A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[UKGuy]

BPD and DA put a lot of effort into tracing this DNA to an innocent source. None was found. They might have missed something, but if they did it would almost have to be something unlikely.

Why did JBR’s panties have ten to 12 times the amount of DNA than was found on the new panties purchased and tested by investigators? Why is the DNA commingled with the victim’s blood? Why is it on the INSIDE of the panties? It is said to probably be saliva. There is matching tDNA on the OUTSIDE of the leggings that is said to probably be from skin cells.

How does DNA ten to 12 times the amount known to be on new panties, commingled in blood, probably saliva, inside and in the crotch of panties turn into probably skin cells and make its way to the outside of the leggings? The tDNA on the leggings makes the factory worker theory obsolete, or at least, incredibly unlikely.

Plus, we need to consider that the victim was wearing these two articles of clothing (one inside the other) at the same time. How likely is it that she would have the same male (innocent) stranger’s DNA on her leggings and panties if they were transferred on separate occasions (when she wasn’t wearing them together, or at all)?
Unlikely x unlikely x unlikely x unlikely, etc becomes a lot of unlikely.

If we consider the DNA alone, then an explanation of primary transfer by the killer during the commission of his crime becomes a very simple explanation. DNA alone, it becomes a likely explanation (because primary transfer is ALWAYS the likeliest method of transfer). In a contest between likely and unlikely x unlikely x unlikely x unlikely, etc, likely always wins.

There is just no easy way to dismiss the likeliest explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the claim that the DNA
...

AK

Anti-K,
All your tDNA and DNA references can be explained away as secondary transfer. In fact, it makes it the most probable explanation, since there is no other matching dna found at the crime-scene!

The secondary transfer most likely occurred when JonBenet was redressed in the size-12's. The unwrapping of the size-12's would constitute a secondary source moment, since the Ramsey's had the size-12's gift wrapped by some third party and delivered to their house.

JR by picking up JonBenet in the wine-cellar likely transferred his tDNA onto her longjohns, similarly Patsy when she allegedly dressed JonBenet in them, so BR's tDNA should really not appear inside either the longjohns, or the size-12's, since we know both were fresh on her. So why has BPD not itemised all the DNA identified, I reckon I know why?

Whilst there are credible explanations of secondary transfer your IDI theory will never fly, particularly we now know the parents were facing charges of colluding in a homicide!

.

 

[BOESP]

A good investigator doesn't "put a lot of effort into tracing [this] DNA to an innocent source." Declaring a conclusion because what one was looking for wasn't found does not result in forensic quality evidence.

The questioned tDNA in JonBenet's case didn't show innocence or guilt and may never show either. It's inconclusive.

 

[otg]

http://www.amazon.ca/JonBenet-Inside-Ramsey-Murder-Investigation/dp/1250054796#reader_1250054796

Heyya otg,

just a quick quote from ST, IRMI, p 39 .....

"small dark fibers were collected from her pubic region. Detective Trujillo then scanned the body with ultraviolet light and saw florescent marking long the thighs"

Is the assumption to be made that the thin watery red fluid within the vaginal vault is the same 'material' as on the thighs?

..............................

I'm hesitant about intentionally making an assumption about anything, Tad. Granted, we all do it sometimes without even realizing it. And until you brought this up, I guess I had made the assumption that whatever amount of blood was found smeared or wiped on her legs had been from direct contact with something that had blood on it. If there was indeed any cleansing of the vaginal vault as I suspect, it would certainly be more likely to result in some of that fluid spilling onto her legs (IMO). It's difficult for us to know much (or even make an educated guess) about it knowing no more than we do. How large was the area? Exactly what pattern might it have had before being wiped? By testing, could investigators have known that it was blood only or blood that had been diluted?

But internally, there would be no other reason I can think of for there to be “semiliquid thin watery red fluid” inside the vaginal vault other than some attempt at somehow “rinsing out” the blood that was present.-otg

IDK otg,

as a 'minimal amount' can it not be considered as blood mixed with watery discharge?

