HUGE QUESTION please answer

[NeverPersonal]

No, it is the unknown DNA found in Jon Benets underwear and on the waistband of her long johns they have wanted to test for what seems like forever. Now it looks like it's finally going to happen. Once they find a familial match, they have to build a family tree, and narrow it down from there, which is the part that can take a long time. Then since whoevers DNA it is is not in CODIS, they need to obtain the suspects DNA just to be sure.

So it's not like they will solve the case any time soon but at least they are taking the first step. The family shouldn't have had to fight so hard to get this done, I don't know why the police dept. was so resistant.

BBM.. I can think of a few reasons why they COULD be.. but those are just theories!

 

[MsBetsy]

This is the critical and most vital parts of the evidence. PRs fibers are all over the critical items located on her daughter and her body. PRs found in the rope twisted in the garrote, on the tape over her mouth, on the white blanket, on her pink Barbie nightie, the bowl of pineapple, none are on the ransom note, JR read it in his boxers and bathrobe while peering down at the step where it was placed without touching it.



If JB carried his daughter upstairs to bed, his Israeli shirt fibers should not be found on her tush later. He did touch her as they made their way upstairs when arriving home from the White's dinner party? He placed her in bed that evening.


Which night did she wear this nightie gown to sleep? Was it found clinging to the white blanket that may hv been in the clothes dryer in the basement? Not on Christmas Night? Hugging a sister Good night would leave touch dna


Correct.


All evidence is important.


Huh? what does wink wink nudge nudge mean, please?


Nothing gathered as potential evidence of a crime should have been returned. MOO

Yes, one reason this investigation was so messed up was all the many mistakes that were made. Starting the minute police walked through the door and let everybody trample all over the evidence. All day long.

 

[MsBetsy]

BBM.. I can think of a few reasons why they COULD be.. but those are just theories!

Yeah, I have a pretty good idea too.

 

[MsBetsy]

Absolutely DeDee, there's no way J's fibers should be where they found them. On her clothes from carrying her...yes! But certainly not in her crotch area. Any parent discovering their child missing and finding a ransom note, they would be touching and reading it, especially the sheer length it was yet absolutely no fingers from the parents were found on it, not one! just like the Maglite torch. Isn't that the strangest thing!

I don't think we can say definitively where any fibers should or shouldn't have been. The crime scene was not initially secured and had already been contaminated before the body had been moved upstairs to the living room.

 

[Case Cracker]

I don't think we can say definitively where any fibers should or shouldn't have been. The crime scene was not initially secured and had already been contaminated before the body had been moved upstairs to the living room.

Msbetsy,

Have you read the detectives books on this case? Such as Steve Thomas and James Kolar? They actually worked on the case, I highly recommend these books as they certainly help answer alot of questions. The DNA they are testing I believe is touch DNA in the brand new size 12 underpants that P bought which could easily be from a factory worker so I wouldn't expect a break in the case anytime soon.

 

[Case Cracker]

I don't think we can say definitively where any fibers should or shouldn't have been. The crime scene was not initially secured and had already been contaminated before the body had been moved upstairs to the living room.

If a father's fibers from his jumper he wire the night before are found in his child's underpants and he states he didn't undress her then I believe we have an issue.

 

[MsBetsy]

Msbetsy,

Have you read the detectives books on this case? Such as Steve Thomas and James Kolar? They actually worked on the case, I highly recommend these books as they certainly help answer alot of questions. The DNA they are testing I believe is touch DNA in the brand new size 12 underpants that P bought which could easily be from a factory worker so I wouldn't expect a break in the case anytime soon.

So the DNA found both in the underwear and waste band of the long johns came from the same factory and was handled by the same person? If so, he must be a POI. They have clearly stated the DNA in question does not belong to a current POI or the family.

Yes, I have read a couple of books about this case and have never seen anything definitive about the underwear.

There have been multiple theories over the years, including in books by various investigators over the years.

Can you please link a source connecting the DNA found on her underwear being linked to the factory man and what LE has said about that in the current investigation? I'm surprised they would reveal a detail like that since it is an active investigation.

 

[MsBetsy]

If a father's fibers from his jumper he wire the night before are found in his child's underpants and he states he didn't undress her then I believe we have an issue.

The DNA found in the underwear and on the long johns belong to an unknown male. Clothes get mixed up together all the time, so fibers from an article of clothing aren't quite as damning as touch DNA found on a pair of underwear.

 

[MsBetsy]

If a father's fibers from his jumper he wire the night before are found in his child's underpants and he states he didn't undress her then I believe we have an issue.

