A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[Anti-K]

One assumption that everyone agrees about here is that the package of underwear was opened on the night of the murder but we don't know that for a fact. It's a mystery about where the unopened underwear package was kept. Was the package in JBR's bathroom drawer, the wine cellar or some other location? If someone has pinned this down for a fact, please let me know. It really doesn't make sense that the package would be open prior to the murder...unless maybe a little girl was curious about how really big the underwear really was when she was playing. But of course, there was a nylon tie on the package and those are hard to open so a little girl couldn't ever get the package open. It's not at all like she or her bother couldn't have opened the package with a knife (where would they get a knife?) or a pair of scissors.

So here we all assume that only the killer handled the clothing before her murder. We assume that there is no way in the world that tDNA can have a secondary transfer. We assume that the DNA/tDNA belongs to the killer. We assume that there was no different tDNA in other locations on the garments because that wouldn't happen. We also assume that the DA wouldn't have personal or professional reasons to take the pressure off of the Ramseys (because this case wasn't an embarrassment). Nope. I'm convinced it was IDI and the DNA evidence proves it...only it doesn't prove it. All it means that if LE ever finds a match, then they have more work to do before they ever charge anyone with murder.

Even then, the tDNA evidence doesn't mean anything until it is challenged in a court of law. Experts will argue both sides. The methodology and the actual technology will be questioned. I don't see this as being as simple as some have claimed. It's very complex and to deny that and not to approach it with any level of skepticism is just wrong.

If, however, one or more of the family members were involved in the murder or covering up the murder, then exploring these options is not wrong.

I can't prove it was a family member. I can't prove it was an intruder. And I can't prove that one or more of the family members weren't involved in a coverup. We'll just have to hope that some day they will find a match to the DNA. Then we might be able to get some answers.

Hi BoldBear,
Just wanted to point out that not everyone here agrees “that the package of underwear was opened on the night of the murder.” And, here is not everywhere.

BTW, nice post.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Remember, though, there was no matching tDNA on anything but the longjohns and underwear. If the perpetrator's DNA was on the gloves, it would've transferred to the ransom note, the pen, the garrote, etc.



Whoever touched the package of underwear did touch the underwear. It's my understanding that DNA was found not only in the crotch of the underwear, but in the waistband and seams as well. It seems like matching DNA was deposited all over the underwear and on the sides of the longjohns, not just certain spots, so this isn't so unusual to me.



If Ramsey DNA had been found in the underwear, and it was proven that JBR had worn those size 12s before, it wouldn't be proof (to me, at least) that it had anything to do with the murder. However, LE had looked in JBR's underwear drawer and found only size 4s and size 6s, when PR had said she stocked the size 12s in the drawer. The intruder had not taken the package of size 12 underwear, as the Ramseys had them shipped to LE two years after the murder.

BR's tDNA on the Barbie nightgown doesn't prove anything, either, other than it provides a small detail to what could be a plausible theory. Just like PR's arm hair found on the white blanket.

I’ve read a number of studies (in many cases you can download for a fee), related essays, articles, etc and corresponded with a real live, known expert and through it all I’ve learned that transfer happens, but it doesn’t always happen; that primary transfer is always the “likeliest mechanism of transfer;” that secondary (and, further) transfer happens but it doesn’t always happen and when it does happen, most often the samples are mixed, the secondary profile is inferior to the primary; that, regardless of generation of transfer, tDNA samples are most often partial samples, and sometimes only traces are found (no markers identified; like the new panties checked in this case).

I do understand the argument for secondary transfer. It is a possibility. But, it seems to be a very remote, distant, far away, one-in-a-very-big-number, unlikely possibility (for reasons I’ve already, recently posted).
.

Traces of DNA were found on several locations in the panties. We first learned this from the Smit deposition. However, these traces, iirc, were not of sufficient size to allow for any sort of identification. They were traces, I imagine similar to what was found on the new panties tested and not necessarily related to the crime or the CODIS or tDNA samples.

Kolar describes the tDNA as being on the waistband of the leggings, but we know from BODE, etc that it was found on the side, hip areas.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Remember, though, there was no matching tDNA on anything but the longjohns and underwear. If the perpetrator's DNA was on the gloves, it would've transferred to the ransom note, the pen, the garrote, etc.



Whoever touched the package of underwear did touch the underwear. It's my understanding that DNA was found not only in the crotch of the underwear, but in the waistband and seams as well. It seems like matching DNA was deposited all over the underwear and on the sides of the longjohns, not just certain spots, so this isn't so unusual to me.



If Ramsey DNA had been found in the underwear, and it was proven that JBR had worn those size 12s before, it wouldn't be proof (to me, at least) that it had anything to do with the murder. However, LE had looked in JBR's underwear drawer and found only size 4s and size 6s, when PR had said she stocked the size 12s in the drawer. The intruder had not taken the package of size 12 underwear, as the Ramseys had them shipped to LE two years after the murder.

BR's tDNA on the Barbie nightgown doesn't prove anything, either, other than it provides a small detail to what could be a plausible theory. Just like PR's arm hair found on the white blanket.

OliviaG1996,

BR's tDNA on the Barbie nightgown doesn't prove anything, either, other than it provides a small detail to what could be a plausible theory. Just like PR's arm hair found on the white blanket.

The pink barbie nightgown should not be in the wine-cellar, period. Maybe in the basement dryer or JonBenet's bedroom, but not a crime-scene. The pink barbie nightgown is also bloodstained as well has containing a sample of BR's tDNA, just his, no PR or JR tDNA?

This small detail, i.e. tDNA, along with the shoeprint links BR directly to the wine-cellar crime-scene. Does not prove anything but leaves him as a suspect.

.

 

[UKGuy]

One assumption that everyone agrees about here is that the package of underwear was opened on the night of the murder but we don't know that for a fact. It's a mystery about where the unopened underwear package was kept. Was the package in JBR's bathroom drawer, the wine cellar or some other location? If someone has pinned this down for a fact, please let me know. It really doesn't make sense that the package would be open prior to the murder...unless maybe a little girl was curious about how really big the underwear really was when she was playing. But of course, there was a nylon tie on the package and those are hard to open so a little girl couldn't ever get the package open. It's not at all like she or her bother couldn't have opened the package with a knife (where would they get a knife?) or a pair of scissors.

So here we all assume that only the killer handled the clothing before her murder. We assume that there is no way in the world that tDNA can have a secondary transfer. We assume that the DNA/tDNA belongs to the killer. We assume that there was no different tDNA in other locations on the garments because that wouldn't happen. We also assume that the DA wouldn't have personal or professional reasons to take the pressure off of the Ramseys (because this case wasn't an embarrassment). Nope. I'm convinced it was IDI and the DNA evidence proves it...only it doesn't prove it. All it means that if LE ever finds a match, then they have more work to do before they ever charge anyone with murder.

Even then, the tDNA evidence doesn't mean anything until it is challenged in a court of law. Experts will argue both sides. The methodology and the actual technology will be questioned. I don't see this as being as simple as some have claimed. It's very complex and to deny that and not to approach it with any level of skepticism is just wrong.

If, however, one or more of the family members were involved in the murder or covering up the murder, then exploring these options is not wrong.

I can't prove it was a family member. I can't prove it was an intruder. And I can't prove that one or more of the family members weren't involved in a coverup. We'll just have to hope that some day they will find a match to the DNA. Then we might be able to get some answers.

BoldBear,

One assumption that everyone agrees about here is that the package of underwear was opened on the night of the murder but we don't know that for a fact. It's a mystery about where the unopened underwear package was kept.

Yes its not fact that the size-12's were opened on the night of the murder. According to PR this was done prior to Christmas Day and placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer by PR. Yet no size-12's were found in JonBenet's underwear drawer, go figure?

The unopened underwear package was likely stored with all the other gifts being prepared by Patsy, i.e. down in the basement. In his book Kolar states that BR visited the basement and partially opened those gifts on Christmas Day afternoon.

BR could easily have wiped JonBenet clean of blood with the old size-6 underwear, then fetched the Wednesday size-12's as a replacement, followed by the longjohns, and cast the pink barbie nightgown into the wine-cellar?

Redressing in the size-12's is not really something I would attribute to either Patsy or John, since its such an obvious mistake?

I can't prove it was a family member. I can't prove it was an intruder. And I can't prove that one or more of the family members weren't involved in a coverup. We'll just have to hope that some day they will find a match to the DNA. Then we might be able to get some answers.

With no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household, that leaves the three residents that night, and with the parents being charged as assisting in a homicide, that just leaves one left ...

.

 

[Anti-K]

OliviaG1996,

The pink barbie nightgown should not be in the wine-cellar, period. Maybe in the basement dryer or JonBenet's bedroom, but not a crime-scene. The pink barbie nightgown is also bloodstained as well has containing a sample of BR's tDNA, just his, no PR or JR tDNA?

This small detail, i.e. tDNA, along with the shoeprint links BR directly to the wine-cellar crime-scene. Does not prove anything but leaves him as a suspect.

.

Was the blood on the night gown fresh, or old? Whose blood? At the moment, I can’t recall if these questions were ever answered by anyone.

Mrs Ramsey’s tDNA was found on the Barbie night gown, along with Burke’s.

