s-evidence-DNA.htm


	A Personal view of the Internet Subculture Surrounding the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

This web page is part of a series covering found materials regarding individuals, items or events that apparently became part of what is commonly known as the vortex of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case Christmas night 1996. The webmaster of this site claims no inside official Boulder police information as to who has been interviewed, investigated, the outcome or what information is actually considered official evidence. These pages outline found material which can include but not limited to materials found in books, articles, the Internet, transcripts, depositions, legal documents, Internet discussion forums, graphics or photos, media reports, TV/Radio shows about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Found materials are here for historical archive purposes. (www.acandyrose.com - acandyrose@aol.com)

This webpage series is for historical archive and educational purposes on found materials


The DNA and DNA-X

CHAIN OF EVENTS 1997

1997-02-02: Much detective work in JonBenet Ramsey murder case conducted under lab microscope

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0202jon.htm
Forensic Evidence
Much detective work in JonBenet Ramsey murder case conducted under lab microscope
By Joseph B. Verrengia
Rocky Mountain News Science Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No witnesses, no bloody glove, no confession.

Only a little girl's body covered by a blanket in the basement of her family's mansion and a handwritten ransom note found upstairs.

To solve the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, Boulder police must rely to a great extent on the results of forensic tests being conducted in crime laboratories.

The question is whether there is a sufficient amount of physical evidence -- including body fluids, fingerprints, hair, fibers and handwriting -- to conclusively determine who sexually assaulted and strangled the 6-year-old beauty queen and youngest child of John and Patsy Ramsey.

And the looming problem for police and prosecutors, according to forensics experts, is whether the evidence is in good condition. Or whether lax procedures -- including John Ramsey's search of the house eight hours after police were called, his discovery of his slain daughter and his handling of the body as he carried it upstairs -- resulted in key evidence being hopelessly contaminated.

"Many crimes, especially major ones, are solved in the laboratory,'' said Nelson K. Jennette, a Montrose forensics investigator who specializes in hair and fiber.

"His moving the body certainly didn't help anything,'' Jennette said. "It's certainly in the realm of possibilty that he contaminated the scene.''

The JonBenet case, he said, is fascinating from a forensics perspective because so many basic questions remain unanswered and so many possibilities still exist about what happened in the Ramsey house Christmas night.

Given the career-damaging cross-examinations that forensic investigators endured in the O.J. Simpson criminal and civil trials, Jennette said scientists who undertake laboratory tests on the evidence in the Ramsey case must take extra care to "report just what you find.''

Boulder Police have disclosed little during its five-week investigation into the Ramsey murder, and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation won't discuss results of its tests of forensic evidence. JonBenet died by asphyxiation caused by strangulation, according to the Boulder County coroner. The Rocky Mountain News disclosed that her skull was fracutured, she was sexually assaulted and that blood and possibly semen were found at the scene.

No one has been publicly named or eliminated as a suspect.

JonBenet's parents and siblings have provided police with blood, hair and handwriting samples for comparison. So have some family friends and employees, as well as some employees at Ramsey's firm, Access Graphics Inc. in Boulder.

Genetic fingerprinting and other tests probably won't be completed until early this month. Boulder police spent 10 days collecting physical evidence at the Ramsey's sprawling home near Chautauqua Park. Investigators removed doors, carpet sections and other large items, as well as suitcases believed to contain clothing, bedding and other personal effects. They photographed a maze of footprints in the snowy yard.

That suggests a very thorough collection process, forensics experts said.

It also means there is a lot of evidence to sift through, much of it under microscopes. Generally speaking, more specimens are better than a few. But that's not necessarily true if evidence has been disturbed or comingled, or if it hasn't been meticulously handled and catalogued.

Sorting through it all and completing dozens of sophisticated tests, from genetic fingerprinting to dissolving fibers in acid to determine their contents and origins, could take weeks or months. "You have no control over the evidence deposited, the state it's in or how much is there,'' said geneticist Moses Schanfield, director of Analytical Genetic Testing Center in Denver. "It's about trying to work with what you have.''

Then there is the matter of what the results mean to the case. With the exception of fingerprints, forensics evidence rarely is conclusive.

A forensics match -- even with DNA -- doesn't prove a person committed a crime; additional evidence almost always is needed for a conviction.

Forensics testing is much better at demonstrating who didn't do it and who wasn't there. "The purpose of all forensic evidence is exclusionary,'' Schanfield said. "Then the question is whether the evidence is individualizing.''

Investigators are using genetic testing to sort through potential suspects in the JonBenet case and try to zero in on the killer.

DNA is likely being extracted and analyzed on crime scene samples of hair, blood and possibly semen. They would be compared to genetic material in blood and hair samples provided by family and friends. After years of debate over family variabilities, genetic patterns of ethnic groups and reliability of the technology, lawyers and scientists now agree that DNA testing can match the blood, semen or tissue recovered at a crime scene to a given individual.

Assuming, of course, that technicians properly collected the samples and the testing procedures were correctly followed.

Still, geneticists don't declare that the DNA in a crime scene sample and the genetic material provided by a suspect absolutely are one and the same.

Rather, they describe it as a random-match probability. That is an estimate of the chance that a randomly selected person will share the DNA pattern present in both the defendant and the crime scene sample.

In most cases, the random-match probability is one in a million, one in a billion or higher that a crime scene sample originated from someone other than the suspect whose DNA matched.

Geneticists do not match a person's entire genetic code to the code contained in a crime scene sample. That's because scientists have not yet mapped the entire human genome. And even if they had, crime labs would not have the computing power to run such complete tests.

The nucleus of every cell contains a copy of DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid. It's a thin, coiled ribbon consisting of two twisted strands, each of which contains 3 billion repeating chemical units called nucleotides.

Each nucleotide contains four different chemicals, called bases, in a myriad of sequences. Only about 2% of DNA is genes; the rest is called "junk DNA,'' and its biological purpose is unknown. But given all the biochemical combinations, the chances of two people having exactly the same genetic pattern are incredibly slim.

Forensic experts compare markers, or representative samples of DNA where it would be extremely unlikely for two people to have the same genetic pattern in those locations. They typically check the DNA pattern in four to six places to determine individuality.

"We never can make absolute statements -- that is, to the exclusion of everyone else,'' Schanfield said. "If we're typing a limited number of markers, at some point one can say it is an individual with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. But that's a different level of statement than what, say, a fingerprint examiner would say.''

Schanfield's caution reflects the tests' statistical ambiguities, but the accuracy of a DNA identification rarely is directly challenged anymore.

Instead, defense attorneys more frequently contend that lab results are skewed by the crime scene sample being mishandled, degraded or contaminated to the point where test results are not trustworthy.

Forensic experts said the Ramsey case presents some special circumstances that undoubtedly will complicate the interpretation of test results, and possibly their usefulness in court.

� Biological evidence: Police have collected blood and a small amount of fluid that could be semen from the crime scene. The condition of the sample would be crucial, even more than the volume of fluid collected.

"The smaller and faster a sample dries, the less damage there is to the DNA and the better chance of getting a good (genetic) profile,'' Schanfield said.

"If there is a pool of blood and it takes forever to dry before it is sampled, you are less likely to get DNA from that sample.''

DNA in blood, semen or other fluids is very unstable when it is wet. That's because it is fragile, and body fluids frequently contain enzymes that can destroy DNA.

There is no specific time limit on DNA's viability. Nor is there a specific amount that must be obtained for an accurate genetic test.

A testing method employing a process called the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, can handle a sample of 50 cells -- an amount that may not even be readily visible. PCR acts as a genetic copying machine to create duplicates of the material. The magnified sample is easier to handle in tests. A method known as RFLP checks more locations on the genetic pattern but takes weeks to complete and requires a much larger sample.

But PRC testing will destroy the small amount that investigators have. The law requires that a defendant's lawyers also be able to test some of it or monitor the state's tests. And although there is not yet a defendant in the case to notify, tests on the fluid have been delayed due to police concerns over this issue.

--- The home: Skin, hair, clothing fibers and other microscopic traces of JonBenet are likely to be everywhere in the house, as well as traces of every family member and perhaps frequent visitors. If no clear physical evidence of an intruder is present, and police suspicions narrow to the people closest to the girl, it could be difficult to determine what traces are crime-related and what are not.

--- The basement: It's one of the worst places for investigators to find a body because the basement isn't as clean as upstairs rooms. If investigators used powerful vacuum sweepers to collect everything that might have been overlooked, the process could jumble crime scene dirt with older, unimportant debris layers.

"We're interested in what was deposited last,'' Jennette said. "In a basement, you're dealing with cobwebs and dirt and fibers in layers that were deposited years ago. That complicates things.''

