What Happens Next?

[DejaNu]

Ok, folks, we seem to be confusing DNA evidence on this thread. For the record, there are 2 original sources of DNA from the body-(1) fingernail DNA and (2) panty DNA. Subsequent to the original collection of this DNA by the coroner, a 3rd DNA source was found co-mingled with the blood stains in the panty DNA. This 3rd source was tagged DNAX by Beckner in his deposition in the Wolf case.

Now, if you will go back to old news articles, you will discover that the first 2 DNA samples were tested by Cellmark Labs and CBI. The fingernail DNA was far too degraded to "match" or "source" to anyone. It is forensically useless.

The panty DNA, according to test results by Cellmark and CBI, was blood-sourced and matched to JB.

As for DNAX, according to Beckner's depo transcript, it was determined to be male, NOT semen but source unidentified by Beckner, and tests determined the donor was not a male Ramsey. It is unknown if this DNAX has been tested against other donors such as FW, etc.

It was the panty DNA that Wood claimed BPD "hid" in the case files only for Miracle Mary to "discover" and send off to CODIS. Wood claims the BDA never had opportunity to do so prior to Keenan's case takeover. That is a big fat lie. If you will peruse old news articles, you will find that Alex Hunter himself was given Cellmark and CBI test results by BPD and had no less than 7 conversations regarding those results with forensic experts, notably Dr. Henry Lee, prior to the GJ convening. It was AH who decided NOT to send the panty DNA to CODIS, not BPD!

And last but not least, when the panty DNA WAS submitted to CODIS, a run came back with NO MATCH of the over 100,000 perps already in the CODIS databank. The only backlog that exists is a backlog of retesting and new DNA samples to be entered into the CODIS databank, not what LW represents in his public comments at all. However, while there is no current CODIS match of this DNA, that is not to say in the future there could be, but only IF the donor has been adjudicated of a felony and court-ordered to submit a DNA sample to CODIS.

It is unknown who performed those tests on the DNAX referred to by Beckner or if it has been run through CODIS.

Hope this sets the record straight!

 

[Nehemiah]

The panty DNA, according to test results by Cellmark and CBI, was blood-sourced and matched to JB.

As for DNAX, according to Beckner's depo transcript, it was determined to be male, NOT semen but source unidentified by Beckner, and tests determined the donor was not a male Ramsey. It is unknown if this DNAX has been tested against other donors such as FW, etc.

It was the panty DNA that Wood claimed BPD "hid" in the case files only for Miracle Mary to "discover" and send off to CODIS. Wood claims the BDA never had opportunity to do so prior to Keenan's case takeover. That is a big fat lie. If you will peruse old news articles, you will find that Alex Hunter himself was given Cellmark and CBI test results by BPD and had no less than 7 conversations regarding those results with forensic experts, notably Dr. Henry Lee, prior to the GJ convening. It was AH who decided NOT to send the panty DNA to CODIS, not BPD!

And last but not least, when the panty DNA WAS submitted to CODIS, a run came back with NO MATCH of the over 100,000 perps already in the CODIS databank.

I am confused but maybe I am just not soaking this in correctly. The panty DNA is JB's, yet was submitted to CODIS? Do you mean DNAx here, or can you explain this a little more? Sorry to be so dense, and thanks for taking time to respond.

 

[Charley]

does it? Is the DNA said to be male only?

 

[lannie]

Why is the only dna under a few drops of blood, should there not be dna in other places ,what did the blood do only drop on 2 drops of dna already in place ,,imposible!

 

[tipper]

Ok, folks, we seem to be confusing DNA evidence on this thread. For the record, there are 2 original sources of DNA from the body-(1) fingernail DNA and (2) panty DNA. Subsequent to the original collection of this DNA by the coroner, a 3rd DNA source was found co-mingled with the blood stains in the panty DNA. This 3rd source was tagged DNAX by Beckner in his deposition in the Wolf case.
...

I thought Beckner said in his deposition DNAX was not found on her body or clothing.

 

[Britt]

I thought Beckner said in his deposition DNAX was not found on her body or clothing.

Tipper, that's what I thought also. That's what the transcript shows.

DejaNu, I believe the "3rd DNA source" - the subject of Lin Wood's current tour - was actually part of the panty DNA that couldn't be, or wasn't, tested until improved technology made it possible, possibly by amplification techniques(?), which was supposedly in 1999. (It's not that it wasn't discovered until 1999, but it couldn't be tested until then.)

