 Decision to re-test evidence follows Camera/9NEWS investigation 
 
 John Ramsey looks on as his wife Patsy Ramsey holds an ad promising a reward for information leading to the conviction of the killer of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, during a television interview on May 1, 1997. Boulder police and prosecutors are planning a new round of DNA tests on key evidence in the unsolved 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenétRamsey, 9NEWS and the Boulder Daily Camera have learned. ( Patrick Davison / Rocky Mountain News via AP ) 
 
 The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn't support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado's most vexing unsolved murder — a former Boulder prosecutor's decision to clear the girl's family from all suspicion in her death, a joint Daily Camera/9NEWS investigation has found. Forensic experts who examined the results of DNA tests obtained exclusively by the two news organizations disputed former District Attorney Mary Lacy's conclusion that a DNA profile found in one place on JonBenet's underpants and two locations on her long johns was necessarily the killer's — which Lacy had asserted in clearing JonBenet's family of suspicion. And 9Wants To Know and the Camera found that Lacy was told of the results' ambiguities before she issued her controversial letter on July 9, 2008, clearing JonBenét's parents, 
 
 John and Patsy, and her brother Burke of any suspicion in her murder. As a result, they suggested that the "profile" entered into the FBI's CODIS database in 2003 — dubbed Unknown Male 1 by investigators in the case — may not be the profile of an individual at all, but a conglomeration of genetic material from multiple people. DNA data base standards to change 
 
 Experts who reviewed the DNA evidence and emails between Lacy's office and Bode Technology were concerned that Lacy's approach showed signs of a phenomenon known as confirmation bias — an investigation tainted by a desire to reach a hoped-for result. The lab that performed the DNA testing, for example, told Lacy in March 2008 that it was "likely" the two samples found on JonBenet's long johns came from "more than two people" and "should not be considered a single-source profile," according to the documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS. But in exonerating the Ramseys with a three-page letter made public July 9, 2008, Lacy failed to disclose any of that, writing that "the previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns." The two news organizations obtained exclusive access to the test results, laboratory notes, reports and correspondence relating to testing conducted in 2008, at Lacy's request, by a forensic laboratory in Virginia then-known as Bode Technology. As one example, then-DA's investigator Andy Horita wrote to the lab on March 12, 2008, that his bosses were "very excited" and "pleased" about the results that were being reported, and that "we're happy with what has been done and don't see the need for additional testing" unless strongly recommended by the lab. Lacy, who left office in 2009 after serving two terms as Boulder's top prosecutor, has not responded to multiple requests for comment. The murder of JonBenet exploded into the national consciousness within days of the discovery of her body on Dec. 26, 1996, in the sprawling home she shared with her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, and older brother, Burke, on 15th Street in Boulder. The 6-year-old's skull was fractured by a blow to the head, and her killer cinched a garrote around her neck, placed duct tape over her mouth and bound her wrists. "I think we have said all that can be said and I need to get back to my job!" "Its greatest strength is that additional areas on the DNA will be tested," she stated in an email. Spitz expressed his own view — as the First Amendment affords him the right to do — but his speculations, even if firmly held and confidently expressed, are not statements of fact,” the response said. RELATED: DNA in doubt: A closer look at the JonBenét Ramsey case 
 
 Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett and Boulder Police Chief Greg Testa both confirmed Tuesday that they and members of their staffs recently discussed the issue with Colorado Bureau of Investigation administrators, who are on the verge of unveiling new, more sophisticated DNA tests than their lab has ever used before. RELATED: Theories about who killed JonBenét Ramsey 
 
 The testing would be conducted with new, more sensitive "kits" required of crime labs by the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, the database that includes genetic profiles from more than 15.1 million known offenders and arrestees and more than 738,000 unsolved cases. Thirteen of these loci comprise the FBI's core requirement for inclusion in the CODIS database 
 
 The now-contested sample from the Ramsey case that was entered into CODIS in December 2003 had the bare minimum of 10 loci, or genetic markers. "People believed back in those days almost all mixtures are two-person mixtures — that was like gospel truth," said Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. For example, they determined that male DNA located in JonBenét's panties and in two spots on her long johns contained genetic material from at least two people in addition to the 6-year-old. Christopher McKee, a former public defender in both Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and now director of the Schaden Experiential Learning & Public Service Programs at the University of Colorado Law School, concurred. McKee also teaches an advanced course on Forensic Science in the Courts at the CU Law School, teaches on the subject around the country and has been recognized by courts and nationally as an expert on the topic. "Over time, the results will be more individualizing to a specific male versus a family." "The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode. The experts consulted by the news organizations disagreed, to varying degrees, on both assertions — that the Unknown Male 1 profile "matched" the DNA found on the outside of the long johns, and that there was "no innocent explanation" for the presence of that DNA on JonBenet's clothing. Experts endorse further testing 
 
