Father says DNA could solve one of country’s biggest murder mysteries: Who killed JonBenét Ramsey

[ispywithmylittleeye]

The dna in her underpants was found no where else on the garment except the two blood spots. The dna was from saliva. Then the dna under her fingernails was skin cells. Saliva and skin cells came from two different sources but from the same dna profile, the same person. Then the left and right sides of the waist band of her longjohns johns contain his touch dna. Where he pulled her pants down and pulled them back up again, we know this because she has injuries to her vagina from a sexual assault. The vagina had birefringent material consistent with the paintbrush used to make the garrotte. They also have a ransom note claiming to be written by someone other than the family. So they have a note, three seperate types of the same dna profile (saliva, skin, touch) from an unidentified male and a sexual assault and murder. It’s all proof it was done by an intruder. If the family did it, she wouldn’t have had a random man’s saliva in her underpants, under her fingernails and on her pyjama pants.

Per Clouded Truth.
Copy paste

It is a fact. The dna in her underpants was saliva. The dna under her fingernails was skin cells. The dna on her longjohns was touch dna. It’s impossible to have 3 different dna samples (saliva, skin, touch) from the same person and pick them up off the floor. I’ve read the official boulder police reports from I think it was called the bode technology group. The woman who analysed the dna said she would be willing to testify in court the dna came from one individual and not a combination of several people. That’s why the police entered the profile into CODIS. That’s why suspects have been cleared. If the DNA profile was weak, the police wouldn’t have cleared anyone based on the DNA.View attachment 558392

Is this what you are going into court with?

 

[Deleted member 187229]

This is an opinion. You can't say it belonged to anyone unless it is matched to an exact person.
I could say that because there is unknown DNA in my home, that there must have been an intruder in my home which would be categorically false.
A child whose own mom stated that she was not good at handwashing will have a treasure trove of crap under their fingernails that could have been picked up ANYWHERE. Do you not remember she was playing on the floor the day she died. How many people walked in that room since the house was built? 50? 1000? Please consider how much foreign DNA we all have on us at any given time.

The police and the dna lab say the dna belongs to someone. I’ve included the top part of the report so you can identify the report and the date it was done and I’ve included the page where they refer to him as an unknown male. He has an identity of “unknown male”.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Per Clouded Truth.
Copy paste

Is this what you are going into court with?

No, I have the actual reports.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

The police and the dna lab say the dna belongs to someone. I’ve included the top part of the report so you can identify the report and the date it was done and I’ve included the page where they refer to him as an unknown male. He has an identity of “unknown male”.

Last of the many DNA debates
Clouded Truth answered the same redundant DNA post just a few weeks ago. From now on, I'll just cut and paste.
The serological testing on the panties for amylase was inconclusive. Amylase is also found in urine, and the panties were soaked in urine which may very well have impacted the results of the test.

A full profile would consist of 14 alleles. One allele was found in JB's panties. Hardly conclusive as to being from foreign source.

I think it's also important to note that even if the CODIS database ever comes up with a match, which it has not in all these years, that identified person would still need to be fully investigated before any charges could even be considered. The DNA evidence in this case is not even close to proving there was an intruder. Does it create doubt? Yes. But not enough to hang your hat on IMO.
claimed to learn from talking to LaBerge who did the final 13STR testing that identified enought markers to put the profile into CODIS. It does seem like Kolar misunderstood whatever LaBerge told him, because there had been multiple earlier tests of the DNA that had consumed plenty of it.

DQA1/polymarker test by CBI in Jan 1997 - minimum requirement 2 nanograms.
D1S80 test by CBI in jan 1997 and Cellmark in Feb 1997 - consumes between 0.5 and 40 nanograms (can be very wasteful)
13STR by CBI in Sep 1999 - the kits used consumed 1 to 2.5 nanograms
13STR by Denver Police Forensics Lab (LaBerge) in 2001 - again 1 to 2.5 nanograms

Basically, if LaBerge told Kolar there was 0.5 nanograms of unidentified male DNA, he had to have meant there was 0.5 nanograms remaining.

CloudedTruth said:
A 2017 study was done, an investigation of DNA transfer onto clothing during regular daily activities by Ruan, et al. Researchers took freshly laundered shirts from 50 participants and tested the DNA in several areas, then gave the shirts back to be worn for a day while doing their regular routine. And while the amounts of DNA increased significantly after wearing, they were surprised to find many interpretable foreign DNA samples BEFORE the shirts were even worn. In some cases, the owner of the clothing was not even the predominant DNA profile, a clear indication that background levels of DNA even on clean clothing can contain significant amounts of foreign DNA. Most of the samples taken after having worn the shirts had two to three mixtures of different people being the most common.

