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

[CloudedTruth]

Patsy scored 4.5 out of 5. She didn’t write the note. She also passed a polygraph in 2000. The handwriting analysers you mentioned were for tv entertainment purposes. They’re not privy to information regarding anything about the note or patsys handwriting examples other than unvarified copies floating around on the internet. Patsy was told what to write and how to write it for her handwriting tests so comparisons could be made. You can’t compare her handwriting examples without knowing why she wrote certain things certain ways. No court would accept the comparisons done for tv. The only handwriting comparisons that hold any validity are the ones done through the police and her score determined it was highly unlikely she was the author of the note. Technically you could say a 4.5 score doesn’t rule someone out but that’s just grasping at straws. I’ve heard of other people scoring a closer match than patsy, bill McReynolds apparently scored a closer match but was ruled out due to his ill health. Linda Hoffman Pugh is another one who apparently scored a closer match but was ruled out because she had an alibi of being asleep.

TV entertainment purposes? What entertainment shows are you claiming they were they on?

Ubowski was CBI and the first to examine the note. He was a part of the investigation. Gideon testified at the Wolf vs Ramsey trial. All of these experts listed were well qualified experts. I am not aware that any appeared on tv. I am also not aware that they gave their qualified opinions some of which were accompanied by signed and notarized affidavits from "copies floating around on the internet". You're making accusations that are not rooted in fact.

Patsy's first polygraph test was "inconclusive". They were asked to take tests administered by FBI polygraph specialists. Despite loudly complaining about the FBI not being involved in the investigation, which was in fact false, they refused to be tested by an FBI specialist. They hired their own polygraph examiner.

This particular examiner has been proven to have lied about some of his credentials. Ed Gelb is his name. He claims to have a doctoral degree but was vague about the university where and also when he earned it. He listed LaSalle University on his resume as a school he attended, but there is no proof that he earned a doctorate degree there. Turns out the LaSalle University that did award him his "degree", is a now defunct, unaccredited diploma mill in Louisiana using the name LaSalle. It was run by a shady character named Thomas James Kirk aka Thomas McPherson. In 1996, Kirk's La Salle was raided by the FBI and in 1997, Kirk pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges.

Hearing that other people scored a closer match than Patsy is proof of nothing, that's why they call it "hearsay". The people you mention were not ruled out as suspects solely because of handwriting samples, their DNA did not match either. Out of the 74 people who gave handwriting samples, only Patsy could not be ruled out. That isn't grasping at straws, it's fact.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

TV entertainment purposes? What entertainment shows are you claiming they were they on?

Ubowski was CBI and the first to examine the note. He was a part of the investigation. Gideon testified at the Wolf vs Ramsey trial. All of these experts listed were well qualified experts. I am not aware that any appeared on tv. I am also not aware that they gave their qualified opinions some of which were accompanied by signed and notarized affidavits from "copies floating around on the internet". You're making accusations that are not rooted in fact.

Patsy's first polygraph test was "inconclusive". They were asked to take tests administered by FBI polygraph specialists. Despite loudly complaining about the FBI not being involved in the investigation, which was in fact false, they refused to be tested by an FBI specialist. They hired their own polygraph examiner.

This particular examiner has been proven to have lied about some of his credentials. Ed Gelb is his name. He claims to have a doctoral degree but was vague about the university where and also when he earned it. He listed LaSalle University on his resume as a school he attended, but there is no proof that he earned a doctorate degree there. Turns out the LaSalle University that did award him his "degree", is a now defunct, unaccredited diploma mill in Louisiana using the name LaSalle. It was run by a shady character named Thomas James Kirk aka Thomas McPherson. In 1996, Kirk's La Salle was raided by the FBI and in 1997, Kirk pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges.

Hearing that other people scored a closer match than Patsy is proof of nothing, that's why they call it "hearsay". The people you mention were not ruled out as suspects solely because of handwriting samples, their DNA did not match either. Out of the 74 people who gave handwriting samples, only Patsy could not be ruled out. That isn't grasping at straws, it's fact.

Patsy and johns dna didn’t match either. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Patsy’s handwriting score was 4.5. She didn’t write the note.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Brown Cotton Fibers​

"Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P181.) (Carnes 2003:20).