The DNA-X was a different sample entirely, which wasn't discovered until 1998 or 1999, and was not found on JB's body or clothes. Possibly it was found on the ligature or the paintbrush or something like that submitted for further testing at a later date than the original testing. Remember after the GJ concluded, further tests were planned and discussed with the FBI and other experts.

 

[DejaNu]

Article Published: Saturday, December 27, 2003

FBI studies new DNA from killing of JonBenét Ramsey
By Cindy Brovsky
The Associated Press

A sample of DNA found in JonBenét Ramsey's underwear has been submitted to FBI investigators seven years after she was slain in her parents' home, the Ramsey family attorney said Friday.

"The Ramseys have a lot of hope that the DNA will solve the case,' said their lawyer, L. Lin Wood.

The DNA, which investigators have said is from a male who is not a member of the Ramsey family was sent to the FBI by the Boulder County district attorney, Wood said.

Phone lines at the district attorney's office were continuously busy Friday afternoon, and no one could be reached for comment.

. .

"I do believe the single most important evidence in the case is the DNA,' Wood said in a telephone interview from his office in Atlanta, where John and Patsy Ramsey now live.


The DNA will be compared with other samples in the FBI's national databank to see if it matches men convicted of violent crimes or samples from other unsolved crimes, Wood said.

"There has not been a hit yet for the Ramsey case, but only time will tell,' he said. Wood said he has no suspects in mind.

Wood said it was only within the past few months that investigators were able to collect a DNA sample of sufficient quality to be compared with the national databank. It was not immediately clear how the better-quality sample was gathered.

Wood accused Boulder police of not aggressively pursuing the DNA because it appeared to have been from someone outside the Ramsey family. The Ramseys have long contended that an outsider killed their daughter, and they have accused police of ignoring that possibility.

Police declined to comment, referring questions to the district attorney's office.

District Attorney Mary Keenan took over the case this year after a five-year investigation by police failed to result in arrests or indictments.

All contents Copyright 2003 The Denver Post or other copyright holders. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed for any commercial purpose.

*****
http://www.acandyrose.com/11262001becknerdeposition.txt

Excerpt from 2001 Mark Beckner deposition transcript:

Page 121

1 I don't want to get technical here, but I understand
2 there was DNA found, foreign DNA, found under the
3 fingernails on JonBent's left and right hands; am I
4 right?
5 A Okay. Yes.
6 Q As I understand it, there was foreign DNA
7 found either on -- I'll just say on her underwear?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Now, I'm not aware as I sit here of any
10 other DNA. Was there any other?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Where was it?
13 A Well --
14 MR. MILLER: Just a minute.
15 THE DEPONENT: Yeah. We're getting into
16 evidence here.
17 MR. MILLER: I don't think you should
18 answer that question.
19 Q (BY MR. WOOD) I have to be able to know.
20 You raised the issue yourself about the different
21 areas of DNA. So I assume it has some relevance to
22 the subject matter that I'm asking you about in terms
23 of the tests done with Chris Wolf.
24 A You can certainly ask me if Chris Wolf
25 matched any DNA at the scene. I can answer that.

Page 122

1 Q But I'm asking you about -- but I asked
2 you whether anyone else's did and you indicated
3 initially no. I said Do you know whether DNA -- I
4 believe you told me DNA tests were done or performed
5 with respect to Chris Wolf?
6 Yes; to the best of my recollection, yes.
7 Do you know the results?
8 Yes.
9 What were the results?
10 "Answer: He did not match the DNA from
11 the scene.
12 "Question: Has anyone matched the DNA
13 from the scene?
14 "Answer: No.
15 "Question: Can you give me a ballpark
16 figure of how many individuals have submitted DNA"
17 and you didn't answer that.
18 You said "Well, back up a minute. There
19 is more than one sample of DNA. So specifically what
20 are you referring to" was the question you posed to
21 me.
22 So that has relevance of your own inquiry
23 and so I need to find out what other DNA you're
24 referring to.
25 A When you asked the question, I'm thinking

Page 123

1 the unknown DNA.
2 Q Well, I mean --
3 A I answered the question in that context.
4 Q Known DNA -- I'm talking about DNA foreign
5 to JonBent.
6 A Okay.
7 Q That's what I'm asking you about and
8 whether any of that has been matched, DNA found on
9 her, foreign to her, whether that was matched to
10 Chris Wolf?
11 A DNA found on her?
12 Q Or on her clothing.
13 A And the question is did that match to
14 Chris Wolf? The answer is no.
15 Q Has it matched, been matched to anyone?
16 A The DNA on JonBent?
17 Q And/or on her clothing?
18 A No.
19 Q Obviously you're telling me there was DNA
20 that was not on JonBen t or on her clothing; is that
21 correct?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Where was that?
24 A We're getting into areas where I feel like
25 we can't go.