They did further testing on cotton swatches that were laundered with participants clothing in a typical laundry cycle.


In this study the average amount of DNA that accumulated on a previously pristine cotton swatch through one laundry cycle was 1 nanogram.

The authors of the study concluded that, "the results of this study reaffirm that any DNA profiles taken from from casework garments should be treated with extreme caution with regards to their case relevance".

A shout out to Redditor straydog77 for finding this study.
Click to expand...

Of course, there had been significantly more than 1 nanogram of UM1 DNA as per above. No garment ever yielded more than a tenth of the foreign male DNA on JonBenet (Kolar, Foreign Faction).

CloudedTruth said:
The serological testing on the panties for amylase was inconclusive. Amylase is also found in urine, and the panties were soaked in urine which may very well have impacted the results of the test.

In the CBI report from Jan 10 1997, object 14I (foreign stain swabs from the sexual assault kit) indicated the presence of amylase, which is found in saliva at concentrations a thousand times higher than urine.

CloudedTruth said:
A full profile would consist of 14 alleles. One allele was found in JB's panties. Hardly conclusive as to being from foreign source.

One? Many, many more were found.

the-facts-about-dna-in-the-jonbenet-case-v0-0zcoum27jw8c1.png
CloudedTruth said:
I think it's also important to note that even if the CODIS database ever comes up with a match, which it has not in all these years, that identified person would still need to be fully investigated before any charges could even be considered. The DNA evidence in this case is not even close to proving there was an intruder. Does it create doubt? Yes. But not enough to hang your hat on IMO.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Last of the many DNA debates
Clouded Truth answered the same redundant DNA post just a few weeks ago. From now on, I'll just cut and paste.
The serological testing on the panties for amylase was inconclusive. Amylase is also found in urine, and the panties were soaked in urine which may very well have impacted the results of the test.

A full profile would consist of 14 alleles. One allele was found in JB's panties. Hardly conclusive as to being from foreign source.

I think it's also important to note that even if the CODIS database ever comes up with a match, which it has not in all these years, that identified person would still need to be fully investigated before any charges could even be considered. The DNA evidence in this case is not even close to proving there was an intruder. Does it create doubt? Yes. But not enough to hang your hat on IMO.
claimed to learn from talking to LaBerge who did the final 13STR testing that identified enought markers to put the profile into CODIS. It does seem like Kolar misunderstood whatever LaBerge told him, because there had been multiple earlier tests of the DNA that had consumed plenty of it.

DQA1/polymarker test by CBI in Jan 1997 - minimum requirement 2 nanograms.
D1S80 test by CBI in jan 1997 and Cellmark in Feb 1997 - consumes between 0.5 and 40 nanograms (can be very wasteful)
13STR by CBI in Sep 1999 - the kits used consumed 1 to 2.5 nanograms
13STR by Denver Police Forensics Lab (LaBerge) in 2001 - again 1 to 2.5 nanograms

Basically, if LaBerge told Kolar there was 0.5 nanograms of unidentified male DNA, he had to have meant there was 0.5 nanograms remaining.

CloudedTruth said:
A 2017 study was done, an investigation of DNA transfer onto clothing during regular daily activities by Ruan, et al. Researchers took freshly laundered shirts from 50 participants and tested the DNA in several areas, then gave the shirts back to be worn for a day while doing their regular routine. And while the amounts of DNA increased significantly after wearing, they were surprised to find many interpretable foreign DNA samples BEFORE the shirts were even worn. In some cases, the owner of the clothing was not even the predominant DNA profile, a clear indication that background levels of DNA even on clean clothing can contain significant amounts of foreign DNA. Most of the samples taken after having worn the shirts had two to three mixtures of different people being the most common.

They did further testing on cotton swatches that were laundered with participants clothing in a typical laundry cycle.


In this study the average amount of DNA that accumulated on a previously pristine cotton swatch through one laundry cycle was 1 nanogram.

The authors of the study concluded that, "the results of this study reaffirm that any DNA profiles taken from from casework garments should be treated with extreme caution with regards to their case relevance".

A shout out to Redditor straydog77 for finding this study.
Click to expand...

