Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[Anti-K]

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.

The claim that there was not enough evidence for the case to be tried is not an exclusively IDI claim.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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"?

It is not true that trace evidence is meaningless unless it can be sourced to someone. Trace evidence is meaningful because of where it is found. It becomes meaningless only if it can be innocently explained. So far, in this case, that has not happened.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

Hi BoldBear
I have to disagree with much of what you’ve posted here.

First, I think it’s important to note that the tDNA merely validates the CODIS (non-tDNA) sample. No one is trying to find a match for the tDNA. They are trying to match the CODIS (non-tDNA) sample.

Also, tDNA does not transfer as readily or easily as you propose and many studies on the matter bear this out. If DNA did transfer as you suggest than Mr and Mrs Ramsey’s (and, Burke’s, and the White’s, etc) DNA should have been found everywhere that DNA was looked for.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

It is because of the bolded statement that I think Lacy was irresponsibly biased when it came to the Ramseys' alleged innocence.

I don't see how anyone can dispute that at this point, OliviaG.

I want to make something perfectly clear: when ML took over as DA, I didn't know much about her. Whatever hope I had died a fast death.

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?

John Douglas implied the latter very strongly.

 

[BBB167893]

~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 went WAY beyond the appearance of impropriety. Far as I'm concerned, the governor should take over this case and call a grand jury to investigate the DA's office, the Haddon Firm, Lin Wood's law practice and a few other things.

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.

Sadly, Josef Goebbels was right.

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

Now that's funny!

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.”

What's that old saw? "When you're right, you're right."

 

[BOESP]

It is not true that trace evidence is meaningless unless it can be sourced to someone. Trace evidence is meaningful because of where it is found. It becomes meaningless only if it can be innocently explained. So far, in this case, that has not happened.
...

AK

BBM. Were the technicians able to determine if the tDNA came from primary transfer because it is certainly possible that JonBenet or Patsy transferred the material from their hands to the underwear and long johns or that DNA on the new size-12 underwear contained transferable DNA. I can think of other ways touch DNA can transfer and not be from the original donor but let the above suffice.

Until that DNA is sourced it is just a piece of data that doesn't currently fit and may or may not ever fit.

Deciding this case only on unsourced DNA is ludicrous.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM. Were the technicians able to determine if the tDNA came from primary transfer because it is certainly possible that JonBenet or Patsy transferred the material from their hands to the underwear and long johns or that DNA on the new size-12 underwear contained transferable DNA. I can think of other ways touch DNA can transfer and not be from the original donor but let the above suffice.

Until that DNA is sourced it is just a piece of data that doesn't currently fit and may or may not ever fit.

Deciding this case only on unsourced DNA is ludicrous.

It is not possible to tell if a sample came from primary transfer; however, primary transfer is always the likeliest method of transfer and secondary (and, further) transfer most often results in mixed profiles Person A transfers their own DNA along with Person B’s DNA).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Innocent (secondary) transfer scenarios are necessarily complex.

The DNA came from someone. It didn’t come from any of the likeliest person’s (200+ tested/cleared). But, it came from someone. Let’s call this someone Person A.

With secondary transfer, Person B (jbr, or Mrs Ramsey, etc) transfers Person A’s DNA. Person B transfers Person A’s DNA, but they do not transfer their own DNA. They transfer Person A’s DNA but not their own to three separate locations. Three separate, incriminating locations.

One of these locations is the interior crotch of the victim’s panties and the other two locations are the exterior, sides of the victim’s leggings.

Person B picks up Person A’s DNA. Perhaps they touch an object that was previously handled by Person A.

Let’s PRETEND that you (the reader) are Person B and let’s PRETEND that the DNA is wet paint. There’s wet paint EVERYWHERE.

The paint is a color not seen in your home nor in any of the 200+ places that investigators looked for it.

But, somehow you get a VERY SMALL amount of this wet paint on your fingers.

