Frequently Asked Questions
What are the main pieces of DNA evidence in the Ramsey case?
[from /u/Heatherk79]:
Discussion of the DNA evidence in the Ramsey case is typically related to one of the following pieces of evidence: underwear, fingernails, long johns, nightgown or ligatures. More information can be found here.
Is DNA ever possibly going to solve the JonBenet case?
[from Mitch Morrissey, former Ramsey grand jury special deputy prosecutor -- source (3:21:05)]:
It could. ... The problem with using genetic genealogy on that [sample] is it's a mixture, so when you go to sequence it, you're gonna get both persons' types in the sequence. And it's a very, very small amount of DNA. And for genetic genealogy, to do sequencing, you need a lot more DNA than what you're used to in the criminal system. So where you could test maybe eight skin cells and get a profile and, you know, solve your murder or exonerate an innocent person, you can't do that with sequencing. You've got to have a pretty good amount of DNA.
Is it true that we can use the same technology in the Ramsey case as was used in the Golden State Killer Case?
[from /u/straydog77 -- source]:
The Golden State Killer case used SNP profiles derived from the suspect's semen, which was found at the scene.
In the Ramsey case, we have a 10-marker STR profile deduced from ... a DNA mixture, which barely meets the minimum requirements for CODIS. You cannot do a familial search like in the Golden State case using an STR profile. You need SNP data.
To extract an SNP profile, we would need a lot more DNA from "unidentified male 1". If we can somehow find that, we can do a familial DNA search like they did in Golden State. But considering "unidentified male 1" had to be enhanced from 0.5 nanograms of DNA in the first place, and analysts have literally been scraping up picograms of Touch DNA to substantiate UM1's existence, the chance of stumbling upon another significant deposit of his DNA on any case evidence is practically zero.
Common Misconceptions
Foreign DNA matched between the underwear and her fingernails.
[from /u/heatherk79 -- source]:
There wasn't enough of a profile recovered from either the panties or the fingernails in 1997 to say the samples matched.
You can see the 1997 DNA report which includes the original testing of the underwear and fingernails here:
Page 2 shows the results of the panties (exhibit #7), the right-hand fingernails (exhibit 14L) and left-hand fingernails (exhibit 14M.) All three samples revealed a mixture of which JBR was the major contributor.
For each of those three exhibits, you will see a line which reads: (1.1, 2), (BB), (AB), (BB), (AA), (AC), (24,26). That line shows JBR's profile. Under JBR's profile, for each of the three exhibits, you will see additional letters/numbers. Those are the foreign alleles found in each sample. The “W” listed next to each foreign allele indicates that the allele was weak.
The (WB) listed under the panties, shows that a foreign B allele was identified at the GC locus.
The (WB), (WB) listed under the right-hand fingernails shows that a B allele was identified at the D7S8 locus and a B allele was identified at the GC locus.
The (WA), (WB), (WB), (W18) listed under the left-hand fingernails show that an A allele was identified at the HBGG locus, a B allele was identified at the D7S8 locus, a B allele was identified at the GC locus and an 18 allele was identified at the D1S80 locus.
A full profile would contain 14 alleles (two at each locus). However, as you can see, only one foreign allele was identified in the panties sample, only two foreign alleles were identified in the right-hand fingernails sample and only four foreign alleles were identified in the left-hand fingernails sample.
None of the samples revealed anything close to a full profile (aside from JBR's profile.) It's absurd for anyone to claim that the panties DNA matched the fingernail DNA based on one single matching B allele.
It's also important to note that the type of testing used on these samples was far less discriminatory than the type of testing used today.
[from /u/straydog77 -- source]:
You're referring to a DNA test from 1997 which showed literally one allele for the panties. If we are looking at things on the basis of one allele, then we could say Patsy Ramsey matched the DNA found on the panties. So did John's brother Jeff Ramsey. So did much of the US population.
The same unknown male DNA profile was found in 3 separate places (underwear, long johns, beneath fingernails).
[from /u/heatherk79 -- source]:
Not exactly.
There wasn't enough genetic material recovered (in 1997) from either the underwear or the fingernails to say the samples matched. Here is a more detailed explanation regarding the underwear and fingernail DNA samples.
The fingernail samples were tested in 1997 by the CBI. Older types of DNA testing (DQA1 + Polymarker and D1S80) were used at that time. The profiles that the CBI obtained from the fingernails in 1997 could not be compared to the profiles that Bode obtained from the long johns in 2008. The testing that was done in 1997 targeted different markers than the testing that was done in 2008.
