I observe the wording. The summary says that samples from 7 (the panties), 14L and 14M (the left and right hand nails) revealed a mixture (see the word "mix-" which leads to the off-screen completion "-ture"?). But look further. "IF the minor" component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M "were contributed by a single" individual, then the Ramseys can be excluded. But we are all smart enough to fill in that particular blank. If the minor component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M were contributed by more than a single individual, then the Ramseys are not excluded, not by this summary, in any case. If both John's and Patsy's DNA are under JonBenet's nails, they may well be included because neither individually has the same markers as all components of the sample, but together they may add up to the components found.

We have letter combinations to reference now. For example, we can see that there are genetic locations referenced as BB and AA. If John has a marker of WA at location BB, but not a marker of WB at location AA, then he is excluded. But if John has a marker of WA at location BB, and Patsy has a marker of WB at location AA, then the sample may be a mixture of both their markers.

I would like to see a clear copy of the report - - the full report.

I know CBS had a copy of the report and they clearly stated that the 2nd sample in the panties and under JonBenét's nails could not have been from the Ramseys.

The CBS team that did the two 48 Hours stories is very good at doing the research - I have watched them both times - they check and double check... They are smart and have legal minds right there (Erin is a lawyer)

They didn't quibble about it - - the DNA was from JonBenet and someone unrelated to her.

(Unless you are suggesting none of JonBenét's DNA was in there at all.)

if 48 hours was handed a copy and used it on the air, it is not sealed and can be shared.

Who should do that first, and when, is a completely different issue.

Can you decipher the items under the 'Description' column in the first image? I can make some of it out, but I'm struggling.

Can you decipher the items under the 'Description' column in the first image? I can make some of it out, but I'm struggling.

Certainly. The items listed were the things that the CBI analyzed for purposes of identifying DNA:

BLOODSTAINS FROM SHIRT
BLOODSTAINS FROM PANTIES
BLOODSTAIN STANDARD FROM JONBENET RAMSEY
SWAB WITH SALIVA
RIGHT AND LEFT HAND FINGERNAILS FROM JONBENET RAMSEY
SAMPLES FROM TAPE
BLOODSTAIN FROM WHITE BLANKET
BLOODSTAINS FROM NIGHTGOWN
SEMEN STAINS FROM BLACK BLANKET
BLOODSTAIN STANDARD FROM JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY

At that point the names go off the screen, but we can reasonably infer that the rest of the listing is of BLOODSTAIN STANDARD FROM John, Patsy, Burke and Melinda, plus John's brother Jeff and another named individual or two or three who have been censored out of the broadcast copy.

the sources which were examined for DNA (at least at the time before the summary report was issued) were:

BLOODSTAINS FROM SHIRT
BLOODSTAINS FROM PANTIES
BLOODSTAIN STANDARD FROM JONBENET RAMSEY
SWAB WITH SALIVA
RIGHT AND LEFT HAND FINGERNAILS FROM JONBENET RAMSEY
SAMPLES FROM TAPE
BLOODSTAIN FROM WHITE BLANKET
BLOODSTAINS FROM NIGHTGOWN
SEMEN STAINS FROM BLACK BLANKET

Thanks for that - you have filled in the gaps for me.

One thing - BLACK blanket? Did we know about that? Is that John Andrew's blanket? Funny, I never thought about it being black.

One thing - BLACK blanket? Did we know about that? Is that John Andrew's blanket? Funny, I never thought about it being black.

That was known. And what is interesting is that there seem to have been a favoring of black blankets in the house, as I look at the search warrants and find two items described as black blankets that were taken; item 19PP, black and gold blanket, and item 1BAH, black comforter. These do not include yet a third black item, 2BAH, black velvet sheet (with eyebrows raised, I wonder who was the sensation seeker in the house who belonged to it).