For an innocent transfer theory to work you would have to keep that wet paint on your fingers until you dress jbr for bed. If you touch anything else – door handles, other people, your boots, your coat, Christmas gifts, blankets, etc – you’re going to transfer that wet paint and there won’t be any left to transfer to the leggings (or, inside crotch of panties). So, someone else has to undress jbr. If you undress her you will transfer that very small amount of wet paint to the clothes that you remove and there won’t be any left to transfer to the leggings and the inside crotch of the panties.

In addition to a very small amount of wet paint of unknown origin on your fingers you also have a lot of wet paint of a different color on your fingers. That color did come from your home. We know it’s yours. You have to transfer the small amount of wet paint of unknown origin without transferring any of your own color. You have to transfer it (u=paint of unknown origin) to yourself and then not transfer it away (or transfer any other wet paint – remember, there’s wet paint EVERYWHERE) until you touch the victim in three separate and incriminating locations (one inside crotch of panties!).

It’s a complicated affair, indeed; and not really believable.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

It is not possible to tell if a sample came from primary transfer; however, primary transfer is always the likeliest method of transfer and secondary (and, further) transfer most often results in mixed profiles Person A transfers their own DNA along with Person B’s DNA).
...

AK

Well, I'm a little bullheaded. I need to know for sure before I make a conclusion.

There's always the possibility of direct contamination due to sloppy handling or processing. Also, I'd want to know if everyone who helped JonBenet in the bathroom was tested (in addition to the other possible explanations already mentioned).

Do you know if the sample found was mixed? I don't remember reading whether or not a statement was made on that? TIA

 

[OliviaG1996]

For anyone confused about what DNA was found, their markers, and other important details (God knows I was), here's a very informative post belonging to cynic, found on Forums For Justice:

There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles – five male profiles and one female profile.
DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides.
In addition to JonBenet’s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified male #1
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified male #2, and a unique unknown female profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)
The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified male #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers)

The above profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Touch DNA (TDNA) testing, all presumably done at the Bode facility revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings – male #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the “garrote” – male #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)

(Also, TDNA on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét was identified as belonging to BR and PR.)

A full CODIS profile has 13 markers; any profile with fewer markers is a partial profile. All DNA profiles in this case are partial profiles
The highest quality DNA, and the only profile in this case that has been entered in the CODIS database, at 10 markers, is Distal Stain 007-2
All other DNA is weaker, in other words, less markers.

Kolar’s book confirmed the speculation that the profile from one of the blood spots that eventually ended up in CODIS originally had only 9 markers.
The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers, and like the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails, was of insufficient strength to be entered into the state and national databases. Moreover, the sample was so small that technicians were not able to identify the biological origin of the exemplar.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

Eventually a 10th marker was identified which then met the minimum standard for entry into CODIS:

DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department’s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in JonBenét’s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases. This laboratory success didn’t take place until 2002, nearly 6 years after the murder of JonBenét
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 303 - 304

The profiles found from the fingernail clippings of JonBenet were presumably not from the non-sterile nail clippers that the coroner was in the habit of using.
(However, to the best of my knowledge, clippers are not used in medical autopsies, only in autopsies performed for legal reasons. I don’t know the reasons for those eight prior autopsies. Therefore, as an example, if the last time the clippers were actually used was 10 autopsies ago it would have missed by this screening process.)
Investigators were able to obtain the DNA samples from eight (8) of the autopsy examinations that preceded that of JonBenét. These samples were analyzed, but none of these matched the unknown male and female samples collected from JonBenét’s fingernails. Perhaps more disappointing, was the fact that the unknown samples lacked sufficient identifying markers that permitted their entry into the state and national DNA databases.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138

Amylase or something else?
Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, and it had been theorized by other investigators in the case that someone involved in the production phase of this clothing article could have been the source of this unknown DNA sample. It was thought that this could have been deposited there by coughing, sneezing, or spitting or through a simple transfer of saliva on the hands of a garment handler.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 137 - 138

The only test that “flashes blue,” in the presence of amylase is the Phadebas test. Take note of some of the things which can produce a false positive:
What is the Phadebas Press Test? How specific is it and what can cause a false positive result?
The Phadebas Press Test uses a filterpaper “test sheet” impregnated with an insoluble starch-dye complex. The test sheets are moistened with sterile water and then laid on an article of evidence. Saliva present on the item being examined will contain α-amylase that will hydrolyze the starch in the overlying area of the test sheet. This process releases a blue dye to form a blue stain that co-localizes with the position of the saliva stain. Areas of the evidence that do not contain α-amylase should not show the presence of a blue stain. Phadebas Press Test provides only a presumptive indication of saliva and is not human specific. This test is known to yield false positive results with fecal samples and some investigators have reported positive results with vaginal swabs, human milk, some plant materials and the saliva of animals including dogs and cats. Positive results have also been reported as very likely resulting from secondary transfer of saliva (e.g., from the hands to an article of clothing).
http://forsci-associates.com/serologysaliva.html

Pro and con for the “sweatshop” theory
Pro:
The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 304
Con:
Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear
[SNIP]
He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 304 - 305

Conclusions (from the book.)

Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 305

The same theoretical principles of transfer thought to be involved in the DNA collected from beneath JonBenét’s nails could be applied to the transfer of genetic material from her underwear to the leggings. “Cloth to cloth” transfer could be responsible for this new evidence.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 427

I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 305

Thank you for this post, cynic. It helped me a lot.

Post:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10137-DNA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book

 

[Anti-K]

Well, I'm a little bullheaded. I need to know for sure before I make a conclusion.

There's always the possibility of direct contamination due to sloppy handling or processing. Also, I'd want to know if everyone who helped JonBenet in the bathroom was tested (in addition to the other possible explanations already mentioned).

Do you know if the sample found was mixed? I don't remember reading whether or not a statement was made on that? TIA

DNA contamination is the inadvertent introduction of foreign DNA to a sample that occurs during the collection, storage and/or processing stage. We can rule this out because persons associated with these processes were tested (as well as samples from the previous 8 autopsies conducted).

The tDNA samples were not mixed. The CODIS sample was mixed with the victim’s blood.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

Thanks Anti-K.

The mixed sample has several possible explanations for who could have been the contributors.

Regardless of the DNA, we still have two detectives (one since the tDNA was found), the FBI, a Grand Jury, and others who believe one or more Ramsey family members were involved in JonBenet's death.

Appreciate your responses.

 

[CorallaroC]

For anyone confused about what DNA was found, their markers, and other important details (God knows I was), here's a very informative post belonging to cynic, found on Forums For Justice:



Thank you for this post, cynic. It helped me a lot.

Post:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10137-DNA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book

Thank you Olivia for referencing Cynic's original post. This is worth re-read and when one thinks they got it, read again - because its very technical and the facts behind it need to be fully digested.

thanks again. RE-READ POST #331 by Olivia

 

[BoldBear]

Cloth to cloth transfer. Too silly a thought to even bother commenting. Good grief.

My skepticism with touch DNA is to classify it with all the other forms of DNA science. If it wasn't based on something as small as skin cells, cells that can be transferred, I'd buy into it. It is a relatively new science. It doesn't have the court track record that saliva, semen and blood have. I don't think the small sample of what 'could' be saliva is enough evidence.

If only there were examples of other cases where touch DNA was the only evidence, you'd have more of a convincing case.

The argument I see is that this evidence was found here and here and here; and since it was found in so many areas, it must put the murderer at the scene. I don't see it as saying any such thing. The only thing it does say is that if they ever found a match, then they'd need to do more investigation. Once that happens, the only thing the suspect will need to do is to deny, deny, deny. (Does that sound familiar?) It may belong to the murder and it might not. It is not conclusive. So how does it dismiss any of the other suspects?

 

[UKGuy]

Until the touch-dna is identified as belonging to a named person, no other suspect including members of the Ramsey family can be ruled out!