People won’t accept it. They can’t look at evidence with an open mind. They accept persons of interest were cleared based on not being a dna match but don’t accept the same clearance for John and patsy not being a dna match. They can’t accept the duct tape was never found at the house or the cord not being found in the home. They can’t accept patsy’s handwriting score of 4.5 makes it highly unlikely she wrote the note. And they can’t accept fibres on jonbenet were never sourced to anything in the house. They don’t even accept the Ramseys being exonerated because of the dna and other evidence ruling them out, they say the dna is weak yet accept it to rule out other suspects. People were sold a narrative for 30 years and they believed it. Were the brown cotton fibres found in her bed? I know fibres from the garrotte were.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Patsy and johns dna didn’t match either. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Patsy’s handwriting score was 4.5. She didn’t write the note.

If Patsy didn't write the note she'd be a 5. She wasn't.

You commented other people's handwriting samples you "heard" were closer, but they were ruled out because one had a sleeping alibi and the other was ill. I pointed out there were additional reasons why they were ruled out, one of which was DNA. Your response is irrelevant in that context.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

If Patsy didn't write the note she'd be a 5. She wasn't.

You commented other people's handwriting samples you "heard" were closer, but they were ruled out because one had a sleeping alibi and the other was ill. I pointed out there were additional reasons why they were ruled out, one of which was DNA. Your response is irrelevant in that context.

I never said they were the only reasons. I’ve listened to quite a lot of interviews about this case and it’s been explained that people can have similar handwriting traits. It’s not true that you’d need to score a 5 to be ruled out as the author of the note. 5 is no match. 4.5 is probably not/no match. It’s been explained so much I almost feel like an expert. Answer this. If people have been ruled out because they’re not a dna match, why do you think patsy did it? Patsy’s dna wasn’t in jonbenets underpants and her handwriting was an almost no match. She didn’t score a 1 or a 1.5. She didn’t score a 2 or a 2.5. She didn’t score a 3 or a 3.5. She didn’t score a 4. She scored 4.5 which has been explained that it means probably not - no match. Why would patsy kill JonBenet? There’s no motive, no history of abuse, the duct tape and nylon cord weren’t sourced to the home, there’s foreign dna found in an intimate location on jonbenets clothing, under her fingernails and on the waistband of her clothing. Her bed wasn’t wet and had hair and fibre evidence the sheets weren’t washed and had been slept in, the clothing she wore to the whites Christmas party were found in jonbenets room, the jacket and shoes placed on the floor next to her doll house and her pants folded on her spare bed, which is consistent with John removing the jacket and shoes and patsy removing the velvet pants. Corroborating john and patsy’s recollection of undressing her, putting her bed clothes on and putting her to bed. The ramseys didn’t kill jonbenet. The man who sexually assaulted her and murdered her and keft his dna in her did.

 

[OneLove]

Patsy developing her beauty queen resume doesn't preclude her being "smart", or even dumb for that matter. Its a sideline interest. Plenty of dumb women have managed to get college degrees too. As a university prof & founder of our school's first "Returning Student" organization, i saw women with ACT scores below 15 that graduated. Its up to their employers to vet them carefully after they fulfill their degree requirements. There were plenty of "smart" women of Patsy's time that noticed that well-to-do successful men quite often valued beauty queen wives above "smart" wives, especially in the southern culture of that time. I can't seem to find mention of Patsy's professional work history at any of the bio sites, nor how she and JR met & their courting history. Can anyone point the way with that?

On Fleet White: I've seen some here fiercely claim FW simply could not have committed any level of sexual abuse at all because he was an all around good man who had a good wife and raised good children. In my earliest career as a social worker, I can tell you that our worst abusers were at both opposite extremes of the "success" spectrum with meth head alcoholics at one end and pillar of the community at the other. Religious leaders were quite common as were civic leaders. Our top purveyer of under-age prostitution turned out to be the guy on the front page of the paper handing over a huge donation check to the local hospital. The next most prolific one was the owner of the most successful insurance company in town who kept a "playroom" upstairs at his office building. As a young career person being responsible for an emergency shelter for adolescent girls, I could tell you stories that would change your innocent view that people who do good things couldn't possibly be "turned funny" sexually.

