Full DNA Profile

[LazyCat08]

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/topstories_story_352213930.html

Obviously above headline is true if and only if, the male with the un-associated dna killed JonBenet. But if three different locations match for foreign dna, then the *probability* of an IDI scenario increases.

Those size 12 pants, which were new and a recent purchase by Patsy as a gift for another relative.

I think JonBenet was redressed in that underwear, which was *new* and whilst I can accept cross-contamination may occur surely not to under her nails and externally.

Same reasoning applies to forensic cross-contamination, its possible, but why just those critical areas?[/QUOTE]
CAN someone help me out??? I just need this clarified:
I always wondered about the assertion that the body was "wiped & reddressed" and the size 12 underwear:

#1 Where medical examiners no able to dtermine that?? If there were smears consistent with attempts to wash the body was that not photographed or recorded somewhere???

#2 How does anyone know that the size 12 panties where "new" - was it ever determined exactly where in the house they came from? There are so many unanswered questions just right here alone - none of my relatives ever bought me underwear when I was young. Who was the this female relative for whom the underwear was for and she stay with the Ramsey's? If there was abuse occuring in the house - was there any evidence that other children in the family were victims as well?

#3 Did the DNA inside the panities match the DNA under her fingure nails? I always wondered how they knew that DNA wasn't there before the panties were put on her. What about the original pair (her size) she was wearing that night? were they ever found?
Without being too graphic, exactly what kind of DNA was mixed with her blood? Human tissue, semen?? Is that the only foreign DNA found on/in/near the body?

If someone could shed some light here I'd appreciate it. I've read so many thing online but never really found answers...

 

[princessmer81]

OTE=Brie]
CAN someone help me out??? I just need this clarified:
I always wondered about the assertion that the body was "wiped & reddressed" and the size 12 underwear:

#1 Where medical examiners no able to dtermine that?? If there were smears consistent with attempts to wash the body was that not photographed or recorded somewhere???
Yes, there was evidence that the crotch area had been "wiped down" there were also fibers found in the crotch area that indicated that it has been wiped down.
#2 How does anyone know that the size 12 panties where "new" - was it ever determined exactly where in the house they came from? There are so many unanswered questions just right here alone - none of my relatives ever bought me underwear when I was young. Who was the this female relative for whom the underwear was for and she stay with the Ramsey's? If there was abuse occuring in the house - was there any evidence that other children in the family were victims as well?
The size 12 underwear was bought as a gift for one of JonBenet's cousins on a trip. Patsy also purchased and identical set of size 6 panties for JonBenet. The new pkg. that the size 12 panties came in was open and the "Wednesday" pair had been removed.

#3 Did the DNA inside the panities match the DNA under her fingure nails? I always wondered how they knew that DNA wasn't there before the panties were put on her. What about the original pair (her size) she was wearing that night? were they ever found?
Without being too graphic, exactly what kind of DNA was mixed with her blood? Human tissue, semen?? Is that the only foreign DNA found on/in/near the body?
The size 6 panties were never found.
I have found all of these answers on WS from other posters posts. All of these answers can be cited but I am not going to take the time to do it right now.
If someone could shed some light here I'd appreciate it. I've read so many thing online but never really found answers...[/QUOTE]

 

[princessmer81]

it has come to my attention that some rdi folks are so ingrained in their prior beliefs that they are unable to comprehend new information.

well, for those who missed it,

*they now have a full dna profile of the person who left foreign dna in jbr's blood*

it is not the same old partial dna match.
"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

In that same article LaBerge also says :
"Investigators must be careful not to put all the weight in the investigation on the DNA because the DNA, as important as it is, could be misleading them, depending on who it matches or who it doesn't match," says LaBerge.

So is the DNA misleading as long as it points to the Ramseys and is it not misleading if it points to an intruder? I just wanted to point out LaBerge's discrepancy.

Thanks for posting that article, it was interesting.