Since you like to say that secondary transfer is the likeliest method of transfer for the tDNA on the leggings (and, panties, even though it has never been said that this was tDNA!) than it must also be true that secondary transfer is the likeliest method of transfer for the tDNA on the night gown; and if you want to say that the tDNA on the leggings can’t be dates stamped, than I guess we can’t date stamp the tDNA on the night gown, either.

By the same arguments used to dismiss the tDNA and matching CODIS sample: the Ramsey tDNA found on the night gown could have been transferred by anyone (including IDI, after all, he would have handled several Ramsey items), or it could have been transferred days, weeks, months ago by jbr, or LHP, or Mr Ramsey, etc.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BoldBear,

Yes its not fact that the size-12's were opened on the night of the murder. According to PR this was done prior to Christmas Day and placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer by PR. Yet no size-12's were found in JonBenet's underwear drawer, go figure?

The unopened underwear package was likely stored with all the other gifts being prepared by Patsy, i.e. down in the basement. In his book Kolar states that BR visited the basement and partially opened those gifts on Christmas Day afternoon.

BR could easily have wiped JonBenet clean of blood with the old size-6 underwear, then fetched the Wednesday size-12's as a replacement, followed by the longjohns, and cast the pink barbie nightgown into the wine-cellar?

Redressing in the size-12's is not really something I would attribute to either Patsy or John, since its such an obvious mistake?


With no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household, that leaves the three residents that night, and with the parents being charged as assisting in a homicide, that just leaves one left ...

.

Unidentified handwriting, unidentified hairs, unidentified fibers, unidentified DNA, and more (much more), tentatively link an unidentified person.
.

BPD probably just missed the panties, might not have even specifically been looking for them. Unless you think that the Ramseys smuggled them out of the house somehow, for some reason.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Unidentified handwriting, unidentified hairs, unidentified fibers, unidentified DNA, and more (much more), tentatively link an unidentified person.
.

BPD probably just missed the panties, might not have even specifically been looking for them. Unless you think that the Ramseys smuggled them out of the house somehow, for some reason.
...

AK

Unidentified handwriting? Give me a break! That handwriting is Patsy's, you know it and I know it. The rest of your list is trash unless you can prove that the unidentified hair matches the DNA, which I doubt you can. Hairs, fibers and random DNA is everywhere and anyone that would not consider an obvious suspect because of it is simply a fool.

As for the panties, Patsy said they were opened and placed in her underwear drawer prior to Christmas, yet the remainder of the set was provided to police years later, still in the package. Explain that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Unidentified handwriting? Give me a break! That handwriting is Patsy's, you know it and I know it. The rest of your list is trash unless you can prove that the unidentified hair matches the DNA, which I doubt you can. Hairs, fibers and random DNA is everywhere and anyone that would not consider an obvious suspect because of it is simply a fool.

As for the panties, Patsy said they were opened and placed in her underwear drawer prior to Christmas, yet the remainder of the set was provided to police years later, still in the package. Explain that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re entitled to your opinion Andreww, but it is a fact that the handwriting has not been identified by any credible expert.

The hairs in question are animal (beaver, and dog – possibly wolf iirc), so don’t expect any of them to be matched to the DNA.

No one should be interested in hairs, fibers, DNA that is found everywhere. We should only be interested in hairs, fibers, DNA that is found in incriminating locations and that has not been traced, despite effort, to an innocent source.

The panties: it would seem obvious that the police simply did not collect them (with or without intent)
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

You’re entitled to your opinion Andreww, but it is a fact that the handwriting has not been identified by any credible expert.

What is YOUR opinion about the gender, social class, psychological makeup, education of the writer?

Are you of the opinion that the letter writer and the killer are the same person? If so, why?

 

[Anti-K]

What is YOUR opinion about the gender, social class, psychological makeup, education of the writer?

Are you of the opinion that the letter writer and the killer are the same person? If so, why?

I’m not qualified to render such opinions. I provisionally accept the opinions of those experts hired by BPD and the DA/Ramseys as these are the experts accepted by the Court in the Wolf lawsuit.

I am skeptical that things such as age, gender, class, etc can be determined to any meaningful degree of certainty.

However, I provisionally accept that the author and the killer were the same person as I don’t see any reason to believe otherwise.

I accept that the note was probably written before the murder, as it would be difficult for a murdered to write such a thing afterwards. I don’t think many people would be capable of doing that (particularly if one was emotionally connected to the victim).

I think that the note was planned out, that is, not spontaneously created.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

Patsy Ramsey agreed with Steve Thomas that whoever wrote the note was the killer. It was an interesting moment in television history. Here's a link to the transcript: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ffTKGAtRyZzR6Adiw&sig2=n2zFnlmg2taBWJS9LxypgQ

 

[BBB167893]

Unidentified handwriting, unidentified hairs, unidentified fibers, unidentified DNA, and more (much more), tentatively link an unidentified person.

