Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[inspector rex]

Just remember one thing: there's a distinction between not having enough evidence and not having enough evidence as to WHO did WHAT. There's a reason why the vast majority of cases like this are solved through gaining confessions rather than forensic evidence.

Ok, there was not enough forensic evidence either.
Not then, not now.
Otherwise we wouldn't need to discuss the case.

All we know is an unknown someone (who was not a Ramsey) left their DNA on several items of the child's intimate clothing, in several places, analysed by two laboratories. So not doubt about that.

 

[UKGuy]

Ok, there was not enough forensic evidence either.
Not then, not now.
Otherwise we wouldn't need to discuss the case.

All we know is an unknown someone (who was not a Ramsey) left their DNA on several items of the child's intimate clothing, in several places, analysed by two laboratories. So not doubt about that.

inspector rex,
There were six foreign dna samples found on JonBenet's body, none of which belonged to a Ramsey!

.

 

[BBB167893]

inspector rex,
There were six foreign dna samples found on JonBenet's body, none of which belonged to a Ramsey!

.

And none can be used in court, anyway.

 

[BBB167893]

Ok, there was not enough forensic evidence either.
Not then, not now.

Even if there was, their attorneys would just say the same damn things you guys do.

 

[Mama2JML]

And none can be used in court, anyway.

I'm not following you. Explain?...

AND, (according to Kolar) JonBenét could not be excluded as a contributor to the female sample, so that leaves 5 foreign DNA samples. All male, non-Ramsey; Potentially from the same individual b/c the samples analyzed in 1997 can't be compared to those analyzed later & vice versa.

 

[icedtea4me]

Ok, there was not enough forensic evidence either.
Not then, not now.
Otherwise we wouldn't need to discuss the case.

All we know is an unknown someone (who was not a Ramsey) left their DNA on several items of the child's intimate clothing, in several places, analysed by two laboratories. So not doubt about that.

What if that person's DNA was transferred to the rug without them being physically present that night?

Scenario #1: Mervin Pugh or Linda's son-in-law Mike help carry the Christmas trees out of the windowless Lazarus tomb-like room. One of them uses his hand to scrape up debris from the carpeting, thus depositing skin cells.

Scenario #2: Patsy inadvertently stepped where a male spat on the ground. The saliva is tracked into the house and on to the carpeting.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Ok, there was not enough forensic evidence either.
Not then, not now.
Otherwise we wouldn't need to discuss the case.

All we know is an unknown someone (who was not a Ramsey) left their DNA on several items of the child's intimate clothing, in several places, analysed by two laboratories. So not doubt about that.

BBM: There was unknown DNA on several items of JBR's clothing? I've only read about the size 12 underwear. Do you have a source for this? In addition, I wouldn't be too quick to say the DNA under JBR's fingernails did not belong to a Ramsey because the DNA could not exclude anyone (BBM):

From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenét? by James Kolar:

Scrapings from the fingernails of JonBenet's hands revealed miniscule samples of DNA that belonged to two different male subjects, and one unidentified female. The samples were too small to identify their biological origin, i.e. blood or skin cells, and investigators came to theorize that the unknown DNA samples had been transferred from contaminated fingernail clippers used in the post-mortem examinations of other bodies processed through the morgue prior to her homicide.

From JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas:

The fingernails of the left hand presented uncertain technical issues. JonBenet appeared to be the primary DNA source, but the experts could not exclude any male as the donor of a secondary source that was present. Issues included the possibility that multiple DNA had been under her nails for several days.

The experts noted no blood or skin tissue beneath the fingernails, as they often see when a victim has fought an attacker. However, DNA can be deposited by someone merely dragging their nails across their own cheek.

The fingernails of the right hand were equally ambiguous, with JonBenet again appearing to be the primary donor and once again an unidentified secondary male DNA present.

 

[Anti-K]

And none can be used in court, anyway.

Why not?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

What if that person's DNA was transferred to the rug without them being physically present that night?

Scenario #1: Mervin Pugh or Linda's son-in-law Mike help carry the Christmas trees out of the windowless Lazarus tomb-like room. One of them uses his hand to scrape up debris from the carpeting, thus depositing skin cells.

Scenario #2: Patsy inadvertently stepped where a male spat on the ground. The saliva is tracked into the house and on to the carpeting.

Still wouldn’t explain the DNA being on the inside crotch of the panties, and on the outside of both sides of the leggings.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: There was unknown DNA on several items of JBR's clothing? I've only read about the size 12 underwear. Do you have a source for this? In addition, I wouldn't be too quick to say the DNA under JBR's fingernails did not belong to a Ramsey because the DNA could not exclude anyone (BBM):

It is not true that the fingernail DNA “could not exclude anyone,” and, I’m pretty sure it was used to exclude persons before the CODIS sample came along.

The DNA was found on the panties and on the leggings.
...

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

Still wouldn’t explain the DNA being on the inside crotch of the panties, and on the outside of both sides of the leggings.
...

AK

JonBenet was face down on the carpeting when she urinated. Her wet clothing could have soaked up any DNA that was on that rug.

 

[OliviaG1996]

It is not true that the fingernail DNA “could not exclude anyone,” and, I’m pretty sure it was used to exclude persons before the CODIS sample came along.

The DNA was found on the panties and on the leggings.
...

AK

So, Steve Thomas and James Kolar were both mistaken, once again? Or were they both lying again?

Oh, okay, the longjohns. Doesn't explain the "several" wording of inspector rex's post. "Several" means more than two items. You don't find it strange how the samples on the longjohns were even smaller than the microscopic samples on the crotch area of the underwear?

 

[Anti-K]

JonBenet was face down on the carpeting when she urinated. Her wet clothing could have soaked up any DNA that was on that rug.

No.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

So, Steve Thomas and James Kolar were both mistaken, once again? Or were they both lying again?

Oh, okay, the longjohns. Doesn't explain the "several" wording of inspector rex's post. "Several" means more than two items. You don't find it strange how the samples on the longjohns were even smaller than the microscopic samples on the crotch area of the underwear?

I’m not sure what you’re referring to, re: Thomas and Kolar being mistaken, or lying.

I wasn’t explaining the Inspector’s “wording.”

No, I don’t find it strange that the tDNA samples were smaller (whatever that means) than the CODIS sample.
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to, re: Thomas and Kolar being mistaken, or lying.

I'm mainly referring to some IDIs' (not yours, by any means) denial of any evidence provided by Thomas or Kolar that doesn't fit their theories. I've provided two sources stating no one could be excluded from being the owner of the DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails. You denied it was true. Either you're saying the person(s)/source(s) I've provided were mistaken or they're spreading misinformation knowingly, i.e. lying. Or, that I'm somehow misunderstanding what both of them are saying. Which is it?

I wasn’t explaining the Inspector’s “wording.”

I know. I was.

No, I don’t find it strange that the tDNA samples were smaller (whatever that means) than the CODIS sample.

"Weaker"/"smaller". I'm not a DNA expert, so forgive my terminology.


Also, I've provided my sources, so can you please provide the source you're getting this information from?:

It is not true that the fingernail DNA “could not exclude anyone,”

<SNIPPED>

 

[Anti-K]

I'm mainly referring to some IDIs' (not yours, by any means) denial of any evidence provided by Thomas or Kolar that doesn't fit their theories. I've provided two sources stating no one could be excluded from being the owner of the DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails. You denied it was true. Either you're saying the person(s)/source(s) I've provided were mistaken or they're spreading misinformation knowingly, i.e. lying. Or, that I'm somehow misunderstanding what both of them are saying. Which is it?



I know. I was.



"Weaker"/"smaller". I'm not a DNA expert, so forgive my terminology.


Also, I've provided my sources, so can you please provide the source you're getting this information from?:

&#8220;The DNA found under Jonbenet&#8217;s fingernails showed the possibility of contamination. Nevertheless, the police claimed that they had been able to exclude certain people by these DNA tests.&#8221; PMPT; p. 958
.

Your Kolar quote only states that they could not determine the biological source (blood, skin, saliva, etc) of fingernail DNA. This is different from saying that no person could be excluded.

The Thomas quote, that &#8220;experts could not exclude any male&#8221; MUST be wrong IF any markers were identified.
Also, note that Thomas did not write &#8220;no one&#8221; as you wrongly claim. He wrote, no &#8220;male.&#8221;

We don&#8217;t need a source to disprove Thomas on this point (no male could be excluded). We only need to understand the basics of forensic DNA.

