Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[UKGuy]

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

andreww,
Excellent. This demonstrates the fatal weakness in the IDI position, i.e. they have the process back to front, exclusion with no identification.

You need to match the foreign dna samples with named persons then eliminate them as they have alibis, worked in a clothing factory etc, or were an associate of the autopsy staff, thereby transferring touch-dna, etc.

All this talk of eliminating someone of the basis of one non-matching marker is fraudulent, the case might be RDI, specifically BDI, yet since we have 6 foreign touch-dna samples found on JonBenet, and none of these will match a Ramsey, voila they are eliminated.

.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Hi OliviaG1996,

The “biological origin” of the DNA has no meaning as far as exclusion/inclusion goes because regardless of the “biological origin” it’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’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’re talking about EXCLUSION.
...

AK

Ah, I see. Thank you for the information. I can now see how one marker identified can exclude somebody from being the owner of the DNA but, as andreww and UKGuy have said, not from being a suspect. There was no blood or flesh underneath her fingernails, as we often see in victims who tried to fight off their attackers in self-defense, and there were signs of contamination during the process of collecting clippings of JBR's fingernails where the DNA possibly came from.

 

[Anti-K]

Ah, I see. Thank you for the information. I can now see how one marker identified can exclude somebody from being the owner of the DNA but, as andreww and UKGuy have said, not from being a suspect. There was no blood or flesh underneath her fingernails, as we often see in victims who tried to fight off their attackers in self-defense, and there were signs of contamination during the process of collecting clippings of JBR's fingernails where the DNA possibly came from.

Yes, OliviaG1996. You, Andreww and UKGuy (gasp!) are right on this – eliminate as DNA donor only – not as suspect.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

andreww,
Excellent. This demonstrates the fatal weakness in the IDI position, i.e. they have the process back to front, exclusion with no identification.

You need to match the foreign dna samples with named persons then eliminate them as they have alibis, worked in a clothing factory etc, or were an associate of the autopsy staff, thereby transferring touch-dna, etc.

All this talk of eliminating someone of the basis of one non-matching marker is fraudulent, the case might be RDI, specifically BDI, yet since we have 6 foreign touch-dna samples found on JonBenet, and none of these will match a Ramsey, voila they are eliminated.

.

No, there were NOT 6 foreign tDNA samples found on the victim. This is misinformation. tDNA was found on both sides of the leggings, and on the wrist ligature and on the garrotte. The other DNA found (fingernail, panties) was NOT tDNA.
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

Yes, OliviaG1996. You, Andreww and UKGuy (gasp!) are right on this – eliminate as DNA donor only – not as suspect.
...

AK

Tell that to Mary Lacy.

 

[Mama2JML]

Tell that to Mary Lacy.

Mary Lacy's public statement, 07.09.08:

(B&UBM)

On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.

The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA.

As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.

The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA. The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available. Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.

In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.

In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA. The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as “touch DNA.” One method for sampling for touch DNA is the “scraping method.” In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.

In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.

DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation. We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.

The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.

Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.

It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice. That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion. In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme. The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.

For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime. We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another. To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology."​

​

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/district-attorney-mary-lacy-s-statement-about-dna-evidence

 

[BoldBear]

In Foreign Faction, James Kolar also talks about how the exoneration letter was an embarrassment to Mary Lacy. "It was one thing to announce the findings of new DNA testing results, but it was quite another to take the next step and publically clear the family of any involvement in the death of their daughter." Kolar had a very good argument in his book for how much of an embarrassment it was to ML.

If only Mary Lacy would have explained more about 'touch DNA', but that would have been bad for her too. I don't think she would have ever done it. It wouldn't have helped her argument.

All my opinion except for the quote. That belongs to James Kolar.

 

[andreww]

Interesting that Lacy used the new scraping technology to find DNA on the waistband, then gave up on finding anything new. Did they scrape the nightie? Did they scrape the blanket? Did they scrape any of the clothes worn that day? What if matching DNA was found on the outfit she wore to the Whites for instance?

Lacy makes a huge jump here that is simply not logical. She speaks for the BPD saying it is their opinion, yet I've never heard any such statement from a BPD official.

On the contrary, I have seen nothing but efforts to steer the investigation away from the Ramsey's from the very beginning, despite the fact that BPD was telling them the Ramsey's were likely responsible. Why?

It would not surprise me in the least if the results of the scraping test were bogus, a ploy to take public attention off a case that had been a thorn in their sides for years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

In Foreign Faction, James Kolar also talks about how the exoneration letter was an embarrassment to Mary Lacy. "It was one thing to announce the findings of new DNA testing results, but it was quite another to take the next step and publically clear the family of any involvement in the death of their daughter." Kolar had a very good argument in his book for how much of an embarrassment it was to ML.

Kolar's interpretation of Lacy's statement differs from mine. It is not an exoneration, IMO. She took a stance, unpopular among LEOs in the BPD, but that's hardly an embarrassment. ...especially considering this case has received an abundant supply of 'embarrassing' statements, moments, actions, judgements, etc. on behalf of the BPD & the BDA's office.

What, exactly, does Kolar find 'embarrassing'? He seems to have overlooked elements essential to understanding Lacy's statement: (BBM)

"The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.

Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media."​

​

DA Lacy didn't "clear" the Ramseys. She simply afforded them a right they had been denied for over 10 years; the presumption of innocence.

If only Mary Lacy would have explained more about 'touch DNA', but that would have been bad for her too. I don't think she would have ever done it. It wouldn't have helped her argument.

All my opinion except for the quote. That belongs to James Kolar.

I'm not following you. How would you "enhance" her explanation? AND, what do you mean by, "It wouldn't have helped her argument."?

 

[Detective Pinkie]

inspector rex,
I'll tell you what does cut it is people like you citing no probable cause because there is no evidence to back it up, then proceeding to draw conclusions on the absence of evidence.

This tells me you are simply making stuff up, you are wasting time and space on this forum, including all your IDI fellow travellors, even if I cannot prove it, the case is 100% RDI!

Why because there is absolutely no, I repeat zero forensic evidence linking anyone outside of the Ramsey family to the death of JonBenet.

This is why IDI resort to critiquing RDI theories, i.e. they do not have a coherent IDI theory to present.

Does any IDI theory explain why 6 different touch-dna samples were found on JonBenet's body?

.

Thank you UKGuy. I wanted to call rex on this but you did it for me. IDI keep saying that there was not enough evidence for the case to be tried so that is why Hunter didn't prosecute, but that is speculation. We don't know what the GJ saw so we don't know what evidence their decision was based on.

Hunter's words at that press conference were to make people think that the GJ chose not to indict anyone for anything, in my opinion, I wouldn't take them at face value.

 

[UKGuy]

Kolar's interpretation of Lacy's statement differs from mine. It is not an exoneration, IMO. She took a stance, unpopular among LEOs in the BPD, but that's hardly an embarrassment. ...especially considering this case has received an abundant supply of 'embarrassing' statements, moments, actions, judgements, etc. on behalf of the BPD & the BDA's office.

What, exactly, does Kolar find 'embarrassing'? He seems to have overlooked elements essential to understanding Lacy's statement: (BBM)

"The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.

Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media."​

​

DA Lacy didn't "clear" the Ramseys. She simply afforded them a right they had been denied for over 10 years; the presumption of innocence.

I'm not following you. How would you "enhance" her explanation? AND, what do you mean by, "It wouldn't have helped her argument."?

Mama2JML,

"The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.
​

All this is just rhetoric, i.e.

We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence.

Precisely what evidence was previously exculpatory?

Why is this rhetoric?

Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media."

​

ML's assertions have similarly not been tested in court. A simple explanation for the touch-dna found in three separate locations is that JonBenet transferred it by hand when she used the bathroom at the White's.

ML's mistake was to exonerate the Ramsey's on the basis of foreign dna samples, but only the ones that support her erroneous reasoning, without identifying the dna donors, and possibly eliminating them, since they might have a cast iron alibi!

You do a good job in demonstrating why the IDI position is incoherent and lacking in integrity.

.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Mary Lacy's public statement, 07.09.08:

<SNIPPED>

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim&#8217;s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

<SNIPPED>

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/district-attorney-mary-lacy-s-statement-about-dna-evidence

It is because of the bolded statement that I think Lacy was irresponsibly biased when it came to the Ramseys' alleged innocence. She says (UBM), "concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.". Why does Lacy assume that since she believes there's no "innocent explanation" the Ramseys must not be responsible? I'm guessing she never thought of the "factory worker" theory? Or does she just not want to believe it could be true?

The DNA from the underwear could have easily transferred to the sides of the longjohns because the same person(s) handling the underwear obviously handled the longjohns. The DNA could have made their way onto the perpetrator's gloves from the underwear onto the sides of the longjohns. Voila, Mary Lacy! There's an explanation.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Hi OliviaG1996

In an earlier post you mentioned something about Kolar saying that the tDNA on the leggings was weaker than the CODIS sample. I forget which post, and I forget your exact words. Anyway, I realize that some of this DNA stuff can be a little confusing and I am hoping that I can help you better understand some of it.

This is what &#8220;weak&#8221; means: when a DNA sample is processed/analyzed the results show as peaks on a graph. Ideally, for each marker there are two peaks (one peak from Mom and one from Dad; or, both peaks from Mom; or, both peaks from Dad).

If there are more than two peaks than we are looking at a mixed sample.

If the peaks on the graph are high than the result is strong, if the peaks are low than the result is weak.

The stronger the peaks the more certain the results.

If the leggings DNA sample was weaker than the CODIS sample than it simply means that the peaks on the graph were lower and it tells us nothing about how many markers were found (cold be less, but could be MORE).

I hope this didn&#8217;t make things more confusing for you.

As an aside, Kolar used the term &#8220;weak&#8221; correctly sometimes and sometimes incorrectly. For this and other reasons I have the impression that he doesn&#8217;t really understand the subject.
...

AK

Thank you, AK. DNA can be very difficult to understand and you've made it much easier.

 

[andreww]

The DNA from the underwear could have easily transferred to the sides of the longjohns because the same person(s) handling the underwear obviously handled the longjohns. The DNA could have made their way onto the perpetrator's gloves from the underwear onto the sides of the longjohns. Voila, Mary Lacy! There's an explanation.

Exactly. DNA at a crime scene, and we're not talking about semen or a huge blood stain here, means nothing unless you match it to someone. Its meaningless. Its akin to saying "we found this one unidentified fingerprint at a murder scene, and although all the evidence seems to point at one suspect, we will not make an arrest until we determine the origins of that print". DNA and fingerprints are not time stamped. The could have got there at any time, and in the case of microscopic DNA samples, can be very easily transferred. It defies logic to assume that the DNA found on the underwear is that of the murderer. It may be, but it may not be. Its a dead end, does that mean you close the books on the case and say "oh well"?

 

[questfortrue]

It is because of the bolded statement that I think Lacy was irresponsibly biased when it came to the Ramseys' alleged innocence. She says (UBM), "concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.". Why does Lacy assume that since she believes there's no "innocent explanation" the Ramseys must not be responsible? I'm guessing she never thought of the "factory worker" theory? Or does she just not want to believe it could be true?

The DNA from the underwear could have easily transferred to the sides of the longjohns because the same person(s) handling the underwear obviously handled the longjohns. The DNA could have made their way onto the perpetrator's gloves from the underwear onto the sides of the longjohns. Voila, Mary Lacy! There's an explanation.

~RBBM~
Let’s also not forget that, as noted in FF, Lacy had a personal relationship with the Rs. Her new spouse was close to a power broker in Boulder who was tied to JR, his landlord and ‘friend’ as it were (furnishing a member of his family to JR as a bodyguard). What does the CO Bar say about this – oh, yeah, avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But such things didn’t and don’t matter in Boulder apparently.

It’s been my impression that the sounds bites about ML and the DNA carried by MSM have been very effective in the court of public opinion. Probably many or most folks unfamiliar with the case think there was an “official” action against the Rs, as though they were charged with the homicide of their daughter, but the DNA “cleared” them.

Fortunately, however, there were still some voices in the wilderness providing an alternate take on this.

http://www.westword.com/news/reader-former-da-mary-lacy-is-the-one-who-was-touched-5122486
"Touch" DNA? Seems like former DA Mary Lacy is the one who was ‘touched.’ She should be charged for writing that letter exonerating the Ramseys.
HS, Boulder

University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration’ in the Rocky Mountain News. He went on to state, “Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy. Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.”

‘ Course we also know the JMK and the DNA debacle soiled her image a tad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/us/30ramsey.html?_r=0
“Ms. Lacy is facing a storm of criticism from scores of local residents who have been calling her and sending her e-mail messages to tell her she should be “tarred and feathered.” Gov Bill Owens said that she should be “held responsible for the most expensive DNA test in Colorado history.”

David Hansanyi, columnist The Denver Post -
The focus here is Mary Lacy’s irresponsible, unprofessional and hypocritical behavior. For anyone who still doubts Lacy’s breathtaking incompetence, peruse these quotes from a piece by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was an investigative reporter on the case. (Yes, I realize Shapiro has his own bias, but the Lacy quotes speak for themselves.)
In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: “The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else.”
And …
In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that “no one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone.”
What has changed for Lacy? If she didn’t know then that the DNA was the killer’s, how does she know it now? If DNA was there, finding a trace amount in another spot doesn’t change any facts. Nor does it “clear” the Ramseys.

The statutes of limitations have run out on the charges in the True Bill. The statute of limitations isn’t about to run out in the court of public opinion. Perhaps Charlie Brennan’s prediction will be confirmed in the future: There will be more truths to come.

 

[BoldBear]

I'm not following you. How would you "enhance" her explanation? AND, what do you mean by, "It wouldn't have helped her argument."?

Everyone here has already answered most of this, but since you asked the question...

We've all grown to expect great things from DNA. Specifically from blood, semon and saliva. Touch DNA is a different critter. It can come from only a few skin cells and will link back to the originator. The only problem is the ease of transferring this type of DNA. If you go to a movie theater and sit in a seat, you've just inadvertently picked-up touch DNA. If you have a friend over and empty your laundry onto the sofa where your friend sat so you can fold it, your laundry just inadvertently picked up touch DNA from your friend. If someone borrows your coat, you've just transferred touch DNA. If you shake someone's hand.

I don't think that Mary Lacy wanted to explain any of that to the general public--it wouldn't have helped her. I'll even go so far as to say that her letter was an attempt to deceive the public because she didn't explain how touch DNA could be transferred. Even if they did manage to get a DNA match, then they'd have to put the suspect at the murder scene. Please show me how that's done when your evidence is touch DNA? Whoever this person was may never have been anywhere near the windowless room. The transfer to or from the panties could have come from those clothes rubbing together as JBR was being dressed.

I'd love to grab onto the touch DNA, jump up and down and shout, "We have it! We have it!" The only problem is we don't got it. They'll keep looking for the match to the touch DNA and we'll all hope that the match will mean something if they ever find it. Until then, we look to the other evidence.

This is all my own opinion.

 

[BBB167893]

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

Here you go:

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=biology

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.

Like Henry Lee himself said, DNA was useless in half the cases where it was found back when you actually needed samples of reasonable size.

 

[BBB167893]

In Foreign Faction, James Kolar also talks about how the exoneration letter was an embarrassment to Mary Lacy. "It was one thing to announce the findings of new DNA testing results, but it was quite another to take the next step and publically clear the family of any involvement in the death of their daughter." Kolar had a very good argument in his book for how much of an embarrassment it was to ML.

If only Mary Lacy would have explained more about 'touch DNA', but that would have been bad for her too. I don't think she would have ever done it. It wouldn't have helped her argument.

All my opinion except for the quote. That belongs to James Kolar.

WHat a lot of people might not know, BoldBear--or perhaps hope others don't know--is that ML had been on the Ramseys' side for quite a while before that. It's no different than an outgoing president issuing pardons. (I believe it was Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman who said that.)

 

[BBB167893]

ML's mistake was to exonerate the Ramsey's on the basis of foreign dna samples, but only the ones that support her erroneous reasoning, without identifying the dna donors, and possibly eliminating them, since they might have a cast iron alibi!

You do a good job in demonstrating why the IDI position is incoherent and lacking in integrity.

.

I would have used much stronger language than that, UKGuy. And I'll leave it at that.

 

[Anti-K]

Interesting that Lacy used the new scraping technology to find DNA on the waistband, then gave up on finding anything new. Did they scrape the nightie? Did they scrape the blanket? Did they scrape any of the clothes worn that day? What if matching DNA was found on the outfit she wore to the Whites for instance?

Lacy makes a huge jump here that is simply not logical. She speaks for the BPD saying it is their opinion, yet I've never heard any such statement from a BPD official.

On the contrary, I have seen nothing but efforts to steer the investigation away from the Ramsey's from the very beginning, despite the fact that BPD was telling them the Ramsey's were likely responsible. Why?

It would not surprise me in the least if the results of the scraping test were bogus, a ploy to take public attention off a case that had been a thorn in their sides for years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andreww, according to Kolar tDNA was also found on the Barbie nightgown, the wrist ligature and the garrote.

Investigators are mainly interested in looking for trace evidence in locations where they might expect to find evidence left by a victim’s assailant. It would not be practical, and in many cases reasonable, to do anything more than that.

Investigators are mainly interested in looking for trace evidence in INCRIMINATING locations. Yes, the bad guy could have left evidence in non-incriminating locations, but what are they going to do with that?

As for being a ploy, do you think BODE would go for that? EVEN BDI favorite Kolar accepts the results of the testing.
...

AK