Is Burke Ramsey a Contributor to the “Unknown Male 1” CODIS Profile?

by Cottonstar and Juror13

A local Boulder journalist, Charlie Brennan, uncovered a DNA report that was unknown to even members of law enforcement which found that although the family was previously excluded, that may not be the case. There is a reasonable chance that what has been attributed to a single individual actually represents DNA from multiple individuals that have been hobbled together into a single profile, but that report had been put aside and very few people knew about it. – from Lawrence Schiller’s Overkill: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét documentary.

We’ve known about the DNA report discovery since 2016, but we’re taking it a step further.  Just like Alex Hunter kept the Ramsey indictments secret with the intention of them never being found out, so too did Mary Lacy with the tDNA results from 2007.  The reason WHY deserves examination.

It’s maddening when you hear Lacy make statements like: “The public assumes they know more based on what they see in the media, and that’s the part that’s personally difficult for me.” – spoken to journalist, Heath Urie in December 2008

The joke of the matter is Lacy deliberately made sure the public didn’t have all the information.  She publicly issued an exoneration letter to the Ramseys without showing us anything to back up her claims that the DNA pointed to a killer, and away from anybody in the family.

She also withheld the tidbit that Burke Ramsey couldn’t be excluded from some of those results.  

“Cannot be excluded” means just that – the individual cannot and should not be ruled out as a suspect.  Lacy, a seasoned prosecutor, knows this and yet, we have this…

From Lacy’s letter to John Ramsey in 2008:

“…new scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.”

“The Bode Technology laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns.  The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenét at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.”

In the chart below, the mixed sample collected (in 1996) from the blood stains on the crotch of JonBenét’s underwear is compared to JonBenét’s and Burke’s DNA, as well as the profile identified as “Unknown Male 1”.  You can see that “Unknown Male 1” is essentially a column for remaining contribution, or what I prefer to call leftover alleles, that don’t match JonBenét’s. The leftover male alleles are how the “Unknown Male 1” came to be. In the comparison below, you can see that Burke’s alleles are consistent with the alleles from the bloodstain sample in 10 out of 13 markers.

Burke and the “Unknown Male 1” have some interesting similarities, don’t they?

More from Lacy’s “exoneration”:

 “The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing (the underwear and long johns) worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items.  Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of the murder.”

“Based on the DNA results and our serious consideration of all the other evidence, we are comfortable that the profile now in CODIS is the profile of the perpetrator of this murder.”

Lacy repeatedly and boldly refers to the unknown individual as an individual – one person.  But the DNA summary couldn’t be clearer. “The remaining DNA contribution should not be considered a single source profile.”

The bogus “Unknown Male 1” profile has unsurprisingly been sitting in CODIS for more than a decade with zero hits.

So, was the “Unknown Male 1” profile a scam all along?  In other words, was Lacy pointing us one way to prevent us from looking elsewhere?  If she was, Why?

The “Unknown Male 1” has been revealed to be a lie, a myth by design, a farce – it’s never been one person, so we’re not saying the profile is solely Burke.  But…that profile is comprised of real people (plural), and we believe there’s enough information to support that Burke is part of the mix.  More to the point, that his presence is masked by creating a phantom, single person “Unknown Male 1”.

This idea that Burke’s presence at the murder scene is being masked is bolstered when you add in the findings on the pink nightgown.  This also was never publicly revealed until James Kolar revealed it in his book, Foreign Faction.

Burke could also not be excluded as a contributor to ALL four spots that were tested on the pink nightgown found next to JonBenét’s violated body.

It’s interesting that with the advancement of DNA, Mary Lacy became more insistent on ruling out suspects based on whether or not they matched “Unknown Male 1”.  It’s a perfect safety net to protect someone from being tied to the scene, while preventing an innocent person from being convicted (John Mark Karr).

“…this is a DNA case and that the best chance for solving the case will be a hit and match on the DNA in the future.” – Lin Wood, 9News, October 2016

To be clear: Burke Ramsey cannot be excluded as a contributor to the tDNA on the waistband of the long johns that JonBenét was found in. Furthermore, on all four samples tested on the pink Barbie nightgown, including the front and back of the hem area, Burke Ramsey’s tDNA is present.

For more analysis on the pink Barbie nightgown and the evidence it reveals, check out our next post, The Pink Nightgown Paradox.

 

 

---

All opinions and conclusions included in this post are our own and we don’t claim to know the killer of JonBenét.  Our goal is to uncover and bring to light the lesser-known truths of this case.