Long John information
#1
      click on image to enlarge

Touch DNA on these long johns influenced DA Mary Lacy when she publicly apologized to John Ramsey for the Hell his family had been put through - because in her mind the DNA evidence - found mixed with JonBenét's blood in her panties and on these long johns - pointed to the intruder who did not innocently leave his DNA on those articles of clothing.
Reply
#2
The collection process is vital for the 'touch dna'. By making a reasonable assumption as to where JonBenet would have had her outer garment touched while being undressed and re-dressed collection efforts are concentrated in places most likely to have incriminating dna. The results show dna that is consistent with the dna inside the panties and not inconsistent with any other dna collected. 

Of course there will always be that Borg Sneeze Theory wherein some factory worker in Vietnam happened to sneeze in the factory and it also landed on the long johns that were the outer garment. 

The problem is we do not know if that dna comes from the ONLY male intruder and we do not know who that male intruder is.
Reply
#3
We know that from the sample mixed with JBR's blood in her underwear, the CODIS profile still most likely belongs to "unknown male 1" (DS 007-2).    See Bode's Lab reports pages 1-4  in this article from the Boulder Daily Camera:  http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet...a-evidence.

The Bode report states that the DNA profile obtained from sample 2S07-101-05A, the t-DNA on the right side of the leggings, contains a mixture of at least two individuals including the victim and at least one male contributor.  The individual associated with the "unknown male 1" profile cannot be exluded as a possible contributor to the mixture DNA profile obtained from sample 2S07-101-05A."

One of the experts consulted by the media, William Thompson, said, "A match is an analyst's judgement that the two samples fall into the 'included' category.  A match doesn't mean that the material is necessarily identical, just that there is a sufficient consistency to think that it might have come from the same source."
Reply
#4
It has now been 20 years since JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered in the basement of her family's Boulder home, and that benchmark triggered a wave of news stories and national television specials in recent months probing one of Colorado's most vexing unsolved homicides.


As the 20-year benchmark was approaching, the Daily Camera, together with 9NEWS, launched an investigation examining the 2008 exoneration of the Ramsey family by then-Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy, who cited the results of recent "touch" DNA tests as the basis of her decision to clear all family members of any involvement in the death of 6-year-old JonBenet.

Through the Camera/9NEWS investigation, reporters gained access to the DNA test results on which Lacy based her exoneration, as well as reports, emails and memos between Lacy's office and the laboratory that conducted those tests, then known as Bode Technology.

Those documents were reviewed by several independent DNA experts, each of whom said the documents did not support Lacy's letter, and that in fact they reflected results seriously at odds with what had been asserted in Lacy's July 9, 2008, exoneration letter to John Ramsey.

Lacy had stated in that letter — which was also made public at the time — that a DNA profile derived from a bloodstain in the victim's underwear, and entered into a national DNA database as "Unknown Male 1," had also been found at two points on the exterior of longjohns JonBenet was wearing at the time of her death. There could be no innocent explanation for that, Lacy had claimed, leaving her "comfortable" that the "Unknown Male 1" profile was that of JonBenet's killer.

But the Bode lab reports never described the samples as a "match," and in fact reflected the presence of at least one other person's DNA on the longjohns in addition to the "Unknown Male 1 sample," according to the experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS.

Those same experts raised the possibility that the original sample taken from the underwear and entered in the FBI's Combined DNA Index System in December 2003 might not even be that of a single individual at all, but could instead be a composite of several contributors.

Additionally, the independent DNA experts said there was no basis for Lacy's claim that the DNA samples cited in the exoneration letter had to be those of the killer, and that they could have instead been left as a result of inconsequential contact with other people, or transferred from other clothing.

On Dec. 13, Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett and Boulder police Chief Greg Testa both said that in the wake of the Camera/9NEWS investigation, they had met with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to discuss a new wave of DNA testing that is now being contemplated in the case.

Charlie Brennan: 303-473-1327, brennanc@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/chasbrennan
Reply
#5
On the other hand, I just got the DNA files Charlie Brennan won by his lawsuit and as I read them I keep wondering why he and I see different things. Why are his experts unnamed?

I am going through the large file and posting on the notes I made so I will be on this thread then touch a different piece of evidence but if you read all the DNA threads, I think you may see something new to you.

I did not know cuttings from the waistband of the long johns had been tested for foreign DNA very early on - - but they had. The serology portion was completed by CBI agent Joe Clayton on 1/9/11997. DNA tests were completed, but no good profile was developed, on 5/27/99
Reply
#6
From an investigative memo by DA investigator Andy Horita

This is in regard to the exterior waistband of the long johns, both he right and left sides.
"DNA analysis ... reveal the presence of a mixture that includes the victim and one or more MALE contributors". (my emphasis there)

There wasn't a question of a third in the mixture found in the panties, there was on the long johns. But all were JonBenet and MALE.... and all the MALE could not have been her father or brothers.

I am wondering what the big question is that Charlie Brennan sees - - we have the same papers.
Reply
#7
more from official papers -

Apparently the DNA expert at BODE was asked about the possibility that the touch DNA profiles from the long johns and the evidence found mixed with JBR's blood in her panties was "deposited via contamination from the autopsy table." She did not believe that was the case.

She did not test for the serological source of the evidence on the longjohns but believed the evidence found mixed with JonBenet's blood in her panties was "probably saliva".

The fact that there was none of that on her body tells me oral sex was not part of this crime. The killer may have thought saliva was the lubricant he needed.
Reply
#8
   
Reply
#9
(03-17-2017, 07:18 PM)jameson245 Wrote: There wasn't a question of a third in the mixture found in the panties, there was on the long johns.  But all were JonBenet and MALE.... and all the MALE could not have been her father or brothers.

I am wondering what the big question is that Charlie Brennan sees - -  we have the same papers.

I don't understand this either, nor why his "experts" continue to remain unnamed.
Reply
#10
I am sorting out the reports I jut got and putting them with the reports I already had - - not sure why the DA's office doesn't have some I do have but it is interesting having this pile to study.

They have photographs of both the white shirt she was found in and the pink nightgown that was just found near the body. They checked the nightgown for DNA - - I see nothing about the white shirt being tested and ask
1. Why would anyone check the bathrobe and not the shirt she had ON?
0r
2. Why are the reports on the while shirt being kept from us?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)