--- John Ramsey's actions: Discovering his daughter's body, removing the duct tape from her mouth and carrying the body upstairs has been described as the natural reaction of a grief-stricken father. But from a forensics perspective, it was a major blunder.

Fibers, hair and debris left by the killer might have been dislodged in the process -- possibly from the girl's body, forensic experts said. Unless Ramsey was "wearing an astronaut suit'' that neither sheds or attracts, Jennette and others believe his actions probably resulted in some materials being transferred between him and the victim.

"When a crime is committed, the person leaves something behind and takes something away,'' Jennette said. "It can be microscopic in size. That (moving the body) can contaminate things big time.''

February 2, 1997

1997-04-07: Geraldo Rivera Show Discussion Forum, "Suspects"
Tribune Entertainment Company (http://tribapps.tribune.com/)

jams jameson - 08:32am May 7, 1997 (#399 of 500)
Hunter said the DNA will not be the silver bullet. If it were an outsider and they had a match - it would be, but not necessarily if it is the father's - we know of no scratch on him that day and there are innocent ways that DNA might have gotten there.

jams jameson - 08:59am May 7, 1997 (#400 of 500)
A "source" said the CBI lab results indicate it COULD be JR's DNA. That may mean it could be JR as well as 30% of the population - we just don't know. Cellmark labs should have more detailed results.

jams jameson - 08:53am May 29, 1997 (#426 of 500)
5/29 OK - so now the authorities have said the Ramseys are A focus - not THE focus any longer. The outsider theory is viable. Maybe the DNA points to an unnamed suspect - doesn't match any samples they have so far. Lee is flying to Boulder to meet with Hunter - Hmmmm.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 1998

1998-12-29: Boulder News Forum thread, "Pam's DNA on Panties"

lindaws - 07:34am Dec 29, 1998 MST
lindaws@hotmail.com

That's right, Pam said on LKL last night that it could very well be her DNA. P.Paugh also admitted that she often slept in the other 'identical' twin bed in JBR's room. Pam said too that 'they*' were at the Ramsey home in Boulder often during the 2 weeks prior to the Christmas Day death of the kid. Folks we have been barking up the wrong tree. John and Patsy are covering for Pam, she is the culprit. No wonder Pam is so adamant that neither John nor Patsy did the dirty deed.

Pam Paugh is really a meanie. If it is true that she knows who 'they' are, the jealous ones who killed the kid, her scenario at least, then why is she allowing this charade to continue? Out with the facts woman, how can she allow her dear sister Patsy and brother in law John to suffer so. Name names, indict, try and punish, easy peasy to wrap this according to Ms. Paugh.

btw, Pam is Jams --- who is'they' ?

texas1 - 12:53pm Dec 29, 1998 MST (#5 of 81)
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen...Winston Churchill

This is what Pam Paugh said about the DNA...She did not say it could be her DNA in the panties.
From the LKL transcript.

PAUGH: "Well, that's a good question. However -- of course we were visiting in the home a lot, and so, yes, my DNA could be on -- I don't know how long DNA lives, and maybe Dr. Lee can answer that, but for instance, I could have a piece of hair fiber, maybe, on the nightstand or something, because I would often sleep in the other twin bed in JonBenet's room. But let me say this: The commingling DNA that does exist has been separated. One of the DNA strands does belong to JonBenet. The other has only been tested, I'm told, against Patsy, John and Burke, of which there is, unequivocally, no match. So, if you then go back and say: How does that play? Well, let's look at where the DNA was found. I am told that it was found on the inside of JonBenet's panties. That, to me, does blow this whole thing wide open, Larry, because we know that it doesn't match Patsy, John, or Burke, and we know that it does include JonBenet's, and it's commingled, meaning some kind of physical contact, not necessarily just caught it in the washing machine or something."

KING: Bill...

PAUGH: "So, whose is it? I am betting my money on the fact that it matches her killer, and that is what we need professional investigators -- Dr. Henry lee, perhaps, to go back and try to say: Who now has motive? And who should be tested against this DNA?"

gofigure - 01:07pm Dec 29, 1998 MST (#6 of 81)
Yeah, but....

During the course of the interview, Dr. Lee was explaining forensically how DNA evidence is assessed. He indicated that they looked for the type of DNA they were dealing with and the AMOUNTS of said DNA that were left.

Pam later said that there was a "strand" of , at this time, unidentified DNA in JonBenet's undies. How much is a "strand"? As I know very little about this, it sounds like a rather insignificant amount that could be picked up anywhere. Wish I knew more about the field. Anybody know more about this?

cecie - 02:16pm Jan 2, 1999 MST (#36 of 81)

The answer is blood/cells and if you have an infection that shows up in the urine or from the surrounding area that shows up in the urine then it could be a source. Here are portions of the article. The full article is on WS "Crime Fighters want to Open Data Bank" Associated Press 1/2/98

Armstrong and Lee said a DNA bank containing the genetic ``fingerprints'' of convicted criminals would help solve crimes and enable the state to make use of a similar national database maintained by the FBI.

Each person has a distinct genetic code, or DNA, that can be extracted from human cells. Saliva, blood, semen or a strand of hair can yield DNA - deoxyribonucleic acid - that can be matched to evidence gathered at a crime scene, even years later.

The DNA pool would give investigators in Connecticut and across the country a powerful crime-fighting tool.

Armstrong and Lee said a DNA bank containing the genetic ``fingerprints'' of convicted criminals would help solve crimes and enable the state to make use of a similar national database maintained by the FBI.

Each person has a distinct genetic code, or DNA, that can be extracted from human cells. Saliva, blood, semen or a strand of hair can yield DNA - deoxyribonucleic acid - that can be matched to evidence gathered at a crime scene, even years later.

``From your DNA, you can tell the most intimate details about someone, and now this would mean someone can look up your name and access that information,'' Grabarz said. ``This is something you would expect from Joseph Stalin, not from modern America, and that's the sad part of it.''

Lee, one of the country's foremost forensic scientists, said the sex-offender DNA bank has been a success, which he expects to expand on if the collection is extended to other crimes.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2000

2000-01-19: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.com)
"An Editorial"

7 . "email from Why_nut"
Posted by jams on Jan-19-00 at 03:16 PM (EST)
What follows is an email from Why_Nut:

"Jameson wrote:
I would point to the evidence that is directly connected to the murder that has NO explanantion that could possibly be considered "innocent" - the DNA in her panties and the handwritten ransom note that can't be attributed to anyone living at the house."
................................................................................................
The theory has been floated that the DNA in the panties may have been deposited on them at the factory that made them. Let us put that aside and propose another scenario that seems very likely.

I propose that the foreign DNA's source could have been the seat of JonBenet's new bicycle.

This theory came to me when hearing, in past weeks, of the flu epidemic, whose victims have packed emergency rooms. The common cold and flu viruses are, among other ways, spread via the process of a person with the disease touching an object, whereupon someone else comes along and touches that same surface, transferring the disease. This happens every day with DNA tranferral, also. All people reading this have DNA on them whose sources are individuals unknown to them. Every person in the world sheds cells every moment, and, unless you are a hermit living in a controlled environment, you are picking up some of those cells on your own skin and clothing.

A bicycle seat is touched directly by many hands during the course of its construction. Casual observation of anyone wheeling a bike while not riding it shows that a preferred method of controlling the bike is to place one hand on a handlebar and the other on the bike seat. We know for a fact that John Ramsey handled the bike, and if he put his hand on the seat as any normal person would, then the seat could have had, deposited on it, DNA from the cells of any person he had acquired cells from during the course of, for example, shaking hands.

No doubt John shook many hands during the course of Christmas Eve, especially before and after the church service the family attended. He had the DNA of many individuals from that church adhering to him by the time he got home. Envision, then, that minor-component DNA being deposited onto the bicycle seat as John wheeled it over to his Boulder home from the Barnhill residence across the street. (A brief handshake while wishing Joe Barnhill a Merry Christmas before taking the bike would also account for the rumored connection of Barnhill's DNA with the panties.)

The next day, what do we have? JonBenet and her panties pressing firmly against all that DNA acquired from the church, as she enjoyed her new present.

Inevitably, you will respond about the DNA being comingled. Yes, that process has a logical explanation.

Place a few sugar crystals in a glass. Leave the glass on your countertop for a few days. Then put some water in the glass and stir. You have now comingled the sugar and water, even though they were deposited in the glass on different days. An analysis of the combination would not be able to detect that fact.

Similarly, DNA from cells deposited on the outer surface of the panties could have comingled with JonBenet's blood and urine at the moment those fluids soaked the fabric, even though the DNA was on the panties prior to that moment. Once the cells have floated into the midst of the fluid, there is no way to say that they were ever separate.

