The only suspects known to be in the house

Thanks to the helpful hints from Eagle and Capricorn I am re-posting my missing post #460 with a link requested by TTH

My source - the screen capture of the 48 Hours program - October 2002.

This is the link with a space put between webbsleuths. and org as suggested by Capricorn

http://www.we bbsleuths. org/dcforum/DCForumID70/7.html

These results are from the CBI DNA test performed in January 1997. They were leaked to a journalist (not Michael Tracey) during the grand jury proceedings. Michael Tracey subsequently got hold of the documents and used them in his television program that was first screened in the UK when this screen capture was made by ?Jayelles,‘alert viewer in Scotland’.

This screen capture shows the DQAlpha plus polymarker and the DIS80 DNA test results for (in order from top to bottom)

PANTIES
FINGERNAILS RIGHT HAND
FINGERNAILS LEFT HAND

The results have been cut off at the left so you can’t actually see the DQAlpha results but you can see the polymarker and the D1S80 alleles that were identified by the test

Each polymarker locus has either 2 or 3 possilbe alleles, which are designated A B or C

There are many possible alleles for the D1S80 locus. The ones we see here are 24, 26 (belonging to JonBenet) and 18 (belonging to the possible intruder).

JonBenet’s profile for the polymarkers is shown in the top line for each result and is

BB AB BB AA AC

And for D1S80 is 24 26

The foreign DNA profile for the polymarkers is shown in the bottom line for each result. The most complete profile was obtained from the left hand DNA and is

Unknown unknown WB WB WB

And for D1S80 is W 18

Where there is a W it means that an allele cannot be determined because it is identical to one already present

And this is post #463 re-posted

If you google around at eg

http://www.scientific.org /tutorials/articles/riley/rile y.html

http://dnatestprocedure.bl ogspot. com.au/2010/09/polymarker-pm.h tml

http://biology.clc.uc.edu /fankhauser/labs/genetics/PCR/ D1S80_fulltext.pdf

You should be able to piece together the bits of information on offer

You will find for the DQAlpha + polymarker test there are 5 poly markers used LDLR GYPA HBGG D728 GC

You will find that for the D1S80 locus there are 22 common alleles and that these are designated by numbers (according to how many times the basic repeat length is repeated)

You will notice (if you did not know this already) that every individual has 2 alleles at every locus. The alleles at the polymarker loci are designated A B and C. Those of the D1S80 locus that are shown here are 24 26 and 18. W is for “not determined”

It looks like the screen capture is displaying the polymarker results on the left and the D1S80 result on the right. I think the DQAlpha results have been cut off at the left.

In the results shown in that screen what is showing up for the foreign DNA are the alleles that the unknown individual does NOT have in common with JonBenet. Any markers that unknown individual DOES have in common with JonBenet do not show up (because they are “masked” by whatever identical allele is already there in the sample, hence the Ws)

So what might appear to be incomplete results for the foreign DNA at the HBGG D728 GC loci (third, fourth and fifth markers from the left in the LEFT HAND sample) are due to the fact that the foreign DNA had some alleles in common with JonBenet’s DNA at those loci. This is because there are only 2 or 3 possible alleles at the polymarker loci so the chances of having the one of same alleles at any one locus are high.

I take back what I said about the DNA not being degraded though. I think it must have been partially degraded and for that reason nothing showed up at the LDLR GYPA loci for the foreign DNA in the left hand sample. It is nevertheless a strong result.

I maintain that the fingernail DNA:
Was not touch DNA or low copy number DNA ie it was not from dirt or dust or any form of secondary tansfer. Neither the DQAlpha test not the D1S80 test that both came out positive would have worked at all if it had been touch or LCN DNA because these tests require a lot of DNA to be present initially for them to be able to work. Touch or LCN DNA would simply not have deposited enough DNA for the tests to have worked.(Forget about PCR, that has its limitations)

Was not contaminated. The contaminated clippers story was wishful thinking on the part of BPD.

Was only partially degraded, it was sufficiently intact for 4 out of a possible 6 markers to be identified.

Was unlikely to have been more than 24 hours old. It was partially degraded by the bacteria present under her fingernails.

The fingernail DNA not an insignificant result and it should not be dismissed by anyone who is genuinely interested in looking at all the evidence. The fact that Boulder Police dismissed this evidence shows they were not looking at ALL the evidence, some of which, as this DNA evidence is, exculpatory to the Ramseys. BPD just looked at (and leaked!!) evidence that implicated the Ramseys and ignored or dismissed evidence exculpatory to the Ramseys. They also hid this fingernail DNA evidence from the DA for 3 months!!!

