Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

Remove this Banner Ad

ms finch said:
I am not sure why you refer to the "Unknown Male 1" profile as "bogus". It's a DNA profile that experts believe is a full profile for identification purposes.

The issue with your saying there is a partial match to Burke is this: This isn't the acquisition of a full profile which is then checked against Burke; it is checking to see how much of the sample matched Burke. There are enough similarities in all of our DNA that if you take a random sample from anyone and compare it to my DNA you will find there are a few matches. Because Burke and JonBenet were siblings there will automatically be a significant amount of the profile that matches simply by virtue of their close relationship. This is why full profile matches are what is important and partial profile matches are not matches at all.
Click to expand...
So the official dna report is wrong then ? I don’t need an explanation on how dna works I have read the official report and what it contains.

This is from the offical dna report, a qualified expert.

I rule out unknown male 1 as the sample is to be considered NOT from one source as stated in the official DNA report.
Unknown male 1 will never match anyone.
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
So the official dna report is wrong then ? I don’t need an explanation on how dna works I have read the official report and what it contains.

This is from the offical dna report, a qualified expert.

I rule out unknown male 1 as the sample is to be considered NOT from one source as stated in the official DNA report.
Unknown male 1 will never match anyone.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to D96-4153? I don't know much about DNA or alleles, so I can't see where it says Male 1 DNA is not considered to be from one source. It doesn't refer to "Male 1" as far as I can see. It does say that the Ramseys can be excluded from the blood stains on her underwear and material under her fingernails. What am I missing?

It's notable, IMO, that John is pushing hard for samples to be retested. You'd think he's pretty confident that his family won't be indicted.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sweeetleftfoot said:
I am quoting the official dna report on this case, something I know you haven’t read. Great to see your arguing with a qualified knob.

The fact is Burke can’t be ruled in or out.
A fact that is stated in the official DNA report. And you still refuse to acknowledge because you think you know better.
Click to expand...
No, you are quoting a journalist's interpretation of an official DNA report. He is far from an expert.

The police used that report to clear Burke and the Ramsey parents. They know better than you.

Any random DNA sample has to contain a match to 13 out of 13 alleles for it to be relevant. That one matched 10. Another set of 13 loci might match 2. Once you have any sample that is not a 100% match to Burke's profile, it rules him out.

You need to get that sweet left foot out of your mouth.
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
The American codis database , its nationwide.
Click to expand...
Yes I am aware of that, it is used internationally as well, but is not what I asked about.

CODIS has 3 separate databases, you can exclude the missing persons database seen as it wasn't a missing person case for that long. That leaves either the convicted persons database or the forensics database.

If it was in the convicted persons database then a match would only show from those convicted of crimes.
If it was the forensics database (unknown persons) then a hit would only occur if a lab somewhere tests DNA from another crime scene that matches.

Hence the push for a Familial DNA search...
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
So the official dna report is wrong then ? I don’t need an explanation on how dna works I have read the official report and what it contains.

This is from the offical dna report, a qualified expert.

I rule out unknown male 1 as the sample is to be considered NOT from one source as stated in the official DNA report.
Unknown male 1 will never match anyone.
Click to expand...
What you have posted there is not the only DNA report. There are multiple DNA reports because DNA testing was attempted on many occasions over the several decades on many different items. What you have posted there is a mash up of multiple reports, and includes information from two different series of testing, which you have conflated.

Unknown Male 1 was identified in 2003 testing at the Denver Crime Lab. It is a proper identification of an individual from a single source.

Subsequently, further testing was done on 3 cutouts of the underwear in 2008 by Bode Technology in Virginia. The notes you provide with the highlighted part come from the report in 2008, so they do not refer to the testing that identified Unknown Male 1 in 2003.

The CODIS mix profile is another sample again. The reason for this is that there is such minimal DNA in the various samples that often after testing they have exhausted the availability, so once they had sequenced UM1 they did not have a remaining sample. The full UM1 profile was checked in CODIS using a keyboard search. The mix profile, however, was uploaded. Two different samples. If they get a match using the latter sample they can manually check it directly against the specific profile UM1.

The table you provide compares the UM1 sample, which is one lot of sequencing from one lot of DNA collected, with the mix profile, which is another lot of sequencing from another lot of DNA collected. It demonstrates that UM1 is not excluded from the mix profile.
 
ms finch said:
What you have posted there is not the only DNA report. There are multiple DNA reports because DNA testing was attempted on many occasions over the several decades on many different items. What you have posted there is a mash up of multiple reports, and includes information from two different series of testing, which you have conflated.

Unknown Male 1 was identified in 2003 testing at the Denver Crime Lab. It is a proper identification of an individual from a single source.

Subsequently, further testing was done on 3 cutouts of the underwear in 2008 by Bode Technology in Virginia. The notes you provide with the highlighted part come from the report in 2008, so they do not refer to the testing that identified Unknown Male 1 in 2003.

