Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Anti-K]

Yes. It has been said the DNA is all we need. I won't name names.



That's a little simplistic.
Most of the DNA has been questioned by experts in one way or another and a single opinion on that DNA seems to be either stated or implied - the experts expected to see more DNA in this case and not seeing more makes them uneasy about a definitive opinion on its veracity. Or maybe it's the relevance of such small samples that makes them uneasy.



Official statements, yes.
Official reports, no.



One difference, the fibers have been discussed and referred to in official interviews. It's obvious there is a report and several of the conclusions of the report revealed on the record. Not so the DNA.



As it stands right now, no.
Fibers on the record, DNA not. DNA isn't even in the cage yet.



I think you're misunderstanding the point of the fibers. Yes, fibers matching the Ramseys were found in incriminating places and it keeps them as POIs. But in court, since they lived in the house, the fibers could be neutralized as evidence.
But they're evidence, on the record evidence, right now and relevant to the discussion.
I have to say I've never seen anyone "question the daylight" out of non-Ramsey fibers while not questioning Ramsey fibers.

The only expert that I can remember who was in a position to comment on the DNA was Williamson of BODE. Every other expert speaks in general terms only. They haven’t seen any results or reports, and in most cases know only what’s been said to them (cynic to krane, for example), or that they picke dupm on in the media. I think the message we get from these experts is “proceed with caution.” I see nothing wrong with that.
.

Beware of information gleaned from the interviews. During interviews, investigators, even prosecutors acting in an investigatory capacity (such as Levin) can and often do exaggerate, misrepresent, mislead and lie. They do so as a matter of routine and are permitted to do so by law. The depositions are entirely different matter; if it is stated in one of the depositions, than it is likely to be true. Investigators, prosecutors, lawyers, etc are not permitted to lie during depositions.
.

The DNA is a matter of record.
.

I’m not misunderstanding anything regarding the fibers. It is a fact, despite what you say, that many (most?) RDI consider Ramsey fibers to be indicative of Ramsey involvement, and unsourced fibers to be meaningless. It is also a fact that Ramsey fibers are accepted by RDI without question or doubt.
...

AK

 

[TaylurRose02]

I'm far from a DNA expert here, but the reason I find trouble in linking the DNA to an intruder is...
1.) The lack of parental DNA even though PR touched the same places the intruder would have, plus JR carried her up from the basement
2.) The totality of evidence doesn't point to an intruder IMO, I can elaborate further if anyone would like me to
3.) The amount of DNA left at the crime doesn't implicate an intruder, imo. In Raymonds tdna experiment, he found that on average holding a wallet for 60 seconds left behind an average of 4.3ng of DNA. "The amount of DNA needed to yield a full DNA profile with most commercially available amplification kits is approximately 1 nanogram (ng) of DNA." So considering the intruder would have taken her from her room all the way to the basement, assaulted and killed her, and then cleaned her up without leaving more DNA is fishy to me. I know the amount of time doesn't play much into how much tdna is left, but the things that took place that night involved a great amount of friction and force. I would also think he or she would have sweat after carrying out such a brutal murder. Both of these would have increased the amount of dna left.

I don't discredit the finding of the DNA, I just question where it came from. I understand that DNA isn't incredibly easy to transfer, but when comparing the amount left to the type of personal contact of the crime it doesn't make sense. I do find the fibers important because 1.) They could be sourced back to PR 2.) Linda Wilcox stated "It was very damp, anything you put in there got kinda moldy, nothing was in that room. It wasn't necessarily hidden but it wasn't in plain view. And the room leading to it was the boiler room. It was kind of open but it was very dark. No one was ever down there much except maybe Burke. Burke was there occasionally. He had his train set down there. He was the only one who played down there. Patsy hardly ever went down there. She'd go down to get whatever she needed, she didn't like to go down there. It freaked JonBenet out. It was cold, it was damp, it was cluttered, it was dark. Pretty much the household help were the only ones who went down there." Which narrows the possible innocent transfer imo. I know PR lived in the home, but the fact that her fibers were found in incriminating locations in a room that she didn't like to go into is what strikes me as odd. Some people have stated the fibers could have been a secondary transfer which is true, but the DNA could have been as well. It goes both ways. So if the fibers from PR were so easily secondarily transferred, then I don't see why the unsourced fibers couldn't have been so easily secondarily transferred as well. She was at a Christmas party hours before the murder. Again the argument both goes ways, and I don't hold either to much because it is such flimsy evidence. Both can be manipulated to either side of the argument, and until the DNA is sourced I won't consider it as evidence of an intruder.