These were the lengths BPD was prepared to go to in their efforts to prove the Ramseys guilty. And here we are 15 year down the track and you guys are still falling for the misinformation they put out. Unbelieveable.

excellent post #532

robert wrote:

excellent post #532

Thanks Robert. So far it’s got 4 nuts, 3 spams and 3 clueless so I guess it must be really good. No?

Oh and I see you only have 1 each of those. Sad

Thank you, great post! Very informative. CC, share with your daughter, please. I'd like to know what she concludes from this, if possible...

aussiesheila wrote:

And this is post #463 re-posted
If you google around at eg
http://www.scientific.org /tutorials/articles/riley/rile y.html
http://dnatestprocedure.bl ogspot. com.au/2010/09/polymarker-pm.h tml
http://biology.clc.uc.edu /fankhauser/labs/genetics/PCR/ D1S80_fulltext.pdf
You should be able to piece together the bits of information on offer
You will find for the DQAlpha + polymarker test there are 5 poly markers used LDLR GYPA HBGG D728 GC
You will find that for the D1S80 locus there are 22 common alleles and that these are designated by numbers (according to how many times the basic repeat length is repeated)
You will notice (if you did not know this already) that every individual has 2 alleles at every locus. The alleles at the polymarker loci are designated A B and C. Those of the D1S80 locus that are shown here are 24 26 and 18. W is for “not determined”
It looks like the screen capture is displaying the polymarker results on the left and the D1S80 result on the right. I think the DQAlpha results have been cut off at the left.
In the results shown in that screen what is showing up for the foreign DNA are the alleles that the unknown individual does NOT have in common with JonBenet. Any markers that unknown individual DOES have in common with JonBenet do not show up (because they are “masked” by whatever identical allele is already there in the sample, hence the Ws)
So what might appear to be incomplete results for the foreign DNA at the HBGG D728 GC loci (third, fourth and fifth markers from the left in the LEFT HAND sample) are due to the fact that the foreign DNA had some alleles in common with JonBenet’s DNA at those loci. This is because there are only 2 or 3 possible alleles at the polymarker loci so the chances of having the one of same alleles at any one locus are high.
I take back what I said about the DNA not being degraded though. I think it must have been partially degraded and for that reason nothing showed up at the LDLR GYPA loci for the foreign DNA in the left hand sample. It is nevertheless a strong result.
I maintain that the fingernail DNA:
Was not touch DNA or low copy number DNA ie it was not from dirt or dust or any form of secondary tansfer. Neither the DQAlpha test not the D1S80 test that both came out positive would have worked at all if it had been touch or LCN DNA because these tests require a lot of DNA to be present initially for them to be able to work. Touch or LCN DNA would simply not have deposited enough DNA for the tests to have worked.(Forget about PCR, that has its limitations)
Was not contaminated. The contaminated clippers story was wishful thinking on the part of BPD.
Was only partially degraded, it was sufficiently intact for 4 out of a possible 6 markers to be identified.
Was unlikely to have been more than 24 hours old. It was partially degraded by the bacteria present under her fingernails.
The fingernail DNA not an insignificant result and it should not be dismissed by anyone who is genuinely interested in looking at all the evidence. The fact that Boulder Police dismissed this evidence shows they were not looking at ALL the evidence, some of which, as this DNA evidence is, exculpatory to the Ramseys. BPD just looked at (and leaked!!) evidence that implicated the Ramseys and ignored or dismissed evidence exculpatory to the Ramseys. They also hid this fingernail DNA evidence from the DA for 3 months!!!
These were the lengths BPD was prepared to go to in their efforts to prove the Ramseys guilty. And here we are 15 year down the track and you guys are still falling for the misinformation they put out. Unbelieveable.

Mama2JML wrote:

Thank you, great post! Very informative. CC, share with your daughter, please. I'd like to know what she concludes from this, if possible...<quoted text>

Hi Mama2,
My daughter just became a mother for the first time 10 months ago, so that, plus her work keeps her very busy. I don't talk with her often, but my wife does every week, and if she has enough time for me, then I can ask her some questions and get answers, but then, I am not sure if she likes to "talk shop work" all that much.

I will be going to her house in the end of March, for my grandson's first birthday, and then it will be easier to talk with her if I can remember to ask those questions. BTW, she is not into the JB case at all, but when I asked her about Touch DNA, she read about it, and swabbed the steering wheel of her car several times without getting her own profile. Perhaps the steering wheel is too smooth and not much pressure is needed to drive that car, which is one of those smaller Lexus.

I will be spending only 3 days at her home, because my Dad, while he was alive, once told me "House guests are like fish in the reftigerator. After 3 days, they start to smell." I don't want to be a guest in her home for more than 3 days. I will probably go to Las Vegas after those 3 days, or maybe even before.

