A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Well, I can hear the members clapping over here!


No, your reasoning is completely invalid, in fact it is demonstrably partisan. Any persons touch-dna can arrive at another location by primary transfer, but it does not follow that touch-dna belonging to another person found at a different location MUST, as you assert , have arrived also via primary transfer, it might have arrived via secondary transfer why because the rules allow it!

Do you get it? Since as per your own interpretation of the rules: BR's touch-dna is present due to primary transfer and the underwear sample is due to secondary transfer.

Without knowing the identity of the underwear sample donor you can never refute claims of secondary transfer, so your IDI claims are never going to be valid, ever.

Do you get it? BR's nightgown sample might also have arrived via secondary transfer or at an earlier date, presumably if we apply you own invalid reasoning then the dna sample in JonBenet's underwear similarly MUST have arrived via secondary transfer or at an earlier date?

The difference between the two dna samples is that BR's has been identified, and he can be eliminated on the basis of further investigation. No such procedure can apply to the unidentified underwear dna sample, it does not even represent producable evidence in a court of law!

.

The DNA is most certainly presentable in court. All of it, but most particularly the CODIS sample. why would you say that I was not?

Regardless...

My “invalid reasoning” is not my reasoning at all. You’ve misunderstood what I was saying. What you refer to as my “invalid reasoning” is the reasoning that I was arguing against!!!

I’m saying that if one argues that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than it follows that the unsourced tDNA came from primary transfer because the rules (the reason, the logic) that support the claim that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer are the same regardless of who the tDNA belongs to. If tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than tDNA must be the result of primary transfer.

If one allows for the possibility that Burke’s tDNA may be the result of secondary transfer, then one allows for the possibility that the unsourced tDNA was the result of secondary transfer because the rules are the same regardless of who the tDNA belongs to.

The rules allow for both possibilities, and any combination of them.

Identifying a sample has no impact on any of this.

However, you are right when you say that Burke “can be eliminated on the basis of further investigation.” And, it’s true that we can’t say the same for the unidentified sample. That’s the point that IMO some are missing. It CAN’T be eliminated on the basis of further investigation. It needs to be identified first.
...
AK

 

[CorallaroC]

Anti-K,
I try to follow your posts with an open mind even though typically I do not share your viewpoints. Not to sound nit-picky, but I often stumble over your wording when the word THAN is used instead of THEN. Maybe it's a problem with your auto-correct, but it confuses the meaning.

Quote from your post above:
"I’m saying that if one argues that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than it follows that the unsourced tDNA came from primary transfer because the rules (the reason, the logic) that support the claim that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer are the same regardless of who the tDNA belongs to. If tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than tDNA must be the result of primary transfer."

The word THAN makes your ideas very confusing to me

 

[otg]

BOESP, as I said, and as you’ll see, we agree on more than we disagree on. I’ll only quote the portions of your last post that I want to comment on.

Each time I've read the Bonita Papers, I've thought of a douche nozzle. I tend to think the paintbrush was a part of staging. I'm open to changing my mind though. I can see Patsy wanting JonBenet clean from the inside out whether for incontinence issues or for some type of sexual contact.

I don’t completely discount the use of a douche nozzle at some point (and yes, that could account for the type of vaginal injuries found, IMO). There are unconfirmed accounts by someone (LHP?) about happenings in the Ramsey household prior to the crime that led to speculation about Patsy’s use of this. There is also that one comment in the AR that makes me think that something like this had been done to JonBenet that night. Here is the passage I’m referring to:

A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault.
​

Just prior to that sentence, Dr. Meyer noted finding “dried and semifluid blood” in several locations during the examination of her genital area. Make no mistake that, without it having been wiped from her legs and genitals and the area cleaned up, there would have been a lot of blood from the injuries. The “dried and semifluid blood” found within the folds of tissue (mostly external) are remnants of that blood that did not get wiped away. But internally, there would be no other reason I can think of for there to be “semiliquid thin watery red fluid” inside the vaginal vault other than some attempt at somehow “rinsing out” the blood that was present.

