DNA Evidence

[elvislives]

I am trying to find out info on the dna that was found and keep finding conflicting information on the web. Can someone in the know answer a few questions?

First off, was the dna found in her underwear from saliva or blood?
Did the dna from under her fingernails match the dna in her underwear or were these from 2 different sources?
What is the race of the donor of the dna sample...I've read it was from a white male and have also read it is from an asian male?
The explanation I have heard is that the dna was probably deposited on the underwear during manufacturing and the underwear was made in a country where people have a habbit of spitting. Is it possible to determine whether the panties had ever been washed before JB wore them that night?
Is there somewhere to find OBJECTIVE information about this topic?
Anyone?

[Louisadelmar]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Is%20This%20a%20DNA%20Case

[elvislives]

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it didn't answer many of my questions because there was so much conflicting evidence.
Also I couldn't find anywhere where they addressed whether or not the dna in the underwear and the dna under the fingernails was a match. Can anyone weigh in on this?

[Miss Marple]

This should answer at least some of your questions:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA%20Evidence
The reality is, there's uncertain and sometimes conflicting information about the DNA so everyone has to make up their own mind what it all means based on the evidence available. The wiki's tried to lay out the evidence in as objective a fashion as feasible: it's not perfect (yet :-) but we're doing our best. If you just ask opinions about all the questions you posed, I guarantee you won't get a uniform set of responses, in part because the only people who know ALL the available DNA evidence are investigators who for the most part currently are not divulging either what they know or what they've concluded.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[elvislives]

This should answer at least some of your questions:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA%20Evidence
The reality is, there's uncertain and sometimes conflicting information about the DNA so everyone has to make up their own mind what it all means based on the evidence available. The wiki's tried to lay out the evidence in as objective a fashion as feasible: it's not perfect (yet :-) but we're doing our best. If you just ask opinions about all the questions you posed, I guarantee you won't get a uniform set of responses, in part because the only people who know ALL the available DNA evidence are investigators who for the most part currently are not divulging either what they know or what they've concluded.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

I wish they would share. The one thing about dna that I really appreciate is that, unlike handwriting, behaviour etc, it's objective. There is no maybe-maybe not. Either it's a match or it isn't. I would LOVE some objective evidence in this case.

[nuisanceposter]

EL, the only people to ever say the DNA under the fingernails and the DNA in the underwear match were RST (Ramsey Spin Team). No one who wasn't hired by the RST has ever said that the two samples of DNA match (other than Erin Moriarty repeating what the RST said.)

I have asked for any source unrelated to the RST stating that the samples are a match, and no one has ever been able to provide one. It is my understanding that the fingernail DNA has too few markers to conclusively match it to anything else, and since all DNA has certain standard similarities, it is on these standard similarities that the RST base their claim of it being a match.

Patsy has said in the past that JonBenet didn't bathe that day and that she wasn't that interested in washing her hands. It's quite possible that the DNA under her nails had been there since before Christmas night.

Dr Henry Lee tested the same kind of underwear that JonBenet was found in, sold by Bloomies. He found DNA on brand new, unwashed, never worn undies, DNA which was deposited on the undies at the time of manufacture. Due to this, I think it is extremely likely that the DNA in JonBenet's undies had been there before her mother even bought that package of underwear - especially when the sample of foreign DNA was fragmented and degraded and JonBenet's wasn't.

[Athena]

EL, the only people to ever say the DNA under the fingernails and the DNA in the underwear match were RST (Ramsey Spin Team). No one who wasn't hired by the RST has ever said that the two samples of DNA match (other than Erin Moriarty repeating what the RST said.)

I have asked for any source unrelated to the RST stating that the samples are a match, and no one has ever been able to provide one. It is my understanding that the fingernail DNA has too few markers to conclusively match it to anything else, and since all DNA has certain standard similarities, it is on these standard similarities that the RST base their claim of it being a match.

Patsy has said in the past that JonBenet didn't bathe that day and that she wasn't that interested in washing her hands. It's quite possible that the DNA under her nails had been there since before Christmas night.

Dr Henry Lee tested the same kind of underwear that JonBenet was found in, sold by Bloomies. He found DNA on brand new, unwashed, never worn undies, DNA which was deposited on the undies at the time of manufacture. Due to this, I think it is extremely likely that the DNA in JonBenet's undies had been there before her mother even bought that package of underwear - especially when the sample of foreign DNA was fragmented and degraded and JonBenet's wasn't.

NP: I do agree that the match has only been stated in the report that Moriarity did. RE: Henry Lee tested those underwear PRIOR to the DNA being isolated in 2003. He has even admitted that new technology has improved the testing of DNA and because he has not been involved in the case for years he could not comment on new DNA evidence. The DNA that was fragmented and degraded were under JBR's fingernails. I will look for the link.

[nuisanceposter]

Thanks, Athena, I'd like to see it.

The DNA in both locations, under her nails and in her undies, was fragmented and degraded. JonBenet's DNA, obtained from a drop of her blood in her undies, was fresh and complete.

[Athena]

NP: I did have more links but unfortunately they are now dead. I had posted an article about Lee on the old CTV board but looks like we can't even view it anymore. Anyway.....

LEE: Well, the DNA, they found some foreign DNA. One source of DNA is found on her underpants, with some small amount of bloodstain. The second one is from fingernail scrapings. Those DNA are already analyzed by Boulder, Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Laboratory. So those DNA are really in digital form. So the time aging is no longer an issue. The DNA are already exact. The profile is already made. So right now, basically the collection is no DNA and transfer that to digital form and compare it with the question DNA found on Jon Benet Ramsey's underpants and fingernails.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/18/lkl.06.html

The Rocky Mountain News wrote on April 26, 2003 that Dr. Henry Lee, "the most prominent criminologist to work on the JonBenet Ramsey case remains unsure whether the child was murdered or died in what started as an accident."

Dr. Lee had not been consulted by the new D.A. and he acknowledged that there "may be significant new evidence in the cases since his last involvement."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/18.html

[watson]

Great question elvislives about the DNA evidence. I think you got some good answers in this thread already but let me chime in too. Here's what we in the public really know about the DNA evidence in this case.
First, no whole, complete and independent foreign DNA was ever found or exists in this case. Of all the tested samples that they got DNA from, they were all the victims own DNA EXCEPT 3 samples. All 3 of these samples were mostly the victims own DNA too, but mixed in with her DNA in these 3 (the 2 underwear bloodspots, and possibly from under her fingernails) were lesser amounts of foreign DNA. No one knows if this foreign DNA is from 1 person or a mixture of people. Since it wasn't complete no one knows where it came from (breath, saliva, skin oil, sweat etc.). The media has always said it is male. The indication is that the foreign DNA in the underwear bloodspots does not match that in the 3rd sample (presumably from under the nails), but we in the public can't be sure of this. Using new technology they were able to enhance the foreign DNA from the underwear, and make a profile of it. According to Cold Case Files 2006 the profile is only 10/13 complete, so they won't be able to make an exact match with it, just an aproximate one. The profile may not be that of any existing individual since it could be from a combination of people. If it is from one individual it could have gotten there innocently (like the factory worker story, or from contamination). It's been placed in the DNA data base and no match has yet been found. If it is from one real individual (and no one can say it is) it can't have come from the Ramsey family.
The part of the DNA report released to the public reads as follows...........