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/vaginal_discharge.html

First off, in case there was any doubt, I have less first-hand knowledge in this area than many here because of my gender and the fact that I had no daughters. That being said, I think there are enough differences between the physiology of a child's genitals and an adult's to make this particular article not very reliable for information about children. Yes, I understand that even a child's vagina will have secretions of some sort due to the simple fact that the inside is a layer of mucous membrane. That's its purpose. But the pH level alone is very different depending on the age of the person. Most of the abnormal discharges discussed in the referenced article would probably not be very likely to occur in a child. If such were the case, I should think it would be something noted by a knowledgeable pediatrician. (OOPS! :doh: Nevermind.)

I guess my biggest reason for doubting that this was some type of physiological discharge mixed with the blood from the sexual assault is the point Dr. Meyer made of noting that it was "semifluid", "thin", and "watery". I think he might otherwise have said it was simply "blood mixed in with vaginal fluid".

Obviously, this is not something we'll ever know for sure. But I still tend to believe that whoever it is who tried to cover up this crime made some attempt at rinsing out some of the blood and wiping it away. This is not something that would be done by someone trying to "fake" a sexual assault.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm hesitant about intentionally making an assumption about anything, Tad. Granted, we all do it sometimes without even realizing it. And until you brought this up, I guess I had made the assumption that whatever amount of blood was found smeared or wiped on her legs had been from direct contact with something that had blood on it. If there was indeed any cleansing of the vaginal vault as I suspect, it would certainly be more likely to result in some of that fluid spilling onto her legs (IMO). It's difficult for us to know much (or even make an educated guess) about it knowing no more than we do. How large was the area? Exactly what pattern might it have had before being wiped? By testing, could investigators have known that it was blood only or blood that had been diluted?



First off, in case there was any doubt, I have less first-hand knowledge in this area than many here because of my gender and the fact that I had no daughters. That being said, I think there are enough differences between the physiology of a child's genitals and an adult's to make this particular article not very reliable for information about children. Yes, I understand that even a child's vagina will have secretions of some sort due to the simple fact that the inside is a layer of mucous membrane. That's its purpose. But the pH level alone is very different depending on the age of the person. Most of the abnormal discharges discussed in the referenced article would probably not be very likely to occur in a child. If such were the case, I should think it would be something noted by a knowledgeable pediatrician. (OOPS! :doh: Nevermind.)

I guess my biggest reason for doubting that this was some type of physiological discharge mixed with the blood from the sexual assault is the point Dr. Meyer made of noting that it was "semifluid", "thin", and "watery". I think he might otherwise have said it was simply "blood mixed in with vaginal fluid".

Obviously, this is not something we'll ever know for sure. But I still tend to believe that whoever it is who tried to cover up this crime made some attempt at rinsing out some of the blood and wiping it away. This is not something that would be done by someone trying to "fake" a sexual assault.

otg,
Rinsing out, is quite some procedure, reminds me of those RDI theorists who suggested JonBenet was being internally cleansed on a regular basis?

Does rinsing out not suggest the use of a bathroom, maybe a bowl at a minimum, all indicating preplanned staging?

.

 

[OliviaG1996]

BPD and DA put a lot of effort into tracing this DNA to an innocent source. None was found. They might have missed something, but if they did it would almost have to be something unlikely.

Why did JBR’s panties have ten to 12 times the amount of DNA than was found on the new panties purchased and tested by investigators? Why is the DNA commingled with the victim’s blood? Why is it on the INSIDE of the panties? It is said to probably be saliva. There is matching tDNA on the OUTSIDE of the leggings that is said to probably be from skin cells.

Hi, AK!

Probably is different than most definitely. I'm not yet convinced of the type of DNA of either sample, specifically whether they're skin cells or saliva. The samples were not strong enough for investigators to make a solid determination, so I'm not sure we should, either.

