Let's Clear This DNA Up Once and For All

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Jan 25, 2002.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    The DNA under JonBenet fingernails and underpants was:

    *Degraded

    *Can't be dated

    *Was a minute amount

    *IT WAS NOT FLESH OR BLOOD!

    Other items to consider.

    *Barry Scheck has said this is not a DNA case

    *It is easy to transfer foreign DNA onto any part of clothing. Such as if JonBenet wiped herself, touched her underwear, a million other reasons why the MINUTE, DEGRADED, CAN'T BE DATED, DNA was found in her pants and under her fingernails.

    This is such a red herring for the Ramseys. It makes me crazy.

    FLY you are the most logical poster I have ever run across. You have got to see how this DNA does not point to an intruder.

    Yes they use the DNA to eliminate people as the donor of the DNA. "AS THE DONOR". No where have I ever read that someone was eliminated as the KILLER because it was not their minute, degraded, dna.

    If it was the "intruder's" dna then it would have been flesh and blood. Much more of it.

    This "inturder" also left one foot print. Why only one? Doesn't make sense.

    These are red herrings thrown out by the RST that's it. Nothing more.

    If someone can show me anything, by an authority who knows, that shows this DNA was not minute or degraded then I will listen.

    If I had the money I would clip off my nails and have them tested for DNA. I bet I would have more foreign DNA than JonBenet did. I bet it would be on other parts of my body as well. I am sure we transfer all kinds of foreign DNA all the time.

    This spin just makes me see red. About the same color of red lipstick Patsy would make her 6 year old daughter wear
     
  2. Nandee

    Nandee FFJ Senior Member

    Tricia

    You go girl!! I know your frustration. Patsy couldnt' recall if JB had bathed or washed her hands on the 25th. Steve Thomas said in a chat that there were indications she hadn't been bathed in days....

    Mark Fuhrman and Dr. Baden agreed on Court TV that the DNA 'markers were similar'. They said that's what you would expect to find with family members.

    Dr. Henry Lee says this was not a DNA case...
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2002
  3. Zan

    Zan FFJ Senior Member

    Nandee

    This is interesting>>>Steve Thomas said in a chat that there were indications she hadn't been bathed in days....<<<

    I hadn't heard that before....I had heard a rumor that she had been sent to school looking unkept before....But indications that she was not washed FOR DAYS...right before she was murdered is very interesting...especially when you think about all the activity surrounding her at that time...the 23rd party where she was all dressed up...Christmas Eve where she spent the day at a friends house(special visit from santa story)... and then supposedly went out to dinner and Church... then Christmas day when she supposedly was home all day with her mother , and supposedly got all dressed up in new clothes to go to the White's dinner...What's up with her and mom not washing?
     
  4. Nandee

    Nandee FFJ Senior Member

    makes me wonder

    Is it possible the underpants had been on her for more than 24 hrs??
     
  5. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    exactly

    Nandee asked:

    "Is it possible the underpants had been on her for more than 24 hrs??"

    Nandee I am going to play devils advocate with that statment ok?

    Let's say no. The underpants were brand new. Out of the bag. I believe that is the common belief among many is it not? That the underpants JonBenet had on when she was found were brand new and too big for her. Even if they had only been on her for a few hours she still could have foreign DNA in those brand new pants. Even if those underpants had been put on her after she was killed she still could have foriegn DNA in them and here is why.

    Transfer.

    If JonBenet had been wearing underpants that day with any sort of foreign DNA it could still have been on her body, left there by the underpants she had been wearing earlier. Then transferred to the underpants she had on when she was found.

    "But it was under her fingernails too. The same DNA" comes the battle cry of the Ramsey spin team.

    Of course. Jonbenet could have wiped improperly and it transferred to under her nails. She could have lightly brushed her nails on someones check and then wiped transferring the dna from her fingernails to her underpants. A million explanations could be made for the dna. One of them is not this mysterious intruder who only leaves minute, degraded DNA.

    It is MINUTE DNA in her underpants. You couldn't see it. It wasn't a big stain.

    It was MINUTE AND DEGRADED

    It can't be DATED

    That will be my battle cry.

    VP you bring up a great point. What if this DNA didn't come from the killer ? It didn't of course because there was no intruder. But what if they finally can determine whose DNA it is and it turns out to be a 5 year old school friend of JonBenets. All that time wasted and the real killer walks free.

    It's a red herring


    IT WAS MINUTE AND DEGRADED

    IT CAN'T BE DATED
     
  6. Nandee

    Nandee FFJ Senior Member

    the panties

    Seems to me the information was the package was open on the floor in JB's room. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that!)