The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L, and 14m revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey. If the minor components from exhibits #7,14L, and 14m were contributed by a single individual, then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, xxxxxx, xxxxxx, and xxxxxx would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.

Where the x's stand for names that are blacked out on the report.

[watson]

P.S. to my post above in response to elvislives re DNA report released to public.....I didn't look carefully enough at the report, it does say that exhibit #7 is from the bloodspot on the underwear, and 14L and 14m, are from figernails of the right and left hand. So we also know the DNA evidence such as it is DID come from the nails and the bloodspot, everything else in my above post is accurate.

[shill]

So the DNA under the fingernails of her right and left hand are a match to the DNA on the underwear according to that report, which would rule out the DNA on the underwear being from a factory worker or contamination.

[nuisanceposter]

No, shill, that's not what it said. You missed the word "if."

[watson]

So the DNA under the fingernails of her right and left hand are a match to the DNA on the underwear according to that report, which would rule out the DNA on the underwear being from a factory worker or contamination.[/QUOTE FROM SHILL)
.................................................. ..............

I'd have to say 'no' shill the report (as far as released) doesn't say that. I copied it exactley and in the first line word number 3 it says 'profiles' plural. That's not an error, it's talking about more than 1 profile and lumping all 3 exhibits together. Nowhere does it say that the 'profiles' are the same, and if they were it should say so in this paragraph. Since they can't be sure if any of the DNA they found is from 1 individual it seems they wouldn't be able to say if it was from the same individual.
I have heard some team Ramsey spokesmen say the DNA on the nderwear is 'consistent' with that under the nails, a strange word to use (consistent) because it doesn't mean 'the same' or 'a match', just that it could be.
P.S. No ones says that all the 'profiles' mentioned in this lab report are CODICE worthy or full profiles, only 1 profile (from the bloodspot on the underwear #7) could be enhanced to 10/13 full and put into CODICE, and there is no proof (as above) that this profile is the 'same' as that under the nails.

[shill]

No, shill, that's not what it said. You missed the word "if."
Yes, I did miss that. Much different.

[aussiesheila]

I am trying to find out info on the dna that was found and keep finding conflicting information on the web. Can someone in the know answer a few questions?

First off, was the dna found in her underwear from saliva or blood?
Did the dna from under her fingernails match the dna in her underwear or were these from 2 different sources?
What is the race of the donor of the dna sample...I've read it was from a white male and have also read it is from an asian male?
The explanation I have heard is that the dna was probably deposited on the underwear during manufacturing and the underwear was made in a country where people have a habbit of spitting. Is it possible to determine whether the panties had ever been washed before JB wore them that night?
Is there somewhere to find OBJECTIVE information about this topic?
Anyone?elvis, this is an excerpt from an interview of Lin Wood, the Ramsey attorney on Larry King Live, July 11 2003.

WOOD: Because of the DNA. You know, you probably heard along the way that the DNA evidence in this case was not necessarily of good quality, that it might even be contaminant. Although there was a point in time when the Boulder police were clearing people based on DNA, but not the Ramseys.

Here's what we now know. We knew that there was foreign male DNA found in -- under the fingernails of both of JonBenet's hands. Foreign meaning it was not the Ramseys. Male.

There was also a spot of blood. Intermingled in that blood was foreign male DNA. Not the Ramseys.

Now, I've learned in the last few months, since Mary Keenan took this case over, that in fact, there was a second spot of blood, both of these spots of blood being in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear.

In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in 1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.

And the reason that's important is because you have to have 10 markers to submit that DNA into the federal FBI CODUS (ph) databank.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by Watson --<snip> I have heard some team Ramsey spokesmen say the DNA on the nderwear is 'consistent' with that under the nails, a strange word to use (consistent) because it doesn't mean 'the same' or 'a match', just that it could be." (snip) Okay Watson, so "consistent with" means the same thing when they are speaking of the red fibers matching PR's jacket, or her handwriting matching the RN, but does NOT mean the same thing when speaking of the two cources of DNA. At least according to the RDIs.

[watson]

[ Okay Watson, so "consistent with" means the same thing when they are speaking of the red fibers matching PR's jacket, or her handwriting matching the RN, but does NOT mean the same thing when speaking of the two cources of DNA. At least according to the RDIs.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm not trying to split hairs with words. The word 'consistent' was used by a JR professional PI in a documentary, I'm sure it was checked by professional editors, and professional legal persons. Looking up old Websters synonym for 'consistent' I get 'compatible' BUT compatible certainly doesn't mean the same or an exact match. I'm sure that any professional writer, editor, PI, or lawyer would have the basic ability of those professions to choose the strongest word. So, I guess my point was they didn't say it was an exact match because THEY COULDN'T and still be professional.
Certainly the same goes for so called fiber evidence, of hairs, fibers etc......consistent....means that they are the same in size, color, general type, etc., but they have to stop short of saying they are the 'same' or an exact match, because they can't say those things, as either the evidence isn't capable of showing an exact match or the material is not an exact match.

[watson]

[QUOTE=aussiesheila;8788568]elvis, this is an excerpt from an interview of Lin Wood, the Ramsey attorney on Larry King Live, July 11 2003.

WOOD: Because of the DNA. You know, you probably heard along the way that the DNA evidence in this case was not necessarily of good quality, that it might even be contaminant. Although there was a point in time when the Boulder police were clearing people based on DNA, but not the Ramseys.

Here's what we now know. We knew that there was foreign male DNA found in -- under the fingernails of both of JonBenet's hands. Foreign meaning it was not the Ramseys. Male.

There was also a spot of blood. Intermingled in that blood was foreign male DNA. Not the Ramseys.
*************************************************
To AussieShelia...