How does DNA ten to 12 times the amount known to be on new panties, commingled in blood, probably saliva, inside and in the crotch of panties turn into probably skin cells and make its way to the outside of the leggings? The tDNA on the leggings makes the factory worker theory obsolete, or at least, incredibly unlikely.

Good question. I don't think the factory worker idea is the only idea out there that can account for the unknown DNA, though. andreww has posted another good one: Sweaty workers in basement rubbing cloth on forehead and mouth = Lots of different types of DNA

Plus, we need to consider that the victim was wearing these two articles of clothing (one inside the other) at the same time. How likely is it that she would have the same male (innocent) stranger’s DNA on her leggings and panties if they were transferred on separate occasions (when she wasn’t wearing them together, or at all)?
Unlikely x unlikely x unlikely x unlikely, etc becomes a lot of unlikely.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you asking why the DNA wasn't found on the inside of her leggings? That could be because the foreign DNA was only in the crotch area of the underwear (from what I've read, anyway). The DNA could've been transferred from the perpetrator's gloves from the crotch of the underwear to the leggings. Or, when she was being wiped down with cloth (or whatever it was). If this isn't what you were asking, I apologize.

If we consider the DNA alone, then an explanation of primary transfer by the killer during the commission of his crime becomes a very simple explanation. DNA alone, it becomes a likely explanation (because primary transfer is ALWAYS the likeliest method of transfer). In a contest between likely and unlikely x unlikely x unlikely x unlikely, etc, likely always wins.

There is just no easy way to dismiss the likeliest explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the claim that the DNA
...

AK

You're absolutely right about primary transfer being the likeliest method of transfer, but I wouldn't be too quick to deem anything in this case "likely" or "unlikely". After all, how likely is it that someone would hate "Mr. Ramsey" enough to kill his daughter, with JR still to this day not having a clue as to who it may have been?

 

[OliviaG1996]

I think it would have to be a pretty low door knob for someone to be rubbing their legs against it. Anyway...

It’s easy to say something like, if Person A (a stranger) transfers their DNA to an object, and Person B touches that object than they could transfer Persons A’s DNA to another object; but, with secondary transfer Person B’s DNA is usually transferred along with Persons A’s DNA.

Primary transfer is always the likeliest method of transfer and un-mixed samples are most often the result of primary transfer. Likely x likely always wins over unlikely x unlikely x unlikely x unlikely.
...


AK

BBM: What if Person B is wearing gloves? We have every reason to believe the person(s) responsible for this was wearing gloves in order to cover their identity/identities.

 

[questfortrue]

BBM: What if Person B is wearing gloves? We have every reason to believe the person(s) responsible for this was wearing gloves in order to cover their identity/identities.

Small point perhaps, and maybe it’s been mentioned somewhere, but I’ve never seen it verified that the tDNA was on the outside of the waistband of the leggings. Kolar, who spoke to Horita about this tDNA, stated something different: DNA originally found in her underwear now matched microscopic traces of male DNA found in the interior waistband of these leggings.

Another interesting quote from a lab in Victoria, Australia, seems to also corroborate such events as cloth to cloth transfer or object (glove) to cloth transfer. From www.newscientist.com: Mariya Goray of Victoria Police Forensic Service Centre in Australia and her colleagues re-enacted several scenarios loosely based on real events in which DNA from a defendant was found on a victim’s clothes or a murder weapon, and where the defense argued that it could have gotten there indirectly. Mimicking the scenario described in the intro, Goray asked a volunteer to handle a child’s vest and wooden toy for 1 minute before these objects were rubbed against the front of a lab coat, which represented pyjamas. They found that enough of the volunteer’s DNA transferred to clearly identify him.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
All your tDNA and DNA references can be explained away as secondary transfer. In fact, it makes it the most probable explanation, since there is no other matching dna found at the crime-scene!

