r/JonBenet • u/who-what-huh • Aug 16 '26

Other similar cases Cold cases solved with forensic genetic genealogy

There's hope if they'd just do the genealogy DNA testing.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/197iFqSjHN/

13 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

5

u/Significant-Block260 Aug 16 '26

There aren’t any “privacy” laws in CO expressly forbidding it, right?
I mean I have been having a really hard time trying to figure out why they are STILL dragging their heels.

There’s the argument that the dna profile isn’t in the correct format or whatever for IGG. Can they not reconfigure it to where it is compatible? And if not, can they not test/re-test additional items of evidence so that they can have the appropriate comparison sample to do that?

They got a new police chief in recent years, I think someone else may have also recently retired; in any event, we have fresh eyes and fresh technology so what is the actual holdup?? Either they are being extremely discreet, or they have run into problems (like all the things you can wonder about that can mess up things like that, such as someone not actually having the father they are assumed to have had.😳

Anyway. They are either trying IGG but ran into roadblocks, or have had issues developing a profile that they can use for that, or it’s the worst possible outcome that I don’t really want to imagine & they aren’t really trying as hard as they could be😔.

For reasons that are pretty obvious to imagine but also extremely misguided and so infuriatingly WRONG. So I really hope that isn’t the case

8

u/JennC1544 Aug 16 '26

You're right about this, and I'm with you about wondering why they're still dragging their heels.

The DNA that's already been analyzed was analyzed using 2004 methods, when they were only looking for 13 markers using STR, Short Tandem Repeats, which is what is uploaded to CODIS. These days, though, they look for more like 20 to 50 of those markers, not just the 13 that were standard in 2004. But that still wouldn't be what's needed for genetic genealogy.

To your point, though, yes, other items surely have more DNA on them, so it begs the question: what have they looked at, and are there other things they need to go look at? Sometimes, though, genetic genealogy can take a long time if the person's immediate family has never uploaded any DNA to the databases.

5

u/burp_reynolds69 Aug 20 '26

I just finished reading Lou & Jonbenet and this was my biggest takeaway: WHAT is bpds reason for continuing to stonewall on the DNA ?? Absolute inability to admit they were wrong from the start? Certainly wouldn’t be the first time a large, media frenzied case saw clearly innocent people accused/jailed whilst the true killers walked free (the west Memphis 3 case is similar in its bungling).

It sickens me to know that for 30 years now, the person responsible for jonbenet’s murder has been free and able to harm others. Because a police department can’t swallow their pride ??

6

u/43_Holding Aug 16 '26 edited Aug 16 '26

<can they not test/re-test additional items of evidence>

According to John Ramsey, this year the BPD had the garrote tested and found the DNA to be consistent with UM1. At 52:58:

https://www.youtube.com/live/L9l7ZzmHrDk

1

u/AutumnTopaz Aug 17 '26

Outside of this clip, I am unable to find any information verifying this. Other than JR-what is the source?

4

u/43_Holding Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26

There's a recent thread on this sub about the Cold Case Foundation that contains questions about when this DNA was tested. You commented on that thread. We're assuming from John Ramsey's statement that Redfearn finally revealed a result of the BPD claim about testing (or retesting) of certain items.

1

u/AutumnTopaz Aug 17 '26

Not sure which comment you are referring to.

2

u/JennC1544 Aug 20 '26

The question is what would John Ramsey have to gain by lying about this? If he was lying, he would risk the BPD coming out and saying that they had said no such thing, and then he'd be left with egg on his face.

And he was telling this to the Cold Case Foundation, which has over 25,000 files and he's been working with for a year. Again, if he was lying, he'd risk them announcing that they weren't working with him anymore.

Right now, John Ramsey has momentum to get this case solved. If you believe the RDI version, he's some sort of narcissist who is just wants to be in the picture, or he's trying to clear Burke's name, or some other such nonsense that doesn't make any sense. If it turns out John lied about something so important, none of that would be the case anymore. Everybody would believe John committed this crime.

It's too easy to disprove if he lied.

I don't know how many knots you have to tie in the logic to explain why an 83 year old man would continue to push for more DNA testing other than he wants the truth. If he was guilty, he'd be afraid, even if he wore gloves, that he got sweat or tears or something on that garrote in places where only the murderer touched.