What do Burke's interviews tell us?

[ispywithmylittleeye]

If anything that just narrows the window. These were new underwear. She either put them on before the White party, or sometime after. Either way, the only places she would have worn them is at home and at the White party.



So there was an unknown man using JonBenet's bathroom during the day? Unrelated to the Ramseys?



And how many of those increases the amount of amylase a thousandfold? Saliva remains the most likely source. 100% certain? No, it could possibly be another bodily fluid. But saliva is by far the best candidate.



There could possibly be that. But from the same person whose spit mixed with my blood before it hit the inside of my underwear? That means there's something more to that tale.

Who said anything about a man being in her bathroom? Did you forget how many places she had been that day?

Prove that your spit was not on the underwear before the blood appeared.
Prove that ANY DNA be it blood, spit, urine, feces, skin cells, vomit ect was not present before she was attacked.
You can't. And if you could, you will need direct evidence that puts them at the scene. For all you know that person was not even in the country
( kind if like John Mark Karr) and left their DNA behind at one of the homes she visited. It is ridiculous to think an intruder spent hours in the home and this is all that was left behind.
I had a dinner party at my home last night. How many DNA profiles do you think LE could find? I'm going to give you a hint. There were 10 people present. 4 people went to 1 or 2 homes before they made it to my house. My son had 4 guests the night before who are college students and who live in dorms. Did any of them have colds, did they use the bathroom, did they borrow a sweater. Did they share a glass, did they greet with a kiss? Did they touch their face where this kiss was planted?
Now, when all my guests go home, what DNA profiles went home with them?
Your intruder will never be convicted on what little DNA is present.

 

[CloudedTruth]

The amount of unidentified male DNA found in JB's underwear was 0.5 nanograms, and it was part of a mixed sample.
That's a very small amount. 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.

The quantity of DNA recovered from the laundered cotton swatches ranged from undetected to 4.98 nanograms with the average being 1.00 nanograms. The majority of cotton swatch samples (76%) showed either clear single source DNA profiles (21%) or mixed DNA profiles (55%). ... Analysis carried out on suitable mixed DNA profiles, and assuming the test subject as a contributor, provided results with greater than 14 uploadable alleles from a second proportionally highest contributor in 37% of all of the samples. Of the mixtures analysed, the majority were two to three person with only one being a four person mixture. One of the three person mixtures provided greater than 14 alleles for upload from the 3rd contributor. DNA profiles recovered from 24% of the swatch samples were determined as too weak for further analysis. DNA recovered from one of the samples was a single source profile which did not match the test subject.

For cotton swatches given to female participants, 14/17 (82.4%) showed the presence of the amelogenin Y-allele [i.e. male DNA].

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.

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.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

The amount of unidentified male DNA found in JB's underwear was 0.5 nanograms, and it was part of a mixed sample.
That's a very small amount. 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.

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.

Thank you for always providing indepth details!

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The Ramseys have received preferential treatment from the DA's in Boulder since day one.

Not really. There was a lot of pressure, political and otherwise, on the DA to charge the Ramseys. The DA fired investigators who believed an intruder did it. I think the fiasco of the Grand Jury, where they only got true bills on a couple of weaker charges, left Hunter with essentially zero chances of winning in court, so he didn't indict. But I don't really think they got preferential treatment.

Its seems like with this abundance of viable, testable DNA available that could be matched to someone that the current DA would be anxious to test and solve this case. It would certainly be a feather in his cap!!

I mean, according to John Ramsey some objects haven't been tested. They don't know if there is DNA on them or not, and that's a viable testing angle. And he wants to check if genetic genealogy can be done on what they have, which is a far more shaky endeavour but should at least be looked at by the private firms who do these things.

John Ramsey has threatened and brought lawsuits against anyone and everyone challenging the intruder theory or implying the Ramseys had something to do with the murder.....I wonder why he doesnt sue the Boulder police/ or DA to compel them to have the DNA tested. Seems like it would be a more effective approach than doing his media tour.

Can he sue the police or DA to get them to do that? Does he have any legal basis for doing so?

What do you attribute the reluctance to test the DNA to?

The early tests were ridiculously ineffective and consumed a lot of what they have. I think there is an insecurity if the new techniques can work or if it will waste what little they have left without result.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Not really. There was a lot of pressure, political and otherwise, on the DA to charge the Ramseys. The DA fired investigators who believed an intruder did it. I think the fiasco of the Grand Jury, where they only got true bills on a couple of weaker charges, left Hunter with essentially zero chances of winning in court, so he didn't indict. But I don't really think they got preferential treatment.