One marker or thirteen is not enough to exclude anyone until they have been identified then matched!

.

 

[Mama2JML]

My skepticism with touch DNA is to classify it with all the other forms of DNA science. If it wasn't based on something as small as skin cells, cells that can be transferred, I'd buy into it. It is a relatively new science. It doesn't have the court track record that saliva, semen and blood have. I don't think the small sample of what 'could' be saliva is enough evidence.

If only there were examples of other cases where touch DNA was the only evidence, you'd have more of a convincing case.

The argument I see is that this evidence was found here and here and here; and since it was found in so many areas, it must put the murderer at the scene. I don't see it as saying any such thing. The only thing it does say is that if they ever found a match, then they'd need to do more investigation. Once that happens, the only thing the suspect will need to do is to deny, deny, deny. (Does that sound familiar?) It may belong to the murder and it might not. It is not conclusive. So how does it dismiss any of the other suspects?

I am really struggling to understand your argument. All cells are small, regardless of origin. The CODIS profile was obtained 5 years prior to the two matching DNA profiles obtained via touch collection methods in 2008...

 

[Anti-K]

My skepticism with touch DNA is to classify it with all the other forms of DNA science. If it wasn't based on something as small as skin cells, cells that can be transferred, I'd buy into it. It is a relatively new science. It doesn't have the court track record that saliva, semen and blood have. I don't think the small sample of what 'could' be saliva is enough evidence.

If only there were examples of other cases where touch DNA was the only evidence, you'd have more of a convincing case.

The argument I see is that this evidence was found here and here and here; and since it was found in so many areas, it must put the murderer at the scene. I don't see it as saying any such thing. The only thing it does say is that if they ever found a match, then they'd need to do more investigation. Once that happens, the only thing the suspect will need to do is to deny, deny, deny. (Does that sound familiar?) It may belong to the murder and it might not. It is not conclusive. So how does it dismiss any of the other suspects?

The tDNA is not the result of a “new science.” It’s the same old science, it’s just the way that samples are collected that is relatively “new.”

Everything is transferred. Blood is transferred. Semen is transferred. Al trace evidence of all kinds is transferred.
What this evidence says is that an unidentified person had contact with the victim in incriminating places. It tells us that the person was not a Ramsey or any of the other 200+ persons tested.

The tDNA and the matching CODIS sample represent a potential suspect who needs to be identified and investigated. Until that happens I fail to see how this trace evidence can be dismissed (as Kolar, and others do).
.

The tDNA and the CODIS sample is not the only evidence. There is handwriting. There are hair and fibers (probably if no use in connecting anyone, now). There are the acts committed (DNA-man may have a history). There simply is no way of knowing what an investigation into DNA-man might reveal. But, without that investigation I don’t see how we can dismiss him.
...

AK

 

[BoldBear]

The reason I refer to touch DNA as a new science is because of the breakthrough when touch DNA science came into existence. There was a great deal of bragging that 'now' they only needed only a few cells to extract DNA. The example is about 7 or 8 skin cells.

Just from the brief citation from Wikipedia about touch DNA, "The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination — for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results."

If a fingerprint brush can transfer trace amounts of skin cells, then how is it that it can't be transferred cloth to cloth? It absolutely can and does.

We slough off about 30,000 to 40,000 skin cells per minute. 30,000 skin cells * 60 minutes = 1,800,000 skin cells per hour. We're leaving genetic material just in the form of skin cells everywhere we go. Some of those cells might stay with a single article of clothing, but if that article of clothing comes into contact with another article of clothing (just by the numbers alone) skin cells will be transferred.

The whole idea that touch DNA can prove someone guilty or innocent in my opinion is crazy. It has to be used with other additional evidence. So where is that other evidence?

 

[andreww]

Innocent (secondary) transfer scenarios are necessarily complex.

The DNA came from someone. It didn’t come from any of the likeliest person’s (200+ tested/cleared). But, it came from someone. Let’s call this someone Person A.

