DNA found on brand-new panties"

Rocky Mountain News
DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry
Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory
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.
...
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.
...
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."

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.

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."

brennanc@RockyMountainNews.com or (303) 892-2742

For full story see:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html

Well I can see where dna could be located on a new pair of panties they mass produce them in sweat shops maybe they swet on some of them.
What I would like to know is how the dna under her fingernails got contaiminated are they trying to say because the father picked her up that he may have contaminated the dna under her fingernails HORSE MANURE. Also I read the word wendsday was written on the elastic on her panties that's news to me what does that mean. Also if the dna is no good and doesn't match Oliva that still leaves him the best suspect right.

The autopsy report states:

Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waistband. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.

I find it unbelievalble that unidentified male DNA in found in the crotch of a sexually assaulted and murdered 6-year old girl's panties and under the fingernails of both her hands is considered unrelated to the crime!

I'd like to know--and have asked for years now--how many sexually assaulted & murdered children cases have found unidentified male DNA in their underwear that was unrelated to the crimes?

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.

I guess the factory worker traveled to Boulder to cough on JonBenét's hands, too.

This BORG spin is really laughable - - or would be if it wasn't the reason a killer still walks free.