JBR's underwear sent for DNA analysis

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tez, Dec 27, 2003.

  1. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: Adrian and Purr

    Well... I'm not so sure about that. She did spell "business" as "bussiness" (sic), in that ransom note she wrote with her left hand (see page 406 of the Police Files book). Point being that otherwise "smart" people can goof up big time when the pressure's on.

    Precisely--more than one episode. This is more than just inappropriate potty-wiping we've got here.

    It would be astonishing to me if they tried to get this DNA entered into CODIS without first eliminating all possible donors who would have been at Fleet White's party, and all who had been known to be in contact with JBR in the month of December. What I'm thinking is, someone has been purposely left out of the initial cross-checking, and they're crossing their fingers and hoping he won't show up in CODIS. CODIS is a new danger to the integrity of the cover-up, but it temporarily saves face for the parents and gives Lin Wood new ammo to use in his piracy on a ship call Tort, sailing the Seven Seas of the U.S. media. Garrrrrrrr, maties! Hoist the Jolly Roger flag!

    That is a possibility, but getting a non-degraded sample from a degraded sample, to me sounds a little iffy.

    Well the staging DID include a thorough wipe-down. They probably tried to bleach it off too.

    If it's positively confirmed that the DNA material is not blood, then "innocent transfer" would remain a possibility. I personally wouldn't consider that a likelihood, but would accept it as possible. The thing that makes me shy away from "innocent transfer" is the assumption (which may be wrong) that known members of the Ramsey circle of acquaintances have already been checked against this DNA profile. How is JonBenet going to go grab some stranger's DNA into her fingernails, under innocent conditions? Remember, classmates at school wouldn't count, because these would have to already be eliminated. We're talking straight-up running up to some stranger, brushing her finger against his body in some way, and then later scratching her own itchy genitalia with it, presumably preserving the integrity of the transferred sample while the primary sample is degraded? In my mind, the thinness of that level of stretching just breaks the theory for me.

    And if the primary transfer was to the genitalia itself, then we're back to non-innocent transfer. And then we're back to my "creative writing" conspiracy theory of parental involvement with another party's molestation, and parental staging of the crime scene to cover up that involvement.
  2. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

  3. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Hasn't this caught Bennett in a lie already? When asked why he hasn't talked to Fleet White yet he said that he has six FEET of case file to read and he's only "so far" into doing his background reading. Here in the article he's quoted as saying he's "knocking on doors" and "interviewing".

    Now why would Bennett lie like this?
  4. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: Elsewhere

    That was according to Cellmark (as quoted by ST and as MISQUOTED by Trip DeMuth when he said the sample "did not match the Ramseys"), but they were commenting on the DNA sample with stutter bands, not the later sample with the 10+ "good" markers.
  5. AK

    AK Member

    Natural conclusion

    CODIS needs 13 loci to bring a hit in its databank (the 14th marker determines gender, which we supposedly know on this sample).

    If a sample is submitted with fewer than 10 markers, the result will bring thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of hits.

    All of which will make Lin Wood stamp his cloven hoof and demand that Keenan's team investigate each and every one.

    It's not a DNA case.

    But DNA is buying the Ramsey Spin Team some nice publicity.

  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I just have to

    comment about the alleged foreign DNA in JB's underwear. I don't know where the idea that it was blood came from, but there is absolutely no evidence that DNA came from anyone's blood. Wood made the statement it might have been saliva. He doesn't know, either. I think that's because no one can tell what the source of the DNA was, because it was absorbed by JB's own blood.

    People who can't get that straight irk me, and I'm not talking about anyone on this forum. It amazes me how ignorant some people can be - they suck up everything they hear and read and repeat it as gospel without giving a smidgeon of thought to it. Think about it - does it make sense for there to have been just one itty bitty teeny weeny microscopic (what? you say that's repetitious?) spot of blood belonging to someone other than JBR on her underwear? I don't think so.

    The DNA was likely already on the underwear when JB put it on (or, more likely, when someone else put that oversized underwear on her that night). I don't know why it's so difficult to understand this very plausible explanation for the DNA. Our saliva carries our DNA. When we sneeze, tiny droplets of our saliva spray the air in front of us. If we are holding fabric or paper in front of us when we sneeze, the saliva gets on that fabric or paper. Surprise - our DNA is all over that fabric or paper. It could have happened that way, and I think that's exactly what happened or something very similar. A worker in the manufacturing of that underwear left evidence of himself during the cutting, sewing, handling, shipping, whatever of the product. Is it so unrealistic to think that could have happened as opposed to some mystery intruder leaving a skin cell or saliva in her underwear?