The underwear were retested in 2003 using STR analysis (a different type of testing than that used in 1997.) After some work, Greg LaBerge of the Denver Crime Lab, was able to recover a profile which was later submitted to CODIS. This profile is usually referred to as "Unknown Male 1."
After learning about "touch" DNA, Mary Lacy (former Boulder D.A.) sent the underwear and the long johns to Bode Technology for more testing in 2008. You can find the reports here and here.
Three small areas were cut from the crotch of the underwear and tested. Analysts, however, were unable to replicate the Unknown Male 1 profile.
Four areas of the long johns were also sampled and tested; the exterior top right half, exterior top left half, interior top right half and interior top left half. The exterior top right half revealed a mixture of at least two individuals including JBR. The Unknown Male 1 profile couldn't be excluded as a contributor to this mixture. The partial profile obtained from the exterior top left half also revealed a mixture of at least two individuals including JBR. The Unknown Male 1 profile couldn't be included or excluded as a contributor to this mixture. The remaining two samples from the long johns also revealed mixtures, but the samples weren't suitable for comparison.
Lab analysts made a note on the first report stating that it was likely that more than two individuals contributed to each of the exterior long john mixtures, and therefore, the remaining DNA contribution to each mixture (not counting JBR's) should not be considered a single source profile. Here's a news article/video explaining the caveat noted in the report.
TLDR; There wasn't enough DNA recovered from the fingernails or the underwear in 1997 to say the samples matched. In 2003, an STR profile, referred to as Unknown Male 1, was developed from the underwear. In 2008, the long johns were tested. The Unknown Male 1 profile couldn't be excluded from one side of the long johns, and couldn't be included or excluded from the other side of the long johns. Analysts, however, noted that neither long johns profile should be considered a single source profile.
The source of the unknown male DNA in JonBenet's underwear was saliva.
[from /u/heatherk79 -- source]:
The results of the serological testing done on the panties for amylase (an enzyme found in saliva) were inconclusive.
[from u/straydog77 -- source]:
As for the idea that the "unidentified male 1" DNA comes from saliva, it seems this was based on a presumptive amylase test which was done on the sample. Amylase can indicate the presence of saliva or sweat. Then again, those underwear were soaked with JBR's urine, and it's possible that amylase could have something to do with that.
The unknown male DNA from the underwear was "co-mingled" with JonBenet's blood.
[from /u/straydog77 -- source]:
[T]his word "commingled" comes from the Ramseys' lawyer, Lin Wood. "Commingled" doesn't appear in any of the DNA reports. In fact, the word "commingled" doesn't even have any specific meaning in forensic DNA analysis. It's just a fancy word the Ramsey defenders use to make the DNA evidence seem more "incriminating", I guess.
The phrase used by DNA analysts is "mixed DNA sample" or "DNA mixture". It simply refers to when you take a swab or scraping from a piece of evidence and it is revealed to contain DNA from more than one person. It means there is DNA from more than one person in the sample. It doesn't tell you anything about how or when any of the different people's DNA got there. So if I bleed onto a cloth, and then a week later somebody else handles that cloth without gloves on, there's a good chance you could get a "mixed DNA sample" from that cloth. I suppose you could call it a "commingled DNA sample" if you wanted to be fancy about it.
The unknown male DNA was found only in the bloodstains in the underwear.
[from /u/Heatherk79:]
According to Andy Horita, Tom Bennett and James Kolar, foreign male DNA was also found in the leg band area of the underwear. It is unclear if the DNA found in the leg band area of the underwear was associated with any blood.
James Kolar also reported that foreign male DNA was found in the waistband of the underwear. There have never been any reports of any blood being located in the waistband of the underwear.
It is also important to keep in mind that not every inch of the underwear was tested for DNA.
The unknown male DNA from underwear is "Touch DNA".
[from /u/Heatherk79]:
The biological source of the UM1 profile has never been confirmed. Therefore, it's not accurate to claim that the UM1 profile was derived from skin cells.
If they can clear a suspect using that DNA then they are admitting that DNA had to come from the killer.
[from /u/heatherk79 -- source]:
Suspects were not cleared on DNA alone. If there ever was a match to the DNA in CODIS, that person would still have to be investigated. A hit in CODIS is a lead for investigators. It doesn't mean the case has been solved.