I think the scream that Melanie Stanton heard was during the commission of the above injury you mention and within seconds after that the low velocity/high pressure head wound occurred.

I too believe the scream occurred during the sexual assault. Dr. McCann stated as much in his description of the events as he imagined them (from “Bonita Papers” - emphasis mine):

McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen where most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell.
​

I think that Stanton’s original description of how the scream stopped suddenly was the result of (and probably the reason for) the head blow (or head slam, if you choose ).

I sit on the fence about which bathroom or bedroom the events occurred in.

As for where this all occurred, I still think it all happened in the basement, near the large vent where the scream was broadcast to the neighborhood. The Stanton’s are the only ones who reported hearing anything because they said that they slept with their bedroom window cracked open, and the outside opening of the vent pointed in the direction of their house.

 

[UKGuy]

The DNA is most certainly presentable in court. All of it, but most particularly the CODIS sample. why would you say that I was not?

Regardless...

My “invalid reasoning” is not my reasoning at all. You’ve misunderstood what I was saying. What you refer to as my “invalid reasoning” is the reasoning that I was arguing against!!!

I’m saying that if one argues that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than it follows that the unsourced tDNA came from primary transfer because the rules (the reason, the logic) that support the claim that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer are the same regardless of who the tDNA belongs to. If tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than tDNA must be the result of primary transfer.

If one allows for the possibility that Burke’s tDNA may be the result of secondary transfer, then one allows for the possibility that the unsourced tDNA was the result of secondary transfer because the rules are the same regardless of who the tDNA belongs to.

The rules allow for both possibilities, and any combination of them.

Identifying a sample has no impact on any of this.

However, you are right when you say that Burke “can be eliminated on the basis of further investigation.” And, it’s true that we can’t say the same for the unidentified sample. That’s the point that IMO some are missing. It CAN’T be eliminated on the basis of further investigation. It needs to be identified first.
...
AK

Ant-K,

However, you are right when you say that Burke “can be eliminated on the basis of further investigation.” And, it’s true that we can’t say the same for the unidentified sample. That’s the point that IMO some are missing. It CAN’T be eliminated on the basis of further investigation. It needs to be identified first.

Absolutely! This is also why it would not be produced in court, and why it should not be used to underpin any serious theory, i.e. its unidentified.

.

 

[BOESP]

otg,
Great post #183. We'll have to agree to agree. :happydance:

 

[questfortrue]

BOESP, as I said, and as you’ll see, we agree on more than we disagree on. I’ll only quote the portions of your last post that I want to comment on.


I don’t completely discount the use of a douche nozzle at some point (and yes, that could account for the type of vaginal injuries found, IMO). There are unconfirmed accounts by someone (LHP?) about happenings in the Ramsey household prior to the crime that led to speculation about Patsy’s use of this. There is also that one comment in the AR that makes me think that something like this had been done to JonBenet that night. Here is the passage I’m referring to:

A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault.
​

Just prior to that sentence, Dr. Meyer noted finding “dried and semifluid blood” in several locations during the examination of her genital area. Make no mistake that, without it having been wiped from her legs and genitals and the area cleaned up, there would have been a lot of blood from the injuries. The “dried and semifluid blood” found within the folds of tissue (mostly external) are remnants of that blood that did not get wiped away. But internally, there would be no other reason I can think of for there to be “semiliquid thin watery red fluid” inside the vaginal vault other than some attempt at somehow “rinsing out” the blood that was present.



I too believe the scream occurred during the sexual assault. Dr. McCann stated as much in his description of the events as he imagined them (from “Bonita Papers” - emphasis mine):

McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen where most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell.
​

I think that Stanton’s original description of how the scream stopped suddenly was the result of (and probably the reason for) the head blow (or head slam, if you choose ).



As for where this all occurred, I still think it all happened in the basement, near the large vent where the scream was broadcast to the neighborhood. The Stanton’s are the only ones who reported hearing anything because they said that they slept with their bedroom window cracked open, and the outside opening of the vent pointed in the direction of their house.

Some other speculative thoughts -
OK warning, otg, I’m going to quote Spitz as there isn’t any other pathologist’s discussion source for the paintbrush injury. (I know you’re not a big fan of Spitz, so don’t yell at me for referencing him. Had this gone to trial, we’d have the experts battling, and the jury ruling on the facts.)

Speculative thought #1. Spitz claimed the paintbrush injury occurred right before or right after her death. I’m not alluding to who did it here, nor deciphering whether it was done as part of the assault. Also, IIRC, Kolar may have stated in a podcast that it was believed the paintbrush injury was done after she was unconscious. My memory could be faulty here. Wouldn’t this rule out the scream in association with the paintbrush?

Thought #2 since we’re discussing some physical evidence. This pertains to the state of her body when JR brought her up. As you already know, but some may not remember, it is said that rigor (occurring as the body is unable to break the bond which causes the muscles to contract) works in a head-to-toe fashion and begins 1-3 hours after death. It begins to pass after 24 hours. Even the eyelids undergo the rigor mortis after death. So I was wondering if anyone has ever heard it mentioned whether JB’s eyes were open or closed when she was brought up? This was the only photo I have of her on the carpet, taken I believe about 20-22 hours after her death. Her arms still appear somewhat stiff, in the pugilist position. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-Ramsey-autopsy-photos-CAUTION-GRAPHIC!/page2

Disclaimer: I freely admit those who've studied this case for years have more forensic background with this case than I, as for example you, DeeDee249, superdave and cynic, so others' thoughts appreciated.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
I try to follow your posts with an open mind even though typically I do not share your viewpoints. Not to sound nit-picky, but I often stumble over your wording when the word THAN is used instead of THEN. Maybe it's a problem with your auto-correct, but it confuses the meaning.

Quote from your post above:
"I’m saying that if one argues that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than it follows that the unsourced tDNA came from primary transfer because the rules (the reason, the logic) that support the claim that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer are the same regardless of who the tDNA belongs to. If tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than tDNA must be the result of primary transfer."

The word THAN makes your ideas very confusing to me

Auto correct was okay with either spelling, and I think I used both spellings in one instance. I’m often confused as to which is the correct usage, but I work with the thought that “then” involves time while “than” involves some sort of comparison. And, I wasn’t trying to say, one first and then the other. I was saying that one was the same as the other.

Here’s what I’m trying to say put another way:

Burke’s tDNA is probably from primary transfer because, for example, primary transfer is always the likeliest method of transfer.

So, if someone wants to say that Burke’s tDNA MUST be from primary transfer, it would also be true that the unsourced tDNA MUST be from primary transfer because the rules of transfer remain the same regardless of whose tDNA it is.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
I try to follow your posts with an open mind even though typically I do not share your viewpoints. Not to sound nit-picky, but I often stumble over your wording when the word THAN is used instead of THEN. Maybe it's a problem with your auto-correct, but it confuses the meaning.

Quote from your post above:
"I’m saying that if one argues that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than it follows that the unsourced tDNA came from primary transfer because the rules (the reason, the logic) that support the claim that Burke’s tDNA must be the result of primary transfer are the same regardless of who the tDNA belongs to. If tDNA must be the result of primary transfer than tDNA must be the result of primary transfer."

The word THAN makes your ideas very confusing to me

I'm okay with you nit-picking.

...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Ant-K,

Absolutely! This is also why it would not be produced in court, and why it should not be used to underpin any serious theory, i.e. its unidentified.

.

I believe that unsourced trace evidence is introduced and accepted by the courts as a matter of routine. This is exculpatory (goes towards reasonable doubt or innocence) evidence and investigators/prosecutors have to provide it to the defence.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Evidence does not lose its meaning because it has not been sourced.

In the beginning, ALL the evidence is unsourced. Investigators still look for it. And, then they try to source it and that which is sourced and cleared becomes meaningless. The rest of it – the unsourced - stays meaningful because it was found exactly where the killer would have left it.

Imagine: a murder victim.

There are hairs, fibers, possibly DNA, stains maybe; etc, all over the victim. Some of this trace evidence might be related to the crime, some of it might not be. Trace evidence related to the crime is evidence left by the killer.

Investigators concentrate their search for trace evidence in incriminating locations to help weed out the trace evidence not related to the crime (not left by the killer).

Investigators find trace evidence in the incriminating locations. Some of it might be related to the crime, some of it might not be.

Slowly, piece by piece, one by one, the trace evidence is sourced and the sources (persons) “cleared.”

But, there is a body of trace evidence not sourced (significantly, despite great effort). This source (person) cannot be cleared. This evidence is in locations where the killer would have left it. We cannot ignore it.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Some other speculative thoughts -
OK warning, otg, I’m going to quote Spitz as there isn’t any other pathologist’s discussion source for the paintbrush injury. (I know you’re not a big fan of Spitz, so don’t yell at me for referencing him. Had this gone to trial, we’d have the experts battling, and the jury ruling on the facts.)

Speculative thought #1. Spitz claimed the paintbrush injury occurred right before or right after her death. I’m not alluding to who did it here, nor deciphering whether it was done as part of the assault. Also, IIRC, Kolar may have stated in a podcast that it was believed the paintbrush injury was done after she was unconscious. My memory could be faulty here. Wouldn’t this rule out the scream in association with the paintbrush?

I'd say yes. It might also explain the minimal injury to the vagina itself. Would a conscious six-year-old keep still while a sharp object was inserted?

 

[UKGuy]

I believe that unsourced trace evidence is introduced and accepted by the courts as a matter of routine. This is exculpatory (goes towards reasonable doubt or innocence) evidence and investigators/prosecutors have to provide it to the defence.
...

AK

Anti-K,

I believe

Wonderful, exciting, but I also have a belief which is that the dna evidence is not exculpatory, a big word for a non-english speaker, including dictionary explanations, which suggests you are a fake, a bogus ramsey supporter, promoting a variant IDI.

So please go away and reinvent yourself, disabuse yourself of your beliefs, unless you wish to confuse members any further, with your stories and legends.

.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Wonderful, exciting, but I also have a belief which is that the dna evidence is not exculpatory, a big word for a non-english speaker, including dictionary explanations, which suggests you are a fake, a bogus ramsey supporter, promoting a variant IDI.

So please go away and reinvent yourself, disabuse yourself of your beliefs, unless you wish to confuse members any further, with your stories and legends.

.

Posts of this nature are truly offensive and I have no doubtr that if it had beed written by me I would be on another time out.

Regardless, even if RDI is true, the unsourced trace evidence has exculpatory value. That isn’t a belief, or an opinion. It is a factual statement.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

How does unsourced tDNA prove someone was not involved in JonBenet's death?

 

[andreww]

I see the DNA in a similar light as the boot print. It is dangerous assume that either of these pieces of evidence has anything to do with the crime, and to disregard all other evidence on the basis of its existence. The boot print shouldn't have been there. The Ramsey's all said they didn't own Hi-Teks, and all attending officers were ruled out as having left it. Would it make sense for us to eliminate suspects based on the fact that they never owned Hi-Tek boots? Thankfully Fleet White's keen memory alerted us to the fact that Burke did actually own those boots and it appears that the Ramsey all lied to keep that fact hidden. Although to this day they have never provided the boots for comparison, it is safe to say that that boot print like was Burke's and had nothing to do with and intruder. The DNA happens to be still unidentified. Its not the Ramsey's and it didn't come from any LE personnel either. It has also been checked against every person that the Ramsey's say came in to contact with JB that day. It is entirely possible that the Ramsey's neglected to mention someone who was at the house that day, somebody that may have worked for them, or perhaps even a trusted someone that was called after JB was struck. If an unknown party aided in the coverup, would the Ramsey admit it? Obviously not.

The DNA was collected over a period of years, not days or hours. Is there a list of all the people that came in to contact with these articles of clothing since day one? I imagine that the list would be extensive. Can we rule out that it was deposited by someone in LE, the morgue, one of the labs? Can we rule out that it was deposited during manufacturing or at the retail location they were purchased? There are just too many possibilities, and the fact that the Ramsey's already lied about the origin of the foot print, we can't even rule out that it came from someone at the home. I say that unless there is a match, its meaningless and it should not stand in the way of the prosecution of viable suspects.

It is interesting that Mary Lacy eventually ruled out JMK as a suspect, stating that the DNA did not match. I believe it was Beckner that said they knew in a day that JMK wasn't the guy because his story didn't add up and that there was evidence that he wasn't even in Boulder at the time. Lacy hid behind the DNA. Just like she hid the Ramsey's behind that DNA. It's a useful tool when you know how to use it.

 

[BOESP]

andreww, thanks for the detailed response.

DNA can be inclusive evidence but it cannot be exclusive evidence. I'm surprised that some here don't seem to understand this (or pretend not to understand) and I don't mean you andreww.

There is no way unsourced touch DNA found on JonBenet proves that someone/anyone was *not* there or not involved in her death. It greatly bothers me that a lawyer, yet alone a DA, would say someone is excluded as a suspect based solely on unsourced DNA (especially touch DNA).

 

[OliviaG1996]

andreww, thanks for the detailed response.

DNA can be inclusive evidence but it cannot be exclusive evidence. I'm surprised that some here don't seem to understand this (or pretend not to understand) and I don't mean you andreww.

There is no way unsourced touch DNA found on JonBenet proves that someone/anyone was *not* there or not involved in her death. It greatly bothers me that a lawyer, yet alone a DA, would say someone is excluded as a suspect based solely on unsourced DNA (especially touch DNA).

I totally agree, BOESP. I'd go even further and say there is no way unsourced touch DNA found on JonBenet proves that someone/anyone other than a Ramsey was there on the night of the murder at all. Anyone that tries to sell the public (ML, in particular) that the DNA must belong to the murderer must not have a very strong case in defense of the Rs to begin with, considering that is absolutely false.

 

[otg]

Some other speculative thoughts -
OK warning, otg, I’m going to quote Spitz as there isn’t any other pathologist’s discussion source for the paintbrush injury. (I know you’re not a big fan of Spitz, so don’t yell at me for referencing him. Had this gone to trial, we’d have the experts battling, and the jury ruling on the facts.)

I would love to have seen a courtroom battle between all the different pathologists who have weighed in on this case -- as well as some who haven’t but for whom I have a great deal of respect (Drs. Frederick Zugibe and Vincent Di Maio come to mind first). Alas, the days for that to have happened are surely passed. For that matter, I’d love to get them all in a room outside the courts to ask a few questions no one in the media seem to think to ask.

Speculative thought #1. Spitz claimed the paintbrush injury occurred right before or right after her death. I’m not alluding to who did it here, nor deciphering whether it was done as part of the assault. Also, IIRC, Kolar may have stated in a podcast that it was believed the paintbrush injury was done after she was unconscious. My memory could be faulty here. Wouldn’t this rule out the scream in association with the paintbrush?

IF any of the extreme and acute vaginal injuries occurred while the victim was deceased or even unconscious (I’m trying to write this clinically so I don’t get emotional thinking about what she went through), then yes, this would rule out the scream as having occurred as a reaction to the infliction of those injuries. But I would have to ask why anyone (even Kolar :biggrin: ) would think that. Why think these injuries were inflicted after she had been struck over the head (or slammed against something, BOESP) unless that line of thought is to make the injuries fit with one’s theory about the sequence of events?