    What did the intruder do? Lick her underwear? Sneeze on it? It didn't happen, folks. The RST wants us to believe an intruder left that DNA the same time JB bled into her underwear. Well, then, did you ever stop to wonder why they had no problem at all getting full, beautiful strands of JB's DNA, but the intruder's DNA, which was allegedly left at about the same time, was so degraded, they couldn't pull out a full strand? Why would that be, unless it was deposited at a different time and was old and not connected to the crime?

    This is the problem - they will NEVER EVER connect that DNA to anyone, and they will NEVER EVER prove the degraded DNA was left there on Christmas night and was part of the crime scene. It is a red herring, has been and will continue to be so. Henry Lee is a scientist, and a damn good one at that. He has studied and practiced science most of his life. Here we have an idiot attorney like Lin Wood who practices law, not science, contradicting one of the most knowledgeable scientists on earth. Lee said it's not a DNA case.

    BTW, what Steve Thomas said in his book was, if three people contributed to the questionable DNA, then NO MALE, including John Ramsey, could be eliminated. That's how lousy that DNA was. They didn't know if it came from one person or two persons or ever if it was stutter. At any rate, without credible and sensible supporting evidence that there was a sneaky intruder in the house that night, there is absolutely no way to prove when that incomplete DNA was left. As I said, I suspect it was left during the manufacturing or packing process, and I also believe that DNAX - the DNA mentioned above that Wood does NOT have access to - came from the new underwear still in the same package from which JB's underwear came. I believe they most likely found the same DNA on the unworn underwear, which, of course, rips Wood and the Rams right to shreds.

    Ya gotta sort out the BS from facts. Don't believe what Wood says. He is a lawyer who has bragged about the money he has made from JBR's murder. We need to remember he represents the Ramseys whose only concerns are self concerns and staying out of jail, as JR so aptly put it in one of his depositions. He threatens, he spins, he gets paid big money to do it, and I'll say it again - it's going to bite him big time.
  7. purr

    purr Active Member

    WY, i love the way you rant and rave.......

    the TRUTH.

    and as someone else said.............
    either all the evidence points to an intruder........

    or it points to someone in "that house".


    we all know THE TRUTH!

    thanks again WY!!!

    purrfectly happy the forum is up and running again.
    thanks moab and tricia and all,

    Attached Files:

  8. AK

    AK Member

    Thinking ahead

    When this murder case goes to court, the matter of this mystery DNA will come out. Maybe by the defense, and maybe by the prosecution to clear the air. But it will be handled this way:

    Dr. Henry Lee, the world's foremost criminalist and a member of the prosecution team, will say "This is not a DNA case."

    Then Barry Scheck, the world's foremost DNA specialist and a member of the prosecution team, will say "This is not a DNA case."

    The jury will get the picture -- this is not a DNA case.

    That angle will be eliminated and the defendant/s will be convicted.
  9. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: Natural conclusion

    Do all of the markers have to be in sequence, or can some of them be intermittently missing? Is it possible they got the 14th and ten others, but not ten "in a row"?

    They've also stated for the record that it's caucasian DNA, which casts severe doubt on it being deposited at the factory in Asia.
  10. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    They've also stated for the record that it's caucasian DNA, which casts severe doubt on it being deposited at the factory in Asia.

    Adrian Monk Lin Wood hasn't said "caucasian DNA" for a long time. You know why? Because there is NO SUCH THING. Mr. Wood had bad information or he made it up but either way he has stopped saying it. I think because BobC posted about a million times that Wood's claim of "caucasian DNA" was a fairy tale.

    I swear trying to keep up with Woods spin is a full time job.
  11. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: I just have to

    Does all bleeding stop at time of death? I'm asking here.

    Also, have we confirmed that this is Asian DNA and not Caucasian (as the RST has claimed)? I don't know too many Caucasians that work in Asian sweatshops, but if we know for a fact they're lying about the ethnicity of the donor, that would be a huge mallet with which to thump 'em on the head. Or are both sides of this DNA debate simply speculating?