The CODIS mix profile is another sample again. The reason for this is that there is such minimal DNA in the various samples that often after testing they have exhausted the availability, so once they had sequenced UM1 they did not have a remaining sample. The full UM1 profile was checked in CODIS using a keyboard search. The mix profile, however, was uploaded. Two different samples. If they get a match using the latter sample they can manually check it directly against the specific profile UM1.

The table you provide compares the UM1 sample, which is one lot of sequencing from one lot of DNA collected, with the mix profile, which is another lot of sequencing from another lot of DNA collected. It demonstrates that UM1 is not excluded from the mix profile.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the interpretation and explanation - great info.
 
BonzaRam said:
Yes I am aware of that, it is used internationally as well, but is not what I asked about.

CODIS has 3 separate databases, you can exclude the missing persons database seen as it wasn't a missing person case for that long. That leaves either the convicted persons database or the forensics database.

If it was in the convicted persons database then a match would only show from those convicted of crimes.
If it was the forensics database (unknown persons) then a hit would only occur if a lab somewhere tests DNA from another crime scene that matches.

Hence the push for a Familial DNA search...
Click to expand...
There is a problem with a familial DNA search, apparently. From what I have read the sequencing being an STR sequence rather than an SNP sequence means it is difficult to utilise the genealogy comparisons. Further, they don't have enough of the sample to do the necessary, more detailed, sequencing of the individual profile, and the mix profile where they do have the sample isn't going to work in a genealogy comparison. Hopefully they can either find more DNA (because only cut outs of the underwear have been tested so there are potentially more options) or the technology improves so that they can do the required analysis. Or UM1 just appears in a database at some point.
 
jason_recliner said:
Are you referring to D96-4153? I don't know much about DNA or alleles, so I can't see where it says Male 1 DNA is not considered to be from one source. It doesn't refer to "Male 1" as far as I can see. It does say that the Ramseys can be excluded from the blood stains on her underwear and material under her fingernails. What am I missing?

It's notable, IMO, that John is pushing hard for samples to be retested. You'd think he's pretty confident that his family won't be indicted.
Click to expand...
They already have been indicted!
 
BonzaRam said:
Yes I am aware of that, it is used internationally as well, but is not what I asked about.

CODIS has 3 separate databases, you can exclude the missing persons database seen as it wasn't a missing person case for that long. That leaves either the convicted persons database or the forensics database.

If it was in the convicted persons database then a match would only show from those convicted of crimes.
If it was the forensics database (unknown persons) then a hit would only occur if a lab somewhere tests DNA from another crime scene that matches.

Hence the push for a Familial DNA search...
Click to expand...
If you got a hit from the unknown persons database, then presumably that would indicate there are likely more than one crime committed by that unknown person?

Is matching DNA on the convicted persons data base going to give a hit to the unknown persons data base (and vice versa), or is it two separate files that don't compare results automatically?

It was said a long time ago that the input of the DNA to the data bases had a backlog that would take years to clear. Apparently they don't have the staff to actually process the data.
 
Lady O said:
If you got a hit from the unknown persons database, then presumably that would indicate there are likely more than one crime committed by that unknown person?
Click to expand...
I would say this depends on the circumstances. People's DNA can be found at crime scenes and they can have had nothing to do with the crime. Until a person is subsequently identified and investigated there is no way of knowing for certain. Some are more likely than others, of course. If the DNA comes from semen in a SA assault case then it's more likely the person is a perpetrator than if it comes from a hair sample found somewhere else in the room.

As far as I know they haven't been able to identify the source of UM1's DNA, although I believe they have ruled out semen. If it comes from skin cells then it might ultimately not lead them anywhere even if they do get a match.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Earls Smother said:
No, you are quoting a journalist's interpretation of an official DNA report. He is far from an expert.

The police used that report to clear Burke and the Ramsey parents. They know better than you.

Any random DNA sample has to contain a match to 13 out of 13 alleles for it to be relevant. That one matched 10. Another set of 13 loci might match 2. Once you have any sample that is not a 100% match to Burke's profile, it rules him out.

You need to get that sweet left foot out of your mouth.
Click to expand...
IMG_2378.jpeg IMG_2377.jpeg IMG_2376.jpeg
IMG_2375.jpeg
 
Sweeetleftfoot said:
View attachment 2189623View attachment 2189624View attachment 2189625
View attachment 2189626
Click to expand...
That is the Bode Technology report from 2008.

The table you included in your prior post that showed the UM1 information and the CODIS sequence information that this poster was responding to was NOT from this report. This analysis did not do separate testing of the sample that provided UM1, but tested other items, as detailed.

UM1 is a stand alone identification from 2003.
 
Earls Smother said:
No, you are quoting a journalist's interpretation of an official DNA report. He is far from an expert.

The police used that report to clear Burke and the Ramsey parents. They know better than you.