The secondary transfer most likely occurred when JonBenet was redressed in the size-12's. The unwrapping of the size-12's would constitute a secondary source moment, since the Ramsey's had the size-12's gift wrapped by some third party and delivered to their house.

JR by picking up JonBenet in the wine-cellar likely transferred his tDNA onto her longjohns, similarly Patsy when she allegedly dressed JonBenet in them, so BR's tDNA should really not appear inside either the longjohns, or the size-12's, since we know both were fresh on her. So why has BPD not itemised all the DNA identified, I reckon I know why?

Whilst there are credible explanations of secondary transfer your IDI theory will never fly, particularly we now know the parents were facing charges of colluding in a homicide!

.

...and, this third party carried the gift wrapped panties into the house, and stashed it where ever, and no one else ever touched it until which ever Ramsey you suspect touched it. And, by chance they touched it in the exact location where third party guy’s DNA was located, transferred it to themselves, and then whichever Ramsey you suspect touched no other object until they pulled down (or, up) the leggings and then how did it got inside the crotch of the panties and commingled in blood?

Sorry, not much believable or likely to see here.

BTW, jbr being redressed in the size 12s is RDI speculation and not much more.

AND, there are no reports saying that JR or PR’s DNA was found on the leggings.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

A good investigator doesn't "put a lot of effort into tracing [this] DNA to an innocent source." Declaring a conclusion because what one was looking for wasn't found does not result in forensic quality evidence.

The questioned tDNA in JonBenet's case didn't show innocence or guilt and may never show either. It's inconclusive.

Regardless, they did indeed put a great deal of effort into sourcing the DNA, and no innocent source was found.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I'm hesitant about intentionally making an assumption about anything, Tad. Granted, we all do it sometimes without even realizing it. And until you brought this up, I guess I had made the assumption that whatever amount of blood was found smeared or wiped on her legs had been from direct contact with something that had blood on it. If there was indeed any cleansing of the vaginal vault as I suspect, it would certainly be more likely to result in some of that fluid spilling onto her legs (IMO). It's difficult for us to know much (or even make an educated guess) about it knowing no more than we do. How large was the area? Exactly what pattern might it have had before being wiped? By testing, could investigators have known that it was blood only or blood that had been diluted?



First off, in case there was any doubt, I have less first-hand knowledge in this area than many here because of my gender and the fact that I had no daughters. That being said, I think there are enough differences between the physiology of a child's genitals and an adult's to make this particular article not very reliable for information about children. Yes, I understand that even a child's vagina will have secretions of some sort due to the simple fact that the inside is a layer of mucous membrane. That's its purpose. But the pH level alone is very different depending on the age of the person. Most of the abnormal discharges discussed in the referenced article would probably not be very likely to occur in a child. If such were the case, I should think it would be something noted by a knowledgeable pediatrician. (OOPS! :doh: Nevermind.)

I guess my biggest reason for doubting that this was some type of physiological discharge mixed with the blood from the sexual assault is the point Dr. Meyer made of noting that it was "semifluid", "thin", and "watery". I think he might otherwise have said it was simply "blood mixed in with vaginal fluid".

Obviously, this is not something we'll ever know for sure. But I still tend to believe that whoever it is who tried to cover up this crime made some attempt at rinsing out some of the blood and wiping it away. This is not something that would be done by someone trying to "fake" a sexual assault.

IMO, it should be obvious that no one “faked” a sexual assault. A real sexual assault occurred and someone seems to have tried to cover it up.
...AK

 

[Anti-K]

Hi, AK!

Probably is different than most definitely. I'm not yet convinced of the type of DNA of either sample, specifically whether they're skin cells or saliva. The samples were not strong enough for investigators to make a solid determination, so I'm not sure we should, either.