Of course, there had been significantly more than 1 nanogram of UM1 DNA as per above. No garment ever yielded more than a tenth of the foreign male DNA on JonBenet (Kolar, Foreign Faction).

CloudedTruth said:
The serological testing on the panties for amylase was inconclusive. Amylase is also found in urine, and the panties were soaked in urine which may very well have impacted the results of the test.

In the CBI report from Jan 10 1997, object 14I (foreign stain swabs from the sexual assault kit) indicated the presence of amylase, which is found in saliva at concentrations a thousand times higher than urine.

CloudedTruth said:
A full profile would consist of 14 alleles. One allele was found in JB's panties. Hardly conclusive as to being from foreign source.

One? Many, many more were found.

the-facts-about-dna-in-the-jonbenet-case-v0-0zcoum27jw8c1.png
CloudedTruth said:
I think it's also important to note that even if the CODIS database ever comes up with a match, which it has not in all these years, that identified person would still need to be fully investigated before any charges could even be considered. The DNA evidence in this case is not even close to proving there was an intruder. Does it create doubt? Yes. But not enough to hang your hat on

 

[Deleted member 187229]

That’s the 1997 test. They did more testing in 1999! Morrissey revealed that it was Kathy Dressel, the CBI DNA analyst, who told him about the second spot of blood in JonBenet's underwear that had not yet been tested. He states that he told her to cut the dime-sized sample in half to test it, and that was when they discovered the nearly complete DNA profile. This testing was done in 1999. They sample was a mixture of jonbenets blood and an almost full dna profile of saliva and a match to the dna found under her fingernails and the longjohns. You can see for yourself here. Watch from 50:34, it’s Mitch Morrissey hinself stating it was an almost complete dna profile. He talks about telling Cathy to test the second blood spot and the dna results.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I’ll have to go back through my info and find it. She couldn’t be excluded was the findings after her handwriting sample was examined. Bill McReynolds also scored a closer match too although I doubt he did it.

She was actually excluded as a possible writer of the ransom note, as was McReynolds.

 

[Ponytale]

There are certain things JR says that seem like lies due to shifting stories (and many that almost certainly are) but there are others that I’ve come to suspect occurred because he had very little idea about the day-to-day, nuts and bolts of running the house and children, but thought he did. (He reminds me of my FIL in this regard, who is otherwise a lovely man. )

So that would include things like 2 bikes or 3, what clothes JB was/wasn’t wearing, etc. Maybe even the bed wetting. Add on interviews that took place 7-18 months later, and those things he thought he knew are even more muddled.

The problem is it’s hard to distinguish after awhile:

- actual, conscious lies prompted by {whatever }
- lies of omission
- “confidently incorrect”
- genuine lapses in memory due to passage of time, etc.

I had somewhere I was going with this, I swear, but life intervened and now I’ve forgotten what that undoubtedly Very Profound Point was. (As an aside, when you’d forget what you were about to say during a conversation, my grandmother always responded with: “Musta been a lie!” Maybe there’s some truth to that.)

So this is just a stream of consciousness rumination in the end.

I do understand you and it is a possibility that this could be the case. JR sure seems like a father who did not invest much of his thoughts or time into his kids. At least not nearly as much as Patsy.

But what I don't understand is why didn't he just say so? Why add confusion and make unclear statements, when you can just go and say from the start that "you know, this was a Patsy's thing - she did those things and I stayed out of it and really do not know exactly." - Done, super! That would be a clear statement indicating the truth - he was not involved enough to know. If he was an innocent parent who wants to cooperate with police, that, IMO, would be the thing to say in those cases. "I do not know exactly about the bikes cause Patsy bought them and she had her ideas of weather Burke should get one for Christmas or birthday. I do not know, Patsy can answer that question." - nothing unusual or weird about a statement like that, right? Everyone would have been OK with that. Or "You know, when JB wet her sheets in the night it was Patsy who went and helped her. I never did. I know Patsy has said she had accidents but I do not know how often she did or how she resolved them. Patsy helped her so ask Patsy about it." Again - plain and simple.

Those answers would not have incriminated John or made anyone think of anything suspicious. But answering different things on different times, changing statements and just "guessing", makes you wonder if he is sincere in his answers. That is what makes me hard to believe that the case. If John just didn't know about those day-to-day things he should have just said so from the beginning.

