DNA Revisited

Nope. Axcillary means UNDERARM (axcilla)

DeeDee249,

Axcillary ? Who mentioned this one? A quick search delivers up:

the cavity beneath the junction of a forelimb and the body; especially : armpit

Origin of AXILLA
Latin, diminutive of ala wing, upper arm, armpit, axil — more at aisle
First Known Use: 1616

I'm assuming after vplate saying "ancillary" hair was the quote that ancillary is being used in its sense of rank, e.g. lesser hair?

Whereas Axillary means "related to the axilla (armpit)". see: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axillary"]Axillary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

.
 
maybe it was an anxcilliaury hair ;)

but seriously though - it was patsy's hair right? was it patsy's hair or not?

so whether it came from under her arm, on her forearm, or was a pube, if it was her hair, it was her hair. right? amiright?

someone will inevitably say i'm not. my ancillary hair hurts now.

Right you are! It was Patsy's hair. Tested. Proven.
So let it be written- so let it be DONE.
 
The DNA on the side of the long johns, exactly where someone would have pulled them down is what makes me go hmmmmmm.

I understand that perfectly, JuneBug. Problem is, you have to ASSUME that a legitimate sexual assault took place. Lot of problems with that.

According tp PR she put the long johns on her that night, I am assuming they were clean so they shouldn't have any DNA, especially a strangers.

We don't KNOW if they were clean, JuneBug. Assuming they were seems erroneous, given what we know of Patsy's cleaning habits, or lack thereof. If memory serves, JB hadn't even had a bath in three days!
 
That's the million dollar question! No one has provided a link yet.....

You provided the link Junebug, remember?

UNIDENTIFIED HAIR
12/26/96 One pubic or auxiliary hair found on the white blanket in wine cellar - Pubic hair reportedly belonged to Patsy Ramsey via mitochondrial dna testing (FoxNews2002)
 
According to who?

Well, according to ACR, it was said in a Fox News (broadcast?), in 2002. The reason this report may be so illusive, actually, impossible to find now could be this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/25/us/national-briefing-south-georgia-parents-of-jonbenet-ramsey-sue-network.html?ref=johnramsey

"The parents of JonBenet Ramsey, who was killed seven years ago, filed a lawsuit against the Fox News network seeking $16 million in damages over a 2002 broadcast, their lawyer said. In the suit, filed on Tuesday in federal court in Atlanta, the Ramseys objected to a Fox report last year on the investigation into the death of 6-year-old JonBenet, who was found beaten and strangled in the Ramsey home in Boulder, Colo., on Dec. 26, 1996. The suit contends that a Fox reporter's statement that ''there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to JonBenet's brutal murder'' was false and defamed the Ramseys, who now live in Georgia. The Ramseys have said that evidence links an intruder to JonBenet's killing. A Fox News spokesman said the network had no comment."

Photo
 
Well, according to ACR, it was said in a Fox News (broadcast?), in 2002.

No, ACR's source is message board posters who claimed that's what Fox News said.

The reason this report may be so illusive, actually, impossible to find now could be this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/25/us/national-briefing-south-georgia-parents-of-jonbenet-ramsey-sue-network.html?ref=johnramsey

"The parents of JonBenet Ramsey, who was killed seven years ago, filed a lawsuit against the Fox News network seeking $16 million in damages over a 2002 broadcast, their lawyer said.

They sued over a December broadcast; this one was allegedly made in August. Even if, it wouldn't explain why no other news source reported it, as they often relay other's reporting, and doesn't explain why there is no other internet record of it anywhere. Perhaps it may be found yet.
 
No, ACR's source is message board posters who claimed that's what Fox News said.
I see.


They sued over a December broadcast; this one was allegedly made in August. Even if, it wouldn't explain why no other news source reported it, as they often relay other's reporting, and doesn't explain why there is no other internet record of it anywhere. Perhaps it may be found yet.

They sued and lost....so Fox wouldn't have had to retract anything. You seem to know more about it than you first lead on.. so, you know the hair was sourced by FOX News during the August 2002 report by ? Carol McKinley? I've looked and can't find it. Maybe Tricia will ask Carol where the link might be, or even to tell us who her source was for the hair identification.
 
I see.




They sued and lost....so Fox wouldn't have had to retract anything. You seem to know more about it than you first lead on.. so, you know the hair was sourced by FOX News during the August 2002 report by ? Carol McKinley? I've looked and can't find it. Maybe Tricia will ask Carol where the link might be, or even to tell us who her source was for the hair identification.

I will gladly ask Carol.
 
Couldn't get Carol but I contacted someone else in the know about this.