 

[2 percent]

The only expert that I can remember who was in a position to comment on the DNA was Williamson of BODE. Every other expert speaks in general terms only. They haven’t seen any results or reports, and in most cases know only what’s been said to them (cynic to krane, for example), or that they picke dupm on in the media. I think the message we get from these experts is “proceed with caution.” I see nothing wrong with that.

So the DNA is a matter of record, as you say below; it just hasn't been seen by anyone.
That's what sets the DNA apart from fiber evidence.

I've seen Baden, Wecht and Lee comment on evidence in cases all of the time. I've also seen how careful experts have been about this DNA evidence. It may be about lack of access (although not true with Lee, ie the earlier DNA) but most likely because they feel what I said before...the DNA in this case is hinky.
.

Beware of information gleaned from the interviews. During interviews, investigators, even prosecutors acting in an investigatory capacity (such as Levin) can and often do exaggerate, misrepresent, mislead and lie. They do so as a matter of routine and are permitted to do so by law. The depositions are entirely different matter; if it is stated in one of the depositions, than it is likely to be true. Investigators, prosecutors, lawyers, etc are not permitted to lie during depositions.

I am aware.

I'm not misunderstanding anything regarding the fibers. It is a fact, despite what you say, that many (most?) RDI consider Ramsey fibers to be indicative of Ramsey involvement, and unsourced fibers to be meaningless.

I have seen no one say that, much less "most". So not, in fact, a fact.

It is also a fact that Ramsey fibers are accepted by RDI without question or doubt.
...

AK

I'm not exactly sure what doubt you're looking for. I think you'll find RDI believing Patsy is linked to the murder by her clothes is as much because the fibers reportedly match as her behavior in turning over that evidence.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm far from a DNA expert here, but the reason I find trouble in linking the DNA to an intruder is...
1.) The lack of parental DNA even though PR touched the same places the intruder would have, plus JR carried her up from the basement
2.) The totality of evidence doesn't point to an intruder IMO, I can elaborate further if anyone would like me to
3.) The amount of DNA left at the crime doesn't implicate an intruder, imo. In Raymonds tdna experiment, he found that on average holding a wallet for 60 seconds left behind an average of 4.3ng of DNA. "The amount of DNA needed to yield a full DNA profile with most commercially available amplification kits is approximately 1 nanogram (ng) of DNA." So considering the intruder would have taken her from her room all the way to the basement, assaulted and killed her, and then cleaned her up without leaving more DNA is fishy to me. I know the amount of time doesn't play much into how much tdna is left, but the things that took place that night involved a great amount of friction and force. I would also think he or she would have sweat after carrying out such a brutal murder. Both of these would have increased the amount of dna left.

I don't discredit the finding of the DNA, I just question where it came from. I understand that DNA isn't incredibly easy to transfer, but when comparing the amount left to the type of personal contact of the crime it doesn't make sense. I do find the fibers important because 1.) They could be sourced back to PR 2.) Linda Wilcox stated "It was very damp, anything you put in there got kinda moldy, nothing was in that room. It wasn't necessarily hidden but it wasn't in plain view. And the room leading to it was the boiler room. It was kind of open but it was very dark. No one was ever down there much except maybe Burke. Burke was there occasionally. He had his train set down there. He was the only one who played down there. Patsy hardly ever went down there. She'd go down to get whatever she needed, she didn't like to go down there. It freaked JonBenet out. It was cold, it was damp, it was cluttered, it was dark. Pretty much the household help were the only ones who went down there." Which narrows the possible innocent transfer imo. I know PR lived in the home, but the fact that her fibers were found in incriminating locations in a room that she didn't like to go into is what strikes me as odd. Some people have stated the fibers could have been a secondary transfer which is true, but the DNA could have been as well. It goes both ways. So if the fibers from PR were so easily secondarily transferred, then I don't see why the unsourced fibers couldn't have been so easily secondarily transferred as well. She was at a Christmas party hours before the murder. Again the argument both goes ways, and I don't hold either to much because it is such flimsy evidence. Both can be manipulated to either side of the argument, and until the DNA is sourced I won't consider it as evidence of an intruder.