If this theory holds water, then it would explain why nobody's DNA has matched (the entire congregation of the church has not been tested), and it would explain why, more importantly, foreign DNA was found on the panties but not on the corresponding portion of JonBenet's body.

As extra credit, this theory also explains why the DNA under the nails would have been degraded, and yet match DNA on the panties. JonBenet would have come in contact with the same individual(s) while at church the previous Sunday, and enough time would have passed for the nail DNA to degrade while the same individual's DNA from the Christmas Eve service would have been fresher.

2000-05-05: APBnews.com message board Internet chat with former Boulder Detective Steve Thomas from 5/5/2000 to 5/15/2000

APBnews.com message board - May 10, 2000
Thread: "Initial Comments from Steve Thomas"

jameson (May. 10, 2000 06:31 PM)
SteveThomas (read)

Sorry that the flaming furies are taking advantage of the opportunity to flame me - they are really disrupting your forum here. I really prefer to stick to the case, won't respond to their snotty remarks.

So back to case.

I have a couple of questions. This seems to be the thread you respond to so I will try here.

How can you say there is no evidence of an intruder inthe house when the leaves and "popcorn" were carried in and there was clear evidence of disturbance at the broken window - not a "clean swipe" perhaps, but I have been in the house - there is a "lip" on that windowsill and one would have to lift up to get over - but the photographs Smit shared with Barbara Walters and Newsweek show clear disturbance and evidence someone got in there.

The handwriting on the note - the FBI, CBI and US Secret service - along with several others, can't say it MATCHED Patsy's writing - not even that it was close. If the DA is right when he says the finding was "probably not", how can you use the handwriting as evidence against Patsy. (And please don't point to Foster's work - he states repeatedly that handwriting can be disguised.)

Chet Ubowsky denied the statements you attributed to him (according to some very good sources) - and you admitted on Boyles that you never heard him say those things but you heard the rumors from someone else - could you explain that one?

The DNA mixed with her blood in her panties - male, not Ramsey - that sample is good enough to nail the killer - how can you explain that one? Just where do you think Patsy got THAT - and how would she know how to get it in the panties with none of her own as well?

The red fibers on the tape were consistant with the material in the blazer - not a match - and what about the fact that there were other colors in the blazer - and no fibers on the tape were "consistant" with those?

How about the beaver hair - nothing beaver in the house - just on the tape?

You can't link Patsy to the tape or cord - not before or after the murder - doesn't that give you pause?

The DA said he won't persecute unless he has a case he believes he can win - it wasn't just Hunter but a PANEL whoi decided not to indict - - would you really want to rush in and hurt any future peosecution?

SteveThomas (May. 11, 2000 01:05 AM)
jameson (read)

Dear Jameson,

I dont know why you wont let anyone but the Ramseys and their supporters offer thoughts and opinions? This does not have to be adversarial.

The remarks you raise could fill a ten hour discussion. Briefly:

1. I dispute your interpretation of the leaves, popcorn, debris, and (un)disturbed sill. You and Mr Smit were not there for many months. I don�t know how much of the crime scene photos and reports you have had access to. As you believe I am wrong, so I believe you are mistaken.

2. There IS strong handwriting opinion -- and guess who it points to, and who was the only one who showed evidence to suggest authorship?

3. You are oversimplifying the DNA. Neither you nor I are DNA experts, thus, I relied on those who are experts, and who were part of the investigation. This is not a DNA case. It goes far beyond the depth and breadth of what we can discuss here online.

4. "Consistent" versus "match". Do you remember this argument from the O.J. case. Why were those fibers there at all, that were consistent from Patsy's blazer?

5. I agree with you on one issue about the beaver hair -- too bad there wasnt a DA who would approve warrants and subpoenas for Patsy's fur garments, coats, boots, etc. That way we could have done comparison analyses, and determined if Patsy had anyting that "matched" or was "consistent". Or, for your argument, that didnt. I feel it would have been wise to take those steps, to determine whether there was a match, or not. It would have been invaluable to have known, to both sides.

6. Hunter, in my opinion, rarely will make the call. He relies on others to distance himself from the important decisions. Let's rememebr, though, that the grand jury did not EXONERATE the Ramseys, either. And who do you think Mr Kane targeted in that grand jury?

Jameson, thank you for your thoughtful inquiry. I appreciate and respect your First Amendment right to have an opinion, and I thank you for allowing me mine, and allowing me to repsond to all these other gracious people who also have good questions,

Respectfully,

Steve Thomas

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2001

2001-08-17: Justice Watch Forum thread, "Tipster provides possible DNA evidence in Ramsey case (guess who)"

54. "DNA, Ned"
Posted by austingirl on 13:00:11 8/17/2001
NOTE: This message was last edited 13:00:11, 8/17/2001

You are wrong, Ned. You are spreading RST misinformation. Incomplete DNA missing markers can never match anyone. Even if the known markers match, they can never be named as a true match. I'll try once again.

The evidence from JonBenet's panties is:

a - - - b - - - a - - - b

The suspect is:

a a b b b b b b a a a a b

Ned is:

a b b b b b b b a a a a b

My God, you and the suspect are matches, Ned!

You are doing a serious disservice to justice for JonBenet if you keep this up.

Also, Ned, hair does not contain DNA, only the hair follicle does. Hair does contain mitochondrial DNA, which cannot be used to identify anyone since it only contains maternal DNA. Once again, everyone, this is not a DNA case, because, there is no usuable DNA evidence. edited for spelling

2001-08-17: Justice Watch Forum thread, "Tipster DNA - Thread II"

31. "Gemini"
Posted by austingirl on 20:05:30 8/17/2001

I based my post not on information from anyone, but on science. DNA has many alleles on each strand, a scientific fact. The DNA from the panties had missing alleles - a fact. There can never be a match that will stand up in court as beyond a reasonable doubt because any suspect's sample that matches the few existing alleles from JonBenet's body has as a defense that no one knows what the missing alleles are and hence, they can't convict him! This is not forum opinion - this is hard science. You can't match what doesn't exist. Barry Scheck doesn't think you can even legitimately eliminate anyone because of the poor condition of the DNA found on JonBenet. Others do. No one can be eliminated, not even John and Patsy Ramsey (yes, a female) if the DNA is a mixture from two or more people. They don't even know if it is or isn't. These are facts, not some spin.

No test can ever be devised to say with any degree of certainty that partial DNA can identify anyone. An attorney would have a field day with the billions of combinations that could exist for the missing alleles (each could be one of four compounds).

As to the new mitochondrial DNA testing. The old DNA testing requires a cell nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA testing does not. That is why everyone is so excited about the hair. MtDNA is in hair whereas regular DNA is only in the hair follicle. But, MtDNA cannot positively identify anyone either. Scientific fact - not forum opinion. MtDNA contains only maternal DNA data and can be used for elilmination purposes.

I bothered to educate about DNA, not just blindly follow some forum spin.

2001-08-27: From Murphy's Websleuths Forum thread titled,
"Some interesting information"

Jeanilou (486 posts)
27-Aug-01, 01:37 PM (CST)
"Some interesting information:"

I just got off the phone with the Boulder's DA office and I was informed that the Boulder DA NO LONGER has the JonBen�t Ramsey case. They have given it back to the Boulder Police. Now, correct me, if I am wrong but didn't Mary Keenan promise to take a new look at the case when she was elected? So, how can she take a fresh look at it if it is no longer in the office of the DA? And why was it given back to BPD?

To me, this means the BPD is still actively looking into the case, in addition to Jameson's wonderful DNA sample she sent in. I wish I knew how long ago the case was given back to the BPD. I don't think it has been just since Jameson sent in her "sample".

I don't know about the rest of you but I find this information fascinating.

Just for the record, I still be unable to confirm where the statement about the Ramseys not being a source of the mystery DNA came from. No one wants to take credit for it. I am beginning to believe it is one of those things that snowballed on it's own and is now consider to be accurate. I am strongly thinking I am going to have to go back to my original statement that the Rams have NOT be cleared as the source of the mystery/foreign DNA.

Yes, this is most intriguing.
Jeanilou, the Internet Sleuth

Jeanilou (486 posts)
27-Aug-01, 02:18 PM (CST)
4. "Cyril Wecht and the DNA"
LAST EDITED ON 27-Aug-01 AT 02:30 PM (CST)
LAST EDITED ON 27-Aug-01 AT 02:27 PM (CST)

Even though this is NOT the topic of this thread, I did mention in my first post I was still trying to confirm the parents have NOT been eliminated as the source of the DNA in the underpants. Just talked with Cyril Wecht and he said he did NOT say the parents have been eliminated as the source of the mystery DNA. He said that some DNA found on JB did not belong to the parents but the DNA in the underpants is too contaminated to eliminate the parents as the source of the DNA.

So I am right when I say the parents have not been eliminated as the source of the DNA. So Jameson et all is wrong about this information. So far, I have not found anyone that has come out and said for sure the parents have been eliminated and I have been working on this for a week now.

So far I have talked to Daily Camera, the Associated Press office in Denver, the DA's office (the DA's office could neither confirm or deny because they no longer have the case) and now Cyril Wecht. I also have phone calls out to the BPD but no return calls yet.

EDITED TO ADD: I went back and found the statement attributed to Cyril Wecht and now I am most confused. Here is his statement:

Cyril Wecht: My understanding is that his very very minute fragment or portion of the entire DNA material found in her panties and fingernail was found not to match either Patsy or John or her brother.

He just now told me that the parents HAVE not been eliminated as the source of the DNA in the undepants. I asked him twice to be sure of what he was saying. Taking a new look at his statement it looks like he is saying a "very, very minute fragment or portion of the ENTIRE DNA" does not match Patsy or John or Burke but there must be other DNA that they have not been excluded from. Otherwise why divide the DNA up into portions? Why use the words "very very minute fragment or portion"?

Well, I can see I need to ponder this some more.

Jeanilou, the Internet Sleuth

Jeanilou (486 posts)
28-Aug-01, 02:09 PM (CST)
19. "On the phones again"

I have spent the day again on the phones, and finally talked to someone in the BPD. They would not confirm or deny that the Ramseys have been cleared of the mystery DNA. This tells me that somehow the false statement about the Ramseys not being the contributors of the mystery/foreign DNA is nothing more than an urban legend. There is NO FACTUAL basis that I can nail down.

So unless someone else comes up with the source of the information to the contrary, I maintain the Ramseys have NOT been eliminated as the source of the foreign/mystery DNA. If anyone cares to prove me wrong, go for it but name your source and the date the source confirmed the information.

Jeanilou, the Internet Sleuth

2001-08-29: Justice Watch Forum thread, "Tipster Thread III"

14. "Gem"
Posted by Ginja on 18:13:56 8/18/2001

I think the 'contamination' of the DNA evidence came out when Pam Paugh went public on the fingernail clippers not being sterilized and cleaned between scraping each nail. At least, that's when I think the whole issue of "contamination" first became an "issue".

As regards the conference, I would place it back at least one year ago, probably two. As regards FBI involvement, one or both of the better-known profilers were there, i.e., Ressler and/or McCrary. I also want to say Henry Lee was there as well, but really can't remember for sure. Wecht was most definitely a participant.

The more important issue you raise is why the BPD is "wasting" time, energy and money in DNA analyses and testing if they know for a fact this is not a DNA case. Gem, they know for a fact this isn't a DNA case...all of the experts they've consulted have told them this, from Henry Lee to the FBI. That notwithstanding, the problem they face is defense attorneys. Regardless of how minute and insignificant this DNA (as culpable evidence) is, it's still evidence that MUST be investigated and followed up. They have no idea what evidence is random until they investigate it. Look how much time and money they've spent on trying to identify/source the hair on the sofa throw. That's as random as a cigarette butt in the street. So is the hi-tek bootprint in the basement. Yet they still searched hi and lo in trying to identify and source the print. What they're doing is nothing more than conducting a full investigation, leaving no stone unturned. Cops can't work on intuition or gut feeling alone; they have to support their findings. Hell, they have to make sure they have findings!

It's a simple process of elimination. They don't know what's random until they investigate fully. Once done, once they find that there's no possible way this 'evidence' links to the crime, then they can safely exhale and log it into the evidence book that it's indeed random and irrelevant.

If they don't follow up on the leads, defense counsel would cut their legs off in any trial, pointing out how they ignored evidence and leads because they were hell-bent on certain suspects and if such evidence didn't fit their theories, they didn't bother investigating. Those attorneys would focus solely on this 'negligence' and plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. And that's all it takes is one little seed.

If Beckner ignored Jameson, the BPD would be tarred and feathered in trial. They could lose their case simply because defense diverted jurors attention from the real evidence by focusing in on the holes in the police investigation.

This case has had it problems since Day One. This investigation has been conducted in a fishbowl where everyone could look in and watch. No matter how crazy or how random certain 'evidence' appears, the BPD has to ensure that it investigated all of it fully and completely, if only to show that indeed it was random. It's better to have test results in hand stating without a doubt that lab analysis determined the evidence to be irrelevant, rather than trying to present to the jury a cop's intuition or a consultant's advice.

32. "Today's science lesson"
Posted by Watching you on 09:52:10 8/19/2001

DNA and housework.

It was probably six months ago I learned about this, and I must say, I was truly astounded at what my microbiologist/DNA expert boss told me. We had decided to get the cleaning rags out and do some dusting in our offices. I made the remark to him - I don't understand where all this dust comes from when just you and I live here and neither one of us brings in a lot of dirt or dust.

That dust comes from you and me, he told me. A very good portion of that dust is cast-off skin cells from our bodies.

No, I said, say it isn't so.

Yes, it's true - much of the dust in our homes and offices comes from the billions of dead skin cells we shed every day.

Are you sure, I asked him?

Yes, I'm sure, he replied.

I left my cells in San Francisco, la la la, and in the veggie aisle, at grocery store, my lovely car wears my skin cells, la la la, the TV screen, I cannot hide, lala lala lala,

Probably can't get DNA from that dust, but who knows. Maybe 20 years from now, or less, since DNA science is really still an adolescent, they will be able to scan the dust on your computer screen or your bedside table and hang your butt for that crime you committed and thought you got away with.

19. "mame's source?"
Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:23:09 8/18/2001

(Sorry, I had this posted on the wrong thread)---

30. "mame's source?"
Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:19:33 8/18/2001

http://www.jameson245.com/doc2transcript.htm

Lou Smit's remarks in Tracey's Crockumentary II:

LOU SMIT - This crime can be solved. Our killer in this case left a lot of evidence behind. JonBen�t under fingernails had her blood, no doubt about it. JonBen�t, under her fingernails, also had foreign DNA. In her panties there is foreign DNA. It does not belong to anybody in this family. I think JonBen�t got a piece of her killer. There is also a hair left at this scene. It was right on the blanket that was covering JonBen�t.

Is it this phrase by Smit--"PIECE OF THE KILLER"--that has been misinterpreted as "flesh"?

2001-11-26: Mark Beckner Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia)
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)
(Screen Capture on left is from CBS 48 Hours Investigates
"Searching for a Killer" 10/04/2002)

APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff: NO APPEARANCE
For Defendants: S. Derek Bauer, ESQ., L. Lin Wood, ESQ.
For Deponent: Robert N. Miller, Bob Keatley, Walter Fricke, (All ESQ)
Also present: O.M. "Ollie" Gray, Monika Cary, CLVS

Mark Beckner Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia)
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)
(New Source of DNA)

120
10 Q Do you know whether DNA -- I believe you
11 told me DNA tests were done or were performed with
12 respect to Chris Wolf?
13 A Yes; to the best of my recollection, yes.
14 Q Do you know the results?
15 A Yes.
16 Q What were the results?
17 A He did not match the DNA from the scene.
18 Q Has anyone matched the DNA from the scene?
19 A No.
20 Q Can you give me a ballpark figure of how
21 many individuals have submitted DNA?
22 A Well, back up a minute. There is more
23 than one sample of DNA. So specifically what are you
24 referring to?
25 Q Well, as I understand it, there is DNA and

121
1 I don't want to get technical here, but I understand
2 there was DNA found, foreign DNA, found under the
3 fingernails on JonBent's left and right hands; am I
4 right?
5 A Okay. Yes.
6 Q As I understand it, there was foreign DNA
7 found either on -- I'll just say on her underwear?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Now, I'm not aware as I sit here of any
10 other DNA. Was there any other?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Where was it?
13 A Well --
14 MR. MILLER: Just a minute.
15 THE DEPONENT: Yeah. We're getting into
16 evidence here.
17 MR. MILLER: I don't think you should
18 answer that question.

(SNIP)

123
7 Q That's what I'm asking you about and
8 whether any of that has been matched, DNA found on
9 her, foreign to her, whether that was matched to
10 Chris Wolf?
11 A DNA found on her?
12 Q Or on her clothing.
13 A And the question is did that match to
14 Chris Wolf? The answer is no.
15 Q Has it matched, been matched to anyone?
16 A The DNA on JonBent?
17 Q And/or on her clothing?
18 A No.
19 Q Obviously you're telling me there was DNA
20 that was not on JonBenet or on her clothing; is that
21 correct?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Where was that?
24 A We're getting into areas where I feel like
25 we can't go.