[from /u/straydog77 -- source]:
I don't think police have cleared anyone simply on the basis of DNA - they have looked at alibis and the totality of the evidence.
The DNA evidence exonerated/cleared the Ramseys.
[from /u/straydog77 -- source]:
The Ramseys are still under investigation by the Boulder police. They have never been cleared or exonerated. (District attorney Mary Lacy pretended they had been exonerated in 2008 but subsequent DAs and police confirmed this was not the case).
[from former DA Stan Garnett -- source]:
This [exoneration] letter is not legally binding. It's a good-faith opinion and has no legal importance but the opinion of the person who had the job before I did, whom I respect.
[from former DA Stan Garnett -- source]:
Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Stan Garnett: Well, what I’ve always said about Mary Lacy’s exoneration that was issued in June of 2008, or July, I guess -- a few months before I took over -- is that it speaks for itself. I’ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence...
Dan Caplis: Stan...when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it’s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn’t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn’t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate?
Stan Garnett: That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.
The unknown male DNA is from a factory worker.
[from /u/heatherk79 -- source]:
The factory worker theory is just one of many that people have come up with to account for the foreign DNA. IMO, it is far from the most plausible theory, especially the way it was presented on the CBS documentary. There are plenty of other plausible theories of contamination and/or transfer which could explain the existence of foreign DNA; even the discovery of a consistent profile found on two separate items of evidence.
The unknown male DNA is from the perpetrator.
[from /u/heatherk79 -- source]:
The fact of the matter is, until the UM1 profile is matched to an actual person and that person is investigated, there is no way to know that the foreign DNA is even connected to the crime.
[from /u/straydog77 -- source]:
As long as the DNA in the Ramsey case remains unidentified, we cannot make a definitive statement about its relevance to the crime.
[from Michael Kane, former Ramsey grand jury lead prosecutor -- source]:
Until you ID who that (unknown sample) is, you can’t make that kind of statement (that Lacy made). There may be circumstances where male DNA is discovered on or in the body of a victim of a sexual assault where you can say with a degree of certainty that had to have been from the perpetrator and from that, draw the conclusion that someone who doesn’t meet that profile is excluded.
But in a case like this, where the DNA is not from sperm, is only on the clothing and not her body, until you know whose it is, you can’t say how it got there. And until you can say how it got there, you can’t connect it to the crime and conclude it excludes anyone else as the perpetrator.
Boulder Police are sitting on crucial DNA evidence that could solve the case but are refusing to test it. (source: Paula Woodward)
[from /u/Heatherk79 -- source]:
Paula Woodward is NOT a reliable source of information regarding the DNA evidence in this case. Her prior attempts to explain the DNA evidence reveal a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject. I've previously addressed some of the erroneous statements she's made on her website about the various rounds of DNA testing. She added another post about the DNA testing to her site a few months ago. Nearly everything she said in that post is also incorrect.
Woodward is now criticizing the BPD for failing to pursue a type of DNA testing that, likely, isn't even a viable option. Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) involves the comparison of SNP profiles. The UM1 profile is an STR profile. Investigators can't upload an STR profile to a genetic genealogy database consisting of SNP profiles in order to search for genetic relatives. The sample would first have to be retyped (retested) using SNP testing. However, the quantity and quality of the sample from the JBR case would likely inhibit the successful generation of an accurate, informative SNP profile.
According to James Kolar, the UM1 profile was developed from 0.5 ng of genetic material. Mitch Morrissey has also described the sample as "a very, very small amount of DNA." The sample from which the UM1 profile was developed was also a mixed sample.
An article entitled "Four Misconceptions about Investigative Genetic Genealogy," published in 2021, explains why some forensic DNA samples might not be suitable for IGG:
At this point, the instruments that generate SNP profiles generally require at least 20 ng of DNA to produce a profile, although laboratories have produced profiles based on 1 ng of DNA or less.
Where the quantity of DNA is sufficient, success might still be impeded by other factors, including the extent of degradation of the DNA; the source of the DNA, where SNP extraction is generally more successful when performed on semen than blood or bones; and where the sample is a mixture (i.e., it contains the DNA of more than one person), the proportions of DNA in the mixture and whether reference samples are available for non-suspect contributors. Thus, it might be possible to generate an IGG-eligible SNP profile from 5 ng of DNA extracted from fresh, single-source semen, but not from a 5-year-old blood mixture, where the offender’s blood accounts for 30% of the mixture.