Good question. I don't think the factory worker idea is the only idea out there that can account for the unknown DNA, though. andreww has posted another good one: Sweaty workers in basement rubbing cloth on forehead and mouth = Lots of different types of DNA



I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you asking why the DNA wasn't found on the inside of her leggings? That could be because the foreign DNA was only in the crotch area of the underwear (from what I've read, anyway). The DNA could've been transferred from the perpetrator's gloves from the crotch of the underwear to the leggings. Or, when she was being wiped down with cloth (or whatever it was). If this isn't what you were asking, I apologize.



You're absolutely right about primary transfer being the likeliest method of transfer, but I wouldn't be too quick to deem anything in this case "likely" or "unlikely". After all, how likely is it that someone would hate "Mr. Ramsey" enough to kill his daughter, with JR still to this day not having a clue as to who it may have been?

Hi Olivia1966

Yes, probably is different the most definitely. In science, “probably” means “more likely than not.” as I understand it, they were able to determine that one probably was one thing and the other was probably something else.

I don’t have any qualms with people saying that the tDNA might not be skin cells (dry) and the DNA might not be saliva (WET), but while they “might not be” it remains that they probably are.
.

I don’t recall it ever being said that the inside of the leggings were checked. I would bet that it wasn’t. In the Lacey Press Release the areas scraped are described as “both sides of the waist area.”
In an interview for the media Angel Williamson of BODE explained that, "you have to have a good idea of where someone has been touched, or in this case, where you think the suspect would have touched" JonBenet's clothing...”

Investigators suggested that somebody pulling down her pants would have touched the waistband and the sides of the long johns, Williamson said. So Bode scientists scraped the surface of those areas with a sharp blade to see if they could find DNA. http://tinyurl.com/nrglvn4

So, no, I don’t think the inside of the leggings were ever looked at.
.

IMO, if IDI, the killer did not hate Mr Ramsey and might not have known him (or, any of them (at all).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: What if Person B is wearing gloves? We have every reason to believe the person(s) responsible for this was wearing gloves in order to cover their identity/identities.

What if the killer handled his own gloves, before putting them on and his own DNA transferred to the outside of them and later, when he touched the leggings he transferred his own DNA?! Ha!

But, let’s say that the killer (a Ramsey or IDI) was wearing gloves and they transfer someone else’s DNA to the leggings. Where did someone else’s DNA come from? Let’s say the wrapping on the packaged panties as UKGuy suggests. The killer would have to go directly from touching the wrapping to touching the leggings because if he touched something else in between (like, the panties themselves or the package the panties were in, or his own clothing, etc) they would transfer that DNA away.

If the DNA had been traced to a Ramsey, or a White, then theories of secondary might become somewhat plausible, but...

Of course, if Ramsey DNA had been found on the leggings or commingled in the blood on the panties no one would be arguing for secondary transfer. Just like no one argues that the Ramsey DNA on the Barbie night gown is form secondary transfer. Why not? The same rules apply.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Small point perhaps, and maybe it’s been mentioned somewhere, but I’ve never seen it verified that the tDNA was on the outside of the waistband of the leggings. Kolar, who spoke to Horita about this tDNA, stated something different: DNA originally found in her underwear now matched microscopic traces of male DNA found in the interior waistband of these leggings.

Another interesting quote from a lab in Victoria, Australia, seems to also corroborate such events as cloth to cloth transfer or object (glove) to cloth transfer. From www.newscientist.com: Mariya Goray of Victoria Police Forensic Service Centre in Australia and her colleagues re-enacted several scenarios loosely based on real events in which DNA from a defendant was found on a victim’s clothes or a murder weapon, and where the defense argued that it could have gotten there indirectly. Mimicking the scenario described in the intro, Goray asked a volunteer to handle a child’s vest and wooden toy for 1 minute before these objects were rubbed against the front of a lab coat, which represented pyjamas. They found that enough of the volunteer’s DNA transferred to clearly identify him.

In his book Kolar describes the tDNA as being on the waistband of the leggings. P. 244. Where did you see him say, “interior?”

