QUOTE=Ivy]..my understanding is that the DNA sample sent to the FBI came from beneath a spot of JonBenet's blood. Wood likes to say the DNA sample was co-mingled with her blood, but experts theorize it's more likely that the blood dripped onto a smidgen of DNA, which was probably DNA from a sneeze or cough or sigh or touch from a worker in the underwear factory. As Maxi and others have pointed out, the DNA sample was miniscule, and if it was really connected to the case, it would have been larger, and there would have been more samples than just one or two small ones.[/QUOTE]
Quote from article.....Earlier DNA tests on the blood indicated it was from a male who was not a member of the Ramsey family.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106762,00.html
I really have never read,IVY,anything describing the scenario you provide,other than in one very limited editorial type writing where the writer provided their opinion based on Kane's thoughts on the subject. Would you mind sourcing which experts theorize any such thing?
I remember in 1998,it was said dna was commingled with blood in a stain,and at least six of the markers were matched to the dna under her nails,and at that time,it wasn't a sufficient amount to consider under the "gold standard" for number of markers.
Much ,almost everything,indeed everything we heard or read in those early days were opinions of investigators,and words out of Kane's mouth. Wood,otoh, has a vested interest in reporting factual information,it would not serve his clients well for him to misstate any detail involving forensic evidence. Pam ,although criticized,was briefed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concerning this stain,the information she was given is "quote from Pam" "The commingling DNA that does exist has been separated. One of the DNA strands does belong to JonBenet. The other has only been tested, I'm told, against Patsy, John and Burke, of which there is, unequivocally, no match" This information was released in 1998,Wood had nothing to do with it,this was information from the GBI. The GBI was in Atlanta testing the family,including grandparents ,swabbing them for dna to test against the sample they had at the time as early as 1998. In 1999 the CBI went back to the Pugh's and swab tested Ariana.(which perhaps should have made some of us blink...they were looking for a male)
I do not understand ,but I do know it's our privilege,how ,given the same information
,why some choose not to believe the facts as they "pop" up.
Larry King said,in 1998,
"KING: Well, because a lot of it is based upon speculation of things that are not, in fact, correct or are downright inaccurate, it does hurt, because people then assume those facts to be true, and they kind of, assuming those facts to be true, develop theories. And those theories over time grow legs, and then pretty soon people start beating up on the prosecution...
Yep,in 1998 he saw and reported on the growing "mob" mentality.
IMO JMO