124
21 A What I'm saying is I am getting into
22 evidence that goes beyond Chris Wolf.
23 Q Well, was Chris Wolf's -- was Chris Wolf's
24 DNA tested against this other DNA that you say was
25 found at the scene that you don't want to tell me

125
1 about?
2 A Well, that wouldn't be accurate. Compared
3 against would be the accurate question.
4 Q Well, was it compared against?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Why would it be compared against if it had
7 already been identified as known?
8 A Well, again --
9 MR. MILLER: I don't think he can answer
10 this question.
11 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Well, the DNA evidence from
12 Mr. Wolf was obtained in February or March of 1998,
13 right?
14 A To the best of my recollection, yes.
15 Q Why would you have tested it, and maybe
16 you didn't, why would you have tested it against
17 foreign DNA that you had already had a match on from 18 someone else?
19 MR. MILLER: He didn't say he already had
20 a match on. That's why --
21 MR. WOOD: I may have been reading too
22 much in because he made reference to known DNA. And
23 I thought he was -- I was assuming that maybe they
24 had gotten a match and you knew the source.
25 A We have JonBent's DNA; that's known DNA.

126
1 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Right. And then you have
2 foreign DNA?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And the question was has any of the
5 foreign DNA, foreign to JonBenet, you have indicated
6 to me has not been matched to Chris Wolf?
7 A Correct.
8 Q And I asked you had it been matched to
9 anyone and you initially said no; is that correct?
10 A The DNA on her body or clothing, the
11 answer is no; that's right.
12 Q What about the crime scene?
13 A That's what I can't answer.
14 Q But here is the dilemma. I want to know
15 if whatever this we'll call it DNAX, okay, was Chris
16 Wolf's DNA compared to DNAX?
17 MR. MILLER: He answered that yes.
18 A Yes.
19 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Okay.
20 A I can tell you it does not match DNAX.
21 Q Right. At the time that Chris Wolf's DNA
22 was compared to DNAX, had it been compared to any
23 other DNA and found to be a match?
24 A Compared with other -- no, it's not
25 been -- his DNA has not been matched to anything at

127
1 the crime scene.
2 Q But the DNAX at the time that you compared
3 Chris Wolf's DNA to the DNAX, had you compared the
4 DNAX to other individual's DNA and found there to be
5 a match or been able to identify whose DNA it was?
6 A Well, you're time line is all way off
7 base.
8 Q Well, my time line is limited to the
9 moment --
10 A Yeah.

Mark Beckner Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia)
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)
(New Source of DNA)

127
11 Q -- to the fact that you took the DNA from
12 Chris Wolf, you obtained it in February or March of 13 1998.
14 A And we did not have DNAX at that time.
15 Q So DNAX came along subsequent in time?
16 A Yes.

(SNIP)

129
25 Q Was the DNAX discovered prior to June of

130
1 1998 when the VIP presentations I have called it or
2 it's been referred to was made?
3 A No.
4 Q Do you know in relationship to the grand
5 jury whether it had been discovered prior to the
6 grand jury convening in September, I believe, of
7 1998?
8 A Prior to?
9 Q Yes.
10 A I don't believe so.

(SNIP)

131
20 Q I mean, you have not excluded Chris Wolf
21 as being involved in this murder?
22 A As far as clearing him, no, we have not.
23 Q And would I be safe without going into
24 specific names, would I be safe in saying that there
25 are, it's a considerable number of individuals who

132
1 have not been cleared, even though they may not at
2 this moment be under the umbrella of suspicion?
3 A I think that's true any time you have an
4 open case.
5 Q And it's true in this case?
6 A Yes.

(SNIP)

134
2 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Has a source for DNAX been
3 identified. I don't want to know who it is, but has
4 a source for DNAX been identified?
5 THE DEPONENT: Do I answer that?
6 MR. MILLER: I don't think so. I don't
7 think you should answer that.
8 MR. WOOD: You're taking the privilege?
9 MR. MILLER: Yes.

(SNIP)

135
22 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Who would know? Who would
23 I talk to to get the answer to that question?
24 A Of whether his DNA was compared --
25 Q Yes.

136
1 A The FBI laboratory.
2 Q The FBI laboratory?
3 A (Deponent nods head.)
4 Q Is there any reason why FBI versus CBI? I
5 thought maybe the DNA testing had been done by FBI
6 all along. I don't know.
7 A Yes, there is a reason.
8 Q But wouldn't the specimens have been sent
9 from the Boulder Police Department, whoever the FBI
10 tested, wouldn't it have gone to the FBI from the
11 Boulder Police Department?
12 A Well some explanation is in order here.
13 Once you have the markers for DNA, you don't
14 necessarily have to have the DNA sample to compare
15 those markers to other DNA.
16 Q But the FBI didn't keep those markers on
17 file; the Boulder Police Department or CBI did I
18 would take it?
19 A CBI has those.
20 Q So somebody would have to send those
21 markers because there are reports that show the
22 markers, right?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Somebody would have to send that to the
25 FBI from either CBI or the Boulder Police Department,

137
1 right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you believe that samples -- clearly
4 there were some samples sent?
5 A Yes.

(SNIP)

138
16 A When you say start to get results back,
17 the FBI has been involved in this case from the
18 early, the early days.
19 Q From day one.
20 A So there has been -- there have been
21 different results coming back at different times
22 throughout the year so we didn't just start to get
23 results back in 2000.

(SNIP)

139
10 Q Well, I'm clearly speculating but I think,
11 with some degree of a reasonable basis, that John and
12 Patsy's DNA would have been sent to compare to DNAX.
13 So maybe the question ought to be just put to you,
14 were other individuals' DNA samples sent to the FBI
15 markers for comparison to DNAX, other than John or
16 Patsy Ramsey?
17 A Yes.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2002

2002-10-04: CBS 48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer

(SNIP)

Ollie Gray: "There are 57 pages of names that have come out of the tip files."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Colorado private detective Ollie Gray and his partner John San Augustine were hired by the Ramsey's two years ago."

John Sangustin: (Pointing toward the house) "That's JonBenet's room on the second level"

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Even when the Ramsey's ran out of money, Ollie and John stayed on the job"

Ollie Gray: "We probably do something on it two or three times a week."

Erin Moriarty: "Even though you're not getting paid?"

Ollie Gray: "Sure"

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "They became convinced of the Ramsey's' innocence after seeing this lab report."

(Program showing background shots of DNA lab report dated January 15, 1997)

Ollie Gray: "I acquired a document that you see right here names John and Patsy Ramsey as suspects was submitted for analysis reference DNA"

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Days after JonBenet was murdered, her parents' were asked to give DNA samples to the Boulder police. "

Erin Moriarty: (Talking to John and Patsy Ramsey) "You have given samples to the police?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Absolutely"

John Ramsey: "Absolutely, blood, hair, we've given them everything they asked for."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Their DNA was compared to foreign DNA found under their daughter's fingernails and in her panties, which may have been left by the killer."

Erin Moriarty: (Talking to the Ramsey's) "Does any of that DNA match anyone in the Ramsey family?"

Ollie Gray: "No, this analysis eliminates the Ramsey's"

Patsy Ramsey: "If our DNA had matched they would have arrested us in a New York minute and don't ever think they wouldn't have"

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "If not the Ramsey's, then who killed JonBenet?"

(SNIP)

2002-11-19: Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory

A Rocky Mountain News Exclusive by Charlie Brennan
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html

DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry
Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
November 19, 2002

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.

If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.

And, investigators know the DNA found in the underwear - white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band - was not left by seminal fluid
.
"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.

"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "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."

Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.

And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."

The autopsy report in JonBenet's slaying indicates her pelvic area was swabbed for potential DNA. There has never been any report that those swabs yielded any foreign genetic material. But any significance that might have must be weighed against the fact that the coroner, Dr. John Meyer, observed that the killer may have wiped JonBenet's body with a cloth.

JonBenet, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' upscale Boulder home the afternoon of Dec. 26, 1996.

Her body was found about seven hours after her mother called police before dawn to say she had discovered a 2 �-page ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.

John and Patsy Ramsey left Boulder the following summer for Atlanta and reside there. They have denied any involvement in their daughter's death.

In the couple's book about JonBenet's slaying, The Death of Innocence, John Ramsey called attention to the fact that the underwear DNA did not match anyone in the Ramsey family.

"The DNA from the stain found on JonBenet's underwear cannot be identified," he wrote. "The police have these test results, and we can only hope that they are checking all possible suspects against this genetic fingerprint.

"Our belief is that this DNA belongs to the killer."

On Monday, the Ramseys' attorney stopped short of making so firm a declaration.