I believe Lin Wood is John Ramsey's lawyer (or was), I could be wrong in this. But, assuming he is JR's legal advocate, as lawyer and 'advocate' for his client he is allowed and in fact 'required' to advance the strongest position in his estimation that the evidence could 'possibly' bare for his client.
It looks like he did his duty in your quote. The actual DNA report says that 'foreign' DNA was found mixed with the victims DNA under her nails and in the bloodspot in the underwear (see report). By 'foreign' in this lab report it is clear the writer as in all such lab reports meant 'foreign' to the body upon which it was found. In the next paragraph of the report the 'foreign' DNA to JB's body, was tested, and the results are clear....'IF' it was from one individual and not a mixture of several, or DNA contamination (and no one knows if it is or not) then the entire Ramsey family male and female could be excluded as being the source of that DNA (and it would be as Lin Wood said 'foreign' to that family).
IMO it looks like Lin Wood in his statement that you quote was just doing his professional job of going as far as he could in stating the evidence on behalf of his clients interest (as he sees it) as he could.
This is just WHY any of us IMO should look at the original evidence, and the actual reports (all avaiable to us thank God) and decide for ourselveses. Afterall...authors want to sell books, lawyers advocate for their clients, tv hosts want big ratings,....etc., but the truth and facts are still the truth and facts and are always there in the original evidence.

[elvislives]

[ Okay Watson, so "consistent with" means the same thing when they are speaking of the red fibers matching PR's jacket, or her handwriting matching the RN, but does NOT mean the same thing when speaking of the two cources of DNA. At least according to the RDIs.

Well I'm not trying to split hairs with words. The word 'consistent' was used by a JR professional PI in a documentary, I'm sure it was checked by professional editors, and professional legal persons. Looking up old Websters synonym for 'consistent' I get 'compatible' BUT compatible certainly doesn't mean the same or an exact match. I'm sure that any professional writer, editor, PI, or lawyer would have the basic ability of those professions to choose the strongest word. So, I guess my point was they didn't say it was an exact match because THEY COULDN'T and still be professional.
Certainly the same goes for so called fiber evidence, of hairs, fibers etc......consistent....means that they are the same in size, color, general type, etc., but they have to stop short of saying they are the 'same' or an exact match, because they can't say those things, as either the evidence isn't capable of showing an exact match or the material is not an exact match.[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify, the term "consistent with" when referring to dna is generally considered to be synonomous with "exact match", but there is no such thing as an exact match with dna since there are people (identical twins e.g.) who have the same dna based on the current modality of analysis. Scientists tend to be exact in their wording so they never say "exact match" when they describe dna evidence...they usually give it in statistics. E.g. when OJ Simpsons blood was compared to the blood found at the crime scene, they did not say it was an exact match but rather that it was consistent with the sample within a probability of something like (I'm guessing here) 23 billion to one (again I cant remember the exact #s and dont feel like looking it up). But for all intents and purposes when they say dna is "consistent with" and there are at least 10 markers it is considered an exact match, unless of course the suspect is an identical.

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
This is just WHY any of us IMO should look at the original evidence, and the actual reports (all avaiable to us thank God) and decide for ourselveses. Afterall...authors want to sell books, lawyers advocate for their clients, tv hosts want big ratings,....etc., but the truth and facts are still the truth and facts and are always there in the original evidence.

It seems to me there is a dearth of actual reports available.

[Evening2]

I've been wondering about something. I don't really know TOO much about DNA testing and what test results can and do show. But here's a hypothetical question. IF the DNA WAS planted (as I believe it was), could TWO people have deliberately MIXED DNA together, e.g. saliva from more than one person "mixed" together (yukky, I know) and then have planted that MIXED DNA at the crime scene where we know degraded and contaminated DNA has been found? And, if this WAS done, what would tests of that MIXED DNA show?

I would appreciate any input in this regard and I thank you for any information you can provide. TIA

[Mikie]

I've been wondering about something. I don't really know TOO much about DNA testing and what test results can and do show. But here's a hypothetical question. IF the DNA WAS planted (as I believe it was), could TWO people have deliberately MIXED DNA together, e.g. saliva from more than one person "mixed" together (yukky, I know) and then have planted that MIXED DNA at the crime scene where we know degraded and contaminated DNA has been found? And, if this WAS done, what would tests of that MIXED DNA show?

I would appreciate any input in this regard and I thank you for any information you can provide. TIA

I don't know much about DNA either but I have a similar question in my writeup explaining my theories:

DID HER KILLER LEAVE DNA?

Is it possible that toilet water was used to wash her down and the weak DNA traces from the toilet water comingled with her blood in the panties? Then if so the DNA would be as we see it...weak, from more than one donor, having markers relating to the Ramseys. If so, the DNA in her panties and under her nails is no more than a mirage.


It seems possible to me that the DNA is from more than one person, and just partial for each. It does not match Ramseys' but to my understanding it contains some markers that match Ramseys'. They always claimed that the DNA was degraded and weak and from "one or more" contributors. But I really don't know enough to answer my own question, let alone Eve2's. Besides, according to the anagrams, they know whose DNA it is but they just aren't telling.

[Eagle1]

I've been wondering about something. I don't really know TOO much about DNA testing and what test results can and do show. But here's a hypothetical question. IF the DNA WAS planted (as I believe it was), could TWO people have deliberately MIXED DNA together, e.g. saliva from more than one person "mixed" together (yukky, I know) and then have planted that MIXED DNA at the crime scene where we know degraded and contaminated DNA has been found? And, if this WAS done, what would tests of that MIXED DNA show?

I would appreciate any input in this regard and I thank you for any information you can provide. TIA

If I were into such criminal activities I sure wouldn't want my DNA involved, tho', not even if mixed deliberately with someone else's.

[Evening2]

If I were into such criminal activities I sure wouldn't want my DNA involved, tho', not even if mixed deliberately with someone else's.

Well, neither would I, Eagle1, but then you and I aren't deranged like the killer's of JonBenet were. No, they had a very different point of view - and wanted very specific results. I'm just wondering what such a mixture would show in the testing of such a sample?

[Kor]

Well, neither would I, Eagle1, but then you and I aren't deranged like the killer's of JonBenet were. No, they had a very different point of view - and wanted very specific results. I'm just wondering what such a mixture would show in the testing of such a sample?

I assumed they can separate and identify each person out of a blood pool from several people. I may be wrong, but I thought the two different DNA cannot be merge into one unless they are a sperm and an egg. Blood may mix with another, but DNA codes are different like snowflakes but cannot be merge like oil and water except for creating a new life. IMO

[Mikie]

I assumed they can separate and identify each person out of a blood pool from several people. I may be wrong, but I thought the two different DNA cannot be merge into one unless they are a sperm and an egg. Blood may mix with another, but DNA codes are different like snowflakes but cannot be merge like oil and water except for creating a new life. IMO

I'm not so sure about that. I think they can take the mixed blood and subtract JonBenet's, but what is left is not really divisible into different donors. Let me make a sort of analogy of what I think. Let's say JonBenet's blood is identified by a number like 6432. And the whole smear is something like 18093. If you subtract JonBenet's from the whole, you get another number which is a composite of one or more other people. So 18093 minus 6432 leaves 11751, but if it is from more than one donor you can't tell what the number is for them. I know it is not exactly like that but that is my way to explain what I am thinking. It's my opinion.