I mean, according to John Ramsey some objects haven't been tested. They don't know if there is DNA on them or not, and that's a viable testing angle. And he wants to check if genetic genealogy can be done on what they have, which is a far more shaky endeavour but should at least be looked at by the private firms who do these things.



Can he sue the police or DA to get them to do that? Does he have any legal basis for doing so?



The early tests were ridiculously ineffective and consumed a lot of what they have. I think there is an insecurity if the new techniques can work or if it will waste what little they have left without result.

Not really. There was a lot of pressure, political and otherwise, on the DA to charge the Ramseys. The DA fired investigators who believed an intruder did it. I think the fiasco of the Grand Jury, where they only got true bills on a couple of weaker charges, left Hunter with essentially zero chances of winning in court, so he didn't indict. But I don't really think they got preferential treatment.



I mean, according to John Ramsey some objects haven't been tested. They don't know if there is DNA on them or not, and that's a viable testing angle. And he wants to check if genetic genealogy can be done on what they have, which is a far more shaky endeavour but should at least be looked at by the private firms who do these things.



Can he sue the police or DA to get them to do that? Does he have any legal basis for doing so?



The early tests were ridiculously ineffective and consumed a lot of what they have. I think there is an insecurity if the new techniques can work or if it will waste what little they have left without result.

The police also have updated knowledge as to the ease in which DNA is transferred. I would suspect, unlike the Ramseys) they don't want to harm innocent people and put them under a cloud of suspicion where there is none. I think given the public scrutiny they have been under, they want to proceed with the utmost integrity and they know they will never prosecute those responsible.
There's a lot of options to choose from.

 

[FMB]

Not really. There was a lot of pressure, political and otherwise, on the DA to charge the Ramseys. The DA fired investigators who believed an intruder did it. I think the fiasco of the Grand Jury, where they only got true bills on a couple of weaker charges, left Hunter with essentially zero chances of winning in court, so he didn't indict. But I don't really think they got preferential treatment.

My interpretation of the Grand Jury True Bill differs from yours.... The charges decided upon by the GJ were Accessory to Murder and Child Abuse resulting in death which I dont consider weaker charges as both charges are serious felony charges. Weaker only than first degree murder maybe...

Additionally if the Grand Jury did not believe there was enough evidence to convict, then after 13 months of reviewing the evidence they would have returned a No Bill and NOT a Tru Bill.

You would think if Alex Hunter was so confident in his decision not to brings charges against the Ramseys that he would have disclosed that the GJ had indeed voted to indict the family in 1999 and not wait 14 years to disclose to the public of the True Bill and he did so only after a court ordered him to do so.

I mean, according to John Ramsey some objects haven't been tested. They don't know if there is DNA on them or not, and that's a viable testing angle. And he wants to check if genetic genealogy can be done on what they have, which is a far more shaky endeavour but should at least be looked at by the private firms who do these things.



Can he sue the police or DA to get them to do that? Does he have any legal basis for doing so?

Yes he can... he has sued everyone else.

The early tests were ridiculously ineffective and consumed a lot of what they have. I think there is an insecurity if the new techniques can work or if it will waste what little they have left without result.

John Ramsey in every documentary and TV interview is constantly asking for the DNA testing to be done....Maybe he should slow down on his requests if your saying the new techniques may not work or may be ineffective.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Who said anything about a man being in her bathroom? Did you forget how many places she had been that day?

That day? At home and at the Whites.

Prove that your spit was not on the underwear before the blood appeared.

They tested the adjacent cloth between the blood stains and only found JonBenet's DNA. The report was issued May 27 1999.

Prove that ANY DNA be it blood, spit, urine, feces, skin cells, vomit ect was not present before she was attacked.

Why would it be? The two garments had never been worn together before that night, yet they had the same person's DNA present in saliva in one and skin cells on the other. The only option where she would pick up both would be if she went to her own bathroom after going to bed - which means a man being in her bathroom.

You can't. And if you could, you will need direct evidence that puts them at the scene. For all you know that person was not even in the country
( kind if like John Mark Karr) and left their DNA behind at one of the homes she visited. It is ridiculous to think an intruder spent hours in the home and this is all that was left behind.
I had a dinner party at my home last night. How many DNA profiles do you think LE could find? I'm going to give you a hint. There were 10 people present. 4 people went to 1 or 2 homes before they made it to my house. My son had 4 guests the night before who are college students and who live in dorms. Did any of them have colds, did they use the bathroom, did they borrow a sweater. Did they share a glass, did they greet with a kiss? Did they touch their face where this kiss was planted?
Now, when all my guests go home, what DNA profiles went home with them?
Your intruder will never be convicted on what little DNA is present.

