DNA From JonBenet's Clothes Given to FBI

[BlueCrab]

Shylock,

In my opinion the evidence is clear that the Ramseys have been engaged in a coverup from Day One. But why?

The coverup appears to be to protect Burke. But since the foreign male DNA is not likely from a Ramsey male then the coverup has to include a fifth person in the house that night.

That fifth person, a male also known as the "intruder", had to have been invited into the house by a Ramsey or there would have been no need for a coverup.

There's only several male friends who fit that scenario.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Sabrina]

Blue Crab,
How do you know that the friend's DNA was NOT tested? I was under the impression that the known friends were all tested. This would include the White and Stine children, the party attendees, and neighborhood kids.

It is of my opinion that this DNA either belongs to an identified classmate or playmate and had been under her nails for days and was transferred to the panties by scratching, etc. or it could, but not likely belong to Fat Hung Jung in Korea.

I do not believe the killer left a sample that was so severely degraded as this one was.

 

[BlueCrab]

Sabrina,

You're getting close to some of the possible perps when you mentioned Korea.

Among the "friends" whose DNA has not been tested are all of the male members of the 29-member Asian Pacific American Coalition (APAC). That CU group had some radical thoughts when it came to America's ethnic problems; and APAC had a direct link to the Ramseys. The group suspiciously disbanded several months after the murder of JonBenet.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Shylock]

Here's the section of the LKL transcript from last July where Wood talks about the DNA:

WOOD: Now, I've learned in the last few months, since Mary Keenan took this case over, that in fact, there was a second spot of blood, both of these spots of blood being in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear.

In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.

And the reason that's important is because you have to have 10 markers to submit that DNA into the federal FBI CODUS (ph) databank.

One of the things that, I think, establishes without question the bias of the Boulder Police Department is that they never, at any time, made any effort to try to get the DNA evidence in this case into any of the state DNA databanks or into the FBI CODUS (ph) databank system.

And Larry, that may come up with (UNINTELLIGIBLE) now. It may be a year.

KING: How do you capture someone, though?

WOOD: Well, with the CODUS (ph) databank, it actually keeps not only the DNA on convicted violent criminals, it also maintains the DNA from unsolved cases.

KING: Oh, it does.

WOOD: It does. And this DNA is not just strong enough to exclude, this DNA is strong enough to identify. And no efforts were made to get it into the databank. That is a priority, the number one priority of the new investigation by Mary Keenan.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

So this whole DNA story has been around since 1998-99, at least four years, but only recently was submitted to the FBI database. I don't believe the BPD didn't submit it prior to that because of "bias against the Ramseys" as Wood says. I think they were probably told for a second time by the CellMark experts that the Phantom DNA was meaningless to the case and trying to find a match for it was nothing but a waste of time. Otherwise they would have submitted the DNA to the database just as a matter of formality, to cover their backsides, should the case ever see the inside of a courtroom.

 

[Nehemiah]

Originally posted by Shylock
BlueCrab, one problem with your "friend" theory is that if it's true, the Ramseys really wouldn't have their legal bloodhound out there hammering away about the DNA to anyone who will listen. The last thing they would want is that DNA tested and they would tell Wood to "shut-up about the frick'n DNA!"
Remember that if it's ever found out that it was a family friend as you suspect, then the Rammers were involved in the coverup and know exactly who did it, and they owe the City of Boulder MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that were spent because of their actions.

BlueCrab,

I don't understand your answer if you did answer Shylock's question. I do get your theory, but why would the Rs not want to sink into oblivion about the DNA, if there were a cover-up involving Burke? They would have to know that if the DNA matches the "fifth person in the house that night" as you think, then Burke would be implicated, thus blowing the whole reasoning for a cover-up in the first place.

 

[Jayelles]

I wish we knew what DNA-x was from. The timescales of the testing for the second bloodstain would seem to tie in with the testing of DNA-x, yet Beckner quite clearly implied that DNA-x was not from her underwear or from her fingernails:-

20 Q Can you give me a ballpark figure of how
21 many individuals have submitted DNA?
22 A Well, back up a minute. There is more
23 than one sample of DNA. So specifically what are
you
24 referring to?
25 Q Well, as I understand it, there is DNA and


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.

This became known as DNA-x. Beckner clearly says that DNA-x was OTHER THAN that DNA found in her underwear and under her fingernails.

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.

DNA-x was discovered later in the investigation:-

11 Q -- to the fact that you took the DNA from
12 Chris Wolf, you obtained it in February or March of
13 1998.
14 A And we did not have DNAX at that time.
15 Q So DNAX came along subsequent in time?
16 A Yes.

 

[Sabrina]

Lin Wood's quote:

"In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.

And the reason that's important is because you have to have 10 markers to submit that DNA into the federal FBI CODUS (ph) databank."

I really think science had come up with advances in DNA technology that were not available in 1998 which was able to enhance the additional markers. I do not believe that the BPD
refused to have it tested, etc. as Mr. Wood implied in other interviews.