At any rate, if he did say “interior,’” than he is likely mistaken (see post 251, above).
.

I couldn’t find the article you quoted at the link you provided. This is the link I have; I think this is the same article: http://tinyurl.com/obdxrlh

The interesting about the defence used is that the defendants in these cases (there are others) were people who had regular contact with the victims. So, Mrs Ramey or Burke could claim that they never touched the night gown and that their DNA was transferred through some other means or person. But, who would believe that?
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

...and, this third party carried the gift wrapped panties into the house, and stashed it where ever, and no one else ever touched it until which ever Ramsey you suspect touched it. And, by chance they touched it in the exact location where third party guy’s DNA was located, transferred it to themselves, and then whichever Ramsey you suspect touched no other object until they pulled down (or, up) the leggings and then how did it got inside the crotch of the panties and commingled in blood?

Sorry, not much believable or likely to see here.

BTW, jbr being redressed in the size 12s is RDI speculation and not much more.

AND, there are no reports saying that JR or PR’s DNA was found on the leggings.
...

AK

Anti-K,

...and, this third party carried the gift wrapped panties into the house, and stashed it where ever, and no one else ever touched it until which ever Ramsey you suspect touched it.

Oh boy your getting hot. Yup someone other than the Ramsey's gift wrapped the size-12's, do you get that?

Then someone else delivered it to the Ramsey home, a clue resides in the gift wrapping logo JonBenet was standing next to on Christmas Day.

Its not by chance some R touches the gifts its by premeditation. The opening of the gift transfers unknown tDNA onto said R's hands and from there onto her size-12's and by inference her longjohns, thereby setting up a forensic chain of custody.

Why did that not happen, answers on a postcard pleez?

.

 

[BOESP]

Regardless, they did indeed put a great deal of effort into sourcing the DNA, and no innocent source was found.
...

AK

BBM: How about "no source was found?"

 

[questfortrue]

In his book Kolar describes the tDNA as being on the waistband of the leggings. P. 244. Where did you see him say, “interior?”

At any rate, if he did say “interior,’” than he is likely mistaken (see post 251, above).
.

I couldn’t find the article you quoted at the link you provided. This is the link I have; I think this is the same article: http://tinyurl.com/obdxrlh

The interesting about the defence used is that the defendants in these cases (there are others) were people who had regular contact with the victims. So, Mrs Ramey or Burke could claim that they never touched the night gown and that their DNA was transferred through some other means or person. But, who would believe that?
...

AK

The quote about the male DNA found in the interior waistband of the leggings is found on the Kindle Edition of FF, P 5237-38.

An excerpt from ML’s letter to the Rs: The Bode Technology Laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns. The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

I read that as the left side and the right side of the leggings. Her verbiage is somewhat ambiguous in that it’s not designated whether it was on both the interior and exterior of both left and right sides of the leggings. Imo, it would only be an assumption that ML is identifying tDNA on both interior and exterior waistband of the leggings, an assumption we seem to have no way to verify.

 

[BoldBear]

One assumption that everyone agrees about here is that the package of underwear was opened on the night of the murder but we don't know that for a fact. It's a mystery about where the unopened underwear package was kept. Was the package in JBR's bathroom drawer, the wine cellar or some other location? If someone has pinned this down for a fact, please let me know. It really doesn't make sense that the package would be open prior to the murder...unless maybe a little girl was curious about how really big the underwear really was when she was playing. But of course, there was a nylon tie on the package and those are hard to open so a little girl couldn't ever get the package open. It's not at all like she or her bother couldn't have opened the package with a knife (where would they get a knife?) or a pair of scissors.

So here we all assume that only the killer handled the clothing before her murder. We assume that there is no way in the world that tDNA can have a secondary transfer. We assume that the DNA/tDNA belongs to the killer. We assume that there was no different tDNA in other locations on the garments because that wouldn't happen. We also assume that the DA wouldn't have personal or professional reasons to take the pressure off of the Ramseys (because this case wasn't an embarrassment). Nope. I'm convinced it was IDI and the DNA evidence proves it...only it doesn't prove it. All it means that if LE ever finds a match, then they have more work to do before they ever charge anyone with murder.

