Touch DNA
First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Since: Jan 11

AOL

#1 Jan 19, 2011
After reading a few books on the subject I was strongly leaning toward the parents as the murderers but I must admit this touch DNA evidence is a real head scratcher. Any thoughts?
RedWing7

London, Canada

#2 Jan 19, 2011
I don't know a lot about it but it sounds and I stress sounds like it's over-rated. From what I have heard it is possible that touch DNA found on the long johns could have come from a worker at the factory where the long johns were made. We keep hearing how touch DNA was found that matched no one. What I'd like to know is did they find touch DNA that matched anyone. JB should have had touch DNA from all kinds of people she came into contact with that day. Like I said, I am no expert on the subject and don't have a whole lot of confidence in the DNA that they gathered.

Since: Oct 10

Birmingham, AL

#4 Jan 20, 2011
There are many posters,(RDI), who have spread and will continue to spread nonsensical explanations of their beliefs that the DNA is not the smoking gun. Their ignorance can be yours, or you can educate yourself in the science of DNA and see why the Ramseys where officially exonerated by this evidence.

There is no plausible explanation for the matching DNA evidence found on the lifeless corpse of JonBenet, and saying there is not a match to the DNA yet, means nothing more then they haven't found the unknown male who killed her.
And RW7, the ancient argument was the possibility that DNA mixed in blood on her underwear was from a factory worker, which was not plausible in the first place and is now completely ruled out with the touch DNA on the Long-johns.
Touch DNA comes from a lower layer of skin that only comes from ruff touch, that layer changes when it becomes the surface layer and no longer has the ability to give DNA info.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#8 Jan 20, 2011
Touch DNA in this case came from Lin Wood and Mary Lacy just like JMK came from Michale Tracey and Mary Lacy.
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#9 Jan 20, 2011
There is a lot more to this than the simple touch DNA, For instance, suppose you treat DNA like a fingerprint, and you have a very good print inside the Ramsey home on JB's bed, that does not match anyone known. What that proves, is someone touched JB's bed. There is no time stamp on it, nor does it connect with her death YET.

Now, we have to consider how the fingerprint got there, It could have come from the manufacturer, or the deliveryman, or a simple shopper, or a person who packed the bed, OR, it could have come from the murderer. Until that fingerprint is matched, there is no way for anyone to know.

Now, let us theorize that the fingerprint came from an intruder. The difficulty here, is proving his point of entry to the home, his presence, and his point of exit. There is no sign or evidence of a break in, so the alleged intruder had to come into the home without breaking in. But how? Several windows were unlocked, and a door was ajar.
But JR broke a window in the basement because he locked himself out of the house a few weeks earlier.... Now we have a problem with an intruder theory.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#10 Jan 20, 2011
Charlie Chan wrote:
There is a lot more to this than the simple touch DNA, For instance, suppose you treat DNA like a fingerprint, and you have a very good print inside the Ramsey home on JB's bed, that does not match anyone known. What that proves, is someone touched JB's bed. There is no time stamp on it, nor does it connect with her death YET.
Now, we have to consider how the fingerprint got there, It could have come from the manufacturer, or the deliveryman, or a simple shopper, or a person who packed the bed, OR, it could have come from the murderer. Until that fingerprint is matched, there is no way for anyone to know.
Now, let us theorize that the fingerprint came from an intruder. The difficulty here, is proving his point of entry to the home, his presence, and his point of exit. There is no sign or evidence of a break in, so the alleged intruder had to come into the home without breaking in. But how? Several windows were unlocked, and a door was ajar.
But JR broke a window in the basement because he locked himself out of the house a few weeks earlier.... Now we have a problem with an intruder theory.
CC
It would also be important to know ALL the fingerprints in your hypothetical analogy.

The DNA is something that requires more clarification and a full report. If the DNA found was the only DNA found at all, it's meaning is quite different than if it was found IN ADDITION to Patsy's DNA, also not much of a red flag. If the DNA found was in ADDITION to John's, that might require an explanation, if the DNA found was in ADDITION to Burke's, that requires even more explaining. Of course, the abundance of the other DNA plays a role and determines the amount of explaining that needs to be done

That is one of the main reasons the full report on the DNA and WHAT was tested is so important. What if there is OTHER unsourced DNA that belongs to a female? What if.....