The lack of Famial DNA is an indication that they did not leave DNA on her. The DNA in her panties that is mixed with her blood is from what??

And that it matches the tdna right where someone would pull down her pants to assault her, That means nothing? That is a slam dunk in any other case. DNA is the miracle the clears and includes. In this case the Ramseys can not be included at all in the DNA left in her underwear and on her pants. That is really the end. It is.

That DNA is not from some mystery worker. That is from someone who was there.

 

[DeDee]

Originally Posted by Mama2JML View Post
Which source(s) has/have led you to conclude fibers from Mrs. Ramsey's clothing were present in "4 incriminating locations"? I don't ignore this claim, but I don't believe the facts support it.

This information was disclosed during a LE interrogation, via Bruce Levin, right? Then, we have investigators disputing Levin's statements, under oath. What makes you so sure the the words BBM, above, portray the facts?

I've consulted numerous sources, and it seems to me only 4 fibers, red in color, were found to be consistent with clothing Mrs. Ramsey had worn.

My apologies Mama2JML for the delay in responding as it seems your question became buried in two pages of s******** so I'll piggyback on ScarlettScarpetti's response to your query for my sources on the fibers.

The problem with the fibers is they are in her house. They could have been picked up anywhere. All the killer had to do was to put the tape down on a surface that had the fibers and there they stick.

RSBM

So the fibers for me are useless.

My fiber sources:

1) Bruce Levin : (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, was found on the blanket she was wrapped in, was found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth. I have no evidence from any scientist that suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket."

2) CNN Burden of Proof:
THOMAS: Well, let me give you an example, and that's an excellent point. As you know, on the adhesive side of the duct tape, which was removed from the victim's mouth, there were four fibers that were later determined to be microscopically and chemically consistent with four fibers from a piece of clothing that Patsy Ramsey was wearing

3) August 2000 Patsy Ramsey Atlanta Interview - from a candyrose:
0200
3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.


Regarding the minute amount of unsourced DNA, until it is identified as belonging to someone entered into CODIS, I cannot add probative value to it. It could be from a factory worker. There could have been contamination at collection. It could have been contaminated at the lab which is so very easy to do.

 

[lawstudent]

I can't find a great explanation of how exactly all this stuff works, but it seems like the presence of DNA is pretty hit or miss. Someone who touched the victim/scene a lot can leave no trace, but someone who had glancing contact could leave one. Does anyone know why that is? Is it simply that they can't actually test every inch for DNA because it would be so time consuming? So they pick a few key areas and may miss where the perpetrator grabbed the person? I assume in a case like JonBenet's they test a few key areas for anything useful - is it possible her parents' DNA was indeed on her but it just wasn't relevant and thus wasn't mentioned? Or that the sample from carrying her would be so small it wasn't looked for, unlike the blood spot which would be highly analyzed?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I can't find a great explanation of how exactly all this stuff works, but it seems like the presence of DNA is pretty hit or miss. Someone who touched the victim/scene a lot can leave no trace, but someone who had glancing contact could leave one. Does anyone know why that is? Is it simply that they can't actually test every inch for DNA because it would be so time consuming? So they pick a few key areas and may miss where the perpetrator grabbed the person? I assume in a case like JonBenet's they test a few key areas for anything useful - is it possible her parents' DNA was indeed on her but it just wasn't relevant and thus wasn't mentioned? Or that the sample from carrying her would be so small it wasn't looked for, unlike the blood spot which would be highly analyzed?

I believe that any DNA or clothing fibers from JBR's family that were found at the crime scene mean little. It's expected to be found because they lived there.

I also believe that key areas were tested for DNA and that's were the pertinent DNA was found.

MOO.

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe that any DNA or clothing fibers from JBR's family that were found at the crime scene mean little. It's expected to be found because they lived there.

I also believe that key areas were tested for DNA and that's were the pertinent DNA was found.

MOO.

