I wonder how you come into said dna info. I understand there is also another male’s dna found on the cord. It could have originated from the sale of the item. Why do you think PR purchased this cord? Seems ironic; don’t you think? It reminds me of the person whom wrote the RN, and then returned the sharpie to it’s home. If it was an intruder wouldn’t they take it with them (along with the panties and pink pj bottoms) or just simply lay it down? How many peoples dna were found on the pen?
BPD states they also found dna on the paintbrush as an unknown male. Now this is curious indeed. Why did BPD mention it if the likelihood of anybody else (male) outside the family would have dna on it? Is it all just apart of the coverup? The BPD blundered the investigation. The FBI exited to the left. The DA exonerates the R’s. They lost phone records; they just disappeared. If it was me they’d still have them for what is it 20 years? I wish you were my neighbor and we could have a cup of coffee because you know things that are privy.
Rain on my Parade,
The dna info is distributed over all the lab results and documents released by court order.
The dna on the cord could be from a male cashier who handed it over to PR?
The male dna on the paintbrush handle might have arrived when a male at one of Patsy's art classes handled it?
JonBenet attended the White's party so she will have some dna deposits from males she came in contact with.
Here is the issue: some or all of the foreign dna deposited on JonBenet might be degraded, so who selected a sample as representative of the suspect?
BPD tell us about the degraded samples but not about those with complete, sound profiles?
I am currently analysing the dna reports to see if they are consistent. This includes checking who signed the dna profiles off, and if the chain of custody was secure?
Bottom line is, I'm trying to establish that the manner in which the dna sample(s) were processed could amount to
staging, even unknowingly by default. Although I reckon a nod and a wink played a part.
i.e. were BPD knowingly involved in tweaking the variables that contributed to the dna profile that was entered into CODIS?
Rather than wade through all the statistics, lab results, etc. It's simpler to read up on the Amanda Knox trial notes paying attention to where the CSI went wrong with respect to the dna.
The allocated forensic geneticist, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni did not follow the reccomended procedures when analysing the dna sample?
This resulted in Amanda Knox being found guilty.
Now consider the samples found on JonBenet, who sequenced them, what method did they use, who signed the results off, etc.
In other words were the correct procedures applied, and was the chain of custody applied to the results anonymously refereed?
Knowing the answers might tell us why, if there are good male dna profiles found on JonBenet, e.g. BR, DS, etc why they have not been published?
The DA exonerates the R’s. They lost phone records; they just disappeared. If it was me they’d still have them for what is it 20 years? I wish you were my neighbor and we could have a cup of coffee because you know things that are privy.
Yes, coffee would be nice, but there might never be any closure, but if it can be shown that the degraded dna sample(s) have been arrived at using suspect procedures then you might have an answer to why records disappeared and BPD have never released other evidence, e.g. details of the underwear taken from JonBenet's underwear drawer.
.