 

[GRT]

There are certain things JR says that seem like lies due to shifting stories (and many that almost certainly are) but there are others that I’ve come to suspect occurred because he had very little idea about the day-to-day, nuts and bolts of running the house and children, but thought he did. (He reminds me of my FIL in this regard, who is otherwise a lovely man. )

So that would include things like 2 bikes or 3, what clothes JB was/wasn’t wearing, etc. Maybe even the bed wetting. Add on interviews that took place 7-18 months later, and those things he thought he knew are even more muddled.

The problem is it’s hard to distinguish after awhile:

- actual, conscious lies prompted by {whatever }
- lies of omission
- “confidently incorrect”
- genuine lapses in memory due to passage of time, etc.

I had somewhere I was going with this, I swear, but life intervened and now I’ve forgotten what that undoubtedly Very Profound Point was. (As an aside, when you’d forget what you were about to say during a conversation, my grandmother always responded with: “Musta been a lie!” Maybe there’s some truth to that.)

So this is just a stream of consciousness rumination in the end.

I thought you made a good point. But I totally get what you said when you returned to your post.

Men 30 years ago, and some still today, thought of themselves as providers and left much of the close-up childcare to their wives. They were often gone during the day, so they weren't there when all the little things happened.

If JR got some of the children's or home' details wrong, it doesn't make him a liar, it just makes him inattentive to detail.

I did see some early interviews where he seemed to be hedging rather than answering outright, but anyone would do that. Especially if you'd been targeted in the media as bad parents for putting your daughter in pageants.

 

[GRT]

She was actually excluded as a possible writer of the ransom note, as was McReynolds.

That is correct. The first string of analysis tests said the results were "inconclusive," but they didn't rule her out.

Later, experts would exclude her, but Detective Thomas made the point that she changed her handwriting after the murder. That's probably true--when I stop to think about how my writing looks as I write it--I overthink, and my writing looks different.

After what Patsy had been through, she had to have been focused on how her handwriting looked. That, alone, would be enough to change it.

 

[AddieBoo]

I thought you made a good point. But I totally get what you said when you returned to your post.

Men 30 years ago, and some still today, thought of themselves as providers and left much of the close-up childcare to their wives. They were often gone during the day, so they weren't there when all the little things happened.

If JR got some of the children's or home' details wrong, it doesn't make him a liar, it just makes him inattentive to detail.

I did see some early interviews where he seemed to be hedging rather than answering outright, but anyone would do that. Especially if you'd been targeted in the media as bad parents for putting your daughter in pageants.

JR gets no pass about anything IMO. I think he knew everything going on in his house because he had to.
Wasn’t he having an affair when PR was going through chemo the first time? Disappearing three hours Christmas Day IIRC?
So much of the testimonies are incredibly inconsistent. That, IMO could have been strategy. All the lawyers, PR people, legal coaches…
JR strikes me as having high intelligence and though I agree with you, generally, about gender rolls 30 years ago.. with JR during interviews and depositions? No way.
MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

'20/20 JonBenet Ramsey: Grand Juror Speaks (2016)'​

 

[GRT]

JR gets no pass about anything IMO. I think he knew everything going on in his house because he had to.
Wasn’t he having an affair when PR was going through chemo the first time? Disappearing three hours Christmas Day IIRC?
So much of the testimonies are incredibly inconsistent. That, IMO could have been strategy. All the lawyers, PR people, legal coaches…
JR strikes me as having high intelligence and though I agree with you, generally, about gender rolls 30 years ago.. with JR during interviews and depositions? No way.
MOO

I think JR is of average intelligence, but maybe a little more driven than some guys. I don't think it was ever proven that he had an affair while Patsy was ill.

He might have. Many spouses have been guilty of that. The only thing I've ever heard was the insinuation that he had an "office wife," but rumors are rumors.

Yes, there were inconsistencies in his depositions, but not on major factors.

People can and do change their memories. And, memories can be manipulated by others. As an example, a teacher set up a fake attack in his classroom--he had a friend barge in and push him down, yell at him and then run out of the room. The teacher stood up and declared the only thing he remembered was seeing the guy's mustache as he fell to the floor. They called in LE and the kids made reports about what they'd witnessed. I don't remember the exact number now, but a large majority described the man as having a mustache. He didn't. They brought him back in afterward.

Memories can be planted and can be altered, and it doesn't mean the person recalling them is lying.

 

[Val1943]

there was three killers in the Ramey's house, THE RANSOM LETTER The two gentlemen watching over your daughter while he was writhing that letter the other two took JonBenét Ramsey' into the wine cellar Its going to be hard to find those three if they died and was cremated

​

 

[Izzylizzy]

For starters I find it impossible to believe that the person who did it or was involved with the killing of JB would have taken the time to write such a long and detailed letter having no fear that someone in the house would wake up.