 Danielson, one of the experts consulted by 9NEWS and the Camera, reiterated his belief that JonBenet's long johns and panties should be subjected to DNA testing called Y- 
 
 STR that identifies only male genetic material. As for potentially innocent explanations to the presence of DNA on the clothes JonBenet was wearing when she died, all three experts said they are numerous. PHOTOS: The crime scene around the Ramsey home These are stills taken from outside the Ramsey home the night after JonBenet's body was found. 'Can't get my arms around that one' 
 
 Lacy established herself as a supporter of the intruder theory in the Ramsey case when she was still Mary Keenan, a chief deputy specializing in sexual assault cases under the man she would soon succeed, then-District Attorney Alex Hunter. But Haney recalls that after she saw videotape of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, Lacy chided him for being hard on JonBenet's mother. The only interview Lacy has given on the subject was to ABC News in October, where she offered a new justification for her exoneration letter. "I still think that the best thing they could probably do in the JonBenét case is figure how many males are on the long johns, and how many are in the underwear, 'cause that's sort of a key point," Danielson said. It was revealed by the Camera in 2013 that John and Patsy Ramsey were both indicted in their daughter's death in October 1999, but then-District Attorney Alex Hunter declined to prosecute the case, believing there to be insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Patsy Ramsey walked down these stairs to the second story. Another of the experts consulted by 9NEWS and the Camera, the University of Colorado's Christopher McKee, concurred. "I think that as the original story showed, there is more to be tested, and more, I think, to be learned in this case — from both applying new technology, and also using the Y-STR technology or a new and better kit, to help shed some light on what it is we have here, on these evidentiary items in this case," McKee said. "We did meet with CBI and the district attorney's office, and we had a general discussion about evidence in the Ramsey case, including new technology and DNA testing," Testa said. Added Garnett: "One of the things in your (previous news) report that was highlighted, that was very accurate and very appropriate, was to talk about the changes in DNA testing. One important step in the evolution of DNA testing, which was available in 2008 but has matured considerably since then, is known as Y-STR testing, which looks exclusively at male-inherited Y chromosome DNA. "I don't really see a reason why it hasn't been done, or why you couldn't do it." So you can amplify male DNA, even if the male DNA is a fraction of 1 percent of the DNA of the females' on the samples. "And we are going to take a look at the new technology, and see how they may help us further this investigation." "We should be doing all reasonable testing that we can do, and we will be, for all the reasons that you guys talked about in your previous report, and the changes in DNA testing," Garnett said. Eid observed that "it's incredible the number of cases that get solved later.
– The 20th anniversary of JonBenet Ramsey's murder has led to all kinds of renewed speculation about the case, but now comes an actual development in the criminal investigation: The state plans to conduct new DNA tests on the panties and long johns the 6-year-old was wearing when she was killed on or after Christmas night 1996, reports the Daily Camera and 9News. A previous investigation by the two news outlets suggested that former District Attorney Mary Lacy erred when she exonerated members of the Ramsey family in 2008 based on her interpretation of earlier DNA tests. Lacy concluded that those tests revealed that an intruder killed the girl, but outside forensic experts have since disputed that, asserting that the DNA was a mishmash of multiple people and not that of the single person referred to as "Unknown Male 1." "If you're looking for someone that doesn't exist, because actually it's several people, it's a problem," explained a former US attorney for Colorado. The new, more sophisticated tests could provide an answer to which view is right. They could also reveal the DNA is worthless in terms of tracking down the killer, and merely the result of "inconsequential contact with other people," per the Camera. One of the most high-profile anniversary stories about the case came via CBS, whose expert panel concluded that JonBenet's brother, Burke, killed his sister. Burke has since sued, but the forensic pathologist he's going after argued in court documents this month that his view on the case was mere "speculation" about "one of the major unsolved crimes" of the 20th century and thus should be protected speech, reports People. No word on when the new DNA tests will be conducted. (Burke also talked to Dr. Phil.)