Charlie Brennan/ Kevin Vaughan story
The lab that performed the DNA testing, for example, told Lacy in March 2008 that it was "likely" the two samples found on From the story: "JonBenet's long johns came from "more than two people" and "should not be considered a single-source profile," according to the documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS.
But in exonerating the Ramseys with a three-page letter made public July 9, 2008, Lacy failed to disclose any of that, writing that "the previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns."
The word "match" actually never appears in the reports from Bode Technology, which conducted the testing in March through June of 2008."

My comment - - Again, trying to use the lesser evidence to validate the gold standard was stupid. Had I been consulted, I would have advised her to handle that differently, but I wasn't. So I would say she made a mistake in her presentation.

But that does not discredit the profile from the panties.

And it is interesting that there are indications the person touched the waistband of the long johns.
Donald R. Von Hagen, a spokesman for Virginia-based Bode Cellmark Forensics, as the lab is now known, said in an email that the company's report "stands on its own" and that he would not have further comment.

My comment - - I have the reports and agree with him. The reports tell a story, no one should try to spin it. Just look at the reports and follow where the evidence takes you in order to solve this crime.
They wrote, "Boulder police investigators continue to use the problematic DNA profile known as Unknown Male 1 to clear others who might potentially have been involved in the killing. A case investigator said dozens of suspects have been cleared that way.

Boulder police Chief Greg Testa declined this week to comment on the DNA evidence. But in a video statement released to all media on Sept. 1, Testa said detectives in the department had submitted more than 200 DNA samples in the case for analysis."

My question - - - no, my statement.

I don't think it is fair or right to describe the profile from the panties as "problematic".  THAT profile is not.  The profile from the Long Johns may be, not the one from the panties.

I think the BPD has evidence to solve this, knows they have it, have correctly been using it - - and THAT is why I set up the GoFundme page to help pay for the DNA of good suspects to be tested and compared to GSLDPD99178617.

(Testa won't respond to my questions, citing this as an open investigation.  I wish I believed they were really actively working on this. But I am glad to know from other sources that this investigation IS moving, slowly but surely.)

and there is something else in the works that makes me hope that will speed up a bit.
The story correctly says the DNA was not immediately found to be strong enough to enter into CODIS - - but does not say it was strong enough for LE on the state level to use it to clear people.

Think of a DNA profile like a name - - Christina Louisa - and pretend she had a necklace made with each letter on a separate bead. She breaks the necklace and the beads scatter. You don't find them all but you ave C i s t n r u and a. Now you have an office building and you have a bunch of people who might own the beads, might want them back. The beads could belong to Christina Louisa, or Stan Curtin, or Astrid Cunfield. But you wouldn't bother asking John Ramsey or Patricia Smith or James Taylor if they lost the beads.

So even knowing it didn't have the full 13 loci profile, this was used back in January of 1997 to clear people.

BUT TODAY - - I can tell you that the profile GSLDPD99178617 is a full profile with 13 loci, most of those loci containing 2 allieles.

It is good evidence and I am having a difficult time understanding why this story is not stating that as the truth - because it is.
tHEY wrote - "Against that backdrop, an investigator in Lacy's office submitted JonBenet's panties, long johns, nightgown and other items for further testing at Bode's lab in Lorton, Va., in late 2007 and early 2008."

I see that - - and wonder - - since she was not wearing the nightgown, why was that tested and not the white sweater she was wearing when she was murdered?

Or was it tested and the report withheld from the package of information I got.
This is where I have a problem.

They wrote, "Based on the results," according to the report, "it is likely more than two people contributed to the mixtures observed in 2S07-101-05A and 2S07-101-05B therefore, the remaining DNA contribution should not be considered a single source profile."

OK, 2S07-101-05A and 2S07-101-05B are the points on the long johns where the DNA found was from JonBenet and MORE than one other source. That was touch DNA - - very unlike the DNA found in her panties.

How in HELL does evidence found on the pair of long johns discount evidence found on the panties?

I bet her socks were up in the bedroom and didn't have any DNA matching the long johns OR the panties. So let's toss out the fiber evidence found in her hands.

Makes the same amount of BORG sense to me.
They wrote -
"My own personal review of the material and looking at the allele information at the various loci is that it looks and appears to me to be at least three individuals," McKee said. McKee also teaches an advanced course on Forensic Science in the Courts at the CU Law School, teaches on the subject around the country and has been recognized by courts and nationally as an expert on the topic.
Danielson also said, "There are too many alleles to be accounted for by only JonBenet and this alleged Unknown Male No. 1 profile."
An allele is a specific genetic marker.

My comment - - well, we all KNOW that. The evidence on the Long Johns has the DNA from JonBenet and more than one other individual.

We accept that.

But the DNA evidence in the panties is NOT the same. THAT is DNA from JonBenet and ONE individual.
This is a LONG article and I sadly think too many people read the headline, got the gist of what the reporters were trying to say and didn't pay attention. It just takes common sense - - read slowly and look at what this is saying.

The evidence on the long johns is iffy.

But they are not REALLY saying the evidence in the panties is. They just suggest that strongly.

I am telling you the reports I have here say otherwise. THAT is why I set up the GoFundMe page to see the good DNA used to solve this. And I am sorry this biased story may have made people think I am on a fool's errand.

I know I am not.
Bode's analysts concluded that Unknown Male 1 "could not be excluded as a possible contributor to the mixture DNA profile" obtained from the outside of the long johns on the right side, according to a June 20, 2008, report obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS. On the left side, the Unknown Male 1 profile "cannot be included or excluded from the mixture DNA profile."

In other words, the link between the two spots on the long johns and the DNA in the underwear is tenuous at best, according to analysts at the lab Lacy used for the testing.

THAT IS TRUE! But it does not discredit the panty profile a bit.
Some gobbledegook:

"Thompson said his analysis found "a strong level of consistency" between the two long johns samples and the Unknown Male 1 profile.
"But," he said, "there are also some genetic characteristics that could not be accounted for by either JonBenet Ramsey or Unknown Male 1, thus suggesting there could be DNA from other people."
Danielson and another expert consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS offered similar opinions.
"To simply state that there's no innocent way that this DNA could have arrived at separate sites on JonBenet's underwear ... there's simply no scientific justification to make such a statement," Danielson said. "It's just simply not true."
Danielson offered a hypothetical: Say JonBenet had physical contact with other kids she was recently playing with, or had contact at a party on Christmas night, or say she touched anything bearing others' DNA; she could have then transferred that genetic material to her own clothes simply while getting dressed."

Yep, it looks like whoever left his DNA mixed with her blood in her panties could have touched the sides of her long johns - - and that his dna could have been left right next to the DNA of the person who folded the laundry or carried the laundry up the stairs or (if the long john's weren't fresh from the laundry) anyone who just happened by and moved the long johns from point a to b.

But this is twisting things. The long john evidence may be innocent - - but a single source profile found mixed with the blood in her panties from the sexual assault. THAT is not an innocent bit of evidence.
I have to go now to start work on Easter dinner. I may or may not get back to this but think I have made it clear that I think the headlines don't begin to tell the story here.

Hopefully the truth will be exposed and this mystery solved.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)