Since at least one of these items has been described elsewhere as a blanket belonging to John Andrew and related to Colorado University, it may be the item I link to below, which seems to be the only such item they sell:

http://shop.aecustomfactory.com/colorado/regular_product_details.asp?item_no=UCGA202001

Goodness. I have never before seen either a black blanket OR a black velvet sheet! I guess I have led a sheltered life LOL!

This is what I got off the screen (after much staring):

LABORATORY REPORT - ??

LAB CLASS XX???-2136(?)-4153(?) SECTION: DNA TESTING
AGENCY(?) NAME – CD0878136 – F2 ACBLDER(?)

EXTRACTED(?) BY: blacked out EXTRACTION DATE: 123196(?)

ABSTRACT(X) AFA(?) ?/? ??? (would this be the control sample?)

RAMSEY, PATSY W/F
RAMSEY, JOHN W/M

RAMSEY, JONBENET W/F

Two lines BLACKED OUT

DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997

EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
#13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey
_________________________________________________________________(fold in page??)
LABORATORY REPORT

BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
??????? Section Testing WB

BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
WB WB

BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
WA WB WB W18 (?)

THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.

(the left side of the page seems to be cut off and starts with)
FED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX-
(left side cut off) COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
(left side cut off) 5 (or S or?) #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
(JOHN is cut off) ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, JEFF
RAMSEY (blacked out)
(cut off??) EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED.

From Why_Nut: I observe the wording. The summary says that samples from 7 (the panties), 14L and 14M (the left and right hand nails) revealed a mixture (see the word "mix-" which leads to the off-screen completion "-ture"?). But look further. "IF the minor" component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M "were contributed by a single" individual, then the Ramseys can be excluded. But we are all smart enough to fill in that particular blank. If the minor component in the samples from 7, 14L and 14M were contributed by more than a single individual, then the Ramseys are not excluded, not by this summary, in any case. If both John's and Patsy's DNA are under JonBenet's nails, they may well be included because neither individually has the same markers as all components of the sample, but together they may add up to the components found.

If the word “individual” (as you suggest) as well as the word “John” is cut off from that one location on the left side, then we are missing several words (down the left side). You also notice Patsy and Melinda are not listed. I would suggest that might be due to the fact that part of the report is missing. I would also suggest that they are not listed in the “summary notes” because the DNA that is not JonBenet’s is male.

From Why_Nut: We have letter combinations to reference now. For example, we can see that there are genetic locations referenced as BB and AA. If John has a marker of WA at location BB, but not a marker of WB at location AA, then he is excluded. But if John has a marker of WA at location BB, and Patsy has a marker of WB at location AA, then the sample may be a mixture of both their markers.

Or, perhaps, as we have been told quite often, the DNA does not match the Ramsey family members. Note the blacked out part after “JEFF RAMSEY”. What do you think that might be? Could it be someone else’s name? You’ll notice in the top half it lists the “Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey”, but does not list anyone else (not John B. Ramsey, not Jeff Ramsey).

I'm thinking the black blanket and sheet belonged to JAR. Black seems to be the favored color of young adult males when selecting their bedroom 'decor'. It sounds like JAR's bedroom 'decor' was black and gold.

It wasn't black velvet - it was black velux

Cops wrote what made sense to them - - sometimes it wasn't quite right.

I have several VELLUX blankets (COSTCO) and they are often found in hotel rooms. They are 100% nylon (as per the attached label). They are quite light weight, but quite warm, and have a velour-like softness to them.

Aren't Velux blankets the ones that feel sorta spongy? I have a Martha Stewart one in blue.

FWIW, years ago we had a waterbed and we had a black satin spread. I never thought of it being kinky at all. Just so happens our room was decorated in black and gold. Can't remember the color of the sheets.

Also, wasn't there a sheet of black metal taken from the Ramsey basement? Did we ever find out what that was all about?

Yes - - they feel spongy.

I bought satin (or was it silk?) sheets once - - thought they would be sexy - - but the pillows and blankets kept flying off the bed - -

Not recommended.