But is is NOT expected to be found in items closely related to the crime (especially when IDI claims these items did not belong to the house). The tape on JB's mouth is the biggest red flag to me. Patsy's fibers on the sticky side of that (the side against JB's mouth) and tied into the cord are the biggest indicators that she was there when these items were applied. If the cord and tape came in with the intruder, how did her fibers get there? Patsy claimed she did not wear those clothes in the basement. And the tape was left behind in the basement when JB was brought up. JB was also covered with an afghan when Patsy threw herself on top of her. The knot of the cord was at the back of JB's neck. It could not have come into contact with those fibers. Her face, neck and torso was covered.
And I am also looking at the comment when Patsy is being asked about these locations specifically: "And I understand you are not going to answer those". Why not? I thing it is highly suspicious Patsy's lawyer did not allow her to answer. And you can tell a lot about a person's guilt by what their defense lawyers will not allow them to answer.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

But is is NOT expected to be found in items closely related to the crime (especially when IDI claims these items did not belong to the house). The tape on JB's mouth is the biggest red flag to me. Patsy's fibers on the sticky side of that (the side against JB's mouth) and tied into the cord are the biggest indicators that she was there when these items were applied. If the cord and tape came in with the intruder, how did her fibers get there? Patsy claimed she did not wear those clothes in the basement. And the tape was left behind in the basement when JB was brought up. JB was also covered with an afghan when Patsy threw herself on top of her. The knot of the cord was at the back of JB's neck. It could not have come into contact with those fibers. Her face, neck and torso was covered.
And I am also looking at the comment when Patsy is being asked about these locations specifically: "And I understand you are not going to answer those". Why not? I thing it is highly suspicious Patsy's lawyer did not allow her to answer. And you can tell a lot about a person's guilt by what their defense lawyers will not allow them to answer.

I think that fiber transfer can happen. So any Ramsey fibers can end up anywhere in their house including the tape and cord..

Unidentified fibers are a different story. How did they get there?

 

[TaylurRose02]

The lack of Famial DNA is an indication that they did not leave DNA on her. The DNA in her panties that is mixed with her blood is from what??

And that it matches the tdna right where someone would pull down her pants to assault her, That means nothing? That is a slam dunk in any other case. DNA is the miracle the clears and includes. In this case the Ramseys can not be included at all in the DNA left in her underwear and on her pants. That is really the end. It is.

That DNA is not from some mystery worker. That is from someone who was there.

I wasn't questioning the presence of DNA, just how it got there. So an intruder who pulled down her pants to assault her left DNA, but PR didn't when she changed her into her pj's? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Anti-K]

I'm far from a DNA expert here, but the reason I find trouble in linking the DNA to an intruder is...
1.) The lack of parental DNA even though PR touched the same places the intruder would have, plus JR carried her up from the basement
2.) The totality of evidence doesn't point to an intruder IMO, I can elaborate further if anyone would like me to
3.) The amount of DNA left at the crime doesn't implicate an intruder, imo. In Raymonds tdna experiment, he found that on average holding a wallet for 60 seconds left behind an average of 4.3ng of DNA. "The amount of DNA needed to yield a full DNA profile with most commercially available amplification kits is approximately 1 nanogram (ng) of DNA." So considering the intruder would have taken her from her room all the way to the basement, assaulted and killed her, and then cleaned her up without leaving more DNA is fishy to me. I know the amount of time doesn't play much into how much tdna is left, but the things that took place that night involved a great amount of friction and force. I would also think he or she would have sweat after carrying out such a brutal murder. Both of these would have increased the amount of dna left.

I don't discredit the finding of the DNA, I just question where it came from. I understand that DNA isn't incredibly easy to transfer, but when comparing the amount left to the type of personal contact of the crime it doesn't make sense. I do find the fibers important because 1.) They could be sourced back to PR 2.) Linda Wilcox stated "It was very damp, anything you put in there got kinda moldy, nothing was in that room. It wasn't necessarily hidden but it wasn't in plain view. And the room leading to it was the boiler room. It was kind of open but it was very dark. No one was ever down there much except maybe Burke. Burke was there occasionally. He had his train set down there. He was the only one who played down there. Patsy hardly ever went down there. She'd go down to get whatever she needed, she didn't like to go down there. It freaked JonBenet out. It was cold, it was damp, it was cluttered, it was dark. Pretty much the household help were the only ones who went down there." Which narrows the possible innocent transfer imo. I know PR lived in the home, but the fact that her fibers were found in incriminating locations in a room that she didn't like to go into is what strikes me as odd. Some people have stated the fibers could have been a secondary transfer which is true, but the DNA could have been as well. It goes both ways. So if the fibers from PR were so easily secondarily transferred, then I don't see why the unsourced fibers couldn't have been so easily secondarily transferred as well. She was at a Christmas party hours before the murder. Again the argument both goes ways, and I don't hold either to much because it is such flimsy evidence. Both can be manipulated to either side of the argument, and until the DNA is sourced I won't consider it as evidence of an intruder.