    So, unless we have a witness to when JB put the panties on, we can't date that either.... Patsy was a messy housekeeper and the photos show a messy room. Could it be the package was on the floor prior to Dec 26th?

    (I always assumed she put clean undies on every day... so just speculating here...)
     
  7. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    uuurrrrgggghhh

    This is my favorite quote from Steve Thomas' book. Thanks for posting it vp

    "DNA can be deposited by someone merely dragging their nails across their cheek."

    Are you listening Ramsey spinners?

    No tissue

    No blood

    Minute and degraded

    Can't be dated.

    JonBenet could have lightly dragged her fingernails over a playmates face. That's it. It could be as simple as that and the Ramseys want to convince the world that the DNA is the key to finding the intruder.

    Ok Ramsey Spin Team let me play your game for a moment.

    Let's say the dna from under her fingernails is from "The Intruder."
    Then we must logically conclude that JonBenet had contact with "The Intruder".

    So did JonBenet lightly run her fingernails over "The Intruder's" skin?

    Wouldn't she have scratched "The Intruder"at the very least?

    Ok you say JonBenet was stunned with a stun gun therefore she couldn't move or scratch.

    Well then how in the hell did she get ANY minute, degraded, can't be dated, DNA under her fingernails from "The Intruder" if she couldn't move?

    Sorry this stun gunned pig just won't fly.

    The Ramsey Spin Team will create some wild scenario to explain away all of this. Now if this was the ONLY thing that needed a wild scenario it might work. However everything in this case stretches the imagination to limits unkown.

    The DNA was minute and degraded

    It can't be dated
     
  8. Zan

    Zan FFJ Senior Member

    Planted?

    >>>JonBenet could have lightly dragged her fingernails over a playmates face. That's it. It could be as simple as that and the Ramseys want to convince the world that the DNA is the key to finding the intruder<<<

    Lots of ideas in this crime came from movies the perp watched...

    In Presumed Innocent the DNA was planted..

    Speculating here...

    Just as JB "could have collected foreign DNA by lightly dragging her fingernails over a playmates face"...So could the perp have dragged JB's fingernails across John's underwear...maybe from a dirty clothes hamper....Perhaps the perp didn't realize she would be picking up other DNA mixed with his....Those same underwear...could have also been rubbed against the underwear JB was found in...transferring the same mixed, degraded, partial DNA...

    Why do I think the perp tried to use John's DNA? Because of the dictionary "incest"...And I think she got the idea from Presumed Innocent....

    The body hair could have been lifted from those same underwear....with the perp not knowing that she lifted a hair from someone John had been seeing...possibly....
     
  9. Jeanilou

    Jeanilou Member

    And look at DNA

    A couple of years ago I wrote a piece about DNA and posted it on my website. Here it is:



    DNA: Valuable or not?
    Let's look a one piece of evidence, the DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underpants. Those who want us to believe the Ramseys are innocent proclaim this to be an important piece of evidence. Just how important is is? What does it show? Who does it eliminate? Who does it not eliminate? Is it valuable to the case or not?


    While researching this issue, I relied heavily upon what I considered 3 of the most important books on the case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town"(PMPT) by Lawrence Schiller, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation (ST) by Steve Thomas with Don Davis, and Death of Innocence (DOI) by John and Patsy Ramsey.


    In PMPT, Schiller makes numerous references to the DNA, but only six references becomes important in this case. The first one occurs on page 139 of PMPT:


    "During the same week, the CBI discovered that a stain found on Jon Benet's panties contained the DNA of more than one individual. JonBenet's DNA was the major component, but here was a minor component consisting of DNA for another person---possibly more."


    From this we learn that the DNA contain in the underwear is not only JonBenet's but someone else's is also present, possibly more than one someone else. So now we have DNA for JonBenet, and at least one other person, possibly 2 or more people.


    He further states that Joe Barnhill, a neighbor of the Ramseys, has not at this point been eliminated as a source of the DNA. There are several reasons for this as we see in this statement, also on page 139 of PMPT:


    "The CBI told the police that the Ramsey's neighbor Joe Barnhill could be tentatively excluded as a source of the minor component of DNA , if the minor component came from one source, but that he could not be eliminated if the minor component originated from two or more sources."


    Further testing reveals that is does indeed belong to two or more people as we can ascertain from page 184 of PMPT:


    "The CBI had already determined that the stain on JonBenet's underpants---which appeared to be blood and turned out to indeed be blood--- was not solely hers. A D1S80 DNA test showed that the stain came from at least two different sources."