[Kor]

I'm not so sure about that. I think they can take the mixed blood and subtract JonBenet's, but what is left is not really divisible into different donors. Let me make a sort of analogy of what I think. Let's say JonBenet's blood is identified by a number like 6432. And the whole smear is something like 18093. If you subtract JonBenet's from the whole, you get another number which is a composite of one or more other people. So 18093 minus 6432 leaves 11751, but if it is from more than one donor you can't tell what the number is for them. I know it is not exactly like that but that is my way to explain what I am thinking. It's my opinion.

I believe I understand your meaning, and I think it makes sense. Even if it a needle in haystack, I think they still can find one specific strain of a DNA from a blood pool mix of several people’s, it just take longer doing it. I always see DNA as code, but I never thought of blood smears have to be divide and process for DNA to be identified. I can see why there may be some complications about it. IMO

[Mikie]

I believe I understand your meaning, and I think it makes sense. Even if it a needle in haystack, I think they still can find one specific strain of a DNA from a blood pool mix of several people’s, it just take longer doing it. I always see DNA as code, but I never thought of blood smears have to be divide and process for DNA to be identified. I can see why there may be some complications about it. IMO

If they can zoom in on a collection of cells with an electron microscope and then somehow separate the cells and then take each cell and test the DNA in each cell separately, then I can see how they could come up with DNA for each cell. But I don't think they can do that. The markers for DNA are determined not by looking at them but by looking at some kind of indirect means. I don't know exactly what that means is, but I have seen DNA marker results. The marker results seem to indicate a yes or no answer for certain parts of the DNA chain. It's either yes, the marker is there, or no, it is not. So then by looking at numerous marker possibilities, they are able to identify individual DNA marker characteristics, and compare to others. I really wish I knew more. I will try to study this and understand it better.

Here's a site that explains DNA testing for people who aren't in the field.
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

[SuperDave]

Anyone here ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

Let me hit the highlights. In 1988, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry went missing. Dennis Dechaine was found near the body. The evidence in his truck nailed him. He confessed. Case closed? Not on your life. There are people trying to free him based on DNA evidence on Cherry's hands. Well, hate to break it to them, but the world is loaded with human DNA. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

Same deal here. When Karr was arrested, Bill O'Reilly did a piece with a criminologist. He asked if it was really possible that the DNA in her murder could be just random stuff like you'd find at any crime scene. Her answer? Yes. She even said that as DNA testing science becomes more advanced, the likelihood of finding irrelevant DNA increases with it.

Oh, and just so everybody knows: when the Rs and Linny-Winny claim that the police used the DNA to eliminate people, they are flat-out lying, and I know that because, if you read ST's court deposition, you will see that he says that no one was cleared solely because to the DNA. It was because they either had solid alibis or there was nothing that put them in the house that night. And you don't have to take my word for it.

[Louisadelmar]

Linny-Winny?

[SuperDave]

Just a little joke.

[lodfafner]

Anyone here ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

Let me hit the highlights. In 1988, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry went missing. Dennis Dechaine was found near the body. The evidence in his truck nailed him. He confessed. Case closed? Not on your life. There are people trying to free him based on DNA evidence on Cherry's hands. Well, hate to break it to them, but the world is loaded with human DNA. It doesn't mean he's innocent.



Very true SD.

We also have cases of false positives like Peter Hamkin (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2766289.stm). DNA "proved" he was the killer of a girl in Italy but 20 witnesses proved he was in England at the time of the murder. He was cleared on "other evidence".

[Athena]

<snip>

Oh, and just so everybody knows: when the Rs and Linny-Winny claim that the police used the DNA to eliminate people, they are flat-out lying, and I know that because, if you read ST's court deposition, you will see that he says that no one was cleared solely because to the DNA. It was because they either had solid alibis or there was nothing that put them in the house that night. And you don't have to take my word for it.

There were quite a few suspects who did not have solid alibis. They may have been home and said they went to bed but that is NOT a solid alibi. Wolf's whereabouts are still unknown.

PMPT p664

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive because of possible contamination and yet the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by those tests. Scheck said "You can't say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn't match. You can't have your cake and eat it." He recommended further RFLP and newer types of PCR testing. Most of the audience believed that the DNA results were the weakest part of the presentation.

[LindaA]

There were quite a few suspects who did not have solid alibis. They may have been home and said they went to bed but that is NOT a solid alibi. Wolf's whereabouts are still unknown.

PMPT p664

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive because of possible contamination and yet the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by those tests. Scheck said "You can't say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn't match. You can't have your cake and eat it." He recommended further RFLP and newer types of PCR testing. Most of the audience believed that the DNA results were the weakest part of the presentation.


Thanks for posting that Athena. I haven't read the latest version of PMPT and it's been years since I read the last one. I've always wondered at Mary Lacy's statement that JMK was cleared on the basis of the DNA. Seems to me that LE has been flip-flopping on this issue.

[Mikie]

Thanks for posting that Athena. I haven't read the latest version of PMPT and it's been years since I read the last one. I've always wondered at Mary Lacy's statement that JMK was cleared on the basis of the DNA. Seems to me that LE has been flip-flopping on this issue.

I don't recall Simmons ever being cleared by DNA, yet he has no alibi. White's alibi has never been mentioned, although I believe he was cleared because he asked to be cleared. Wolf refused to give an alibi and also refused to give handwriting samples. McReynolds were cleared based on being in bed at 8pm. Oliva was cleared by DNA. Karr, also.

[SuperDave]

Louisa, you know how dem dar Sheriffs are. They mosey on into town, bow-legged and wearin' a 10-gallon head, and stomp around in their "snakeskin" high-heel boots, with their BIG GUNS drawn. Only thing is, after all is said and done, we find hir's been doing nuttin' but pumpin' blanks!!!

I have to admit, I found that very amusing. But I'm a "substance" kind of guy.

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive because of possible contamination and yet the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by those tests. Scheck said "You can't say the DNA test results are iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn't match. You can't have your cake and eat it." He recommended further RFLP and newer types of PCR testing. Most of the audience believed that the DNA results were the weakest part of the presentation.

I read that passage. But it is slightly inaccurate. Especially since Barry Scheck himself now claims that the DNA is irrelevant to the case. Don't take my word for it:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/Meetings_VIDEO_pop?OpenDocument

I've always wondered at Mary Lacy's statement that JMK was cleared on the basis of the DNA.

Actually, she said he wasn't cleared based on that. She said that he was released when it didn't match because his story was such that it would HAVE to be his. Big difference.

There were quite a few suspects who did not have solid alibis. They may have been home and said they went to bed but that is NOT a solid alibi. Wolf's whereabouts are still unknown.

You overlooked the other part of what I said. What evidence is there that they, specifically, were in the house?

[Riviera]

Let's stop with rude comments and get back on topic----> DNA Evidence

Thank you
R

[bullmoose]

Anyone here ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

Let me hit the highlights. In 1988, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry went missing. Dennis Dechaine was found near the body. The evidence in his truck nailed him. He confessed. Case closed? Not on your life. There are people trying to free him based on DNA evidence on Cherry's hands. Well, hate to break it to them, but the world is loaded with human DNA. It doesn't mean he's innocent.

Same deal here. When Karr was arrested, Bill O'Reilly did a piece with a criminologist. He asked if it was really possible that the DNA in her murder could be just random stuff like you'd find at any crime scene. Her answer? Yes. She even said that as DNA testing science becomes more advanced, the likelihood of finding irrelevant DNA increases with it.

Oh, and just so everybody knows: when the Rs and Linny-Winny claim that the police used the DNA to eliminate people, they are flat-out lying, and I know that because, if you read ST's court deposition, you will see that he says that no one was cleared solely because to the DNA. It was because they either had solid alibis or there was nothing that put them in the house that night. And you don't have to take my word for it.

Oh boy, we got somebody that thinks that Synthroid Stevie is relevant to this case beyond his stealing of his case notes to help him write his tell-all tome; the same guy that claimed that his thyroid condition was caused by the case. Of course, as everyone knows, he just wanted a disability pension, so that he could kick back and enjoy a well earned rest; after all he was involved in what, one homicide investigation? Woooie! Shazam! I bet the Synthroid Superman claimed expertise in DNA, too.:biggrin:

[SuperDave]

He did? News to me, bullmoose.

[rashomon]

He did? News to me, bullmoose.
Steve Thomas is being blamed for everything here by some IDIs. For example, one poster wrote ST let Sgt. Mason take the fall for giving info to Ann Bardach from Vanitiy Fair. But if memory serves, Eller had already suspended Mason on Jan 6th 1997, when the case was a mere ten days old, and Thomas spoke to Bardach many months later.

jmo

[shill]

Steve Thomas is being blamed for everything here by some IDIs.
jmoWe are not accepting Steve Thomas's book or statements anymore because apparently the Ramsey's statements and book are not accepted either.imo

[rashomon]

We are not accepting Steve Thomas's book or statements anymore because apparently the Ramsey's statements and book are not accepted either.imo
I don't doubt O.J. Simpson supporters would argue the same way, not accepting for example Bugliosi's book or statements, because Simpson's statements are not accepted either by those who think he's guilty. :D

jmo

[Athena]

Steve Thomas is being blamed for everything here by some IDIs. For example, one poster wrote ST let Sgt. Mason take the fall for giving info to Ann Bardach from Vanitiy Fair. But if memory serves, Eller had already suspended Mason on Jan 6th 1997, when the case was a mere ten days old, and Thomas spoke to Bardach many months later.

jmo

The one poster you are referring to is me. Mason did NOT take the fall for the Vanity Fair but for the leaks to the media period. Eller had no idea that Thomas was already leaking information but he knew someone was and Mason got the brunt of it. Mason was the straw -- perhaps you do not understand what that means? Has nothing to do with Vanity Fair. Thomas was also leaking info to Carol McKinley. You don't know who else he could have been leaking info to because obviously he's not going to volunteer that info. That Vanity Fair article true was not released until 9/97 but it spanned many months and the information was gathered from the very beginning. Geez he even made a big deal of the leaks in his book saying it could harm the investigation not revealing it was HIMSELF that was doing the leaking.

I certainly don't blame Thomas for EVERYTHING but he is not credible nor was he professional. What he was though was full of himself. JMO

[Athena]

<snip>
I read that passage. But it is slightly inaccurate. Especially since Barry Scheck himself now claims that the DNA is irrelevant to the case. Don't take my word for it:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/Meetings_VIDEO_pop?OpenDocument



Well now I know not to take your word as Barry Scheck pretty much eludes to the same reasoning as his the statement he made in PMPT and did not say it was irrelevant. Perhaps you should view that video clip again:

From the clip you linked to:


Barry Sheck says, we know that there is real evidence in this case that can be subject to DNA and that is the DNA profile found in JBRs underwear. They can retest the DNA extract and there may be additional marker systems to get better results. He does talk about the opening of a new package that Lee tested and found a profile but does not exclude that it is possible it belonged to an intruder. What you also have to keep in mind is that the sample put into CODIS was AFTER the grand jury hearing and Scheck was not privy to that evidence.

So where does he change his statement? Sound the same to me. He eludes to the fact that there are newer tests thus he says "retest" the old extract.

He does say that he believes the fingernail scrapings are not a factor. JMHO

[icedtea4me]

We are not accepting Steve Thomas's book or statements anymore because apparently the Ramsey's statements and book are not accepted either.imo
I definitely accept the Ramseys' book, shill, but I think there's more to their stories than meets the eye.


-Tea

[rashomon]

The one poster you are referring to is me. Mason did NOT take the fall for the Vanity Fair but for the leaks to the media period. Eller had no idea that Thomas was already leaking information but he knew someone was and Mason got the brunt of it. Mason was the straw -- perhaps you do not understand what that means? Has nothing to do with Vanity Fair. Thomas was also leaking info to Carol McKinley. You don't know who else he could have been leaking info to because obviously he's not going to volunteer that info. That Vanity Fair article true was not released until 9/97 but it spanned many months and the information was gathered from the very beginning. Geez he even made a big deal of the leaks in his book saying it could harm the investigation not revealing it was HIMSELF that was doing the leaking.

I certainly don't blame Thomas for EVERYTHING but he is not credible nor was he professional. What he was though was full of himself. JMO
But by the time Eller suspended Mason, the case was a mere ten daysold - I don't think Thomas had spoken to anyone yet then. It seems the only people who had been leaking info at that time were from the Ramsey defense team.

jmo

[bullmoose]

But by the time Eller suspended Mason, the case was a mere ten daysold - I don't think Thomas had spoken to anyone yet then. It seems the only people who had been leaking info at that time were from the Ramsey defense team.

jmo
Wouldn't you think that when Eller told Mayor Durgin the BPD knew the Ramseys were the killers, and then Durgin said on the news that 'There are no killers on the streets of Boulder[the Ramsey are in Atlanta]' that that was a leaking of information to the press? I've never thought Durgin was part of the Ramsey defense team; do you? But it would seem self-evident that at that point that the BPD was trying to orchestrate public opinion agaist the Ramseys; and so was already leaking at will to try to make their 'case?'.JMHO:punch:

[Louisadelmar]

But by the time Eller suspended Mason, the case was a mere ten daysold - I don't think Thomas had spoken to anyone yet then. It seems the only people who had been leaking info at that time were from the Ramsey defense team.

jmo

Emphasis mine.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09281998aedocumentary.htm
[…]
Man: Friday, Dec. 27th, while police activity at the house intensified, in nearby Denver a local newspaper ran the first story hinting police suspicion about the Ramseys. They quoted an assistant District Attorney saying it was very unusual for the kidnap victims body to be found at home. It's not adding up he said. Reporter Charlie Brennen said he knew from the beginning the parents were the only real suspects.

Charlie Brennen: I had that sense at that time, I had that sense at that time, yes. I had the belief that the police were under a strong suspicion from the very beginning that it had to be the parents.

Man: A local television reporter who also covered the story on the 27th gave the same conclusion.

Julie Hayden, TV Reporter: Early on there, definitely before the five o'clock newscast, we were beginning to get the sense that the police were not hunting Boulder for some mad kidnapper – That the police were looking more inside the family.

Man: From now on, a clear pattern was to emerge. While police chief Tom Koby said little, others continually leaked information and often it was misleading information intended to implicate the Ramseys. The pattern began that day. A story was leaked that suggested ONLY a family member could have

CBrennen: I had a trusted law enforcement source tell me the first officers there noted that it was rather strange, they thought, that there were NO footprints in the snow outside and this is a source that has been infallible in my experience.

Man: The Ramseys, now under police protection, were unaware of the mounting pressure but an attorney friend was already concerned.

Mike Bynum: I showed up as John and Patsy's friend although I was not initially thinking in terms of what help I should give them legally, I don't know what to say other than I sensed some things. The police going around the house, I just had a sense that they ought to have representation and I just said to John, will you trust me to do the right thing? He just said, yes I'll trust you.

John: And I had no idea what he was talking about. Later, I don't remember if it was later that day or the next day, he said we're going to retain councel for you and for Patsy. What in the world for - OK - We began to realize we're suspects and I was OK with that because I assumed it was a broad investigation.

Man: By the following day, Dec 28th, police and media were closing on the Ramseys. That morning, Denver's Rocky Mountain News, intimated they were suspects. The story introduced the issue there were no footprints in the snow which began the first part of the media's case against the Ramseys - That no one else got into the house.

CBrennen: When police first arrived, at least one officer noted, thought it was worth noting in his report, strange - no footprints.

Man: The absence of tracks in the snow was later reported as one of the first clues that led police to suspect members of the family. Soon, another story appeared -- There had been no break-in. Charlie Brennen covered that too.

CBrennen: That was coming from sources, and you know, I know that you know this is a story that was heavily reported through unnamed sources and I'm not going to name the source now but law enforcement was telling us from December that they saw no signs of forced entry.

Man: Then another story appeared - The room where JonBenet was found was so hidden that whoever murdered her knew the house - even the mayor of Boulder said so.

Mayor: By all reports, there were no visible signs of forced entry. The body was found in a place where people are saying, somebody had to know the house.

Man: Television hammered the message home. {Shows American Journal saying JonBenet's body was found in a 'hidden' room.

Linda Hoffman - Housekeeper - When I cleaned that house, I cleaned that basement many times and I didn't even know that room was there - It tells me somebody had to know that house.}

Man: What is the basis for these claims. Take the snow cover that night. News video's shot on the night of the 26th shows large areas around the house had no snow at all. The lack of footprints was an irrelevancy as some journalist knew at the time.

Julie Hayden: We looked at the video tape, once the relevancy of the footprints in the snow became an issue and one of the things I observed was, there did not seem to be snow going up to all of the doors. So in my opinion, this footprints in the snow issue, has all been much ado about nothing. It seemed clear to me that people could have got into the house, whether they did or not, without traipsing through the snow.

Man: Nevertheless the story stuck. Even more doubtful was the claim of no forced entry. An intruder would not have had to break in. Police noted on the 26th a number of open windows and at least one open door – A story that courteously took a year to leak out. And beneath this lift up grill, there was a basement window known to have been broken sometime before Christmas Interview of Charlie Brennen: Would it be reasonable to assume that the information about 'no forced entry' was false that was being leaked by the authorities

CBrennen: False, false, wrong, misstated, mistaken, yes - that would be fair to say. Particularly in light of where you can start at least from the broken window in the basement. In Jan. 97, Feb. 97, March 97, we didn't know about the broken window in the basement.

Man: The reality of the situation is that an intruder could easily have got in, and once in, moved around undetected and unheard. From the parents bedroom on the third floor, it is no less than 55 feet and one floor below to where JonBenet was sleeping. There are thick carpets, sounds do not carry and there is no hidden room. A carpeted spiral staircase, a few feet from her room, leads to the kitchen. From the kitchen it is only a few steps to the door to the basement stairs. At the bottom of these stairs, at the end of a short corridor is the room where her body was found.
[…]

[rashomon]

Emphasis mine.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09281998aedocumentary.htm
[…]
Man: Friday, Dec. 27th, while police activity at the house intensified, in nearby Denver a local newspaper ran the first story hinting police suspicion about the Ramseys. They quoted an assistant District Attorney saying it was very unusual for the kidnap victims body to be found at home. It's not adding up he said. Reporter Charlie Brennen said he knew from the beginning the parents were the only real suspects.

Charlie Brennen: I had that sense at that time, I had that sense at that time, yes. I had the belief that the police were under a strong suspicion from the very beginning that it had to be the parents.

Man: A local television reporter who also covered the story on the 27th gave the same conclusion.

Julie Hayden, TV Reporter: Early on there, definitely before the five o'clock newscast, we were beginning to get the sense that the police were not hunting Boulder for some mad kidnapper – That the police were looking more inside the family.

Man: From now on, a clear pattern was to emerge. While police chief Tom Koby said little, others continually leaked information and often it was misleading information intended to implicate the Ramseys. The pattern began that day. A story was leaked that suggested ONLY a family member could have

CBrennen: I had a trusted law enforcement source tell me the first officers there noted that it was rather strange, they thought, that there were NO footprints in the snow outside and this is a source that has been infallible in my experience.

Man: The Ramseys, now under police protection, were unaware of the mounting pressure but an attorney friend was already concerned.

Mike Bynum: I showed up as John and Patsy's friend although I was not initially thinking in terms of what help I should give them legally, I don't know what to say other than I sensed some things. The police going around the house, I just had a sense that they ought to have representation and I just said to John, will you trust me to do the right thing? He just said, yes I'll trust you.

John: And I had no idea what he was talking about. Later, I don't remember if it was later that day or the next day, he said we're going to retain councel for you and for Patsy. What in the world for - OK - We began to realize we're suspects and I was OK with that because I assumed it was a broad investigation.

Man: By the following day, Dec 28th, police and media were closing on the Ramseys. That morning, Denver's Rocky Mountain News, intimated they were suspects. The story introduced the issue there were no footprints in the snow which began the first part of the media's case against the Ramseys - That no one else got into the house.

CBrennen: When police first arrived, at least one officer noted, thought it was worth noting in his report, strange - no footprints.

Man: The absence of tracks in the snow was later reported as one of the first clues that led police to suspect members of the family. Soon, another story appeared -- There had been no break-in. Charlie Brennen covered that too.

CBrennen: That was coming from sources, and you know, I know that you know this is a story that was heavily reported through unnamed sources and I'm not going to name the source now but law enforcement was telling us from December that they saw no signs of forced entry.

Man: Then another story appeared - The room where JonBenet was found was so hidden that whoever murdered her knew the house - even the mayor of Boulder said so.

Mayor: By all reports, there were no visible signs of forced entry. The body was found in a place where people are saying, somebody had to know the house.

Man: Television hammered the message home. {Shows American Journal saying JonBenet's body was found in a 'hidden' room.

Linda Hoffman - Housekeeper - When I cleaned that house, I cleaned that basement many times and I didn't even know that room was there - It tells me somebody had to know that house.}

Man: What is the basis for these claims. Take the snow cover that night. News video's shot on the night of the 26th shows large areas around the house had no snow at all. The lack of footprints was an irrelevancy as some journalist knew at the time.

Julie Hayden: We looked at the video tape, once the relevancy of the footprints in the snow became an issue and one of the things I observed was, there did not seem to be snow going up to all of the doors. So in my opinion, this footprints in the snow issue, has all been much ado about nothing. It seemed clear to me that people could have got into the house, whether they did or not, without traipsing through the snow.

Man: Nevertheless the story stuck. Even more doubtful was the claim of no forced entry. An intruder would not have had to break in. Police noted on the 26th a number of open windows and at least one open door – A story that courteously took a year to leak out. And beneath this lift up grill, there was a basement window known to have been broken sometime before Christmas Interview of Charlie Brennen: Would it be reasonable to assume that the information about 'no forced entry' was false that was being leaked by the authorities

CBrennen: False, false, wrong, misstated, mistaken, yes - that would be fair to say. Particularly in light of where you can start at least from the broken window in the basement. In Jan. 97, Feb. 97, March 97, we didn't know about the broken window in the basement.

Man: The reality of the situation is that an intruder could easily have got in, and once in, moved around undetected and unheard. From the parents bedroom on the third floor, it is no less than 55 feet and one floor below to where JonBenet was sleeping. There are thick carpets, sounds do not carry and there is no hidden room. A carpeted spiral staircase, a few feet from her room, leads to the kitchen. From the kitchen it is only a few steps to the door to the basement stairs. At the bottom of these stairs, at the end of a short corridor is the room where her body was found.
[…]
Louisa: You forgot the fact that Steve Thomas was not involved in the case in those first days, so whoever leaked the info "in December" it could not have been him. :)
For the discussion was about Steve Thomas allegedly having leaked info to the newspapers before Eller suspended Mason on Jan 6th (when the case was a mere ten days old!), which imo could not have been possible, given the time line of ST's involvement.

[Not to mention the fact that your source was a Michael Tracey documentary, and from what we know of Tracey, I would not trust him further than I can throw him - which imo would make it necessary to double-check every "source" he offers to back up his claims]

jmo

[Louisadelmar]

Louisa: You forgot the fact that Steve Thomas was not involved in the case in those first days, so whoever leaked the info "in December" it could not have been him. :)
For the discussion was about Steve Thomas allegedly having leaked info to the newspapers before Eller suspended Mason on Jan 6th (when the case was a mere ten days old!), which imo could not have been possible, given the time line of ST's involvement.

[Not to mention the fact that your source was a Michael Tracey documentary, and from what we know of Tracey, I would not trust him further than I can throw him - which imo would make it necessary to double-check every "source" he offers to back up his claims]

jmo

The post of yours I was responding to said (emphasis mine):

But by the time Eller suspended Mason, the case was a mere ten daysold - I don't think Thomas had spoken to anyone yet then. It seems the only people who had been leaking info at that time were from the Ramsey defense team.


Unless you think Tracey gave Julie Hayden and Charlie Brennan a script to read it doesn't matter who made the documentary. The quotes are words coming from their mouths and clearly they are saying there were law enforcement leaks in the first days after the murder.

I believe Thomas was offered "in" on the case on the same day Meyer did the autopsy. You don't know and I don't know how early he started leaking but he did leak and the early leaks came from law enforcement.

[Zoey]

Louisa: You forgot the fact that Steve Thomas was not involved in the case in those first days, so whoever leaked the info "in December" it could not have been him. :)
For the discussion was about Steve Thomas allegedly having leaked info to the newspapers before Eller suspended Mason on Jan 6th (when the case was a mere ten days old!), which imo could not have been possible, given the time line of ST's involvement.

[Not to mention the fact that your source was a Michael Tracey documentary, and from what we know of Tracey, I would not trust him further than I can throw him - which imo would make it necessary to double-check every "source" he offers to back up his claims]

jmo

Steve Thomas was assigned to this case just 2 days after the murder, so why could the leaks not been from him?

[bullmoose]

Louisa: You forgot the fact that Steve Thomas was not involved in the case in those first days, so whoever leaked the info "in December" it could not have been him. :)
For the discussion was about Steve Thomas allegedly having leaked info to the newspapers before Eller suspended Mason on Jan 6th (when the case was a mere ten days old!), which imo could not have been possible, given the time line of ST's involvement.

[Not to mention the fact that your source was a Michael Tracey documentary, and from what we know of Tracey, I would not trust him further than I can throw him - which imo would make it necessary to double-check every "source" he offers to back up his claims]

jmo

Correction, Rashie, from 12/26/96 until 1/06/07 is twelve days, you know, 26, 27, 28, 29 30, 31,01, 02, 03,04, 05, 06; am I counting wrong or doesn't that add up to twelve? an even dozen, not a mere ten? Its always good to double-check claims made one place or another, isn't it? Mis- assumptions are easy to make on erroneous information, aren't they? Just thought you'd want the error corrected, OK? 12 days instead of ten is not JMHO, its the numerical facts, the rest is JMHO.:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

Steve Thomas was assigned to this case just 2 days after the murder, so why could the leaks not been from him?

WOW!!! Doesn't that mean that the Tabloid Detective had fully ten days to start his close friendships with the tabloids, do-nut buddies forever and so on? Since he had such an enormus background in murder investigations, he must have wanted to share it with the world[ or was it the Globe, I don't recall].JMHO:biggrin:

[rashomon]

Correction, Rashie, from 12/26/96 until 1/06/07 is twelve days, you know, 26, 27, 28, 29 30, 31,01, 02, 03,04, 05, 06; am I counting wrong or doesn't that add up to twelve? an even dozen, not a mere ten? Its always good to double-check claims made one place or another, isn't it? Mis- assumptions are easy to make on erroneous information, aren't they? Just thought you'd want the error corrected, OK? 12 days instead of ten is not JMHO, its the numerical facts, the rest is JMHO.:biggrin:
In a prior post I had written "ten days or so after JB' death" which made it clear that the exact date didn't matter, given the circumstances.

jmo

[rashomon]

WOW!!! Doesn't that mean that the Tabloid Detective had fully ten days to start his close friendships with the tabloids, do-nut buddies forever and so on? Since he had such an enormus background in murder investigations, he must have wanted to share it with the world[ or was it the Globe, I don't recall].JMHO:biggrin:
SteveThomas was furious that Mason chose to speak to the CNN reporter shortly after the murders. ST doesn't sound like a cop eager to leak info at that point, does he? :)

jmo

[bullmoose]

In a prior post I had written "ten days or so after JB' death" which made it clear that the exact date didn't matter, given the circumstances.

jmo

Of course, in the latter post that I quoted, of yours, you said that it was a mere ten days when it was actually twelve when the suspension occurred, plenty of time for the Synthroid Superman to get into his harmless mischief, buddying up to the tabloids and press, etc. JMHO:biggrin:

[rashomon]

The post of yours I was responding to said (emphasis mine):


Unless you think Tracey gave Julie Hayden and Charlie Brennan a script to read it doesn't matter who made the documentary. The quotes are words coming from their mouths and clearly they are saying there were law enforcement leaks in the first days after the murder.

I believe Thomas was offered "in" on the case on the same day Meyer did the autopsy. You don't know and I don't know how early he started leaking but he did leak and the early leaks came from law enforcement.
But the key question is - was this info actually a LEAK, or was it info the public were entitled to hear?
Tracey's documentary wants to make it appear as if every case info made public came from a leak, which of course is nonsense. :D

[Louisadelmar]

But the key question is - was this info actually a LEAK, or was it info the public were entitled to hear?
Tracey's documentary wants to make it appear as if every case info made public came from a leak, which of course is nonsense. :D

I may be wrong but I believe that other than situations where public safety is involved e.g. serial killer/rapist, armed and dangerous escapee etc, the only thing the public is "entitled" to hear is what goes on during the trial. You may petition to get information released if you can convince a court that its release will not interfere with solving the case. For example, the autopsy.

Generally, my feeling is if a source isn't willing to be named its a 'leak.' A press conference where LE makes announcements isn't a 'leak,'

[aussiesheila]

To AussieShelia...

I believe Lin Wood is John Ramsey's lawyer (or was), I could be wrong in this. But, assuming he is JR's legal advocate, as lawyer and 'advocate' for his client he is allowed and in fact 'required' to advance the strongest position in his estimation that the evidence could 'possibly' bare for his client.
It looks like he did his duty in your quote. The actual DNA report says that 'foreign' DNA was found mixed with the victims DNA under her nails and in the bloodspot in the underwear (see report). By 'foreign' in this lab report it is clear the writer as in all such lab reports meant 'foreign' to the body upon which it was found. In the next paragraph of the report the 'foreign' DNA to JB's body, was tested, and the results are clear....'IF' it was from one individual and not a mixture of several, or DNA contamination (and no one knows if it is or not) then the entire Ramsey family male and female could be excluded as being the source of that DNA (and it would be as Lin Wood said 'foreign' to that family).
IMO it looks like Lin Wood in his statement that you quote was just doing his professional job of going as far as he could in stating the evidence on behalf of his clients interest (as he sees it) as he could.
This is just WHY any of us IMO should look at the original evidence, and the actual reports (all avaiable to us thank God) and decide for ourselveses. Afterall...authors want to sell books, lawyers advocate for their clients, tv hosts want big ratings,....etc., but the truth and facts are still the truth and facts and are always there in the original evidence.I found this ancient post I hadn't replied to by Watson who doesn't seem to be around anymore relating to a question that elvis (also not here any more) originally asked and that I'd replied to. I'm answering it none-the-less, why I don't know, I'll blame it on my obessive-compulsive side.

Thanks for your reply to my post 16 Watson and I do agree with everything you have said. I was aware that 'foreign' in this context means 'non Ramsey' and not 'asian'. I was also aware that the source of information I supplied to elvis was only a secondhand opinion source and not a primary one.

Oh how I wish, how I wish I was able to provide primary sources because I am as well aware as you are how twisted facts can become in the re-telling. Sadly, in most instances such gems are not available to the likes of us.

So referring to a statement by Lin Wood was the best I could do to answer elvis' request for objective information on the DNA. Perhaps someone else could provide some more objective information? Just to remind us, and since this was the original purpose of the thread. And maybe elvis still lurks here and will read it and start posting here again. (Hi elvis! We still miss you!) (And Watson, you too!)

[LindaA]

Watson must be around somewhere as I see he/she has rep points.

[rashomon]

Watson must be around somewhere as I see he/she has rep points.
I checked Watson's profile - he/she was mostly active on the CL Darlie Routier forum lately, but seems to have stopped posting on the JBR board. His/her last post here was in Feb 2007.

jmo

[SuperDave]

Athena, I know what I hear, all right? Once you get through that "lawyer-speak" that sadly dominates this case.

[Athena]

Athena, I know what I hear, all right? Once you get through that "lawyer-speak" that sadly dominates this case.

I asked where in this tape does Barry Sheck say the DNA is irrelevant? I listened to the entire tape and then again and he says that we know that is real evidence from the DNA profile in her underwear that Karr's DNA can be tested against. He says it more than once and he says they may be able to get additional markers from the old evidence with the new DNA systems. He says he doesn't know what it is; it wasn't semen, but it could've been saliva, skins cells or just DNA from the original manufacturer. He does say the fingernail scrapings was not a factor. He also says the biological evidence can be an important factor. :confused:

[SuperDave]

I asked where in this tape does Barry Sheck say the DNA is irrelevant?

You already spotted it for me:

just DNA from the original manufacturer. He does say the fingernail scrapings was not a factor.

He's hedging, I'll admit that. Maybe that's where you and I diverged.

[LindaA]

I checked Watson's profile - he/she was mostly active on the CL Darlie Routier forum lately, but seems to have stopped posting on the JBR board. His/her last post here was in Feb 2007.

jmo

Thanks, Rash. I didn't know there was a Darlie Routier forum. That case interests me as well.

[SuperDave]

In defense of Athena, I should have been more specific. Okay, here goes.

Folks, let's not forget one thing here. Barry Scheck is one of the big guys behind Project Innocence. Or it might be the Innocence Project. Now, what that organization does is stress the use of DNA in cases to clear wrongly convicted people, usually who were sent up before such tests were available. Now, given that fact, if this DNA were of any exculpatory value to the Rs, or to anyone, does anyone really think that Scheck would hesitate to shout its value from every mountaintop? I don't.