Even if I knew Fleet White personally, even if we ALL knew FW personally, none of us knows what he might do in any particular private opportunity. I'm not accusing him of a single thing & I credit him highly for being successful in business, having a good marriage, raising good children. But I've never been in the bathroom with him either when he's wiping a 6 year old precocious beauty queen's butt. Nor with JBR's own father. Nor with her brother, or brother's friends. Or Patsy either for that matter. I served as court ordered supervisor for visitations for a mother convicted of *sexually* abusing her 2 toddler children, one male, one female. Deviancy has no boundaries, especially as to a "success" spectrum in any category: income, educational, or professional. These are generally VERY well hidden private crimes. My best friend was sexually abused by her own college professor father which I never ever knew or suspected until she was an independent grown woman. Gosh, that nice successful man who raised 2 successful kids even "very generously" invited me to live with them while finishing my first college degree (while his own daughter was out of state at school). I sure saw that differently after I learned he was a secretive pedophile!!

SOMEONE sexually abused JBR, chronically the reports say. The Grand Jury believed there was enough EVIDENCE to charge the Ramseys. That's all we know, no more, no less. No one is above suspension, and for that I am truly sorry for the innocents who live under a cloud of suspicion. Hoping this crime will be solved one day soon and exonerate all those who well deserve it.

 

[cenazoic]

They don’t even accept the Ramseys being exonerated

Point of order - the Ramseys were not exonerated because that requires a prior conviction in a court of law.

They can’t accept the duct tape was never found at the house or the cord not being found in the home.

They had plenty of time of dispose of them - in the trash, in a neighbor’s trash, in say, a golf bag, etc.

Personally I believe any DNA not sourced to specific individuals is either contaminated or a mixture, in particular UM1. The sins of Dr. Meyer were legion.

In re: the ransom note/handwriting analysis, there’s an interesting discussion from a legal perspective in Wolf v Ramsey.

In any case, there is very little evidence to indicate an intruder, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Patsy developing her beauty queen resume doesn't preclude her being "smart", or even dumb for that matter. Its a sideline interest. Plenty of dumb women have managed to get college degrees too. As a university prof & founder of our school's first "Returning Student" organization, i saw women with ACT scores below 15 that graduated. Its up to their employers to vet them carefully after they fulfill their degree requirements. There were plenty of "smart" women of Patsy's time that noticed that well-to-do successful men quite often valued beauty queen wives above "smart" wives, especially in the southern culture of that time. I can't seem to find mention of Patsy's professional work history at any of the bio sites, nor how she and JR met & their courting history. Can anyone point the way with that?

On Fleet White: I've seen some here fiercely claim FW simply could not have committed any level of sexual abuse at all because he was an all around good man who had a good wife and raised good children. In my earliest career as a social worker, I can tell you that our worst abusers were at both opposite extremes if the "success" spectrum with meth head alcoholics at one end and pillar of the community at the other. Religious leaders were quite common as were civic leaders. Our top purveyer of under-age prostitution turned out to be the guy on the front page of the paper handing over a huge donation check to the local hospital. The next most prolific one was the owner of the most successful insurance company in town who kept a "playroom" upstairs at his office building. As a young career person being responsible for an emergency shelter for adolescent girls, I could tell you stories that would change your innocent view that people who do good things couldn't possibly be "turned funny" sexually.
Even if I knew Fleet White personally, even if we ALL knew FW personally, none of us knows what he might do in any particular private opportunity. I'm not accusing him or a thing, I credit him highly for being successful in business, having a good marriage, raising good children. But I've never been in the bathroom with him when he's wiping a 6 year old precocious beauty queen's butt either. Nor with JBR's own father. Nor with her brother, or brother's friends. Or Patsy either for that matter. I served as court ordered supervisor for visitations for a mother convicted of *sexually* abusing her 2 toddler children, one male, one female. Deviancy has no boundaries as to a "success" spectrum in any category, income, educational, or professional. These are generally VERY well hidden private crimes. My best friend was sexually abused by her own college professor father which Inever knew or suspected until she was an independent grown woman.