If the DNA is male, than all females can be excluded; if the DNA is female, than all males can be excluded. If a single marker is identified, than ALL persons not matching that marker can be excluded. That&#8217;s just the way it works.
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

“The DNA found under Jonbenet’s fingernails showed the possibility of contamination. Nevertheless, the police claimed that they had been able to exclude certain people by these DNA tests.” PMPT; p. 958

BBM: Nowhere here does it state the DNA excluded the Ramseys. That would be an assumption. Here's another quote from PMPT:

From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller:

However, the CBI pointed out that the material found under her fingernails showed signs of contamination and the markers on the DNA typing were weak.

...

Your Kolar quote only states that they could not determine the biological source (blood, skin, saliva, etc) of fingernail DNA. This is different from saying that no person could be excluded.

How can you exclude someone if the biological origin is unknown?

The Thomas quote, that “experts could not exclude any male” MUST be wrong IF any markers were identified.
Also, note that Thomas did not write “no one” as you wrongly claim. He wrote, no “male.”

Thomas wrote (IBM), "JonBenet appeared to be the primary DNA source,". That seems to be an assumption on his part, so it does in fact mean, "no one".

We don’t need a source to disprove Thomas on this point (no male could be excluded). We only need to understand the basics of forensic DNA.

If the DNA is male, than all females can be excluded; if the DNA is female, than all males can be excluded. If a single marker is identified, than ALL persons not matching that marker can be excluded. That’s just the way it works.

(See PMPT quote above.)

Speaking of markers, the required amount of markers in order for DNA to become relevant in a case is ten. This case had four. That doesn't speak for itself?

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM: Nowhere here does it state the DNA excluded the Ramseys. That would be an assumption. Here's another quote from PMPT:



...



How can you exclude someone if the biological origin is unknown?

DNA is DNA, regardless of the origin. ...unless you're referring to mitochondrial DNA which obviously doesn't apply to the samples collected from the victim's fingernails, panties, and longjohns.

Thomas wrote (IBM), "JonBenet appeared to be the primary DNA source,". That seems to be an assumption on his part, so it does in fact mean, "no one".



(See PMPT quote above.)

Speaking of markers, the required amount of markers in order for DNA to become relevant in a case is ten. This case had four. That doesn't speak for itself?

No, b/c the four (or five) of 7 markers sample was collected before CODIS, & before STR analysis, became the standard.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: Nowhere here does it state the DNA excluded the Ramseys. That would be an assumption. Here's another quote from PMPT:



...



How can you exclude someone if the biological origin is unknown?



Thomas wrote (IBM), "JonBenet appeared to be the primary DNA source,". That seems to be an assumption on his part, so it does in fact mean, "no one".



(See PMPT quote above.)

Speaking of markers, the required amount of markers in order for DNA to become relevant in a case is ten. This case had four. That doesn't speak for itself?

Hi OliviaG1996,

The &#8220;biological origin&#8221; of the DNA has no meaning as far as exclusion/inclusion goes because regardless of the &#8220;biological origin&#8221; it&#8217;s all the same DNA.

The fingernail DNA was analyzed in the days before the 13 (or, 10) markers used by CODIS were developed. In those days there was no real standard. Some kits targeted four markers, some five, some six, etc. IIRC, in this case (fingernail/first panty blood spot) five markers were targeted (looked for, analyzed).

Markers are simply specific locations on the DNA strand.

It sort of works like this: PRETEND that the markers give simple, broad information like weight, height, hair color, eye color, and body type. Marker One is weight, Marker Two is height, Marker Three is eye color, Marker Four is eye color and Marker Five is body type.

A test may identify all 5 markers, but maybe only 4, or 3, or 2, or 1 is identified. Let&#8217;s say it is only one marker and that it is the marker for eye color and that the marker says the eyes are blue. We can now exclude/eliminate EVERYONE who does not have blue eyes.

One marker is all it takes to exclude someone. It really is that simple. If the fingernail DNA revealed one marker (it did, at least one) than people could be (and were) eliminated.
.

Speaking of markers, the number of markers required by CODIS is for the purpose of IDENTICATION. Right now, we&#8217;re talking about EXCLUSION.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

IMO I can't see how the fingernail DNA could have been used to eliminate anybody as a suspect. Sure you could eliminate certain people as being the source of it but there is absolutely no evidence that the fingernail DNA was linked to the crime. So even though your argument that as long as one marker is identified, people could be eliminated is valid, you neglect to point out that they could only be eliminated as a donor, not as a suspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk