Boulder Skies at Dusk

searchinGirl - searchinTruth - always searchin...

Blood Evidence

Where Blood Found. According to reports, blood was found on:
1. JBR's body (which was wiped down, leaving little trace)
2. JBR's night shirt (samples #5A & #5B);
3. JBR's panties (sample #7). In the autopsy report it is stated: "The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension." Thus, the exact number of blood spots is not known, but at least two of the spots tested to date have found commingled foreign DNA.
4. the white blanket covering JBR (sample #16A)
5. the nightgown found next to JBR (samples #17A & #17C).

All Blood Evidence is from JBR. DNA testing appears to indicate all blood evidence belongs to JBR. There is "intermingled" DNA with JBR's bloodspots on the panties, but investigators believe the "foreign" DNA may be saliva and no one has reported it to be blood. The intermingled DNA has been reported as "degraded."

Evidence Not Found

1. No Semen on Body, Panties or Clothing. Vaginal, oral and anal swabs were obtained from JBR's body, but "according to examinations conducted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, no semen was located on the body, panties, or clothing of JonBenet Ramsey (Byfield 1997:4).
2. No Seminal Fluid. "No seminal fluid has been discovered either" (Nagel 1997)
3. No Semen on Thighs. "Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schiller 1999:132, according to Internet poster Mikie).

Oral Assault May Not Leave DNA. In another Boulder case involving the sexual assault of a 14-year-old, "the 14-year-old told police that the man sexually assaulted her with his hand and orally but was interrupted by her mother. Although saliva contains DNA and the victim was swabbed soon after the assault, no foreign DNA was recovered from her body." Thus, even though saliva was not found on her body, this does not entirely rule out the possibility of oral assault.

DNA Evidence

DNA Samples Collected in 1997. All the original samples of DNA collected from family and close friends were collected in early 1997, starting in mid-January.

New Technology 1999. In 1999, the "FBI released a new technology called Short Tandem Repeat to profile DNA. It uses 13 markers to raise the probability that a randomly selected individual would match it is one in 1 quintillion."

2001 Testing. "The new testing is allowed after a legal battle in Colorado's courts, and JonBenet's underwear is analyzed again resulting in between one and two markers out of 13 being defined." 2003 Testing. A "second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear tested resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined."

Submission to CODIS. "That genetic fingerprint meets the threshold to be placed into a national database, Combined DNA Indexing System or CODIS, which holds DNA profiles of those convicted in most states of certain crimes."

Male DNA Found

Under Fingernails "The coroner took nail clippings from JonBenet. Male DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 174; PSMF P 174.) Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under JonBenet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 173.)" (Carnes 2003:22). This is consistent with "mix" of DNA only 3 of the 13 DNA samples submitted: #7 Bloodstains from panties; #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.

"Defensive Flesh." An Internet poster said Lou Smit told her there was "defensive flesh" found under JBR's fingernails (his term). Another Internet poster disagrees and believes that "When Lou Smit referred to JonBenet "getting a piece of her killer", he wasn't talking about flesh, just that "his" DNA was there, that's all."

Male DNA Found on Panties. "In addition, male DNA was found in JonBenet's underwear that does not match that of any Ramsey and has not yet been sourced. (SMF PP 175, 178; PSMF PP 175, 178.)" (Carnes 2003:22). No Match Found to Date; "The Boulder Police Department has yet to identify the male whose DNA was found at the crime scene. (SMF P 177; PSMF P 177.)" (Carnes 2003:22).

Saliva? Lin Wood reported that the DNA in the underwear "probably" was saliva. Several news sources also have suggested the male DNA was from saliva, including Denver Post , People's Daily Online and Taipei Times

Potential Source of DNA in Underwear

Factory Worker DNA
"Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture. In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

In November 2002, it was reported "There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," former prosecutor Michael Kane told the News. "You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there: whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them," said Kane, who ran a 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments. Likewise, attorney Barry Scheck has asserted "we don't know whether that's saliva or what, whether that's skin cells, you know, there was -- it could be DNA from the original manufacturer of the underwear."

Lin Wood said the factory worker theory is meritless. The DNA was found commingled with blood, he said." A possible Match with Fingernail DNA, "its genetic markers may match evidence taken from fingernails on both of JonBenet's hands. 'There are common markers as to all three that would strongly suggest they are from the same source,' he [Lin Wood] said." According to CBS News : "The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name. Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.

Panty DNA Much More Than Trace Amount. Moreover, in a November 30, 1996 letter to Westward, Carol Martin of Walnut Creek, CA, claims to have written and gotten a reply from the producer of 48 Hours to complain about their November 28 show involving Michael Tracey and Lou Smit. She asserted: "The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount."

Trip DeMuth, in a 48 Hours interview aired on November 25, 2006, commented on the DNA evidence: "How likely is it that it would be anybody but the killer? I think it’s highly unlikely that it would be anybody else but the killer," he says.

Caucasian DNA? DNA Race Detection is Now Possible. Widespread Media Reports have reported that "Caucasian" DNA was found. If true, this would appear to rule out an Asian factory worker explanation. Lin Wood was quoted as saying "The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear is male and Caucasian." "A drop of JonBenet's blood found in her underpants was mixed with the DNA of a Caucasian male" according to Guardian Unlimited , June 25, 2006 (in a story strongly implying Ramsey guilt for the killing). The Rocky Mountain News reported "Investigators recover a DNA sample of an unknown Caucasian male from JonBenet's underwear" according to Rocky Mountain News , August 29, 2006. BBC: "DNA from a white, Caucasian male was found mixed with JonBenet's blood in bloodspots on her clothing" according to the BBC, August 29, 2006.

No Official Leaks of DNA Race Test. A new technique was used in 2004 to infer that the killer of Susannah Chase--a CU-Boulder student killed less than 1 year after JBR--was American Indian or Hispanic. It has not been reported whether police used the same technique to assess the DNA evidence in JBR's case; it would seem surprising that they had not, but conversely it would seem surprising that such a fact would not have been leaked by now given that this information was disclosed in the Chase case. The August 2006 [arrest warrant (p. 82) in the John Mark Karr case did not state that the DNA was "Caucasian" - merely that it was male.

Fox News Report. Carol McKinley of Fox News reported "One piece of information which has been seen as a major clue, but which is wrong, is that the DNA which was in JonBenet's underwear came from a caucasian male. Truth is, it was never, ever tested for race. Because there's not enough, and it's tested, it will be used up. All we know is, it belongs to a male, we don't know what ethnicity it is." This was stated by McKinley during an exclusive interview with Tom Wickman, former BPD Detective and Grand Jury BPD representative, but it is not clear whether he was the source. An Internet poster has stated: "Tom Wickman has NO idea about the DNA! He left this case so many years ago...long before the newer DNA testing was done. How can he possibly comment on the state of the evidence, especially DNA, at this point? He can't." However, another Internet poster argued: "Wickman was the "evidence man". I think he would know more about the evidence than Lin Wood or Michael Tracey. He was also an investigator for the Grand Jury. In terms of case knowledge, Wickman is probably a better source than Lou Smit."              (c) 2023