It means the sample was mixed with JonBenet’s blood.
Armpit hair, which is normally texturally like pubic hair rather than head or light body hair.
“Axillary” hair – armpit hair. As aruvqan said.
hijack:
Huh. According to that Wikipedia article, shaving armpit hair can actually increase body odor.
/hijack
Armpit hair is “axillary”, not “auxiliary”, unless it’s a strategic reserve for the rest of your body’s hair, like Teapot Dome or something.
Brown Eyed Girl It’s not auxilliary, it’s axillary, i.e armpit hair as stated by aruvqan…
There was a statement upthread that some DNA came from the pubic hair. I don’t believe that is the case. So, cite please.
ETA: Wow! A triple.
And, once again, it was not found on the body but on the blanket that covered the body.
So what? It’s not one of the crucial samples anyway.
Oh, armpit hair. Makes sense (I’m familiar with the term axillary temperature). Thank you. Times 3.
And, Dio, I don’t “believe” anything with regard to the case. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated a propensity to believe anyone but the Ramseys killed JBR. I’m just open to the possibility that the investigation will never turn up a killer.
I don’t see how that post hurts Dio, actually. Every piece of evidence points to somebody not in the family. Creepy pedophile emerges who knows details of the crime unknown to the public, which turned out to be inaccurate reporting. I guarantee if another creepy dude emerges, I’ll not be the least bit surprised… and wait on the DNA match.
Really, if it weren’t for the $118,000 figure in the note, probably not a person alive would still suspect the parents. That is some pretty flimsy evidence compared to three DNA samples and the mountain of physical evidence in the “not the family” camp.
I’m still curious as to how the Ramseys were supposed to have gone about finding a random stranger’s skin cells and pubes and known exactly how to plant them in such a way that when technology changed ten years later, it was concluded that a third party was involved.
I can’t believe I read this whole thing this late, but it is a morbid American favorite, I suppose.
I too was first convinced when this happened that it was the parents, soon later Burke, and much later after the DNA tests, irregular ransom note, a garrotte as a murder weapon and basement window, I was convinced on an intruder. That’s what I stick with now.
If this was an accidental household murder by ANY of the Ramseys, wouldn’t incriminating Ramsey DNA be found on the poor kid’s body someplace? I highly doubt that a rage murder would have no evidence of this type. Since they already found DNA concluding it belongs to someone else and in the places it was found, it points much more to an intruder.
Still, if this really was an intruder, I’m convinced it’s someone close. That odd number of $118,000 closely matching John’s bonus is something a co-worker, disgruntled pageant parent of another too young beauty queen, or even a judge or a pedophile who frequently attends the pageants might know, overhear, whatever. Since JonBenet was quite the subject of conversation among friends and family, it’d be pretty easy to find out JB likes pineapple.
Some things might seem sketchy with the Secret Santa story (maybe JB made it up) or that she had a “secret room” she liked to be in, but again, this is a sick, sick idea to dress up babies as grown ups and throw them on a stage. :rolleyes:
Every time I see “Little Miss Sunshine”-- remember the creepy guy at the pageant next to Gregg Kinear who asks the creep, “You have a daughter in the show?” The guy says, “No,” and he’s by himself-- yeah. THAT kind of intruder!
And thanks to Dio and UTejas for all the cites.
I was one of those that also thought it was family, and probably they were covering up an accident, until the whole garrotte issue came out.
See to me, if it was accidental it would be blunt force trauma [accidental fall, hitting too hard, shaken baby, drown in bath tub] but strangling isn’t something that would seem to me to be some form of family interaction gone wrong [and she was way too young for autoerotic asphxiation, or so i would think:confused:]
I never thought it odd that the family lawyered up, it tends to be the first thing that anybody would actually do, not just because of possible criminal charges, but for general advice on dealing with all the paperwork as well [assuming that she died intestate, what happens to her savings and winnings held in trust for example] but then again I come from an equivalent family and I know we would have lawyered up under similar circumstances.
I did notice that there seemed to be a lot of police irregularities in how it was handled, and I thought that they were being tried in the press pretty much from the start. I was actually hoping it was the pervert that did it, so we could close the whole incident out, but alas it was not to be 
I am in hope that some day we can actually determine who’s DNA it actually is, and maybe find the killer…
All I’m saying is that there is nothing conclusive about this case and the fact that the investigation was mucked up from the get-go means that it’s unlikely that the perpetrator will ever be identified and convicted.
I can certainly understand why some are still suspicious of the parents. As has been pointed out numerous times before, the likelihood the parents are involved in the murder of a child (particularly in the child’s home) is statistically very high. There remain questions that have not been sufficiently answered to allay that suspicion and there has never been a viable suspect presented. Nothing is conclusive. Is it possible there was a third or even fourth party involved? Sure, there is. But without a suspect and evidence that points to that suspect’s commission of the crime, it’s pretty difficult to rule anyone out that was actually there at the time of the crime. It’s all just theory at this point.
We have absolute, irrefutable, conclusive proof that the killer was somebody else beside the parents. We just don’t know who it was. Saying 'we don’t have a suspect" is fatuous. We don’t have a name, but we have a full DNA profile.
On the other hand, we don’t have a single piece of evidence implicating the parnts. Not one.
Off topic but I thought that that guy had a kid in the pageant and was sympathizing with Kinear’s character, and that’s why he was applauding her at the end, because he himself had a little girl and knew she’d want to hear people clapping, etc.
Many people have suggested that the Ramseys knew the killer and covered up for him or her. Why they would do this is a matter of speculation, but these things do happen. Under such a scenario, the DNA did not come from a random stranger.
Sure, but whole bean was saying that even if they did plant it, finding a random guy’s pubes and dead skin would be easy enough.
There is, of course, no evidence or reason to hypothesize such a theory. The murder is explained perfectly well by an intruder alone.
While it’s not impossible, how would you do it nicely in a social situation?
“Hey John, can I run my comb through your short hairs?”
You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true. You have evidence that there may have been someone else at the scene of her death, although that’s not even conclusive, it is compelling evidence. You don’t have evidence that person killed her.
And you can’t convict a profile.
I’ve never said the parents killed her. I’ve only said there’s no way to be absolutely sure they weren’t involved in her death.