, with Dr. Michael Baden ostensibly agreeing, let it be publicly known that the foreign male DNA found on JonBenet apparently contains some Ramsey family markers.

    BlueCrab
     
  9. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ New Member

    Messages:
    30,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which can easily be explained away by Ramsey's earlier statement that JonBenet needed help cleaning herself after using the toilet and would ask just about anyone to assist her.
     
  10. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Linda7NJ,

    Toileting could be one explanation, but it is hardly the most likely one. Therefore, it would not "easily explain away" mixed foreign male DNA on JonBenet's crotch area that contains some Ramsey family markers.
     
  11. Becba

    Becba Former Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What if the underwear came from the laundry hamper? I know that sounds gross but JBR may have wet herself and either she or her brother looked for underwear and just grabbed from the hamper.
    Just putting an idea out there. I know it sounds wild. lol
     
  12. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Becba,

    Yes, that's another possibility as the source of the mixed foreign male DNA with some Ramsey family markers in the crotch area of JonBenet's panties, but again it's far from the most likely source. The Ramseys, incidentally, didn't have any clothes hampers in the bathrooms. Clothes chutes carried the dirty clothes to the basement.

    When a six-year-old girl has been sexually assaulted and murdered, and male DNA is found in the crotch of her panties, then it must be assumed there's a 99% probability that the killer is the source of that DNA.
     
  13. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quote from BlueCrab:
    When a six-year-old girl has been sexually assaulted and murdered, and male DNA is found in the crotch of her panties, then it must be assumed there's a 99% probability that the killer is the source of that DNA

    I agree with you BlueCrab.
     
  14. Zman

    Zman Former Member

    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't believe that there is any DNA. I think it's just another pressure "ploy" by LE.
    Also JBR was not sexually assualted. At least not for sexual satisfaction by her murderer.
    She was brutalized, tortured and humiliated.
    This was not a sex crime.
     
  15. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Zman,

    This was a sex crime.

    JonBenet's vagina was bleeding from the acute injuries inflicted due to the penetration. The killer naively cleaned her up afterward to make it appear as though it wasn't a sex crime, but the autopsy by Dr. John Meyer, and reviewed in person by Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, assistant professor of pediatrics at CU, revealed the injuries to be "consistent with vaginal penetration".

    BlueCrab
     
  16. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ New Member

    Messages:
    30,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Penetration by the paintbrush or penis?
     
  17. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps Zman meant the motivation wasn't that of a sex crime.
     
  18. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe I read they thought it was digital,which would mean fingers. I guess it could have also been the paint brush.
     
  19. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  20. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i recently learned that in identifying the remains of victims of 9/11, the new york city medical examiners office requires 15 markers. thought that little tidbit of info was worth mentioning in this thread, although as has already been mentioned, the FBI's database only requires 13.
     
  21. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    capps,

    The penetration of JonBenet's vagina could have been by almost anything, including a penis. Theories on what it was should not be restricted to a finger or a paint brush handle.

    Page 56 in PMPT: "Meyer had told Arndt and Trujillo that JonBenet had suffered an injury consistent with vaginal penetration -- DIGITAL OR OTHERWISE (my emphasis). In his opinion she'd sustained some kind of genital trauma that could be consistent with sexual contact."

    BlueCrab
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice