JonBenet Ramsey - Open Discussion

[shill]

I don't believe this was a sex crime.


Perhaps Patsy some someone's DNA under her nails when she pulled off the longjohns, wiped Jonbenet's crotch area and then changed her panties.

After she lost control and slammed her daughter's head against the sink or tub, she put on some gloves to stage the scene.

She must have had a drawer full of cotton gloves. All "ladies" do.You know, imo the general tone of this post says, "I don't care what the evidence is, I want to lynch Patsy anyways".

Good luck with that.

[cookiewench]

You know, imo the general tone of this post says,



You know; the people on this board know how to read. They don't need you to "interpret" for them what the "general tone" of someone else's post says.

I see that you are incapable of just posting your own thoughts and responding to others, though. You need to "define" the other posters, and then hope that others' opinions will be effected by your definition.


Good luck with that..............

[cookiewench]

Really, why do all ladies have these gloves? I have never heard of this before.



Sorry about your cultural illiteracy...............

[LindaA]

That's just not possible.
The blood spot DNA is not the same source of DNA as the touch DNA.
What you are claiming is just not scientifically possible.
You need to except the reality of the evidence so you can make accurate assessments of the evidence.
And the evidence is pretty stacked towards a sex crime happening.

So it looks like you're sticking to that sad old story no matter what evidence is presented. I'm not surprised at all.

Patsy's character history and friend's references have never fit the description of the enraged psychopath you have described.

So why did Patsy take off the gloves at some point as your theory would have to allege, to account for the DNA transfer of both saliva and skin DNA form under Patsies nails?

Really, why do all ladies have these gloves? I have never heard of this before.
I have white cotton gloves, but that's so I don't get fingerprints on film negatives.

Southern ladies used to have white cotton gloves, but tht went out of style eons ago -- pre PR's day.

[Athena]

Innocence Blog
Dispatch from Dallas: The growing impact of ultra-sensitive DNA testing

Posted: July 10, 2008 12:51 pm

By Cassie Johnson, Forensic Supervisor at Orchid Cellmark, DNA Laboratory


DNA testing is the most powerful type of identity testing available, and it is used for many different purposes: to establish paternity and lineage, or in criminal investigations. With DNA testing, we can uniquely identify every person in the world, unless that person has an identical twin.

Thanks to major improvements in DNA testing technology over the last few years, the tiniest shred of biological evidence can assist in almost any type of crime. Most of the criminal cases we’ve traditionally worked on have been homicides and sexual assaults, but DNA testing is now being used around the world in nonviolent crimes such as burglaries. We could test a pinpoint of biological evidence, whether it’s blood, semen, saliva, or skin cells, and develop a DNA profile. The potential sources of DNA are almost limitless. As DNA testing has progressed, it has become substantially more sensitive, and it works increasingly well on compromised or degraded samples. We’re now able to generate a DNA profile from a sample in which testing would previously never have been attempted.

The criminal justice system uses four main types of DNA testing: STR, Y-STR, mini-STR, and mitochondrial:

• STR testing has been around the longest and is the type of testing most commonly used by crime labs, defense attorneys and prosecutors.

• Mitochondrial DNA testing is often used to generate a DNA profile from hair, bones, or teeth, and is a specialized type of testing that has been used since the mid-1990s.

• The Y-STR test uses the same technologies and principles as STR testing. However, Y-STR testing only looks at areas that are on the Y chromosome, which makes it male-specific. In our experience, it is also more sensitive than STR testing, so we may be able to obtain a profile with less starting material.

• Mini-STR is the newest form of DNA testing and is especially useful on samples that are highly degraded. It is perhaps even more sensitive than STR or Y-STR testing. This year, Rickey Johnson became the first person to be proven innocent through mini-STR DNA testing.

In every case, our job is to develop profiles from evidence regardless of the eventual outcome. We have conducted testing in the cases of several Innocence Project clients, and these are cases that truly demonstrate the potential of DNA testing to change people’s lives. In James Waller’s case, a state lab attempted to conduct DNA testing several years earlier and couldn’t get a result—but the process of testing used up the evidence, which is not uncommon.

We didn’t have any of the original evidence like the rape kit or the bedsheet to go back and test. The only thing that was left over for testing was a liquid “extract,” meaning a leftover lab sample of the evidence. Fortunately, the state lab preserved the liquid extract and made it available to us for Y-STR testing. We were able to obtain a DNA profile from the extract; it did not match his profile and therefore showed that he could not have contributed the sample. Something similar happened in Scott Fappiano’s case. In that instance, it was Orchid Cellmark that had retained the extracts from the early 1990s. Those extracts ultimately led to Mr. Fappiano’s freedom.

Orchid Cellmark is very proud to be able to donate its expertise in DNA testing to the Innocence Project, which continuously fights for those who have been wrongfully convicted. Working on these post-conviction cases reminds us how powerful DNA testing can be, whether it be in solving a cold case or exonerating the wrongfully accused.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1462.php

[cookiewench]

Southern ladies used to have white cotton gloves, but tht went out of style eons ago -- pre PR's day.

I was being partly facetious about the "ladies" and their "little white gloves", although it is NOT a "southern" thing, and a certain segment of society still wears them on Easter, to teas, to formal dances - and I'd bet that Patsy had a drawer full of them from her pageant days. They aren't necessarily white, but comes in different colors from black to pastel to white - to match different suits and formal dresses.

[shill]

I was being partly facetious about the "ladies" and their "little white gloves", although it is NOT a "southern" thing, and a certain segment of society still wears them on Easter, to teas, to formal dances - and I'd bet that Patsy had a drawer full of them from her pageant days. They aren't necessarily white, but comes in different colors from black to pastel to white - to match different suits and formal dresses.Don't forget winter gloves.

So why did Patsy take her gloves off in the middle of the alleged staging as your theory above implies?

So why weren't there two sets of prints on the glass?

[shill]

You know; the people on this board know how to read. They don't need you to "interpret" for them what the "general tone" of someone else's post says.That was for you, not other posters.
I think most people can interpret your post the the same way I did, I was just giving you a heads up.

I see that you are incapable of just posting your own thoughts and responding to others, though. You need to "define" the other posters, and then hope that others' opinions will be effected by your definition.
So you have no answers to my questions about your evidence claims, so you attack me with convoluted claims that I am incapable of posting my own thoughts.
I don't define you, your erroneous claims define you.
You need to be accountable for your claims like everybody else.
So when someone asks you to explain how your claim can be true, I suggest you answer it if you want people to believe you instead of thinking you don't know what you're talking about.


How does DNA get spread from under Patsy's fingernails when you claim she was wearing gloves?
And if she took the gloves off to touch JonBenet's underpants and pajamas, why did she take the gloves off?
How did Patsy get the glass on the table without touching it, or Burke knowing about it?

You know people can see your attempt to avoid answering question by attacking me, without me pointing it out. Another heads up for you.

I try and discuss the case facts that are being claimed and suddenly it's all about me wanting to be a bad guy.

Well it's no surprise the same RDI who paint me as this troll who needs to berate others to feel important and clever, are the same posters who paint Patsy as a psychopathic self centered killing drama queen who cared more about herself then her daughter, even though nothing in her life reveals that.

[cookiewench]

Don't forget winter gloves.

So why did Patsy take her gloves off in the middle of the alleged staging as your theory above implies?

So why weren't there two sets of prints on the glass?

There ya go again.

You are incapable of just posting and responding to post - you just have to post FOR other people.

I said that maybe Patsy transferred some DNA she had picked up, while changing Jonbenet after she wet the bed - and THEN put on some gloves after she accidently (or in a rage) bashed her daughter's head in.

It certainly appears that, whoever did the crime, this was the way it happened.


As for why there aren't two sets of fingerprints on the glass..............hellufino.

It was put out there as a question.

[shill]

Sorry about your cultural illiteracy...............Dang gone it all, you city slickers are so sophisticated with your forks and spoons and cotton gloves. I need to get me some more learnen.

[cookiewench]

You know people can see your attempt to avoid answering question by attacking me, without me pointing it out. Another heads up for you.



Oh, really?

Would you like me to do a cut & paste of all the nasty little adjectives you've thrown out at me, about me, calling me ignorant, a liar, blah blah blah?

And then you can do some cut & pastes of me calling you (or anyone) here nasty names........which you won't be able to do.


And how about that nasty little pm you sent me calling me even more stupid, juvenile names?

You have problems, my dear - but they don't include me. They are within yourself.

[shill]

Would you like me to do a cut & paste of all the nasty little adjectives you've thrown out at me, about me, calling me ignorant, a liar, blah blah blah?
You posted things that were absolutely untrue and fictitious, they were either lies (WEBSTER:lie v.make a false statement knowingly), or you just didn't know you were posting things that weren't true (WEBSTER; ignorant a. 1 showing lack of knowledge 2 unaware) either way that makes you a lier or ignorant. Nothing nasty about the telling the truth except if you have to face it.

The truth hurts, get over it.

An intruder did it and left his DNA, no one can explain that away, so don't take it personally.

[DAFFODIL]

Oh, really?

Would you like me to do a cut & paste of all the nasty little adjectives you've thrown out at me, about me, calling me ignorant, a liar, blah blah blah?

And then you can do some cut & pastes of me calling you (or anyone) here nasty names........which you won't be able to do.


And how about that nasty little pm you sent me calling me even more stupid, juvenile names?

You have problems, my dear - but they don't include me. They are within yourself.


:beer:

[andU]

That's just not possible.
The blood spot DNA is not the same source of DNA as the touch DNA.
What you are claiming is just not scientifically possible.
You need to except the reality of the evidence so you can make accurate assessments of the evidence.
And the evidence is pretty stacked towards a sex crime happening.

So it looks like you're sticking to that sad old story no matter what evidence is presented. I'm not surprised at all.

Patsy's character history and friend's references have never fit the description of the enraged psychopath you have described.

So why did Patsy take off the gloves at some point as your theory would have to allege, to account for the DNA transfer of both saliva and skin DNA form under Patsies nails?

Really, why do all ladies have these gloves? I have never heard of this before.
I have white cotton gloves, but that's so I don't get fingerprints on film negatives.


I am a lady and I sure don't have any white gloves -- although I did have back in the '50s - LoL!

[andU]

Shill, don't worry about the RDIs, the truth will win out and they will be left standing there with their falsehoods.

[Bystander]

Although it is true a lot of "potential suspects" had DNA testing, most of them came back inconclusive but were still cleared. IMO they all need to be re-tested with more advanced DNA methods. I also think the perp knows the Ramseys and is not a random intruder.

This is a statement Barry Scheck made re: the DNA testing just before the grand jury convened: Source: PMPT

The results of DNA testing were inconclusive at this time the police said. The DNA found under JonBenet’s fingernails showed the possibility of contamination. Nevertheless, the police claimed they had been able to exclude certain people by these DNA tests. This led Barry Scheck to comment, “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 or newer types of PCR testing. Most in the audience considered the DNA test results the WEAKEST part of the presentation.

IMO you are misinterpreting what ws meant by "inconclusive". I think the word "inconclusive" was used in relation to the degraded sample and whether it was related to the crime. I don't think for a second that Barry Scheck was suggesting that there were suspects whose DNA was "inconclusive" with regard to being a match for the foreign DNA.

I finally got a chance to re-read those posts and agree with you, Jayelles that it referred to the fingernail dna. I'm not sure what time frame is being referred to by the 'most came back inconclusive' part, Athena? (see underlined)Were any of the tests inconclusive, that you know of, when compared using the higher quality sample from the blood spot? I understand that wasn't available until 2003 when more sensitive testing methods were developed.


There is more than one possible explanation for touch DNA being on the sides of the waistband of the longjohns. That is where a person would hold them if they were being folded or held up for perusal by a shopper in a store or handled by a shop assistant. The presence of DNA on longjohn waistband is not merely indicative that the owner of the DNA pulled them down whilst they were being worn.

I am puzzled by the fact that there is no match to the DNA. This was a particularly heinous and high risk crime and it seems odd that it would be a first and only offence if it were NOT committed by someone close to the victim whose motive was very "personal".

There's a picture posted on page 5 that struck me as a powerful visual of how very small samples of skin cells could be transferred from one place to another if they are not constantly changing gloves during an exam of the victim. If they touched her nails like that after her clothes were removed, then I can picture the dna under her nails as being from contaminated. That is not to say that actually happened, it's just a visual that hit me when I saw it.

It seems there are plenty of contamination issues being discovered about DNA in the last couple of years, so I think they should continue to test people who came into contact with the Dna too, and not just the coroners office. It's not unknown that the testers dna was found to be 'unknown male dna,lol'

It's not Dna that is fallible but the people doing the testing and interpreting the results, which introduces human error into the equation.

I was actually shocked when I saw this article and saw Bode Tech mentioned by name. I believe the Illinois police had problems with their other services, rather than their dna testing specifically but still, it raises doubt that the tests are unimpeachable, because the same quality control would be applied to every type of testing.


But Orchid had a scientist (named Blair I think,) who skewed test results, for some ungodly reason. :eek: What is the matter with these people? Don't they realize they're playing with peoples lives here? :cuss: :no: :flamemad: :shrug:


January/February 2006, Page 10

Tarnish On The 'Gold Standard': Recent Problems In Forensic DNA Testing
By William C. Thompson

DNA evidence has long been called “the gold standard” of forensic science. Most people believe it is virtually infallible — that it either produces the right result or no result. But this belief is difficult to square with recent news stories about errors in DNA testing. An extraordinary number of problems related to forensic DNA evidence have recently come to light. Consider, for example, the following:

• The Houston Police Department (HPD) shut down the DNA and serology section of its crime laboratory in early 2003 after a television expose revealed serious deficiencies in the lab’s procedures, deficiencies that were confirmed by subsequent investigations. Two men who were falsely incriminated by botched lab work have been released after subsequent DNA testing proved their innocence. In dozens of cases, DNA retests by independent laboratories have failed to confirm the conclusions of the HPD lab. The DNA lab remains closed while an outside investigation continues.1

• In Virginia, post-conviction DNA testing in the high-profile case of Earl Washington, Jr. (who was falsely convicted of capital murder and came within hours of execution) contradicted DNA tests on the same samples performed earlier by the State Division of Forensic Sciences. An outside investigation concluded that the state lab had botched the analysis of the case, failing to follow proper procedures and misinterpreting its own test results. The outside investigators called for, and the governor ordered, a broader investigation of the lab to determine whether these problems are endemic. Problematic test procedures and misleading testimony have also come to light in two additional capital cases handled by the state lab. 2

• In 2004, an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer documented 23 DNA testing errors in serious criminal cases handled by the Washington State Patrol laboratory.3

• In North Carolina, the Winston-Salem Journal recently published a series of articles documenting numerous DNA testing errors by the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation.4

• The Illinois State Police recently cancelled a contract with Bode Technology Group, one of the largest independent DNA labs in the country, expressing “outrage” over poor quality work.5


Now I don't think one instance nulls an entire labs work, but it is food for thought regarding the cetainty that there could be no other explanation for a match. Contamination seems to be possible in a variety of ways.

Here's a link to the whole article. Interesting read...

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

[Athena]

One thing to remember: The early tests of potential suspects were all done in 1997. This is before the second spot was isolated in 2003 and yet everyone was "cleared" including the Ramseys as far as the DNA was concerned based on the first degraded DNA. I've always said none of them should have been cleared and hopefully all of the DNA they have collected will be re-tested.

Bystander: I read the article you linked to. Very interesting and while I was aware of some of it it is an eye opener but I need to re-read it as I am not seeing what it has to do with the DNA collected (the isolated DNA in the secon go round and the new skins cells). One was fluid and one was skin cells so I fail to see a possibility of transferrence but again will re-read it. I also have an article from Barry Scheck's Innocence Project that is interesting and speaks to the skin cells.

Anyway just some definitions:

he most common form of DNA analysis is called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR has allowed investigators to successfully analyze evidence samples of limited quality and quantity. The PCR process makes millions of copies of very small amounts of DNA. This enables the laboratory to generate a DNA profile, which can be compared with the DNA profile from a suspect. A statistic is then generated to reflect how often one would expect to find this particular DNA profile in the general population.

Three types of results can occur in DNA testing: inclusion, exclusion, and inconclusive. It is important that victim service providers understand the meaning of these terms and be able to explain their implications.

Inclusion. When the DNA profile of a victim or suspect is consistent with the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "included" as the possible source of that evidence. However, the strength of inclusion depends upon the number of loci (locations on the DNA strand) examined and how common or rare the resulting DNA profile is in the general population.

Exclusion. When the DNA profile from a victim or suspect is inconsistent with the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "excluded" as the donor of the evidence. However, exclusion does not imply innocence. In a rape case, for example, a perpetrator wearing a condom could be excluded as a suspect because no semen was found at the crime scene, but evidence found elsewhere at the crime scene may include that same person as a suspect.

Inconclusive. Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing could neither include nor exclude an individual as the source of biological evidence. Inconclusive results can occur for many reasons: for example, the quality or quantity of DNA may be insufficient to produce interpretable results

[Bystander]

One thing to remember: The early tests of potential suspects were all done in 1997. This is before the second spot was isolated in 2003 and yet everyone was "cleared" including the Ramseys as far as the DNA was concerned based on the first degraded DNA. I've always said none of them should have been cleared and hopefully all of the DNA they have collected will be re-tested.

Bystander: I read the article you linked to. Very interesting and while I was aware of some of it it is an eye opener but I need to re-read it as I am not seeing what it has to do with the DNA collected (the isolated DNA in the secon go round and the new skins cells). One was fluid and one was skin cells so I fail to see a possibility of transferrence but again will re-read it. I also have an article from Barry Scheck's Innocence Project that is interesting and speaks to the skin cells.

Anyway just some definitions:

he most common form of DNA analysis is called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR has allowed investigators to successfully analyze evidence samples of limited quality and quantity. The PCR process makes millions of copies of very small amounts of DNA. This enables the laboratory to generate a DNA profile, which can be compared with the DNA profile from a suspect. A statistic is then generated to reflect how often one would expect to find this particular DNA profile in the general population.

Three types of results can occur in DNA testing: inclusion, exclusion, and inconclusive. It is important that victim service providers understand the meaning of these terms and be able to explain their implications.

Inclusion. When the DNA profile of a victim or suspect is consistent with the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "included" as the possible source of that evidence. However, the strength of inclusion depends upon the number of loci (locations on the DNA strand) examined and how common or rare the resulting DNA profile is in the general population.

Exclusion. When the DNA profile from a victim or suspect is inconsistent with the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "excluded" as the donor of the evidence. However, exclusion does not imply innocence. In a rape case, for example, a perpetrator wearing a condom could be excluded as a suspect because no semen was found at the crime scene, but evidence found elsewhere at the crime scene may include that same person as a suspect.

Inconclusive. Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing could neither include nor exclude an individual as the source of biological evidence. Inconclusive results can occur for many reasons: for example, the quality or quantity of DNA may be insufficient to produce interpretable results

Are you saying that the dna was never recompared after the second spot was isolated in 03? I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have and thought you meant those were the results that were inconclusive. If the 'new dna can be matched to the 03 dna then the 03 dna was of sufficient quality and quantity. (or was made to be by pcr, the way I understand it) So that was my q, did they compare the 03 to the profiles they had from 97, and were any of those results inconclusive that you know of? (the 'definitions' clarified how you were using 'inconclusive' a bit more, thanks.)

Without knowing many more details, it'd be hard to apply anything from that article specifically to the JBR testing, so you're not missing anything there. It just shows reason to question whether everything they conclude can be taken at face value. In some of those examples in the article, they couldn't figure out how something had been contaminated, but they knew it was, since the results didn't make any sense when put together with other evidence. That information will be more relevant if they ever match the dna to a person in particular. If they match it to someone who obviously couldn't have commited the crime, they'll know there was a mistake made somewhere. I just wonder how people can be so certain there was no error when, as that article is showing, human error is sometimes never detected and can be a factor in the mistaken interpretations and then covered up simply because someone doesn't want to be exposed.

I'm most astonished by the scientists who let their emotions get in the way of their interpretations, since I thought scientists trained themselves into Spock-like objectivity. Obviously, I was being naive there. I haven't been this disillusioned with a group I respected since I read that Judge Ito was playing to the camera's in his courtroom, rather than playing judge.

I have no question that dna itself is reliable if done right, but if something can be contaminated simply by a lab director speaking to a technician while he is doing a test, then quality control should be investigated thoroughly. Question is, how thorough were they?

They say they verified the results, but how far back did they go? In 97 and even in 03, they didn't have the same quality control auditing that they have in place now.

I hope you do post the article on skin dna. Also, what specifically says it was fluid in the blood spots? The quote posted earlier (Bennet?) said the spots on the underwear were like a cough or a sneeze rather than it was. The Bode Tech spokesperson said that the skin cell dna 'does not drop' (if memory serves) but didnt' elaborate further on the difference between fluid and skin cell dna, nor say one couldn't be mistaken for the other or both be present because someone covered their mouth when they coughed or sneezed and then touched an object. (for example.) So I'll be glad to read more on it.

[Jayelles]

Aren't skin cells in saliva (i.e from inside the mouth).

[Bystander]

I think so Jayelles :read: I'm looking. I found this and thought it was interesting for other reasons. :D I might even try it!



http://www.nexusresearchgroup.com/fun_science/dna.htm


(A Recipe) To isolate your own human DNA

(an original protocol independantly developed by Nexus, please acknowledge our contribution if using this protocol for teaching purposes)

To a 1/2 cup of water dissolve about 1/2 teaspoon of salt and add a squirt of dish-washing detergent. Save this for step 3
Swirl about 25 mls of water around your mouth for 30 seconds. This removes some cheek cells. Spit into a disposable cup Add about 2cm of the fluid to a test-tube (or a Fuji film cannister) and add about 1cm of the saline/detergent solution. Invert gently 3 or 4 times to mix well (but you don't want a lot of froth). This will break open the many cheek cells you spat out, releasing the DNA message that each cell must carry.
Layer on top some ice cold ethanol (or methanol). Strands of DNA will be seen where the two layers meet. Hook out the strands of DNA that form with a glass hook (or one made from a plastic twist-tie) by slowly dipping up and down through the two layers.

[Jayelles]

I think so Jayelles :read: I'm looking. I found this and thought it was interesting for other reasons. :D I might even try it!



http://www.nexusresearchgroup.com/fun_science/dna.htm


(A Recipe) To isolate your own human DNA

(an original protocol independantly developed by Nexus, please acknowledge our contribution if using this protocol for teaching purposes)

To a 1/2 cup of water dissolve about 1/2 teaspoon of salt and add a squirt of dish-washing detergent. Save this for step 3
Swirl about 25 mls of water around your mouth for 30 seconds. This removes some cheek cells. Spit into a disposable cup Add about 2cm of the fluid to a test-tube (or a Fuji film cannister) and add about 1cm of the saline/detergent solution. Invert gently 3 or 4 times to mix well (but you don't want a lot of froth). This will break open the many cheek cells you spat out, releasing the DNA message that each cell must carry.
Layer on top some ice cold ethanol (or methanol). Strands of DNA will be seen where the two layers meet. Hook out the strands of DNA that form with a glass hook (or one made from a plastic twist-tie) by slowly dipping up and down through the two layers.

Interesting but (sorry) quite disgusting LOL

The cells in saliva are apparently called buccal epithelial cells and they are similar to the cells in our internal organs. I suppose there must be a structural difference between them and ordinary skin cells and that's how they would know it was dried saliva as opposed to ordinary skin cells.

[Athena]

O/T: Is anyone else having a problem posting? It takes so long to get a post through and I have to log out and log back in because I totally freeze up. It is very frustrating.

Innocence Blog
Dispatch from Dallas: The growing impact of ultra-sensitive DNA testing

Posted: July 10, 2008 12:51 pm

By Cassie Johnson, Forensic Supervisor at Orchid Cellmark, DNA Laboratory


DNA testing is the most powerful type of identity testing available, and it is used for many different purposes: to establish paternity and lineage, or in criminal investigations. With DNA testing, we can uniquely identify every person in the world, unless that person has an identical twin.

Thanks to major improvements in DNA testing technology over the last few years, the tiniest shred of biological evidence can assist in almost any type of crime. Most of the criminal cases we’ve traditionally worked on have been homicides and sexual assaults, but DNA testing is now being used around the world in nonviolent crimes such as burglaries. We could test a pinpoint of biological evidence, whether it’s blood, semen, saliva, or skin cells, and develop a DNA profile. The potential sources of DNA are almost limitless. As DNA testing has progressed, it has become substantially more sensitive, and it works increasingly well on compromised or degraded samples. We’re now able to generate a DNA profile from a sample in which testing would previously never have been attempted.

The criminal justice system uses four main types of DNA testing: STR, Y-STR, mini-STR, and mitochondrial:

• STR testing has been around the longest and is the type of testing most commonly used by crime labs, defense attorneys and prosecutors.

• Mitochondrial DNA testing is often used to generate a DNA profile from hair, bones, or teeth, and is a specialized type of testing that has been used since the mid-1990s.

• The Y-STR test uses the same technologies and principles as STR testing. However, Y-STR testing only looks at areas that are on the Y chromosome, which makes it male-specific. In our experience, it is also more sensitive than STR testing, so we may be able to obtain a profile with less starting material.

• Mini-STR is the newest form of DNA testing and is especially useful on samples that are highly degraded. It is perhaps even more sensitive than STR or Y-STR testing. This year, Rickey Johnson became the first person to be proven innocent through mini-STR DNA testing.

In every case, our job is to develop profiles from evidence regardless of the eventual outcome. We have conducted testing in the cases of several Innocence Project clients, and these are cases that truly demonstrate the potential of DNA testing to change people’s lives. In James Waller’s case, a state lab attempted to conduct DNA testing several years earlier and couldn’t get a result—but the process of testing used up the evidence, which is not uncommon.

We didn’t have any of the original evidence like the rape kit or the bedsheet to go back and test. The only thing that was left over for testing was a liquid “extract,” meaning a leftover lab sample of the evidence. Fortunately, the state lab preserved the liquid extract and made it available to us for Y-STR testing. We were able to obtain a DNA profile from the extract; it did not match his profile and therefore showed that he could not have contributed the sample. Something similar happened in Scott Fappiano’s case. In that instance, it was Orchid Cellmark that had retained the extracts from the early 1990s. Those extracts ultimately led to Mr. Fappiano’s freedom.

Orchid Cellmark is very proud to be able to donate its expertise in DNA testing to the Innocence Project, which continuously fights for those who have been wrongfully convicted. Working on these post-conviction cases reminds us how powerful DNA testing can be, whether it be in solving a cold case or exonerating the wrongfully accused.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1462.php

[Jayelles]

Hmmm well I would want to know a LOT more before I am convinced.

You're not alone in asking these questions Daffodil:-

http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x1816442418/WENDY-MURPHY-AND-JUSTICE-FOR-SOME-The-district-attorney-should-apologize-to-JonBenet-not-to-her-parents


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/16/campos-a-reckless-exoneration/

AND I have a feeling that there will be more to come... It alarms me when someone in a position of authority abuses their position to favour people whom they have obvious allegiance with (and I'm not just talking about politics!). Mary Lacy needs to clear EVERYONE who had their DNA tested - or explain why she only cleared the Ramseys.

[deacon]

After doing a great deal of reading on this it seems that the only people not investigated are people who are not related, closely, with this family. A lot of what I have read here seems to be gleaned from tabloids and other rags who will print anything they can to make a buck.

I read, with interest, the "profile" of the killer and I have to harken back to the BTK case. None of the profilers were even in the all park with him. No where close. I guess that has dampened my belief in that science. I also read quite a bit of "evidence" quoted here that is not supported by what I read in other places. One small piece of that is the duct tape. From what I have read, there was no duct tape in the Ramsey household at all other than that found on the little girl. Seems like someone came prepared.

As for the actions of the Ramseys, none of us can say what we would do in that situation. Not, of course, unless we have gone through the same thing. Even then, all of us will react differently. It is human nature.

As for hiring a lawyer, of course only guilty people do that. (please note sarcasm) Just think of what would have happened in the Duke case if those young men hadn't hired a lawyer. They would still be in jail.

In most cases I have read about, parents do not kill their children by choking them in the manner that she was choked. Also, the method is not a "long forgotten method" that it would take a particular type of person to do. It also can be used as a method of prolonging the death experience for the killer. You know, some get a sexual excitation from being in total control of how and when another dies.

Just my thoughts. Let the bashing begin.

[Bystander]

As for the actions of the Ramseys, none of us can say what we would do in that situation. Not, of course, unless we have gone through the same thing. Even then, all of us will react differently. It is human nature. (cut)

As for hiring a lawyer, of course only guilty people do that. (please note sarcasm) Just think of what would have happened in the Duke case if those young men hadn't hired a lawyer. They would still be in jail.

.

One thing I've learned from reading about this is, the Ramseys did what is advisable by getting a lawyer early on. I know of a person who thought he was being interviewed as a witness, then it began to dawn on him that he was a suspect. By then, it was too late. He's now in prison for 25 years. (and I believe he is innocent. Not completely faultless but innocent of what they charged him with.)

He should have brought a lawyer with him before he ever went in. I also saw the write up in the paper on the day they handed down his verdict and it was partially fabricated. Actions were reported that never happened. That was an eye opener, and something I've never forgotten, so it's hard for me to take even what seem like valid accounts without a grain of salt.

[Bystander]

(Athena)O/T: Is anyone else having a problem posting? It takes so long to get a post through and I have to log out and log back in because I totally freeze up. It is very frustrating.

It's sluggish. I've lost a post or two, waiting for it to send, then getting a 'can't find website' message. I cleared the cache and rebooted. It's better now.

[debbyuk2008]

Unless someone confesses there will never be closure in this tragic case. We can speculate but someone out there probably has all the answers.
Its so frustrating because someone has literally got away with murder.

I have watched all the documentaries, tho' I would like to read the books now. I have to say I have never established a real view. Except I feel the parents know more than they are letting on.

Its a tragic case. Any slaying of a child is a tragedy.

[SaraSidle]

that DNA on the underwear and longjohns may be matched up soon. A confession would be good to but I am waiting on the DNA IMO

[Athena]

After doing a great deal of reading on this it seems that the only people not investigated are people who are not related, closely, with this family. A lot of what I have read here seems to be gleaned from tabloids and other rags who will print anything they can to make a buck.

I read, with interest, the "profile" of the killer and I have to harken back to the BTK case. None of the profilers were even in the all park with him. No where close. I guess that has dampened my belief in that science. I also read quite a bit of "evidence" quoted here that is not supported by what I read in other places. One small piece of that is the duct tape. From what I have read, there was no duct tape in the Ramsey household at all other than that found on the little girl. Seems like someone came prepared.

As for the actions of the Ramseys, none of us can say what we would do in that situation. Not, of course, unless we have gone through the same thing. Even then, all of us will react differently. It is human nature.

As for hiring a lawyer, of course only guilty people do that. (please note sarcasm) Just think of what would have happened in the Duke case if those young men hadn't hired a lawyer. They would still be in jail.

In most cases I have read about, parents do not kill their children by choking them in the manner that she was choked. Also, the method is not a "long forgotten method" that it would take a particular type of person to do. It also can be used as a method of prolonging the death experience for the killer. You know, some get a sexual excitation from being in total control of how and when another dies.

Just my thoughts. Let the bashing begin.

Ugh--I responded and had to retype my response.

ITA with your post. One quote I will remember for the rest of my life is when Bynum (Ramsey lawyer/family friend) said "If you are guilty, you better hire a good lawyer; if you are innocent you better hire a GREAT lawyer".

Elizabeth Smart's parents would be in jail today if the sister had not bypassed LE when she enlisted Walsh's aid. LE accused the parents of lying and the sister of lying to cover up for her parents. She got a sketch to Walsh who broadcasted it and enabled the perp to be caught.

Re: the duct tape. You are correct; the duct tape they did find (pieces from the back of pictures, etc) could not be matched to the duct tape found on JBR. In addition to that Schiller writes in PMPT in 2/99 that the LE could not match the Ramseys clothing to any of the fibers found and LE were stumped. I do not understand how people do not realize that the investigators were on a fishing expedition when questioning JR about his fibers allegedly found on JBR. It is SOP for trickery when questioning potential suspects -- nothing new.
Michael Kane himself made a statement; "Every imaginable piece of evidence or anything that could have been construed as evidence could not be definitively tied to the Ramseys as being the murderer."

The ONLY fibers that were found were 4 red fiber strands that was consistent with the jacket Patsy was wearing. Henry Lee even wrote it off as innocent transfer. Patsy was wearing that jacket when JBRs body was discovered. During the course of the morning, JR and FW could have touched her when comforting her and unknowingly transferred those fibers to the duct tape since both touched it. In any event those fibers can be easily explained away. There is absolutely no hard evidence that linked the Ramseys to this crime other than the fact that JBR was found in the basement of the home and no one knows for sure whether or not it could have been a kidnapping gone wrong and after killing her he hid in the wine cellar to give him time to flee.

The type of perp you describe above is a sexual sadist. Within that category is what is called an anger retailiatory perp who attacks a victim as a symbol against the person they hate. I believe the perp knew JR and perceived that JR committed a wrong against him and what better way to get revenge than to kill his baby girl and watch him suffer. He was probably watching with glee as the Ramseys were accused and watched their nestegg dwindle down with attorney expenses.

Re: the Duke U case I get very emotional about this case as we know the Finnerty family and never believed that Collin had anything to do with this crime but they also had to put out an enormous sum of money for attorneys. (My son played lacrosse with him on a travelling team). Normally you cannot sue the govt re: a criminal case but I believe the Judge ruled in this case they would be allowed to pursue a lawsuit againt Durham due to the obvious misconduct by Nifong. Although Nifong resigned he only spent ONE SINGLE day in jail for contempt for making these false allegations. It's no wonder that prosecutors/investigators lie -- they do NOT get punished and in most cases they are supported in court if used to get a confession.

Re: the behavior of the Ramseys -- their statements have been literally scrutinized and minor inconsistencies have been raised - but nothing that would have had an effect on this investigation. Over time you don't even know if you actually experienced something or thought you did after hearing something over and over again. You think you would know what you are going to do when something happens but when it actually happens everything you think you would do goes right "out the window". Walk in my shoes........

JMHO

[Jayelles]

One thing I've learned from reading about this is, the Ramseys did what is advisable by getting a lawyer early on. I know of a person who thought he was being interviewed as a witness, then it began to dawn on him that he was a suspect. By then, it was too late. He's now in prison for 25 years. (and I believe he is innocent. Not completely faultless but innocent of what they charged him with.)

He should have brought a lawyer with him before he ever went in. I also saw the write up in the paper on the day they handed down his verdict and it was partially fabricated. Actions were reported that never happened. That was an eye opener, and something I've never forgotten, so it's hard for me to take even what seem like valid accounts without a grain of salt.

I absolutely agree that one should hire a lawyer and I am totally supportive of the ramseys decision to "lawyer up". What I think is indefensible though is refusing police interviews (or at least placing unacceptable conditions on them) for four months by which time memories had faded and the trail had grown cold. I think they should have swallowed their egos and marched into the police station with their lawyers in tow and helped the police all they could.

[Athena]

I absolutely agree that one should hire a lawyer and I am totally supportive of the ramseys decision to "lawyer up". What I think is indefensible though is refusing police interviews (or at least placing unacceptable conditions on them) for four months by which time memories had faded and the trail had grown cold. I think they should have swallowed their egos and marched into the police station with their lawyers in tow and helped the police all they could.

In one of the John's interviews before the Karr fiasco (don't remember the date) he actually says that if he had to do it all again -- he would have still hired lawyers but would have gone against their advice and been interviewed sooner. I just think the lawyers were over-protective and they were listening to their advice/guidance. I think they even came to realize that this was the biggest mistake they made during the investigation.

[Bystander]

One thing to remember: The early tests of potential suspects were all done in 1997. This is before the second spot was isolated in 2003 and yet everyone was "cleared" including the Ramseys as far as the DNA was concerned based on the first degraded DNA. I've always said none of them should have been cleared and hopefully all of the DNA they have collected will be re-tested.

...(snip) Anyway just some definitions:

he most common form of DNA analysis is called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR has allowed investigators to successfully analyze evidence samples of limited quality and quantity. The PCR process makes millions of copies of very small amounts of DNA. This enables the laboratory to generate a DNA profile, which can be compared with the DNA profile from a suspect. A statistic is then generated to reflect how often one would expect to find this particular DNA profile in the general population.

Three types of results can occur in DNA testing: inclusion, exclusion, and inconclusive. It is important that victim service providers understand the meaning of these terms and be able to explain their implications.

Inclusion. When the DNA profile of a victim or suspect is consistent with the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "included" as the possible source of that evidence. However, the strength of inclusion depends upon the number of loci (locations on the DNA strand) examined and how common or rare the resulting DNA profile is in the general population.

Exclusion. When the DNA profile from a victim or suspect is inconsistent with the DNA profile generated from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "excluded" as the donor of the evidence. However, exclusion does not imply innocence. In a rape case, for example, a perpetrator wearing a condom could be excluded as a suspect because no semen was found at the crime scene, but evidence found elsewhere at the crime scene may include that same person as a suspect.

Inconclusive. Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing could neither include nor exclude an individual as the source of biological evidence. Inconclusive results can occur for many reasons: for example, the quality or quantity of DNA may be insufficient to produce interpretable results


The below link has very much the same information that you posted, which is very helpful in understanding the context of those terms regarding dna evidence, but this site has more under the 'inconclusive' heading. I wanted to add it because I strongly agree with the 'interpreting in the context of other evidence' part.

http://www.dna.gov/audiences/victim/know/interpreting

DNA.gov > Browse by Audience > Victim Advocates > What You Should Know About DNA Evidence > Interpreting DNA Test Results

Inconclusive. Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing could neither include nor exclude an individual as the source of biological evidence. Inconclusive results can occur for many reasons: for example, the quality or quantity of DNA may be insufficient to produce interpretable results, [B]or the evidentiary sample may contain a mixture of DNA from several individuals (e.g., a sample taken from a victim of a gang rape.)
As with all DNA testing results, additional testing may be needed and findings should be interpreted in the context of other evidence in the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From Understanding DNA Evidence: A Guide for Victim Service Providers, May 2001, Brochure, National Institute of Justice and Office for Victims of Crime
Victim Advocates)

The mixed sample aspect of the bloodspot is confusing to me.
Was the dna a mixed sample in both bloodspots?

Re: the lawyers, I think the sparring and posturing caused a lot of the negative reaction towards the R's too. Their being treated deferentially relative to how an average person gets treated didn't sit well with a lot of people. It never does, but it happens all the time. (especially if you are a Kennedy.)

I am amazed that they got away with avoiding the interviews for as long as they did. Most people aren't at all aware of their rights, and like with my friends brother, cooperating doesn't work in your favor if they are after you. If the police and prosecutors were ethical, it would be different but they are not.

[shill]

... It alarms me when someone in a position of authority abuses their position to favour people whom they have obvious allegiance with (and I'm not just talking about politics!). Mary Lacy needs to clear EVERYONE who had their DNA tested - or explain why she only cleared the Ramseys.
It alarms me that posters make accusations of favoritism and conspiracy as a way of ignoring convincing evidence and casting suspicion on the Ramseys through exaggerated claims like this post.

[Jayelles]

I think JonBenet was killed by someone who was in a rage. However, I have just read a post by someone who seems to think that it could only have been rage if the headblow came first! I totally disagree with this presumption.

I don't think that the headblow necessarily came first for one simple reason - it would make no sense to then garotte the victim. Garotting the victim isn't going to cover up a headblow. However, I do believe that garotting may have been done to cover up a different form of strangulation - one which could easily have taken place alongside a head injury. Specifically, I am referring to someone grabbing Jonbenet by her neckband and then twisting it hard as they yanked her so roughly that she was propelled against a hard surface smashing her skull in the process.

I think the injuries are there to support this theory - the large triangular abrasion on her neck looks to me like the kind of mark which would be made by knuckles twisting against her neck.

I think the garotte, "sexual assault" and ransom note were then put in place by the killer to create red herrings.

[shill]

I think JonBenet was killed by someone who was in a rage. However, I have just read a post by someone who seems to think that it could only have been rage if the headblow came first! I totally disagree with this presumption.

I don't think that the headblow necessarily came first for one simple reason - it would make no sense to then garotte the victim. Garotting the victim isn't going to cover up a headblow. However, I do believe that garotting may have been done to cover up a different form of strangulation - one which could easily have taken place alongside a head injury. Specifically, I am referring to someone grabbing Jonbenet by her neckband and then twisting it hard as they yanked her so roughly that she was propelled against a hard surface smashing her skull in the process.

I think the injuries are there to support this theory - the large triangular abrasion on her neck looks to me like the kind of mark which would be made by knuckles twisting against her neck.

I think the garotte, "sexual assault" and ransom note were then put in place by the killer to create red herrings.I would think yanking someone around by the collar causing suffocation and with a good enough grip to throw them with enough force into something that would cause such a massive head wound, would leave more evidence then a triangular mark on JonBenet's neck imo.

It would also seem to me that there would be more body bruising and evidence of a struggle if JonBenet had endured the kind of thrashing you are implying.

[Bystander]

I think JonBenet was killed by someone who was in a rage. However, I have just read a post by someone who seems to think that it could only have been rage if the headblow came first! I totally disagree with this presumption.

I don't think that the headblow necessarily came first for one simple reason - it would make no sense to then garotte the victim.

Garotting the victim isn't going to cover up a headblow. However, I do believe that garotting may have been done to cover up a different form of strangulation - one which could easily have taken place alongside a head injury. Specifically, I am referring to someone grabbing Jonbenet by her neckband and then twisting it hard as they yanked her so roughly that she was propelled against a hard surface smashing her skull in the process.

I think the injuries are there to support this theory - the large triangular abrasion on her neck looks to me like the kind of mark which would be made by knuckles twisting against her neck.

I think the garotte, "sexual assault" and ransom note were then put in place by the killer to create red herrings.

Regarding the other person's remarks about rage, the damage seen from the injuries would show much more than just using the order in which the injuries were applied. I think that anything based solely on the behavior of an unknown person is premature, unless there is behavior to compare it to, and for that you need to know who you are comparing it to.

It's not really been shown that the Ramsey's generally exhibited rage towards their kids, (is LHP the only one who mentioned seeing some?) and if it's an intruder, he is a near-complete unknown, other than in profiles of different types of predators, so the question of rage could really only be shown by the injuries.

Rage isn't rational and I think that there would be evidence of more than one blow, since someone in a rage usually doesn't stop at taking one shot once they cut loose. There are some other bruises so it is possible, but what else do you think shows rage?

If there is evidence of only one strong shot to the head, then it seems more like the intent was to do damage, rather than take out anger on someone. Like with a stabbing.. one killing wound to the heart would not indicate rage, but multliple, twisting wounds would indicate it clearly.

Do you know if the head wounds on the outside of the skull were considered to be multiple blows or was it one shot only? (I think the ones beneath the skull cap could have other explanations)

I agree that strangulation wouldn't cover up the head blow at all...neither injury would obscure the other, physically. I'm not clear on the reason for both to be there; it's overkill. In the end, having both does tend to misdirect perceptions, but I'm not quite sure if that was planned.

I think the injuries are there to support this theory - the large triangular abrasion on her neck looks to me like the kind of mark which would be made by knuckles twisting against her neck.

It's an interesting idea and definitely food for thought. Knuckles against her neck seem like they would cause a bruise(contusion) rather than a scrape (dried abrasion.) Might it not make more sense if the collar were grabbed from the back and the pressure of the collar itself caused the abrasion?

The triangular abrasion ends right at the ligature, though, making it seem like the ligature itself caused the abrasion--maybe from the cord scraping against her neck. The abrasion looks like it's diagonally opposite from where the knot was. (Correct me if I'm wrong because i'd have to look at the pics again to say for sure, but from a perspective of standing behind her, the knot was in back/to the right, the triangular abrasion was in front/to the left.) Pulling at the knot would put the most pressure on the opposite side, and that mark is so well defined that it seems like a great deal of pressure caused it.

Another question would be; wouldn't the type of material in that shirt show signs of being stretched or torn, especially around the neckband, if it had been grabbed and twisted so strongly?

I do appreciate how much hard work goes into making a theory on what happened, so I hope you don't think my opinions are too annoying, but having yet another injury kind of complicates things a little more,lol. :eek:

Maybe removing one injury from the equation would make the motivations behind the attack more clear and help decide which injury was actually part of the murder and which one was staging... (I think the strangulation looks most like staging but per the autopsy report it is the cause of death.) Obviously, since there were two major life ending injuries present, there must be a reason for there being both, but hypothetically, if there were no head blow at all, would you still see rage in the killing? And if there were no strangulation, what would you think were the motivations behind the killing, especially if the head blow came only from one powerful blow to the head?

[rashomon]

Rage isn't rational and I think that there would be evidence of more than one blow, since someone in a rage usually doesn't stop at taking one shot once they cut loose.
Hearing JonBenet's skull crack could have produced an immediate shock, stopping the rage.
There are some other bruises so it is possible, but what else do you think shows rage?
I believe there was some physical confrontation preceding the fatal head blow.
I agree that strangulation wouldn't cover up the head blow at all...neither injury would obscure the other, physically.
But staging a deliberate strangulation murder scene could have served the purpose of shifting LE's attention away from a parental rage attack toward a bizarre 'garroting' which one would not associate with parents having committed it.

jmo

[shill]

Hearing JonBenet's skull crack could have produced an immediate shock, stopping the rage.

I've heard about murders of rage were the person was stabbed to death.
They describe rage attacks as a strange phenomenon that leads to overkill, so a person ends up being stabbed like 40 times or more.
You would think they would stop after that first stab, but no.

I find it hard to believe this alleged rage attack on JonBenet would have ended differently then other rage attacks.

So I have to believe it was a death blow and not a rage attack.

[Jayelles]

Another question would be; wouldn't the type of material in that shirt show signs of being stretched or torn, especially around the neckband, if it had been grabbed and twisted so strongly?

I've thought about this but it actually depends on the fabric and the way the garment has been constructed. Some fabrics take a while to return to their "resting" position when stretched, others return immediately. We don't know much about Jonbenet's top other than it was white, came from Gap and had a star on the front. It wouldn't take an awful lot of effort to strangle a child and if the assault included a severe headblow, the killer might have released his hold on her neckband.

Her head injury wasn't visible on first inspection and wasn't noticed until the autopsy so it could be that the killer thought that all that needed to be "covered up" was the manual strangulation.

I do appreciate how much hard work goes into making a theory on what happened, so I hope you don't think my opinions are too annoying, but having yet another injury kind of complicates things a little more,lol. :eek:

There are scenarios which seem feasible to me and scenarios which don't. I don't actually have a hardened theory as such so I'm open to any practical criticism. I can happily debate the specifics of the case but I really don't have a theory of my own as such. My mind is still wide open to all possibilities :-)

Maybe removing one injury from the equation would make the motivations behind the attack more clear and help decide which injury was actually part of the murder and which one was staging... (I think the strangulation looks most like staging but per the autopsy report it is the cause of death.) Obviously, since there were two major life ending injuries present, there must be a reason for there being both, but hypothetically, if there were no head blow at all, would you still see rage in the killing? And if there were no strangulation, what would you think were the motivations behind the killing, especially if the head blow came only from one powerful blow to the head?


You are absolutely right - this crime doesn't make sense because there are too many factors. It's like trying to do a jigsaw when in fact you don't have all the pieces for ONE jigsaw, but rather a mixture of pieces from two or more jigsaws - with some pieces missing too.

It's like more than one crime took place that night and an attempt was made to look like only one did.

[shill]

I've thought about this but it actually depends on the fabric and the way the garment has been constructed. Some fabrics take a while to return to their "resting" position when stretched, others return immediately. We don't know much about Jonbenet's top other than it was white, came from Gap and had a star on the front. It wouldn't take an awful lot of effort to strangle a child and if the assault included a severe headblow, the killer might have released his hold on her neckband.

I've thought about it to, and it seems it would be really hard, if not impossible, to strangle somebody with their collarless top imo.

[Jayelles]

Another scenario which I have wondered about is suffocation.

What is she was whacked on the back of the head and fell forward onto a soft surface (e.g. her bed). If she was unconscious and unable to move her head for air, would the suffocation so close in time to the head blow explain the lack of bleeding? This would also explain the lack of injuries to her face from a fall caused by such a sever blow to the head.

[rashomon]

Another question would be; wouldn't the type of material in that shirt show signs of being stretched or torn, especially around the neckband, if it had been grabbed and twisted so strongly?
Important to note in that context: Patsy's original story was that JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed; this turtleneck was found balled up on the bathroom counter.
Jmpo, but I believe Patsy - during a fierce confrontation - for whatever reason, grabbed JonBenet by the collar of the red turtleneck, yanking her around, and that this caused the lower abrasion on the neck.
Imo Dr.Spitz's theory would cover a lot: first there was manual strangulaton e.g. by twsting the collar, then it escalated to the point where the child was struck on the head or slammed against a hard and flat surface.
The later staging of a deliberate 'bizarre' strangulation scene by an "intruder" could have served the purpose of covering up the parental rage attack which was at the origin of the tragedy.

jmo

[rashomon]

Another scenario which I have wondered about is suffocation.

What is she was whacked on the back of the head and fell forward onto a soft surface (e.g. her bed). If she was unconscious and unable to move her head for air, would the suffocation so close in time to the head blow explain the lack of bleeding? This would also explain the lack of injuries to her face from a fall caused by such a sever blow to the head.
Interesting theory Jayelles, for she WAS in fact whacked on the back of her head, and the blow would have thrust her forward.

jmo

[SaraSidle]

Interesting theory Jayelles, for she WAS in fact whacked on the back of her head, and the blow would have thrust her forward.

jmo

So do you feel that the rope that was thought to use to strange her was just a prop? I also wonder if her red shirt was tested for her urine in case she did wet the bed that night? IMO

[Bystander]

Actually, I saw something about smothering recently--that it leaves very few signs and I also wondered if it could have played a part. Then I shelved it, because the cord already serves just as well. The cord also might restrict the blood flow to the head quickly enough to contribute to lack of blood, but I don't know if either of them would cause it for sure.

[Bystander]

Important to note in that context: Patsy's original story was that JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed; this turtleneck was found balled up on the bathroom counter.
Jmpo, but I believe Patsy - during a fierce confrontation - for whatever reason, grabbed JonBenet by the collar of the red turtleneck, yanking her around, and that this caused the lower abrasion on the neck.
Imo Dr.Spitz's theory would cover a lot: first there was manual strangulaton e.g. by twsting the collar, then it escalated to the point where the child was struck on the head or slammed against a hard and flat surface.
The later staging of a deliberate 'bizarre' strangulation scene by an "intruder" could have served the purpose of covering up the parental rage attack which was at the origin of the tragedy.

jmo

Rashomon, do you happen to know where red vs white shirt statements are easily found? I've only read parts of that in the past and wanted to see the whole thing related in context of whatever news story or interview it appeared in. I've never gotten around to searching for it so if you know offhand, I'd appreciate it. Was it rinsed or just rolled up, and was there ever any explanation for it?

re: the mark. I've seen smaller markings similar to the triangular one a few times in people'e eyes when they have high blood pressure. Also, saw one related to a broken finger once. A crescent shaped red mark appeared that the doc said was due to the swelling and pressure of the break, because the blood was forced to the fingertip. That's why I thought it had to do with pressure, until i saw it described as a dried abrasion. The collar thing sounds feasible but there's still the rage factor which is something people will exhibit to varying degrees and there are usually signs, in my experience. I have seen previously calm types suddenly turn but there was usually a good reason for it.

[Bystander]

I've thought about this but it actually depends on the fabric and the way the garment has been constructed. Some fabrics take a while to return to their "resting" position when stretched, others return immediately. We don't know much about Jonbenet's top other than it was white, came from Gap and had a star on the front. It wouldn't take an awful lot of effort to strangle a child and if the assault included a severe headblow, the killer might have released his hold on her neckband.

Her head injury wasn't visible on first inspection and wasn't noticed until the autopsy so it could be that the killer thought that all that needed to be "covered up" was the manual strangulation.

There are scenarios which seem feasible to me and scenarios which don't. I don't actually have a hardened theory as such so I'm open to any practical criticism. I can happily debate the specifics of the case but I really don't have a theory of my own as such. My mind is still wide open to all possibilities :-)

You are absolutely right - this crime doesn't make sense because there are too many factors. It's like trying to do a jigsaw when in fact you don't have all the pieces for ONE jigsaw, but rather a mixture of pieces from two or more jigsaws - with some pieces missing too.

It's like more than one crime took place that night and an attempt was made to look like only one did.


Cnn has the white shirt as a "knit top" fwiw, though that doesn't add much to the description: "She was wearing a long-sleeved white knit collarless shirt with a silver star in the middle decorated with sequins... "

Good point about the head blow not being readily apparent, and I like the puzzle analogy very much. Ita. Pieces either fit two ways or don't quite fit at all :shrug: That's one reason I don't get into the details much.

I only set out to find the story behind the murder one day and found so much on ACandyRose that it was hard to even understand who was who. Theories would require reading everything factual, including the GJ testimony. That's not likely to happen for obvious reasons, and it's too hard to theorize on incomplete information, so I'm the same way--nothing's set in stone.

[deacon]

Ugh--I responded and had to retype my response.

Re: the Duke U case I get very emotional about this case as we know the Finnerty family and never believed that Collin had anything to do with this crime but they also had to put out an enormous sum of money for attorneys. (My son played lacrosse with him on a travelling team). Normally you cannot sue the govt re: a criminal case but I believe the Judge ruled in this case they would be allowed to pursue a lawsuit againt Durham due to the obvious misconduct by Nifong. Although Nifong resigned he only spent ONE SINGLE day in jail for contempt for making these false allegations. It's no wonder that prosecutors/investigators lie -- they do NOT get punished and in most cases they are supported in court if used to get a confession.



JMHO

I watched that case closely because I have a son not much older than them. After watching those young men on TV after the sorid mess was straightened out I was amazed and the maturity of each and everyone of them.

[deacon]

I think JonBenet was killed by someone who was in a rage. However, I have just read a post by someone who seems to think that it could only have been rage if the headblow came first! I totally disagree with this presumption.

I don't think that the headblow necessarily came first for one simple reason - it would make no sense to then garotte the victim. Garotting the victim isn't going to cover up a headblow. However, I do believe that garotting may have been done to cover up a different form of strangulation - one which could easily have taken place alongside a head injury. Specifically, I am referring to someone grabbing Jonbenet by her neckband and then twisting it hard as they yanked her so roughly that she was propelled against a hard surface smashing her skull in the process.

I think the injuries are there to support this theory - the large triangular abrasion on her neck looks to me like the kind of mark which would be made by knuckles twisting against her neck.

I think the garotte, "sexual assault" and ransom note were then put in place by the killer to create red herrings.


Rage? I really don't think so. I think this was planned out. Maybe not for very long but I think it was planned. The " head blow" has many explanations such as the event seldom follows the plan perfectly. The stranglation was the event the killer was looking for. I think the blow was a result of something not going as planned.

[Athena]

Important to note in that context: Patsy's original story was that JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed; this turtleneck was found balled up on the bathroom counter.
Jmpo, but I believe Patsy - during a fierce confrontation - for whatever reason, grabbed JonBenet by the collar of the red turtleneck, yanking her around, and that this caused the lower abrasion on the neck.
Imo Dr.Spitz's theory would cover a lot: first there was manual strangulaton e.g. by twsting the collar, then it escalated to the point where the child was struck on the head or slammed against a hard and flat surface.
The later staging of a deliberate 'bizarre' strangulation scene by an "intruder" could have served the purpose of covering up the parental rage attack which was at the origin of the tragedy.

jmo

ST spread that lie in his book. She did not even have on that red turtleneck and even ST even admitted that and contradicted his depo and his book. There are so many myths out here it is truly pathetic and ST is the primary contributor. Physics also does not allow this to have been a "slam" into a hard surface. She was deliberately and forcefully hit in the head and was it no accident or rage attack.

Thomas admits JBR had on the white top not a red turtleneck in 2000:

crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?

stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

21 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Third paragraph
22 down "I concluded the little girl had worn
23 the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother
24 originally said, and that it was stripped off
25 when it got wet." Are you talking about wet

357
1 from urine?
2 A. In this hypothesis we're talking
3 about, yes.
4 Q. Did you ever have or the Boulder
5 Police Department to your knowledge ever have
6 the red turtleneck found in the bathroom
7 tested forensically to determine if it had
8 any type of trace evidence or other evidence
9 on it?
10 A. Again, it sounds like you know
11 otherwise but I was under the impression from
12 Trujillo that there wasn't a presumptive test
13 for urine.
14 Q. Did anybody tell you that they
15 found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
16 A. No, this is what I am surmising
17 in the hypothesis.
18 Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into
19 evidence?
20 A. I certainly believe it was.
21 Q. Did it have any type of urine
22 stain on it?
23 A. Not that I'm aware of. I never
24 have looked at it personally.
25 Q. Where did you get the statement

358
1 that it got wet; did you just manufacture
2 that out of whole cloth?
3 A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a
4 reasonable explanation for the final resting
5 place of this red turtleneck of which she may
6 have indeed worn home.
7 Q. But you had no evidence to support
8 that statement about the turtleneck being wet,
9 true?
10 A. No, I don't know that it was
11 urine stained.
12 Q. Or wet?
13 A. Or wet.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

[Athena]

Rage? I really don't think so. I think this was planned out. Maybe not for very long but I think it was planned. The " head blow" has many explanations such as the event seldom follows the plan perfectly. The stranglation was the event the killer was looking for. I think the blow was a result of something not going as planned.

ITA and is also the reason her body was left in the home. JMO

[shill]

Another scenario which I have wondered about is suffocation.

What is she was whacked on the back of the head and fell forward onto a soft surface (e.g. her bed). If she was unconscious and unable to move her head for air, would the suffocation so close in time to the head blow explain the lack of bleeding? This would also explain the lack of injuries to her face from a fall caused by such a sever blow to the head.Doesn't the garrote embedded in JonBenet's neck and the small blood vessels in JonBenet's eyes and eye lids bursting indicate that strangulation is how she was suffocated?

Why would you disregard this information and create another imagined scenario to explain what is explained with the garrote?
Imo that just creates more questions, not answers.

[shill]

Important to note in that context: Patsy's original story was that JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed; this turtleneck was found balled up on the bathroom counter.
Jmpo, but I believe Patsy - during a fierce confrontation - for whatever reason, grabbed JonBenet by the collar of the red turtleneck, yanking her around, and that this caused the lower abrasion on the neck.
Imo Dr.Spitz's theory would cover a lot: first there was manual strangulaton e.g. by twsting the collar, then it escalated to the point where the child was struck on the head or slammed against a hard and flat surface.
The later staging of a deliberate 'bizarre' strangulation scene by an "intruder" could have served the purpose of covering up the parental rage attack which was at the origin of the tragedy.

jmoI still think that it would be near impossible to strangle someone to death with the collar of their shirt. And since JonBenet was strangled to death, this scenario does not seem at all plausible imo.

Their is a garrote found deeply embedded into JonBenet neck in which it is extremely plausible that this killed her imo.

Kind of hard to ignore the evidence in front of your nose that explains and coincides with exactly what appears to have happened, as apposed to some imagined scenario that is taking great liberties with it's possibility imo.

Well the day they find the unknown male who's DNA was left on JonBenet, I'm sure this eyewitness will be able to tell you if Patsy strangled JonBenet with her red turtleneck or not.

[shill]

Interesting theory Jayelles, for she WAS in fact whacked on the back of her head, and the blow would have thrust her forward.

jmoThat's a stretch.
The killer could have rolled her over right away. She could have fell to her side or even ended up on her back.
And JonBenet's hands could have been restrained over her head to something(since she was found with her hands bound above her head) preventing her from falling forward imo.

So if JonBenet allegedly fell face forward after a head blow, suffocating in a pillow, what does that explain in solving the mystery of who killed her?

[shill]

... would the suffocation so close in time to the head blow explain the lack of bleeding? You still bleed after you are dead. Poster Elvislives has made this very clear in her expert postings at other sites.

Now if you have a tourniquet around something, that will stop the bleeding.

I would say buy the looks of how deep the garrote was embedded in JonBenet's neck, not only did it strangle her to death, but it also cut off the blood flow to her head like a tourniquet, resulting in only a minuscule one and a half teaspoons of blood from what is a massive head wound imo.

[shill]

18 Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into
19 evidence?
20 A. I certainly believe it was.
21 Q. Did it have any type of urine
22 stain on it?
23 A. Not that I'm aware of. I never
24 have looked at it personally.
25 Q. Where did you get the statement

358
1 that it got wet; did you just manufacture
2 that out of whole cloth?
3 A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a
4 reasonable explanation for the final resting
5 place of this red turtleneck of which she may
6 have indeed worn home.
7 Q. But you had no evidence to support
8 that statement about the turtleneck being wet,
9 true?
10 A. No, I don't know that it was
11 urine stained.
12 Q. Or wet?
13 A. Or wet.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm
Sounds a lot like most RDI explanations for things, no foundation for their claims, just pure conjecture imo.

[Bystander]

Interesting but (sorry) quite disgusting LOL

The cells in saliva are apparently called buccal epithelial cells and they are similar to the cells in our internal organs. I suppose there must be a structural difference between them and ordinary skin cells and that's how they would know it was dried saliva as opposed to ordinary skin cells.

The below mentions they couldn't distinguish between the different types of epithelial cells until recently, with buccal and vaginal being the hardest to differentiate.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO2007018438&DISPLAY=DESC (posted to show source. It's hardly interesting reading! :D ) (dated 2/15/07)

If Im reading it right, they couldn't distinguish the origin of the dna by the sample's themselves back in '97. Other than assuming that a cough or sneeze is a likely source because the dna was part of the visible spots on her clothing, I still wonder if they know if the fluid was from the 'male's cough or sneeze, or if the fluid itself was JBR's with the male dna carried there in the drops of blood. That's why I'm curious if the male dna was found in both blood spots only, (leaving out the leggings for a moment) or if there were other places where the 'cough or sneeze' might have left it, independant of already being mixed with her sample.

[Jayelles]

The below mentions they couldn't distinguish between the different types of epithelial cells until recently, with buccal and vaginal being the hardest to differentiate.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO2007018438&DISPLAY=DESC (posted to show source. It's hardly interesting reading! :D ) (dated 2/15/07)

If Im reading it right, they couldn't distinguish the origin of the dna by the sample's themselves back in '97. Other than assuming that a cough or sneeze is a likely source because the dna was part of the visible spots on her clothing, I still wonder if they know if the fluid was from the 'male's cough or sneeze, or if the fluid itself was JBR's with the male dna carried there in the drops of blood. That's why I'm curious if the male dna was found in both blood spots only, (leaving out the leggings for a moment) or if there were other places where the 'cough or sneeze' might have left it, independant of already being mixed with her sample.


Yes it would be interesting to know this. I think a lot of people are confused about the underwear DNA. Some seem to think it was *only* in the bloodstains, but I suspect they only tested the bloodstains. Tom Bennett qualified his public statement a few years ago by saying it was microscopic - like from a cough or a sneeze. So what we would have had in that case was a spray - particles of which would have landed in a widespread random pattern. It would be interesting to know whether there were other particles elsewhere.

Another thing I think people are confused about is the use of the word "co-mingled". It is often offered as "proof" that the foreign DNA was left on the underwear at the same time as JonBenet's blood but I don't think that is necessarily the case. I think when the bloodstain on her underwear was tested, it yielded the two DNAs and they were probably co-mingled in the test tube. I think Why_Nut gave the best analogy. Mix salt with water in one jug, mix sugar with water in another. Pour some of the salt water onto a towel and allow to dry. Wait a month then pour some of the sugar water onto the stain and allow to dry. If the towel was tested, it would show presence of both sugar and salt.

Also - I'm pretty sure they use some kind of liquid solution when they are trying to extract dried DNA samples.

I think if there was undeniable proof that the foreign DNA and Jonbenet's blood were deposited at the exact same time, they would have made much more of that as exculpatory evidence.

[shill]

I think if there was undeniable proof that the foreign DNA and Jonbenet's blood were deposited at the exact same time, they would have made much more of that as exculpatory evidence.
I beleive they did make much more of it as exculpatory evidence.

The Ramseys and many others were originally considered cleared based on the DNA evidence found in JonBenet's underwear back when they tested it.
It wasn't until the theory that the unknown DNA may have come from a factory worker that it was put inot question.

Now that a new sample of matching DNA was found elsewear on JonBenet's other clothing that contained more DNA sequence then the previous sample, has it led to the confirmation that the DNA was not from a underwear factory workers sneeze, but from the killer.
Hence the forthcomming of the declared innocence of the Ramseys.

Some people are mistaken and think the improbability of the unknown males DNA ending up in two tiny spots of JonBenets blood in her underwear was probable in the first place, let alone the only probability of the same DNA showing up elsewhere in a more complete form then the underwear's DNA, is only explainable by direct deposit of the killer at the scene of the crime.

Anybody posting that it is not the killers DNA is just not correct with their information about the known evidence.

[Bystander]

Another thing I think people are confused about is the use of the word "co-mingled". It is often offered as "proof" that the foreign DNA was left on the underwear at the same time as JonBenet's blood but I don't think that is necessarily the case.

I know it confuses me!

[deacon]

ITA and is also the reason her body was left in the home. JMO

Some interesting theories though. One very large problem with a theory though, they do not depend on facts, just ideas. I could post a "theory that dennis radar did this. It sort of fits his MO. More closely that a parent full of "rage." Rage killings are much more violent than strangulation. Multiple blows to the head, stabbings, multiple gun shots. Not stranglulation. The suffication should be easily put to rest. The signs of the two are much different.

[Bystander]

I agree Deacon, the theories are interestingj, but please please please don't add Dennis Radar to the mix,lol. It's complicated enough.

[deacon]

I agree Deacon, the theories are interestingj, but please please please don't add Dennis Radar to the mix,lol. It's complicated enough.

Sorry, it was a joke. I will behave now, well sort of.:patriot:

[Bystander]

Sorry, it was a joke. I will behave now, well sort of.:patriot:

Surrrrre you will! Lol, but be warned, I will happily throw Ted Kaczynski into the fray if we are to discuss odd correlations with other famous cases.

In all seriousness, I've read BTK used 'SBTC' in one of his puzzles and did think it was kind of interesting the same acronym keeps turning up. John Mark Karr, the paedo, had 'saved by the cross' in his yearbook; (I think) Michael Helgoth, had it on a hat, found nearby when he commited suicide; (I think) and wasn't SBTC used by BTK to get himself into a residence, posing as a repairman for Southern Bell Telephone Company?

And of course, SBTC is the well known siggie on the ransom note; (THAT I know for sure,:) )

I'm glad Ted didn't choose those initials for his pseudo-organization, instead of FC. Then I'd really be flustonished. As it is, I'm about to assign that acronym 'taboo' status and will never speak the letters again!

They're a bit scary now. :eek:

(Pre-emptive Disclaimer: no I DON"T think the unabomer had anything to do with JBR!)Sry.. sry. Now I'm the one who needs to behave, but really, you can't take this posting stuff too seriously, right? It would take all the fun out of life.

[rashomon]

ST spread that lie in his book. She did not even have on that red turtleneck and even ST even admitted that and contradicted his depo and his book. There are so many myths out here it is truly pathetic and ST is the primary contributor. Physics also does not allow this to have been a "slam" into a hard surface. She was deliberately and forcefully hit in the head and was it no accident or rage attack.

Thomas admits JBR had on the white top not a red turtleneck in 2000:

crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?

stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

21 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Third paragraph
22 down "I concluded the little girl had worn
23 the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother
24 originally said, and that it was stripped off
25 when it got wet." Are you talking about wet

357
1 from urine?
2 A. In this hypothesis we're talking
3 about, yes.
4 Q. Did you ever have or the Boulder
5 Police Department to your knowledge ever have
6 the red turtleneck found in the bathroom
7 tested forensically to determine if it had
8 any type of trace evidence or other evidence
9 on it?
10 A. Again, it sounds like you know
11 otherwise but I was under the impression from
12 Trujillo that there wasn't a presumptive test
13 for urine.
14 Q. Did anybody tell you that they
15 found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
16 A. No, this is what I am surmising
17 in the hypothesis.
18 Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into
19 evidence?
20 A. I certainly believe it was.
21 Q. Did it have any type of urine
22 stain on it?
23 A. Not that I'm aware of. I never
24 have looked at it personally.
25 Q. Where did you get the statement

358
1 that it got wet; did you just manufacture
2 that out of whole cloth?
3 A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a
4 reasonable explanation for the final resting
5 place of this red turtleneck of which she may
6 have indeed worn home.
7 Q. But you had no evidence to support
8 that statement about the turtleneck being wet,
9 true?
10 A. No, I don't know that it was
11 urine stained.
12 Q. Or wet?
13 A. Or wet.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm
Athena, Steve Thomas clearly stated in a chat room discussion that JonBenet had NOT been wearing the red turtleneck under her white shirt (he was asked about this) to the party, so your attempt at accusing him to be a liar has no basis in fact.
But if Patsy stated (and you have no way of proving she didn't), that JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed,THEN someone had to have taken it off her, right?
ST's theory was that a physical confrontation took place in the course of which the garment was removed.
Imo it needn't have been a beddwetting accident for the turtleneck to end up on the counter. I don't believe JonBenet ever made it to bed that night.
The confrontation could also have been about what to wear the next day. Maybe Patsy tried to persuade JonBenet to try it on, slipping it over her head. But JonBenet did not want it, tried to pull it off, maybe kicked her mother. This could have triggered a tragic sequence of events.
Patsy even admitted to having had at spat with her daughter about the red turtleneck.
Since guilty suspects often weave elements of truth into their fabricated stories, maybe the quarrel did not take place before they went to the Whites, but after returning home?

She was deliberately and forcefully hit in the head and was it no accident or rage attack.
A deliberate and forceful blow can be perfectly consistent with a rage attack.

jmo

[deacon]

"But if Patsy stated (and you have no way of proving she didn't), that JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed,THEN someone had to have taken it off her, right?"

Is there any evidence that she did?

I read in your post a lot of speculation but no evidence. You see, in order to charge anyone with a crime there must be evidence that they commited said crime. Speculation does not qualify as evidence. Also, words typed in a discussion board either here or somewhere else does not qualify as evidence. Shoot, a lot of what I read on different boards doesn't even qualify as "hear/say" so certainly would not be considered evidence.

[rashomon]

Is there any evidence that she did?

ST wrote in his book that Patsy originally said JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed. No doubt he had read the initial statements from them noted down by his colleagues.
Have you ever heard Patsy protest loudly "I never said that"?
I read in your post a lot of speculation but no evidence. You see, in order to charge anyone with a crime there must be evidence that they commited said crime. Speculation does not qualify as evidence. Also, words typed in a discussion board either here or somewhere else does not qualify as evidence. Shoot, a lot of what I read on different boards doesn't even qualify as "hear/say" so certainly would not be considered evidence.
Infamous circumstantial evidence cases like the JBR case are always being discussed vividly on forums, with everyone trying to fit the puzzle together. Even cases where we have a tried and convicted murderer (like. e. g. Jeffrey MacDonald) are STILL being discussed after 38 years, and what triggered the fatal events on that night will always be open to speculation.

There was enough evidence to link the Ramseys to this crime, but as criminal history shows, offenders can get away with it a despite evidence implicating them.

jmo

[deacon]

ST wrote in his book that Patsy originally said JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed. No doubt he had read the initial statements from them noted down by his colleagues.
Have you ever heard Patsy protest loudly "I never said that"?

He said it so, shazam! it is true. I really didn't here either of them protest loudly to being raked over the coals with a bunch of half baked theories either. That is what a Lawyer is for. To make needed statements and to be silent when it does no good to speak.
Infamous circumstantial evidence cases like the JBR case are always being discussed vividly on forums, with everyone trying to fit the puzzle together. Even cases where we have a tried and convicted murderer (like. e. g. Jeffrey MacDonald) are STILL being discussed after 38 years, and what triggered the fatal events on that night will always be open to speculation.

There was enough evidence to link the Ramseys to this crime, but as criminal history shows, offenders can get away with it a despite evidence implicating them.

jmo

I really fail to see any evidence of the Ramseys being involved in any crime. Unless you are saying that because they were in the house they had to be involved and we know that isn't true. Remember the young lady that was kidnapped and killed from a house with several people only a few steps from where they were sleeping? Were they guilty because they were in the house? Don't think so. And now that there is scientific evidence that they were not involved what is the excuse for continuing to hurl acusations at them?

[Bystander]

I think that proximity and opportunity are incriminating, but just like everything else, they don't stand alone.

The ambiguous evidence that they do have is exactly what will work in any 'intruders' favor, if one is ever found. The burden of proof will be on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty and reasonable doubt will favor any new suspect. They wouldn't have to prove that contamination or transfer happened with the dna, they would just have to cast doubt on the people that handled it and on the procedures that were used. They could even get it ruled inadmisssable. I think that is what JMK's lawyer's were going after, before they dropped the charges.

http://cbs4denver.com/national/John.Mark.Karr.2.271935.html

Earlier Monday, an attorney for Karr demanded that the state turn over all evidence related to DNA in the 1996 case Monday, just a few hours ahead of Karr's first Colorado court appearance.

Among other things, Seth Temin's court filing asked for a clear description of any biological evidence, including how much is left and how it is being stored.

"Eventually in this case, a court will have to analyze the admissibility of DNA evidence and its alleged statistical results," the public defender wrote. [U]"It appears that more than one laboratory handled or had custody of samples subjected to testing in this case and more than one expert has evaluated the samples and testing results."

Temin has already challenged the results of any DNA testing involving his client, saying it was illegally obtained. Prosecutors have not confirmed if they performed DNA testing on Karr.

Much of the 'non-evidence' that can point to the Ramsey's is the same that would have to be used against an intruder. It's highly unlikely that tape or matching cord would be found at this point. Any records they could subpoena against a new suspect might be long gone. Barring a detailed confession, combined with a dna match, they might be hard pressed to make a case against anyone.

[shill]

Athena, Steve Thomas clearly stated in a chat room discussion that JonBenet had NOT been wearing the red turtleneck under her white shirt (he was asked about this) to the party, so your attempt at accusing him to be a liar has no basis in fact.
But if Patsy stated (and you have no way of proving she didn't), that JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed,THEN someone had to have taken it off her, right?
ST's theory was that a physical confrontation took place in the course of which the garment was removed.
Imo it needn't have been a beddwetting accident for the turtleneck to end up on the counter. I don't believe JonBenet ever made it to bed that night.
The confrontation could also have been about what to wear the next day. Maybe Patsy tried to persuade JonBenet to try it on, slipping it over her head. But JonBenet did not want it, tried to pull it off, maybe kicked her mother. This could have triggered a tragic sequence of events.
Patsy even admitted to having had at spat with her daughter about the red turtleneck.
Since guilty suspects often weave elements of truth into their fabricated stories, maybe the quarrel did not take place before they went to the Whites, but after returning home?

jmoAre you sure Patsy wasn't answering what JonBenet wore to the party and not to bed?
And what was the male intruder doing this whole time and why has Patsy kept his identity hidden if she was involved?

[shill]

There was enough evidence to link the Ramseys to this crime, but as criminal history shows, offenders can get away with it a despite evidence implicating them.

jmoSpeaking of criminal history, the Ramseys had none, nor even a background that suggest any type of behavior linking them to this crime.
And a Grand Jury did not find enough evidence to link them to this crime, so I don't know how you can make claims like that that clearly contradict Grand Jury findings and DNA proof of a male intruder committing this crime
So I'd like to know how the Ramseys could be involved with him in committing this crime?

[shill]

The ambiguous evidence that they do have is exactly what will work in any 'intruders' favor, if one is ever found. The burden of proof will be on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty and reasonable doubt will favor any new suspect. They wouldn't have to prove that contamination or transfer happened with the dna, they would just have to cast doubt on the people that handled it and on the procedures that were used. They could even get it ruled inadmisssable. I think that is what JMK's lawyer's were going after, before they dropped the charges.



Much of the 'non-evidence' that can point to the Ramsey's is the same that would have to be used against an intruder. It's highly unlikely that tape or matching cord would be found at this point. Any records they could subpoena against a new suspect might be long gone. Barring a detailed confession, combined with a dna match, they might be hard pressed to make a case against anyone.The male who's DNA matches will most likely not have an alibi.
He will have a lot of explaining to do as to why his DNA showed up on JonBenet and I don't think that kind of thing gets thrown out or dismissed.
But chances are his history will reveal him capable and with motive and it will not be just about his DNA being present at the crime scene.

[Jayelles]

I think that proximity and opportunity are incriminating, but just like everything else, they don't stand alone.

The ambiguous evidence that they do have is exactly what will work in any 'intruders' favor, if one is ever found. The burden of proof will be on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty and reasonable doubt will favor any new suspect. They wouldn't have to prove that contamination or transfer happened with the dna, they would just have to cast doubt on the people that handled it and on the procedures that were used. They could even get it ruled inadmisssable. I think that is what JMK's lawyer's were going after, before they dropped the charges.



Much of the 'non-evidence' that can point to the Ramsey's is the same that would have to be used against an intruder. It's highly unlikely that tape or matching cord would be found at this point. Any records they could subpoena against a new suspect might be long gone. Barring a detailed confession, combined with a dna match, they might be hard pressed to make a case against anyone.

I think one of the most significant things Lou Smit ever said was that if they ever caught the intruder, his defence would be that the Ramseys did it and this was why the Ramseys had to give their 100% co-operation and tell everything they knew. In responding to this, John Ramsey didn't appear to have thought about it that way before.

My hopes are that they start analysing the DNA which is already on file to look for potential relatives. I know there is already a case where this has been done and they caught a murderer because his brother/cousin was arrested on a trafiic charge.

[shill]

My hopes are that they start analysing the DNA which is already on file to look for potential relatives. I know there is already a case where this has been done and they caught a murderer because his brother/cousin was arrested on a trafiic charge.
Are you serious? There should be some indication that the DNA is a match to a relative because of the samples from the Ramseys, if what you are claiming to be possible.
I think the Ramseys being identified as not matching the DNA and being cleared would eliminate the possibility that there is a match with any blood relative to the Ramseys.
This surely would have set off a red flag if your claim had any weight to it imo.

[Jayelles]

Here is an article about murderer's being caught through a relative's DNA:-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-07-dna-cover_x.htm

Suspects get snared by a relative's DNA
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

Lab technicians in North Carolina didn't have Willard Brown's DNA on file, but they had his brother's. And these days, that can be good enough to solve a murder.

Searching for the man who raped and killed a Winston-Salem newspaper editor, the technicians in 2003 compared DNA left at the crime scene with the genetic profiles in the state's database of convicted felons. The crime scene DNA didn't match any of the 40,000 felons on file, but it did offer a clue: The unknown man's profile was remarkably similar to that of one convict, Anthony Dennard Brown.

The technicians concluded that Brown and the man they were seeking probably had inherited their DNA — a cellular acid that carries a person's unique genetic code — from the same parents.

Detectives took it from there. They found Brown's brother, Willard, scooped up the butts of cigarettes he had smoked and discarded, and got a sample of his DNA from the saliva. It matched the sample from the crime scene perfectly.




Such "familial searches" could greatly expand the power of the computer databases that authorities in both nations have used for the past decade to compare genetic profiles taken from convicted criminals with DNA left at crime scenes.

At the end of April, the 50 states and the federal government had collected DNA profiles from more than 2.4 million people and had solved more than 16,000 cases. Using those DNA profiles to track close relatives of those listed in the databases could effectively double or triple the size of the databases without adding new samples.



The United Kingdom is moving aggressively to increase the use of familial searches, but such testing is relatively rare in the USA, in part because of concern about the potential impact on individual privacy rights. Most state database laws neither ban nor endorse the practice. Lazer says some government labs are waiting for legislatures or courts to approve using DNA to track criminals' relatives before going forward.



Britain scores several successes

Since July 2003, the FSS has allowed investigators who have not found matches for DNA samples from crime scenes to search Britain's database for names and descriptions of those whose DNA profiles are close.

Because such a search can produce thousands of names, the FSS also gives police the physical description and home address of a near-match for comparison with potential suspects. If the crime scene sample carries an allele that is common among people from a certain region — say, South Wales — investigators are given the names of near-matches from that locality.

This familial searching technique has scored several successes in Britain.

In 2002, the FSS analyzed DNA samples from the rapes and slayings of three Welsh teenagers that had been unsolved for 29 years. Lab technicians noticed a genetic pattern that often is found in people from the vicinity of Port Talbot, South Wales. A Port Talbot man, Joseph Kappen, had been suspected in the crimes but was not linked to them before his death 12 years earlier. Kappen's body was exhumed; his full DNA profile showed he was the rapist and killer.

A year later, familial searching solved another Welsh homicide. The killer, Jeffrey Gafoor, was found 15 years after the slaying of a woman in Cardiff because of unusual alleles he shared with a 14-year-old nephew. The nephew, who hadn't been born when the slaying occurred, had been added to the nation's DNA database after committing a juvenile offense. Gafoor pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.

Through April, familial searching in Britain had solved nine cases by finding close relatives of killers or rapists whose DNA profiles are in the national database. Among its successes: a rapist with a distinct North of England accent who was traced through a brother on the database. Both carried alleles common to England's north country.

[Jayelles]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4908

The first criminal conviction based on a new DNA technique which uses relatives' DNA to track a suspect was made in the UK on Monday.



Police obtained a DNA profile of the assailant from blood on the brick but could not match it to anything on the UK's national DNA database because Harman had no criminal convictions. The database holds about 2.5 million profiles of charged criminals and, since 4 April 2004, suspects who are arrested but not charged.



The FSS and police used familial searching to uncover a close relative of Harman's, who had a criminal conviction and was on the DNA database. The relative's profile matched the DNA on the brick by 16 out of 20 points. This lead police to Harman, whose DNA gave a perfect match, and he eventually confessed to the drunken act of violence.

[DAFFODIL]

Are you sure Patsy wasn't answering what JonBenet wore to the party and not to bed?
And what was the male intruder doing this whole time and why has Patsy kept his identity hidden if she was involved?




Eh? Jonbenet wore the WHITE TOP TO THE PARTY

[shill]

Eh? Jonbenet wore the WHITE TOP TO THE PARTYYes we all know JonBenet wore the white top to the party, showing Patsy's recollection of what JonBenet wore to the party was incorrect and she was mistaken, and JonBenet had never wore that red top that night, contrary to Steve Thomas accusations that JonBenet had a bed wetting accident and urine soaked it that night.

[shill]

Here is an article about murderer's being caught through a relative's DNA:-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-07-dna-cover_x.htmThey have had Patsy, John, Burke, and JonBenet's DNA on file all these years.

This matching DNA to a relative is not new and since none of the Ramseys matched the unknown DNA, it can be concluded there is no relative of the Ramseys involved.

So are you suggesting that you suspect the involvement of a Ramsey relative in this murder?

[shill]

Here is an article about murderer's being caught through a relative's DNA:-http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...-free-masters/ (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/Jul/09/touch-dna-same-was-used-free-masters/)
[...]
The Ramsey case: Blood samples have been taken from John and Patsy Ramsey; John's son, John Andrew Ramsey; John's daughter, Melinda Ramsey; friends and others close to the family. No matches were found. The latest evidence is a new test of so-called "touch" DNA, which also didn't match any member of the Ramsey family.

[Bystander]

...

My hopes are that they start analysing the DNA which is already on file to look for potential relatives. I know there is already a case where this has been done and they caught a murderer because his brother/cousin was arrested on a traffic charge.

So it means that using the male dna profile that they isolated on JBR, they get a hit that shows a close relationship, and then see who the 'hit' is related to? It is a good way of expanding or searching for people who are not already in the database.

I agree about the privacy concerns too, so I guess they would have to work that out here before they could use it or before it would hold up in court.

[Bystander]

[QUOTE=Jayelles;9113592]I think one of the most significant things Lou Smit ever said was that if they ever caught the intruder, his defence would be that the Ramseys did it and this was why the Ramseys had to give their 100% co-operation and tell everything they knew. In responding to this, John Ramsey didn't appear to have thought about it that way before.
[QUOTE]

That sounds a little like what Chris Wolfe tried to do with the defamation lawsuit--show he was innocent by showing the Ramsey's were guilty and therefore prove they knowingly lied with malice. That didn't work for him, but one result of any lawsuit is the discovery. They have to hand over any file that pertains to that lawsuit, so in trying to prove them guilty, many details about the crime were released. I think Mary Lacy complained about having to release files evertime there was a suit. Maybe that's Darnay Hoffman's real purpose is in bringing them, the discovery?

Speaking of which, the barbie nightgown was included in the crime scene description from that lawsuit. They said it had blood on it, but I never see that particular blood spot being talked about. I remember there being mention of a possible third source of dna that was away from the body, which the nightgown was. Do you know if that is what is referred to there?

[Jayelles]

So it means that using the male dna profile that they isolated on JBR, they get a hit that shows a close relationship, and then see who the 'hit' is related to? It is a good way of expanding or searching for people who are not already in the database.

That's correct. If they look at the database for close matches (rather than exact matches) then look at the relatives of that person.

I agree about the privacy concerns too, so I guess they would have to work that out here before they could use it or before it would hold up in court.

Apparently it is not at odds with Euopean law which is possibly why it's being used more here than in the US. We have strong Data Protection laws here but the POlice are immune as are the MOD. Law enforcement and national security take precedence over personal privacy!

[Jayelles]

I think one of the most significant things Lou Smit ever said was that if they ever caught the intruder, his defence would be that the Ramseys did it and this was why the Ramseys had to give their 100% co-operation and tell everything they knew. In responding to this, John Ramsey didn't appear to have thought about it that way before.


That sounds a little like what Chris Wolfe tried to do with the defamation lawsuit--show he was innocent by showing the Ramsey's were guilty and therefore prove they knowingly lied with malice. That didn't work for him, but one result of any lawsuit is the discovery. They have to hand over any file that pertains to that lawsuit, so in trying to prove them guilty, many details about the crime were released. I think Mary Lacy complained about having to release files evertime there was a suit. Maybe that's Darnay Hoffman's real purpose is in bringing them, the discovery?

Speaking of which, the barbie nightgown was included in the crime scene description from that lawsuit. They said it had blood on it, but I never see that particular blood spot being talked about. I remember there being mention of a possible third source of dna that was away from the body, which the nightgown was. Do you know if that is what is referred to there?

I think you are wrong about Mary Lacy having to release files for lawsuits. I don't think that happens at all. I don't think civil suits have the right to obtain police records and this was the problem with the Wolf case - they didn't have access to the police files and the "evidence" consisted of what Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman told them. Lin Wood tried to squeeze case information out of Beckner about DNAx and Beckner declined to answer lest it damage an ongoing investigation. If what you are saying was correct, Wood would just have requested the file on DNAx from Mary Lacy.

That's my understanding.

[shill]

I think you are wrong about Mary Lacy having to release files for lawsuits. I don't think that happens at all. I don't think civil suits have the right to obtain police records and this was the problem with the Wolf case - they didn't have access to the police files and the "evidence" consisted of what Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman told them. Lin Wood tried to squeeze case information out of Beckner about DNAx and Beckner declined to answer lest it damage an ongoing investigation. If what you are saying was correct, Wood would just have requested the file on DNAx from Mary Lacy.

That's my understanding.Well that's all water under the bridge now.

Chris Wolfe should reopen his lawsuit and have himself cleared with the new DNA evidence.

Of course if Chris Wolfe can sue about his reputation, then so can the Ramseys sue Boulder over theirs.

[shill]

Does it bother anyone reading her that Jayelles has me on ignore and does not respond or defend her position to comments I make about her posts?

I am going to continue to make comments on her posts. I just think she should know if others feel she needs to be accountable for what she posts regardless of who is asking the questions.

[SaraSidle]

Does it bother anyone reading her that Jayelles has me on ignore and does not respond or defend her position to comments I make about her posts?

I am going to continue to make comments on her posts. I just think she should know if others feel she needs to be accountable for what she posts regardless of who is asking the questions.

It does not bother me. I think you should put her on ignore too. There is a reason we have the ignore. I know I use it. You are not responsible for her accountiblity. IMO

[DAFFODIL]

Does it bother anyone reading her that Jayelles has me on ignore and does not respond or defend her position to comments I make about her posts?

I am going to continue to make comments on her posts. I just think she should know if others feel she needs to be accountable for what she posts regardless of who is asking the questions.


LOL WHY should it bother anyone? You seem to exaggerate your own importance imo and the fact she has you on ignore is very sensible imo.Jay doesnt have to defend her position to anyone least of all YOU LOL.Please explain what you mean by accountable.Do you think you are the only poster here who can question someones posts? My oh my :eek:

[Jayelles]

LOL WHY should it bother anyone? You seem to exaggerate your own importance imo and the fact she has you on ignore is very sensible imo.Jay doesnt have to defend her position to anyone least of all YOU LOL.Please explain what you mean by accountable.Do you think you are the only poster here who can question someones posts? My oh my :eek:

Good Grief. FTR, I put posters on ignore for good reason and it's not because I don't want to answer intelligent questions about the Ramsey case... but I think regular readers will know that!

I'm all for intelligent discourse as long as it remains civil.

[Bystander]

Like Sarasidle, It does not bother me either and as for accountability, JL's signature invites asking for clarification. She's hasn't had any issues with differences of opinion that I've seen, provided there is no overt agenda behind the differences. If there is an agenda, ignoring takes a considerable amount of discipline and is more admirable than bothersome. People will look when they want to fight, will ignore when they want to discuss the topics. It's their choice.

[grneyes]

Since when do people have to be accountable for having an opinion??? :confused:

[Bystander]

I think you are wrong about Mary Lacy having to release files for lawsuits. I don't think that happens at all. I don't think civil suits have the right to obtain police records and this was the problem with the Wolf case - they didn't have access to the police files and the "evidence" consisted of what Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman told them. Lin Wood tried to squeeze case information out of Beckner about DNAx and Beckner declined to answer lest it damage an ongoing investigation. If what you are saying was correct, Wood would just have requested the file on DNAx from Mary Lacy.

That's my understanding.

Oops! I find different information! It's probably bad timing in light of the above, lol but :shrug: No use being sidetracked either way, right? I think the lawyers do direct what is presented in a civil case, but they still have to present real evidence to prove or dispute the statements of material facts, as I think they are called. They can request information on discovery and be refused, and then they fight over what will be turned over, with the judge being the last word. There were other civil cases where the DA's office were ordered to turn over the documents and previous depositions. Here's one example that I found on a timeline at zyberzoom that at least shows they can ask, but not necessarily receive everything.

July 28, 2001: The Boulder County District Attorney’s Office is fighting a subpoena from the New York Post seeking access to reams of documents from the JonBenet Ramsey investigation.

U.S. District Judge Walker D. Miller heard arguments Friday about whether the district attorney’s office should turn over files associated with the 6-year-old’s 1996 slaying. He asked the sides to come up with proposals on how a review of the documents could be limited.

The district attorney’s office said the request is too broad and would force the agency to conduct a burdensome review of tens of thousands of documents, some of which contain information privileged because of the ongoing investigation into the unsolved slaying. “They are seeking to go through every single record in the JonBenet investigation and decide on their own what they need,” said Andrew Macdonald, representing the district attorney. “We can’t just allow them to come in with a copy machine and start sorting through the files.”

The newspaper said it needs to review the documents to defend against a defamation lawsuit John and Patsy Ramsey filed over a Post article linking their son, Burke, to his sister’s death.

It looks as if they can refuse based on 'privileged information relating to ongoing investigations,' which is what Mark Beckner did,(?) but that was something specific and was during a deposition for that case. I believe depositions have a different set of rules and they would not have been able to force MB to answer futher without an order from a judge, who isn't present during them. ( Could be wrong there. )

December 6, 2002: A newly released court document shows a DNA sample was discovered nearly two years after JonBenet Ramsey's slaying. The document, released this week, is a 192-page transcript of Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner's deposition in a civil case involving the 6-year-old girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. The sample was discovered sometime after September 1998, when a Boulder County grand jury convened to investigate the December 1996 slaying. It is unclear where the DNA was discovered, but Beckner said it did not come from JonBenet's body or clothing, where previously disclosed DNA was found.

[Bystander]

The sample was discovered sometime after September 1998, when a Boulder County grand jury convened to investigate the December 1996 slaying. It is unclear where the DNA was discovered, but Beckner said it did not come from JonBenet's body or clothing, where previously disclosed DNA was found.

The above sounds like the barbie nightgown is not the source of the dnax, since it "did not come from her body or clothing." Stupid question but by 'her clothing' does he mean the clothing on her body or is he including all of the clothing in her vicinity, or all of her clothing in the house?

Anyway.. a sorting.

Dna 1997-two degraded male dna samples from blood spots on undies, and a very degraded bit under the nails on both her hands that can be linked but not matched. The fluid is her blood, the dna is both from her fluid and the male source, which is thought to be from fluid, but that is unconfirmed.

Dna 1998 is found away from her body and not on her clothing.

Dna 2002 or 3 is from the second bloodspot (undies)found in 1997, but brought up to Codis standards using new methods that fill in the missing blanks, which I see that as kind of like having a ripped drawing and being able to fill in the rest of the picture based on patterns that you can see. It may not be entirely accurate. Degrading can come from envronment..enzymes in saliva, mold or bacteria. Skin cell type of Dna does not drop by itself.(Angela Williamson says so.)

Dna 2008 is definitely from skin cells but is a new sample that matches the original 1997 dna, which was co-mingled (somehow) and not complete enough to match until it was enhanced by filling in the missing information based on the patterns that they could see. ... right?

[Jayelles]

Oops! I find different information! It's probably bad timing in light of the above, lol but :shrug: No use being sidetracked either way, right? I think the lawyers do direct what is presented in a civil case, but they still have to present real evidence to prove or dispute the statements of material facts, as I think they are called. They can request information on discovery and be refused, and then they fight over what will be turned over, with the judge being the last word. There were other civil cases where the DA's office were ordered to turn over the documents and previous depositions. Here's one example that I found on a timeline at zyberzoom that at least shows they can ask, but not necessarily receive everything.



It looks as if they can refuse based on 'privileged information relating to ongoing investigations,' which is what Mark Beckner did,(?) but that was something specific and was during a deposition for that case. I believe depositions have a different set of rules and they would not have been able to force MB to answer futher without an order from a judge, who isn't present during them. ( Could be wrong there. )

We fairly reeled over DNAx when the transcript first came out - trying to squeeze some sense out of Beckner's guarded responses. Yet it doesn't sound as though it came to anything much in the long run.

I would say that they didn't have access to the police files for the Wolf case because it was a civil suit and because the Ramsey murder investigation was ongoing. I'd bet on it. They had Lou Smit's presentation which contained case evidence up until his resignation and they had the information which was given them by the DA's office (can't remember specifically what this was but Thomas wrote about it in scathing terms in his book). Apart from the Ramsey investigator's own files, I'd say that's all they had for the Wolf suit.

[shill]

LOL WHY should it bother anyone? You seem to exaggerate your own importance imo and the fact she has you on ignore is very sensible imo.Jay doesnt have to defend her position to anyone least of all YOU (at least she is capable of defending her position LOL)LOL.Please explain what you mean by accountable.Do you think you are the only poster here who can question someones posts?(certainly not) My oh my :eek:I thought you would make a big deal about it.

What I meant by accountable, which seems to be a bad choice of wording for it, is that if I claim she is wrong and post supporting material to prove it,
I think she should have a chance (or know) to be able to defend or explain her position. I just feel like I am shooting her in the back.

Fine, the verdict is in, I'll just keep responding to her posts regardless. Thank you for your feedback.

[shill]

Good Grief. FTR, I put posters on ignore for good reason and it's not because I don't want to answer intelligent questions about the Ramsey case... but I think regular readers will know that!

I'm all for intelligent discourse as long as it remains civil.Good grief.
My intelligent discourse to you has remained civil.... but I think regular readers will know that!

[shill]

Since when do people have to be accountable for having an opinion??? :confused:Ever hear of Slander law suits? Apparently people are legally held accountable for their opinions when they are made public, so apparently civilized society feels there is a need for some accountability when you express your opinions.

[Jayelles]

Like Sarasidle, It does not bother me either and as for accountability, JL's signature invites asking for clarification. She's hasn't had any issues with differences of opinion that I've seen, provided there is no overt agenda behind the differences. If there is an agenda, ignoring takes a considerable amount of discipline and is more admirable than bothersome. People will look when they want to fight, will ignore when they want to discuss the topics. It's their choice.

Not asking for specifics, but have our paths crossed before? Someone else usd to call me JL (although that's not how I pronounce it!).

There's a couple of old forum friends I kind of miss and I guess I'm living in hope :-)

[Bystander]

I don't think they've crossed before, unless it was a different internet community altogether. I'm fairly new to posting on the JBR case. I'm a little miffed that I'm not as original as I thought I was and that my pronuciation is off, but that's ok. (how do you pronounce it? )

Hope you find your friends...

[LindaA]

Does it bother anyone reading her that Jayelles has me on ignore and does not respond or defend her position to comments I make about her posts?

I am going to continue to make comments on her posts. I just think she should know if others feel she needs to be accountable for what she posts regardless of who is asking the questions.

Post deleted

[Bystander]

We fairly reeled over DNAx when the transcript first came out - trying to squeeze some sense out of Beckner's guarded responses. Yet it doesn't sound as though it came to anything much in the long run.

I would say that they didn't have access to the police files for the Wolf case because it was a civil suit and because the Ramsey murder investigation was ongoing. I'd bet on it. They had Lou Smit's presentation which contained case evidence up until his resignation and they had the information which was given them by the DA's office (can't remember specifically what this was but Thomas wrote about it in scathing terms in his book). Apart from the Ramsey investigator's own files, I'd say that's all they had for the Wolf suit.

I agree that it doesn't look like they got much for the Wolf case in the way of official records, but wouldn't you consider the evidence by officials under oath as official evidence? I mostly differ on the idea that someone can't get them in civil suits, especially since many other's seem to have been successful and because of a quote by mary lacy that went.. every time there's a suit we have to hand over files. It may have even been in one of the articles linked on this board that I saw it, but haven't come across it again.

That Dna x stuff jolted me when I read it too, though i've seen it mentioned before, I never saw the particulars about it, so I also wonder why it went away.

[grneyes]

Ever hear of Slander law suits? Apparently people are legally held accountable for their opinions when they are made public, so apparently civilized society feels there is a need for some accountability when you express your opinions.

Yes I have but there is a difference in slanderous and just voicing an opinion.

For example.
If I say in my opinion that I feel OJ did it. He can NOT sue me for that. (Well he might try but he won't win.) I do not have to show proof in this instance.

If I say OJ definitely did it. He might have a good case against me as I have no actual proof he did it and this could be considered slanderous.

That being said, Jayelles does not have to provide proof of their opinion on here in a discussion and therefore does not have to be accountable for it. Especially not to us as we are not the ones the discussion is about, though it seems it has turned into that.

[shill]

Yes it would be interesting to know this. I think a lot of people are confused about the underwear DNA. Some seem to think it was *only* in the bloodstains, but I suspect they only tested the bloodstains. But you don't know if they only tested the blood stains.
We do know that there has not been any other DNA reported found on her underwear except for the DNA in the bloodstains.
The odds of two tiny blood spots allegedly landing on microscopic spots of DNA is highly improbable as compared to the DNA being mixed with the blood and found commingled on the underwear.

Tom Bennett qualified his public statement a few years ago by saying it was microscopic - like from a cough or a sneeze. Source please! specifically of Tom Bennett saying, "like from a cough or a sneeze."
I would like to know if this is your opinion or a direct quote.

So what we would have had in that case was a spray - particles of which would have landed in a widespread random pattern. It would be interesting to know whether there were other particles elsewhere.
But we have never heard of any evidence of this DNA being found else where in the underwear.
If it is such a wide spread sneeze pattern as you claim, surely they would have found more of it by just testing a few small areas close to the blood spot.
No other DNA has been reported found, I think we can assume it was because it was only found commingled with JonBenets blood.
And the fact is the touch DNA was not from a factory workers sneeze!

Another thing I think people are confused about is the use of the word "co-mingled". It is often offered as "proof" that the foreign DNA was left on the underwear at the same time as JonBenet's blood but I don't think that is necessarily the case. I think when the bloodstain on her underwear was tested, it yielded the two DNAs and they were probably co-mingled in the test tube.It was two tiny blood spots, and the DNA was found on them, whether you argue it was commingled or not. It just isn't probable that it is a mere coincidence the DNA was found exactly in the two spots of blood.

I think Why_Nut gave the best analogy. Mix salt with water in one jug, mix sugar with water in another. Pour some of the salt water onto a towel and allow to dry. Wait a month then pour some of the sugar water onto the stain and allow to dry. If the towel was tested, it would show presence of both sugar and salt.This is a terrible comparison.
It would be more like if you sneezed microscopic particles of sugar water on a towel and it dried, and then you were given an eyedropper of salt water and allowed to put two tiny drops of salt water anywhere on the towel, chances are not one drop, let alone the two drops, would have any sugar mixed in with them.
I think if there was undeniable proof that the foreign DNA and Jonbenet's blood were deposited at the exact same time, they would have made much more of that as exculpatory evidence.Well that's why they are doing it now.
Because the touch DNA has proven once and for all that the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was not from a prior factory workers sneeze and in fact was deposited the same time as the touch DNA on her pajamas, deposited the night JonBenet died at the hands of a not yet known male killer.

Jayelles your working with old news and have to get up to speed. The remote chance of the factory worker sneezing theory has been put to rest. There is touch DNA not on the underwear, that has the complete DNA sequence unlike the underwear DNA, and therefor could not have been transfered.

And you imply there is more of the unknown males DNA (from a factory worker's sneeze that is clearly wrong) when in fact there is no publicly known source of any more unknown male DNA on JonBenet's underwear then what was found commingled with her blood.
It is just wishful thinking on your part and every RDI that DNA was deposited on JonBenet's underwear in spots not commingled with her blood.

[shill]

Yes I have but there is a difference in slanderous and just voicing an opinion.

For example.
If I say in my opinion that I feel OJ did it. He can NOT sue me for that. (Well he might try but he won't win.) I do not have to show proof in this instance.

If I say OJ definitely did it. He might have a good case against me as I have no actual proof he did it and this could be considered slanderous.

That being said, Jayelles does not have to provide proof of their opinion on here in a discussion and therefore does not have to be accountable for it. Especially not to us as we are not the ones the discussion is about, though it seems it has turned into that.Wow, you took that way to far.
Duh, nobody is going to sue anyone over some postings here, well not likely anyways. My point was that people need to be held accountable, and in some extreme cases, society has decided it can becomes a lawsuit.

As for these forums, it is not the court or lawyers who make one accountable for what they say, it is other posters who must make people accountable for their untruths told under the guise of their opinions, and it is the moderators who make posters accountable when they take it to far.

Jayelles does not legally need to be accountable for her posts, but it is also my right to make sure she and anyone else is held accountable for what they post, by counter posting the known truths.:patriot:

[grneyes]

Wow, you took that way to far.
Duh, nobody is going to sue anyone over some postings here, well not likely anyways. My point was that people need to be held accountable, and in some extreme cases, society has decided it can becomes a lawsuit.

As for these forums, it is not the court or lawyers who make one accountable for what they say, it is other posters who must make people accountable for their untruths told under the guise of their opinions, and it is the moderators who make posters accountable when they take it to far.

Jayelles does not legally need to be accountable for her posts, but it is also my right to make sure she and anyone else is held accountable for what they post, by counter posting the known truths.:patriot:

Not once did I say anyone on here was going to sue anyone. I was only using that example to show the difference between a slanderous comment and an actual opinion. You read way too much into it.

NO one on these boards are accountable to you except yourself but yes, you do have the right to post what you feel is the truth just as Jayelles (and everyone else) does.

Edited to add: I will not continue with this as this is not what this thread is about and it is distracting from the true subject of the thread.

[shill]

Agreed:beer:

Please respond to the more important postings about exonerating New DNA evidence and the myths of DNA from a foreign factory worker's sneeze.

I apologize for the distraction.

[SaraSidle]

Yes I have but there is a difference in slanderous and just voicing an opinion.

For example.
If I say in my opinion that I feel OJ did it. He can NOT sue me for that. (Well he might try but he won't win.) I do not have to show proof in this instance.

If I say OJ definitely did it. He might have a good case against me as I have no actual proof he did it and this could be considered slanderous.

That being said, Jayelles does not have to provide proof of their opinion on here in a discussion and therefore does not have to be accountable for it. Especially not to us as we are not the ones the discussion is about, though it seems it has turned into that.

grneyes I bolded my favorite part of your post. Shill wanted to prove you right obviously with his following posts. I always learn a lot from this thread. imo

[Jayelles]

I don't think they've crossed before, unless it was a different internet community altogether. I'm fairly new to posting on the JBR case. I'm a little miffed that I'm not as original as I thought I was and that my pronuciation is off, but that's ok. (how do you pronounce it? )

Hope you find your friends...

OK :-)

Elles is a slightly more unusual spelling of the surname Ellis but they are pronounced the same. It's not uncommon in the South East.

[Jayelles]

I agree that it doesn't look like they got much for the Wolf case in the way of official records, but wouldn't you consider the evidence by officials under oath as official evidence? I mostly differ on the idea that someone can't get them in civil suits, especially since many other's seem to have been successful and because of a quote by mary lacy that went.. every time there's a suit we have to hand over files. It may have even been in one of the articles linked on this board that I saw it, but haven't come across it again.

That Dna x stuff jolted me when I read it too, though i've seen it mentioned before, I never saw the particulars about it, so I also wonder why it went away.


I would certainly accept the validity of an official's testimony under oath regardless of whether it were a civil or criminal suit and I daresay there *may* be situations where official records may be subpoenaed for a civil case. I just don't think that happened in the Ramsey case (I've never seen this quote from Mary Lacy that you refer to - I'd be interested to do so).

[Jayelles]

Here is a really interesting article about familial DNA searching:-

http://www.gov.im/dha/police/csi/familial.xml

The Isle of Man is located within the British Isles, but it has its own government and legal system (Manx).

The article contains a lovely layman's explanation of DNA and some well reasoned arguments in favour of familial searching.

I think that unless the owner of the foreign Ramsey-case DNA gets caught for some other crime and thus gets his DNA taken, familial DNA checking may be the best hope of locating him and of finding justice for Jonbenet.

[shill]

I think that unless the owner of the foreign Ramsey-case DNA gets caught for some other crime and thus gets his DNA taken, familial DNA checking may be the best hope of locating him and of finding justice for Jonbenet.There is no basis for your argument that familial DNA checking may be the best hope of locating him and of finding justice for Jonbenet what so ever.

It's as if you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

It is far more likely that a criminal is going to show up in the DNA data base then his non-criminal relatives.

Why do you even waste your time posting this opinion?

What is your point of you even posting this info other then to simply let people know you read it?

[Jayelles]

Here is a really interesting article about familial DNA searching:-

http://www.gov.im/dha/police/csi/familial.xml

The Isle of Man is located within the British Isles, but it has its own government and legal system (Manx).

The article contains a lovely layman's explanation of DNA and some well reasoned arguments in favour of familial searching.

I think that unless the owner of the foreign Ramsey-case DNA gets caught for some other crime and thus gets his DNA taken, familial DNA checking may be the best hope of locating him and of finding justice for Jonbenet.

Some extracts:-

Two children from the same parents may therefore possess none of the same chromosomes as a sibling. However in reality they usually share a significant amount and, in general, siblings from the same parents will be statistically more alike than the general poulation. This link may be enough, in serious cases, to give the police a valuable new line of enquiry by using a familial DNA search.

A Familial DNA search is a term used to describe a search of a crime scene stain on the national DNA database (NDNAD), not for the offender directly, but for the DNA profiles of people who may be their mother, father, a child or a sibling. These searches are restricted to the most serious offences, not only by virtue of cost, but also because of ethical implications.



Not sure what ethnic inference testing is...

Ethnicity - Information may be obtained from witnesses or from ethnic inference testing.

Age - Information on the offender’s age can be used to exclude individuals on the lists. For example, individuals born less than 15 years before the offender are unlikely to be their parents, and likewise individuals born less then 15 years after the offender are unlikely to be their children. Siblings of the offender are unlikely to have been born more than 20 years before or after the offender.

Geography - Geographic information can be utilised in a number of ways to prioritise the information on the results lists. The following generally accepted broad assumptions are made:



Families at the lower end of the socio-economic scale are less likely to disperse than those at the higher end.
Criminality runs in families.
Criminals tend to offend in areas with which they are familiar.

Using these assumptions the postulation is that the offender will often have committed a crime in their local area or that the area immediately surrounding the crime scene is of considerable relevance.

These assumptions indicate that it is also likely that the offender’s family members live in the area and may have committed crime there themselves resulting in their DNA profiles being loaded onto the NDNAD. If a familial match is made near to the crime scene it is therefore likely that the offender is also still resident in the area.

[shill]

Some extracts:-



Not sure what ethnic inference testing is...More of the same fluff. Thanks for nothing.

So when are you going to point out the relativity of this information to the case?

What did you say, never?:shrug:

[deacon]

More of the same fluff. Thanks for nothing.

So when are you going to point out the relativity of this information to the case?

What did you say, never?:shrug:

:shrug:

[Jayelles]

:shrug:

Indeed Deacon.

OK, for anyone who is struggling to comprehend the significance of familial DNA searching and other DNA advances (like ethnic inference testing which I have been reading up about too)...let me spell it out.

The latest breakthrough in the Ramsey case is that they have found more foreign DNA which matches the existing foreign DNA - thus strengthening the suggestion that this foreign DNA does come from JonBenet's killer.

However, they know that this foreign DNA doesn't match anyone in the Ramsey family, or anyone else whose DNA is on file for that matter.

We know that two categories of DNA are entered into CODIS:-

1) DNA of people committing crimes
2) unidentified DNA found at crime scenes

Familial DNA is a system used in Europe and in some US States whereby, when they don't obtain a full DNA match, they start looking for partial matches on the grounds that relatives share some of their DNA markers. If they find a partial match then they can treat it as a lead and they can then look at relatives of the person whose DNA partially matches the sample under investigation.

Since they have failed to find a match to the Ramsey foreign DNA, perhaps they should start looking for possible familial DNA. As I have stated above, there have been murder cases solved because the sister of a murderer was arrested on a DUI charge and had her DNA taken. With familial DNA testing, that's all it takes.

Now for ethnic inference testing. It's more complicated but basically, studies have been done involving known people whose DNA has been taken and their personal characteristics have been noted. Gradually, they have built up a knowledge base of information regarding race etc which is going to enable scientists to make reasonable predictions about a person's appearance based upon their DNA. They have already isolated the red-haired markers and are gradually increasing probability rates for skin colour and other physical characteristics. It's kind of like if a person has certain markers in their DNA, then scientists can predict with a degree of accuracy that the person will have a certain skin colour because they know that people from a particular region are more likely to have this marker. Doesn't sound as if it is by any means 100% reliable, but who knows - in a few years time.

I've always felt that scientific and technological progress would be the best hope for the Ramsey case. Scientific from a DNA POV and technological from a computer processing capability POV.