Well, we could say that anything could be from anything but that doesn’t really tell us very much. If the DNA could be from secondary/innocent transfer than the DNA could be from primary/guilty transfer, and, that’s how that works; so I’m not overly impressed with “could be.”
.

As far as trace evidence goes DNA is essentially unique; fibers are not. That’s not an insignificant difference. This means that is impossible to say that any fiber was a Ramsey fiber. Fibers are only ever “consistent with.” DNA trumps fibers in almost every way imaginable; it is the gold standard. DNA is not perfect, and things can go wrong, but each and every issue regarding the utility and reliability of DNA evidence applies as well to fiber evidence.

It is intellectually dishonest to say, – I’m NOT directing this to anyone in particular – the DNA evidence is too shakey for me, but I have no problem accepting these fibers as Ramsey fibers. It is improper to excuse unsourced fibers found in incriminating locations without excusing Ramsey fibers found in the same locations.

Sure, fibers are everywhere and easily transfer but what’s true for the unsourced fibers is true for the Ramsey fibers, and one can’t excuse unsourced fibers as innocent transfer without also excusing Ramsey fibers. In the Ramsey home Ramsey fibers are everywhere. Everywhere the child goes – Ramsey fibers. There are more Ramsey fibers in the Ramsey home than there are “Ramsey fibers” in this post! If any fibers are likely to innocently transfer they’re going to be Ramsey fibers. The only way to excuse the unsourced fibers while using the Ramsey fibers is if one uses theory to determine the evidence. We shouldn’t do that.
.

I’d like to try and answer some of your questions regarding tDNA transfer. I’ll come back to that later.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

My apologies Mama2JML for the delay in responding as it seems your question became buried in two pages of s******** so I'll piggyback on ScarlettScarpetti's response to your query for my sources on the fibers.

No problem, DeDee. I understand. :seeya:

My fiber sources:

1) Bruce Levin : (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "We believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, was found on the blanket she was wrapped in, was found on the duct tape that was found on the mouth. I have no evidence from any scientist that suggest that those fibers are from any source other than your red jacket."

2) CNN Burden of Proof:
THOMAS: Well, let me give you an example, and that's an excellent point. As you know, on the adhesive side of the duct tape, which was removed from the victim's mouth, there were four fibers that were later determined to be microscopically and chemically consistent with four fibers from a piece of clothing that Patsy Ramsey was wearing

3) August 2000 Patsy Ramsey Atlanta Interview - from a candyrose:
0200
3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.

Thanks, DeDee.

Beware of information gleaned from the interviews. During interviews, investigators, even prosecutors acting in an investigatory capacity (such as Levin) can and often do exaggerate, misrepresent, mislead and lie. They do so as a matter of routine and are permitted to do so by law.

Levin's characterization of the fiber evidence linked to Patsy Ramsey is disputed by ST's sworn testimony in the Wolf suit.

The depositions are an entirely different matter; if it is stated in one of the depositions, then it is likely to be true. Investigators, prosecutors, lawyers, etc are not permitted to lie during depositions.

From the deposition of Steve Thomas in CW v. Rs:

"Q. Do you know if there was any forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing at all besides the duct tape area on JonBenet?

A. As we sit here now, no, I don't recollect any other fiber evidence, other than what we have discussed linking the mother to JonBenet."​

Regarding the minute amount of unsourced DNA, until it is identified as belonging to someone entered into CODIS, I cannot add probative value to it. It could be from a factory worker. There could have been contamination at collection. It could have been contaminated at the lab which is so very easy to do.

Sure, these are possibilities, although unlikely. IMHO.
...
Thanks, again, DeDee.

 

[2 percent]

I think that fiber transfer can happen. So any Ramsey fibers can end up anywhere in their house including the tape and cord..

Unidentified fibers are a different story. How did they get there?

Unless the house was sterilized prior to that night (highly doubtful), the unidentified fibers, like the DNA, could have come from an unrelated source.

I remember a case where pubic hair and deer hair were found on the body of a rape/murder victim that were completely unrelated to the case. It happens.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Unless the house was sterilized prior to that night (highly doubtful), the unidentified fibers, like the DNA, could have come from an unrelated source.

