DNA From JonBenet's Clothes Given to FBI

[River]

I think that's why Dr. Lee and the former police chief said this isn't a DNA case. Without semen and without other evidence tying the donor of the DNA to the crime, it amounts to a big nothing.- Maxi
********

That's what I was thinking. I clearly remember Dr. Lee saying this wasn't a DNA case.

What happened to the theory that this DNA came from the underwear manufacturer?

 

[Sabrina]

Ivy, you said:
"Odd thing is, the "foreign" DNA in the panties doesn't match the "foreign" DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails."

Where did you get this information from?

Lin Wood stated that the DNA in the panties was thought to be from saliva. It is mixed with her blood. I believe it got there from toileting or scratching --and came from under her nails.

Mame is stating that the DNA under her nails is from defensive flesh. Mame cannot provide an official source for this yet is stating it as a fact. If the DNA was from defensive flesh, it would not have been so degraded that they could not even identify 9 markers.

In addition, the forum of misinformation idiots do not realize that every time a DNA test is run the sample is used up and destroyed. They are blaming the Boulder police for not redoing it when it came back "inconclusive." The idiots don't realize that when a test comes back "inconclusive" the prudent thing to do is save whatever minute sample is left until DNA technology further advances. Every test destroys more of the sample, and there was HARDLY any sample to work with. they can do things with DNA tests today to refine the samples which they could not do 5,6,7 years ago.

I think the answer is in the closet door though. It's been posted again and I swear what they think is JonBenet has antlers or horns. Time for more astrology and tea leaves.....

 

[BlueCrab]

Nehemiah,

Yes, I think this is a DNA case, and there's a possibility that the apparent improvement in analyzing DNA samples, if true, could eventually lead to solving the case.

I don't know what the improvements in DNA analyses have been, if any. I do know they've been trying to eliminate the stutter effect from PCR amplification testing. So maybe that's what has been accomplished and is now being applied with respect to the DNA samples taken from JonBenet.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Ivy]

Sabrina, here's my source for the info I posted. To request the initial source from the site owner, there's an email link you can click.

When the DNA under the fingernails and in the panties was tested there were more markers than there should have been. What caused these extra markers? Was it an indicator of an intruder's DNA mixed in with JonBenet's, or was it caused by amplifying degraded DNA (stutter bands). In the two samples, the location of the extra DNA markers should match exactly if the DNA under her fingernails and in her panties came from the same person, but they don't match. Since they do not match, you will have to conclude that there were two intruders or the mismatch was caused by the stutter effect. If the stutter (Amplifying degraded DNA) effect is responsible for the extra markers, then there was no intruder and there is no foreign DNA.

 

[K777angel]

The RST can try and publicly hang their PR hat on this DNA spectacle all they want. What they fail to consider is the fact that the public is FAR more intelligent than they give them credit for.
We are very aware of the fact that you must take ALL of the facts of a case into account - not just one.
When you put the facts together in the Ramsey case piece by piece, you realize it is plain silly to entertain the notion that some "intruder" committed this crime.

Last night my college age daughter and I watched MSNBC's special on the Ramsey case. She was very interested in it and spent a good deal of time talking to me about it.
Her perspective on who the most likely perp was? Burke.
She said it is the only thing that makes sense with the circumstances, evidence at the scene and the Ramseys behavior post murder. Very interesting.
(And being an Education major she was appalled at Lou Smit's lack of an educated command of the English language. "I seen it."
UGH!!!!)

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Sabrina
Lin Wood stated that the DNA in the panties was thought to be from saliva.

Mame is stating that the DNA under her nails is from defensive flesh. Mame cannot provide an official source for this yet is stating it as a fact.

Of course Woody would state it's from saliva. Saliva is about the only source that doesn't contain other materials that make it unidentifiable. For example, if it was from urine, there would be things also present like bile acids to identify it as urine.

Mame needs to either get better sources, or read Steve Thomas' book. He makes it perfectly clear that the tests came back negative for anything under her nails.

 

[Ivy]

Angel, I agree that most of us are too savvy to swallow the RST's malarky about the DNA spectacle. Maybe even more people would be, if our JBR forum hadn't gone private.

That's interesting about your daughter considering Burke the most likely perp. (Smart young woman!) One of my sons' wives is supervisor at a bio-tech lab in the Denver area. She doesn't follow the JBR case, but she told me that a couple of weeks ago during a coffee break, the half dozen or so lab people in the coffee room began to discuss the case...and every one of them said they were convinced Burke did it.

 

[lannie]

Angel, I agree that most of us are too savvy to swallow the RST's malarky about the DNA spectacle. Maybe even more people would be, if our JBR forum hadn't gone private.