With secondary transfer, Person B (jbr, or Mrs Ramsey, etc) transfers Person A’s DNA. Person B transfers Person A’s DNA, but they do not transfer their own DNA. They transfer Person A’s DNA but not their own to three separate locations. Three separate, incriminating locations.

One of these locations is the interior crotch of the victim’s panties and the other two locations are the exterior, sides of the victim’s leggings.

Person B picks up Person A’s DNA. Perhaps they touch an object that was previously handled by Person A.

Let’s PRETEND that you (the reader) are Person B and let’s PRETEND that the DNA is wet paint. There’s wet paint EVERYWHERE.

The paint is a color not seen in your home nor in any of the 200+ places that investigators looked for it.

But, somehow you get a VERY SMALL amount of this wet paint on your fingers.

For an innocent transfer theory to work you would have to keep that wet paint on your fingers until you dress jbr for bed. If you touch anything else – door handles, other people, your boots, your coat, Christmas gifts, blankets, etc – you’re going to transfer that wet paint and there won’t be any left to transfer to the leggings (or, inside crotch of panties). So, someone else has to undress jbr. If you undress her you will transfer that very small amount of wet paint to the clothes that you remove and there won’t be any left to transfer to the leggings and the inside crotch of the panties.

In addition to a very small amount of wet paint of unknown origin on your fingers you also have a lot of wet paint of a different color on your fingers. That color did come from your home. We know it’s yours. You have to transfer the small amount of wet paint of unknown origin without transferring any of your own color. You have to transfer it (u=paint of unknown origin) to yourself and then not transfer it away (or transfer any other wet paint – remember, there’s wet paint EVERYWHERE) until you touch the victim in three separate and incriminating locations (one inside crotch of panties!).

It’s a complicated affair, indeed; and not really believable.
...

AK

We know JB was wiped down, specifically in her groin area. Coincidentally this is the only place DNA was found. We know that the perpetrator of this crime made use of items already in the basement. We also know that workers were known to use the basement, probably using that very bathroom exclusively. So what is to say that one of those workers didn't vigorously dry their babe or hands with a hand towel from that bathroom? And if that towel was used to wipe JBs groin area,would it be likely that DNA from that towel would transfer? And If the person handling the towel then pulled up the long johns, wouldn't DNA be transferred there as well?

Sure LE tried to discover where this DNA came from, but they could only lol at people that the Ramsey's said were in the house, and the Ramsey's really would have no incentive to uncover the owner of that DNA if they were in fact involved in this crime.

I let's say for example the Ramsey's used that hand towel. And maybe they suspect that the DNA came from a person that had visited in the weeks before the crime. Why would they tell LE about that person?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

The tDNA is not the result of a “new science.” It’s the same old science, it’s just the way that samples are collected that is relatively “new.”

Everything is transferred. Blood is transferred. Semen is transferred. Al trace evidence of all kinds is transferred.
What this evidence says is that an unidentified person had contact with the victim in incriminating places. It tells us that the person was not a Ramsey or any of the other 200+ persons tested.

The tDNA and the matching CODIS sample represent a potential suspect who needs to be identified and investigated. Until that happens I fail to see how this trace evidence can be dismissed (as Kolar, and others do).
.

The tDNA and the CODIS sample is not the only evidence. There is handwriting. There are hair and fibers (probably if no use in connecting anyone, now). There are the acts committed (DNA-man may have a history). There simply is no way of knowing what an investigation into DNA-man might reveal. But, without that investigation I don’t see how we can dismiss him.
...

AK

Anti-K,

What this evidence says is that an unidentified person had contact with the victim in incriminating places. It tells us that the person was not a Ramsey or any of the other 200+ persons tested.

Why do you persist in repeating this false statement? Its precisely because the touch-dna might not have arrived via direct contact that you cannot assume the above as true.

You, i.e. Anti-K, cannot know how the touch-dna arrived on JonBenet until you have identified the donor suspect. So please desist in stating that it rules out the Ramsey's, its something you have no knowledge about!

.