    The next pertinent reference to the DNA concerns Bill McReynolds, Mr. Santa, himself as we see on page 237 of PMPT:


    "....Bill McReynold's DNA results. On the surface the report seemed to exclude him. His DNA did not match the DNA found on JonBenet's underpants. Nor did it match some of the DNA that the CBI has found under her fingernails, which the coroner Meyer has clipped and perserved. However, the CBI pointed out that the material found under her fingernails showed signs of contamination and the markers on the DNA were weak. The origin of the contamination had yet to be determined"


    Here we learn that due to the contamination of the DNA, it is unlikely he is the source of the DNA under JonBenet's fingernails but he is eliminated as the source of the DNA in her underpants. And while we are on the subject of the fingernail DNA, it could have come from anywhere. How many people clean under their fingernails every day? Especially small children. In my own opinion, the DNA only becomes relevant if it can be tied into the same source and the DNA in her underwear.


    Next, according to PMPT on page 396, that the DNA does not match either John or Patsy:


    "More DNA testing had to be done in hopes of finding a match for the foreign DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underpants, since it didn't look as is John or Patsy's DNA matched it."BR>

    So at first glance, it seems that John and Patsy Ramsey can be eliminated also as the source of the DNA or can they? Here is what PMPT has to say on the matter, pages 435-436. I am not going to type in the whole thing but only the relevant parts:


    "Back in July, Dressel( and this is Kathy Dressel, the CBI DNA expert) had reported to the police that John and Patsy's DNA did not match what we found under JonBenet's fingernails. Now she emphasized particularly the role of statistics and the margins for error........The foreign DNA had been found under JonBenet's fingernails was extremely weak and possibly contaminated. The contamination could have taken place any time after the material was first lodged under the child's nails until her body was placed under the Christmas tree.......In any case, weak DNA would not provide a reliable source to match another person's DNA......Further confounding the experts was the stain found on JonBenet's panties, which was a mixture of two or more people. Here further testing was needed."


    And now let's see what Steve Thomas has to say about the DNA. He also makes numerous references to the DNA in his book but the only pertinent piece is found on pages 267-268: Again, I am not going to quote all of the pages, just the important parts:


    "The detectives had consulted a couple of experts in an attempt to answer four question concerning the DNA issues: What did we have? What did it reveal? Where do we go now? Would DNA solve the case?........The primary DNA from the panties also appeared to from her. (JonBenet). But a secondary DNA source may a have been present. If the secondary material was a mixture from two or more people, then the labs could exclude no one. Faint DNA results may have been due to "technical or stutter aritfact."....the mixture that had been found was complicated by a myriad of technical factors, including quality, quantity, degradation and possible contamination. This meant excluding people might be possible, but positive identification was unlikely.....The fingernails of the left hand presented uncertain technical issues. JonBenet appeared to be the primary DNA source, but the experts could not exclude any male as the donor of the secondary source that was present. Issues included the possibility that multiple DNA had been under her nails for several days.....The fingernails of the right hand were equally ambiguious."


    He goes on to talk about the JonBenet's cleanliness. How she was not known for washing her hands, her bedwetting, her not cleaning herself well after a bowel movement, etc.


    And then he states this also on page 268:


    "....Because of the possibilities of mixtures from more than one source, conclusive determinations could not be reached.....defense lawyers surely would say that any unknown DNA came from an intruder although in fact hardly anyone could excluded.....The DA's people apparently didn't hear what we heard, for Deputy DA DeMuth immediately announced that the results did not "match" John Ramsey."


    And on page 372 of DOI, the Ramseys state concerning DNA this:


    "Foreign DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails....I look at it as huge clue....In addition, the DNA from the stain found on JonBenet's underwear cannot be identified.....Our belief is that the DNA belongs to the killer."


    What do we get from all this? I cannot say what others might get out of this but I can what I gathered from all this information. Yes, there is DNA evidence, both under her nails and in her underwear. The DNA under the nails is so degraded that is is virtually useless for indentifying the killer. But the DNA in her underwear is more than likely points to the killer.


    So who is eliminated as the contributor of the underwear DNA. NO ONE. Not even the Ramseys, although their supporters would have you believe otherwise. Because the underwear DNA comes from two or more sources, a positive idenification may never be made but at the same time, it does not eliminate the Ramseys, at this time. If the Ramseys could be eliminated, the intruder theory would hold more water but they can't. So this "huge clue" puts the Ramseys right where the have always been. Under the now infamous "umbrella of suspicion?


    So what good is this DNA? In this case, unless the DNA under the fingernails and in the underwear can be proven to be from the same source, the DNA is just about useless. It never helps the Ramseys, nor does it eliminate them.

    http://www.jeanilou.com/thedna.html
     
  10. AK

    AK Member

    Excellent thread, y'all

    If this were a "DNA case," the FBI DNA lab would have been consulted. It wasn't.
     
  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