I'm also interested to know - is the Touch DNA a full sample?

[deacon]

Indeed Deacon.

OK, for anyone who is struggling to comprehend the significance of familial DNA searching and other DNA advances (like ethnic inference testing which I have been reading up about too)...let me spell it out.

The latest breakthrough in the Ramsey case is that they have found more foreign DNA which matches the existing foreign DNA - thus strengthening the suggestion that this foreign DNA does come from JonBenet's killer.

However, they know that this foreign DNA doesn't match anyone in the Ramsey family, or anyone else whose DNA is on file for that matter.

We know that two categories of DNA are entered into CODIS:-

1) DNA of people committing crimes
2) unidentified DNA found at crime scenes

Familial DNA is a system used in Europe and in some US States whereby, when they don't obtain a full DNA match, they start looking for partial matches on the grounds that relatives share some of their DNA markers. If they find a partial match then they can treat it as a lead and they can then look at relatives of the person whose DNA partially matches the sample under investigation.

Since they have failed to find a match to the Ramsey foreign DNA, perhaps they should start looking for possible familial DNA. As I have stated above, there have been murder cases solved because the sister of a murderer was arrested on a DUI charge and had her DNA taken. With familial DNA testing, that's all it takes.

Now for ethnic inference testing. It's more complicated but basically, studies have been done involving known people whose DNA has been taken and their personal characteristics have been noted. Gradually, they have built up a knowledge base of information regarding race etc which is going to enable scientists to make reasonable predictions about a person's appearance based upon their DNA. They have already isolated the red-haired markers and are gradually increasing probability rates for skin colour and other physical characteristics. It's kind of like if a person has certain markers in their DNA, then scientists can predict with a degree of accuracy that the person will have a certain skin colour because they know that people from a particular region are more likely to have this marker. Doesn't sound as if it is by any means 100% reliable, but who knows - in a few years time.

I've always felt that scientific and technological progress would be the best hope for the Ramsey case. Scientific from a DNA POV and technological from a computer processing capability POV.

I'm also interested to know - is the Touch DNA a full sample?


You took my shrug the wrong way. I still can not see how one would think that this type of DNA "partial match" would help in this case. That is the old "needle in a hay stack" thing. Without an idea of where to start it would take 10's of years to do that type of match. The biggest case I have seen sort of solved using this type of testing was in Kansas and that was a father and daughter. BUT, they had reason to believe that they would get a match or they would not have been able to get the warrant to use the DNA from the daughter in the first place.

Had LE not spent so much time trying to "hang" the mother and father in this case, maybe, just maybe, they could have caught the guilty party. Now I really wonder if they ever will.

[Jayelles]

You took my shrug the wrong way. I still can not see how one would think that this type of DNA "partial match" would help in this case. That is the old "needle in a hay stack" thing. Without an idea of where to start it would take 10's of years to do that type of match. The biggest case I have seen sort of solved using this type of testing was in Kansas and that was a father and daughter. BUT, they had reason to believe that they would get a match or they would not have been able to get the warrant to use the DNA from the daughter in the first place.

Had LE not spent so much time trying to "hang" the mother and father in this case, maybe, just maybe, they could have caught the guilty party. Now I really wonder if they ever will.

I don't think it's quite as complicated as that. If you read the Isle of Man article, it attempts to explain a bit about the partial matching. They can tell from DNA HOW someone is related to another person - i.e. whether it's a parent or child as opposed to a sibling. They can then eliminate persons to investigate by other factors such as considering that the crime was committed 15 years ago - so it cannot be the 20 year old son or brother until they are left with the pool of people who could have committed the crime - then they interview them.

Then there's the issue of computer processing power. Nowadays regular computers have more processing power than the supercomputers of yesteryear. We are also achieving increasingly complicated numbercrunching exercises through parallel processing.

Put it this way - this isn't a pipe dream, it's a reality. Some countries are usuing familial DNA checking with good results.

[Jayelles]

Familial DNA testing is what they use in paternity tests. They can tell from the test that a man is the babies father (as opposed to its uncle or brother).

This from a DNA testing company website:_

Other DNA Familial Relationship Tests
DNA testing can definitively identify distant biological relationships. Our laboratory routinely performs DNA tests in cases of questioned grandparentage, siblingship, twin zygosity, maternity and more. Our DNA specialists are available to answer your questions,

http://www.800dnaexam.com/about.aspx

[Jayelles]

This article refers to familai DNA searching of CODIS. It is dated 2007:-

Few hurdles impede the speed of a search—it now takes only
500 microseconds to search 100,000 DNA profiles.30 As will be seen, privacy
concerns are inherent in a system “in which databases can be
‘mined’ in a millisecond using super-fast computers, in which extensive
information can, or potentially could, be gleaned from DNA.”


http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/index.cfm?article_id=868

[shill]

Put it this way - this isn't a pipe dream, it's a reality. Some countries are usuing familial DNA checking with good results.Put it this way- If they ain't got familial DNA, they ain't got nothing to check.
And like I stated before, it's more likely the perpetrator's DNA is going to show up then his family's, with the exception of a family that is a bunch of criminals, so all this familial education you posted is sweet but of little use in this case except for clearing the Ramseys whole family beyond just Patsy, John, and Burke.

But I am betting JonBenet's killer is not from a family that is a bunch of criminals that have been tested for DNA and therefor imo there is no familial DNA to look for in the records.

Now if you have a suspect in this case that you think they haven't gotten or can't get a DNA profile from, but you know of a relative of theirs they can familial DNA test, I'd sure like to hear about that!

[DAFFODIL]

But you don't know if they only tested the blood stains.
We do know that there has not been any other DNA reported found on her underwear except for the DNA in the bloodstains.
The odds of two tiny blood spots allegedly landing on microscopic spots of DNA is highly improbable as compared to the DNA being mixed with the blood and found commingled on the underwear.

Source please! specifically of Tom Bennett saying, "like from a cough or a sneeze."
I would like to know if this is your opinion or a direct quote.

But we have never heard of any evidence of this DNA being found else where in the underwear.
If it is such a wide spread sneeze pattern as you claim, surely they would have found more of it by just testing a few small areas close to the blood spot.
No other DNA has been reported found, I think we can assume it was because it was only found commingled with JonBenets blood.
And the fact is the touch DNA was not from a factory workers sneeze!

It was two tiny blood spots, and the DNA was found on them, whether you argue it was commingled or not. It just isn't probable that it is a mere coincidence the DNA was found exactly in the two spots of blood.

This is a terrible comparison.
It would be more like if you sneezed microscopic particles of sugar water on a towel and it dried, and then you were given an eyedropper of salt water and allowed to put two tiny drops of salt water anywhere on the towel, chances are not one drop, let alone the two drops, would have any sugar mixed in with them.
Well that's why they are doing it now.
Because the touch DNA has proven once and for all that the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was not from a prior factory workers sneeze and in fact was deposited the same time as the touch DNA on her pajamas, deposited the night JonBenet died at the hands of a not yet known male killer.

Jayelles your working with old news and have to get up to speed. The remote chance of the factory worker sneezing theory has been put to rest. There is touch DNA not on the underwear, that has the complete DNA sequence unlike the underwear DNA, and therefor could not have been transfered.

And you imply there is more of the unknown males DNA (from a factory worker's sneeze that is clearly wrong) when in fact there is no publicly known source of any more unknown male DNA on JonBenet's underwear then what was found commingled with her blood.
It is just wishful thinking on your part and every RDI that DNA was deposited on JonBenet's underwear in spots not commingled with her blood.



This quote of Tom Bennetts is from the Daily Camera Tuesday Dec 21st 2004 :read:

[Jayelles]

This quote of Tom Bennetts is from the Daily Camera Tuesday Dec 21st 2004 :read:


He seems to be pretty confused in general about what has been posted. T'wad bring a teer to a blind eye.

[shill]

This quote of Tom Bennetts is from the Daily Camera Tuesday Dec 21st 2004 :read:Here's some more quotes from Tom Bennett in the DailyCamera 12/21/04

"It opens an avenue of people who have an unusual interest in the case and are not mentally stable," Bennett said.
He has had some people call him more than 10 times a day for weeks to offer their opinion on who is guilty.
"Typically they`re rambling, disjointed, meaningless statements," Bennett said. "I`ve never worked a case that generated this much interest long after the fact, or immediately after the fact."
:biggrin:

[DAFFODIL]

Here's some more quotes from Tom Bennett in the DailyCamera 12/21/04

"It opens an avenue of people who have an unusual interest in the case and are not mentally stable," Bennett said.
He has had some people call him more than 10 times a day for weeks to offer their opinion on who is guilty.
"Typically they`re rambling, disjointed, meaningless statements," Bennett said. "I`ve never worked a case that generated this much interest long after the fact, or immediately after the fact."
:biggrin:


Didnt know TB knew you shill :tongue:

[shill]

Yes it would be interesting to know this. I think a lot of people are confused about the underwear DNA. Some seem to think it was *only* in the bloodstains, but I suspect they only tested the bloodstains. Tom Bennett qualified his public statement a few years ago by saying it was microscopic - like from a cough or a sneeze. So what we would have had in that case was a spray - particles of which would have landed in a widespread random pattern. It would be interesting to know whether there were other particles elsewhere.

Actual quote;
"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

That was 2004, before the new matching DNA was found and proved that it wasn't from a cough or a sneeze of a factory worker.

He was also implying that it may be from a cough or a sneeze from the killer in that quote.

But since your not a fence sitter Jayelles, you just overlook that in his quote.

[shill]

This quote of Tom Bennetts is from the Daily Camera Tuesday Dec 21st 2004 :read:Thank you!

[shill]

Didnt know TB knew you shill :tongue:Why don't you call him and ask him yourself if he knows me, since you already have him on speed dial.:patriot:

[Bystander]

(I've never seen this quote from Mary Lacy that you refer to - I'd be interested to do so).

I think this is the one I remember, if not, it's close enough. It doesn't sound very district attorney like to say she has to 'hand out file's,:) so I probably parphrased (<made up>) that part. It's in the same Daily Camera Article that the peeps are using to :punch: each other,:D.


Another resource drain is the numerous civil suits filed in connection with JonBenet`s killing, Keenan said.

"That`s the part that drives us crazy," Keenan said.

Evidence from the District Attorney`s Office is subpoenaed in each of those cases, but Keenan said her office has to be careful about what it provides because the investigation is ongoing.

On Monday, a federal judge in Denver heard arguments on why one such case should be thrown out.

Fox News Network is being sued by the Ramseys over a story that aired Dec. 27, 2002, for the six-year anniversary of JonBenet`s slaying. In the story, reporter Carol McKinley said there has "never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."

Keenan said she`ll wait and see if the judge sides with Fox and tosses the case, which would get her office off the hook to produce the paperwork.

[Bystander]

We fairly reeled over DNAx when the transcript first came out - trying to squeeze some sense out of Beckner's guarded responses. Yet it doesn't sound as though it came to anything much in the long run.

I would say that they didn't have access to the police files for the Wolf case because it was a civil suit and because the Ramsey murder investigation was ongoing. I'd bet on it. They had Lou Smit's presentation which contained case evidence up until his resignation and they had the information which was given them by the DA's office (can't remember specifically what this was but Thomas wrote about it in scathing terms in his book). Apart from the Ramsey investigator's own files, I'd say that's all they had for the Wolf suit.

After reading some more of the Beckner depo, I can say I'm in agreement with you on that particular one. The few exhibits mentioned didn't seem to contain much and Darnay Hoffman didn't even show up for Beckner's depo.

Lin Wood asked Beckner about certain information, then asked if it would be there if he suppoenaed it, making me think that they didn't really go all out in that case. That type of thing contributes to my thinking that Darnay Hoffman had a second motive or two for involving himself, like money, notoriety, information..., stuff like that. It could have been a lack of exhorbitant funding too.

[Jayelles]

I think this is the one I remember, if not, it's close enough. It doesn't sound very district attorney like to say she has to 'hand out file's,:) so I probably parphrased (<made up>) that part. It's in the same Daily Camera Article that the peeps are using to :punch: each other,:D.


Ah the Fox case - it was different, it threatened to be massive. The witness list was very curious and we wondered what on earth tack they were planning to take with their defence! I can see why Lacy would have felt anxious about having files subpoenaed in that case.

The Ramseys bit off more than they could chew when they went after Fox on a VERY dogdy claim (IMO). If they'd done their homework, they would have discovered that Rupert Murdoch never settles lawsuits out of court - it's a matter of principle with him. OTOH, the Ramseys and Lin Wood had ONLY EVER settled their suits out of court (I think Lin Wood usually goes for settlement, I don't think he's seen the inside of too many courtrooms). In the end, the judge did toss it and gave the Ramseys a bit of a dressing down.

It's a pity. I'd like to have seen that one go to court and I would have definitely the trip to Colorado for it! Judging by the witness list, I am guessing that there would have been questions asked in that lawsuit which perhaps should have been asked in police interviews and/or previous depositions. Nothing else about the case has ever prompted me to travel for it. I'd like to see the Rocky Mountains but that is despite the Ramsey case and not because of it.

However, I do think crucial case evidence wouldn't be released for a civil trial - maybe I'm wrong.

[Jayelles]

After reading some more of the Beckner depo, I can say I'm in agreement with you on that particular one. The few exhibits mentioned didn't seem to contain much and Darnay Hoffman didn't even show up for Beckner's depo.

Lin Wood asked Beckner about certain information, then asked if it would be there if he suppoenaed it, making me think that they didn't really go all out in that case. That type of thing contributes to my thinking that Darnay Hoffman had a second motive or two for involving himself, like money, notoriety, information..., stuff like that. It could have been a lack of exhorbitant funding too.

I won't disagree with you there. I don't have much time or respect for the man.

[shill]

The Ramseys bit off more than they could chew when they went after Fox on a VERY dogdy claim (IMO). If they'd done their homework, they would have discovered that Rupert Murdoch never settles lawsuits out of court - it's a matter of principle with him. Wasn't the whole point of the Ramseys law suits to defend their reputation that was being slandered by unsubstantiated statements and sensationalized grocery market type tabloid reporting that should have been shut down in the first place.

You try and make it sound like settling out of court is a bad thing. Apparently it's only a bad thing for Rupert Murdoch. A win is a win and even Steve Thomas had to alter statements published in his book that he couldn't factually account for, because of his out of court settlement.

You also paint a picture that makes it look like the Ramseys didn't want to go to court.
This is not true at all, and the cases were settled out of court because the defendants knew they couldn't win them, even if they could get access to all the evidence they wanted.

You really have a way of slanting the the truth Jayelles, by only talking about one side of the story and leaving out the other.
Pretty ironic for someone who use to adamantly defend herself as a fence sitter.

[shill]

Ah the Fox case - it was different, it threatened to be massive. The witness list was very curious and we wondered what on earth tack they were planning to take with their defence! I can see why Lacy would have felt anxious about having files subpoenaed in that case.

Who's we?
And why don't you provide links to this case you are so liberally talking about so people can judge for themselves, instead of being stuck with your slanted commentary?

[DAFFODIL]

Wasn't the whole point of the Ramseys law suits to defend their reputation that was being slandered by unsubstantiated statements and sensationalized grocery market type tabloid reporting that should have been shut down in the first place.

You try and make it sound like settling out of court is a bad thing. Apparently it's only a bad thing for Rupert Murdoch. A win is a win and even Steve Thomas had to alter statements published in his book that he couldn't factually account for, because of his out of court settlement.

You also paint a picture that makes it look like the Ramseys didn't want to go to court.
This is not true at all, and the cases were settled out of court because the defendants knew they couldn't win them, even if they could get access to all the evidence they wanted.

You really have a way of slanting the the truth Jayelles, by only talking about one side of the story and leaving out the other.
Pretty ironic for someone who use to adamantly defend herself as a fence sitter.


What statements did ST have to alter? I dont remember anything about that :confused:

[Jayelles]

What statements did ST have to alter? I dont remember anything about that :confused:

He didn't - not in any significant issues anyway. Lin Wood used a classic trick of denying Steve Thomas the opportunity to elaborate on his answers and by also asking carefully worded questions, he effectively ensured that what went onto the public record was exactly what he wanted which without clarification were intended to throw a different slant on things. The tabloids also use this tactic to get people to buy them. If you hear the full story, it's often very different from what the headline suggests.

I showed the depo transcripts to a couple of lawyer friends a couple of years ago and they explained the technique to me (I posted about this at the time). If the questioning had taken place in court, then the other side could raise objections or alternatively, cross examine the witness in a way which would allow the clarification/elaboration to come out for the record.

Lin Wood used this bully-boy tactic with Robert Stratbucker too. Darnay Hoffman didn't have the "spherical objects" (or the brains) to counter it. He just rolled over and allowed Wood to humiliate him.

In all of the depositions I've read, the only one who was a match for Wood was Kane. He obviously has the "spherical objects" AND the brains :biggrin:

[Jayelles]

I think settling out of court is a bad thing when a person's reputation is what's at stake. To me, it's like an innocent person agreeing to admit guilt of the crime in exchange for early parole. I'd want my name cleared in a court of law and for the person libelling me to be legally found guilty of such.

Judge Thrash's comment when he dismissed the case in Fox's favour:-

Plaintiffs may well have filed this case more for vindication than for money, and perhaps vindication is what they deserve. But they have a better chance for meaningful vindication in the court of public opinion through vigorous debate about the background and details of this heinous crime than by suing those whose reporting may arguably include some less than favorable inferences about them. Plaintiffs cannot have the public discourse playing field entirely to themselves.

http://www.cybersleuths.com/Ramsey/0107ramsey.pdf

Incidentally, I don't see the posts of people I place on ignore unless they are quoted by another member, but insults won't prevent me from expressing my opinion about this case. It is a fact of the Ramsey case that fencesitters are accepted by RDIs but never by IDIs. Perhaps the IDis take it all much more personally and are of the viewpoint that if you aren't 100% with them, then you are against them. I refuse to continually justify my stance in the Ramsey case for the sake of those who don't appear to undestand that you don't have to worship the Ramseys or even like them in order to consider them innocent of murder. I think it's a tactic intended to distract anyway.

Criticism of the Ramseys' actions or their lawyer's actions does not equate to considering them guilty of this crime.... but then I think most thinking people would realise that:beer:

[Jayelles]

I think settling out of court is a bad thing when a person's reputation is what's at stake. To me, it's like an innocent person agreeing to admit guilt of the crime in exchange for early parole. I'd want my name cleared in a court of law and for the person libelling me to be legally found guilty of such.

Judge Thrash's comment when he dismissed the case in Fox's favour:-



http://www.cybersleuths.com/Ramsey/0107ramsey.pdf

Incidentally, I don't see the posts of people I place on ignore unless they are quoted by another member, but insults won't prevent me from expressing my opinion about this case. It is a fact of the Ramsey case that fencesitters are accepted by RDIs but never by IDIs. Perhaps the IDis take it all much more personally and are of the viewpoint that if you aren't 100% with them, then you are against them. I refuse to continually justify my stance in the Ramsey case for the sake of those who don't appear to undestand that you don't have to worship the Ramseys or even like them in order to consider them innocent of murder. I think it's a tactic intended to distract anyway.

Criticism of the Ramseys' actions or their lawyer's actions does not equate to considering them guilty of this crime.... but then I think most thinking people would realise that:beer:


That would be Judge Figa - not Judge Thrash. My error.

[Jayelles]

I think settling out of court is a bad thing when a person's reputation is what's at stake. To me, it's like an innocent person agreeing to admit guilt of the crime in exchange for early parole.

I think I should clarify what I mean by this as in readingn it back, it hasn't quite come out with the intended meaning! Of course settling out of court isn't the same as admitting guilt in any legal sense, but it would be a personal compromise in the same was as repenting for a crime you didn't commit in order to get out of jail would be some sort of compromise.

If I set out to sue someone for falsely accusing me of a heinous crime, there would be no compromise.

[DAFFODIL]

He didn't - not in any significant issues anyway. Lin Wood used a classic trick of denying Steve Thomas the opportunity to elaborate on his answers and by also asking carefully worded questions, he effectively ensured that what went onto the public record was exactly what he wanted which without clarification were intended to throw a different slant on things. The tabloids also use this tactic to get people to buy them. If you hear the full story, it's often very different from what the headline suggests.

I showed the depo transcripts to a couple of lawyer friends a couple of years ago and they explained the technique to me (I posted about this at the time). If the questioning had taken place in court, then the other side could raise objections or alternatively, cross examine the witness in a way which would allow the clarification/elaboration to come out for the record.

Lin Wood used this bully-boy tactic with Robert Stratbucker too. Darnay Hoffman didn't have the "spherical objects" (or the brains) to counter it. He just rolled over and allowed Wood to humiliate him.

In all of the depositions I've read, the only one who was a match for Wood was Kane. He obviously has the "spherical objects" AND the brains :biggrin:




I didnt think he had altered anything of any significance.

[shill]

Criticism of the Ramseys' actions or their lawyer's actions does not equate to considering them guilty of this crime.... but then I think most thinking people would realise that:beer:Always telling only one side of the story that paints the Ramseys in a bad light and not the other side of the story that exonerates them, certainly disqualifies you as any kind of fence sitter, whether you have not claimed they are or aren't guilty..... but then I think most thinking people would realize that:beer:.
If you can't see that, I don't know how you could see the evidence for what it is.

[shill]

What statements did ST have to alter? I dont remember anything about that :confused:In his book there are a few changes in the versions published after the law suit that have been pointed out by posters who own it.

[shill]

I think settling out of court is a bad thing when a person's reputation is what's at stake. To me, it's like an innocent person agreeing to admit guilt of the crime in exchange for early parole. I'd want my name cleared in a court of law and for the person libelling me to be legally found guilty of such.
These lawsuits were an effort to put a cork in all the unfounded gossip being published about the Ramseys and are not proof of their guilt or innocence, only whether someone has a right to express their opinion about the Ramseys being guilty in a public media.
I don't think the reporting of the Ramsey's case would have been so bold suggesting their guilt had touch DNA technology been available back then.


It is a fact of the Ramsey case that fencesitters are accepted by RDIs but never by IDIs.
A fact? Just like all your other facts I suppose, that is just your alleged fence sitter opinion as usual? Not biased at all?:confused:

Well I totally disagree with you there that it is fact that fencesitters are never accepted by IDI and only by RDI. Real fence sitters (ones who give both sides of the story and facts) have always been accepted by IDI from what I've seen, so I don't know where you are getting your info?

Matter of fact a true fence sitting poster(imo) who is a doctor and her credentials had been verified by CL and was posting here giving her medical opinion on the head injuries and strangulation, was run off by RDI who refuted her posts because it wasn't what they wanted to hear, the truth.

Elvislives no longer post here, Elvis has left the forum because of RDI, not IDI.:chicken:

[shill]

If I set out to sue someone for falsely accusing me of a heinous crime, there would be no compromise.
You really have a twisted way of putting things.

Settling out of court is the first stage of the dance.

So let's say "you set out to sue someone for falsely accusing you of a heinous crime"

First thing they do is go into arbitration to see if it can be settled out of court.

They agree, they admit they falsely accused you of a heinous crime.
You win, No compromise.

Now if they don't settle out of court, then you take them to court and keep fighting it, no compromise.

If the case gets dismissed, you loose. If the case goes to trial and they decide against you, you loose. Either way you tried and made no compromises.

So let me ask you this, when did the Ramseys compromise when it came to suing someone for falsely accusing them of a heinous crime?

[Bystander]

In his book there are a few changes in the versions published after the law suit that have been pointed out by posters who own it.

Oh, that's interesting! Which ones?

[DAFFODIL]

These lawsuits were an effort to put a cork in all the unfounded gossip being published about the Ramseys and are not proof of their guilt or innocence, only whether someone has a right to express their opinion about the Ramseys being guilty in a public media.
I don't think the reporting of the Ramsey's case would have been so bold suggesting their guilt had touch DNA technology been available back then.



A fact? Just like all your other facts I suppose, that is just your alleged fence sitter opinion as usual? Not biased at all?:confused:

Well I totally disagree with you there that it is fact that fencesitters are never accepted by IDI and only by RDI. Real fence sitters (ones who give both sides of the story and facts) have always been accepted by IDI from what I've seen, so I don't know where you are getting your info?

Matter of fact a true fence sitting poster(imo) who is a doctor and her credentials had been verified by CL and was posting here giving her medical opinion on the head injuries and strangulation, was run off by RDI who refuted her posts because it wasn't what they wanted to hear, the truth.

Elvislives no longer post here, Elvis has left the forum because of RDI, not IDI.:chicken:



WRONG Elvis left because of certain posters accusing the McReynolds and she had had enough.If you have evidence otherwise I suggest you produce it otherwise it is just your opinion and NOT a FACT.

[DAFFODIL]

Oh, that's interesting! Which ones?


Good question but dont hold your breath waiting for an answer from shill cos you wont get one :rolleyes:

[shill]

WRONG Elvis left because of certain posters accusing the McReynolds and she had had enough.If you have evidence otherwise I suggest you produce it otherwise it is just your opinion and NOT a FACT.She didn't care about the McReynolds, she was a fence sitter and could care less if someone was accusing the McRs, so your wrong. If you have evidence otherwise, I suggest you produce it otherwise it is just your opinion and NOT a FACT.

And it certainly isn't a fact that fencesitters are not accepted by IDIs, that's ridiculous.

Ask Elvislives yourself, you post with her at 320.
Oh, and make sure you ask her if she is only accepted by RDI and not IDI.

But to drag her into this, and ask her to stoop to our level, is not going to happen here.

[shill]

Oh, that's interesting! Which ones?
That info was posted in the JB forums here a while back. You'll have to look up the archives to find it.
Or you can read both versions and find it yourself.
Sorry, I don't have that info in my resources to copy and paste.

[Jayelles]

The discussions about RDI/IDI are pure distraction IMO. Alas, I think they are about to get worse.

Elvis and I have remained in regular contact over the past year or more. As fencesitters, we have a lot in common. She's terrific at explaining complicated scientific issues in lay terms - something I appreciate greatly. I asked her about familial DNA and she believes it has a lot of merit.

[Jayelles]

Oh, that's interesting! Which ones?

Books get revised all the time. There are changes to DOI too which I posted about on another forum. I found something in DOI which sounded odd and posted about it, then another poster with a later version of the book responded saying it wasn't the same in her version.

I'll see if I can find my post on the other forum and bring it here to back this post up.

[One2Snoop]

Does it bother anyone reading her that Jayelles has me on ignore and does not respond or defend her position to comments I make about her posts?

I am going to continue to make comments on her posts. I just think she should know if others feel she needs to be accountable for what she posts regardless of who is asking the questions.

It does not bother me. I think you should put her on ignore too. There is a reason we have the ignore. I know I use it. You are not responsible for her accountiblity. IMO

ITA agree Sara :beer:

[One2Snoop]

ITA agree Sara :beer:

Let me clarify - ITA we should put each other on ignore when we don't, can't or never will agree. I've learned over time it's a must in some cases.
With that said, I've always been a fence sitter regarding JBR's murder and I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise, but thats just me and my little 2 cents for what its worth.

[DAFFODIL]

She didn't care about the McReynolds, she was a fence sitter and could care less if someone was accusing the McRs, so your wrong. If you have evidence otherwise, I suggest you produce it otherwise it is just your opinion and NOT a FACT.

And it certainly isn't a fact that fencesitters are not accepted by IDIs, that's ridiculous.

Ask Elvislives yourself, you post with her at 320.
Oh, and make sure you ask her if she is only accepted by RDI and not IDI.

But to drag her into this, and ask her to stoop to our level, is not going to happen here.


YOU brought her into it and I will find the posts if they still exist and NO I am NOT wrong :punch:

[Jayelles]

Let me clarify - ITA we should put each other on ignore when we don't, can't or never will agree. I've learned over time it's a must in some cases.
With that said, I've always been a fence sitter regarding JBR's murder and I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise, but thats just me and my little 2 cents for what its worth.

Since at this point in time no-one has been charged (not a Ramsey, not an intruder), I guess we fencesitters must be on the right track :-)

[Bystander]

:::Pushes everyone off fence and runs away::::D

oops sry about the mud.

[Bystander]

I see 'not enough evidence either way.' I'm waiting for a match. That's key. I think there's a possiblity that there will never be one.

[Jayelles]

I see 'not enough evidence either way.' I'm waiting for a match. That's key. I think there's a possiblity that there will never be one.

Reasons why a match will never be found:-

1) Owner of the DNA is dead. But then there is a possibility, through familial DNA testing, that a relative of the owner will end up on file and through investigation, police may end up with a good idea of who the perp was.

2) DNA isn't that of a US citizen. But then in the future, there may be improved communications between LE in different countries. An example of this on a much smaller scale was the investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper in the 1970s. POlice forces in England were just starting to introduce computer systems but they each had their own computer system. With today's (nationwide) technology, he'd have been tracked down in the blink of an eye.

3) Owner of the DNA never re-offends. Possibly, but how likely is it that someone who commits such a brutal murder as this one would do it as a first and only offence? It has been argued that the use of the garotte shows sadistic tendencies - I think that is inherent. Also the fact that the Ramsey murder - if perpetrated by an intruder - was very high risk showing cunning and daring. I doubt someone capable of such a crime would be satisfied to stop at one.

Again familial DNA could trap this person even if they never re-offended.

4) Perp is in the backlog of DNA waiting to be entereed into CODIS. I think it's shameful that there is such a backlog. The government should be investing in getting this cleared.

5) Other reasons?

[LadyFisher]

Let me clarify - ITA we should put each other on ignore when we don't, can't or never will agree. I've learned over time it's a must in some cases.
With that said, I've always been a fence sitter regarding JBR's murder and I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise, but thats just me and my little 2 cents for what its worth.Hi, Snoopy...it's so good to see you again....http://i38.tinypic.com/33c530g.jpg

[LindaA]

It seems silly to have to have a match to believe the DNA came from an outsider to believe the Ramseys are innocent. The presence of the DNA in the exact spots it was founds cinches it in m book. Someone else was responsible for this child's death. Not everyone in the whole wide world is in a database and after 12 years the perp may well be dead. MOO.

[shill]

Reasons why a match will never be found:-

1) Owner of the DNA is dead. But then there is a possibility, through familial DNA testing, that a relative of the owner will end up on file and through investigation, police may end up with a good idea of who the perp was.

2) DNA isn't that of a US citizen. But then in the future, there may be improved communications between LE in different countries. An example of this on a much smaller scale was the investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper in the 1970s. POlice forces in England were just starting to introduce computer systems but they each had their own computer system. With today's (nationwide) technology, he'd have been tracked down in the blink of an eye.

3) Owner of the DNA never re-offends. Possibly, but how likely is it that someone who commits such a brutal murder as this one would do it as a first and only offence? It has been argued that the use of the garotte shows sadistic tendencies - I think that is inherent. Also the fact that the Ramsey murder - if perpetrated by an intruder - was very high risk showing cunning and daring. I doubt someone capable of such a crime would be satisfied to stop at one.

Again familial DNA could trap this person even if they never re-offended.

4) Perp is in the backlog of DNA waiting to be entereed into CODIS. I think it's shameful that there is such a backlog. The government should be investing in getting this cleared.

5) Other reasons?Good post.

5) He's a police Detective looking to move up from Narcotics to Homicide, but needed a homicide to make the jump, so he committed a one time crime to advance his career that failed miserably, and so he will never kill again.:D

[Jayelles]

It seems silly to have to have a match to believe the DNA came from an outsider to believe the Ramseys are innocent. The presence of the DNA in the exact spots it was founds cinches it in m book. Someone else was responsible for this child's death. Not everyone in the whole wide world is in a database and after 12 years the perp may well be dead. MOO.



Who said anything about having to match the DNA to an outsider in order to believe the Ramseys are innocent? This is about wanting to find who killed Jonbenet - surely? I'd like to think finding her killer is more of a priority than proving her parents' innocence.

I seriously hope investigators don't share this laissez faire attitude.

[shill]

Who said anything about having to match the DNA to an outsider in order to believe the Ramseys are innocent? This is about wanting to find who killed Jonbenet - surely? I'd like to think finding her killer is more of a priority than proving her parents' innocence.

I seriously hope investigators don't share this laissez faire attitude.

You really think that after the investigators found evidence of a complete DNA sequence of the killer that also proves it was not artifact from a factory worker, and they just said to themselves, "hey, the Ramseys are not guilty, are job is done, we don't care who killed JonBenet"?

Why in the world would you think or suggest that given this new powerful DNA evidence, the investigators would now take a laissez faire attitude?

If anything, imo it would be just the opposite and they would crank up the investigation.

Was your post just about trying to belittle LindaA or is it that you can't say the Ramseys are innocent because this would not allow yourself the luxury to claim to be a fence sitter?

[Bystander]

It seems silly to have to have a match to believe the DNA came from an outsider to believe the Ramseys are innocent. The presence of the DNA in the exact spots it was founds cinches it in m book. Someone else was responsible for this child's death. Not everyone in the whole wide world is in a database and after 12 years the perp may well be dead. MOO.

This new evidence would be unneccessary to anyone who was already sure the R's were innocent, unless of course they had some doubts about them.

With a match, they might actually be able to find a viable intruder rather than an intruder-in-theory based on evidence that is no more definitive than what they have against the R's. If it did define anyone without a match, they'd have a hint of a suspect already. But exclusion doesn't prove innocence and inclusion doesn't prove guilt. Even a match is just another piece in the puzzle. They have to have more and It'll be too bad for whomever it leads to if people will be satisfied with so little evidence.

[Bystander]

Reasons why a match will never be found:-

1) Owner of the DNA is dead. But then there is a possibility, through familial DNA testing, that a relative of the owner will end up on file and through investigation, police may end up with a good idea of who the perp was.

2) DNA isn't that of a US citizen. But then in the future, there may be improved communications between LE in different countries. An example of this on a much smaller scale was the investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper in the 1970s. POlice forces in England were just starting to introduce computer systems but they each had their own computer system. With today's (nationwide) technology, he'd have been tracked down in the blink of an eye.

3) Owner of the DNA never re-offends. Possibly, but how likely is it that someone who commits such a brutal murder as this one would do it as a first and only offence? It has been argued that the use of the garotte shows sadistic tendencies - I think that is inherent. Also the fact that the Ramsey murder - if perpetrated by an intruder - was very high risk showing cunning and daring. I doubt someone capable of such a crime would be satisfied to stop at one.

Again familial DNA could trap this person even if they never re-offended.

4) Perp is in the backlog of DNA waiting to be entereed into CODIS. I think it's shameful that there is such a backlog. The government should be investing in getting this cleared.

5) Other reasons?

I'm thinking of the backlog too. They take dna from offender's everyday, in every county in every state. Now you've made me wonder what's involved with entering it into the national database.

[Jayelles]

This new evidence would be unneccessary to anyone who was already sure the R's were innocent, unless of course they had some doubts about them.

With a match, they might actually be able to find a viable intruder rather than an intruder-in-theory based on evidence that is no more definitive than what they have against the R's. If it did define anyone without a match, they'd have a hint of a suspect already. But exclusion doesn't prove innocence and inclusion doesn't prove guilt. Even a match is just another piece in the puzzle. They have to have more and It'll be too bad for whomever it leads to if people will be satisfied with so little evidence.

They also have to prove that the foreign DNA did actually belong to her killer. As Lou Smit said (paraphrased) an intruder's defence is going to be that the Ramseys did it and even supposing they found the person who owned the DNA, he might weave a defence admitting the sexual assault but denying murder. Or worse still - what if he admitted breaking into the Ramasey home (say) several days before the murder and said he'd rummaged through JonBenet's clothes drawers thuis explaining his DNA on her clothes?

They have to place him at the scene of the crime. If his DNA were present on the garotte or the ransom note, he'd have a harder job explaining it "beyond reasonable doubt".

[Jayelles]

I'm thinking of the backlog too. They take dna from offender's everyday, in every county in every state. Now you've made me wonder what's involved with entering it into the national database.

I don't know Bystander. It does make one wonder.

A few nights ago I watched a fascinating documentary about the Innocence project and there were three convicted criminals who had been sentenced before the advent of DNA who were trying to use it to get out of jail. One of them was a guy called Robert Breest whom you may have heard of (I hadn't). Anyway tests on debris taken from under the victim's fingernails were initially inconclusive and it was explained that the complication was that there was both male and female DNA under the fingernails - but that they were unable to separate them. This wasn't elaborated upon, but I am wondering if the samples were degraded to the point where they couldn't tell which markers belonged to which sample (I might be using the wrong words here).

They were able to perform other tests but this took another couple of months.

But I don't know what is involved in entering the data into a database. I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd volunteer to help in the interests of finding justice for the victims of crime.

[shill]

I don't know Bystander. It does make one wonder.


You should take this Ventriloquist act to Vegas.
Featuring the Fencesitter and her Bystander puppet.

[shill]

...and even supposing they found the person who owned the DNA, he might weave a defence admitting the sexual assault but denying murder.
LOL, like that's going to fly?
"Well when I last left her I had only stuck a paintbrush handle in her. I don't know how it became part of the garrote handle, but I'm telling you, I didn't murder her, I only raped her."
"Well then, we find you not guilty of murder, so maybe the parents killed her?"

It's like you're not even from the same planet Jayelles?
What world do you live in where this is a possible scenario?

There are no fence sitters in the JonBenet case anymore, just stubborn mules.

[Bystander]

A few nights ago I watched a fascinating documentary about the Innocence project and there were three convicted criminals who had been sentenced before the advent of DNA who were trying to use it to get out of jail. One of them was a guy called Robert Breest whom you may have heard of (I hadn't). Anyway tests on debris taken from under the victim's fingernails were initially inconclusive and it was explained that the complication was that there was both male and female DNA under the fingernails - but that they were unable to separate them. This wasn't elaborated upon, but I am wondering if the samples were degraded to the point where they couldn't tell which markers belonged to which sample (I might be using the wrong words here).


I don't think the samples were degraded necessarily, but think you are right about the markers (alleles) being hard to separate in mixtures.


:read:--Peaks on a graph would show the presence of dna.

:read:--If there were three markers within a peak, that would show there was a mix, since each person usually shows two.

:read:--To separate them they have to compare the sample against each person. If there were alleles in common between the two, they would have to say which one goes with which person. If there was one only one allele on a certain location which was one that was shared by the other person at that location (sample-15. male-15,18, female 15,16.), that would make it harder to distinguish.

I could be wrong, but here's the source I used and it helps to understand the co mingling factor that we were wondering about earlier, so thought you'd like to see it.

"Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence:Essential Elements of a Competent Defense Review," by William C. Thompson, Simon Ford, Travis Doom, Michael Raymer and Dan Krane
http://www.cs.wright.edu/itri/EVENTS/SUMMER-INST-2003/SIAC03-Krane2.PDF

:read:The DNA profile is a list of the alleles (genetic markers) found at a number of loci (plural for “locus,” a position) within the human genome. To understand DNA evidence, you must first understand the table of alleles.

:read:The ProfilerPlus™ system examines ten loci. (Labs sometimes also run another set of genetic probes, called Cofiler™, which includes four additional loci). The alleles that the test detected at each locus are identified numbers. (cut) At each locus, a person has two alleles, one inherited from each parent.In some cases, only one allele is detected, which is interpreted as meaning that by chance the person inherited the same allele from each parent. (See in Figure 1, e.g., Suspect 1’s profile at locus D3S1358 and Suspect 4’s profile at locus D8S1179). However, most samples will have two different alleles at each locus, as seen in Figure 1.

ProfilerPlus™ uses “primers” to identify the relevant STR-DNA segments and then “amplifies” (replicates) these segments using a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

:read:Each allele is a short fragment of DNA from a specific location on the human genome known as an STR (short tandem repeat). STRs are places in human DNA where a short section of the genetic code repeats itself. Everyone has these repeating segments, but the number of repetitions (and hence the length of these segments) varies among individuals. The numbers assigned to the alleles indicate the number of repetitions of the core sequence of genetic code. ProfilerPlus™ identifies and labels fragments of DNA that contain STRs. The Genetic Analyzer then measures their length and thereby determines which alleles are present.


:read:Mixtures. One of the most common complications in the analysis of DNA evidence is the presence of DNA from multiple sources. A sample that contains DNA from two or more individuals is referred to as a mixture. A single person is expected to contribute at most two alleles for each locus. If more than two peaks are visible at any locus, there is strong reason to believe that the sample is a mixture.

By their very nature mixtures are difficult to interpret. The number of contributors is often unclear. Although the presence of three or more alleles at any locus signals the presence of more than one contributor, it often is difficult to tell whether the sample originated from two, three, or even more individuals because the various contributors may share many alleles. If alleles 14, 15 and 18 are observed at a locus, they could be from two individuals, A and B, where A contributed 15 and B contributed 14, 18. Alternatively, A could have contributed 14, 15 while B contributed 15, 18, and so on. There might also be three contributors. For example A could have contributed 14, 15, while B contributed 15, 18 and C contributed 15. Many other combinations are also consistent with the findings. A study of one database of 649 individuals found over 5 million threeway combinations of individuals that would have shown four or fewer alleles across all 12 commonly tested STR loci. 5


:read:Behind the Table of Alleles Detected (Figure 1) is a set of computer-generated graphs called electropherograms that display the test results. When evaluating STR evidence, a defense lawyer should always examine the electropherograms because they sometimes reveal unreported ambiguities and, fairly frequently, evidence of additional, unknown contributors.

The height of the peaks corresponds to the quantity of DNA present. The unit of measurement for peak heights is the RFU, or “relative fluorescent unit,” which reflects the intensity of the fluorescent light detected by the computer-operated camera. Peaks representing alleles from the same person are expected to have roughly 7 the same heights measured in RFUs throughout a given sample, although peak height imbalances occasionally occur.

:read:Degradation. As samples age, DNA like any chemical begins to break down (or degrade). This process occurs slowly if the samples are carefully preserved but can occur rapidly when the samples are exposed for even a short time to unfavorable conditions, such as warmth, moisture or sunlight. Degradation skews the relationship between peak heights and the quantity of DNA present. Generally, degradation produces a downward slope across the electropherograms in the height of peaks because degradation is more likely to interfere with the detection of longer sequences of repeated DNA (the alleles on the right side of the electropherogram) than shorter sequences (alleles on the left side).


Bolds/underlines/asterisks are mine.

[SaraSidle]

I don't think the samples were degraded necessarily, but think you are right about the markers (alleles) being hard to separate in mixtures.


:read:--Peaks on a graph would show the presence of dna.

:read:--If there were three markers within a peak, that would show there was a mix, since each person usually shows two.

:read:--To separate them they have to compare the sample against each person. If there were alleles in common between the two, they would have to say which one goes with which person. If there was one only one allele on a certain location which was one that was shared by the other person at that location (sample-15. male-15,18, female 15,16.), that would make it harder to distinguish.

I could be wrong, but here's the source I used and it helps to understand the co mingling factor that we were wondering about earlier, so thought you'd like to see it.



Bolds/underlines/asterisks are mine.


bump

[Bystander]

Oh dear. I thought pushing people off the fence would throw the V.A.P. off the scent, but it had no effect. But what have I done?! ::cries and pushes obsessed troll into mud puddle::: Fence Hater!

At least it's an improvement over the other stuff, which nearly blinded me earlier. Damn my eyes! Did you see the smut?

On the other hand, TYVM to Sara Sidle and other's for being so vigilant as to not rest until they got attention. It is a good trait when possessed by people who are not malicious. I'm assuming that is why the thread needed bumping? )

[Jayelles]

I don't think the samples were degraded necessarily, but think you are right about the markers (alleles) being hard to separate in mixtures.


:read:--Peaks on a graph would show the presence of dna.

:read:--If there were three markers within a peak, that would show there was a mix, since each person usually shows two.

:read:--To separate them they have to compare the sample against each person. If there were alleles in common between the two, they would have to say which one goes with which person. If there was one only one allele on a certain location which was one that was shared by the other person at that location (sample-15. male-15,18, female 15,16.), that would make it harder to distinguish.
I could be wrong, but here's the source I used and it helps to understand the co mingling factor that we were wondering about earlier, so thought you'd like to see it.



Bolds/underlines/asterisks are mine.

Thanks for digging this out.

Referring to bold text above:-

What if they don't have samples to compare with? I know they can tell the gender of the DNA so I'm guessing that there were both male and female markers present in the fingernail sample of the Robert Breest case. So this would let them know that they had at least two DNA samples. But what if the identities male and female were unknown? In your example which I emboldened, "(sample-15. male-15,18, female 15,16.), that would make it harder to distinguish." would they necessarily know that markers 16 and 18 belonged to the female and male respectively?

It's a fascinating subject and one I wish I had more knowledge about. I thought I understood it based upon a simple analogy a learned poster had once given, but since then, a more qualified person dismissed the previous analogy and I'm back to square one!

I remember at the start of the Ramsey case they said that the foreign DNA didn't match a Ramsey IF it came from one donor but if it came from 2 or more donors, no-one was excluded.

What I understood was that fresh DNA forms a continuous strand - like a chain. However, when it degrades, it breaks up and so you might have several pieces of the original chain. But would a scientist be able to piece them back together again or would it be impossible to tell which piece followed which? Maybe this is a daft question, but when one isn't an expert, one doesn't even know if the question itself is daft!

But I'm going to put the dinner on, make myself a coffee and study the source you have provided. It looks interesting.

[Jayelles]

Oh dear. I thought pushing people off the fence would throw the V.A.P. off the scent, but it had no effect. But what have I done?! ::cries and pushes obsessed troll into mud puddle::: Fence Hater!

At least it's an improvement over the other stuff, which nearly blinded me earlier. Damn my eyes! Did you see the smut?

On the other hand, TYVM to Sara Sidle and other's for being so vigilant as to not rest until they got attention. It is a good trait when possessed by people who are not malicious. I'm assuming that is why the thread needed bumping? )


VAP?

I didn't see the smut. I can bear not to read it :biggrin:

[Athena]

I think JonBenet was killed by someone who was in a rage. However, I have just read a post by someone who seems to think that it could only have been rage if the headblow came first! I totally disagree with this presumption.

I don't think that the headblow necessarily came first for one simple reason - it would make no sense to then garotte the victim. Garotting the victim isn't going to cover up a headblow. However, I do believe that garotting may have been done to cover up a different form of strangulation - one which could easily have taken place alongside a head injury. Specifically, I am referring to someone grabbing Jonbenet by her neckband and then twisting it hard as they yanked her so roughly that she was propelled against a hard surface smashing her skull in the process.

I think the injuries are there to support this theory - the large triangular abrasion on her neck looks to me like the kind of mark which would be made by knuckles twisting against her neck.

I think the garotte, "sexual assault" and ransom note were then put in place by the killer to create red herrings.

IMO the triangular abrasion on her neck is from the blood being cut off by the ligature. It is located exactly where the carotid artery is located.

[Athena]

ST wrote in his book that Patsy originally said JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed. No doubt he had read the initial statements from them noted down by his colleagues.
Have you ever heard Patsy protest loudly "I never said that"?

Infamous circumstantial evidence cases like the JBR case are always being discussed vividly on forums, with everyone trying to fit the puzzle together. Even cases where we have a tried and convicted murderer (like. e. g. Jeffrey MacDonald) are STILL being discussed after 38 years, and what triggered the fatal events on that night will always be open to speculation.

There was enough evidence to link the Ramseys to this crime, but as criminal history shows, offenders can get away with it a despite evidence implicating them.

jmo

I do not believe Patsy said that at all. ST again misquoted something that may have been said that sounds nothing like what was said. I do recall Patsy saying she WANTED JBR to wear the red turtleneck on Christmas Day but JBR refused. The garment she was washing also was a red jumpsuit she wanted to take to Charlevoix not a red turtleneck. JBR NEVER wore that turtleneck during the holidays and again ST admits it.

[Bystander]

Thanks for digging this out.

Referring to bold text above:-

What if they don't have samples to compare with? I know they can tell the gender of the DNA so I'm guessing that there were both male and female markers present in the fingernail sample of the Robert Breest case. So this would let them know that they had at least two DNA samples. But what if the identities male and female were unknown? In your example which I emboldened, "(sample-15. male-15,18, female 15,16.), that would make it harder to distinguish." would they necessarily know that markers 16 and 18 belonged to the female and male respectively?

It's a fascinating subject and one I wish I had more knowledge about. I thought I understood it based upon a simple analogy a learned poster had once given, but since then, a more qualified person dismissed the previous analogy and I'm back to square one!

I remember at the start of the Ramsey case they said that the foreign DNA didn't match a Ramsey IF it came from one donor but if it came from 2 or more donors, no-one was excluded.

What I understood was that fresh DNA forms a continuous strand - like a chain. However, when it degrades, it breaks up and so you might have several pieces of the original chain. But would a scientist be able to piece them back together again or would it be impossible to tell which piece followed which? Maybe this is a daft question, but when one isn't an expert, one doesn't even know if the question itself is daft!

But I'm going to put the dinner on, make myself a coffee and study the source you have provided. It looks interesting.

I don't think you're questions are daft,lol, they're tough. I do think I can't answer them myself since reading for background and understanding is one thing, but applying it specifically would take someone with real practical experience. In trying to answer your post, I realize that I don't have enough knowledge to go there yet. Even the guys in that article recommend that defense lawyers get a real expert to analyze the lab reports and graphs and what they say about mixed samples is that it has to be analyed very carefully and that working with them can allow misinterpretation, even by experts.

I think there are many who might claim to be knowledgable particularly on message boards but they themselves don't really know how it works in the real world either, so that's where gaining the background helps me, but I don't want to join the ranks of the 'little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing' set either.

The former poster here, who was the MD, demonstrated her understanding in her posts. That was easy enough to see. She's the only one I've seen who has done that-- at least on the message boards, and then still, I go look for corroboration. (I don't take too many opinions at face value,lol)

It is so complicated and there are many variables in each situation. I at least wanted to point out the parts that corresponded to what you were asking, but I'm not up to analyzing them. You'll do just as well as I would in that department, but I hope the dna posts will provide something that clicks. It did for me, but I'm having a hard time conveying what it was.

My impression regarding "would they necessarily know that markers 16 and 18 belonged to the female and male respectively?"

I think no, not by just looking at the length of the alleles since the only thing that identifies sex is the xx or the xy. They would have to have more points of comparison. It looks like they use the RFU heights but that that can be subjective and different conclusions can be drawn by setting the threshold to different sensitivies and then, even the lab techs can disregard what doesn't fit into what they are expected to find.

On "would a scientist be able to piece them back together again or would it be impossible to tell which piece followed which?"

I think that depends on how degraded it is. I also think that a degraded sample is one thing but having two or more mixtures in a sample creates different problems in rebuilding the picture. Degraded samples may have too few markers on only a couple of locations and the rest of the locations they look at on the strand will be blank, so to speak. A mixed sample may have too many markers on, say, 9 locations and they would have to be separated carefully, but if they can do that, they will get two distinct profiles. I think there's more potential for success in interpreting a mixed sample than a severely degraded one.

[rashomon]

I do not believe Patsy said that at all. ST again misquoted something that may have been said that sounds nothing like what was said. I do recall Patsy saying she WANTED JBR to wear the red turtleneck on Christmas Day but JBR refused. The garment she was washing also was a red jumpsuit she wanted to take to Charlevoix not a red turtleneck. JBR NEVER wore that turtleneck during the holidays and again ST admits it.
It's somewhere in the back of my mind that Patsy said she and JonBenet had a little argument over the red turtleneck because Patsy thought it would be nice if they wore matchig outfits to the Whites' party (both mother and daughter in a red sweater + black pants).

jmo

[Jayelles]

I don't think you're questions are daft,lol, they're tough. I do think I can't answer them myself since reading for background and understanding is one thing, but applying it specifically would take someone with real practical experience.

I absolutely agree. I think this is how you spot an expert. Anyone can copy and paste and many can regurgitate statements and definitions, but it takes real expert to "evaluate" and "apply". I am very aware of this when marking student exams.

In trying to answer your post, I realize that I don't have enough knowledge to go there yet. Even the guys in that article recommend that defense lawyers get a real expert to analyze the lab reports and graphs and what they say about mixed samples is that it has to be analyed very carefully and that working with them can allow misinterpretation, even by experts.

The article was written for defence lawyers and that's what makes it "nice". Explanations are given in lay terms and are easy to follow. However, this guy Dan Krane has written quite a lot of stuff and I'm wading through it slowly but surely. I do feel better informed already! He has written one article on degradation of DNA which should be interesting. His students rate him highly.

I think there are many who might claim to be knowledgable particularly on message boards but they themselves don't really know how it works in the real world either, so that's where gaining the background helps me, but I don't want to join the ranks of the 'little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing' set either.

The former poster here, who was the MD, demonstrated her understanding in her posts. That was easy enough to see. She's the only one I've seen who has done that-- at least on the message boards, and then still, I go look for corroboration. (I don't take too many opinions at face value,lol)

I am in regular contact with the MD and she has also been very patient helpful at clearing up questions I have. It takes a real expert to do this.

It is so complicated and there are many variables in each situation. I at least wanted to point out the parts that corresponded to what you were asking, but I'm not up to analyzing them. You'll do just as well as I would in that department, but I hope the dna posts will provide something that clicks. It did for me, but I'm having a hard time conveying what it was.

My impression regarding "would they necessarily know that markers 16 and 18 belonged to the female and male respectively?"

I think no, not by just looking at the length of the alleles since the only thing that identifies sex is the xx or the xy. They would have to have more points of comparison. It looks like they use the RFU heights but that that can be subjective and different conclusions can be drawn by setting the threshold to different sensitivies and then, even the lab techs can disregard what doesn't fit into what they are expected to find.

I kind of figured this out by reading more of the article. They'd know there was a male and a female by the sex marker but if it was a mixture, they wouldn't necessarily know which was which unless they had a sample to compare with. I understand too that they can tell the minimum number of people whose DNA is in the mixture, but not the maximum as some may share markers. This is basically what you were saying before.

On "would a scientist be able to piece them back together again or would it be impossible to tell which piece followed which?"

I think that depends on how degraded it is. I also think that a degraded sample is one thing but having two or more mixtures in a sample creates different problems in rebuilding the picture. Degraded samples may have too few markers on only a couple of locations and the rest of the locations they look at on the strand will be blank, so to speak. A mixed sample may have too many markers on, say, 9 locations and they would have to be separated carefully, but if they can do that, they will get two distinct profiles. I think there's more potential for success in interpreting a mixed sample than a severely degraded one.


I'd need to read a bit more before I could get involved in any discussions along these lines LOL. I'm slowly getting my head around things like YSTR and LCN but I'm a long way away from being able to discuss the nitty grittys! :cool:

[grneyes]

Never mind. Had a Monday type moment. Yes I know it's Wednesday. *lol*

[Jayelles]

It's somewhere in the back of my mind that Patsy said she and JonBenet had a little argument over the red turtleneck because Patsy thought it would be nice if they wore matchig outfits to the Whites' party (both mother and daughter in a red sweater + black pants).

jmo

Patsy said that she had wanted herself and JonBenet to be "matching" and Patsy we know was wearing a red sweater and black trousers. She indicated that JonBenet had objected and we know that Jonbenet instead wore a white or cream top with a star on it from The Gap. However, I don't know if the red turtleneck which was "balled up" in the bathroom was the one Patsy had wanted her to wear or not. Nor am I certain of its relevance if it was.

Steve Thomas confirmed that she was wearing the Gap top on Christmas day in a web chat her participated in and I would imagine that they knew that from the Christmas Day photos taken at the Whites which have never been released.

[shill]

Maybe the distraction is the attackers purpose for doing it?Or maybe in my case it's a warning to those who don't know better.

People are easily lulled into believing something if there is another poster backing them, even if it is the same poster or the dialog is choreographed with another poster.

People will believe anything and that's why the Ramseys have taken so much heat all these years imo.

[DAFFODIL]

Patsy said that she had wanted herself and JonBenet to be "matching" and Patsy we know was wearing a red sweater and black trousers. She indicated that JonBenet had objected and we know that Jonbenet instead wore a white or cream top with a star on it from The Gap. However, I don't know if the red turtleneck which was "balled up" in the bathroom was the one Patsy had wanted her to wear or not. Nor am I certain of its relevance if it was.

Steve Thomas confirmed that she was wearing the Gap top on Christmas day in a web chat her participated in and I would imagine that they knew that from the Christmas Day photos taken at the Whites which have never been released.

I wonder why those photos have never been released? We know what she was wearing as well as the parents so I wonder what the mystery about them is.

[Jayelles]

I wonder why those photos have never been released? We know what she was wearing as well as the parents so I wonder what the mystery about them is.

I don't know Daffodil. They were taken by the police pretty early on. However, I tend to think that if there HAD been anything incriminating in them they would have been leaked like everything else!

Maybe they were lost? LOL

[DAFFODIL]

I don't know Daffodil. They were taken by the police pretty early on. However, I tend to think that if there HAD been anything incriminating in them they would have been leaked like everything else!

Maybe they were lost? LOL


You could be right about that! I agree anything incriminating would have come out by now and I cant imagine anything that would have been incriminating.I wonder if the photos belonged to one of the guests and they wouldnt sign a public release for them?


MOO

[shill]

I wonder why those photos have never been released? We know what she was wearing as well as the parents so I wonder what the mystery about them is.You do realize the Autopsy photos were never meant to be released?

Apparently the photo lab got busted before they could sell copies of the X-mas party.

They didn't release the photos because they don't release photos.
End of story!

[shill]

I don't know Daffodil. They were taken by the police pretty early on. However, I tend to think that if there HAD been anything incriminating in them they would have been leaked like everything else!

Maybe they were lost? LOLDoes that mean you think the autopsy photos were leaked?

[shill]

You could be right about that! I agree anything incriminating would have come out by now and I cant imagine anything that would have been incriminating.I wonder if the photos belonged to one of the guests and they wouldnt sign a public release for them?


MOOMore like the photos are evidence, so it doesn't matter if they got all the guest to sign release forms, the police are not going to release them.

I'm sure the tabloids would spend millions on those photos to feed their readers curiosity, so anyone in them would stand to make a fortune and be motivated to sign a release form if that was possible.

[Bystander]

I don't know Bystander. It does make one wonder...,


...But I don't know what is involved in entering the data into a database. I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd volunteer to help in the interests of finding justice for the victims of crime.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25629128/

Here are some of the issues involded. I think the part about one lab's having to ask for donations is interesting, don't you? They got them too, showing many are willing to help, but I don't know if they'd allow it due to the need for background checks and training, etc. I understand they are automating some of the process in order to make it more efficient and to cut down the risk of contamination to the samples.

Shrinking the backlog has been daunting.
"It's a matter of personnel, training that personnel, the space to do the testing and just the sheer cost of it," Hurst said.

Backlogs overwhelm labs
Wyoming has a backlog of 7,000, down from 10,000 at the start of the year, said Steve Holloway, director of the State Crime Laboratory. The samples — large cotton swabs in sealed envelopes, waiting to be sent to an outside laboratory — fill about 36 file drawers.

Another complicating factor is when the DNA is collected. In Illinois, for example, samples aren't taken until convicted felons get out of prison, Hurst said.
"You're talking years" between the arrest and the time the DNA gets into the database, she said. "Here's the scary thing: They're giving samples as they're walking out the door."


:eek:That's odd. I know that's not the case in all states. In mine they take them when someone's convicted, right after the sentencing.


In February, Washoe County, Nev., Sheriff Mike Haley appealed for public donations to help clear a backlog of 3,000 DNA samples awaiting processing in the hopes of solving the kidnapping of 19-year-old Brianna Denison. Days after the appeal, Haley said his office received $71,000 in donations with an additional $93,000 in pledges. Denison's slaying remains unsolved.
Other labs, including Wyoming's, are clearing their backlog with money from a five-year, $1 billion federal initiative launched in 2003. The money has allowed Holloway's lab to send the samples to a private lab for processing.
"It piled up," Holloway said. "Without the federal money, we wouldn't be able to handle it through our lab."

[Jayelles]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25629128/

Here are some of the issues involded. I think the part about one lab's having to ask for donations is interesting, don't you? They got them too, showing many are willing to help, but I don't know if they'd allow it due to the need for background checks and training, etc. I understand they are automating some of the process in order to make it more efficient and to cut down the risk of contamination to the samples.


:eek:That's odd. I know that's not the case in all states. In mine they take them when someone's convicted, right after the sentencing.







It should be a priority IMO because it's a routine, practical task which could clear up many unsolved crimes and improve their stats. I think it would not only be a very sensible priority but a very humane one too. It must be dreadful for the families of victims when they crime is unsolved. In many cases there are other suspects too - people who have to live with being a suspect who cannot truly get on with their lives until the real perp is identified.

[sharlock]

Since nobody is posting anything much lately I thought it might be interesting to others to see the heart in her hand. The first photo is from the autopsy photo. In the second photo I enhanced it to show it more clearly. Then there is an online diagram of the Shaker "heart in hand" symbolism. To my knowledge, the only character in the case that knew anything about Shakerism was Bill McReynolds. Janet wrote in her three part article: "Santa concluded the visit by singing the song he has adopted as his
anthem, an old Shaker hymn, "Simple Gifts." " Interestingly, in my opinion, he is a sort of "odd fellow", too, just informally speaking. I don't know if he was a member. The small black rectangle on her wrist was made by me to show location of abrasion on her wrist, (not listed in autopsy, but probably from the cord binding).

http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/heartonhand.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/heartonhandenhanced
http://z.about.com/d/altreligion/1/0/W/S/2/hearthand.jpg
This is the website that explains the symbolism:
http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsheartinhand.htm

The link you posted Mikie was very interesting. I remember ages ago when this topic was broached people saying that a child wouldn't draw a heart like this and I didn't have much to contribute at the time; not long after my son who was then 5 gave me a picture with a loveheart on it and it was exactly like the one on JB's hand. I felt bad actually because my first thought wasn't 'how sweet a pic my son had made' but 'JB probably did draw it herself'. Still the shaker link could be a possibility either way.

[sharlock]

I'm a newbie to the discussion of JB's murder, and this has doubtless been discussed, I think it's a shame Lou Smit could not get a 2nd autopsy - too many questions remain from the first one, which looks cursory.

Not sure how anyone could sustain a fractured skull as she did and not bleed profusely unless fracture occured close to TOD.

Overall, the initial investigation was a completely mucked up affair.

ITA, actually I think the head wound is one of the clearest bits of evidence showing the Ramseys weren't staging the crime. If you beleive ST then you will beleive that Patsy, angry with JB for something(he suggests bedwetting) got physical with her in the bathroom and accidentally smashed her head against the bathtub. The small pools of blood from the head injury would indicate that JB was strangled very soon after the head blow and doesn't allow for the time it would take to do this elaborate staging. IMO the rope was already around JB's neck and tightened not long after the head blow.

[sharlock]

LOL, sometimes the "experts" n this case really leave me rolling my eyes! They need Bob Keppel to take a look at this one or we need someone to get in a time machine and go back and secure the crime scene!

I don't see how one can think it could be the initiating event of the attack if you believe the coroner's report. To be blunt, they can't have it both ways - one can't believe the coroner's report AND believe that it was the initiating event. The complexities and timeline of the blow happening immediately, in her bed, and strangled immediately, taken down the stairs and dumped in the cellar - I just don't see it playing out like that. There are too many obstacles - the main one being that strangulation and positioning of the garrote couldn't happen quickly enough for the brain injury to be considered to have happened at "close to TOD." I just don't see where they're getting that from. It doesn't fit the coroner's report at all.

LOL, here we go back once again to the body exhumation and what that story would or would not have told.

Hanging? I thought about that, with the outstretched arms, even looked for bruising on the wrists but I could see none in the crime scene photos and there were none mentioned (and here we go with that coroner's report again) in the coroner's report.

Perhaps the PR's plan was to tie JB's hands behind her (rope on one wrist) but the stun gun rendered that point moot.

How did the blow happen? Other than a rage blow, I can't imagine a different scenario that would have occured close to TOD. If she's almost dead, then she most likely looks dead; why and more importantly, how do you stand her up and hit her on the back of the head? It'd be like trying to hold up a rag doll!

And I think I said earlier that if she'd been hit on the back of the head lying facedown, there would be bruising on the face; there could even be marks on the floor from swinging the instrument.

I shouldn't be nasty, but sometimes the "experts" don't even make common sense to me, at least not in this case!

Like someone else said, maybe it was you, I think maybe the only way this murder will ever be solved is when or if someone confesses.
My apologies for my pointless post as I see you have already considered these possibilities as I read further. As you can tell I am a little behind in the thead, lol!:o

[rashomon]

I wonder why those photos have never been released? We know what she was wearing as well as the parents so I wonder what the mystery about them is.
For example, it would be interesting to see what kind of hairstyle JonBenet had been wearing at the party. Too bad Steve Thomas was not asked this in the chat.
For per the Ramseys' story, JonBenet was put to bed already asleep, so she had to be wearing the blue velvet hair ties and the two ponytails to the Whites'.
But if the Christmas pictures show a completely different hairstyle, then it would blow the Ramseys' story apart.
Unless one believes that the intruder restyled the victim's hair, that is. :D

jmo

[shill]

For example, it would be interesting to see what kind of hairstyle JonBenet had been wearing at the party. Too bad Steve Thomas was not asked this in the chat.
For per the Ramseys' story, JonBenet was put to bed already asleep, so she had to be wearing the blue velvet hair ties and the two ponytails to the Whites'.
But if the Christmas pictures show a completely different hairstyle, then it would blow the Ramseys' story apart.
Unless one believes that the intruder restyled the victim's hair, that is. :D

jmoSo you are implying Steve Thomas is an idiot and all the detectives and investigators are clueless because you think the X-mas party photos show JonBenet with a different hair style then the Ramseys described, but they never noticed.

You really think you would be the only one to have noticed that if it was true?
Seems you always think you know more about the evidence then they do, how narcissistic.

Why don't you use those sleuthing skills of yours to figure out that there is nothing to your little fantasy of the Ramseys lying about JonBenet's hair.

And just what exactly is the reason the Ramseys would have altered her hair?

It's not that cockamamie story you RDIs cooked up about trying to hold her skull together by tying her braids together?:no:

[rashomon]

IMO the triangular abrasion on her neck is from the blood being cut off by the ligature. It is located exactly where the carotid artery is located.
Since it is described as "parchment-like", it could be a peri-mortem or post-mortem abrasion.
Elvis has pointed out that it looks worse in the picture than it actually was:

[Elvis]:
It could have been a peri-mortem abrasion. BTW an abrasion simply describes damage to the epidermal layer of the skin . It can be caused by anything...scrapes, pressure, burns, etc. It only looks bad in the photo because of the color which is just the result of capilary damage beneath the skin.

jmo

[rashomon]

So you are implying Steve Thomas is an idiot and all the detectives and investigators are clueless because you think the X-mas party photos show JonBenet with a different hair style then the Ramseys described, but they never noticed.
Steve Thomas can be admired for his commitment to find justice for JonBenet, but as an investigator, he never tried to tie the loose ends of this theory together.
For example, if he was so convinced that Patsy yanked the red turtleneck off JonBenet in a rage, then why on earth didn't he ask for the lab test results on this garment? When later asked, it became clear that he was totally clueless as to to whether this garment had been tested for urine at all!
The same with the bedsheets: urine was found on them, but did he ask the lab whether they could determine from the dried urine if it was freshly shed or older urine?
Not one word from him on that. Urine was found on the sheets and that was enough for him to bolster his theory.
He interviewed Patsy - why did he not confront her with her initial statement where she allegedly said JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed?
Why didn't he (or any of the other interviewers) confront her with Burke's statement that JonBenet had been awake when they got home?
Why did he give John Ramsey a total pass? And so on and so on.

I'm not saying JonBenet wore a different hairstyle a the Whites', but imo it is highly unlikey she wore her hair to the party as shown in the artist's rendition. For that hair looks more like pulled back from the face when you want to wash your face or put cream on it.
And didn't Patsy herself say JonBenet used to wear her hair to bed in ponytails? But if on that night, she was put to bed already asleep, hardy likely Patsy would have bothered to tie her in ponytails then.

jmo

[shill]

Steve Thomas can be admired for his commitment to find justice for JonBenet, but as an investigator, he never tried to tie the loose ends of this theory together.

I'm not saying JonBenet wore a different hairstyle a the Whites', but imo it is highly unlikey she wore her hair to the party as shown in the artist's rendition. ... But if on that night, she was put to bed already asleep, hardy likely Patsy would have bothered to tie her in ponytails then.

jmoSteve Thomas was not the only one looking at all the evidence.

You still really think that everyone in charge of investigating this case overlooked JonBenet's appearance in the the X-mas photos?

Sounds like another one of your conspiracy theories.

So bottom line, you are just trying to show that Patsy lied about JonBenet being asleep, even though you are basing that on nothing but your hope that the X-mas photos would show JonBenet with out her hair done.

So basically you got nothing but another myth to spread around by implying there could be X-mas photos of JonBenets hair being different .

So this is how urban legends get started!

[rashomon]

Steve Thomas was not the only one looking at all the evidence.

You still really think that everyone in charge of investigating this case overlooked JonBenet's appearance in the the X-mas photos?

Sounds like another one of your conspiracy theories.

So bottom line, you are just trying to show that Patsy lied about JonBenet being asleep, even though you are basing that on nothing but your hope that the X-mas photos would show JonBenet with out her hair done.

So basically you got nothing but another myth to spread around by

implying there could be X-mas photos of JonBenets hair being different .

So this is how urban legends get started!
Unlike many die-hard IDIs (you being one of them), I don't present my speculations as fact.
You for example even bold-faced lied on another board, claiming Bill McReynolds was not ruled out as the donor of the DNA. But I checked your source PMPT and it said NOTHING of the sort in the page you had mentioned! Instead it said in the same book on page 310 that his DNA did NOT match the DNA in the underwear.
Now who is strewing around myths here, Shill?

I'm not saying JonBenet was wearing a different hairstyle to the Whites, but imo the artist's rendition looked very strange compared to e. g. the other photo we saw of JonBenet's Dec 23 Christmas party where her hair was done in that type of coiffure she was usually wearing, with her hair done in lots of curls etc.
Possibly the artist's rendition was was wrong; it could also have been wrong btw showing the hands and ligatures in that position, since at least one crime scene photo shows JonBenet's arm bent at the elbow, and since the child was in rigor mortis when found, something may not be right with the artist's picture.
That's what I mean by having loose ends, pictures of the puzzle which don't seem to fit. So here's another other question to ask S.Thomas and his colleagues, especially L. Arndt and T. Trujillo who were present at the autopsy. .
"You all have seen the artist's rendition showing JonBenet's arms in that position. You also were present during the autopsy and saw the body yourself.
But the crime scene picture contradicts the artist's rendition. Can you explain that?"

jmo

[Bystander]

It should be a priority IMO because it's a routine, practical task which could clear up many unsolved crimes and improve their stats. I think it would not only be a very sensible priority but a very humane one too. It must be dreadful for the families of victims when the crime is unsolved. In many cases there are other suspects too - people who have to live with being a suspect who cannot truly get on with their lives until the real perp is identified.

I think it does receive a high priority but there are so many factors to consider. The below is from FBI testimony to congress explaining the need for funding in 2002. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/adams051402.htm

The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
The acronym "CODIS" is used to describe not only the software used to maintain and run these DNA databases but also the entire program of software support for Federal, state and local forensic laboratories as well as the various indices (Forensic, Offender and Missing Person) at all three levels - national, state and local. The acronym "NDIS" stands for the National DNA Index System, one component, albeit an integral one, of the CODIS program.( ...)

The DNA Identification Act also authorized the FBI Director to establish and maintain a national DNA identification index (42 U.S.C. §14132). The National DNA Index System was implemented in October, 1998. Today, there are a total of 127 laboratories representing 41 States and three federal laboratories participating in the National DNA Index. ... The DNA Identification Act limits the type of DNA data that may be maintained in the national database as well as who may see this data and for what purpose. All DNA records in NDIS are protected from unauthorized access through administrative, physical and technical safeguards.

Adherence to the Quality Assurance Standards was required for the Federal DNA grant programs authorized by the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. §3796kk-2(1)) and more recently, the grant programs authorized by theDNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. §14135(d)(...)


Success of CODIS Creates New Demands(...) the reality is that new backlogs will continue to be created as states expand their database laws. (...)

Hand in hand with the need for comprehensive coverage of all felony offenders in these DNA databases is the importance of analyzing the biological evidence collected from crime scenes, regardless of whether a suspect has been identified in that case. A large national database containing the DNA profiles of all felons by itself cannot solve crimes. We know that. We also know that state and local laboratories do not currently have the capacity to analyze all the cases with biological evidence that are submitted to them. Because of limited capacities, laboratories are forced to prioritize their cases based upon court dates and whether or not a suspect has been identified. Unfortunately, those cases for which there are no suspects - and the cases for which CODIS was specifically designed to help solve - remain unanalyzed in laboratory storage or police department evidence rooms. (...)

Moreover, as the number of CODIS laboratories has steadily increased over the years, the tiered architecture has not changed, necessitating maintenance of and user support for multiple versions of software (...)

Efforts undertaken several years ago to design a new matching algorithm capable of searching millions of profiles in seconds, or even microseconds, are coming to fruition and we will now turn our attention to integration of this new search engine into CODIS. Completion of these upgrades is dependent upon funding requested in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget. The CODIS redesign includes an increased capacity to accommodate 50 million DNA profiles. (...)

And lastly, as all public DNA laboratories seek participation in the national system, the telecommunication circuits and routers must be upgraded and network maintenance provided to the participating state and local laboratories.(...)

Training curricula for every law enforcement recruit should include, as a matter of routine, procedures for the proper collection and storage of DNA evidence. Cold case squads, ... exist in many jurisdictions to review old unsolved cases for any biological evidence and if available, submission to the forensic laboratory for analysis and entry into CODIS.


The independant labs are among the ones who are contracted to provide the actual entry into the codis system so I believe they are the ones who would provide the training, quality control and background checks for each individual who has access to the database. Bode is one of the labs who are contracted to do the Virginia uploading.

Relatively speaking if you factor in all the training of everyone from the initial investigators to tech support, security, hardware and software upgrades etc it's not that long a period of time. And when they get that done, the states expand their laws and the information that needs to be added increases exponentially, so the backlogs get re-created. They prioritize them using court dates and the cases with no suspects have a lower priority for entry.

They're up against a lot and I guess it will take some time for all of the details to get ironed out. For each step in the process there is an act of congress,lol That alone would create a backlog.:tongue: But.. that answered a lot of my questions. :read: Sorry it's so long.

[Bystander]

But the crime scene picture contradicts the artist's rendition....
jmo

Who actually did that artist rendering? Any clue?

[shill]

Unlike many die-hard IDIs (you being one of them), I don't present my speculations as fact.
You for example even bold-faced lied on another board, claiming Bill McReynolds was not ruled out as the donor of the DNA. But I checked your source PMPT and it said NOTHING of the sort in the page you had mentioned! Instead it said in the same book on page 310 that his DNA did NOT match the DNA in the underwear.
Now who is strewing around myths here, Shill? I simply posted the information I had found, it was not my opinion.
BMcR and Joe Barnhill were reported as not being "excluded" on page 182 of PMPT and this has been verified by two other posters at the web site you say I bold-faced lied, and you know that, so it looks like you are the bold-faced lier Rashomon.
Just because your edition doesn't match the page numbers, does not make me a lier, but you knowing that others have verified that it is in their editions, does make you a bold-faced lier.

Could not be "excluded" as far as I have read means they can't make a match with what they have but they can't rule it out with what they have too.


I'm not saying JonBenet was wearing a different hairstyle to the Whites, but imo the artist's rendition looked very strange compared to e. g. the other photo we saw of JonBenet's Dec 23 Christmas party where her hair was done in that type of coiffure she was usually wearing, with her hair done in lots of curls etc.
Possibly the artist's rendition was was wrong; it could also have been wrong btw showing the hands and ligatures in that position, since at least one crime scene photo shows JonBenet's arm bent at the elbow, and since the child was in rigor mortis when found, something may not be right with the artist's picture.
That's what I mean by having loose ends, pictures of the puzzle which don't seem to fit. So here's another other question to ask S.Thomas and his colleagues, especially L. Arndt and T. Trujillo who were present at the autopsy. .
"You all have seen the artist's rendition showing JonBenet's arms in that position. You also were present during the autopsy and saw the body yourself.
But the crime scene picture contradicts the artist's rendition. Can you explain that?"

jmoWhat crime scene pictures?
Do you have a link to these crime scene photos?
The only photos I have seen are from the autopsie which was much later after she was found and had been moved a couple of times from the crime scene where she was found, which could have broken out some of her rigormortis (climb up the steps, setting her down by the tree, bumpy ride in the ambulance to the coroner).
But accounts of her when she was found report JonBenet with her hands tied above her head, similar to the artist rendition.

I don't think the X-mas photos are going to reveal JonBenet's body position when she was found so maybe you have gotten a little off track of the claim of the X-mas photos importance.

You still haven't explained how you think all the detectives and case investigators are missing the picture except you, even though you have no proof there is anything in those pictures to miss?

[Jayelles]

I think it does receive a high priority but there are so many factors to consider. The below is from FBI testimony to congress explaining the need for funding in 2002. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/adams051402.htm



The independant labs are among the ones who are contracted to provide the actual entry into the codis system so I believe they are the ones who would provide the training, quality control and background checks for each individual who has access to the database. Bode is one of the labs who are contracted to do the Virginia uploading.

Relatively speaking if you factor in all the training of everyone from the initial investigators to tech support, security, hardware and software upgrades etc it's not that long a period of time. And when they get that done, the states expand their laws and the information that needs to be added increases exponentially, so the backlogs get re-created. They prioritize them using court dates and the cases with no suspects have a lower priority for entry.

They're up against a lot and I guess it will take some time for all of the details to get ironed out. For each step in the process there is an act of congress,lol That alone would create a backlog.:tongue: But.. that answered a lot of my questions. :read: Sorry it's so long.



I guess we shouldn't hold our breaths then. I just hope they solve it in my lifetime!

[Jayelles]

For example, it would be interesting to see what kind of hairstyle JonBenet had been wearing at the party. Too bad Steve Thomas was not asked this in the chat.
For per the Ramseys' story, JonBenet was put to bed already asleep, so she had to be wearing the blue velvet hair ties and the two ponytails to the Whites'.
But if the Christmas pictures show a completely different hairstyle, then it would blow the Ramseys' story apart.
Unless one believes that the intruder restyled the victim's hair, that is. :D

jmo

It is an odd hairstyle. The only time I've ever seen anything like it was when my daughter's school had a silly hair day for charity. I hadn't thought on that being the reason why we've never seen the Christmas Day photos. Were there any questions about her hair in any of the interviews? It seems to me that if there were anything suspicious about the hair, then there would be questions about it. I just don't recall if there were or not.

[deacon]

It is an odd hairstyle. The only time I've ever seen anything like it was when my daughter's school had a silly hair day for charity. I hadn't thought on that being the reason why we've never seen the Christmas Day photos. Were there any questions about her hair in any of the interviews? It seems to me that if there were anything suspicious about the hair, then there would be questions about it. I just don't recall if there were or not.


What is the big deal with the hair do? Really, what difference does that make? If she had things in her hair they could have been taken out when she was put to bed whether she was asleep or not. Surely you are not suggesting a change was made to try and "hide" a head injury which would surely come out when the body was inspected. Only a rank dummie would miss that.

[DAFFODIL]

I wonder how the hairties ended up on the floor and the curtain tie back disturbed.Of course as the house was so messy they have been like that a long time!

[Jayelles]

What is the big deal with the hair do? Really, what difference does that make? If she had things in her hair they could have been taken out when she was put to bed whether she was asleep or not. Surely you are not suggesting a change was made to try and "hide" a head injury which would surely come out when the body was inspected. Only a rank dummie would miss that.


I'm sorry but I fail to understand how you interpreted my:-

It seems to me that if there were anything suspicious about the hair, then there would be questions about it.

As me:-

suggesting a change was made to try and "hide" a head injury which would surely come out when the body was inspected. Only a rank dummie would miss that.

In case it wasn't clear, the point I am making is that I DON'T think there was anything suspicious about the hair-do because I think more would have been made of it in the interviews if there were. I don't recall there being any questions about her hairdo in the interviews.

But I still agree that it was an odd hairdo :D

[deacon]

I'm sorry but I fail to understand how you interpreted my:-



As me:-



In case it wasn't clear, the point I am making is that I DON'T think there was anything suspicious about the hair-do because I think more would have been made of it in the interviews if there were. I don't recall there being any questions about her hairdo in the interviews.

But I still agree that it was an odd hairdo :D

Sorry, it must have been someone else who posted something about the hair being rearranged to hide a head injury. That is just lame to me. In a murder they do actually look at the victim better than that.:hat:

[Bystander]

I guess we shouldn't hold our breaths then. I just hope they solve it in my lifetime! Well yeah, that kind of puts a perspective on how long they might have to wait to find a match in that manner. It's one of the reasons I feel they may not find one at all.

As for the drawing, in one of the interviews there was a mention of an "Ann" sketching a picture of the body, based on John's description. I imagine it was the police sketch artist. Could the artist rendering be that drawing do you think? Or was it from someone working off the descriptions after the fact?

[Bystander]

http://expertpages.com/news/dna.htm

This has a very good description of PCR and how they amplify a sample of dna.

[LindaA]

Sorry, it must have been someone else who posted something about the hair being rearranged to hide a head injury. That is just lame to me. In a murder they do actually look at the victim better than that.:hat:

Right. The hair-tied-to-hide-the-skull-fracture is an old RDI theory that has been around for some time. Doesn't wash, IMO.

[deacon]

Right. The hair-tied-to-hide-the-skull-fracture is an old RDI theory that has been around for some time. Doesn't wash, IMO.

Agreed

[Bystander]

Agreed Well, it doesn't really sound plausible, but what I don't get is :shrug::shrug::shrug:who brought it up in the first place?

[deacon]

Well, it doesn't really sound plausible, but what I don't get is :shrug::shrug::shrug:who brought it up in the first place?

Don't remember. It was further up in the thread. Kinda weird. I guess a coroner would miss a head wound because someone tied the hair to cover it? Sounded kinda lame to me.

[DAFFODIL]

I dont believe any right thinking RDI would actually believe THAT :eek:

[Jayelles]

I dont believe any right thinking RDI would actually believe THAT :eek:


If you read back, you will see that no-one suggested it other than Deacon when he/she posted:-

Surely you are not suggesting a change was made to try and "hide" a head injury which would surely come out when the body was inspected. Only a rank dummie would miss that.

It just seems to have been a misunderstanding. Rashomon didn't suggest it either.

[shill]

I brought it up. I was talking about the imaginative accusations RDI make that show no credibility and I referanced when Solace posted that Patsy tied JonBenets ponytails together to keep her head together and hide the head wound.

[shill]

I dont believe any right thinking RDI would actually believe THAT :eek:That certainly describes those who make and believe posts like that.

[deacon]

I brought it up. I was talking about the imaginative accusations RDI make that show no credibility and I referanced when Solace posted that Patsy tied JonBenets ponytails together to keep her head together and hide the head wound.

I knew I had read that here some where. Thanks fro posting that. Makes me feel better about my memory. Also keeps people from jumping me for no reason.

[Jayelles]

I knew I had read that here some where. Thanks fro posting that. Makes me feel better about my memory. Also keeps people from jumping me for no reason.

I apologise if you thought I was "jumping on you", but in fairness, you did originally incorrectly attribute it to me.

However, at least it's cleared up we can agree that no "RDI" posted it here.

