Discussion of "Overkill - The Unsolved Murder of Jon Benet" doco crime scene footage

[andreww]

For example, they determined that male DNA located in JonBenet's panties and in two spots on her long johns contained genetic material from at least two people in addition to the 6-year-old. As a result, they suggested that the "profile" entered into the FBI's CODIS database in 2003 — dubbed Unknown Male 1 by investigators in the case — may not be the profile of an individual at all, but a conglomeration of genetic material from multiple people.
-------------------

My question is that if any of the samples were a mish mash of DNA, how could anybody claim that three separate samples matched? Wouldn't the blood sample and the waist band samples all be completely different?

 

[andreww]

They haven't determined the sample in CODIS is more than one male. it wouldn't be in CODIS if it was and it has been audited twice. The concern for me that it hasn't been matched to anyone yet, is that this sadistic killer could be living in the foothills above Boulder having gotten away with it all this time. A smart sadistic psychopath who has fooled everyone.

If that were the case, why would the parents be so untruthful, evasive and uncaring? They are the single biggest reason why this crime has not been solved one way or another.

 

[Cranberry]

My question is that if any of the samples were a mish mash of DNA, how could anybody claim that three separate samples matched? Wouldn't the blood sample and the waist band samples all be completely different?

Right, there never was a "match", there were some similarities in the loci on the Bloomies vs. the long johns (all composites). So I guess it may be possible to break it down further with the latest DNA technology they will be using this year, to assure an accurate profile is in CODIS.

 

[salamander23]

wow - so much great info. Thanks everyone.

To further this discussion - and I hate delving into the graphic nature of this - but:

*** What were the exact locations of DNA collection, and what was the precise nature of these points of interest. (And as a bonus, the result of that test - to have this all laid out in a spreadsheet format would be amazing)

I am desperate to see an itemized list or drawing / illustration or spreadsheet.

For example; 1. 1 drop of blood on rear left waistband of panties.
2. 1 tDNA gathered from garrote handle
3. 1 tDNA from unknown stain on left knee of long johns
4. skin cells from unknown male under left index and middle finger

etc. etc... (And Obvi the above are just EXAMPLES and I know are not in any way facts)

 

[searchinGirl]

Well, you asked... the pdfs at this website are put together from the Bode Technology reports. Questions there pertain to understanding the science further and making the table better. If anyone can answer, I'm listening.

http://linearsight.com/research.html

I made the spreadsheet so that it sorts. I put the matching alleles at the top at the second link; I tried to make it self-explanatory. the profile of "Unknown Male 1" was provided on the Bode Reports with only 9 pairs of alleles. (CODIS requires 10). I'm a database type person. I like to build a report so that it's a picture telling a story.

I can see a matching locus on the exterior waistband samples. the interior waistband samples are unsuitable for comparison. the crotch cuttings show only JonBenet in the absence of her bloodstain. The nightgown samples are kind of that mish-mash. The profile mixed with JB blood in her panties was deduced by the Denver crime lab.

please remember I'm just the messenger.

 

[Cranberry]

wow - so much great info. Thanks everyone.

To further this discussion - and I hate delving into the graphic nature of this - but:

*** What were the exact locations of DNA collection, and what was the precise nature of these points of interest. (And as a bonus, the result of that test - to have this all laid out in a spreadsheet format would be amazing)

I am desperate to see an itemized list or drawing / illustration or spreadsheet.

For example; 1. 1 drop of blood on rear left waistband of panties.
2. 1 tDNA gathered from garrote handle
3. 1 tDNA from unknown stain on left knee of long johns
4. skin cells from unknown male under left index and middle finger

etc. etc... (And Obvi the above are just EXAMPLES and I know are not in any way facts)

For your reference this 9News article has the Bode reports and their findings:

http://www.9news.com/news/investiga...-the-dna-in-the-jonbent-ramsey-case/343376600

 

[kanzz]

For your reference this 9News article has the Bode reports and their findings:

http://www.9news.com/news/investiga...-the-dna-in-the-jonbent-ramsey-case/343376600

So, am I misunderstanding all of this, or doesn't this say that the profile CODIS has could be a mix?

'This could easily be a composite profile'

At the crux of the evidence is the DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1.

That profile was first developed in late 1998 and early 1999 from tests on JonBenet's panties — but analysts couldn't at that time identify sufficient genetic markers. Sending it to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System — the national genetic database commonly known as CODIS — requires at least 10 markers.

Further lab work in 2003 yielded an additional marker, and the profile, featuring the required minimum of 10 genetic markers, was entered into CODIS that December.

"People believed back in those days almost all mixtures are two-person mixtures — that was like gospel truth," said Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.

In the ensuing years, as the "kits" used to detect DNA became ever more sensitive, scientists came to realize that many mixtures contained genetic markers from more than two people.

"You know," Danielson said, "looking at the profiles in this case, it seems pretty clear that their idea of this 'unknown male' — this could easily be a composite profile. Meaning that we have multiple contributors. But because of the low sensitivity of the kit, they interpreted those multiple contributors as being just one extra person."
http://www.9news.com/news/investiga...-the-dna-in-the-jonbent-ramsey-case/343376600

:thinking:

 

[Ambitioned]

please remember I'm just the messenger.

Ah yes! I remember all your IDI posts from Reddit especially where you slam Kolar, idolize Smit, and talk about a sexual sadist. I appreciate all your spreadsheet work. Just remember please that IDI theories aren't allowed here, as per Tricia.

 

[searchinGirl]

So, am I misunderstanding all of this, or doesn't this say that the profile CODIS has could be a mix?

:thinking:

That's what it says but those experts didn't analyze the sample in CODIS which is not touch DNA. It was a co-mingled sample of amylase & Jonbenet's blood, and it met CODIS requirements for entry. I see it as a much stronger piece of evidence than the touch DNA. Plus the "crotch cuttings" sample only had JB profile, which I think logically points more to the intruder being in her panties, and not that it should be thrown out of CODIS because it can't be replicated.

I don't think the logic works backwards; meaning that if the touch DNA is a composite, then it proves the sample in CODIS is a composite also. Being that the CODIS sample has 10 markers, and the best of the touch samples is 4 markers, I would think most can agree, that UM1 is a real person.

I can't say why the Daily Camera published an article that is misleading at best. Could be to show what a fool Mary Lacy is. The intruder theory can't sell anything. Could be their unofficial motto is... "if it's news, it's news to us". hard to say.

Could be that Boulder Justice doesn't want this case solved.

 

[searchinGirl]

Ah yes! I remember all your IDI posts from Reddit especially where you slam Kolar, idolize Smit, and talk about a sexual sadist. I appreciate all your spreadsheet work. Just remember please that IDI theories aren't allowed here, as per Tricia.

Didn't know that. I've held out here for a while - not making Ramsey posts. I'll go away. I want to solve this crime; you guys just want to talk about it. But my signature speaks for itself.

 

[kanzz]

Didn't know that. I've held out here for a while - not making Ramsey posts. I'll go away. I want to solve this crime; you guys just want to talk about it. But my signature speaks for itself.

Well now, that sounds just a tid bit pompous, imo.

But in reality, what we're doing here is cutting through all the BS (including the IDI) and getting to the real issues.
Those who really want to solve this don't fool around with Red Herrings anymore - we don't have time for the foolishness of fairy tales like IDI theories.

So, see - we're way ahead of the pack here.

 

[BoldBear]

I'm not IDI, but I won't forget that the Ramsey's had a party in their house on the 13th with 60 people and then on the 23rd with 31 people. Finding forensic evidence on the 1st floor would have been a nightmare. Any tDNA evidence that ruled-out suspects no longer rules out suspects--they have to be included again. It wouldn't be right to completely rule out any possibility.

 

[questfortrue]

So, am I misunderstanding all of this, or doesn't this say that the profile CODIS has could be a mix?
:thinking:

You’re correct Kanzz except that the underwear sample is mixed with JonBenét’s blood. Just because there are new members here I wanted to clarify something about this particular ‘partial-DNA’ sample, which had been enhanced from 9 markers to 10 to meet the standard then required for CODIS upload.

