Perfect Murder, Perfect Town - Lawrence Schiller [233]
The foreign DNA that had been found under JonBenét’s fingernails was extremely weak and possibly contaminated. The contamination could have taken place at any time after the material was first lodged under the child’s nails and until her body was placed on the floor near the Christmas tree. Although it was highly unlikely, the contamination could even have taken place during the autopsy. The clippers used to cut JonBenét’s fingernails may not have been properly sterilized. It was also possible that the substance found was not correctly preserved before the DNA was extracted for testing. In any case, weak DNA would not provide a reliable sample to match another person’s DNA.
Further confounding the experts was the stain found on JonBenét’s panties, which was a mixture of DNA from two or more people. Here further testing was needed. The detectives were advised to take saliva swabs from possible suspects. The list of people to be tested in connection with the mixed DNA was long and included many of JonBenét’s playmates. If a match could be found, it might provide a simple explanation—for example, two children sharing the same underwear. In that case, an important door would be closed in the case: No defense attorney would be able to claim that the unidentified DNA found on the panties belonged to a unknown person—an intruder or stranger who might have killed JonBenét.
Meanwhile, both the CBI and the FBI were still examining and analyzing the four red and black fibers found on the duct tape, and the fibers on and near the folds of JonBenét’s labia, on her skin, and in the area around her vagina. The fibers on the duct tape were of a different origin than those found on the child’s body.
Earlier in the case, the police had thought the fibers from the body came from John Ramsey’s bathrobe or Patsy’s black pants or from the blanket found near JonBenét or from the blanket that had been found inside the suitcase under the broken basement window. The fibers might also have come from JonBenét’s own clothes or from one of her stuffed animals. By now, however, all of those possibilities had been excluded, and the only logical explanation was that the fibers came from whatever had been used to wipe JonBenét or possibly from someone who might have rubbed up against her when she was unclothed, which allowed the fibers to find their way along her skin and eventually into the folds of her labia. In any event, the clothes worn by Patsy and John on Christmas would have to be compared with the fibers.
The investigators also had to revisit the issue of the pubic hair found on the blanket that JonBenét’s body was wrapped in. Early analysis had shown that it might be consistent with Melinda Ramsey, who had been cleared as a suspect in March. But that didn’t mean the hair could not also be consistent with some other person. Alternately, the hair might have been transferred from the floor or some other object that the blanket had touched since it was last washed. The police wanted to use a newer method of comparison that was about to become available to make sure that the hair did not belong to John and Patsy Ramsey, who had previously been excluded.
Several detectives believed that JonBenét had suffered sexual abuse before the crime. Dr. David Jones, Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California at Davis, thought that the damage to JonBenét’s hymen dated from an old injury. Another expert, Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the CU Health Sciences Center, suggested that the injury to the hymen might have been part of the staging that took place after her death. Dr. Werner