Because there will be so much activity, I may forget to ask those questions.
CC

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>Hi Mama2,
My daughter just became a mother for the first time 10 months ago, so that, plus her work keeps her very busy. I don't talk with her often, but my wife does every week, and if she has enough time for me, then I can ask her some questions and get answers, but then, I am not sure if she likes to "talk shop work" all that much.

I will be going to her house in the end of March, for my grandson's first birthday, and then it will be easier to talk with her if I can remember to ask those questions. BTW, she is not into the JB case at all, but when I asked her about Touch DNA, she read about it, and swabbed the steering wheel of her car several times without getting her own profile. Perhaps the steering wheel is too smooth and not much pressure is needed to drive that car, which is one of those smaller Lexus.

I will be spending only 3 days at her home, because my Dad, while he was alive, once told me "House guests are like fish in the reftigerator. After 3 days, they start to smell." I don't want to be a guest in her home for more than 3 days. I will probably go to Las Vegas after those 3 days, or maybe even before.

Because there will be so much activity, I may forget to ask those questions.
CC

Congratulations on your grandbaby! I understand. Interesting info about the TDNA...

aussiesheila wrote:

<quoted text>Thanks Robert. So far it’s got 4 nuts, 3 spams and 3 clueless so I guess it must be really good. No?
Oh and I see you only have 1 each of those. Sad

--From what i read in your post it appears you know your stuff--you can fool me as i am no expert on DNA, I can follow some of the posts on DNA and it seems that some have it wrong or other wise there would be no one refuteing it- your post just seam to leap out and say I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT-- Hears what DNA means to me-- Jane Doe has forign DNA on her of John Doe, This Forign DNA has been heated to 1000 degress C- frozen ,lost on the way to the lab, ran over by a truck, picked up by a slabbering dog and droped off at the lab by coencesatance-- A sample of John Doe's DNA is obtained-- The forign DNA points to John Doe-- What is this bussiness of Contaminated DNA?

Mama2JML wrote:

Thank you, great post! Very informative. CC, share with your daughter, please. I'd like to know what she concludes from this, if possible...<quoted text>

Hi Mama2,
I did ask my daughter about degrading of DNA under a victim's fingernails, and she told me DNA from under fingernails off a DEAD person lasts a very long time, like months, and perhaps years, but off a living person it may not depending on whether or not that person washes his/her hands with soap often.

Now, in the JB case, I believe the fingernail DNA had to be degraded, because they could not get a full profile from it. IF it was degraded, it could not have come from the night of the murder.

I think IF they got the Touch DNA as claimed, they got a full profile with all 15 markers, but we don't have any official information on that. Now, to say that the Touch DNA, with all of the markers IF 15, matched that of the incomplete profiles, would be basically an inaccurate statement, because you cannot make a definite comparison between a full profile and a partial profile, with the knowledge that if even ONE marker does not match,the 15, the target is eliminated as a possible contributor. My daughter also told me that in the FEDERAL CODIS, the minimum amount of markers they require is 10, from nDNA,(They do NOT use mtDNA in CODIS) but some states allow in their STATE CODIS as few as 6 markers.

Anyway, I tried getting the sites that Aussie posted, and I could only get the first one.

Thanks Aussie and Mama2, I will try to get the answers, but no promises.
CC

robert wrote:

<quoted text>--From what i read in your post it appears you know your stuff--you can fool me as i am no expert on DNA, I can follow some of the posts on DNA and it seems that some have it wrong or other wise there would be no one refuteing it- your post just seam to leap out and say I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT-- Hears what DNA means to me-- Jane Doe has forign DNA on her of John Doe, This Forign DNA has been heated to 1000 degress C- frozen ,lost on the way to the lab, ran over by a truck, picked up by a slabbering dog and droped off at the lab by coencesatance-- A sample of John Doe's DNA is obtained-- The forign DNA points to John Doe-- What is this bussiness of Contaminated DNA?

There is talk that the coroner used non-sterile clippers when he cut JonBenet's fingernails before sending them off to be DNA tested. Which I think is absolute crap becasue labs and operating rooms are just not set up that way with used implements lying around ready to be re-used. You've seen TV shows of operating rooms and the implements are all brought out on pre-sterilised trays. As if a a coroner's operating room is going to be any different.

The contaminated clippers talk all emanates from those who want to dismiss the DNA evidence because it points to an intruder. It has no basis in fact IMO. It was started by Steve Thomas who told everyone and just about everyone was dumb enough to believe him

For some reason I cannot fathom, another board is talking about wishing the Ramsey CRIME SCENE house (as opposed to their other houses) was bulldozed. It is of great important to Justice for JonBenet Ramsey for the CRIME SCENE/HOUSE not to be bulldozed. Having it remodeled where the crucial area of the wine cellar was covered up is bad enough. Luckily, there exists videotape (which I'm going to post a link to) of the house BEFORE remodeling, the way it was at the time of the crime. A JURY NEEDS TO SEE AND TOUR THIS HOUSE. A jury SHOULD have been taken to where Caylee's body was in proximity to their house, and never was, and it was a huge mistake.

Anyone who has ever been there will tell you the importance of seeing the house. At Cybersleuths, Skydog, Bob C and Masker all went to the house, took lots of photos and had great posts about what they saw. FOR EXAMPLE, that grate where Lou theorized the intruder entered and exited the house IS ONLY 20 FEET FROM THE NEXT HOUSE, who residents were watching the Cybersleuths posters the entire time they were at the grate.

All 3 posters agreed a much more LIKELY and EASY point of entry was to enter at the second floor balcony, RIGHT OUTSIDE OF JONBENET'S ROOM. It's a very quick and easy climb they found. All of these crucial observations could not have been made by viewing crime scene photos and video alone. You need to be at the scene to make these discoveries.

Inside access of course, is crucial as well, in order to physically SEE the route the intruder theorists say an intruder took go get from JonBenet's bedroom, to the wine cellar, where her dead body was found. In the video of this route, you can CLEARLY see, the intruder would pass by A DOOR TO THE OUTSIDE. Why would any intruder not LEAVE IMMEDIATELY, like they all do, but risk EXPOSURE by staying in the house WITH THREE OTHER PEOPLE IN IT, with the victim? Lou had to come up with the absurd theory that the intruder thought the door was wired FROM THE INSIDE and didn't risk leaving that way. YEAH, RIGHT.

Then, there is the ability to SEE THE PROXIMITY between JonBenet's bedroom, and Burke's bedroom, just down the hall, where Burke said he heard NOTHING, the proximity between where the pad of paper used to write the ransom note and practice note was found, the doors that open the wrong way out, the maze of the house, on and on...

[in order to physically SEE the route the intruder theorists say an intruder took go get from JonBenet's bedroom, to the wine cellar, where her dead body was found. In the video of this route, you can CLEARLY see, the intruder would pass by A DOOR TO THE OUTSIDE. Why would any intruder not LEAVE IMMEDIATELY, like they all do, but risk EXPOSURE by staying in the house WITH THREE OTHER PEOPLE IN IT, with the victim?]

Why call the police to your house, the scene of the crime, if you wanted to avoid detection?

The path the intruder took according to intruder theorists did not involve the second floor.

The intruder obviously knew how well the Ramseys slept and the alarm was shut off, they didn't have a bat or mace under their bed. They were quite comfortable in the house and knew it as well or better than the ramseys.

Like the unopened package of enormous panties in the drawer for underwear, even Patsy couldn't remember it that clearly.

The process of elimination

[Dr. Thomas Gill’s forensic pathology career already was scarred by numerous autopsy mistakes before he started ruling on causes of death for the Solano County sheriff-coroner in 2007. Gill examined 332 deaths for the county in three years. Following a series of news stories last year detailing Gill’s history of inaccurate autopsy findings, Solano County Sheriff Gary Stanton ordered an outside review of 32 of the cases. The results were alarming: A respected forensic pathologist determined Gill’s conclusions on eight of the deaths were “unreasonable” and more than half had “critical errors.”]

JonBenet's coroner didn't even determine her body temperature when he arrived 7 hours after a murder was reported.

Unclean clippers? What else did he screw up? This was not a top-notch forensic pathologist performing the autopsy. Usually they can get away with mistakes because no one cares, at least not hundreds of millions of people.

Charlie Chan wrote:

It is a given fact that the Ramseys were in the home at the time of the crime. There is nothing that definitively supports an intruder, even if he had a key.
To justify an intruder, you need evidence, a motive, and a method, and the IDI only have speculation, with no hard evidence at all supporting an intruder.

I don't see any merit in this post. Means = method= garrote.
Intruder= opportunity.

If you remember the book "In Cold Blood"
Rick Hickock's Moto was-no witness. But there was a witness, but not at the scene. The witness who told Hickock about the Clutters and Herbs $$$$ as well as the layout of his home was found in prison. Better know as an informer. Refute it.

There seems to only be the BPD's word that there were no foot prints outside of the R's home.

It is only there testimony. Until the defense refutes it.

That would be with the "Witness" John Fernies testimony.

It is his word agains theirs. He was there and left his tracks in the snow that the police ignored.
A Fact.

Refute it.