You are implying someone in the family is involved in Jon Benet's murder, which is not victim friendly and against TOS.

It makes no sense that the family would push so hard for DNA testing if they were involved themselves.

 

[Case Cracker]

So the DNA found both in the underwear and waste band of the long johns came from the same factory and was handled by the same person? If so, he must be a POI. They have clearly stated the DNA in question does not belong to a current POI or the family.

Yes, I have read a couple of books about this case and have never seen anything definitive about the underwear.

There have been multiple theories over the years, including in books by various investigators over the years.

Can you please link a source connecting the DNA found on her underwear being linked to the factory man and what LE has said about that in the current investigation? I'm surprised they would reveal a detail like that since it is an active investigation.

Yes I absolutely agree, no parent should have to wait so long. There must be a reason for this and my understanding is, the sample they have to test is so small that it's probably a case of having only a one shot at testing this so they don't want to waste it. Perhaps they've been waiting for further advances in testing. In saying that, no parent should stonewall the police and hide behind lawyers. Parents who lost lost a child have even stated they found the parents behavior strange. One father said be spent so much time calling and visiting the police asking for updates etc because he wanted to know who did this to his child. If you'd read Steve Thomas and James Kolars books, you'd understand the challenges the police were up against.

Here is one of the links...

Redirect Notice

 

[Case Cracker]

The DNA found in the underwear and on the long johns belong to an unknown male. Clothes get mixed up together all the time, so fibers from an article of clothing aren't quite as damning as touch DNA found on a pair of underwear.

Thats correct, clothing gets mixed up all the time, hence what is stated in the article I poated aboe.......The experts contacted by the news organizations also found that the DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1, which was identified during testing on JonBenét’s panties, may not be the DNA of a single person, but instead a composite of genetic materials from several people, thus making it potentially “worthless” as evidence.

 

[Case Cracker]

You are implying someone in the family is involved in Jon Benet's murder, which is not victim friendly and against TOS.

It makes no sense that the family would push so hard for DNA testing if they were involved themselves.

I'm not implying anything, I'm replying to posts that others have stated such on here. Read UKGuys post, I see your not responding to what he has stated, why not?

 

[MsBetsy]

Msbetsy,

Have you read the detectives books on this case? Such as Steve Thomas and James Kolar? They actually worked on the case, I highly recommend these books as they certainly help answer alot of questions. The DNA they are testing I believe is touch DNA in the brand new size 12 underpants that P bought which could easily be from a factory worker so I wouldn't expect a break in the case anytime soon.

At some point after the investigation was reopened in 2010, the DA did say experts believed the sample was from two people rather than one.

In 2016 they announced that the DNA would be sent to CBI to develop a stronger profile of the killer. They had consulted with the Bode Technology group who recommended testing items for touch DNA.

In the Press Release by the DA's office in 2008, Lacy said the waste band was chosen because evidence pointed to the killer having removed and/or replaced them. Genetic material was recovered from both sides. It matched the unknown DNA previously found on the underwear. From these samples they planned to develop a stronger profile.

Also in the press release, she refers to the DNA as the "unexpected 3rd party DNA" having no innocent reason to be there, so maybe the 'expected' DNA belongs to a family member or the factory worker. It refers to the "killer," singular. So there are two DNA samples but both are of the same man, as I understand it.

In the article announcing the Ramsey case going to the Cold Case Team of experts next year, it said evidence included the analysis of almost 1000 DNA samples, although I've no idea who those people could be. They’ve stated the 'unexpected' DNA doesn't belong to any POI's.

I think they are looking for one man, whose DNA would not have been on Jon Benet's clothing for any innocent reason.

I don’t know why the authors of the books indicated it was touch DNA found on size 11 underpants they are testing. Do they mean in addition to the sample found in the drops of blood on the underwear? Are they involved in the current investigation?

The touch DNA (skin cells) found on both sides of waistband of the long johns were found several years after the unknown DNA was found on her underwear and was a match.

I wouldn't expect a break in the case soon either. But I do believe one day they will find her killer. Many cold cases have been solved with DNA evidence.

 

[OldBackstop]

BBM.. I can think of a few reasons why they COULD be.. but those are just theories!

John provided his DNA, if that is what you are insinuating. If it was him or Burke, they'd know.

 

[Case Cracker]

At some point after the investigation was reopened in 2010, the DA did say experts believed the sample was from two people rather than one.

In 2016 they announced that the DNA would be sent to CBI to develop a stronger profile of the killer. They had consulted with the Bode Technology group who recommended testing items for touch DNA.

