303 838 7048 info@ifscolorado.com

A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom

Independent Forensic Services Touch DNA A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom

Touch DNA

A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom

Posted By IFS

Case outline

I was asked to review the JonBenet Ramsey case for A&E. For this review, I received reports, pictures and tables with DNA results. I assume that the DNA profiles provided to me in tables are a correct representation of the raw data. However, I did not receive the raw data of the DNA profiles, meaning that verification of DNA results was not possible.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did several DNA investigations in 1997 but used non-sensitive, not very informative DNA tests, which was normal for the US at that time. CBI did find some DNA from unknown sources but the evidential value is low. Because of this reason I will not review these results any further in this article.

What is interesting though, is that early in 1997 the parents were obviously suspects. Below one can see part of a report from CBI dated from January 15, 1997. The homicide took place around December 26, 1996.  So, in a couple of weeks the parent became suspects. Knowing a fair deal about miscarriages of justice world-wide, I can state that considering the parents at such an early stage does not help truth finding and keeping an open mind. It could be that in the US this is normal practice but in Europe you need to gather (a lot) evidence first, before one can call someone a suspect in a case. E.g. a confession, DNA evidence, reliable witnesses etc. I don’t believe there was any of that in the first weeks of the case. Making the parents suspect can cause tunnel vision which can lead to overlooking important evidence.  I don’t say that the parents are not of interest when a girl of six is found killed in her own house, but an open mind is extremely important to prevent tunnel vision.

 

I have talked with several television networks about the JonBenet Ramsey case. I found it interesting that most of them had a certain angle on the case which was leading in the questions and broadcasts. It did not appear that any of the television networks were interested in all evidence and opportunities of investigation to see which ever direction that would lead. For that reason, I will put my ideas in this small article. Hopefully, somebody one day will do something with it.

In 1996, DNA investigations were performed but DNA awareness was not present by most perpetrators. Furthermore, touch DNA was not “invented” yet. Criminals could not anticipate that we would be able to get DNA from objects that they had touched. In this light, it is unlikely that the perpetrator(s) in the JonBenet Ramsey case could prevent leaving DNA on the victim and touched items.

Several important findings can be obtained from the pathology report. Below you find some findings in the pathology report written about the autopsy on JonBenet. Why is this important for a DNA investigation? Some scientists don’t want to know anything about a case before DNA testing because of tunnel vision. We are not supporters of this school of thought, because without information the investigation will be far less efficient and a lot of important evidence will never be found. The scientist can get biased by information but that bias does not influence the outcome of the DNA result. I can think that a suspect must be the perpetrator of a crime but if he/she had never contact with the victim I won’t be able to find his/her DNA. I had this several times when I started coordinating DNA cases. Police and DA’s pushed my thoughts in the direction of a suspect. Soon I learned always to follow the DNA and not my bias against a suspect. If the suspect killed/raped the victim, I would find the evidence.

The conclusions in the autopsy reveal a lot of (forceful) contact between perpetrator(s) and the victim, the clothing and other pieces of evidence. During my career, I have performed a lot of crime scene investigations including scenes which were staged. This would be the first where parent(s) would go to such extreme violence and sexual assault to stage a crime scene. Weird stuff happens during crimes; therefore it is important to follow the evidence and not your gut feeling. We will analyse the pictures and the autopsy report later to give more information about the injuries and time of death and the sequence of events.

DNA investigation

It looks like Denver DA Mitch Morrissey wanted to indict the father and the mother. There is one problem however, in that his own Denver police lab did find DNA of at least one unknown male inside the panties of JonBenet. From the complex DNA mixtures form the panties an DNA profile of an unknown man was deduced. A profile that does not match the parents but that did not stop Morrissey of willing to indict the parents for their daughter’s murder. In my opinion based on thousands of (DNA) cases, DNA of an unknown male donor on the (inside) of a panty of a girl of 6 years old is very important. If you think it is not crime related than there needs to be a very good explanation for that. Some of the biggest miscarriages of justice take place because people don’t find it necessary to find a good explanation for certain DNA findings. BODE technology, a private lab, made things worse for Morrissey because they confirmed the results from the Denver lab. They took two samples from the long-johns which Jon Benet was wearing. These samples were not taken at random but from the sides where a perpetrator could have pulled them down. If you find an indication of the same unknown male on a girl of 6 that has been raped, you want to know who that is, before you starting an indictment of the parents.

The only way for this exculpatory DNA to go away is if huge mistakes were made by either the Denver lab and/or CBI. These mistakes could be a contamination combined with the inability to detect such a mistake. If this is the case, the lab at fault could lose its accreditation.

A deduced DNA profile from the panties was put in the national DNA database (CODIS). Never a matcht was obtained. There is a problem though, if one allele (number) is put wrongly in the DNA database there will never be a match.

Searching non-stringent in the DNA database should be performed but this is not common in the US. With this method one can find close matches to the profile and it will give a list of persons of interest. Furthermore, a search for familial DNA could be performed. The donor may not be in the database but perhaps his father, brother or other family members.

The racial background of the profile of the unknown male, which was deduced from the mixture from the panties, can be investigated.

Further investigations for DNA

From information obtained from reports and documentaries, I made a list evidence which should be investigated on blood, saliva, semen, sweat and touch DNA.Beside a standard autosomal DNA investigation, all samples should be investigated on Y-chromosomal DNA, which is only present in males. The victim’s DNA (female) is than filtered out. This gives a much bigger chance on finding DNA belonging to the perpetrator(s) on different incriminating locations.

Below I put up a list of items of interest. It speaks for itself why most items can be investigated for (touch) DNA.

The list of items of interest:

  1. The garrotte
  2. Rope on garrotte
  3. Fingernails JonBenet
  4. Hair JonBenet
  5. Nek samples JonBenet
  6. Mouth oral vaginal and anal swabs JonBenet
  7. Ligature of wrist JonBenet
  8. Shirt JonBenet was wearing
  9. Long johns JonBenet was wearing
  10. Blanket jr
  11. Ring right hands JonBenet
  12. Panties on touch DNA
  13. Blue rope
  14. Maglite
  15. White blanket
  16. Duct tape on the white blanket (duct tape is difficult to handle with gloves on)
  17. DNA on ransom note
  18. Suitcase placed under window
  19. Window basement
  20. Items in the suitcase (sham, duvet and a Dr. Seuss book)

Probably there is more evidence of interest available, but this list is a good start of the most important items. When a good DNA investigation is performed DNA of the perpetrator(s) should be obtained.

If no DNA results are obtained, which I find very unlikely, as a last resort the body of JonBenet could be exhumed to take new and better samples from bruises and locations where the perpetrators(s) could have touched her.

To be continued……..

 

Tagged , ,

Written by IFS

10 thoughts on “A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom

  1. How can we demand that the codis profile submitted is being reviewed for similar matches instead of complete matches? How can we search for familial DNA without a suspect? If we know the panty blood DNA is of jonbebet and at least one other male person, and we know that the long John touch DNA is of Jonbenet and at least one other male person , and we know that Patsy put the long johns on Jonbenet before bed, can’t we deduct Patsy’s DNA from the touch DNA on the long johns the same way we deducted Jonbenets and come up with a more complete profile? Would doing so help us come to a better conclusion or sorting out of the factors involved in the panty blood DNA profile? Or is it that when they say “at least one other male person” they mean that all DNA found besides Jonbenets is male? When they say ” at least one other male person” does this mean that it could be and most likely is just one other male person and not two? It seems to me that the reasoning behind saying “at least one other male person” is to facilitate a way to scrutinize DNA that could have come from a family member although in any other case it would be taken as one individual perpetrator. Or is it that every time DNA is found the law interprets it as coming from one or more persons until a one individual person is found to match the entirety of the DNA? We know that investigators have identified an “unknown male profile” for this case. Is this profile taken from all DNA found on panties and fingernails left behind that match each other and they know is male? It seems simplistic to me that if they already sorted out what is male and what is not after deducting Jonbenets profile, that what is left behind can easily be deducted from a profile and I think that is what they did. As for Patsy’s DNA on her daughter, wether it be on any of her clothes or on her person, I can assure my touch DNA is allllll over my kids. Barring touch DNA inside the vagina or anus, it should be a given that Patsy’s DNA would be there and therefore it should just be identified and deducted from each and every sample.

  2. As you know we love to do the DNA on this case. We will follow the DNA. If it implicates someone that is where you should investigate. I haven’t heard from any new DNA results in the case. It should not be that difficult if all evidence is still there.

    1. Wasnt sure where to comment however there was bound to be touch DNA after john threw a blanket over her and strangely placed her on the floor in front of the sofa where everyone walks!
      Also has anyone ever went so deep as to check john ramsey out as a child? Was he ever molested? What was his relationship with his parents etc.,patsy could have gotten sick from supressing secrets! She was on antidepressants!
      I think people need to check out johns past to be on the safe side, all the way back to his childhood!
      To much dodgey circumstancial evidence! Personally I question if patsy was possibly covering for john., i think his body language says hes calm in what he says however he seems to always have a calm fear in his face of what she may say wrong., also did they collect insurance on both of these children that died? Just curious if that was checked out

      1. Ive never in all my studies herd of a kidnapper for ransom molesting the child and leaving the child after killing it and then leaving a ransom note!

  3. VERY interesting. I also worked on some of the documentaries and remember the first time I was handed a DNA report – and saw at the top that police had “documented” on legal papers that they looked at this as a “family kill” – – even before the date YOU show here! I looked at the producers who were waiting on me to discuss the bottom of the report and I was – – NO, wait – – did you see this? How wrong is THIS! They were already saying it was family – – – and when they found out there was foreign DNA found mixed with the blood from the sexual assault – – co-mingled! – – and they kept ignoring it because it did not fit their BORG position (Bent on Ramsey Guilt) it made me sick.

    1. So where are the results of the “new” Dna resting that was supposed to seperate the male and female Dna and produce a profile through -y

        1. John had nothing to do with Jonbenet murder!! I’m sick of people like you George who accuse John when DNA has proven the Ramsey’s are not guilty nor we’re they involved because of people like you the Ramsey’s have received I’m Justice in finding the murder of JonBenet!

          1. John Ramsey has never searched for jonbenet’s killer. Every documentary he does he only talks about himself the narcissist. He tried to fly out of boulder half an hour after finding his daughters body, failed to tell LE about an open window when searching basement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.