 

[cenazoic]

JR gets no pass about anything IMO. I think he knew everything going on in his house because he had to.

I’m no particular fan of JR’s, but for me, it’s unhelpful to think about a case and its players in absolutes like this. I want to form an opinion / ideas based on either a) sourced facts and/or b) reasonable speculation (noted as such) based on those facts. I want to be able to change my mind or re-evaluate things if some new evidence comes along, or someone presents a novel theory accounting for the known facts. Being emotionally tied to one view precludes all that.

The broken basement window JR thought had been fixed and hadn’t been in months is an example of him not “knowing everything going on in the house”.

Anyway, people, even John Ramsey, contain multitudes.

 

[Slebby]

For starters I find it impossible to believe that the person who did it or was involved with the killing of JB would have taken the time to write such a long and detailed letter having no fear that someone in the house would wake up.

And would mimic PRs handwriting so well hers was the only handwriting which could not be eliminated from being the writer.
And to what end?
I’m trying to convince you I’m a kidnapper while simultaneously trying, with the mimicked handwriting style, to frame PR for fake-kidnapping/killing her daughter to punish JR for…something??

 

[Izzylizzy]

I’m no particular fan of JR’s, but for me, it’s unhelpful to think about a case and its players in absolutes like this. I want to form an opinion / ideas based on either a) sourced facts and/or b) reasonable speculation (noted as such) based on those facts. I want to be able to change my mind or re-evaluate things if some new evidence comes along, or someone presents a novel theory accounting for the known facts. Being emotionally tied to one view precludes all that.

The broken basement window JR thought had been fixed and hadn’t been in months is an example of him not “knowing everything going on in the house”.

Anyway, people, even John Ramsey, contain multitudes.

BBM:
Did JR ever explain why he thought the window had been fixed?

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

And would mimic PRs handwriting so well hers was the only handwriting which could not be eliminated from being the writer.
And to what end?
I’m trying to convince you I’m a kidnapper while simultaneously trying, with the mimicked handwriting style, to frame PR for fake-kidnapping/killing her daughter to punish JR for…something??

Right? I'm going to learn someone's handwriting style whilst in the middle of a kidnap attempt. That's like saying in the middle of a kidnap attempt I'm going to take a time out for a crocheting lesson.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

She was actually excluded as a possible writer of the ransom note, as was McReynolds.

That’s the 1997 test. They did more testing in 1999! Morrissey revealed that it was Kathy Dressel, the CBI DNA analyst, who told him about the second spot of blood in JonBenet's underwear that had not yet been tested. He states that he told her to cut the dime-sized sample in half to test it, and that was when they discovered the nearly complete DNA profile. This testing was done in 1999. They sample was a mixture of jonbenets blood and an almost full dna profile of saliva and a match to the dna found under her fingernails and the longjohns. You can see for yourself here. Watch from 50:34, it’s Mitch Morrissey hinself stating it was an almost complete dna profile. He talks about telling Cathy to test the second blood spot and the dna results.

That’s the 1997 test. They did more testing in 1999! Morrissey revealed that it was Kathy Dressel, the CBI DNA analyst, who told him about the second spot of blood in JonBenet's underwear that had not yet been tested. He states that he told her to cut the dime-sized sample in half to test it, and that was when they discovered the nearly complete DNA profile. This testing was done in 1999. They sample was a mixture of jonbenets blood and an almost full dna profile of saliva and a match to the dna found under her fingernails and the longjohns. You can see for yourself here. Watch from 50:34, it’s Mitch Morrissey hinself stating it was an almost complete dna profile. He talks about telling Cathy to test the second blood spot and the dna results.

For starters I find it impossible to believe that the person who did it or was involved with the killing of JB would have taken the time to write such a long and detailed letter having no fear that someone in the house would wake up.

That’s because you’re probably normal. Crazy people are capable of anything. I’ve heard of men breaking into women’s homes to watch them sleeping for hours. In Australia, a man broke into peoples homes to molest and take photos of children sleeping. The police found the photos on his phone and had to publish the parts of the photos of the children’s rooms so that people could recognise furniture etc and come forward because they wouldn’t have known the man was in their homes molesting their kids while they were all sleeping. You’d be surprised what sexual perverts and child killers are capable of.