Just in case you missed it.........Lin Wood made the rounds yesterday. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/29/pzn.00.html This ran on Monday,12/29 Inside Edition, may be rerun on Tuesday syndicated shows. Ramsey 911 7 years after Jon Benet Ramsey was found murdered in her home, the 911 call her mother made that night was recently made public. Inside Edition’s Paul Boyd reports on the details of this tragic call and where authorities are in their exhausting investigation
PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: I think the only thing that will make them completely change their mind is to hand over the killer, and I can't do that. JONN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: We want peace for our family, we want closure, our name and our family's name has been destroyed. We'll never regain that, and we have no interest in attempting to do that. We want the killer of our daughter found. If he had no interest in regaining his "name" this would not have been mentioned, he want's pity and want's people to feel sorry for a man who's been accused of murder and after seven years has yet to be eliminated as a suspect. I feel sorry for him because he's such a terrible liar and he's made such a fool out of himself, if anyone's destroyed his name it's been HIM for not coming forward with the truth!! WE KNOW atleast Patsy is involved, her sweater fibres were entangled into the white cord; if anyone else did it, they literally would have had to retrieve THAT sweater and incorporate it into the crime scene, AND return it upstairs to Patsy and John's room unnoticed?? Explain something to me. Seven years later, suddenly there's this new DNA sample that hadn't been tested. How is that possible? WOOD: Well, actually, it particular DNA was extracted from a spot of blood found on JonBenet's underwear in 1999, and it was known at that time that the DNA from that spot of blood was high quality, right at the necessary standard to meet the FBI DNA data bank requirements, but the Boulder Police Department did not pursue that DNA. It was only last December of last year when Mary Keenan, the district attorney, took the case away from the Boulder Police Department and brought the investigation under her jurisdiction, that she made pursuing the DNA her number one priority to get that DNA into the FBI data bank, which was finally done this November. So it could have been done long ago.
Justin, the Today show transcript is posted on Websleuths, (1 B) but I cannot lift it and post it here for fear of getting accused of being a thief. Besides, I think it violates copywrite law to post it in its entirity. I briefly looked at the Today show website and it was not there, perhaps it was there yesterday. One must be a member to read at Websleuths. If you are not, and want to read it, send me a PM and I'll give you further instructions. Justin, you have kind of done some statement analysis above, I just finished reading an excellent police resource book on "statement analysis" which includes a chapter on the ransom note as well as Ramsey early interview statements. As soon as I find some time, I plan to post some of the points here and just for fun we can compare some of the Ramseys' statements which were not known at the time the book was written...like from their interrogations. It's going to be alot of fun, I promise.
I just reread Beckner's deposition. No where does it state that the DNA was CODIS or was not CODIS certified. It does state the later discovered DNA, called DNAX was most likely compared to the samples of possible suspects, it was being handled by the CBI or FBI lab and they would have to be contacted for exact specifics in 2000 so this is probably what Wood is referring to as 1999 as it could take several months to test. Maybe there is another (official)source for Wood's statements? Does anyone know what that is?
Statement Analysis... I have seen some really great statement analyses done on the Ramsey case, the ransom note as well as media appearances; my absolute favorite was their first interview with CNN in Jan. 97. "We were going visiting" "We need to know WHY this happened" I can hardly wait!! I have a few of my own to add, many are from the DOI hardback, they even contradict themselves in that book!!
