JBR's 20th birthday is this week

"This is why this case was never "solved." Too many people trying to get their fame and glory on the back of a dead child. Instead of following the evidence, they followed their egos."


Bingo!

Lou was called in on this case after the media frenzy took hold. The evidence, and public opinion, had already turned against the Ramseys and I believe Lou saw his chance for real and lasting fame. If he comes in and helps convict a Ramsey, he was just following the road where investigators and public had already started down...no fame there.

 

Thanks for the great work in finding this article, Fr. Brown.

I believe common sense goes a long way here. Since the DNA technology has advanced so far that minute DNA samples are being gleaned from scraping and scratching around on clothing, etc., it stood to reason that all kinds of problems could occur.

Common sense tells me that skin-cell, DNA is just as transferrable as is a flu or cold virus. We are told, now, to sneeze into our shirt sleeve so as not to deposit our flu virus onto our hands. When we do this, we contaminate everything we touch with the flu virus. If we touch the telephone, at work, the next employee will pick up the virus from the phone and most likely get sick, etc.

The unsourced DNA, in this case, is found where we could reasonably have expected JBR to have touched. If the DNA, under her fingernails, is a match to the unsourced DNA, then, I believe this is a likely scenario.

JBR soiled her underwear sometime early Christmas day. I believe the large underwear was placed on her with the longjohns over them. The soiled underwear remaining on the floor. I believe she got some male DNA on her hands, possibly from the handlebar grips of her new bicycle and, before going to the Whites, went to the bathroom. She pulled her longjohns down and up and she scratched her crotch or wiped leaving DNA on the longjohns and her crotch area. She washed her hands which left only very degraded DNA under her fingernails where we would expect DNA to collect after the hands are washed. This explains why the DNA, under her fingernails was degraded worse than the other samples. If she dug her fingernails into the perp, this should have been the best sample of all.

She could've even contaminated her hands with some male's DNA at the Whites and then gone to the bathroom and washed her hands, etc.

I could be way off base, but, I think this is a possibility

 

Thank you for the information about touch DNA fr brown. It makes for some interesting discussion.

Evidence is evidence, it all needs to be included and considered, but common sense would also say that not all of that evidence is related to who committed the crime. It's (IMO) just there as part of a story of who, what, when, where, and why in a person's daily life and activities and what we come into contact with. It's not all nefarious.

 

My guess is she didn't get the chance to dig her nails into the perp, Learnin, with the perp being Patsy Ramsey throwing JonBenét around in a rage.

 

You have a point there.

 

Unfortunately New Scientist has made the first part of the article subscription-only. (I'm assuming that's the article you're talking about). The researcher involved is Dr. Itiel Dror. He has a website. The DNA research wasn't posted there when I looked recently, but I'm sure it will be at some point.

The problem isn't only with touch DNA. It's with mixed or partial profiles.

 

Mary Lacy said that they tested the DNA of those present at the autopsy to see if any of them were contributors. I don't know if they tested everyone who handled the evidence after that.

 

I understand that. But it was written in Thomas' book, I believe, that the fingernail clippings were possibly contaminated at autopsy when they were taken with clippers that weren't sterile, perhaps having been used on another body.

This tells me that there is room for contamination from untested sources during autopsy.

I also think that the location of the unsourced DNA also could be transferred while the clothes, fingernail clippings, etc., were being processed. Who handled these items? We know the fingernail clippings were processed for DNA. We know that the panties were processed for DNA. The longjohns were over the panties, so it stands to reason that at the same time, whoever handled the other DNA evidence handled the longjohns, as well.

When the longjohns were processed by the Bode Tech lab for Mary Lacy, looking for "touch" DNA, only the waistband was tested where they "thought" the killer would have touched the clothing. But if no other area of the longjohns was tested, then where is the "control" to come up with the conclusion there was no other DNA sample on the clothing elsewhere? How about another matching sample from somewhere on the leg area? And what if there were a sample with a DIFFERENT profile than any others collected?

I watched the many TV interviews with the Bode lab technician who processed those longjohns, and she said she "discarded" some DNA. I sat up and asked the TV, WHAT DNA IS THAT? Was it tested? Was it the Ramseys'? Why discard it?

This whole DNA red herring is pure BS, IMO. It might be a great "exculpatory" card for the Ramsey defense to play with a jury--or a corrupt D.A.--who wanted to find a Ramsey not guilty--O.J.'s verdict comes to mind, but it's still BS, IMO.

I believe there is no question that Patsy wrote the note. Evidence from her clothes, home, and life were all over the crime scene. But for Alex Hunter, the phone records very likely would have proven the Ramsey story was as false as their bogus religious posturing.

I will say this: whether by god, the devil, their money and connections, or dumb luck, the cards fell in favor of the Ramseys at every turn after the murder.

I personally think it was their money and connections--and the devil can have them.

 

Those are all good points.

As far as testing different parts of the long johns for touch DNA...I recently had to put long johns on my kid and it took a lot of tugging around the cuffs to get them over her feet. If JonBenet's long johns are tight around the ankles and the Unknown Male's DNA isn't there, I'd say he didn't put them on.

 

Brava!!! Excellent post and my thoughts exactly. Thank you, Koldkase!

 

I vote for money and connections but there was also some fortunate breaks. Didn't Thomas just miss being able to review the McGuckin hardware video tapes that would have shown if Patsy bought duct tape and cord?

 

Now, you know better than to encourage me! You'll get me started, and I'll miss another year of living without the toxic Ramseys making me want to puke! irate:

 

Much worse, Thomas missed the phone records that I believe would have proven the Ramseys were making calls to select professionals before they ever dialed 911. Of course, that wasn't luck, that was Alex Hunter's possibly criminal interference in the investigation of a child murder.

Between Hunter and Smit, the Ramseys could have taken out the whole block and walked away scott free.

 

ITA. And why they were able to get away from it is beyond me.

 

By Patsy's own admission, JB would avoid washing her hands if she could. Patsy also said that she didn't remember the last time JB had a bath- she knew she hadn't had one that day or the day before, so possibly on the 23rd (the day of the R Party). I don't think JB was in the habit of washing her hands after using the toilet.
That DNA could have come from someone at the Rs own party!
All I know is that the absence of that male DNA anywhere else at the crime scene makes it unlikely it was related to the crime.

 

Here's a good article on problems with DNA analysis:

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Essential elements of a competent defense review

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

 

Never 20 to me...

Everything changed inside of me the day that I left that horrid cemetary in Marietta. Forever 6, the butt of many a joke, totally forgotten except for the members worthy of a FFJ membership and still alone with her killer - IMO...the imprints that JonBenet has left in my Heart will never leave, but now that the REAL Intruder in this case recently crossed over, I will keep the faith that one day, John Ramsey will be given a Trophy for his 1st Place win in the World's Greatest Husband Contest for his wife that he knew wasn't really in remission and would die sooner rather than later...he kept her from spending her last years behind bars and now that she is under a slab of concrete...Out of Sight, Out of Mind...this I saw with my own eyes at that lonely cemetary...that right there does have an impact on someone that has watched this case for far too long.

IMO-
RR

 

Amen for that sweet child!

 

Thank you for posting this fr brown. Will check it out!

 

Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by fr brown
Here's a good article on problems with DNA analysis:

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Essential elements of a competent defense review

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles...champion1.html


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I wonder if "Watching You" has checked this out (?). She was very knowledgeable having worked with someone who worked with DNA. I remember her talking about "alleles."

I am tied up in knots here and wish I was a lot younger! My hat is off to anyone who truly understands this.

I did find what I could understand very interesting fr brown.