In the Press Release by the DA's office in 2008, Lacy said the waste band was chosen because evidence pointed to the killer having removed and/or replaced them. Genetic material was recovered from both sides. It matched the unknown DNA previously found on the underwear. From these samples they planned to develop a stronger profile.

Also in the press release, she refers to the DNA as the "unexpected 3rd party DNA" having no innocent reason to be there, so maybe the 'expected' DNA belongs to a family member or the factory worker. It refers to the "killer," singular. So there are two DNA samples but both are of the same man, as I understand it.

In the article announcing the Ramsey case going to the Cold Case Team of experts next year, it said evidence included the analysis of almost 1000 DNA samples, although I've no idea who those people could be. They’ve stated the 'unexpected' DNA doesn't belong to any POI's.

I think they are looking for one man, whose DNA would not have been on Jon Benet's clothing for any innocent reason.

I don’t know why the authors of the books indicated it was touch DNA found on size 11 underpants they are testing. Do they mean in addition to the sample found in the drops of blood on the underwear? Are they involved in the current investigation?

The touch DNA (skin cells) found on both sides of waistband of the long johns were found several years after the unknown DNA was found on her underwear and was a match.

I wouldn't expect a break in the case soon either. But I do believe one day they will find her killer. Many cold cases have been solved with DNA evidence.

Yes many cold cases have been solved with further advances in DNA testing. I found Stan Garnets article very interesting and he has information none of us do, I've attached it.. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...m/news-story/fb6c45c21eb9b7dff72b4bdae030ea6a

 

[NeverPersonal]

John provided his DNA, if that is what you are insinuating. If it was him or Burke, they'd know.

thats not what i was insinuating, and i agree with you!

 

[MsBetsy]

Yes many cold cases have been solved with further advances in DNA testing. I found Stan Garnets article very interesting and he has information none of us do, I've attached it.. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...m/news-story/fb6c45c21eb9b7dff72b4bdae030ea6a

Yes, the DA seems confident they will find him. This case would have never gone to the Cold Case Review unless all investigative leads had been exhausted. That is the law in Colorado. So nobody they have looked at as POI's over the years is connected to the crime. The DNA profile is likely their only chance of finding this guy, and with all the technology advancing, even in the last six years since that article was written, there have been improvements, especially with touch DNA. LE has managed to track down killers even with a partial profile.

 

[Case Cracker]

Yes, the DA seems confident they will find him. This case would have never gone to the Cold Case Review unless all investigative leads had been exhausted. That is the law in Colorado. So nobody they have looked at as POI's over the years is connected to the crime. The DNA profile is likely their only chance of finding this guy, and with all the technology advancing, even in the last six years since that article was written, there have been improvements, especially with touch DNA. LE has managed to track down killers even with a partial profile.

And Stan Garnett states ...he knows who did it and

Yes, the DA seems confident they will find him. This case would have never gone to the Cold Case Review unless all investigative leads had been exhausted. That is the law in Colorado. So nobody they have looked at as POI's over the years is connected to the crime. The DNA profile is likely their only chance of finding this guy, and with all the technology advancing, even in the last six years since that article was written, there have been improvements, especially with touch DNA. LE has managed to track down killers even with a partial profile.

Obviously Stan Garnett thinks it is an isisting poi ....Stan Garnett was asked if he thought he knew who killed JonBenet... Mr Garnett replied......, “I do.” He added: “If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.”

 

[Heartbeatoftheheartland]

Yes I absolutely agree, no parent should have to wait so long. There must be a reason for this and my understanding is, the sample they have to test is so small that it's probably a case of having only a one shot at testing this so they don't want to waste it. Perhaps they've been waiting for further advances in testing. In saying that, no parent should stonewall the police and hide behind lawyers. Parents who lost lost a child have even stated they found the parents behavior strange. One father said be spent so much time calling and visiting the police asking for updates etc because he wanted to know who did this to his child. If you'd read Steve Thomas and James Kolars books, you'd understand the challenges the police were up against.

Here is one of the links...

Redirect Notice

Here is the reason for the DNA. The DNA on file was taken using an older type of test (STR). Genetic genealogy requires both a large amount of DNA and an SNP test.

 

[not negotiable]

Here is the reason for the DNA. The DNA on file was taken using an older type of test (STR). Genetic genealogy requires both a large amount of DNA and an SNP test.

S.b.t.c. victory
Stupid take care. Victory may mean I win something to do with dad I think why would the note say john?