Most Recent News Story Take note that Wood admits in this article that immediate test runs of the DNA sample submitted to CODIS DID NOT MATCH to anyone already in the database. His hope is that a match will hit when the backlog gets caught up! As the expert quoted here says, it will only turn up a match if the perp has been required to submit a sample after being convicted. Guess that leaves out John and Patsy! *** DNA could be major break in JonBenet Ramsey case Jon Sarche Associated Press Dec. 30, 2003 01:29 PM DENVER - If the attorney for JonBenet Ramsey's family is right, the murder of the 6-year-old beauty queen could be solved by some faceless crime lab technician. A male DNA sample that was found on JonBenet's underwear was submitted recently to an FBI database, said attorney Lin Wood, who called it a "dramatic development" that could clear John and Patsy Ramsey. But experts are not so optimistic. A suspect will be found from the DNA database only if he had been required to submit a DNA sample after being convicted of a violent felony, said Zack Gaskin, technical director of forensics for DNAPrint Genomics of Sarasota, Fla. There was no immediate match, but Wood said new samples from criminals and crime scenes around the country are added daily. There is also a national backlog in DNA testing that could further hinder the investigation. "One of the issues that's crippling the country is we have a lot of registered offender samples that are either owed to certain agencies or you have a bunch that are collected that haven't been put into the database yet," Gaskin said. "The problem there is that crime labs around the country are inundated with work." FBI officials declined to comment on the size of the backlog, but the agency in 2000 said some 500,000 DNA samples were awaiting submission from crime labs around the country. As of October, the latest information available, the FBI-managed database contained 66,714 DNA profiles from evidence collected at crime scenes and more than 1.4 million DNA profiles of people convicted of violent crimes. The database has helped solve more than 10,000 cases since it became operational in 1998, the FBI said. "It's amazing what they can do with DNA these days and these databases are still relatively new," said attorney Craig Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor who has followed the Ramsey case. "Absent a DNA hit or a confession, it would be very tough to convict anybody for this horrific crime." . . . Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said. Keenan would say only that DNA information in the case has been sent to the database. Wood was more specific: The test results are from DNA from a male unrelated to the Ramseys that was found intermingled with JonBenet's blood in her underwear. "I think that it is in all probability, if not almost undisputedly, from the killer," Wood said. "I think that when you get a match of the DNA in her blood, you will have identified her killer." http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1230Jon-Benet-ON.html
Re: Most Recent News Story Howdy!! "The DNA originated from a male unrelated to the Ramseys that was found intermingled with JonBenet's blood in her underwear." This means that neither John or Patsy sexually abused her just before her death, neither did anyone else who was subjected to DNA testing (providing all the tests are complete) or anyone else that has submitted DNA to that databank, there is no match. I find it odd that this male DNA was just discovered to be intermingled with JonBenet's blood in her underwear, would this not have been caught right off the bat?? They knew it was her blood, how come they didn't know it was mixed with someone elses blood? I smell a conspiracy.... I am going mad wanting to know who's that DNA is, COULD the blood in her underwear been tested and identified as JonBenet's and sent back to the police?? COULD it at that point have been contaminated with blood from an outside source, say a 99 year old man or somene dying of cancer; is that at all possible? Or would it have to have been intermingled on Dec. 25/26??
DNA History Hi JC! These old news articles should answer your question. Please note in one of these articles, it definitively states that investigators do not believe that the foreign DNA mixed with the tiny drops of JB's blood are considered indicative of an intruder. Just because this foreign DNA does not match the Ramseys does not mean either can be exhonerated of any sexual offenses. Referring to the autopsy report, it appears quite certain that the drops of blood were vaginal, however, birefringent DNA material was also found in the vaginal tract, indicating that penetration during sexual assault was not by a penis but a foreign object, most likely considered to be the missing portion of the paintbrush. As I stated elsewhere, had the sexual perp been a female, and therefore absent a penis, her only choice of weapon would have been a foreign object. BTW, sex acts in absence of a penis are not legally defined as "rape" but sexual assault. JB was not raped, and there is no evidence that she fought off an attacker. Also please note that LW's claims that the BDA were denied access to this DNA evidence by BPD is patently false. Hunter et al had access to all DNA evidence and test results sufficient at least to discuss no less than 7 times with Dr. Henry Lee. I seriously doubt that BPD "hid" this DNA evidence away, and Keenan et al has had it for more than a year now. 1996 http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet1.html 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…On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule…A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault…A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface [of the vaginal mucosa], as is birefringent foreign material." "Paper bags from hands" turned over to police. 