BBM: Nowhere here does it state the DNA excluded the Ramseys. That would be an assumption. Here's another quote from PMPT:
...
How can you exclude someone if the biological origin is unknown?
Thomas wrote (IBM), "JonBenet appeared to be the primary DNA source,". That seems to be an assumption on his part, so it does in fact mean, "no one".
(See PMPT quote above.)
Speaking of markers, the required amount of markers in order for DNA to become relevant in a case is ten. This case had four. That doesn't speak for itself?
Hi OliviaG1996,
The “biological origin” of the DNA has no meaning as far as exclusion/inclusion goes because regardless of the “biological origin” it’s all the same DNA.
The fingernail DNA was analyzed in the days before the 13 (or, 10) markers used by CODIS were developed. In those days there was no real standard. Some kits targeted four markers, some five, some six, etc. IIRC, in this case (fingernail/first panty blood spot) five markers were targeted (looked for, analyzed).
Markers are simply specific locations on the DNA strand.
It sort of works like this: PRETEND that the markers give simple, broad information like weight, height, hair color, eye color, and body type. Marker One is weight, Marker Two is height, Marker Three is eye color, Marker Four is eye color and Marker Five is body type.
A test may identify all 5 markers, but maybe only 4, or 3, or 2, or 1 is identified. Let’s say it is only one marker and that it is the marker for eye color and that the marker says the eyes are blue. We can now exclude/eliminate EVERYONE who does not have blue eyes.
One marker is all it takes to exclude someone. It really is that simple. If the fingernail DNA revealed one marker (it did, at least one) than people could be (and were) eliminated.
.
Speaking of markers, the number of markers required by CODIS is for the purpose of IDENTICATION. Right now, we’re talking about EXCLUSION.
...
AK