That's interesting about your daughter considering Burke the most likely perp. (Smart young woman!) One of my sons' wives is supervisor at a bio-tech lab in the Denver area. She doesn't follow the JBR case, but she told me that a couple of weeks ago during a coffee break, the half dozen or so lab people in the coffee room began to discuss the case...and every one of them said they were convinced Burke did it.

That is exactly what a friend of mine said also a few weeks into the case, I did not want to hear that, but I said to my self I will file that away & see if she is right, that is the only reason I can think of for the ramseys staying together all this time ,I can still see in my head John looking at Patsy with his jaw droping every time she opens her mouth.

 

[Sabrina]

Ivy,
I hardly think that source has any credibility whatsoever. Please find something more official.

 

[Maxi]

Most of the people I've talked to who haven't followed the case closely seem to think Burke is the most likely suspect. They are going with their gut rather than dissecting the case the way we do. That may be to their advantage. We may sometimes have trouble with that old "can't see the forest for the trees" problem.

 

[Ivy]

Sabrina, I consider my source credible. As I mentioned in my post, you may email the site owner and ask for the original source if you want to.

 

[Arielle]

I j ust got back from my Christmas vacation. While I was in the airport, I could only see pictures of JonBenet on CNN and I had no clue what was going on. I was so excited thinking there was some kind of breaking news. But it looks like it is just the same old thing again. It is during the anniversary and I think it was just done to keep the case in the public eye.

Personally, I see this as a positive move by everyone and for everyone. It makes the DA look good because she has now "done something" to further the case, whether it goes anywhere or not. It makes the Ramseys look good because it is talking about "foreign DNA" on national news and makes it appear that it definately does not belong to the Ramseys and therefore to an intruder. It also makes them look good that it was Wood who released the infor. I tend to think that if they were really guilty, even of a coverup, then they would not keep trying to keep the case in the spotlight. They would truly have to be nuts to want to do that. I would think they would just want to fade away. But what do I know.

 

[Britt]

I tend to think that if they were really guilty, even of a coverup, then they would not keep trying to keep the case in the spotlight.

IMO if they weren't guilty self-serving narcissists willing to do anything to make themselves look good, they'd stop wasting valuable time playing silly public relations games and instead quietly cooperate with law enforcement (and would've done so eons ago).

Keeping the case in the spotlight and keeping themselves in the spotlight are two different things, with two entirely different motivations.

 

[Ivy]

How long does it take to run a DNA sample through the FBI database?

My bet is that there won't be a match because (1) the "foreign" DNA is a false postive resulting from the DNA amplification process, or (2) the DNA belongs to Sum Yung Gai, a Taiwanese factory worker who probably sneezed or coughed on the panties during their manufacture.

 

[tipper]

I suspect there won't be a match either. As to how long; my guess is it's not considered a high priority and it will just take its place in the queue with all the other backlogged cases. Weeks maybe?

 

[Britt]

How long does it take to run a DNA sample through the FBI database?

Ivy, according to Sabrina on the first page of this thread:

A DNA data bank search is akin to a Google search and is no great complicated or time consuming feat.

What is the purpose of announcing the submission to testing, rather than waiting to see if a conclusion can be announced? Besides PR/spin-fodder, I mean.

 

[tipper]

It may also be akin to a trip to an emergency room. You may only spend a few minutes with a doctor but you can wait hours and hours for that short visit.

 

[Ivy]

If (wait, I mean when) the search comes back a "no match," will it be announced, or will the sample be archived and run through every once in a while as new DNA profiles are entered into the database?

 

[Sabrina]

If (wait, I mean when) the search comes back a "no match," will it be announced, or will the sample be archived and run through every once in a while as new DNA profiles are entered into the database?

This is what I believe Wood was referring to-- the sample is now permanently entered into the database because they could finally identify a 10th marker.

It has already been compared against every other sample in the data base. No match.

Every new sample that is submitted belonging to newly arrested felons, new crime scenes and old felons they are just getting around to testing, will be compared to it automatically now as it IS now part of the data base. They compare and then enter the new samples. It's just data entry really.

Our lab sends in samples and gets results back from the F.B.I. in about a week.

I don't know why Wood uses the words he does other than to deceive the public into thinking the BPD deliberately held back comparing the DNA samples.
I believe it was not submitted because it couldn't-- it was so degraded there were only 8 or 9 markers on the best sample. They can compare with 9, and I guess they can enter it into thebase with 10 if Wood says so, although the standard is 13. They are refining DNA testing all the time and the procedures have become more sophisticated in the last 7 years.


Ivy, that site is not credible. That's why I would question everything on it.

 

[Tristan]

My husband also feels that Burke is the perp. I fail to see a motive for him to have killed Jonbenet, and since obviously the Ramseys staged the crime scene and covered it up, it makes them just as guilty.

I'd be interested in hearing different takes on possible motives for Burke to kill his sister.