We need to table this conversation until we can find the actual link to the source.

I too remember very clearly this being said and believe it is true but until we have the source no need to argue.

It might take a while so please be patient.
 
No, Brennan only mentions the palm and shoe prints, just like every other news story at the time. None mention the hair. Unless you got a link or copy.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-90790059.html
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

Heyya SS,


CB's article from RMN:
http://nl.newsbank.com/SiteLinks/jump/html/RM/51/?&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_text_search-0=jonbenet%20OR%20ramsey&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2002&p_sort=YMD_date:D


RAMSEY EVIDENCE IS EXPLAINED

Published on August 23, 2002. Article 57 of 119 found.
SOURCE: Charlie Brennan
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
Copyright 2002 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the JonBenet Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an intruder killed her, according to sources close to the case.
The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.

The two clues are:

* A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar near JonBenet's body... 804 words, Rocky Mountain News (CO)






FFJ:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=61149&postcount=59"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Need your help and FAST please!!![/ame]

Ramsey evidence is explained

Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
August 23, 2002

BOULDER - Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the JonBenet Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an intruder killed her, according to sources close to the case.

The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.

The two clues are:

• A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar near JonBenet's body has been linked by investigators to Burke, her brother, who was 9 at the time. It is believed to have been left there under circumstances unrelated to JonBenet's murder.

Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed.

• A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.

"They were certainly some things that had to be answered, one way or the other, and we feel satisfied that they are both answered," said a source close to the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings. But he contends the police have not answered the Hi-Tec print mystery.

"Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," Wood said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."

Wood said the two most important pieces of forensic evidence in the case are unidentified male DNA found in the girl's underwear and the bizarre 2 ½-page ransom note, whose author has never been determined.

"I represent innocent clients," Wood said. "There has been a history since December of 1996 of anonymous law enforcement officials in Boulder, Colorado, leaking information to the media, which, in most cases, turns out to be either false or grossly distorted.

"So I would put no weight, whatsoever, on anonymous information coming out of the Boulder Police Department. Zero."

But the source said that connecting the palm print to Melinda Ramsey was something that occurred belatedly, only because the first time her print sample was compared with the questioned print, the person making the comparison didn't properly see the match.

As for the footprint in the wine cellar, the source said, "We know Burke had a pair of Hi-Tec shoes."

JonBenet, a 6-year-old star of child beauty pageants and the youngest of John and Patsy Ramsey's two children, was found murdered in the basement of her family's Boulder home Dec. 26, 1996, about seven hours after her mother reported finding a ransom note demanding $118,000 for her safe return.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner refused Thursday to discuss any single piece of evidence in the beating and strangling death of JonBenet.

But he said in the 5 ½ years since the murder, police have continued to seek solutions to "a number of evidentiary items" that represented questions in need of answers.

"We have been able to answer questions about many of the pieces of evidence, and we hope that, over time, as we continue to go over them piece by piece, that we will be able to solve the puzzle," Beckner said.

In their book about their daughter's murder, The Death of Innocence, the Ramseys list seven pieces of evidence they consider significant to the case - the palm print and the Hi-Tec print are numbers six and seven. In that book, John Ramsey wrote, "Next to JonBenet's body, the killer, I believe, left a clear footprint made by the sole of a Hi-Tec hiking shoe, from the area at the heel where the brand name was stamped."

Writing about the palm print, John Ramsey concedes it might prove to belong to someone with a benign reason for being in the basement. "At the same time," he adds, "it could be an important clue."

Meanwhile, Wood said that Patsy Ramsey is making progress in her treatment for a recurrence of cancer, diagnosed Feb. 12.

"She completed her six-month course of chemotherapy in June, and obviously is still recovering from the side effects of that treatment," Wood said.

"But all in all, she's doing well. I just saw her today. She looks good. She looks very strong and optimistic, and so far, everything looks good on the follow-up exams."
 
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

DNA may not help Ramsey inguiry
Sample found on JonBenet's clothes may be from factory
Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
Published November 19, 2002 at midnight

LW's contention:

"Wood said the DNA from the underwear was commingled with a spot of blood, making any theory of point-of-manufacture contamination "nonsensical." He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails."
 
Q: So as of April, 2000, "Trujillo reported that the Colorado Bureau of investigation concluded it did not come from John or Patsy Ramsey."

Is the ancillary hair a non issue?

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-brad-millard.htm

ST Page 136,

behind the killer. Despite Team Ramsey's claim that the hair belonged to the unknown intruder, in reality it may have come from a huge number of sources.

