The Community Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment  
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 211
Reply with quote  #1 
jan 30 1997.jpg

This is the only report where we  can see the results for the individuals who were cleared. None of these people had a B allele at the GC locus like the both the panties bloodstain profile did and the fingernails profile did. So I would consider these individuals cleared as having been the person who JonBenet scratched or the person who orally assaulted her. However that does not mean IMO that they can be eliminated as being present at the murder and/or being involved in the cover up.


*I thank poster BIZ for providing me with this document and giving me permission to reproduce it here

0
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 211
Reply with quote  #2 
This DNA testing is the followup to the serology testing that was completed on January 29. 

https://jonbenetramseymurder.discussion.community/post/cbi-serology-testing-3-completed-january-29-1997-9809566?pid=1304993601

When the case was handed over to the DA's office in December 2002 it appears that this document, along with all the other early CBI DNA results, was withheld from the DA's office by Boulder Police 

This is a copy of part of a document that I think Ollie Gray must have obtained somehow. This page was generously provided to me by Laurie Simpson (BIZ) who has also given me permission to reproduce the document here. Thanks BIZ.

The extra wording from the document generously provided to me by jameson who also has a copy of the file states: 

 "BASED ON THESE RESULTS, THE DNA PROFILE DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBIT #14E MATCHED THE DNA PROFILES FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.

IF THE MINOR COMPONENTS DEVELOPED PREVIOUSLY FROM THE EXHIBITS THAT CONTAINED MIXTURES WERE CONTRIBUTED FROM A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, THEN JOE BARNHILL, JR, JAY ELOWSKY, BARBARA FERNIE, GLEN STINE, FLEET WHITE, AND JOE BARNHILL, SR., WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF DNA ANALYZED ON THOSE EXHIBITS."


'The minor components developed previously from the exhibits that contained mixtures' refers to the DNA profiles obtained from the panties bloodstain #7, the right hand fingernails #14L and the left hand fingernails #14M. Please see:

https://jonbenetramseymurder.discussion.community/post/cbi-dna-testing-1-completed-january-13-1997-and-cellmark-dna-testing-completed-may-131997-9803782?pid=1305067876

In this leaked document we can only see this much of the results discussion: 

"IF THE MINOR COMPONENTS DEVELOPED PREVIOUSLY FROM THE EXHIBITS THAT CONTAINED MIXTURES WERE CONTRIBUTED FROM A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, then XXX WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF DNA ANALYZED ON THOSE EXHIBITS."

I would like to know what people would be excluded if the minor components were NOT contributed from a single individual. I have asked jameson to post the entire page of that document but she refuses to. I just wonder what the rest of the report states.

Is there more information relating to the alternative situation in the reports and that is why all the documents relating to the 1997 CBI DNA testing have been kept secret by Boulder Police? It appears there is, see what Lawrence Schiller wrote in his book PMPT:

https://jonbenetramseymurder.discussion.community/post/boulder-police-mishandling-of-the-1997-cbi-dna-results-9908256?pid=1306079110


It just isn't statistically possible for all the tested people to have been excluded by these tests. There should have been a certain percentage who could not have been excluded. Yet everyone, and we are told there were 200, who was tested was excluded by Boulder Police. That is just not statistically possible. These actions by Boulder Police need to be reviewed and audited by an independent scientific body. 


Nevertheless, it appears that on the basis of these results and this report that Boulder Police excluded all these individuals as being contributors to not only the fingernails DNA that showed up 4 alleles but even the panties DNA that only showed up 1 alleles because they assumed the panties DNA was from the same individual as the one whose DNA was under the fingernails.

What that report actually meant was that "as long as it was the same individual who left his DNA under the fingernails as the individual who left his DNA in the panties these people on the list could be excluded as having left their DNA on both items."

As it was Boulder Police mis-read the report. They obviously read it as meaning "if two or more people did not contribute to the panties DNA and if two or more people did not contribute to the fingernails DNA then . . " They then went on to assume that there was only one person, even though they had no good reason to believe so and that is was the same person who contributed to the fingernails DNA who also contributed to the panties DNA.

So what they ended up doing was they excluded people as having contributed to the panties DNA based on only ONE allele. They ended up excluding far more people as having possibly left the panties DNA than they should have.

This might have been rectified later, after Barry Scheck saw the results (if he ever did) but there have been no reports leaked or otherwise that have ever been made available to the pubic for us to know this for sure


0
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 211
Reply with quote  #3 
Looking at the unknown male profile obtained from the panties here:

https://jonbenetramseymurder.discussion.community/post/1st-cbi-dna-test-results-january-13-1997-and-cellmark-dna-test-results-may-131997-9803782?pid=1305067876

we can see that only ONE allele was obtained from the panties DNA profile and that was allele B from the GC (glycosporin) locus.

There are 3 possible alleles for the GC locus. Means AA, AB, AC, BB, BC, CC are the possible combinations of alleles at that locus 

Only the people with combinations AA, AC and CC should have been excluded on the basis of these results as having contributed to the panties DNA and these people would have comprised only 56% of the population.

Yet of the 180 tested Boulder Police excluded 100% when by the laws of probability only around 56% or 100 people should have been excluded. That means there were around 44% or 80 people excluded who should not have been

Really those 80 people should have been re-tested with the 13 STR CODIS markers. But were they? We simply don't know.

*If anyone can see something wrong with my calculations or logic please let me know. I must admit I haven't done a thorough check yet. 

    


0
samarkandy

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 211
Reply with quote  #4 
bump
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.