I remember a case where pubic hair and deer hair were found on the body of a rape/murder victim that were completely unrelated to the case. It happens.

It's possible that some of the unidentified fibers are unrelated to JBR's death. But maybe some were left behind by an intruder.

MOO.

 

[2 percent]

It's possible that some of the unidentified fibers are unrelated to JBR's death. But maybe some were left behind by an intruder.

MOO.

Which brings us to another full circle, why were fibers found in some places and not others? There are no fibers to support entry to the house and given the theorized mode of entry, the theory is highly improbable.

 

[CherCher]

Which brings us to another full circle, why were fibers found in some places and not others? There are no fibers to support entry to the house and given the theorized mode of entry, the theory is highly improbable.

I agree. Yes, fibers from the R's "could have" been found in the places in the crime scene and body because they lived there. Funny how the fibers were from the clothing they were wearing on Christmas. And who's to say that the "unidentified fibers" aren't from other non crime related R clothing or paraphernalia?

I've lived in my current home for a dozen years, and I hate going into my basement. If anyone poked around down there they would probably find "fibers" from people who lived here 20 years ago.

 

[Anti-K]

So the DNA is a matter of record, as you say below; it just hasn't been seen by anyone.
That's what sets the DNA apart from fiber evidence.

I've seen Baden, Wecht and Lee comment on evidence in cases all of the time. I've also seen how careful experts have been about this DNA evidence. It may be about lack of access (although not true with Lee, ie the earlier DNA) but most likely because they feel what I said before...the DNA in this case is hinky.
.



I am aware.



I have seen no one say that, much less "most". So not, in fact, a fact.



I'm not exactly sure what doubt you're looking for. I think you'll find RDI believing Patsy is linked to the murder by her clothes is as much because the fibers reportedly match as her behavior in turning over that evidence.

There’s nothing hinky about the DNA. That’s just silly.
.

If you haven’t seen any RDI try to say that the Ramsey fibers are incriminating, but that non-Ramsey fibres are meaningless, than you haven’t been paying attention.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I can't find a great explanation of how exactly all this stuff works, but it seems like the presence of DNA is pretty hit or miss. Someone who touched the victim/scene a lot can leave no trace, but someone who had glancing contact could leave one. Does anyone know why that is? Is it simply that they can't actually test every inch for DNA because it would be so time consuming? So they pick a few key areas and may miss where the perpetrator grabbed the person? I assume in a case like JonBenet's they test a few key areas for anything useful - is it possible her parents' DNA was indeed on her but it just wasn't relevant and thus wasn't mentioned? Or that the sample from carrying her would be so small it wasn't looked for, unlike the blood spot which would be highly analyzed?

Investigators are only interested in trace evidence found in incriminating locations. In this regard the Jonbenet case is like any other.
I’ll comment on transfer before the end of the day.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

But is is NOT expected to be found in items closely related to the crime (especially when IDI claims these items did not belong to the house). The tape on JB's mouth is the biggest red flag to me. Patsy's fibers on the sticky side of that (the side against JB's mouth) and tied into the cord are the biggest indicators that she was there when these items were applied. If the cord and tape came in with the intruder, how did her fibers get there? Patsy claimed she did not wear those clothes in the basement. And the tape was left behind in the basement when JB was brought up. JB was also covered with an afghan when Patsy threw herself on top of her. The knot of the cord was at the back of JB's neck. It could not have come into contact with those fibers. Her face, neck and torso was covered.
And I am also looking at the comment when Patsy is being asked about these locations specifically: "And I understand you are not going to answer those". Why not? I thing it is highly suspicious Patsy's lawyer did not allow her to answer. And you can tell a lot about a person's guilt by what their defense lawyers will not allow them to answer.

Ramsey fibers are like any other fibers, except Ramsey fibers are everywhere. You can’t discount non-Ramsey fibers if you’re going to include Ramsey fibers – that’s intellectually dishonest and theory-driven.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I wasn't questioning the presence of DNA, just how it got there. So an intruder who pulled down her pants to assault her left DNA, but PR didn't when she changed her into her pj's? You can't have it both ways.

Yes we can. It’s just a matter of fact. No Ramsey DNA; unsourced male DNA – “touch” and otherwise.
...

AK