[Bystander]

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetbody1.jpg (http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetbody1.jpg)

This is the pic being talked of right? It says it's a rendering from police sources and the autopsy report, but it doesn't say who did it. I guess it's not the one mentioned in the police interview which was drawn by "Ann" while John desribed the way she looked when he found her. This one looks like it's from after she had been moved so the artist used the coroner's description and maybe descriptions by the police who were on the scene along with the photo's they took. (police sources) I'm trying to get an idea of how accurate it is. This pic matches how she looked in PMPT to (did you see it's on Youtube?) but I have to go back and see how it was recreated in the movie since I wasn't paying attention to that part.

[Bystander]

Btw, anyone know who David Charles Brantley was and why the police asked Patsy about him in the Atlanta interview? When she asked them who he was they basically told her, never mind.

[sharlock]

Btw, anyone know who David Charles Brantley was and why the police asked Patsy about him in the Atlanta interview? When she asked them who he was they basically told her, never mind.

Good call Bystander, I can't find any detail on him but it seems strange that he is mentioned amongst a conversation that seems to be focussing on suspects and people who were making threats. Very interesting indeed.

[Bystander]

Good call Bystander, I can't find any detail on him but it seems strange that he is mentioned amongst a conversation that seems to be focussing on suspects and people who were making threats. Very interesting indeed.

yeah, it piqued my interest because Tom Wickman wouldn't answer her but would speak to Wood afterwards. The private investigator took the name down too.

[Bystander]

yeah, it piqued my interest because Tom Wickman wouldn't answer her but would speak to Wood afterwards. The private investigator took the name down too.

He may be a complete innocent in all this so I am a little hesitant to start tossing the name around without knowing if the police were interested in him or if it was just an informational question. Were there ever any discussions on it in the past? Whoever he was, there doesn't seem to be any other mention of him, and I don't want to get too intrusive with my little bit of armchair google detecting so I was hoping a long term poster could remember if it was discussed and an innocent explanation found. The name's connected with a registered offender in Fla (in prison in 1992 and possessing a different middle name. An oncologist in Boulder (different middle name also), a person from the university there (big surprise, isn't most everybody?) and a photographer. He was the most interesting. but has no connections to boulder that I can see.

[lucky13]

I just saw a preview for a new episode of Haunting Evidence(Oct.4) where they are working on the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I've always wanted them to do it & can't believe that they FINALLY are. I tend to believe these people so it will be very interesting to see what they say about it.
Will you believe them?

[Bystander]

I just saw a preview for a new episode of Haunting Evidence(Oct.4) where they are working on the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I've always wanted them to do it & can't believe that they FINALLY are. I tend to believe these people so it will be very interesting to see what they say about it.
Will you believe them?

I think it will be interesting to watch it, but I have a fair amount of skepticism about that kind of stuff. Thanks for posting it.

[The R]

I thought of this case when I read this story......


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html


Just more proof of how deviant scum can be. At least in his case, he won't be bothering anyone else.


ALLMO,
R

[SaraSidle]

I thought of this case when I read this story......


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html


Just more proof of how deviant scum can be. At least in his case, he won't be bothering anyone else.


ALLMO,
R

ITA and no charges!!!!!!! IMO

[cookiewench]

ITA, actually I think the head wound is one of the clearest bits of evidence showing the Ramseys weren't staging the crime. If you beleive ST then you will beleive that Patsy, angry with JB for something(he suggests bedwetting) got physical with her in the bathroom and accidentally smashed her head against the bathtub. The small pools of blood from the head injury would indicate that JB was strangled very soon after the head blow and doesn't allow for the time it would take to do this elaborate staging. IMO the rope was already around JB's neck and tightened not long after the head blow.

I don't remember the evidence saying that there would have been large pools of blood from the head wound, or that if there was, it couldn't have been cleaned up. Not all head wounds produce large amounts of blood, and Jonbenet's head wound was a closed wound.

The garotte was part of the staging, to make it look like a sex crime rather than what it was: an act of rage (probably accidental).

Patsy knew that Jonbenet's body would eventually be found in the house that day, and a dead child with a head wound and nothing else points directly to the parent(s). The elaborate garotte and other staging was meant to point to an intruder, although the investigators saw through the staging right away.

BTW: I believe it was Patsy's mother who said that Patsy would often draw hearts in Jonbenet's palm as a little love ritual.

[rashomon]

I don't remember the evidence saying that there would have been large pools of blood from the head wound, or that if there was, it couldn't have been cleaned up. Not all head wounds produce large amounts of blood, and Jonbenet's head wound was a closed wound.

The garotte was part of the staging, to make it look like a sex crime rather than what it was: an act of rage (probably accidental).

Patsy knew that Jonbenet's body would eventually be found in the house that day, and a dead child with a head wound and nothing else points directly to the parent(s). The elaborate garotte and other staging was meant to point to an intruder, although the investigators saw through the staging right away.

BTW: I believe it was Patsy's mother who said that Patsy would often draw hearts in Jonbenet's palm as a little love ritual.
Absolutely. For a knot was tied on the back of the neck first (forensic evidence: hair entangled in the knot) and then the stager looped part of the remaining cord around the broken paintbrush to create a bizarre-looking 'torture and killing tool'

Since a good portion of JonBenet's hair was also entangled in the wrappings of the paintbrush stick, this indicates that the stager hand her hands very near Jonbenet's hair as she was 'constructing' the handle. So there was neither a prepared noose which was put over the head or a handle prepared in advance. Imo the stager (Patsy imo) fumbled her way along, making the mistake of combining a knot with a handle and in addition, leaving a far too large space between the neck knot and the handle (17 inches!).

Bottom line: This handle was a mere stage prop.

jmo

[sharlock]

Absolutely. For a knot was tied on the back of the neck first (forensic evidence: hair entangled in the knot) and then the stager looped part of the remaining cord around the broken paintbrush to create a bizarre-looking 'torture and killing tool'

Since a good portion of JonBenet's hair was also entangled in the wrappings of the paintbrush stick, this indicates that the stager hand her hands very near Jonbenet's hair as she was 'constructing' the handle. So there was neither a prepared noose which was put over the head or a handle prepared in advance. Imo the stager (Patsy imo) fumbled her way along, making the mistake of combining a knot with a handle and in addition, leaving a far too large space between the neck knot and the handle (17 inches!).

Bottom line: This handle was a mere stage prop.

jmo

You guys just won't accept that someone else killed JB no matter how much evidence is given to you all. Firstly did you see the heart, it looks very much like a heart drawn by someone just learning to draw with ill defined curves- actually just like my son used to draw for me when he was 5. Seems likely then that JB drew the heart there sometime that night most likely because her mum did draw them on her from time to time. Secondly the noose was actually very very effective. JB was rigid by the time she was found and that knot was still extremely embedded deep into her neck. For the type of knot used only certain types of rope could have acheived that effect and I don't think a panicking staging mum just happened to luck out there. Awfully helpful of someone to assist patsy by coming into her house that night and touching JB's pajamas on the sides where they would be pulled up or down and on her underpants(dna found is not that of anyone in the family) to throw the spotlight off the real perpetrator, loving mum Patsy(and there is no evidence to the contrary that I am aware of). Really I think someone in the RDI camp needs to satisfactorily explain that dna evidence before continuing to slander this poor woman and her family.

[susie31023]

I thought of this case when I read this story......


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html


Just more proof of how deviant scum can be. At least in his case, he won't be bothering anyone else.


ALLMO,
R



Hey R!!!!!!,:seeya: Long time no see, LOL... Thank you for the link. I am glad to see at least one possible murder or rape victim was saved. Her father in my opinion is a hero.:rose:...Hope all is well with you and yours and that your studies are going well, Love ya:rose:~Suze

[deacon]

You guys just won't accept that someone else killed JB no matter how much evidence is given to you all. Firstly did you see the heart, it looks very much like a heart drawn by someone just learning to draw with ill defined curves- actually just like my son used to draw for me when he was 5. Seems likely then that JB drew the heart there sometime that night most likely because her mum did draw them on her from time to time. Secondly the noose was actually very very effective. JB was rigid by the time she was found and that knot was still extremely embedded deep into her neck. For the type of knot used only certain types of rope could have acheived that effect and I don't think a panicking staging mum just happened to luck out there. Awfully helpful of someone to assist patsy by coming into her house that night and touching JB's pajamas on the sides where they would be pulled up or down and on her underpants(dna found is not that of anyone in the family) to throw the spotlight off the real perpetrator, loving mum Patsy(and there is no evidence to the contrary that I am aware of). Really I think someone in the RDI camp needs to satisfactorily explain that dna evidence before continuing to slander this poor woman and her family.

If the cord was still embeded in the neck, yes it was the cause of death. One does not go to those extremes to hide a manual strangulation. Specially when they are panicking. Ask some of the serial killers who used this method, it is quite effective. It has been used many times.

[sharlock]

If the cord was still embeded in the neck, yes it was the cause of death. One does not go to those extremes to hide a manual strangulation. Specially when they are panicking. Ask some of the serial killers who used this method, it is quite effective. It has been used many times.
Exactly deacon! I find it interesting that the RDI's always allude to this garrotte as a prop and therefor more proof of staging. To me it seems quite obvious that the garrotte was a prop but it is a very effective prop of a sexual deviant not a panicking mum.

[sharlock]

I don't remember the evidence saying that there would have been large pools of blood from the head wound, or that if there was, it couldn't have been cleaned up. Not all head wounds produce large amounts of blood, and Jonbenet's head wound was a closed wound.

The garotte was part of the staging, to make it look like a sex crime rather than what it was: an act of rage (probably accidental).

Patsy knew that Jonbenet's body would eventually be found in the house that day, and a dead child with a head wound and nothing else points directly to the parent(s). The elaborate garotte and other staging was meant to point to an intruder, although the investigators saw through the staging right away.

BTW: I believe it was Patsy's mother who said that Patsy would often draw hearts in Jonbenet's palm as a little love ritual.

There was no outward pools of blood as the headwound was contained and the pooling was inside the brain. It was shown to only be small amounts of pooling and that indicates that the blood flow stopped soon after the headblow from the strangulation as death stops the blood from flowing and coagulating as it would normally. If Patsy caused the head blow in the bathroom as most RDI's suggest and then panicked and staged, there would have been a much longer amount of time for the headwound to have gone through those natural processes but there wasn't that much time imo.

[cookiewench]

You guys just won't accept that someone else killed JB no matter how much evidence is given to you all. Firstly did you see the heart, it looks very much like a heart drawn by someone just learning to draw with ill defined curves- actually just like my son used to draw for me when he was 5. Seems likely then that JB drew the heart there sometime that night most likely because her mum did draw them on her from time to time. Secondly the noose was actually very very effective. JB was rigid by the time she was found and that knot was still extremely embedded deep into her neck. For the type of knot used only certain types of rope could have acheived that effect and I don't think a panicking staging mum just happened to luck out there. Awfully helpful of someone to assist patsy by coming into her house that night and touching JB's pajamas on the sides where they would be pulled up or down and on her underpants(dna found is not that of anyone in the family) to throw the spotlight off the real perpetrator, loving mum Patsy(and there is no evidence to the contrary that I am aware of). Really I think someone in the RDI camp needs to satisfactorily explain that dna evidence before continuing to slander this poor woman and her family.


I can't imagine what you're possibly trying to say. Do you have some special way of knowing what a heart drawn by an adult would look like on the skin on the palm of a hand?

And what do you mean by "only certain types of rope could have achieved that effect" with the knots? The killer would have chosen the knots based on the type of rope at hand, not chosen the rope based on what type of knots they had decided (in advance) to use.

What is your alleged motive from this outsider-perp? Do you honestly think that brutal child sexual murderers just "touch" the kid's pajamas and then leave such a tiny bit of evidence of abuse that it can be argued against having actually occured?

Child sexual killers brutalize their victims sexually, and there's not any question about what has been done to them when they are found.

PATSY is the one who needs (well, needed) to explain. There is no evidence of anyone else having entered the house that night, having entered Jonbenet's bedroom, having written that note, having washed down and changed Jonbenet, etc., etc.

That tiny speck of DNA that was so small that it took all of these years to even identify it was not left by an intruder. Anyone who had used Jonbenet in a sexual way would have left a lot more than that.

The crime scene was completely staged - from the note, to where Jonbenet's body was put, to the way it was left there.

Everything points to it, and the FBI profilers said from day one that it was staged.

Patsy was the killer, and the stager.

[cookiewench]

There was no outward pools of blood as the headwound was contained and the pooling was inside the brain. It was shown to only be small amounts of pooling and that indicates that the blood flow stopped soon after the headblow from the strangulation as death stops the blood from flowing and coagulating as it would normally. If Patsy caused the head blow in the bathroom as most RDI's suggest and then panicked and staged, there would have been a much longer amount of time for the headwound to have gone through those natural processes but there wasn't that much time imo.

By what authority can you claim that it would have been "a much longer amount of time" if Patsy had panicked and staged? How would you know how long it took, unless you were there?

On the other hand, would it take a shorter amount of time for an intruder to panick and then follow up with the garotte?

If it was an intruder, why wouldn't they just finish the job by hitting her in the head AGAIN?

And AGAIN if need be?

Patsy couldn't leave Jonbenet dead from a head blow, because it would point more to an anger/accident killing than a sexual one, so she had to follow up with the garrote, when an outside perpetrator would have just continued to bash until the victim was dead.

[deacon]

I can't imagine what you're possibly trying to say. Do you have some special way of knowing what a heart drawn by an adult would look like on the skin on the palm of a hand?

And what do you mean by "only certain types of rope could have achieved that effect" with the knots? The killer would have chosen the knots based on the type of rope at hand, not chosen the rope based on what type of knots they had decided (in advance) to use.

What is your alleged motive from this outsider-perp? Do you honestly think that brutal child sexual murderers just "touch" the kid's pajamas and then leave such a tiny bit of evidence of abuse that it can be argued against having actually occured?

Child sexual killers brutalize their victims sexually, and there's not any question about what has been done to them when they are found.
PATSY is the one who needs (well, needed) to explain. There is no evidence of anyone else having entered the house that night, having entered Jonbenet's bedroom, having written that note, having washed down and changed Jonbenet, etc., etc.

That tiny speck of DNA that was so small that it took all of these years to even identify it was not left by an intruder. Anyone who had used Jonbenet in a sexual way would have left a lot more than that.

The crime scene was completely staged - from the note, to where Jonbenet's body was put, to the way it was left there.

Everything points to it, and the FBI profilers said from day one that it was staged.

Patsy was the killer, and the stager.


This is not always the case. Some killers gain pleasure from the kill, not from having sex with the victim. Sorry.

[cookiewench]

This is not always the case. Some killers gain pleasure from the kill, not from having sex with the victim. Sorry.

Hey, deacy. Where did you hear that? Are you talking about someone like BTK? He masturbated all over his little girl victim after he'd killed her.

Perhaps you just don't realize what child sexual murderers do to their victims, because the details are so horrific that no one likes to describe them, even in true crime books.

But they don't just kill for a little thrill and then move "get off" mentally and move on. They commit extreme sexual acts upon the child.

And they don't leave ridiculous ranson notes behind, nor do they wrap the child up lovingly when they leave her/him behind.

Read the profiles. And read what the FBI profilers have to say about child sexual thrill killers, about staging, and about the pattern of staging left when a child is killed by someone close to him/her.

[rashomon]

You guys just won't accept that someone else killed JB no matter how much evidence is given to you all. Firstly did you see the heart, it looks very much like a heart drawn by someone just learning to draw with ill defined curves- actually just like my son used to draw for me when he was 5. Seems likely then that JB drew the heart there sometime that night most likely because her mum did draw them on her from time to time.
JonBenet most likely drew the heart herself. Your point being?
Secondly the noose was actually very very effective.
This was no noose slipped over the nead and pulled tight. A knot was tied on the neck and that was it. Using a handle to pull a knot tight is about as absurd as using a handle to get one's shoelaces tight. In short, this handle was totaly redundant, downright non-functional.
JB was rigid by the time she was found and that knot was still extremely embedded deep into her neck. For the type of knot used only certain types of rope could have acheived that effect and I don't think a panicking staging mum just happened to luck out there. A child can tie that knot. As for a deep furrow forming, this does not mean JonBenet was violently strangled. For she had no inner neck injuries at all - no bruises and bleeding. The only signs of asphyxia were the petechiae, but she had them also on other areas of her body (the shoulders for example)
As for the furrwow - try this out: tie some cord around your calf with an knot and you'll see that a furrow will form in minutes, sometimes even in seconds. The knot needn't even be tied very tightly, fairly tight is enough.The cord will also look embedded.
So even with no real attempt to cut off blood circulation, a furrow on the skin will form in no time.
Really I think someone in the RDI camp needs to satisfactorily explain that dna evidence before continuing to slander this poor woman and her family.
This 'poor woman's' jacket fibers were found in the wrappings of the wooden stick, on the duct tape and in the paint tray from which the paintbrush was taken.
And the handwriting samples of that 'poor woman' so eerily match the ransom note that a layperson can see she wrote the RN. Patsy did a very poor job in trying to disguise her handwriting.
As for the touch DNA - Patsy, when redressing JonBenet for the staged scene, could easily have transferred DNA from the underpants to the longjohns.
(the DNA probably got there during the manufacturing process by someone handling the garment).
This crime was an inside job indeed - John Ramsey was right. The insiders being the Ramseys themselves.

jmo

[LadyFisher]

I can't imagine what you're possibly trying to say. Do you have some special way of knowing what a heart drawn by an adult would look like on the skin on the palm of a hand?

And what do you mean by "only certain types of rope could have achieved that effect" with the knots? The killer would have chosen the knots based on the type of rope at hand, not chosen the rope based on what type of knots they had decided (in advance) to use.

What is your alleged motive from this outsider-perp? Do you honestly think that brutal child sexual murderers just "touch" the kid's pajamas and then leave such a tiny bit of evidence of abuse that it can be argued against having actually occured?

Child sexual killers brutalize their victims sexually, and there's not any question about what has been done to them when they are found.

PATSY is the one who needs (well, needed) to explain. There is no evidence of anyone else having entered the house that night, having entered Jonbenet's bedroom, having written that note, having washed down and changed Jonbenet, etc., etc.

That tiny speck of DNA that was so small that it took all of these years to even identify it was not left by an intruder. Anyone who had used Jonbenet in a sexual way would have left a lot more than that.

The crime scene was completely staged - from the note, to where Jonbenet's body was put, to the way it was left there.

Everything points to it, and the FBI profilers said from day one that it was staged.

Patsy was the killer, and the stager.No, Patsy was not the killer...she has been officially cleared.....and don't discount the importance of that DNA evidence....it will lead to the true killer.

[jmarzano]

TruTV's handling of the Jon Benet Ramsey murder investigation has hit a new low with the recent episode of 'Haunting Evidence' about this case.

For one thing regardless of what really happened a little kid was tortured and murdered and they presented it like a Linda Blair Halloween special. They went into the 'house' at precisely 3:00 AM which is a time that has significance in witchcraft and the occult. They also showed the full moon to make it more 'mysterious'.

Then the one guy has some sort of tape recorder and there must have been a scratch on the tape which makes this sound and he says it's Jon Benet talking to them from beyond the grave.

I have no doubt whatsoever that whoever produced this episode of 'Haunting Evidence' is a pedophile. You could tell they were really enjoying showing the video of Jon Benet intermixed with the gruesome murder scenes. I guess TruTv will do anything for ratings these days.

I guess the cowards who own the real house now wouldn't let the 'psychics' inside so they created a fake mockup of the house and tried to trick the audience even more.

Whenever I see that loser Lou Smit on any show about this I know it will only lead to another dead end.

Smit tells Carla that the 'stun gun' revelation is something that 'very few people know about'. That's strange because he's been saying that on national television for many years.

Psychics are not needed to determine what happened in this case anyway. I'm sure those FBI profilers like Roy Hazelwood and Gregg McCrary can tell what happened based only on the evidence that is already in the public domain. I doubt that they think any sort of intruder would behave in the way that was presented on this tv show.

When the detectives arrived at the Ramsey home after Patsy called in the 'kidnapping' Patsy was dressed in the same clothes she had on the night before. Coincidence ? I think not. If she discovered the kidnapping the next morning what was she wearing then ? Was she then calm enough to change her clothes and also put on the same thing she had worn the previous day ?

If you put the great psyhic Phil Jordan inside the real murder house he could tell what happened in about five minutes. But I doubt that if the truth really came out that TruTV would ever say it on tv.

I'm not a big fan of that hypocrite John Ramsey but if I had a daughter who was killed and they showed a tv show like this on TruTV I would be outraged.

Those three losers they call psychics on 'Haunting Evidence' made complete asses out of themselves. I predict this episode will mark the beginning of the end of this tv show.

I can't wait to see what they show tonight about the Maddy McCann case. They'll probably be out wandering in the streets again coming up will all sorts of crackpot theories that come right out of the newspapers.

However I wouldn't doubt that Smit in his fake house could have subconsciously implanted thoughts into the psychics heads. The fake house was designed specifically to prove Smit's theories.

But if a psychic can be influenced in this way they aren't any use to law enforcement.

Jeff Marzano

JonBenet by Steve Thomas and Donald A. Davis (Mass Market Paperback - Nov 15, 2000)

[Eagle1]

As in the case of JMK, at least we had a bit of distraction from the usual.

I too suspect most of their impressions were already known facts. But there have been shows on TruTV where psychics really did solve cases. I think it used to be on Wed. nights.

The sketch the "Haunting Evidence" ones gave sort of resembles Dorothy Allison's "Sketchman", right? But what do I know? Just making conversation.

[shill]

They have the killer"s DNA.
When they match it, JonBenet will have her justice and so will those who stayed IDI.

[Eagle1]

Good thought to always keep in mind.

Whether or not he matches the psychic sketches. He may.

[shill]

Hey, deacy. Where did you hear that? Are you talking about someone like BTK? He masturbated all over his little girl victim after he'd killed her.

Perhaps you just don't realize what child sexual murderers do to their victims, because the details are so horrific that no one likes to describe them, even in true crime books.

But they don't just kill for a little thrill and then move "get off" mentally and move on. They commit extreme sexual acts upon the child.

And they don't leave ridiculous ranson notes behind, nor do they wrap the child up lovingly when they leave her/him behind.

Read the profiles. And read what the FBI profilers have to say about child sexual thrill killers, about staging, and about the pattern of staging left when a child is killed by someone close to him/her.Nice to see you finally did some homework.

But did you know that the BTK comforted all his victims before he killed them?

JonBenet being covered in a blanket to hide her body is not the same as wrapping her lovingly imo.

But at least you have accepted the fact that this was a sex crime and not some bed wetting incident gone wrong.

[rashomon]

But at least you have accepted the fact that this was a sex crime and not some bed wetting incident gone wrong.
Sexual abuse may well have been at the origin of the tragedy. But not from a sexual predator. This was a family affair.
Whatever happend to JonBenet on that fatal night and ended with her being killed, the parents covered it up by staging a scene.

jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

They have the killer"s DNA.
When they match it, JonBenet will have her justice and so will those who stayed IDI.

That will never happen. It will never be matched to anyone and if it ever is matched (by some miracle), you will find out that the Ramseys played a part in this entire thing because the "intruder" isn't going to accept all of the blame and go down alone. The intruder (IF there even was one) was an accomplice. He either was involved in her murder along with the Ramseys or else he was there to help with the staging/cover up. I'd be checking the DNA of Don Paugh, Mike Bynum, the Stines. Father Rol and Dr. Beuff; just to name a few. I'd really be interested in knowing the results of the DNA test regarding Beuff. I've always considered him being called to the scene that day rather curious; considering he was only JonBenets pediatrician. On another note, wasn't it rather unethical of him to prescribe sedatives for Patsy when she wasn't even his patient?
LE needs to take a close look at the people the Ramseys didn't throw under the bus that were close friends of theirs, if they really want to match this DNA to someone. IMO

[cookiewench]

Nice to see you finally did some homework.

But did you know that the BTK comforted all his victims before he killed them?

JonBenet being covered in a blanket to hide her body is not the same as wrapping her lovingly imo.

But at least you have accepted the fact that this was a sex crime and not some bed wetting incident gone wrong.

I have been following this case from day one and have read every book on it - including the disgusting PR one put out by John & Patsy.

BTK's crime have nothing at all in common with what happened to Jonbenet. Not even close.

I don't believe that Jonbenet was the victim of sexual molestation, either by her father or an "intruder".

I think she was the victim of a bad temper and an accident that was covered up and staged.

So do most of the investigators who were involved from the beginning.

And it's a shame that you don't know how to state your case without making personal snipes at the other poster(s). That type of behavior is what has practically killed this board already.

[cookiewench]

TruTV's handling of the Jon Benet Ramsey murder investigation has hit a new low with the recent episode of 'Haunting Evidence' about this case.

For one thing regardless of what really happened a little kid was tortured and murdered and they presented it like a Linda Blair Halloween special. They went into the 'house' at precisely 3:00 AM which is a time that has significance in witchcraft and the occult. They also showed the full moon to make it more 'mysterious'.

Then the one guy has some sort of tape recorder and there must have been a scratch on the tape which makes this sound and he says it's Jon Benet talking to them from beyond the grave.

I have no doubt whatsoever that whoever produced this episode of 'Haunting Evidence' is a pedophile. You could tell they were really enjoying showing the video of Jon Benet intermixed with the gruesome murder scenes. I guess TruTv will do anything for ratings these days.

I guess the cowards who own the real house now wouldn't let the 'psychics' inside so they created a fake mockup of the house and tried to trick the audience even more.

Whenever I see that loser Lou Smit on any show about this I know it will only lead to another dead end.

Smit tells Carla that the 'stun gun' revelation is something that 'very few people know about'. That's strange because he's been saying that on national television for many years.

Psychics are not needed to determine what happened in this case anyway. I'm sure those FBI profilers like Roy Hazelwood and Gregg McCrary can tell what happened based only on the evidence that is already in the public domain. I doubt that they think any sort of intruder would behave in the way that was presented on this tv show.

When the detectives arrived at the Ramsey home after Patsy called in the 'kidnapping' Patsy was dressed in the same clothes she had on the night before. Coincidence ? I think not. If she discovered the kidnapping the next morning what was she wearing then ? Was she then calm enough to change her clothes and also put on the same thing she had worn the previous day ?

If you put the great psyhic Phil Jordan inside the real murder house he could tell what happened in about five minutes. But I doubt that if the truth really came out that TruTV would ever say it on tv.

I'm not a big fan of that hypocrite John Ramsey but if I had a daughter who was killed and they showed a tv show like this on TruTV I would be outraged.

Those three losers they call psychics on 'Haunting Evidence' made complete asses out of themselves. I predict this episode will mark the beginning of the end of this tv show.

I can't wait to see what they show tonight about the Maddy McCann case. They'll probably be out wandering in the streets again coming up will all sorts of crackpot theories that come right out of the newspapers.

However I wouldn't doubt that Smit in his fake house could have subconsciously implanted thoughts into the psychics heads. The fake house was designed specifically to prove Smit's theories.

But if a psychic can be influenced in this way they aren't any use to law enforcement.

Jeff Marzano

JonBenet by Steve Thomas and Donald A. Davis (Mass Market Paperback - Nov 15, 2000)

Ah.......Patsy just "happened" to decide to throw on the same clothes she wore the night before - jacket/blazer and everything - even though she had just gotten up and hadn't even made coffee yet.


Patsy - who had the presence of mind to deck herself out like Jackie Kennedy for her daughter's funeral service. Patsy - who was so clothes-conscious that she'd put her purse du jour on the steps for her housekeeper to so she could transfer the contents into whatever purse matched Patsy's outfit that day.

Who puts on a blazer at 5:45 am?

Who wears the same outfit for a family plane ride that they wore to a Christmas party? Who puts on full makeup (including lipstick) before they've even had their coffee and after just a few hours sleep?

And who would even dream of getting on that same plane and heading out of town when their little daughter's just been murdered and her body just taken to the morgue?

That's unheard of.