SOMEONE sexually abused JBR, chronically the reports say. The Grand Jury believed there was enough EVIDENCE to charge the Ramseys. That's all we know, no more, no less. No one is above suspension, and for that I am truly sorry for the innocents who live under a cloud of suspicion. Hoping this crime will be solved one day soon and exonerate all those who well deserve it.

I have a friend who used to be a sex worker. She said most of her clients were judges, doctors, school principals, lawyers, married men etc people of social standing and a lot of them would come in wanting incest role play, little girl fetishes and other weird fetishes. She always refused. One wanted to be kicked in the genitals with pointy high heels and stockings with reinforced toes to which she refused. No one knows what people are like behind closed doors... no one knows what the ramseys or the whites or anyone was like in private. This case is so perplexing, the dna is the saving grace in my opinion. I expect that will lead to the killer if it’s uploaded to familial dna data bases. If the dna has nothing to do with the case or never leads to a match I don’t believe it will ever be solved.

 

[Chypre]

My impression of Patsy. She was not dumb at all. Her hygiene habits i don't know about, how her illness changed her i don't know about but some things sound logical from her life experience. She comes across as pragmatic. Pageants and being “miss something” once helped herself secure a successful marriage. I simply view JBRs pageants less as Patsy living vicariously through JBR's life, and more as putting her daughter on the only track known to Patsy to secure a successful life. Today, JBR would be viewed as a smart girl and put into a STEM school. In 1995, 30 years ago, she was viewed as a beautiful girl and signed into pageants. Time has changed.

This is with the first line. I'm sorry, you did not use the words trophy wife.
When I read your post the message to me is that,
Patsy's only known track to a successful life was pageants, and so that's what she signed her daughter up for. If it was now, Patsy would sign up JonBenet for something pragmatic like STEM classes.
Is that correct?

My main message is that even in the 1970s, Patsy was a STEM class kind of girl and a pageant girl. And once school formally started for JonBenet she would have been pushing more with academics as well.

Maybe we're both getting to the same point.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Point of order - the Ramseys were not exonerated because that requires a prior conviction in a court of law.



They had plenty of time of dispose of them - in the trash, in a neighbor’s trash, in say, a golf bag, etc.

Personally I believe any DNA not sourced to specific individuals is either contaminated or a mixture, in particular UM1. The sins of Dr. Meyer were legion.

In re: the ransom note/handwriting analysis, there’s an interesting discussion from a legal perspective in Wolf v Ramsey.

In any case, there is very little evidence to indicate an intruder, IMO.

They must have been pretty busy then, murdering and torturing jonbenet, staging a crime scene and washing and drying urine soaked sheets, making beds and writing a 2 and a half page ransom note and running around throwing out tape and cords. And all for what? Because they didn’t like her or burke hit her over the head or John was molesting her? In 1998 they tested half of the second blood spot in jonbenets underpants and got an almost full dna profile of the unknown male. The dna wasn’t in between the blood spots or anywhere else on the underoants, it was only in the blood spot. It’s not a combination of several people. It’s a mixture of jonbenets and an almost full profile of one person.

 

[lonetraveler]

What is strange is the experts said PR was a 4.5/5 in terms of her not writing the "ransom note" but I think around 70 people were cleared, but not her. I'm not sure if that even makes sense. If she was the only 1 out of 70 people that couldn't be cleared than you would think that her handwriting would most likely be closer to a match than that, No? Unless you had 69 people who wrote nothing at all like the ransom note.

Does anyone know if the handwriting experts consider, when giving a score, if someone is trying to disguise their handwriting? Like maybe the 4.5/5 was based on just looking at the "ransom note" writing without considering any deception when it was being written?

Also, when PR had to sit and write handwriting samples for the police, how does that work? Was she monitored and given a length of time to complete it or was it like a lot of things in this case and done whenever the Ramsey's felt like it?

You would think that samples of PR's handwriting would have been taken from writings prior to JBR's death.

 

[OneLove]

This is with the first line. I'm sorry, you did not use the words trophy wife.
When I read your post the message to me is that,
Patsy's only known track to a successful life was pageants, and so that's what she signed her daughter up for. If it was now, Patsy would sign up JonBenet for something pragmatic like STEM classes.
Is that correct?

My main message is that even in the 1970s, Patsy was a STEM class kind of girl and a pageant girl. And once school formally started for JonBenet she would have been pushing more with academics as well.

Maybe we're both getting to the same point.

Patsy was a STEM class kind of girl evidenced by what? I only know about a bachelor's in journalism. That's more of a speech and language oriented field and not at all science related. Years back, no prerequisite in science was even required for that major.

ETA: Does anyone know how Patsy used her journalism degree professionally after she finished college?

 

[Slebby]

They must have been pretty busy then, murdering and torturing jonbenet, staging a crime scene and washing and drying urine soaked sheets, making beds and writing a 2 and a half page ransom note and running around throwing out tape and cords. And all for what? Because they didn’t like her or burke hit her over the head or John was molesting her? In 1998 they tested half of the second blood spot in jonbenets underpants and got an almost full dna profile of the unknown male. The dna wasn’t in between the blood spots or anywhere else on the underoants, it was only in the blood spot. It’s not a combination of several people. It’s a mixture of jonbenets and an almost full profile of one person.

It’s not that difficult to do all those things while sheets wash and dry, if there was in fact, a bedwetting incident, even easier for 2 people.

It’s not required to know the reason why. As you’ve alleged in previous comments with your intruder theory, the reason could be because they’re “crazy”.

If an intruder theory posits that the intruder got away unseen by anyone, it’s equally possible for one of the Rs to also make it out unseen to dispose of incriminating items. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Testing the dna is going to yield one of 2 things: nothing new or something new. They might as well test it. Who knows, maybe they have? Is it required that they publicize new testing?

IMO

 

[cenazoic]

n 1998 they tested half of the second blood spot in jonbenets underpants and got an almost full dna profile of the unknown male.

False. (And I believe you mean 1997.) In that testing, they recovered a single allele of foreign DNA in the panties, which is nowhere close to a complete, or 'almost full' profile.

You can see this in the test:

page 1
page 2

on the second page, under the #7 entry for the panties. The string of AA BB.. along the row is JB's profile. The "WB" under the last entry, AC, means they found 1 (Weak) B allele that didn't match at the GC locus.

If you believe this is incorrect, please provide a link to your source for the claim of an 'almost full profile'.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

It’s not that difficult to do all those things while sheets wash and dry, if there was in fact, a bedwetting incident, even easier for 2 people.

It’s not required to know the reason why. As you’ve alleged in previous comments with your intruder theory, the reason could be because they’re “crazy”.

If an intruder theory posits that the intruder got away unseen by anyone, it’s equally possible for one of the Rs to also make it out unseen to dispose of incriminating items. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Testing the dna is going to yield one of 2 things: nothing new or something new. They might as well test it. Who knows, maybe they have? Is it required that they publicize new testing?

IMO

I hope they do test it. At this stage they have nothing to lose. It’s a cold case and they have the technology. I’m not sure if they’re required to publicise new testing but I sure hope they do. One thing I do know is this little girl deserves justice, what was done to her was absolutely horrendous. If the parents did it, John deserves to be held accountable to the full extent of the law. If it was an intruder he or they deserve to be brought to justice. And the public all over the world who have been emotionally affected by this atrocity deserve answers and closure. It’s interesting and emotional debating it here but it’s not going to solve the crime. There’s not enough evidence in the public domain. Even though we all have our own theories and disagreeances, one thing we all agree on is we want justice for sweet JonBenet.

 

[OneLove]

They must have been pretty busy then, murdering and torturing jonbenet, staging a crime scene and washing and drying urine soaked sheets, making beds and writing a 2 and a half page ransom note and running around throwing out tape and cords. And all for what? Because they didn’t like her or burke hit her over the head or John was molesting her? In 1998 they tested half of the second blood spot in jonbenets underpants and got an almost full dna profile of the unknown male. The dna wasn’t in between the blood spots or anywhere else on the underoants, it was only in the blood spot. It’s not a combination of several people. It’s a mixture of jonbenets and an almost full profile of one person.