Any random DNA sample has to contain a match to 13 out of 13 alleles for it to be relevant. That one matched 10. Another set of 13 loci might match 2. Once you have any sample that is not a 100% match to Burke's profile, it rules him out.

You need to get that sweet left foot out of your mouth.
Click to expand...
They clearly know better than you considering it wasn’t the police that cleared the Ramsays it was Mary lacy the DA.

Which by the way is not legally binding and was done as a good will.
 
I've followed this case since it's beginning with fairly extensive research. l'm confused about the DNA on JB's underwear and current discussions here. As l understood it, the undies she was wearing on discovery weren't her own. They were 2 sizes too big for her and brand new. They were found to have come from a pack of 4, the rest of which were found in the Ramsay's basement. According to Patsy, the pack was going to be a Christmas present for one of her friends' kids.

If this is true, unknown male dna is obviously feasible due to factory handling and folding. Any other dna must have been transferred from JB's long johns, or how would it be there? Sorry if this has been previously discussed.

On SM-A356E using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
jason_recliner said:
If I'm reading this correctly, it's twice as likely the perpetrator was a black than a caucasian?

(very possible I'm not reading this correctly)
Click to expand...
I thought it was said that the DNA was identified as Hispanic?

From the Denver Post 2016 https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/10/cold-case-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-case/


"DNA testing​


For example, A & E’s two-hour documentary that appeared on Monday disclosed that new DNA testing that can identify a person’s racial background reveals that the killer is most likely of Hispanic heritage. Such evidence excludes the Ramsey family and could help detectives hone their investigation to only Hispanic suspects."
 
DropBearess said:
I've followed this case since it's beginning with fairly extensive research. l'm confused about the DNA on JB's underwear and current discussions here. As l understood it, the undies she was wearing on discovery weren't her own. They were 2 sizes too big for her and brand new. They were found to have come from a pack of 4, the rest of which were found in the Ramsay's basement. According to Patsy, the pack was going to be a Christmas present for one of her friends' kids.

If this is true, unknown male dna is obviously feasible due to factory handling and folding. Any other dna must have been transferred from JB's long johns, or how would it be there? Sorry if this has been previously discussed.

On SM-A356E using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
The consensus on here is because Burke only matches 10 of 13 for a dna match he is to be excluded, but this is not the case.

People think of the dna like an episode of csi and expect a perfect match every time and a full profile. In this case we’re dealing with a transfer/ touch dna which is why it yields only a partial sample therefore that’s the reason why Burke can’t be included but also can’t be excluded.

Assuming Jon benet own dna is on the long Jon’s the rest of the dna is from a mixture and therefore can’t be ruled as a single source profile.
 
Last edited:
Sweeetleftfoot said:
From what I remember there was writing embedded under the pages also the start of another random note on the bin.
The original note addressed patsy and John. Second one just John.

Who knows in regards to the sharpie, huge coincidence an intruder brings a sharpie the exact kind the Ramsays owned.
Click to expand...
Yes a note was found in the bin, it was to Mr. & Mrs.
Pages 73-74 of Steve Thomas' book says this:

"But the next group of pages, 17 through 25, were also missing from the tablet. The following page, 26, was the practice ransom note (Mr. and Mrs. I), and that page showed evidence of ink bleedthrough from the missing page 25."
Click to expand...
"Comparisons of the ragged tops of the ransom note pages with the remnants left in the tablet proved that it had come from pages 27, 28, and 29."
Click to expand...
"Furthermore, the ink bleedthrough discovered on page 26 indicated that perhaps still another practice note could have been writtenon page 25 and been discarded. Two possible practice notes and one real one covering three pages led me to believe that the killer had spend more time in the house composing the ransom note than we originally thought."
Click to expand...

The perpetrator(s) would have to feel very comfortable spending a significant amount of time in the house writting the note(s).
I have a theory that the author wrote the notes previously inside the house but the ransom note was written elsewhere like the perps home (more comfortable), after failed attempts in the Ramseys residence due to nerves & unclear thoughts as to what to write. Could they have stole some of Patsy’s hand writing & had been able to study & practice copying it over time? Did they learn of her linguistics so as to use certain phrases to cast suspicion?

The missing pages, 20 deep & not enough that Patsy would notice them missing?
The use of a sharpie is clever as to not leave pressure imprint but only some bleed through. Basically untraceable.
 
If you were from a 'foreign faction' or simply had it in for John and had done the homework required to know how much he'd recently received in order to ask for that sum in the ransom note, why on Earth would you chose Christmas.
A time when kids are restless and people are up late at gatherings etc. to commit a break and enter abduction of a child where rather than getting in and out as quickly as possible, you wait until youre in the house to write a multi page ransom note, grab the child, go down into the basement rather than out the nearest exit, and with freedom in sight decide to bash the child with a blunt instrument and then fashion a garrot to strangle her, and then leave her, meaning no chance of obtaining the money it was all for.

It makes absolutely no sense.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top