"It's foreign DNA," said Lin Wood. "It's not the Ramseys' DNA, and I obviously think it's a very, very important piece of evidence."

Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value.

The Ramseys' attorney scoffed at the notion that the underwear DNA might be traceable to the garment's production.

"That sounds like a pretty spectacularly imaginative theory to me," said Wood. Of Kane, he added, "I've never found Michael Kane to be objective."

Wood said the DNA from the underwear was commingled with a spot of blood, making any theory of point-of-manufacture contamination "nonsensical." He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails.

Kane started a new job Monday as deputy secretary for enforcement in the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue - the same post he held before Boulder District Alex Hunter selected him to guide the Ramsey grand jury probe, which concluded Oct. 13, 1999.

He declined to comment further on the case, citing rules governing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.

2002-11-19: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.com)
"Henry Lee's "not a dna case" one more time"

DonBradley
Charter Member
719 posts Nov-19-02, 07:27 AM (EST)

"Henry Lee's "not a dna case" one more time"

The Rocky Mountain News reported that an 'unidentified' consultant stated "I have always said this is not a dna case". He seems to have been heavily influenced by unstated items since he uses the phrase 'when considered with everything else'.

These comments were made in a statement concerning the discovery of human dna in new, unopened panties obtained from the south east asian manufacturing plant.

No information was given as to the number of panties that were sampled or how similar the crime scene panties dna is to the fingernail dna.

jameson
Charter Member
6509 posts Nov-19-02, 04:20 PM (EST)

2. "The source..."
In response to message #1

Give me a break.

This started because of a thread on this forum - - and a question sent in email to the Boulder police.

Subj: A thought on the panties
Date: 11/3/02 5:14:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Jameson245
To: ****@ci.boulder.co.us

There has been a theory out there that the DNA mixed with JBR's blood in the panties is actually from the person who MADE the panties - but... the panties were new and came in a package of 7. Were the other panties tested to see if that DNA was in those panties also? If it was - that would knock out that bit of intruder evidence for NO ONE thinks he handled panties Monday, Tuesday......

Just a thought.

I hardly think that finding DNA from an Asian factory worker on anything makes the male Caucasian DNA in JonBen�t's panties unimportant.

I was suggesting that the police test the other panties that were in the same package as the Wednesday panties. If the same DNA as on those panties - - that might be important.

Instead we have this insult to our intelligence.

2002-12-06: DNA disclosed in Ramsey - Previously unrevealed sample found after September 1998

DNA disclosed in Ramsey
http://www1.dailycamera.com/bdc/city_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2422_1591720,00.html
Previously unrevealed sample found after September 1998
By Pam Regensberg, Camera Staff Writer
December 6, 2002

A court document released this week shows that Boulder police discovered a previously undisclosed DNA sample at the scene of JonBenet Ramsey's slaying.

That fact was revealed in a 192-page transcript of Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner's deposition in a civil case involving JonBenet's parents.

In the document, Beckner said the DNA sample was discovered sometime after September 1998, when Boulder County grand jury convened to investigate the 1996 slaying.

It is unclear where the DNA was discovered, but Beckner said it did not come from the slain 6-year-old girl's body or clothing, where a previously disclosed DNA was found. He said he couldn't say how many people were compared to the sample.

During the deposition, Beckner was hesitant to answer questions about evidence. He frequently turned to his attorney and asked if he could respond.

Beckner could not be reached for comment Thursday night.

The deposition was taken in Boulder on November 2001 by Atlanta attorney L. Lin Wood, who represents John and Patsy Ramsey in a multimillion-dollar libel suit brought by Robert Christian Wolf � a former Boulder journalist identified as a suspect in couple's book, "The Death of Innocence."

Former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation that ended without an indictment, declined to discuss the case.

"I don't want to be commenting on this case � it's a past lifetime for me," Kane said from his Pennsylvania home.

He said that even if he did remember that piece of evidence, he wouldn't talk about it.

"It's been 2-1/2 years since my involvement, and my recollection is sliding," he said.

Unmatched DNA found beneath JonBenet's fingernails and inside her underwear has long stumped detectives. That genetic material does not match that of the girl's family members or her parents, whom police have said are under suspicion in their daughter's death.

Last month, the Rocky Mountain News reported that investigators think DNA recovered from the girl's panties could have been left there when the clothing was manufactured.

JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents 15th Street home on Dec. 26, 1996. Her parents, despite police suspicion, have maintained their innocence.

2002-12-06: From Websleuths Forum thread titled,
"BCC: DNA disclosed in Ramsey case"

Jayelles
Posts: 228
Member since: 10/7/02 -
From: Brrrrrr....chitter.... Synopsis of Beckner on DNA_X

Gosh this is far more interesting and informative than the NE transcripts. Beckner was really playing his cards close to his chest in this interview.

Here's a synopsis of the portion about the DNA. I printed it out and went through it with a fine tooth comb in my lunch break!

1. There was DNA which was foreign to JBR found under her nails and in her panties. This has never been matched to anyone.

2. There was a third sample of DNA - hereafter called DNA_X found at the crime scene but not on JBR. This was not found until after the Grand Jury had convened in 1998. Beckner would not comment on where DNA_X was found.

3. The results of test on DNA_X were not known until 2000.

4. Beckner confirmed that DNA_X was compared to a group of individuals which included John and Patsy Ramsey.

5. The tests involving DNA_X were done at the FBI lab as opposed to the CBI lab and there was a reason for this (no elaboration).

6. Beckner stated that Chirs Wolf's DNA did not match DNA_X although he did not know whether Chris Wolf's DNA was compared to DNA_X. The implication was that it wasn't necessary to test it (because they already had a match).

7. Beckner exerted his privilege not to answer when asked if they knew who DNA_X belonged to. He said it could harm the investigation.

Conclusion

Reading between the lines, the police have a DNA match from something other than JBR's nails and panties and they aren't saying who it is for some reason. It isn't Chris Wolf, but it may be one of the Ramseys since they were among those tested.

I wonder what it could be? This isn't the hair from Patsy is it?
_____________________________
Date: 12/6/02 - 10:06:45 AM

2002-12-25: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.com)
"The CBI report"

jameson
Charter Member
11883 posts Dec-24-02, 05:15 PM (EST)

"The CBI report"

From 48 Hours Transcript:

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "They (Ollie Gray and John Sanagustin) became convinced of the Ramseys' innocence after seeing this lab report."

(photo of CBI lab report dated January 15, 1997 - a report that excludes the Ramseys as possible sources of the unidentified DNA under JonBen�t's nails and mixed with her blood in her panties.)

Ollie Gray: "I acquired a document that you see right here that names John and Patsy Ramsey as suspects... was submitted for analysis reference DNA"

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Just Days after JonBen�t was murdered, her parents' were asked to give DNA samples to the Boulder police. "

Erin Moriarty: (Talking to John and Patsy Ramsey) "The two of you have given samples to the police?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Absolutely"

John Ramsey: "Absolutely, blood, hair, we've given them everything they asked for."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Their DNA was compared to foreign DNA found under their daughter's fingernails and in her panties, which may have been left by the killer."

Erin Moriarty: "Does any of that DNA match anyone in the Ramsey family?"

Ollie Gray: "No, this analysis eliminates the Ramsey's"

Patsy Ramsey: "If our DNA matched anything significant, they would have arrested us in a New York minute and don't ever think they wouldn't have"

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "If not the Ramsey's, then who killed JonBen�t?"

why_nut
unregistered user
Dec-25-02, 07:35 AM (EST)

1. "Jameson"
In response to message #0

"(photo of CBI lab report dated January 15, 1997 - a report that excludes the Ramseys as possible sources of the unidentified DNA under JonBen�t's nails and mixed with her blood in her panties.)"

The report says that if the minor component of DNA mixed with the major component of JonBenet's DNA is from one person, the Ramseys are excluded. It does not say that if the minor component comes from two or more, the Ramseys are excluded. If, for example, three markers came from John and two from Patsy, the total package of five markers would exclude them, but not individual subsets of three and two.

The summary is right there on videotape for all to see and confirm.

The Ramseys are not excluded entirely; they are only excluded under one condition.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2003

2003-03-31: Carnes Order March 31, 2003 - Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case 1:00-CV-1187-JEC

SMF - Statement of Material Fact
PSMF - Plaintiff's Statement of Material Fact
PSDMF - Plaintiff's Statement Disputing Material Fact
Dep - Deposition
Def's - Defendants/Defense

Page 73

"Plaintiff, of course, argues that any evidence suggesting an intruder was staged by defendants. Even assuming that all the above evidence could have been staged, however, defendants point to other evidence for which a theory of contrivance by them seems either impossible or highly implausible. First, defendants note the existence of several recently-made unidentified shoeprints containing a "HI-TEC" brand mark were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF 151-152; PSMF 151-152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF 153; PSMF 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 155; PSMF 155. ) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF 154, 155; PSMF 154, 155. ) In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.)