Page 124

1 Q Well, I'm trying to figure out what was
2 done with Chris Wolf, and then obviously I'm trying
3 to find out if it's been matched with anyone since
4 that's the larger picture of the case in its
5 entirety. But I don't know what I'm getting if I
6 don't know what I'm asking about. You raised the
7 question, you've indicated there was DNA that was
8 found somewhere other than on her body or on her
9 clothing.
10 I had initially asked you about the crime
11 scene, I thought. Pull that back up. I asked you
12 specifically, you did not match the DNA from the
13 scene? Answer --
14 "Question: Has anyone matched the DNA
15 from the scene?
16 "Answer: No."
17 And you seem to be telling me now that you
18 want to modify that answer, that there was DNA from
19 the scene foreign to JonBent. And I'm asking you
20 where?
21 A What I'm saying is I am getting into
22 evidence that goes beyond Chris Wolf.
23 Q Well, was Chris Wolf's -- was Chris Wolf's
24 DNA tested against this other DNA that you say was
25 found at the scene that you don't want to tell me

***
Everyone should go to ACR's to re-read the entirety of Beckner's deposition transcript. This line of questioning is a very confusing read about where the mystery DNAX was actually found, but SOME DNA material was indeed found not on the body or clothes. Beckner couldn't get more specific on this mystery DNA because it was not germaine to the Wolf case and would disclose evidence LE wanted to preserve.

Nevertheless, THE DNA evidence that Wood is making such a fuss about is from the panty DNA blood stains that wasn't available prior to 2000 until apparently some magical new testing derived it and off it went to CODIS. Again, a CODIS run produced a "No Match" determination with any perp currently in its database.

Hope this helps!

 

[Nehemiah]

It appears to me that Wood is doing some big time fishing for evidence about the DNA that he can use to clue the Ramseys.

 

[DejaNu]

Nehemiah, do read the entire Beckner transcript (if you haven't already) to discover the entire fishing expedition. Beckner did a helluva job deflecting the WOODpile's inquisitiveness!

 

[Nehemiah]

Nehemiah, do read the entire Beckner transcript (if you haven't already) to discover the entire fishing expedition. Beckner did a helluva job deflecting the WOODpile's inquisitiveness!

I read it last night but am going to go back tonight and reread. It is complicated at times keeping up with Wood's dancing steps. I agree, Beckner did a great job staying one dance step ahead. I think he had Wood's number from the very beginning.

 

[little1]

For argument sake:

Let's say the DNA turns out to match someone who has nothing to do with this murder. What if the DNA turns out to match someone like Pasta Jay or someone casual that JBR came into contact with at the Whites, etc. who has nothing to do with the crime?
QUOTE]

Good question, but, how did that person's DNA get into her panties innocently? That would be my first question.

 

[Barbara]

For argument sake:

Let's say the DNA turns out to match someone who has nothing to do with this murder. What if the DNA turns out to match someone like Pasta Jay or someone casual that JBR came into contact with at the Whites, etc. who has nothing to do with the crime?
QUOTE]

Good question, but, how did that person's DNA get into her panties innocently? That would be my first question.

Mine is not one of the names you'll see posting on the scientific aspects of DNA But it certainly can be transferred via a child scratching inside her panties after having someone else's DNA on their hands.

 

[Toth]

having someone else's DNA on their hands.

Blood, sweat, tears, semen, saliva, epithelial cells. Something. You don't just go down to the local 7-11 and get 'dna'. You get a biological substance that contains cells with a nucleus packed with chromsomes.

So, sweat, blood, tears, etc.

But its a bit hard to theorize some sort of scenario where this 'stuff' is getting under a victim's fingernails and also in her panties and yet it did not come from the attacker at the time of the attack.

 

[Barbara]

Blood, sweat, tears, semen, saliva, epithelial cells. Something. You don't just go down to the local 7-11 and get 'dna'. You get a biological substance that contains cells with a nucleus packed with chromsomes.