1997 http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/15/ramsey/index.html DNA test results complete in Ramsey case But police won't yet release findings BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- Genetic test results from crime scene evidence in the killing of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey have been returned to investigators, but police declined Thursday to release any results. Investigators have cautioned reporters not to expect a "smoking gun" from the DNA tests, and said it might take weeks to analyze the results. . . . Crime-scene materials were sent to the Cellmark Diagnostics laboratory in Germantown, Maryland, March 4, but DNA testing did not get under way until the week of March 31, after attorneys for Patricia and John Ramsey declined an invitation to send a family representative to monitor the tests. Thursday's news release said police are analyzing and evaluating more than 13,000 pages of transcripts and various test results… 1998 http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1010rams1.shtml Boulder prosecutors going over Ramsey DNA Criminalist in town to meet with attorneys By Charlie Brennan Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer October 10, 1999 BOULDER -- Members of Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter's prosecution team are meeting today with nationally known criminalist Dr. Henry Lee to discuss forensic testing in the JonBenet Ramsey case. A source close to the case said the primary focus of today's meeting is DNA testing, most of which has been completed at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. JonBenet, 6, was found to have a stain in her underwear that included not only her own blood but also DNA that so far has not been linked to any known suspect in her slaying. Investigators are also unsure whether the mystery DNA is necessarily connected to the murder or its perpetrator. This marks at least the seventh time since JonBenet's Christmas night 1996 slaying that Hunter has met with Lee, who gained national prominence as a defense expert witness in O.J. Simpson's criminal trial. Lee most recently met with Hunter on Sept. 21. At that time, he said he'd told Hunter that further unspecified forensic testing should be done. . . . 2002 http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News November 19, 2002 Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture. In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties. If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying. And, investigators know the DNA found in the underwear - white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band - was not left by seminal fluid. "There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old. "You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them." Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination. And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence." The autopsy report in JonBenet's slaying indicates her pelvic area was swabbed for potential DNA. There has never been any report that those swabs yielded any foreign genetic material. But any significance that might have must be weighed against the fact that the coroner, Dr. John Meyer, observed that the killer may have wiped JonBenet's body with a cloth. . . . In the couple's book about JonBenet's slaying, The Death of Innocence, John Ramsey called attention to the fact that the underwear DNA did not match anyone in the Ramsey family. "The DNA from the stain found on JonBenet's underwear cannot be identified," he wrote. "The police have these test results, and we can only hope that they are checking all possible suspects against this genetic fingerprint. "Our belief is that this DNA belongs to the killer." On Monday, the Ramseys' attorney stopped short of making so firm a declaration. "It's foreign DNA," said Lin Wood. "It's not the Ramseys' DNA, and I obviously think it's a very, very important piece of evidence." Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value. The Ramseys' attorney scoffed at the notion that the underwear DNA might be traceable to the garment's production. "That sounds like a pretty spectacularly imaginative theory to me," said Wood. Of Kane, he added, "I've never found Michael Kane to be objective." Wood said the DNA from the underwear was commingled with a spot of blood, making any theory of point-of-manufacture contamination "nonsensical." He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails. 2003 Fox News 12/26/03 . . . Earlier DNA tests on the blood indicated it was from a male who was not a member of the Ramsey family. At the time, the DNA sample wasn't of a high enough quality to compare against a national databank of DNA, the attorney said. Within the last few months, the Boulder District Attorney's office was able to get a high quality sample of DNA from the garment to send to the FBI, Wood said.
