DNA Found on Jonbenet’s clothing

[Tnicolel]

I am new here but have been researching this case for a long time.
From the information I gathered DNA was found mixed with a dime sized amount of Jonbenet’s blood in her underwear. These underwear came from a package of size 12 girl’s underwear that had not been previously worn assumably they were meant to be a Christmas gift for another girl in the family given the size. It has also been stated these unworn underwear were tested and found to have trace DNA on them but at a much lower quality/amount (that could be from manufacturing) Furthering this her long John’s were later tested and found to have male DNA matching that of the DNA Found in the blood mixture from her underwear. For me this has always been such a confusing point in the case. Today I was randomly thinking and wanted to get thoughts. It is presumed she was penetrated with a paintbrush from the home during the crime. This paint brush which was broken and part of it was never discovered. Is it possible that the part of the paintbrush which was used to penetrate Jonbenet had DNA on it which then mixed with her blood found in the underwear. In the process of redressing her, even with gloves on the person who did this could have gotten the DNA on her long John’s from doing the act with those on. The photos of the art supply holder show clearly used and old paintbrushes. These paint brushes could have been used by who knows how many people and the DNA could have just happened to be there. It still doesn’t answer my question on why one male DNA profile is so evident/focused on assuming the paintbrushes were probably used by many . Or maybe there was quite a mixture but the male DNA focused on was the in the highest quality/quantity by chance and able to be picked up during testing in the earlier years of the case. Any thoughts?

 

[Reporter-C.Lin]

I think, when many people think of the term "DNA" they think it has to belong to the perpetrator(s). But really, we have to determine how the DNA was left and what kind of DNA.
I believe the DNA on the victim's clothing in this case is likely from secondary or tertiary DNA transfer. It was not a direct semen sample mixed with her blood. It was not a direct blood droplet mixed with her blood. It was not direct sweat, saliva, skin cells mixed with her blood.

I saw an experiment from an old episode of "Reasonable Doubt" that they can even detect traces of DNA of people hugged by someone even after that someone washed their hands. I have a law enforcement colleague who went to a law enforcement conference years ago that had a specific section about trace DNA, secondary DNA transfers, and how not to misuse DNA or misinterpret it.

I believe people say the victim still needed assistance in the bathroom (hygiene stuff etc.) It is likely that her mom or a close adult friend had helped her change or she did so herself. Regardless, their hands could get traces of an unknown DNA and then transfer onto the victim's clothing. (Secondary or tertiary DNA transfers).

Earlier that day (12/25/1996), the victim competed at a pageant at a hotel and then they went to a party. Many unknown DNA were in presence that day. One particular unknown DNA trace is detected, I believe it is because whoever assisted the victim just touched something with that DNA on and then helped the victim change.

I may have been a bit behind on the sexual assault evidence. I thought her pediatrician said no signs of sexual abuse were observed?

 

[887sMtreme]

snipped for focus

I may have been a bit behind on the sexual assault evidence. I thought her pediatrician said no signs of sexual abuse were observed?

The source for SA was the Medical Examiner and a later team of experts brought in to determine the nature of evidence found during autopsy. The Pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, said he never had a reason to examine JonBenet for SA and therefore never found any. He fid treat her at one point for vaginitis, which can be caused by harsh bubble baths, which Beuf advised Patsy not to use to bathe JonBenet. This condition can also have not-so-benign causes, but Beuf did not point to SA as a cause.

 

[Reporter-C.Lin]

The source for SA was the Medical Examiner and a later team of experts brought in to determine the nature of evidence found during autopsy. The Pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, said he never had a reason to examine JonBenet for SA and therefore never found any. He fid treat her at one point for vaginitis, which can be caused by harsh bubble baths, which Beuf advised Patsy not to use to bathe JonBenet. This condition can also have not-so-benign causes, but Beuf did not point to SA as a cause.

Thanks for letting me know.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm not sure if the unknown DNA mixed with JonBenet's blood meant the DNA was mixed in by means of causing her bodily harm in her genitals or it was mixed because the DNA was on the clothing and then the blood was then mingled with the DNA on the clothing after some movements and handling.

They tested the areas adjacent to the blood stain and found no trace of the unknown male profile there, which points to the former over the latter.

 

[Reporter-C.Lin]

Does anyone know if there's any DNA or fingerprints tested done on the ransom note?

And sorry, I read my reply to you @Tnicolel and realized I didn't quite answer it.
Based on what I read, I saw many people who had done DNA swab testing in other situations (not for this case) and took forensic classes said that we cannot say with a high level of confidence that there was only one unknown DNA on JonBenet just yet.
Here's an article with experts also believe the DNA is hardly from one particular man:
"In fact, those experts said the evidence showed that the DNA samples recovered from the long johns came from at least two people in addition to JonBenet — something Lacy’s office was told, according to documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS, but that she made no mention of in clearing the Ramseys."
"Additionally, the independent experts raised the possibility that the original DNA sample recovered from JonBenet’s underwear — long used to identify or exclude potential suspects — could be a composite and not that of a single individual.
“It’s a rather obvious point, but I mean, if you’re looking for someone that doesn’t exist, because actually it’s several people, it’s a problem,” said Troy Eid, a former U.S. Attorney for Colorado

New analysis challenges DA’s exoneration of Ramseys in JonBenet case

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn’t support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado’s most vexing unsolved murder.

www.denverpost.com

 

[FMB]

The source for SA was the Medical Examiner and a later team of experts brought in to determine the nature of evidence found during autopsy. The Pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, said he never had a reason to examine JonBenet for SA and therefore never found any. He fid treat her at one point for vaginitis, which can be caused by harsh bubble baths, which Beuf advised Patsy not to use to bathe JonBenet. This condition can also have not-so-benign causes, but Beuf did not point to SA as a cause.

Yes, But the panel of 5 medical experts in child abuse brought in to examine the autopsy, tissue samples and photographs all concurred that there had been prior and ongoing sexual abuse. In addition Jonbenet was a chronic bed wetter and had visited Dr Beuf over 30 times during a 3 year period.

Dr Beuf was a Pediatrican and family friend , Pediatrician's dont do internal exams of that area and typically not even external exams.

Its very suspect that Jonbenet was taken to Dr Beuf almost monthly over a period of years and never referred her to a specialist and never suspected anything else??

 

[CloudedTruth]

Does anyone know if there's any DNA or fingerprints tested done on the ransom note?

IIRC, there was only a partial print found on the ransom note, and that belonged to Chet Urbowski the CBI handwriting analyst who examined it.

 

[docyabut]

The DNA `s evidence ?why can`t they find the killer `s DNA in a relative with the same DNA?

 

[887sMtreme]

Yes, But the panel of 5 medical experts in child abuse brought in to examine the autopsy, tissue samples and photographs all concurred that there had been prior and ongoing sexual abuse. In addition Jonbenet was a chronic bed wetter and had visited Dr Beuf over 30 times during a 3 year period.

Dr Beuf was a Pediatrican and family friend , Pediatrician's dont do internal exams of that area and typically not even external exams.

Its very suspect that Jonbenet was taken to Dr Beuf almost monthly over a period of years and never referred her to a specialist and never suspected anything else??

Yes, I know all that. I responded to basics, since this is a new member and I didn’t want to overwhelm them. Thanks for filling in. As to your last graf, though, pediatricians do not typically perform the kinds of examinations that would reveal symptoms of SA on as young a child as JonBenet was when under his care. Vaginitis is as close as he got, and for that, he just told Patsy to lay off the Mr. Bubble. If only….