The DNA

[Jayelles]

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?

[Camper]

Great thread Jayelles. What other thing do we know, welllll we know that we don't know who did it. Sorry.

Back later.



.

[why_nutt]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

What else do we know?

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.

[BlueCrab]

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

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

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

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!

[Becba]

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.

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

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.

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

[Linda7NJ]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

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

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.

[BOESP]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

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?

I've tried to find mention of the third DNA sample Jayelles mentioned above (my boldface). Has the location of this DNA-x been released?

[Nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by BOESP

I've tried to find mention of the third DNA sample Jayelles mentioned above (my boldface). Has the location of this DNA-x been released?

DNA-X is discussed on this page a bit. Hope this helps...

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm

[BOESP]

Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter

DNA-X is discussed on this page a bit. Hope this helps...

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm

Thanks, NP. I assume the DNA-X came from one of the two hairs found in the blanket since I've also read that DNA-X was not found on JonBenet or her clothing, if I read correctly. Sounds to me like DNA-X is pretty useless because that hair could have come from anybody at any time, perhaps even being lodged in the dryer and getting on the blanket in that manner. No telling where it came from.

I've pretty much exhausted all the possibilities of anyone other than Patsy doing this. DNA-X was my last hope.

[DeeDee249]

It has been said before that DNA was never going to be a factor in solving this case. I guess that's been shown to be true so far.

[Littledeer]

That would be true snowqueen. I live 4 miles from my mother's house, and I could have 3 or 4 inches at my house to her 1 or 2 inches at her house at the same downfall time, or vice versa.

[Littledeer]

colorado:

So how much snow was on the ground around your home at the time you first looked outside? And how far away do you live from the R's home?

[coloradokares]

Originally Posted by Littledeer

colorado:

So how much snow was on the ground around your home at the time you first looked outside? And how far away do you live from the R's home?

It was more than a slight dusting. It covered the lawns the bushs in front of the house. Sidewalks and drive. Enough so that there were tracks on the driveway clearly and there would have been foot prints , yet I suppose not enough to be measured in inches. I lived ....at that time about less than 15 miles over 2 miles Do you really think I care to give out my location?!?! Who all reads the forum besides those I would not care if they did know.Also my husband had been in the hospital so it was in and out back and forth ISo I can remember the roads as welll.