However, it could be meaningless and of innocent origin. A former FBI profiler explained that there are always "artifacts" at a crime scene and that not every cigarette butt or beer can is related to the murder.

Nevertheless. it became the subject a of a thorough investigation all its own. Detective Trujillo reported that the Colorado Bureau of investigation concluded it did not come from John or Patsy Ramsey.

Later the CBI lab suggested it might not be a pubic hair at all but an "ancillary" hair that could have come from someone's arm, chest, or other area of the body.
 
Q: So as of April, 2000, "Trujillo reported that the Colorado Bureau of investigation concluded it did not come from John or Patsy Ramsey."

Is the ancillary hair a non issue?

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-brad-millard.htm

ST Page 136,

behind the killer. Despite Team Ramsey's claim that the hair belonged to the unknown intruder, in reality it may have come from a huge number of sources.

However, it could be meaningless and of innocent origin. A former FBI profiler explained that there are always "artifacts" at a crime scene and that not every cigarette butt or beer can is related to the murder.

Nevertheless. it became the subject a of a thorough investigation all its own. Detective Trujillo reported that the Colorado Bureau of investigation concluded it did not come from John or Patsy Ramsey.

Later the CBI lab suggested it might not be a pubic hair at all but an "ancillary" hair that could have come from someone's arm, chest, or other area of the body.

Tadpole12,
I'm certain hair can be tested for DNA, so if required the issue could be resolved.


.
 
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

DNA may not help Ramsey inguiry
Sample found on JonBenet's clothes may be from factory
Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
Published November 19, 2002 at midnight

LW's contention:

"Wood said the DNA from the underwear was commingled with a spot of blood, making any theory of point-of-manufacture contamination "nonsensical." He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails."

Tadpole12,
"Wood said the DNA from the underwear was commingled with a spot of blood, making any theory of point-of-manufacture contamination "nonsensical."
Lets run with that then.

Now if:
He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails."
So we have three sites of touch-dna deposition, all apparently independent. What is nice about this is it's a LW quote. So where did the touch-dna originate from, lets consider three options:

1. JonBenet

2. Autopsy Official

3. An Intruder

Option 1. solves the touch-dna problem if JonBenet herself picked up the touch-dna at any point on Christmas Day, and also dressed herself in the size-12's.

So get this, for option 1. Patsy's version of events regarding the size-12's is validated but the intruder vanishes like a puff of smoke!

Option 2. solves the touch-dna problem if an Autopsy Official clipped JonBenet's fingernails with non-sterile nail-clips. Now even if the Autopsy Official is wearing sterile gloves the outside of the gloves may have come in contact with JonBenet's nails or the actual nail-clips themselves? So when the Autopsy Official turns to remove JonBenet's longjohns, touch-dna is deposited onto JonBenet's clothing, and similarly for JonBenet's size-12 underwear.

Option 3. solves the touch-dna problem if an intruder deposited the touch-dna onto JonBenet's size-12 underwear and the outside of her longjohns. But how did the touch-dna arrive under JonBenet's fingernails, but nowhere else?

So it appears that Option 3. is inconsistent with the forensic evidence unless an IDI proponent can explain how the touch-dna arrived under her fingernails, exclusively?


Whereas the most consistent explanation is that of Autopsy Contamination.


I would suggest that the combination of no actual forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household and LW's claims about the touch-dna, must mean that Option 2. is currently the best explanation for the presence of the touch-dna at the crime-scene?





.
 
Tadpole12,
I'm certain hair can be tested for DNA, so if required the issue could be resolved.


.

Hair and nails contain only mitochondrial DNA (from the mother), but are still testable.
 
"I've had it confirmed that Carol McKinley was told, by a police source very close to the investigation, that the pubic hair did belong to Patsy."

Tricia @ FFJ @ 23:25:37


Apparently, Carol went live on air and made her announcement... according to poster "Starling". Maybe that is why the link to an actual report cannot be located?

Starling (14 posts)
23-Aug-02, 10:34 AM (CST)
2. "RE: Unidentified arm hair belongs to Patsy"
At 12:25 p.m. eastern time, McKinnley went live confirming all the
above, and specifically stating that investigators confirming to her the
new news story AND telling her the information about the hair.
This is on Fox News.


http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/printthread.php?t=4688&pp=50&page=2

redheadedgal,
pubic hair did belong to Patsy."
Pubic hair? If this is the case, presumably it was DNA tested?


.
 

Keep Websleuths Free

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
3,693
Total visitors
3,766

Forum statistics

Threads
619,087
Messages
18,393,275
Members
238,318
Latest member
rosevincent
Back
Top