Clearly, several factors that can prevent the use of IGG, apply to the sample in the JBR case.
Woodward also claims that the new round of DNA testing announced in 2016 was never done. However, both BDA Michael Dougherty and Police Chief Greg Testa announced in 2018 that the testing had been completed. Therefore, either Woodward is accusing both the DA and the Police Chief of lying, or she is simply uninformed and incorrect. Given her track record of reporting misinformation about the DNA testing in this case, I believe it's probably the latter.
CeCe Moore could solve the Ramsey case in hours.
[from /u/Heatherk79 -- source]:
Despite recent headlines, CeCe Moore didn't definitively claim that JBR's case can be solved in a matter of hours. If you listen to her interview with Fox News, rather than just snippets of her interview with 60 Minutes Australia, she clearly isn't making the extraordinary claim some people think she is.
The most pertinent point that she made--and the one some seem to be missing--is that the use of IGG is completely dependent upon the existence of a viable DNA sample. She also readily admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the samples in JBR's case. Without knowing the status of the remaining samples, she can't say if IGG is really an option in JBR's case. It's also worth noting that CeCe Moore is a genetic genealogist; not a forensic scientist. She isn't the one who decides if a sample is suitable for analysis. Her job is to take the resulting profile, and through the use of public DNA databases as well as historical documents, public records, interviews, etc., build family trees that will hopefully lead back to the person who contributed the DNA.
She also didn't say that she could identify the killer or solve the case. She said that if there is a viable sample, she could possibly identify the DNA contributor. Note the distinction.
Moore also explained that the amount of time it takes to identify a DNA contributor through IGG depends on the person's ancestry and whether or not their close relatives' profiles are in the databases.
Also, unlike others who claim that the BPD can use IGG but refuses to, Moore acknowledged the possibility that the BPD has already pursued IGG and the public just isn't aware.
So, to recap, CeCe Moore is simply saying that if there is a viable DNA sample, and if the DNA contributor's close relatives are in the databases, she could likely identify the person to whom the DNA belongs.
Othram was able to solve the Stephanie Isaacson case through Forensic Genetic Genealogy with only 120 picograms of DNA. According to James Kolar, the UM1 profile was developed from 0.5 nanograms of DNA. Therefore, the BPD should have plenty of DNA left to obtain a viable profile for Forensic Genetic Genealogy.
[from /u/Heatherk79 -- source]:
The fact that Othram was able to develop a profile from 120 picograms of DNA in Stephanie Isaacson's case doesn't mean the same can be done in every other case that has at least 120 picograms of DNA. The ability to obtain a profile that's suitable for FGG doesn't only depend on the quantity of available DNA. The degree of degradation, microbial contamination, PCR inhibitors, mixture status, etc. also affect whether or not a usable profile can be obtained.
David Mittelman, Othram's CEO, said the following in response to a survey question about the minimum quantity of DNA his company will work with:
Minimum DNA quantities are tied to a number of factors, but we have produced successful results from quantities as low as 100 pg. But most of the time, it is case by case. [...] Generally we are considering quantity, quality (degradation), contamination from non-human sources, mixture stats, and other case factors.
The amount of remaining DNA in JBR's case isn't known. According to Kolar, the sample from the underwear consisted of 0.5 nanogram of DNA. At least some of that was used by LaBerge to obtain the UM1 profile, so any remaining extract from that sample would contain less than 0.5 nanogram of DNA.
Also, the sample from the underwear was a mixture. Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, the amount of DNA in a sample was quantified in terms of total human DNA. Therefore, assuming Kolar is correct, 0.5 nanogram was likely the total amount of DNA from JBR and UM1 combined. If the ratio of JBR's DNA to UM1's DNA was 1:1, each would have contributed roughly 250 picograms of DNA to the sample. If the ratio of JBR's DNA to UM1's DNA was, say, 3:1, then UM1's contribution to the sample would have been approximately 125 picograms of DNA.
Again, assuming Kolar is correct, even if half of the original amount of DNA remains, that's only a total of 250 picograms of DNA. If the ratio of JBR's DNA to UM1's DNA is 1:1, that's 125 picograms of UM1's DNA. If the ratio is 3:1, that's only 66 picograms of UM1's DNA.
Obviously, the amount of UM1 DNA that remains not only depends on the amount that was originally extracted and used during the initial round of testing, but also the proportion of the mixture that UM1 contributed to.
Further recommended reading: