Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
How does unsourced tDNA prove someone was not involved in JonBenet's death?
It doesnt.
...
AK
How does unsourced tDNA prove someone was not involved in JonBenet's death?
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.
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 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.
Yes, the tDNA was the icing on the cake. The straw that broke the camels back. Etc. The CODIS sample was already pretty compelling and the tDNA made it even more so.
Lacey has no say or influence on what any of her predecessors might decide regarding the case and the DNA. No precedent was set by her. It is simply true and factual that this DNA (tDNA and CODIS) is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match and it will remains so until it can be sourced and the source investigated and rule out.
...
AK
Yes, the tDNA was the icing on the cake. The straw that broke the camels back. Etc. The CODIS sample was already pretty compelling and the tDNA made it even more so.
Lacey has no say or influence on what any of her predecessors might decide regarding the case and the DNA. No precedent was set by her. It is simply true and factual that this DNA (tDNA and CODIS) is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match and it will remains so until it can be sourced and the source investigated and rule out.
...
AK
Nonsense on stilts! What if the touch-dna does not belong to the killer, then you run the risk of clearing the killer on the basis of invalid reasoning?It is simply true and factual that this DNA (tDNA and CODIS) is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match
I don’t want to misunderstand you. Your objection is to the tDNA?
If this DNA – either the leggings, or the panties, or both – was semen or blood would your opinion remain the same?
...
AK
Stupidest logic I've heard. What if that DNA doesn't belong to the killer?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anti-K,
Nonsense on stilts! What if the touch-dna does not belong to the killer, then you run the risk of clearing the killer on the basis of invalid reasoning?
You need the owner of the touch-dna's identity so can rule them in or out, then you can rule everyone else in or out!
.
As noted in my post above, steps were taken to rule out innocent sources. So, whats left? The not-so innocent source.
Because of the location in which this DNA is found there is a presumption of involvement that is attached to these samples. Presumption is that which must be disproved. Presumption is that which is presumed to be true because in most every similar situation it is true.
This IS the very foundation, the basis, the WHOLE and COMPLETE entire reason why investigators look for trace evidence in these locations BECAUSE this is where a perpetrator is likely to leave such evidence. This is fundamental. So, when evidence is found in these locations, and when innocent explanation cannot be found, despite effort, we are left with the presumption: this trace evidence was probably left by the killer.
We can, and so far HAVE ruled out the innocent explanations. We cannot rule out the not-so innocent.
...
AK
http://www.amazon.ca/JonBenet-Inside-Ramsey-Murder-Investigation/dp/1250054796#reader_1250054796Here 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.
Anti-K,
Once you identity the owner of the foreign touch-dna. You can then decide if the owner was involved in the death of JonBenet, or simply had their dna randomly transferred.
Otherwise its simply unattributable forensic evidence, circumstantial artifact. You might like to think it represents an IDI, but we need proof, not supposition!
.
Yes. This is what Ive always said: the DNA represents a person who must be identified and investigated. IOWS, the DNA represents a suspect. We cant clear him until we know who he is.
...
AK
So as a public service message to all future criminals, plant the DNA of some random, law abiding citizen on you victim. No matter what the evidence against you, they won't charge you until that DNA is identified (likely never).
You do realize how stupid your argument is don't you? If every person in America were required to have their DNA on file, that would be a practical way of doing things, but it's not. If this were semen or blood, it would be a different story as well, but it's not. The type of DNA we are talking about here is too easily transferred, and too prone to secondary transfer and it is impossible to say with any certainty that it has anything to do with this crime. Your argument about finding a match is flawed as well as only convicted criminals generally have their DNA on file. If it were an innocent transfer from a law abiding person, how is a match ever to be found? On the contrary, if this was an intruder, why has there never been a match? Odds say that someone who is a sadistic pedophile murderer likely would keep offending and likely would have been caught, or at the very least a matching profile would be found at another crime scene. Why is that AK?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We can, and so far HAVE ruled out the innocent explanations. We cannot rule out the not-so innocent.
YOU say. I have not ruled them out. Specifically, even Bill Wise said that it's not likely that every tech who came into contact could have been tested. And, I see no reason to think JB couldn't have transferred it herself from one spot to another.
Yes, I suppose that was badly worded.
And, of course you dont rule out innocent explanations.
What I should have said is that, so far, and to date, attempts to trace this DNA to an innocent source has failed. The sources so far ruled out as being the source for the DNA include persons that the victim was most recently in contact with as well as persons associated with the family and the investigation (going back autopsies) etc.
So, it should be factual to say that the likeliest innocent sources have been ruled out.
I think its legitimate and important to consider that this DNA may have an innocent explanation. But, I also think it is significant that none has been found despite effort. And, the locations are exactly the same locations where her killer would have left DNA if he was to leave any. That, too, is significant.
...
AK
Really, who says so, who mandates this is so?And, the locations are exactly the same locations where her killer would have left DNA if he was to leave any. That, too, is significant.
Anti-K,
Really, who says so, who mandates this is so?
Why is there no similar touch-dna elsewhere on JonBenet's person, on the ligature, wrist-restraints, duct-tape, paintbrush, ransom note, etc?
This is a more important consideration than simply lowering your gaze onto JonBenet's torso, and claiming by divine revelation, we have IDI!
.
Yes, I suppose that was badly worded.
And, of course you dont rule out innocent explanations.
What I should have said is that, so far, and to date, attempts to trace this DNA to an innocent source has failed. The sources so far ruled out as being the source for the DNA include persons that the victim was most recently in contact with as well as persons associated with the family and the investigation (going back autopsies) etc.
So, it should be factual to say that the likeliest innocent sources have been ruled out.
I think its legitimate and important to consider that this DNA may have an innocent explanation. But, I also think it is significant that none has been found despite effort. And, the locations are exactly the same locations where her killer would have left DNA if he was to leave any. That, too, is significant.
...
AK