    Was Lee aware of the less degraded sample extracted later, and also "DNA X"? Do we know for a fact he is directly stating that the markers of the later sample, in spite of being CODIS-worthy, cannot be of any forensic or investigative use whatsoever? Or are we extrapolating here?

    Many things rip the RST's scenario of "lone intruder" to shreds, but not a possible conspiracy, whereby all parties who deposited evidence (fiber and DNA) on the body had a hand in the staging. We could be seeing a division of labor here: the owner of "DNA X" changing out the underwear, depositing his skin cells in the packet from which the new panties put onto JonBenet were taken, and onto the panties themselves; then John depositing fibers from his shirt into the crotch area as he wiped that down; and of course Patsy depositing her sweater fibers into the ligature as she takes the upper body portion of the staging.

    The possibility of it having been a team effort cannot be ruled out at this point.
  12. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: WY, i love the way you rant and rave.......

    I'm interested to hear your thoughts on how the evidence of parental involvement necessarily excludes the possibility of participation by others, along with the parents.

    If there is a gang rape, and they find the DNA of one of the perpetrators, should that clear all the other suspects?
  13. purr

    purr Active Member

    he's da DNA man................

    Dr. Henry Lee:

    Attached Files:

  14. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    As they say in football, "on further review..."

    I understand now how the mix-up occurs about the DNA: in the litany of so-called "intruder evidence" cited by the SS (Scamsey Spinsters), they include a "caucasian pubic hair" along with "male DNA", neither of which are alleged to match a male Ramsey. This gets slurred together by some SSers that the DNA was itself stated to be caucasian.

    The DNA is officially only revealed to be male, and ethnicity is not publicly known. By this, any race is possible on the part of the DNA's donor. Asian, caucasian, black, no one knows.

    By this I would say that the "factory sneeze" theory is possible.

    Many things remain possible.

    I would still maintain, though, that it doesn't logically follow for the Boulder DA to continue cover-up operations on behalf of bankrupt people living half a nation away--not unless someone more "VIP" is being protected. However, if the DNA is a fraudulent red herring, that could still be consistent with a conspiracy, as the red herring benefits all parties to the cover-up.
  15. AK

    AK Member


    I don't know about the sequencing, but if there are fewer than 10 markers it doesn't matter -- it's all for show, not to bring about actual perps. It's bogus! And it will get knocked down in court, easily.

    The only team enterprise is the one going on now, with their publicity campaign. Honestly, I think you must have seen "Rosemary's Baby" and found it credible. It's not.

    Occam's Razor.

    Think horses, not zebras.

    Simplest route between points, and all that...

    I will look forward to the testimony by the experts who tested the rest of the Bloomies in that package.

    And about what other DNA may have been found on the undies in question, not in the crotch area or mixed with JonBenet's blood.
  16. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    Re: AM

    It's been a while since I've seen a Straw Man fallacy.

    Actions by Keenan's office to continue the cover-up work done by Alex Hunter are even simpler and more "horse-like" when seen as part of the overal pattern, than saying Keenan is erasing 911 tapes on her own fanatical and independantly criminal steam.

    I honestly don't think I'm the one seeing "zebras instead of horses" here, at all.

    May have been. The location is undisclosed. Are you forgetting to measure your own theories by the same "it has to be simple or it can't possibly be" law to which you hold others? There are plenty of "simpler" locations DNA can be found than up two flights of stairs in a plastic packet of underwear, from where the body was found.
  17. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Originally posted by Adrian Monk

    Not to be a horse's behind, Adrian, but I had to do the research on these issues, and it wouldn't hurt for others to do some, too.

    The heart obviously stops pumping blood at the time of death. If there is a prolonged time leading to death, usually the blood pressure continues to drop until the heart stops. After the heart stops beating, no more blood is being pumped into the arteries and veins. To answer your question, there will be residual blood in those capillaries and veins/arteries, which can seep out through a wound. There is also "loose blood," in the body - the blood that follows the flow of gravity and pools at the lowest points of the body - it's known as livity. That blood could also seep through a wound, I suppose.

    As far as the blood in JBR's panties, I don't know if anyone knows for sure if she was alive or dead when that blood was deposited. According to the autopsy, a red-tinged fluid was found in JB's vagina. No one has stated for a fact that the red spots in her underwear were bright red (which would have been dark stains by the time she was examined). The coronor only identified several red spots, with their measurements.

    Someone messed with JB's body after she was dead. There was evidence she had been cleaned up (for instance, luminol brought up something they thought could have been semen on her thigh but was later identified to be blood (or was it saliva?) that had been cleaned off her, at least, that's been the story). If she was also cleaned out inside in attempt to remove any signs of blood, any remaining blood in the vaginal vault would have mixed with the water used to clean her out and could have leaked out onto her panties when she was moved to the basement room where she was found.

    The answer to your question is NO. No one has confirmed that this DNA is "Asian." Ethnicity cannot be determined through DNA. There is a perfectly good reason for this. There is no pure race. Caucasions are not just "white." What is "race" anyway? Black? White? Do you have any Italian in you? How about Swedish? French? Go back in your ancestory - were any of your ancestors Puerto Rican? Canadian? Russian? None of these are really "races," yet, there are obvious differences. I am a mixture of English, Irish, Indian, Dutch, French - Heintz 57 variety. What's my "race?" I'm Caucasion, obviously. But, what if there is an African in my ancestory? Oops, does that mean a black African or a white African? African American? That's black, so they tell me.

    How would DNA identify a half-white, half-black person? Remember, we are all a product of our ancestory, which goes back to the beginning of time. How many mixtures of races have there been in our blood lines? Science might be able to tell us, generally, a section of the world that might be more connected to a certain DNA, but it cannot tell us what "race" DNA is, simply because there are several "races" in all of our bloodlines.

    Herein lies the problem - you are believing Wood's spin. Didn't WY warn everyone not to trust anything he says? There was no sample extracted later (except for the DNAX). DNA testing was done on all of those blood spots on JBR's underwear. It is a fact that the DNA was not submitted by the BPD to the FBI's CODIS program, because it was not of high enough quality. Wood claims there are 9 good markers and the 10th is of lesser quality. There's nothing new here, only new spin. That's still not good enough for CODIS, but somehow they've exerted enough pressure on the FBI to force the sample through to be tested. It's not going to matter in the long run, but it gives Wood something else to lie about.

    CODIS began as a pilot project in 1990. It became operational in 1998. It's a good and worthwhile program, but the results are only as good as the input, just like a computer - garbage in, garbage out. If they put garbage DNA in that doesn't meet specifications, it's a waste of time and money. Keenan says the specimen was submitted. I believe that. Anyone can submit anything to anyone. That does not mean it meets criteria and will be accepted.

    Lin Wood has not had access to DNAX. It's been said, though, that that DNA came new, unworn panties still in the same package from which the underwear JB was wearing that night were taken. It has also been said that it was the same as what was found in JB's underwear. Is it true? I don't know. I only know rumor on that one. Wood doesn't know, either.

    While I believe there may have been a conspiracy of sorts, I believe that conspiracy came afterward - a conspiracy among a few to play the good old boy game rather than a conspiracy to kill JB and stage the crime scene. There is nothing to suggest several people were involved in destroying evidence or staging the crime scene. At most, I believe there were two people involved in that.
  18. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    One more observation

    It's easy to spot the BSers on the forums. jameson has made many a statement of fact that turned out to be BS. She's one who said the DNA was "Caucasion." mame's another one. They make inaccurate statements, throw them out there because they support their views, see if they'll stick. That kind of false information shows they aren't interested in truth, only in promoting their agendas.

    That's why one has to be very careful about incorporating these lies into one's own theories. People who know better learn to disregard almost all information given out by these people.

    That includes Wood and Smit.
  19. Adrian Monk

    Adrian Monk Member

    I'll take that medicine like a man. It required about a half hour of skimming and cross-checking the Carnes ruling, deposition transcripts, and news articles available online, for signs of what the Scamsey Spinsters purported to quote in their fraudulent descriptions of the DNA, and had I invested that half hour before asking dumb questions here, I would have been able to appear smarter.

    What doesn't add up to me, is that if the ONLY guilty parties involved with the murder were the Scamseys, after their money no longer bought the protective influence of HMF, what is it that continued the influence later on?
  20. AK

    AK Member

    I mentioned this before

    I was pitched by a DNA lab recently that claimed it could determine eye color from a sample.

    Some people, and companies, will do anything for attention. Even lie.
  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