Even then, the tDNA evidence doesn't mean anything until it is challenged in a court of law. Experts will argue both sides. The methodology and the actual technology will be questioned. I don't see this as being as simple as some have claimed. It's very complex and to deny that and not to approach it with any level of skepticism is just wrong.

If, however, one or more of the family members were involved in the murder or covering up the murder, then exploring these options is not wrong.

I can't prove it was a family member. I can't prove it was an intruder. And I can't prove that one or more of the family members weren't involved in a coverup. We'll just have to hope that some day they will find a match to the DNA. Then we might be able to get some answers.

 

[OliviaG1996]

What if the killer handled his own gloves, before putting them on and his own DNA transferred to the outside of them and later, when he touched the leggings he transferred his own DNA?! Ha!

Remember, though, there was no matching tDNA on anything but the longjohns and underwear. If the perpetrator's DNA was on the gloves, it would've transferred to the ransom note, the pen, the garrote, etc.

But, let’s say that the killer (a Ramsey or IDI) was wearing gloves and they transfer someone else’s DNA to the leggings. Where did someone else’s DNA come from? Let’s say the wrapping on the packaged panties as UKGuy suggests. The killer would have to go directly from touching the wrapping to touching the leggings because if he touched something else in between (like, the panties themselves or the package the panties were in, or his own clothing, etc) they would transfer that DNA away.

Whoever touched the package of underwear did touch the underwear. It's my understanding that DNA was found not only in the crotch of the underwear, but in the waistband and seams as well. It seems like matching DNA was deposited all over the underwear and on the sides of the longjohns, not just certain spots, so this isn't so unusual to me.

If the DNA had been traced to a Ramsey, or a White, then theories of secondary might become somewhat plausible, but...

Of course, if Ramsey DNA had been found on the leggings or commingled in the blood on the panties no one would be arguing for secondary transfer. Just like no one argues that the Ramsey DNA on the Barbie night gown is form secondary transfer. Why not? The same rules apply.
...

AK

If Ramsey DNA had been found in the underwear, and it was proven that JBR had worn those size 12s before, it wouldn't be proof (to me, at least) that it had anything to do with the murder. However, LE had looked in JBR's underwear drawer and found only size 4s and size 6s, when PR had said she stocked the size 12s in the drawer. The intruder had not taken the package of size 12 underwear, as the Ramseys had them shipped to LE two years after the murder.

BR's tDNA on the Barbie nightgown doesn't prove anything, either, other than it provides a small detail to what could be a plausible theory. Just like PR's arm hair found on the white blanket.

 

[BBB167893]

Of course, if Ramsey DNA had been found on the leggings or commingled in the blood on the panties no one would be arguing for secondary transfer.

I think that would depend on what kind it was. But that's just MO.

 

[Anti-K]

The quote about the male DNA found in the interior waistband of the leggings is found on the Kindle Edition of FF, P 5237-38.

An excerpt from ML’s letter to the Rs: The Bode Technology Laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns. The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

I read that as the left side and the right side of the leggings. Her verbiage is somewhat ambiguous in that it’s not designated whether it was on both the interior and exterior of both left and right sides of the leggings. Imo, it would only be an assumption that ML is identifying tDNA on both interior and exterior waistband of the leggings, an assumption we seem to have no way to verify.

I have the hardcover. I have no idea which page would be the same as with the Kindle copy. At any rate, as I previously posted, if Kolar did say this than I think that he was likely mistaken.

I know from studies (etc) I’ve read that they never look everywhere. They can’t. There isn’t enough equipment, enough people, enough money, enough time (enough reason!), etc. They target very specific areas chosen to maximize the chances of finding something meaningful.
...

AK