I'll make this prediction - if UM1 is ever identified, he will have been in Boulder that night, will not have an alibi, and be convicted of JonBenet's murder (if alive, that is).

The amount of unidentified male DNA found in JB's underwear was 0.5 nanograms, and it was part of a mixed sample.
That's a very small amount.

That comes from Kolar and what he 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

I'll repeat my prediction - if UM1 is ever identified, he will not have an alibi for that night.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

My interpretation of the Grand Jury True Bill differs from yours.... The charges decided upon by the GJ were Accessory to Murder and Child Abuse resulting in death which I dont consider weaker charges as both charges are serious felony charges. Weaker only than first degree murder maybe...

But they also reveal a fundamental weakness - uncertainty of which Ramsey was meant to have done which. None of the charges indicates who was supposed to have killed JonBenet.

Additionally if the Grand Jury did not believe there was enough evidence to convict, then after 13 months of reviewing the evidence they would have returned a No Bill and NOT a Tru Bill.

Not only is that not what a Grand Jury is supposed to do - they return a true bill if they believe there is probable cause - but we also have a grand juror directly telling us:

The juror said he believes that there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for a crime, but he doesn’t think they would have been convicted.

“There is no way that I would have been able to say, ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person,’” the juror said. “And if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.”

You would think if Alex Hunter was so confident in his decision not to brings charges against the Ramseys that he would have disclosed that the GJ had indeed voted to indict the family in 1999 and not wait 14 years to disclose to the public of the True Bill and he did so only after a court ordered him to do so.

With the circus that the whole case was? Let's not forget the governor was publicly blaming the Ramseys at the time, and there was enormous pressure on Hunter to charge them.

Yes he can... he has sued everyone else.

Can a civilian sue the police for not testing DNA in a case? There would have to be a legal basis - is there one?

John Ramsey in every documentary and TV interview is constantly asking for the DNA testing to be done....Maybe he should slow down on his requests if your saying the new techniques may not work or may be ineffective.

I have no idea if they are or not. But I do know that companies of Othram will make a judgement on whether they are able to get results before the actual testing, so there would be no problem asking them to take a look. And to be fair, that looks like it's about to happen. So it might just be the wheels moving slowly rather than having stopped completely.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

But they also reveal a fundamental weakness - uncertainty of which Ramsey was meant to have done which. None of the charges indicates who was supposed to have killed JonBenet.



Not only is that not what a Grand Jury is supposed to do - they return a true bill if they believe there is probable cause - but we also have a grand juror directly telling us:





With the circus that the whole case was? Let's not forget the governor was publicly blaming the Ramseys at the time, and there was enormous pressure on Hunter to charge them.



Can a civilian sue the police for not testing DNA in a case? There would have to be a legal basis - is there one?



I have no idea if they are or not. But I do know that companies of Othram will make a judgement on whether they are able to get results before the actual testing, so there would be no problem asking them to take a look. And to be fair, that looks like it's about to happen. So it might just be the wheels moving slowly rather than having stopped completely.

Who besides JR or PR will verify that the underpants had not been warn that day.
What adjacent cloth? Are you going to suggest her shirt stayed tucked in during the attack?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Who besides JR or PR will verify that the underpants had not been warn that day.
What adjacent cloth? Are you going to suggest her shirt stayed tucked in during the attack?

The cloth of her underwear between the bloodstains. UM1 was found mixed with the blood in the stains. On the cloth between was only JonBenet's.

 

[CloudedTruth]

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.

Actually, it's 700 time higher than urine. And urinary amylase levels are significantly higher in females than they are in males.

Amylase is also found in vaginal secretions, and the bacterial population in vaginal secretions may produce appreciable levels of amylase. When inflammation is present in certain organs, the activity of amylase increases. Even in 2019 with improvements in amylase testing, one of the limitations was that there was no way of distinguishing the different isozymes or the origin of the amylase, whether it's human, bacterial or fungal.

The RSID Saliva kit which was developed to assist in determining the presence of saliva for use in criminal sexual assault cases even though is a powerful tool as such, also has limitations, so is only used to test specific samples. Vaginal swabs, vulval swabs and the crotch of panties are excluded from testing with the kit because they can give positive amylase results even when it is known there is no saliva present.

Given JonBenet's known history of vaginal inflammation and poor hygiene (toileting and wiping issues) it is very likely that bacteria was present. Bacteria was also likely on the broken paintbrush that was used for penetration. The small amount of amylase found was only present in a spot of blood. Testing for amylase was not as sophisticated in 1997.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Not really. There was a lot of pressure, political and otherwise, on the DA to charge the Ramseys. The DA fired investigators who believed an intruder did it. I think the fiasco of the Grand Jury, where they only got true bills on a couple of weaker charges, left Hunter with essentially zero chances of winning in court, so he didn't indict. But I don't really think they got preferential treatment.

