It has to be obvious to everyone by now that DNAP has run an analysis of the Jon Benet Ramsey DNA sample. The 'expert' commentary by Gaskin together with the latest comments from the Boulder PD essentially make this a 'given'.
The following information seems to be apparent;
-Conventional DNA testing yielded no matches in the existing databases.
-All possible 'known' suspects have been tested and eliminated using conventional means. (This is an assumption on my part, although it would strain credibility to assume that it has not occured.)
-DNAP forensic testing yields a rough 'descriptive' profile of the suspect.
-Such a description is most efficiently employed by presenting it to the public in order to generate leads.
-No such profile has been made public to date.
Such contradictions would seem to be untenable, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Two scenarios occur to me, although there are probably many more. First, and by far the most preferable, is the Boulder Police have already identified a suspect from the profile and are keeping the identity under wraps until they have completed their case, such a possibility would negate the need for any assistance from the public. The second, much less beneficial scenario, is the profile lacks any distinctive value. For instance if it suggests the suspect is a white european, that may be less than helpful in suburban Colorado.
The extended delay in announcing the eyecolor upgrade to DNAWitness does not seem to be strategically beneficial, unless it is also waiting for a newsworthy event to connect with. It has been no secret that the two events (Ramsey case, Retinome) have been connected in the consciousness of the investors. One wonders if such expectations are a help or a hindrance as DNAP plots their Retinome roll out strategy, in light of the apparent delay in presenting the Ramsey suspect profile.
Thoughts?
regards,
frog