There are so many 'what ifs' that without talking about it in its proper perspective, with the full information, the DNA is not a smoking gun, nor meaningful at this time
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#11 Jan 20, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
It would also be important to know ALL the fingerprints in your hypothetical analogy.
The DNA is something that requires more clarification and a full report. If the DNA found was the only DNA found at all, it's meaning is quite different than if it was found IN ADDITION to Patsy's DNA, also not much of a red flag. If the DNA found was in ADDITION to John's, that might require an explanation, if the DNA found was in ADDITION to Burke's, that requires even more explaining. Of course, the abundance of the other DNA plays a role and determines the amount of explaining that needs to be done
That is one of the main reasons the full report on the DNA and WHAT was tested is so important. What if there is OTHER unsourced DNA that belongs to a female? What if.....
There are so many 'what ifs' that without talking about it in its proper perspective, with the full information, the DNA is not a smoking gun, nor meaningful at this time
Correct, on the fact that the DNA found is NOT a smoking gun by any means. They found it by scraping the long johns to where it MIGHT have been touched in putting on, or removing the clothing. The amount is very small, but they got a profile. Now, to find where that DNA came from is another problem. It could have come from the factory, a store worker, or a shopper, OR it could have come from an intruder. IF it came from an intruder, he left no credible evidence of his entry, presence, or exit from the Ramsey home. So, how did the DNA get there? I say it was there before the JB murder.
CC

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#14 Jan 20, 2011
Porvulit wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be coy. "If the DNA found was in ADDITION to John's, that might require an explanation," You are such a jerk. Yea PIG, DNA that was not John's was found on his dead daughter. Very significant. What is wrong with you? Really? You are such an evil fin witch.
Please teach us to be Holy and Pure like you.

Since: Jan 11

AOL

#16 Jan 20, 2011
I am wondering if the scenario could involve JR, PR, and an unknown male. There are too many instances of guilty behaviors and lies by the Ramseys for them not to have been involved in my opinion. However, this touch DNA information introduces the possibility of a another party, not known to the police but possibly known to the Ramseys?
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Jan 20, 2011
kingcop wrote:
After reading a few books on the subject I was strongly leaning toward the parents as the murderers but I must admit this touch DNA evidence is a real head scratcher. Any thoughts?
The DNA evidence excludes the Ramseys of guilt.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#18 Jan 21, 2011
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
The DNA evidence excludes the Ramseys of guilt.
Only to Mary Lacy and other fools.
tootlems

Houston, TX

#19 Jan 21, 2011
thewhitewitchone wrote:
<quoted text>
Only to Mary Lacy and other fools.
New Evidence

The new DNA "touch" analysis tests were run on the leggings that went over the child's underwear.

Boulder DA investigators and Lacy made the decision late last year to have the leggings tested at the Bode Lab. It is not clear if the leggings had been previously tested for DNA.

Boulder DA investigators considered the possibility that since the child was sexually assaulted, and was undressed and redressed, there was a possibility the perpetrator left skin cell samples. They believe that could have happened when he first pulled JonBenet's leggings down and then later back up. Investigators wanted to test to see whether DNA skin cells might be found in the waistband of the leggings.

The Bode Lab recovered DNA from the top portion of the leggings, on both the right and left legs, where the perpetrator would have put his hands to move the leggings. Those new DNA "touch" samples from the leggings match the DNA that was found in 1997 on the underwear of the child.

The new DNA "touch" testing technology from the Bode Lab tests for DNA in cells left behind from the act of touching a person's clothing.(Bode Lab) At the time of JonBenet's death, technology for DNA testing on the child's underwear used "swabs" from fluid obtained from skin and clothing to establish DNA identity.

The previous 1997 DNA "swab" testing of the child's underwear found DNA in two separate areas. DNA was found mixed with fluid from the little girl. The 1997, DNA contained enough information or DNA markers to be entered into the federal DNA database called CODIS.

The new "touch" DNA from JonBenet Ramsey has been compared with what exists in CODIS, but no match has been found.

CODIS includes strict guidelines for what can be entered into its system. There has to be a minimum of information or DNA markers before CODIS will accept the samples into its system. The original 1997 DNA passed CODIS requirements and is in the federal CODIS data base. It was entered into CODIS in 2002.

CODIS contains DNA from local, state and national databases of DNA profiles from convicted offenders, unsolved crime scene evidence and missing persons.

Mandatory DNA testing varies widely from state to state. In Colorado, legislation was introduced mandating any felon arrested of a crime to be tested for DNA, so it can be entered into the CODIS data base.(Mandatory DNA testing laws in Colorado)

Both the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and Denver Police were involved in the analysis of the new DNA.

Lacy's letter also stated:

"Solving this crime remains our goal, and its ultimate resolution will depend on more than just matching DNA. However, given the history of the publicity surrounding this case, I believe it is important and appropriate to provide you with our opinion that your family was not responsible for this crime."

"There is now one step left in finding the killer of the little girl." A source close to the investigation told 9NEWS. "And that's to match the DNA to the right person."

Repeat, "Both the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and Denver Police were involved in the analysis of the new DNA."

Don't forget about Bode being involved in the findings too.

Fools? Guess they should have checked with the Topix posters that know everything, like you and Charlie Chimp! LMAO

Judged:

11

10

7

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#20 Jan 21, 2011
tootlems wrote:
<quoted text>
New Evidence
The new DNA "touch" analysis tests were run on the leggings that went over the child's underwear.
Boulder DA investigators and Lacy made the decision late last year to have the leggings tested at the Bode Lab. It is not clear if the leggings had been previously tested for DNA.
Boulder DA investigators considered the possibility that since the child was sexually assaulted, and was undressed and redressed, there was a possibility the perpetrator left skin cell samples. They believe that could have happened when he first pulled JonBenet's leggings down and then later back up. Investigators wanted to test to see whether DNA skin cells might be found in the waistband of the leggings.
The Bode Lab recovered DNA from the top portion of the leggings, on both the right and left legs, where the perpetrator would have put his hands to move the leggings. Those new DNA "touch" samples from the leggings match the DNA that was found in 1997 on the underwear of the child.
The new DNA "touch" testing technology from the Bode Lab tests for DNA in cells left behind from the act of touching a person's clothing.(Bode Lab) At the time of JonBenet's death, technology for DNA testing on the child's underwear used "swabs" from fluid obtained from skin and clothing to establish DNA identity.
The previous 1997 DNA "swab" testing of the child's underwear found DNA in two separate areas. DNA was found mixed with fluid from the little girl. The 1997, DNA contained enough information or DNA markers to be entered into the federal DNA database called CODIS.
The new "touch" DNA from JonBenet Ramsey has been compared with what exists in CODIS, but no match has been found.
CODIS includes strict guidelines for what can be entered into its system. There has to be a minimum of information or DNA markers before CODIS will accept the samples into its system. The original 1997 DNA passed CODIS requirements and is in the federal CODIS data base. It was entered into CODIS in 2002.
CODIS contains DNA from local, state and national databases of DNA profiles from convicted offenders, unsolved crime scene evidence and missing persons.
Mandatory DNA testing varies widely from state to state. In Colorado, legislation was introduced mandating any felon arrested of a crime to be tested for DNA, so it can be entered into the CODIS data base.(Mandatory DNA testing laws in Colorado)
Both the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and Denver Police were involved in the analysis of the new DNA.
Lacy's letter also stated:
"Solving this crime remains our goal, and its ultimate resolution will depend on more than just matching DNA. However, given the history of the publicity surrounding this case, I believe it is important and appropriate to provide you with our opinion that your family was not responsible for this crime."
"There is now one step left in finding the killer of the little girl." A source close to the investigation told 9NEWS. "And that's to match the DNA to the right person."
Repeat, "Both the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and Denver Police were involved in the analysis of the new DNA."
Don't forget about Bode being involved in the findings too.
Fools? Guess they should have checked with the Topix posters that know everything, like you and Charlie Chimp! LMAO
All the DNA evidence proves is that it didn't belong to the Ramseys. It does NOT prove that they were not involved or have no knowledge of who was, so only a FOOL would believe the DNA can totally CLEAR them.
Even you should be able to understand that, Billy Bob. Or maybe not.
tootlems

Houston, TX

#21 Jan 21, 2011
thewhitewitchone wrote:
<quoted text>
All the DNA evidence proves is that it didn't belong to the Ramseys. It does NOT prove that they were not involved or have no knowledge of who was, so only a FOOL would believe the DNA can totally CLEAR them.
Even you should be able to understand that, Billy Bob. Or maybe not.
"The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful."

"It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide."

Concerted efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory to "identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation" does not sound like any of the agencies involved think the Ramseys were involved.

Only a fool like yourself would be willing to ignore the evidence and believe otherwise. Even you should be able to understand that, Chia Pet. Or maybe not!;)
Charlie Chan

Lihue, HI

#22 Jan 21, 2011
tootlems wrote:
<quoted text>
"The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful."
"It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide."
Concerted efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory to "identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation" does not sound like any of the agencies involved think the Ramseys were involved.
Only a fool like yourself would be willing to ignore the evidence and believe otherwise. Even you should be able to understand that, Chia Pet. Or maybe not!;)
Obviously, the DNA evidence is NOT very powerful, or they would display the official results of it. The DNA means nothing because they cannot match the source, nor can they prove an intruder or another unknown party. The DNA does NOT prove an intruder without a match, but if they could prove an intruder, it would prove the DNA without a match.
CC
tootlems

Houston, TX

#23 Jan 21, 2011
Charlie Chan wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, the DNA evidence is NOT very powerful, or they would display the official results of it.
You mean to say because authorities won't share it with you and a few other loons at Topix, it's not powerful evidence? LMAO
The DNA means nothing because they cannot match the source, nor can they prove an intruder or another unknown party. The DNA does NOT prove an intruder without a match, but if they could prove an intruder, it would prove the DNA without a match.
CC
Take your case to the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory. I think they would disagree with you. But then again, you being a copy machine repairman, may be you are more qualified to make that determination!LOL

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#24 Jan 21, 2011
tootlems wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean to say because authorities won't share it with you and a few other loons at Topix, it's not powerful evidence? LMAO
<quoted text>
Take your case to the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory. I think they would disagree with you. But then again, you being a copy machine repairman, may be you are more qualified to make that determination!LOL
Hey tootlems, why not speculate a bit and stick your neck out like most of us do and tell us in your OPINION, why you think the full report about the DNA is not being made available and only that particular part of it was released?

Then also offer your opinion and your view, IF the report was released and in ADDITION to that DNA that has been spoken of there was the DNA of Burke, or John or Patsy? Patsy's DNA might be explained away, but IF there is a fair amount of DNA from Burke as well as the unknown DNA and full samples, what would your opinion be?

What if DNA from other known people are there? What would your opinion, and only your opinion be?

Do you dare?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#25 Jan 21, 2011
tootlems wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean to say because authorities won't share it with you and a few other loons at Topix, it's not powerful evidence? LMAO
<quoted text>
Take your case to the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory. I think they would disagree with you. But then again, you being a copy machine repairman, may be you are more qualified to make that determination!LOL
I think what they aren't sharing is where the powerful evidence might lie.

Gee toots, wouldn't YOU like to see it too? I'm not saying they have to; I'm saying that whenever "partial" things of things are released, it makes people wonder what is in the stuff they aren't sharing. Omissions are often times way more powerful.

Aren't you curious?

Since: Jan 11

AOL

#26 Jan 21, 2011
RedWing7 wrote:
I don't know a lot about it but it sounds and I stress sounds like it's over-rated. From what I have heard it is possible that touch DNA found on the long johns could have come from a worker at the factory where the long johns were made. We keep hearing how touch DNA was found that matched no one. What I'd like to know is did they find touch DNA that matched anyone. JB should have had touch DNA from all kinds of people she came into contact with that day. Like I said, I am no expert on the subject and don't have a whole lot of confidence in the DNA that they gathered.
The reason the DNA is strong from what i understand, it that is matched the DNA profile that was found in blood in JB's underwear. They got DNA from a two places I believe, where they thought the offender whould have handled and compared it to the DNA in the underwear.

This is really complicated. Its the one of the few things that I have read about the case that does not point at the parents. Yet their lies and suspicious behavior cannot be discounted. I have to believe that one (the DNA of another person) does not exclude the parent's involvment. Could it be that the parents covered up for an unknown (as yet) person?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#27 Jan 21, 2011
tootlems wrote:
<quoted text>
"The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful."
"It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide."
Concerted efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory to "identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation" does not sound like any of the agencies involved think the Ramseys were involved.
Only a fool like yourself would be willing to ignore the evidence and believe otherwise. Even you should be able to understand that, Chia Pet. Or maybe not!;)
I guess I gave you too much credit. Perhaps you can explain how the DNA proves that the Ramseys were not involved and/or had no knowledge of what happened to JB.
I fully understand that the DNA came from an unknown person and that it doesn't match any of the Ramseys so you can stop sounding like a broken record.
Just tell me how it proves that the Ramseys are completely innocent and clueless. Thanks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
To be or knot to be 15 min Green Envelope 4
JonBenet's curled fingers ? 21 min Green Envelope 4
Public lynching (Sep '16) 28 min Green Envelope 74
The missing spider webs (Sep '16) 33 min Green Envelope 68
Another case where LE didn't believe the victim... (Jul '15) 36 min Green Envelope 18
Burke Ramsey REFUSED to be interviewed by inves... (Sep '10) 58 min Green Envelope 645
Ramsey grand jury indictment: ACCESSORY to Fir... (Jan '17) 1 hr Green Envelope 211
More from around the web