Oh, they absolutely got preferential treatment from the DA.

Subpoenas were sat on and not signed off on. Prior statements that the Ramseys made were given to them ahead of their interviews to refresh their memories as to what they said. Investigative materials and evidence were handed over to Team Ramsey which was unprecedented and normally not given to the defense until a case goes to trial. Accusations of prosecutorial misconduct were not lightly made. Hunter’s hand had to be forced into convening a GJ under threat of his being replaced.

Hunter himself believed in the intruder theory. Who did he fire?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Hunter himself believed in the intruder theory. Who did he fire?

I've never seen any indication that Hunter believed the intruder theory, rather the opposite. And he fired Trip DeMuth.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I've never seen any indication that Hunter believed the intruder theory, rather the opposite. And he fired Trip DeMuth.

Ah, yes...I had forgotten about Trip DeMuth. Trip was the major leaker in the DA's office. But he was part of the team that was comprised of Hunter, Hofstrom and DeMuth who were cooperating with Team Ramsey. DeMuth's shenanigans had become a little too obvious and he became a liability. Hunter was trying albeit not very hard, to make it look as if his department was more ethical than it really was. This quote from Pam Paugh in the Vanity Fair article says it all:

Pam Paugh told me in June, “The fact that the district attorney is working with Patsy and John’s team is enough to tell the world that they are off the hook. If I thought you did it, and I was the police or the D.A., would I be working on a daily basis with your hired lawyers and investigators . . . telling you what I know? And them telling me what they know, so I could turn around and arrest you? No, because I could never convict you.”

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Ah, yes...I had forgotten about Trip DeMuth. Trip was the major leaker in the DA's office.

Not in evidence. Police and the DA's office accused each other of leaking all the time.

But he was part of the team that was comprised of Hunter, Hofstrom and DeMuth who were cooperating with Team Ramsey.

Untrue. Hunter never favored the Ramseys or the intruder theory (while Hofstrom and DeMuth found the latter the likeliest theory). Hofstrom and DeMuth were pushing for a comprehensive and thorough investigation from the beginning but Eller and his goons pushed back. Regardless of who was guilty, if DeMuth and Hofstrom had been in charge I think the murder would have been solved long ago.

DeMuth's shenanigans had become a little too obvious and he became a liability.

He was removed because the special prosecutor's people were moving in.

Hunter was trying albeit not very hard, to make it look as if his department was more ethical than it really was.

Hunter was someone who wanted everyone to be happy and not rock the boat, but it was very clear that there were massive rifts between the various departments and officers. Some of the police involved like Thomas forwarded conspiracy theories that Hunter backed the Ramseys and that they were politically protected (quite how they were when if anything the Colorado governors were pushing for special prosecutors, grand juries or just accusing the Ramseys in the media remains a mystery). But ultimately Thomas - who was a leaker himself - was in way over his head and had no business heading up a murder investigation.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Untrue. Hunter never favored the Ramseys or the intruder theory (while Hofstrom and DeMuth found the latter the likeliest theory). Hofstrom and DeMuth were pushing for a comprehensive and thorough investigation from the beginning but Eller and his goons pushed back. Regardless of who was guilty, if DeMuth and Hofstrom had been in charge I think the murder would have been solved long ago.

LOL. This is literally laughable.

Hofstrom in particular was obstructing the investigation at every turn.

Not a big fan of Elder for sure, but to refer to his "goons" and not acknowledge the shenanigans of the DA's office is turning a blind eye. Both the PD and the DA's office engaged in shady stuff. There is plenty of blame to go around. The DA's office is far from being above the fray. Hofstrom was fully invested in protecting the Ramseys and playing along with their legal team.

Two governors rejected replacing Hunter. Governor Romer consulted with a panel of 4 lawyers about it, and Governor elect Owens consulted with a panel of 7 lawyers. The calls for a special prosecutor to be named were coming from the Whites and eventually also the McReynolds. They saw what was happening in real time.

Hunter was more concerned with appearances than actually solving the case. If he wasn't a proponent of the IDI theory, why did he allow his deputy DA's to obstruct the police investigation? He should have been proactive in ensuring that the relationship between his office and the PD did not deteriorate the way that it did. Instead, he became involved in the pettiness that ensued and by his own admission, was personally leaking information to a tabloid. The DA's office is responsible for seeking truth and justice when crimes are committed. Under Hunter, the DA's office was a joke. He never met a crime he wanted to prosecute.

Calling a GJ was the appropriate thing to do. And at the end of the day, Hunter chose to again mislead the public as to what the GJ decided.