The injuries described in the AR tell us that she was sexually assaulted shortly before the blood circulation had stopped. While bleeding is possible after death in a very short window of time (don’t ask me for an estimate, I’m only talking theoretically here), it would mean that this all had to be done almost immediately following her death. I can’t see the killer realizing death had occurred and immediately reaching for the paintbrush. And if you believe the paintbrush was attached to the cord and used to pull it, then how was it used on her genitals while attached around her neck?

I don’t think there is anything in the AR that would give us any indication that she was unconscious -- only that she was most likely alive. The reason for that is the amount of blood that we can surmise was present before her body was wiped and cleaned. The reason we know it was shortly before she died is in the ME’s statement that, “Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.” This means that the body had not had enough time to react to the injury by sending fluids that would be seen as inflammation. In total, the AR tells us that the acute genital injuries almost certainly happened before death (except allowing for extreme conditions), but within a small window of time. (This is not to even address the chronic injuries.)

Thought #2 since we’re discussing some physical evidence. This pertains to the state of her body when JR brought her up. As you already know, but some may not remember, it is said that rigor (occurring as the body is unable to break the bond which causes the muscles to contract) works in a head-to-toe fashion and begins 1-3 hours after death. It begins to pass after 24 hours. Even the eyelids undergo the rigor mortis after death. So I was wondering if anyone has ever heard it mentioned whether JB’s eyes were open or closed when she was brought up? This was the only photo I have of her on the carpet, taken I believe about 20-22 hours after her death. Her arms still appear somewhat stiff, in the pugilist position. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-Ramsey-autopsy-photos-CAUTION-GRAPHIC!/page2

I too have never heard it mentioned about her eyes being closed or open. (This phenomenon is the origin of the old custom of placing coins on the eyelids of dead people.) I guess I’ve always assumed they were closed because I can’t imagine them being open and the person staging the evidence not closing them. Neither can I imagine that if she was brought up from the basement by John with her eyes open, no one who witnessed it (including Det. Arndt on GMA) would have not mentioned it. That would certainly be (I think) something that would haunt anyone who saw it. I still have a hard time trying to forget the leaked photo of her face lying there dead on the ME’s table.

But I have to make one small correction about what you said -- or at least what I understood you to say above. Rigor mortis doesn’t necessarily work “in a head-to-toe fashion”. True, the face is usually affected first, then the extremities, and finally it affects the torso. But that is because of the size of the muscles and joints, not because of the top-to-bottom location. This is probably what you meant, but I don’t want anyone to misunderstand how it works. Here is something helpful in understanding it from http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/rigor-mortis-and-lividity.html:

Rigor Mortis is the stiffening of the body after death because of a loss of Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) from the body's muscles. ATP is the substance that allows energy to flow to the muscles and help them work and without this the muscles become stiff and inflexible.

Rigor Mortis begins throughout the body at the same time but the body's smaller muscles -- such as those in the face, neck, arms and shoulders -- are affected first and then the subsequent muscles throughout the rest of the body; those which are larger in size, are affected later.

Rigor normally appears within the body around two hours after the deceased has passed away with -- as we have already mentioned -- the facial and upper neck and shoulder muscles first to visibly suffer from its effects. Many Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCO) have reported that upon discovering the deceased that their face might have taken on what looks to be a grimace; this is because the facial muscles have contracted as ATP drains from them.
​

And here’s another description from http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html:

At the moment of death, the muscles relax completely—a condition called "primary flaccidity." The muscles then stiffen, perhaps due to coagulation of muscle proteins or a shift in the muscle's energy containers (ATP-ADP), into a condition known as rigor mortis. All of the body's muscles are affected. Rigor mortis begins within two to six hours of death, starting with the eyelids, neck, and jaw. This sequence may be due to the difference in lactic acid levels among different muscles, which corresponds to the difference in glycogen levels and to the different types of muscle fibers. Over the next four to six hours, rigor mortis spreads to the other muscles, including those in the internal organs such as the heart. The onset of rigor mortis is more rapid if the environment is cold and if the decedent had performed hard physical work just before death. Its onset also varies with the individual's age, sex, physical condition, and muscular build.
​

Disclaimer: I freely admit those who've studied this case for years have more forensic background with this case than I, as for example you, DeeDee249, superdave and cynic, so others' thoughts appreciated.