Re: DNA History Originally posted by DejaNu Hi JC! These old news articles should answer your question. Hey there!! I feel like I just did this!! LOL Thanks for the articles, they will be an even better help when I can go right through them. "Referring to the autopsy report, it appears quite certain that the drops of blood were vaginal, however, birefringent DNA material was also found in the vaginal tract, indicating that penetration during sexual assault was not by a penis but a foreign object, most likely considered to be the missing portion of the paintbrush." This is interesting because I can see two possible motives for this happening, one being the obvious sexually deviant related motive; but I also see this being done purposely with that object that has never been found, maybe purposely to cause her to bleed; for this to be possible the sexual assault would had to have happened before she died, she would not have bled after that obviously. What if the sharp end was wiped with her underwear and that same object was used to gather the male DNA which was also wiped onto the underwear, would this be possible? This could have been done after the head injury and after she'd decided against taking her to the hospital (after what I believe to have been a head injury after Patsy snapped) as part of her plan to cover it up. Adding foreign DNA would create the image of an intruder (in her diluted mind) and take the suspicion away from her. "LW's claims that the BDA were denied access to this DNA evidence by BPD is patently false. Hunter et al had access to all DNA evidence and test results sufficient at least to discuss no less than 7 times with Dr. Henry Lee. I seriously doubt that BPD "hid" this DNA evidence away, and Keenan et al has had it for more than a year now" This is not surprising, the BPD has been used and dragged through the mud at so many different points; the DA's office remained optimistic that they would get the case handed over once the police realized how 'tough' it would be to solve for such an inexperienced police force. I think PH had his hand up AH's you know the whole time, and was making all the moves for him, AH has never denied PH being his right hand man and has said before that he took his word to mean a lot. There's the direct possibility that PH could have been the Ramsey's man on the inside, and their messenger who seems to have carried their message of innocence over to him rather well.
Justin Hi there! We have a bit of a conundrum here. Did the DNA material under the fingernails MATCH the dna found in the panties? The BPD feel somewhat confident that the panty dna is innocent transfer which took place during the processing of the underwear. But I'm sure JonBenet wasn't at the manufacturing plant, so it's hard to explain if the dna under the nails matches the panty dna, unless one seriously considers transfer by JonBenet in putting the panties on herself. The only stories I've heard that the samples from both areas matches has been through the Ramsey team. If the two samples DO NOT match, then this is my thinking: the birefringent material is the varnish on the paintstick that was inserted into her vagina. Consider the absolute possibility/probability that someone else handled Patsy's paintbrush! Could have been a classmate or a teacher in class, especially since authorities have done dna testing on everyone close to the Ramseys (including the Pughs) with no match. Patsy took an art course at the university and I'm sure she brought her brushes to class. Perhaps the teacher showed her how to brush the canvass. What I'm getting at, which no one apparently has considered, is that the dna material was on the paintbrush long before this murder took place. It had been handled by others beside Patsy. The varnish easily came off and was deposited into JonBenet's vagina when the stick was inserted. If this birefringent material slip off the stick that easily, is it really that hard to imagine that perhaps there was dna material on the stick, or better yet, on the varnish that got deposited into the vagina. I've been saying this for a long time...this dna material is COMMINGLED in tiny blood spots in JonBenet's underwear. We aren't talking any kind of motherlode here, just a speck of JBR's blood. I submit that the dirty paintstick had plenty of debris and artifact on it and when it was inserted into JonBenet, more than just birefringent material was loosed and deposited into the vaginal mucosa. Also found inside JonBenet was a "deposit" of watery red fluid. From this, investigators determined that JonBenet had been washed "inside" and out. Someone was covering something up. Debris, artifact, water...these were "deposited" inside JonBenet during the clean up and staging. In redressing JonBenet, and in moving her body about and positioning it in the basement, the blood, water, urine, birefringent material, etc., were loosed and "washed out" of her and deposited in her underwear. Perhaps Woody should be getting dna samples from everyone and anyone who could have touched the paintbrush.
Male DNA? "Keenan would say only that DNA information in the case has been sent to the database. Wood was more specific: The test results are from DNA from a male unrelated to the Ramseys that was found intermingled with JonBenet's blood in her underwear." So that makes two, mame and her source, that know part of the DNA results. And those two have a history of reliability and truthfullness so I shall now note this as a fact, Jack......(gag,vomit) Good God - I can only hope that the knife stuck in FW's back didn't draw blood. RR
DNA on paintbrush an excellent possibility Wow. How did no one propose this before? Ginja, you rock. Art studios/classrooms, especially classrooms where painting is taught, are not typically the cleanest classrooms around, especially if that classroom is at all used for oil painting. Easels and stools, benches, etc. are shared by class after class. Hmmmm. Ayeka ps. I've always kind of wondered if the 'birefringement material' wasn't shiny metallic nailpolish...