So, sweat, blood, tears, etc.

But its a bit hard to theorize some sort of scenario where this 'stuff' is getting under a victim's fingernails and also in her panties and yet it did not come from the attacker at the time of the attack.

Actually Toth, if you really think about it, that is what makes the most sense. If there is DNA under the nails and she scratched herself, wouldn't the transfer of the DNA be the same DNA? That could also be why it was so degraded, etc.

 

[Nehemiah]

I brought this over from another thread by Britt: "By the way, I wonder what's up with the DNA-X that was found at the crime scene but NOT on JB's body or clothes (per Beckner's deposition)? That is yet another DNA sample, but not the one which is the subject of Lin Wood's latest media tour. What has Keenan done with that sample?"

We have lots of DNA info on many threads!

All this DNA/DNAx is very confusing but from what I have understood in the Beckner depo, it sounds as if he is saying (w/out really saying) that the DNAx has been identified. Wood tries to fish and get it out of him in a roundabout way but he isn't able to do it. (Read the deposition beginning about 133 or so...; there is also mention of it earlier than that so you may have to read the whole darn thing to get this impression.) Okay.

Is the DNAx something they (BPD) are keeping quiet? Apparently so. Have you read anything else about the DNAx that you could post here, so that we could keep the DNA and DNAx information separate in our minds? Like Britt posted, the DNAx was found at the crime scene but was not on JB's body or clothing, unlike the DNA which has recently been reported to have come from JB's panties.

 

[Britt]

All this DNA/DNAx is very confusing but from what I have understood in the Beckner depo, it sounds as if he is saying (w/out really saying) that the DNAx has been identified.

Yes, exactly! That's what I think, too, and that's what I posted a while back when we all were discussing the deposition. Beckner said they didn't necessarily compare the DNA-X to Wolf's DNA, implying (IMO) that they didn't need to because it was already identified.

I speculate that the DNA-X may have been discovered around the time the ligature was sent for more extensive testing and Patsy's fibers were found in the knots. Did they also find her DNA on the ligature?

I wonder if Lin Wood's current DNA media tour, spinning the unidentified panty DNA as if it were conclusive proof of an intruder, is a preemptive strike in preparation for a forthcoming revelation about the DNA-X.

 

[Ivy]

I think DNAx came from the ligature or the paint stick, and that it has been identified as being Patsy's or Burke's DNA.

Two excerpts from a CTV Crime Library article:

Prior to the meeting [with Patsy in 2000] Boulder police chief Mark Beckner had indicated that questioning "would focus on evidence developed over the last two years, some of which came from forensic testing conducted after the grand jury disbanded, and statements the Ramseys made in their book (The Death of Innocence)."

~~~~

Beckner said his office had originally intended to explain to the Ramseys "what evidence we believed put them under suspicion, and explore whether they had any explanations for some of that evidence," but changed their minds when arguments between the respective attorneys broke out over questions concerning the couple's son, Burke.

Wood later told CNN that he had directed Patsy to answer all of the questions she was asked, except for the question about Burke which he believed was irrelevant to the investigation calling it "the disgusting tactic of an overzealous prosecutor."

In the Patsy interview, the investigators wanted to focus on post grand jury forensic evidence and on statements in DOI. If Burke's DNA wasn't the post gj forensic evidence, why would investigators want certain Burke information in DOI to be explained?

 

[Nehemiah]

Yes, exactly! That's what I think, too, and that's what I posted a while back when we all were discussing the deposition. Beckner said they didn't necessarily compare the DNA-X to Wolf's DNA, implying (IMO) that they didn't need to because it was already identified.

I speculate that the DNA-X may have been discovered around the time the ligature was sent for more extensive testing and Patsy's fibers were found in the knots. Did they also find her DNA on the ligature?

I wonder if Lin Wood's current DNA media tour, spinning the unidentified panty DNA as if it were conclusive proof of an intruder, is a preemptive strike in preparation for a forthcoming revelation about the DNA-X.

I must have missed the discussion of the deposition before. I think that is a good possibility, Britt, about a preemptive strike on Wood's behalf. I wondered that myself when I was rereading the deposition this afternoon.

Ivy, I had never read that article. Very interesting. What do you think was in DOI about Burke that they may have wanted to question Patsy about?

I bet BlueCrab knows more about this situation than he's been able to share.