A blow to the head is generally accepted to have killed JBR with the fake strangulation following. I'm not accusing PR but no one is above suspicion at this point. She was quite well known to have a quick temper and to be impatient. Heck, she didn't even have the patience to potty train her 6 year old fecally incontinent daughter, though she did spend a LOT of time and attention dyeing and styling JBR's hair, applying makeup, doing her costumes, teaching her to fawn for the judges, etc. One must have one's priorities in life after all....

 

[CloudedTruth]

You would think that samples of PR's handwriting would have been taken from writings prior to JBR's death.

There were.

 

[sunspun]

So do you think they are saying for instance, you put your child in Boy Scouts where there could be preditors and your child is SAd and murdered, it's some how your fault?

Or in this case, you put your child in a pageant where predators may watch her and later kill her? If either your or my example were true, then Scouts and pageants would both be outlawed. And they're not, despite known risks associated with both. And there must be a law against them for it to be possible for anyone to be charged with a crime just for using them. You can't break a law that doesn't exist.

That's what I don't understand about the language of the crime they were indicted on in the true bills. It sure sounds like it says they knowingly put their child in a dangerous situation where harm could reasonably be expected to come to her, and it did, so they are charged with this crime.

But what we know they did is something parents do every night and things that wouldn't ever be expected to present any risks to children. What is known, according to them, is that they put her to bed and went to sleep. Yes, I realize lots of people suspect they did all kinds of nefarious things that night, but on the record, all they did was put her to bed and went to sleep. So it couldn't be that that the true bill is referring to.

So what is it that the indictment is saying they did that put her in danger? What action that they took is it referring to? It must be referring to something! Is it just me that doesn't know, or is this a true unknown? Maybe it's just me. Maybe the jurors and the prosecutors know the answer to that. I don't think they could mean the pageants, since as I said, they're not illegal. So even if the harm did arise from the pageants somehow, I don't think they can charge them with a crime for having her in them, since they're legal. So what else? It sounds like it must mean that they allowed her to be around someone who was a known child predator. Which I would agree would be a crime. But if they mean that, don't they have to know who this person is? Maybe they do. But then wouldn't the person be charged with her murder? Nobody was. So what specific action (or inaction) did the parents take that resulted in her murder, that the true bill refers to in charging them with the crime they were indicted for?

I don't think they could charge them if they didn't have something specific in mind. But they did charge them, so what was it? They can't just say, she was murdered, so the situations you put her in must have been dangerous or she wouldn't have been murdered. That may be true, but I don't think that's how the law works. Just because in hindsight, we now know it was a dangerous thing to do to put her to bed that night and go to sleep, that doesn't mean they committed any crime by doing that. So I don't know what the indictment is saying they did that makes them suspected of the crime spelled out in the true bills.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

It’s not that difficult to do all those things while sheets wash and dry, if there was in fact, a bedwetting incident, even easier for 2 people.

It’s not required to know the reason why. As you’ve alleged in previous comments with your intruder theory, the reason could be because they’re “crazy”.

If an intruder theory posits that the intruder got away unseen by anyone, it’s equally possible for one of the Rs to also make it out unseen to dispose of incriminating items. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Testing the dna is going to yield one of 2 things: nothing new or something new. They might as well test it. Who knows, maybe they have? Is it required that they publicize new testing?

IMO

You are incorrect.
Mitch Morrissey, of the D.A.'s office, was pulled in to give DNA input for the Grand Jury investigation, which began in Sept. 1998.

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, If you watch the YouTube interview, he talks about telling Cathy to test it and the almost full profile of the unknown male. Watch it from 50:37 time.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

False. (And I believe you mean 1997.) In that testing, they recovered a single allele of foreign DNA in the panties, which is nowhere close to a complete, or 'almost full' profile.

You can see this in the test:

page 1
page 2

on the second page, under the #7 entry for the panties. The string of AA BB.. along the row is JB's profile. The "WB" under the last entry, AC, means they found 1 (Weak) B allele that didn't match at the GC locus.

If you believe this is incorrect, please provide a link to your source for the claim of an 'almost full profile'.

You are incorrect.
Mitch Morrissey, of the D.A.'s office, was pulled in to give DNA input for the Grand Jury investigation, which began in Sept. 1998.

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, If you watch the YouTube interview, he talks about telling Cathy to test it and the almost full profile of the unknown male. Watch it from 50:37 time.