Ginja, according to CBI, the fingernail material was far too degraded to source or match to anyone or anything, so I highly doubt it was "matched" to the panty DNA. Just more RST spin. I always wondered if the birefringement material was paint. Isn't THAT Patsy's medium????
hm DejaNu, I'm with you on the DNA. 'Birefringence' from dictionary.com says "The resolution or splitting of a light wave into two unequally reflected or transmitted waves by an optically anisotropic medium such as calcite or quartz. Also called double refraction." What kind of painting did Patsy do again? I would have to research into what modern art paints consist of -- I don't know if there's anything like mica or quartz among the ingredients. Most watercolours or acrylics are not shiny in a metallic sort of way, so it would surprise me to find such things in the colours the occasional student is likely to have. (Yes, there are silver and gold and bronze paints, but in four years of art college I never once owned a tube.) Happy New Year to all, Ayeka
Re: Justin Originally posted by Ginja Hi there! We have a bit of a conundrum here. Did the DNA material under the fingernails MATCH the dna found in the panties? The BPD feel somewhat confident that the panty dna is innocent transfer which took place during the processing of the underwear. But I'm sure JonBenet wasn't at the manufacturing plant, so it's hard to explain if the dna under the nails matches the panty dna, unless one seriously considers transfer by JonBenet in putting the panties on herself. The only stories I've heard that the samples from both areas matches has been through the Ramsey team. This is exactly why I'm having such a hard time with the whole DNA issue all together, so much of what comes from the Ramsey's side of the 'tracks' is spun garbage, one can never be too sure if what's being said (or typed) is true of more Ramsey spin. If the two samples DO NOT match, then this is my thinking: the birefringent material is the varnish on the paintstick that was inserted into her vagina. Consider the absolute possibility/probability that someone else handled Patsy's paintbrush! Could have been a classmate or a teacher in class, especially since authorities have done dna testing on everyone close to the Ramseys (including the Pughs) with no match. Patsy took an art course at the university and I'm sure she brought her brushes to class. Perhaps the teacher showed her how to brush the canvass. This is absolutely possible IMO, if it doesn't match then there's the possibility that anyone who used that brush for even just a few seconds would have deposited forensic evidence, if the brush was larger in size than most of Patsy's other brushes then it's quite possible this brush was used less often than the others and therefore COULD have preserved the DNA. Even if one of the neighborhood kids came in and was playing with the stuff, you know boys, they get other ideas and get boisterous, one of Burke's friends could have jabbed himself with it accidentally. Or simply because of where the paintbrush was kept, in a tray with paints and several more brushes, the DNA could have originated on paint but from opening it and using it and then using a paintbrush it could be transferred there as well. What I'm getting at, which no one apparently has considered, is that the dna material was on the paintbrush long before this murder took place. It had been handled by others beside Patsy. The varnish easily came off and was deposited into JonBenet's vagina when the stick was inserted. If this birefringent material slip off the stick that easily, is it really that hard to imagine that perhaps there was dna material on the stick, or better yet, on the varnish that got deposited into the vagina. Maybe the DNA was in the wood, the pores could have absorbed liquid, such as skin oils, saliva, vaginal fluids etc. If the varnish came off inside her vagina, then it came off before hand as well and that would have left spots on the handle that were exposed wood, maybe that wood absorbed enough of a sample that when inserted into her, maybe her secretions in combination with the heat caused the sample to mix with her secretions; then when the mixture dropped onto her panties it became an intermingled mess. Perhaps Woody should be getting dna samples from everyone and anyone who could have touched the paintbrush. For the safety and good nane of anyone who went to art class with Patsy, I sure as heck hope not. I hope these people are sought out by the DA's office and everything done is witnessed, at this point, how hard would it be to switch a sample to implicate a specific person?