Of course, the existence of these shoeprints and palmprint is not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of"

Page 74

the murder, but they are clearly consistent with an argument that an intruder was in the basement area. The defendants also offer other undisputed evidence that they contend clearly establishes that another male was near JonBenet at the time she was murdered. Specifically, defendants note that unidentified male DNA--which does not match that of a;ny Ramsey- -was found under JonBenet's fingernails. 36 (SMF 173-174, 177; PSMF 173, 177. ) In addition, male DNA, again not matching any Ramsey, was found in JonBenet's underwear. ( SMF 175 ; PSMF 175.) Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF 179-180; PSMF 179-180.) As noted, some wood fragments from the paintbrush used to create the garotte were found in JonBenet's vagina. Thus, given the existence of undisputed evidence that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and the discovery of DNA evidence on her person from an unidentified male--as well as no DNA from any Ramsey--the defendants argue that the inference of an intruder becomes almost insurmountable. As to the above described evidence, plaintiff offers no explanation consistent with his theory of the crime."

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2004

2004-01-14: The Bonita Papers-1999 (DNA Testing)
From a poster known as "Spade" on the www.forumsforjustice.org forum posted information regarding a person known as "Bonita." Spade wrote: "These are the unedited "notes" of Bonita Sauer, secretary/para-legal to Dan Hoffman. Bonita intended to write a book from the case documents provided to her boss. But Bonita's notes were sold to the tabs by her nephew. Larry Pozner is a partner in the same law firm. I hope he reads his secretary's notes about this case before he runs his mouth about the Ramsey's. (Again) This is a long file, so I suggest copying to your own computer and printing it out. I have checked the important case info and find it accurate, however there is some BS. Please post your questions." On another postings, Spade wrote, "Bonita is the 1st name of the legal secretary who wrote up the Boulder Police reports, mailed them to her nephew in Oregon who in turn double-dealt them to two tabs for $70,000. Bonita had access to all the BPD reports. Keep in mind that Bonita wrote-up her info in 1999"

"DNA TESTING

After the physical evidence had been collected at the autopsy and from the search of the residence, the next step was testing by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations. Blood had been found on the long-sleeved white top and the "Wednesday" underwear worn by JonBenet, the blanket and nightgown found in the wine cellar, and the duct tape found in the cellar which John reported to have removed from JonBenet's mouth. CBI Agent Kathren Dressel, a DNA and serological testing expert with 25 years of experience, performed the DNA testing on these items and positively matched the blood to JonBenet.

Agent Dressel examined the fingernail clippings taken during the autopsy. According to the DNA profile developed, there was an indication of least two persons, the major component being JonBenet. It was Agent Dressel's opinion that if the other DNA component from the fingernails were from a single individual, all samples submitted for comparison could be eliminated. These samples included John, Patsy, Burke, Melinda and John Andrew.

Agent Dressel�s next task was to run DNA testing on the panties worn by JonBenet. Again, Dressel found that if the DNA was attributed to one person other than JonBenet, the same people could be excluded as a match.

The DNA analysis of the trace evidence recovered from the duct tape revealed a human hair, an animal hair, later identified as beaver, and various natural and man made red, blue, pink, purple and brown fibers.

The white blanket found with JonBenet�s body and the swabs of substances recovered during the autopsy were examined for semen. Serological studies did not find the presence of semen on any of these items. However, two hairs were recovered from the blanket. One of the hairs, identified as a Caucasian pubic hair, did not match samples from John, Patsy or John Andrew. A second hair, was also identified as human head hair several inches long, Was also examined but no conclusions were reached as to the source.

The DNA samples extracted from the fingernails and the panties, and the two hairs were sent to CellMark Diagnostics, Inc. in Germantown, Maryland for further analysis. CellMark, the largest private DNA testing lab in the nation, became a household word during testimony at the 0. J. Simpson trial. When the FBI labs were criticized for its DNA testing procedures during the trial, CellMark was employed for independent DNA analysis. In the Ramsey investigation, CellMark was able to determine that the primary source of DNA from the fingernail clippings were from a female, and the secondary source was from a male, but that no further conclusions regarding this male could be made. No DNA identification could be made fro the underwear stains or hair other than that JonBenet could possibly be the source.

Another name from the Simpson trial was also brought on board the Ramsey investigation Dr. Henry Lee, a leading criminologist and expert in DNA analysis and crime scene reconstruction. in February, 1996 Lee spent five hours with police department investigators and D.A. Hunter to review evidence in the Ramsey case. After attending the briefing, Lee concluded that there was probably a 50% chance of solving the crime. He took DNA evidence back to the State Police Forensic Science Laboratory in Hartford, Connecticut, of which is the director, for his own testing and analysis. One piece of physical evidence recovered from the wine cellar was the black duct tape that John said covered his daughter's mouth which he removed before carrying her body upstairs. During the April 30 interviews, both John and Patsy said they had never seen, used or owned such duct tape."

2004-05-19: Experts Dispute Ramsey Claims About DNA Evidence

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...382/detail.html
Experts Dispute Ramsey Claims About DNA Evidence
DNA Source Not Necessarily Killer, Expert Says
POSTED: 9:00 am MDT May 19, 2004

DENVER -- Experts are disputing claims by John Ramsey's congressional campaign that investigators have the DNA of the person who murdered his daughter, JonBenet Ramsey.

Ramsey, who now resides in Charlevoix, Mich., with his wife Patsy and son Burke, announced May 11 that he was a Republican candidate for the Michigan State Legislature.

Ramsey's campaign Web site has a section called "Family Tragedy/Update" which makes the assertion that forensic experts have successfully identified the final DNA marker from a sample found in JonBenet's underwear and that the family has been advised the sample came her murderer.

That claim is disputed by the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

The scientist, who talked to the Rocky Mountain News, told them it is possible the sample came from the killer, but that there are other possibilities that explain how the sample got in the underwear.

"You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist told the News. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

The scientist asked that his name not be published, according to the newspaper.

A second forensics expert, who the newspaper said is close to the case, also agreed that the significance of the DNA sample is open to interpretation.

Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, who represented the Ramsey family since the murder, told the News that he disagreed.
"Anyone in a law enforcement investigation who is searching for an innocent explanation for foreign male DNA found mixed in the victim's blood on her underwear is either incompetent or prejudiced to the point of being unqualified to participate in a fair and objective investigation," he told the newspaper.

After the final genetic marker in the sample was identified, the genetic profile was entered into a national database maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. So far, there has been no match for it.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2006

2006-10-30: Forums For Justice
on thread titled, "Support For Fleet White"

October 30, 2006, 12:49 pm, Mon Oct 30 12:49:27 CST 2006
Jayelles
Alert Viewer in Scotland
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,351
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the "evidence" I have read against Fleet White has been basic hearsay - a (clearly biased) cleaning lady's "impression" of his manner.... a third party account of this, a fourth party account of that... Snide remarks paired with innuendo about the fact that he got Jonbenet into dry underwear when she wet herself at his house (oh that couldn't be the normal action of a caring and practical father ... it could only be the actions of a paedophile...)

His and Priscilla's names are almost certainly on the lab report as NOT matching the foreign DNA (I have racked my brain and cannot think of any other names which fit the "shapes") yet there are still people who would have us believe that a) his DNA wasn't even tested or b) that is was inconclusive.

I made Fleet and Priscilla's names using cut and pasted letters from the actual lab report. Then I made them white and placed them over the blanked out spaces. AT first I couldn't get Priscilla to fit and I thought it must be someone else's name. However I was spelling it "Pricilla" instead of Priscilla". When I got the spelling correct, it fitted. If you look at the graphic below, the top one is the original, the bottom one has the names inserted, but just lowered very slightly so that you can compare the little bumps along the top with the top of the letters.

October 30, 2006, 1:27 pm, Mon Oct 30 13:27:20 CST 2006
Jayelles
Alert Viewer in Scotland
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,351
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kangatruth
very impressive Jayelles..

I might concur with Priscilla's fitting....but have some concern with the shapes as occur below the strikeout line where Fleet would be in your interpretation....to be right the bump where the "L" would be ought to be flattish on the bottom and it isnt..well not to me......and his 'white' doesnt to me look right...where as Priscillas is plausible..

just an observation..

any which ways .a lot of work went into that !! :-)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The graphic isn't perfect and the same letter can appear twice and look slightly different. It's a messy image which was captured not only from a panning camera, but from a two different screen images which faded into one another. I also did it rather quickly. I don't know what the font is, but the kerning is irregular (spacing between letters). Rather than take individual letters, I tried to get groups of letters where possible - i.e. WH taken from "WHERE", TE taken from constituTEd.