This is all a P.R. campaign to point to Mr. Intruder coinciding with the Fox lawsuit.

Bluecrab, I do not believe the DNA belongs to the killer. I don't think Dr. Lee does either.

Jayelles, as far as I am concerned, nothing matches and I do not think anything will match anytime soon, at least in my lifetime.

 

[River]

SMoke and MIRRORS again.

The male DNA will come back with no results.

Nice Try, Woody.

 

[Mame]

River, how can a DNA submission to the FBI's national databank be smoke and mirrors? It seems anyone really interested in truth and justice in this case would be applauding such an action....regardless of what their theory is.

How can this possibly be considered anything but good...by anyone? Jonbenet Ramsey deserves this and much more.

 

[Ivy]

Unless Sum Yung Gai's (the Taiwanse underwear factory worker who probably sneezed on the panties during their manufacture) DNA profile is in the FBI's database, I'll bet there'll be NO MATCH to the sample. My advice is for no one to get excited about this, thinking the killer is about to be nailed.

 

[FULTON]

"This is not a DNA case"Dr. H. Lee.:dontknow:

 

[BlueCrab]

I did answer Shylock's question about why the Ramseys would continue to push the DNA issue even though they are, IMO, covering up Ramsey family involvement. There are several scenarios that could account for this kind of Ramsey behavior.

Here's one of them:

Burke's DNA results have never been released. John and Patsy have all but been cleared because their DNA results have been leaked. Burke is covered by Colorado law that protects anyone under 10 years old, so his DNA results can never be released. Therefore, the Ramseys and certain Boulder authorities can safely and legally send everyone else on a wild goose chase looking for a non-existant "intruder" while the Ramseys walk.

Here's another scenario:

The fifth person in the house that night was also under 10 years old. Thus, the DNA in the panties, which was reportedly from one and perhaps two males but not from John, can never be released. Thus, the Ramseys can safely and legally coverup and divert attention away from the two male children by accusing a non-existant intruder of the crime.

Here's another scenario:

The fifth person in the house that night was not under 10 years old but Burke, who was under 10 years old, was his accomplice. However, the fifth person in the house could not be arrested without also identifying Burke so the Ramseys, the authorities, and the court agreed that the best thing to do without breaking Colorado law was to do nothing and not bring charges against anyone.

There are one or two other theoretical scenarios whereby the Ramseys could use the age of Burke to safely and legally coverup for him while throwing other people under the bus -- and use Burke's age to settle lawsuits involving accusations against him.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Imon128]

Or older than Burke, and would face a death penalty along with a Ramsey son? Just thinking out loud.

 

[Maxi]

This is a little OT, but I find it so interesting that there were only these two small spots of blood found on JBR's clothing. My bet is that this is not at all typical of child victims of lust murders. Does anyone know of sources with autopsies or other descriptions of the findings on such victims?

 

[Imon128]

I think the blood found on JB's undies was from gravitational drips and that the perp hadn't counted on that. The perp probably thought they'd cleaned up vaginal blood evidence. When John lifted JB up to carry her upstairs, I think the vaginal vault 'dripped'. JMO, though.

 

[Ivy]

Imon, I think that's a distinct possibility. I think it's also possible that because the panties had a floral design, the blood spots weren't noticed when the body was wiped down.

Besides the spots in JonBenet's panties, there was a little bit of blood in the corner of her external genitalia. I think this blood was missed when she was wiped down.

 

[Nehemiah]

Thank you, BlueCrab. You made it very plain to me.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Mame
How can this possibly be considered anything but good...by anyone?

I think you're right. I see this DNA thing, and the FOX law suit as being positive events. Every time the Ramseys play another card, they get that much closer to the whole card house falling down. The worst thing that could ever happen is the Rammers digging a hole and disappearing into it. Then there wouldn't be any chance of them ever being caught.
Let's hope this time Wood has to go up against REAL lawyers, instead of some New York Lamer who shouldn't even be allowed in traffic court.

 

[Mame]

The Ramsey's haven't had ONE card fall...their house of cards has only been strengthened in the last few years! It is my opinion, it will continue to stregthen to the point where no one can HUFF AND PUFF AND BLOW THE HOUSE DOWN.

The Ramsey's have settled (won) each and every lawsuit. Is that because their attorney has a big mouth? Hell no, they won because they have the evidence to prove their innocence. Steve Thomas blew this case along with the help of the BPD.

The fact is, there is NO credible evidence that exists to pin this murder on them. NONE. A federal judge, who happens to be a former federal prosecutor, the district attorney, the investigators and now forensic science ALL indicate it appears there was an unknown assailant who murdered this child.

That's not my opinion...it's reality.

 

[Imon128]

Another FACT is that no intruder can be pinned to it, either. Let's work from the inner circle, PARENTS and SIBLING, to be discarded. That hasn't happened. Period.