FergusMcDuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 1,214
FergusMcDuck,
Who says? Patsy of course. The longjohns were Burke's and he could have redressed JonBenet in them, washed: who knows?
How do you know his DNA was not on them? If he redressed JonBenet in a pair straight from his drawer, his DNA will be there.
DNA can survive a machine wash. Did you not read about the recent recovery of ancient dna simply by sieving the strata relevant to millions of years ago, they found Mammoth, Horse, Insect DNA, etc.
They tested the longjohns and didn't find his DNA there.
Quite likely a BPD interview as the information is so specific.
"Quite likely". Yet it's not in any of the transcripts: 1997, 1998, 2000. Where did you find the information?
The fruit cocktail is a non-starter, as only pineapple rind was found in JonBenet's stomach.
No report says there was only pineapple in her duodenum, and we have several reports in the DA office's index claiming otherwise. The chyme had "yellow to light green-tan" material in it, and with the pineapple being yellow, what would the green be? Grape skins - as specified in the DA office's index.
Who says, certainly not any CSI.
The latter part of the prior sentence is the important aspect, i.e. POSSIBLY MORE THAN ONE.
This is usually what everyone misses or glosses over.
Yes, and for good reason. The alleles found in the blood spots didn't exceed two potential profiles in any of the loci. If there were three or more profiles present we would see additional alleles in at least some of the loci, yet we do not. That the profiles separated perfectly over each loci - person 1 in this loci, person 2 in that loci, etc. is possible, but also kind of ridiculous. Let me illustrate:
Let's say you have a set of footprints going from point A to point B. Left and right shoes, same brand and size, perfect walking pattern. The equivalent would be to say that it is possible that two people made that pattern. One wore a left shoe and hopped from A to B. Then another wore a right shoe and jumped from A to B, making sure to hop between the left prints, making a perfect set.
Even if that actually happened, the findings on the longjohns would not have yielded the same UM1 profile.
So with multiple fragments of foreign DNA it was patched together to represent a valid entry for CODIS.
That's not how CODIS works. If they weren't convinced the alleles in the 10 loci represented a single profile, or even if they got later info that cast doubt on the validity of the UM1 profile, it would be removed from CODIS.
They never had full foreign profile of any DNA sample other than JonBenet's.
Also any of the foreign DNA might be simple environmental transfer when JonBenet visited the toilet at the White's or simply touched an item by hand that had those profiles on the surface, then deposited them onto her underwear as she used the toilet?
Yet UM1 was located in her blood. Other parts of her panties were tested and only yielded her own DNA. That would not happen in that scenario. There's also the matter of UM1 being discovered before far more sensitive tests existed, tests that could find such secondary or tertiary transfers. The only reason there is so little UM1 DNA left by now is that the earlier, less efficient tests consumed a lot of it.
If I ever write a book on JonBenet I'll offer more explanatory detail, i.e. technical constraints as to why the CODIS entry is fake.
Accordingly There is ZERO forensic evidence linking to anyone outside the Ramsey household.
Eppur si muove.