There's a lit of Ramsey friends here:- Can anyone see another name which would be a better fit than Fleet White?

Archuleta, Mike (John Ramsey's pilot)
Archuleta, Pam (Mike Archuleta's wife)
Barnhill, Betty (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
Barnhill, Joe (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
Beuf, Dr. Francesco (Jonben�t's pediatrician & Ramsey friend)
Beuf, Penni (Dr Beuf's wife)
Brady, Shirley (Ramsey nanny)
Brumfitt, Diane (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
Bynum, Mike (Ramsey lawyer)
Crowder, Judy (Lucinda Ramsey's neighbor in Atlanta)
Davis, Grant (Patsy Ramsey's brother in law)
Dillon, Margaret (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
Durgin, Leslie (Mayor of Boulder)
Elowsky , "Pasta" Jay (John Ramsey's business associate & family friend)
Fernie, Barbara (Ramsey friend)
Fernie, John (Ramsey friend)
Gibbons, Scott (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
Glynn, Mike (Access Graphics' "disgruntled employee")
Griffin , Kristine (Pam Griffin's daughter and Ramsey babysitter)
Griffin , Pamela (Jonben�t's costume designer)
Hand, Tom (Ramsey Boulder architect)
Haney, Carla (Boulder neighbor who walked her dog at 1am on 12/26/96)
Harrington, Pastor Dr. W. Frank (Ramsey minister in Atlanta)
Hoffman-Pugh, Linda (Ramsey housekeeper in Boulder)
Hofstrom, Pete (Asst Boulder DA and alleged Ramsey associate)
Hollis, Diane (former Access Graphics employee)
Hoverstock, Rev. Rol (Ramsey minister in Boulder)
Justice, Mary (Ramsey friend in Atlanta)
Kloster, Dr Gil (Ramsey friend in Atlanta)
Kloster, Jayne (Ramsey friend in Atlanta)
Limerick, Patricia (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
Long III, Dr. Stewart (John Ramsey's son in law)
Marino, Jim (Access Graphic's employee and Ramsey friend)
McHue, Leslie (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
McLean, Linda Edison (Long time friend of Patsy Ramsey)
McReynolds, Bill (Santa, deceased)
McReynolds , Janet (Santa's wife)
Merrick, Jeff (former Ramsey friend and employee at Access Graphics)
Meyers, Glenn (boarded with the Barnhills)
Miles, Stephen (lived in Boulder, accused by John Ramsey)
Morgan, Bryan (Ramsey attorney)
Paugh, Donald (Patsy Ramsey's father)
Paugh, Nedra (Patsy Ramsey's mother)
Paugh, Pamela (Patsy Ramsey's younger sister)
Paugh Davis, Pauline "Polly� (Patsy Ramsey's youngest sister)
Phillips, Judith (former Ramsey friend)
Pugh, Mervin (husband of Linda Hoffman-Pugh)
Ramsey, Burke (Jonben�t's brother)
Ramsey, Elizabeth �Beth� (Jonben�t's eldest half sister, deceased)
Ramsey, Jeff (John Ramsey's brother)
Ramsey, John (Jonben�t's father)
Ramsey, John Andrew (Jonben�t's older half brother)
Ramsey, Jonben�t
Ramsey, Patricia "Patsy" Paugh (Jonben�t's mother)
Ramsey, Peggy (John Ramsey's sister in law)
Ramsey Johnson, Lucinda Pasch (John Ramsey's first wife)
Ramsey Long, Melinda (Jonben�t's older half sister)
Simons, Randy (Jonben�t's photographer)
Simpson , Carole (Ramsey friend in Atlanta)
Smith , Betty (friend of Patsy's from WV)
Smith, Jim (friend of Patsy's from WV)
Stanton, Luther (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
Stanton, Melody (Ramsey neighbor in Boulder)
Stevens, Dr. Donald (University friend of John Ramsey)
Stine, Glen (Ramsey friend in Boulder)
Stine, Susan (Ramsey friend in Boulder)
Stobie, Jane (former employee of Access Graphics)
Wagner, Laurie (Ramsey friend and employee of Access Graphics)
Walker , Roxanne �Roxy� (Ramsey friend in Boulder)
Walker, Stewart (Ramsey friend in Boulder)
Westmoreland , J. Rod (Ramsey friend in Atlanta)
White, Fleet (Ramsey friend in Boulder)
White, Priscilla (Ramsey friend in Boulder)

I'm happy to try any other names that anyone thinks might fit.

October 30, 2006, 1:54 pm, Mon Oct 30 13:54:48 CST 2006
Jayelles
Alert Viewer in Scotland
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,351
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I enlarged the graphic and the bumps along the bottom might not be from the letters, but from the marker pen. It really isn't a great quality graphic - there's lots of ghosts and noise. The only other name I can think of which would fit the space is Jay Elowsky, but I'm pretty sure the last two letters aren't KY.

October 30, 2006, 2:39 pm, Mon Oct 30 14:39:03 CST 2006
Jayelles
Alert Viewer in Scotland
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,351
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quote:
Originally Posted by koldkase
Dauumn, Jayelles. I'm hanging up my amateur sleuthing hat. If you are not professionally working in LE, then YOU MISSED YOUR CALLING!

Because YOU ARE DA BOMB!

I actually spent days once trying to figure out whose names were under those blackouts. I tried to match up the same tops and bottoms and spacings you did. But I never thought to "cut and paste," just did it visually.

JAYELLES, YOU ROCK!!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish I had a better graphic to work from. I wonder if Mary Lacy would just tell us what the names are? She's not got much to lose now!

ETA - the other name which is blacked out is almost definitely Mervin Pugh BTW.

2006-12-26: Forums For Justice on thread titled,
"Tom Wickman on FOX News"

December 26, 2006, 1:30 pm, Tue Dec 26 13:30:36 CST 2006
koldkase
FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,432
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So McKinley said that "the investigators who were orginally on the case" believe that if the ransom note ever gets entered into court with focus on the linguistics and handwriting, then the case might be solved?

December 26, 2006, 1:43 pm, Tue Dec 26 13:43:58 CST 2006
YumYum012
Member Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 715
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RivRat ... Here's a new FUXNews segment ... this one includes Wickman:

http://media2.foxnews.com/122606/122606_mckinley_ramsey2_300.wmv

Thanks for the heads-up, RivRodent.

...YumYum

December 26, 2006, 1:48 pm, Tue Dec 26 13:48:32 CST 2006
koldkase
FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,432
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How unfairly the BPD has been painted by the RST. Wickman said they fingerprinted every window, sifted through gravel on the playground area, and used INFRARED on the walls. He said, when asked if it's time to move on, NO.

He said a lot of false information has gotten in the public about the evidence. He wouldn't specify, for obvious reasons, but McKinley brought up that the "stun gun" allegations are WRONG, that the BPD PROVED that the marks on JonBenet's face ARE BRUISES, NOT STUN GUN INJURIES.

TAKE THAT, SMIT, YOU FOOL!

December 26, 2006, 2:10 pm, Tue Dec 26 14:10:17 CST 2006
koldkase
FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,432
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, McKinley said on this segment, which was live with some videotaped stuff with Wickman and Bill Wise, that the DNA HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED FOR ETHNICITY BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ENOUGH TO DO SO WITHOUT DESTROYING IT. She said that it's so minute, they have to save it for other tests if there's a trial...?

Bill Wise said that the case is dead in the water and he doesn't believe it will be solved. He blamed the BPD...of course.

McKinley brought up that when Patsy died, some were disappointed that Patsy would never see the killer of JonBenet. But, she said, some people believe that Patsy took secrets to her grave about the murder.

December 26, 2006, 2:13 pm, Tue Dec 26 14:13:53 CST 2006
Why_Nut
FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 667
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC
RiverRat, what I heard her say is that advances in dna and handwriting analysis will help solve the case. If she said it is not from a caucasion, I'm missing it. But I'm going to listen again.

Quote from Carol just now, which I will post video from as proof:

"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 if it's tested it'll be used up. All we know is that it belongs to a male. We don't know what ethnicity it is."

December 26, 2006, 2:15 pm, Tue Dec 26 14:15:59 CST 2006
Why_Nut
FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 667
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From earlier this morning, one of Carol McKinley's brief summaries of the case as part of the anniversy acknowledgement, with Tom Wickman being interviewed on camera for the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F3Ubv2cbds

CLICK HERE: Flight 755 15th Street Main Directory

Home

1998 to 2007 ACandyRose�

E-Mail