DNA expert Dr. Dan Krane explains, “a ‘partial-DNA profile’ is another way of saying that locus drop out has unquestionably occurred and if locus drop out may have occurred then allelic drop out may also have occurred.”

Given there was drop-out of DNA markers present in the mixed profile involving the alleged unknown male in the JonBenét case, it cannot even be said with certainty the DNA profile uploaded to CODIS is valid, insofar as the possibility exists that a different analyst may have reached a different conclusion. (From Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey Case.)

What’s important, actually crucial to know about the DNA sample loaded into CODIS is that it was a mixed sample with dropout. Since JonBenét’s DNA-rich blood dominated the sample it opens up the possibility that some of the unknown donor’s alleles could have been masked behind JonBenét’s. To state this in a simple way: There is even a possibility that what has been uploaded into CODIS may not be the “real” profile of the contributor of that DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

wow great doc! Finally something approaching an unbiased look. And lots of little clips of things I've never heard. Especially those recorded phone convos.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not hard RDI or IDI

-NEVER heard that there was 1.5 hrs of time JR searching house...

-Also interesting explanation of the duct tape and cord coming from the canvases

That wasn't just interesting, it had me cheering.

*point of clarification: In the beginning they say there was one blood spot that matched no one's DNA. Later on they mentioned DNA again and said it was murky.

Can anyone point me to a report that says DEFINITIVELY that there was a BLOODSPOT that had DNA that matched NO ONE??? That is something I want to see.

As is stands now, nothing's 100%.

 

[BBB167893]

The profile in CODIS is not touch DNA. I do not believe you can deduce anything about it from the other stains.

Someone should have told Mary Lacy that!

 

[BBB167893]

They haven't determined the sample in CODIS is more than one male. it wouldn't be in CODIS if it was and it has been audited twice.

That was with older technology.

The concern for me that it hasn't been matched to anyone yet, is that this sadistic killer could be living in the foothills above Boulder having gotten away with it all this time. A smart sadistic psychopath who has fooled everyone.

Such a killer as you suggest would have struck again by now.

 

[BBB167893]

That's what it says but those experts didn't analyze the sample in CODIS which is not touch DNA. It was a co-mingled sample of amylase & Jonbenet's blood, and it met CODIS requirements for entry.

Just BARELY.

Being that the CODIS sample has 10 markers, and the best of the touch samples is 4 markers, I would think most can agree, that UM1 is a real person.

THIS one doesn't agree.

I can't say why the Daily Camera published an article that is misleading at best. Could be to show what a fool Mary Lacy is.

Lacy did that all on her own! Which is why the article is important.

Could be that Boulder Justice doesn't want this case solved.

I've been saying that for years!

 

[BBB167893]

Well now, that sounds just a tid bit pompous, imo.

But in reality, what we're doing here is cutting through all the BS (including the IDI) and getting to the real issues.
Those who really want to solve this don't fool around with Red Herrings anymore - we don't have time for the foolishness of fairy tales like IDI theories.

So, see - we're way ahead of the pack here.

That rates a virtual handshake!

 

[ZoriahNZ]

The profile in CODIS is not touch DNA. I do not believe you can deduce anything about it from the other stains.

Amylase is an enzyme in saliva, right? So it could have been deposited from a sneeze or cough or a touch from a hand which had covered the mouth during either. Bear in mind that in the links I provided you, it was claimed that the sample was microscopic, in essence it was TRACE. Far different from a definitive tissue, blood or semen sample from the crime scene.

The lab that performed the DNA testing, for example, told Lacy in March 2008 that it was "likely" the two samples found on JonBenet's long johns came from "more than two people" and "should not be considered a single-source profile," according to the documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30514220


From FFJ:

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.

Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 303 - 304

 

[Ambitioned]

Amylase is an enzyme in saliva, right? So it could have been deposited from a sneeze or cough or a touch from a hand

BBM ~ Can also be found in sweat or tears IIRC.

All the screeching about CODIS are just red herrings, I agree.