03-21-2017, 12:58 AM
(03-20-2017, 05:53 PM)jameson245 Wrote: From a 2006 story by Gaby Wood:
Two weeks after the murder, the results of a DNA test came back to the police. A drop of JonBenet's blood found in her underpants was mixed with the DNA of a Caucasian male, and no member of the Ramsey family was a match. It was six months before that report reached the DA's office. In August 1998, Steve Thomas resigned from the police department over the way the Ramsey case had been handled. In September 1998, Lou Smit resigned from the DA's office on the same grounds.
In 1999, just before the grand jury was about to be sworn in, the internationally recognised forensic expert Henry Lee was brought in. Yes, he suggested, the DNA in the underpants was not the Ramseys', but who was to say it was the murderer's? It could have been left there at any time, from the point of manufacture onwards.
'They were going to test all the Bloomingdales factory workers in Hong Kong, until they realised it wouldn't have made any difference,' says Bob Grant, former District Attorney for Adams County and adviser to the grand jury. 'I can make the whole argument - it came from the factory, it came from the cleaners, it came from the pants being placed in a hamper with other clothes that had other foreign DNA on them - it could have come from any number of places. But as a prosecutor, I've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And foreign male DNA mixed with her blood in her underpants: that's reasonable doubt, by definition.'
They were going to test all the workers in Hong Kong??? Umm.. wow.
My thoughts are... If you are willing to send people to test every worker in Hong Kong.. how about you test her other underwear from the same package??
There would be NO way her blood would mingle with DNA left from a worker in Hong Kong. They are just scraping for ideas IMO!