'Touch DNA' same that was used to free Masters

This is so important as the Touch DNA was in the same location, waistband, as in the JonBenet case.

Candy, I'm confused where you're heading with this. Could you elaborate? Thanks

The DNA in 2 places on the waistband of the underwear, and in the panties, are in the same locations as in the Masters case, and indicative of a sexual assault/murder.

so like when did they come up w/touch dna???

candy wrote:

The DNA in 2 places on the waistband of the underwear, and in the panties, are in the same locations as in the Masters case, and indicative of a sexual assault/murder.

Is the DNA on both sides of the waistband on the longjohn's? Any DNA on the waistband of the oversized underwear? Or was her oversized underpants scrunched under the longjohns and the waistband not pulled up?

And shouldn't there be touch DNA on the outside of the underpants too, because Patsy was mystified by the over sized panties on JB, the 'killer' must have put them on JB, right?

If skin cells shed so easily, wouldn't more be in her underpants? I would think in the struggle or motions of getting his hand down her pants, more cells would shed.

Yes Nelly, it is on both sides of the waistband of the longjohns, the same DNA profile as the DNA in the panties. She didn't submit the panties for touch DNA yet, to see if there is touch DNA on the waistband of the panties or other areas yet.

candy wrote:

Yes Nelly, it is on both sides of the waistband of the longjohns, the same DNA profile as the DNA in the panties. She didn't submit the panties for touch DNA yet, to see if there is touch DNA on the waistband of the panties or other areas yet.

Thank you Candy, it's nice to get educated in DNA without getting slapped for asking:D If the DNA is not on the waistband inside of undies, what will you make of that?

According to the procedure DEMONSTRATED on CNN by the very technician who did the testing on the long johns, she scraped AREAS of the long johns to collect a number of cells...how many, I have never heard said yet. Not many, though, or it wouldn't be "touch"/trace DNA, would it? She said she scraped the waistband AND the inside of the sides of the long johns.

No one has said, that I've seen or heard, if a complete DNA profile came out of this "touch" testing. I've asked. Repeatedly. Do you know, candy?

The FBI says that "touch" DNA can't be entered into CODIS, nor should it be used as exculpatory evidence, but mame says that's old info. She won't say what is current, of course. Too easy to share important info, I guess. I read this article a few days ago and don't remember any clarification on these issues, but maybe I missed it.

How long is Lacy going to wait to do this testing on other items, candy, if you know? She'll be leaving office soon....

I wouldn't make anything of it Nellie if it isn't found anywhere else. It might mean he used gloves everywhere else, or this whole thing still could mean nothing, there's an innocent explanation for it. There were only two locations in the Masters case touch DNA was found, on 2 different items of clothing, panties and shirt cuff, and that was enough to release Masters from prison. I think the Masters case has everything to do with why she felt she had to clear them now, along with the litigation threat before from Lin Wood and for sure, after, if they found out they had not been told about this find.

Wait, I need to clarify what I just stated: I heard ONE PERSON say there is now a complete DNA profile from this "touch" DNA, but she is one of those beauties on CNN hosting the "news", and it popped out of her after the Bode demonstration piece and she's the only one who said that--at least, if the technician said it, I missed it while trying to take notes. Beauty may be right, but she didn't back it up with any source or context that I caught, so I need some credible sources or confirmation of that before I will use it as fact.

The Touch DNA found was ENOUGH to be processed the normal way. It did not have a low copy number:

While the amount of DNA they found was much less than would appear in a stain, there was enough that it was processed in the routine way for analysis, Williamson said. In other cases, so-called "low copy number DNA" has to be processed in a different way.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/touch...

For the mothers and parents, if a child asked you to wipe them, wouldn't you let them pull back up their longjohns, or would you do it?

candy wrote:

I wouldn't make anything of it Nellie if it isn't found anywhere else. It might mean he used gloves everywhere else, or this whole thing still could mean nothing, there's an innocent explanation for it. There were only two locations in the Masters case touch DNA was found, on 2 different items of clothing, panties and shirt cuff, and that was enough to release Masters from prison. I think the Masters case has everything to do with why she felt she had to clear them now, along with the litigation threat before from Lin Wood and for sure, after, if they found out they had not been told about this find.

'I see, but I still say it's mighty strange that this fastideous perp went through that house and touched things with gloves, but for some reason needed his gloves off just to pull down her pants and insert a stick. I could see if he was molesting her that night, but there's no DNA inside her or on her private area. How could he be so vigilant that he wiped her down, yet left his DNA in her under things?

Do you believe it's possible the longjohns and underpants were previously worn and slipped on her post murder? I don't believe anyone said her longjohn's were wet when she was fished out of the cellar, just that they had urine stains. I think she may have worn them to Pasta Jay's or during the day on Christmas.

Question: Do you believe it's possible the longjohns and underpants were previously worn and slipped on her post murder? Yes I believe that could easily be. They are going on the theory she was redressed for reasons that aren't public information.

candy wrote:

For the mothers and parents, if a child asked you to wipe them, wouldn't you let them pull back up their longjohns, or would you do it?

First of all I don't think I would be wiping a 6 year old unless they was sick. I probably would have pulled them up

Six yrs is a long long time to scream I'm THROUGH,I am sure all mothers know what I am saying.

This is where it gets absurd. IF she was redressed, the perp goes back upstairs to her room,(where the panties drawer is open in her bathroom) to get some new panties, taking the risk Burke, on that floor, or the Ramseys, are going to wake up and find him? WHY would he do that? WHY put on new underwear at all, unless you're trying to cover up sexual assault, but perps don't care about trying to cover it up. They just dump the body. They don't carefully wrap it in a white blanket and put new underwear on the victim.

Just think of trying to pull your own pants down wearing gloves. It would be hard. I can see why someone would take them off to do that.

candy wrote:

Question: Do you believe it's possible the longjohns and underpants were previously worn and slipped on her post murder? Yes I believe that could easily be. They are going on the theory she was redressed for reasons that aren't public information.

was Granpa Paugh's DNA tested? Pasta Jay's?

Thanks SODS. That would make it more likely that it could be nothing then. JonBenet was a chronic bedwetter/soiler, and often asked ANY adults around to help wipe her after she went to the bathroom.

candy wrote:

Just think of trying to pull your own pants down wearing gloves. It would be hard. I can see why someone would take them off to do that.

but easier than writing a note in gloves, or tieing that knot to make the the garotte. Just grab the material with both mitts and pull, not that hard.