I too welcome anyone else to weigh in on this. I’m no expert (thank God) on the subject of dead people. I only know what I’ve read about (but I have read a lot :biggrin: ).

 

[andreww]

I totally agree, BOESP. I'd go even further and say there is no way unsourced touch DNA found on JonBenet proves that someone/anyone other than a Ramsey was there on the night of the murder at all. Anyone that tries to sell the public (ML, in particular) that the DNA must belong to the murderer must not have a very strong case in defense of the Rs to begin with, considering that is absolutely false.

I think Mary Lacy is the one that put so much emphasis on the DNA. I think that is directly attributable to her finding the TDNA on the leggings. At that point she made the "jump" that because matching DNA was found on two articles of clothing, that it must point to an intruder. Flawed logic, but she stood by it because she found it. She used that logic to cut the Ramsey's loose as suspects, and no matter how much she wanted to see him behind bars, she was forced to abandon JMK as a suspect. So now that she has set the precedent, there is no turning back. If someone is going to be arrested, their DNA is going to have to match or else the whole lot of them would look like morons. Not that they already don't.

I really think this case needs to start from scratch. A new team, a fresh set of eyes, and investigative techniques and technologies that have likely advanced greatly in the past 20 years. Reconvene the grand jury of necessary and get both John and Burke to testify. Ask the hard questions and stop treating suspects like royalty. The information is all still there, its just been tainted by poor management.

 

[BBB167893]

I see the DNA in a similar light as the boot print. It is dangerous assume that either of these pieces of evidence has anything to do with the crime, and to disregard all other evidence on the basis of its existence. The boot print shouldn't have been there. The Ramsey's all said they didn't own Hi-Teks, and all attending officers were ruled out as having left it. Would it make sense for us to eliminate suspects based on the fact that they never owned Hi-Tek boots? Thankfully Fleet White's keen memory alerted us to the fact that Burke did actually own those boots and it appears that the Ramsey all lied to keep that fact hidden. Although to this day they have never provided the boots for comparison, it is safe to say that that boot print like was Burke's and had nothing to do with and intruder. The DNA happens to be still unidentified. Its not the Ramsey's and it didn't come from any LE personnel either. It has also been checked against every person that the Ramsey's say came in to contact with JB that day. It is entirely possible that the Ramsey's neglected to mention someone who was at the house that day, somebody that may have worked for them, or perhaps even a trusted someone that was called after JB was struck. If an unknown party aided in the coverup, would the Ramsey admit it? Obviously not.

The DNA was collected over a period of years, not days or hours. Is there a list of all the people that came in to contact with these articles of clothing since day one? I imagine that the list would be extensive. Can we rule out that it was deposited by someone in LE, the morgue, one of the labs? Can we rule out that it was deposited during manufacturing or at the retail location they were purchased? There are just too many possibilities, and the fact that the Ramsey's already lied about the origin of the foot print, we can't even rule out that it came from someone at the home. I say that unless there is a match, its meaningless and it should not stand in the way of the prosecution of viable suspects.

It is interesting that Mary Lacy eventually ruled out JMK as a suspect, stating that the DNA did not match. I believe it was Beckner that said they knew in a day that JMK wasn't the guy because his story didn't add up and that there was evidence that he wasn't even in Boulder at the time. Lacy hid behind the DNA. Just like she hid the Ramsey's behind that DNA. It's a useful tool when you know how to use it.

You just nailed what I've been trying to say, andreww: she WANTED JMK for this. The guy was the perfect fallguy. And it's clear that even after his DNA was a washout, she wanted to go ahead against him, but realized she couldn't, because she'd gone "all-in" on the DNA by then. "Bricked herself in" I believe is how I phrased it earlier.