Pardon me if I seem like a a wise-*advertiser censored**, but I'm more interested in the identified handwriting, hairs and fibers.

BPD probably just missed the panties, might not have even specifically been looking for them. Unless you think that the Ramseys smuggled them out of the house somehow, for some reason.

Not that it matters to this conversation, but I often wonder what they smuggled out, how and for what reasons.

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya otg
ty for the explanation

I'm hesitant about intentionally making an assumption about anything, Tad. Granted, we all do it sometimes without even realizing it. And until you brought this up, I guess I had made the assumption that whatever amount of blood was found smeared or wiped on her legs had been from direct contact with something that had blood on it. If there was indeed any cleansing of the vaginal vault as I suspect, it would certainly be more likely to result in some of that fluid spilling onto her legs (IMO)..

or on her panties?
or comingled with blood stain?

It's difficult for us to know much (or even make an educated guess) about it knowing no more than we do. How large was the area? Exactly what pattern might it have had before being wiped? By testing, could investigators have known that it was blood only or blood that had been diluted?)

ya, wrt the fluid, just wondering what 'element' could be in suspension, and upon examination with ultraviolet light would reveal "florescent marking long the thighs"?

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_ingredients_in_a_douche

detectable?
re: douche:
over the counter product may contain distilled vinegar and distilled water/Sodium Benzoate, Disodium Edta, and fragrance/Povidone-Iodine.

vs cellulose flushed out of JBR's vaginal cavity?

I suspect, it would certainly be more likely to result in some of that fluid spilling onto her legs (IMO).

First off, in case there was any doubt, I have less first-hand knowledge in this area than many here because of my gender and the fact that I had no daughters. That being said, I think there are enough differences between the physiology of a child's genitals and an adult's to make this particular article not very reliable for information about children. Yes, I understand that even a child's vagina will have secretions of some sort due to the simple fact that the inside is a layer of mucous membrane. That's its purpose. But the pH level alone is very different depending on the age of the person. Most of the abnormal discharges discussed in the referenced article would probably not be very likely to occur in a child. If such were the case, I should think it would be something noted by a knowledgeable pediatrician. (OOPS! :doh: Nevermind.)

sure, most likely, a bacterial infection would result in thin watery discharge

I guess my biggest reason for doubting that this was some type of physiological discharge mixed with the blood from the sexual assault is the point Dr. Meyer made of noting that it was "semifluid", "thin", and "watery". I think he might otherwise have said it was simply "blood mixed in with vaginal fluid"

idk, 'thin watery fluid' is such a general descriptive term, as far as anatomy is concerned

Obviously, this is not something we'll ever know for sure. But I still tend to believe that whoever it is who tried to cover up this crime made some attempt at rinsing out some of the blood and wiping it away. This is not something that would be done by someone trying to "fake" a sexual assault.

I guess that would depend upon the objective.

 

[BBB167893]

You’re entitled to your opinion Andreww, but it is a fact that the handwriting has not been identified by any credible expert.

Pardon my butting in, but I'd like to raise two points:

1) He can say if I'm right or wrong, but I don't think that's what andreww meant

2) And more importantly, Chet Ubowski did identify her to the GJ, in a limited way (he said that only the bleeding ink and disguised letters kept him from naming PR with certainty). Tom Miller, Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein said unequivocally that she wrote it. I don't know how "credible" you think they are. Or any of these so-called experts are, for that matter. Ultimately, the issue would be decided by a jury of regular, non-expert people like andreww and me. I just want everyone to keep that in mind.

 

[BBB167893]

I’m not qualified to render such opinions. I provisionally accept the opinions of those experts hired by BPD and the DA/Ramseys as these are the experts accepted by the Court in the Wolf lawsuit.

Well, that's one of the problems for me, Anti-K: how do we KNOW what their opinions were? None of them testified in that case, and like I've said a million times, LW had a chance to prove it by using the actual reports, but Haddon wouldn't give them up. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out why.

I accept that the note was probably written before the murder, as it would be difficult for a murdered to write such a thing afterwards. I don’t think many people would be capable of doing that (particularly if one was emotionally connected to the victim).

That idea's wasted on me, brother. Number one, you'd be surprised what people are capable of. Number two, we're not talking about "many people." We're talking about THESE people.

 

[Anti-K]

Pardon my butting in, but I'd like to raise two points:

1) He can say if I'm right or wrong, but I don't think that's what andreww meant

2) And more importantly, Chet Ubowski did identify her to the GJ, in a limited way (he said that only the bleeding ink and disguised letters kept him from naming PR with certainty). Tom Miller, Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein said unequivocally that she wrote it. I don't know how "credible" you think they are. Or any of these so-called experts are, for that matter. Ultimately, the issue would be decided by a jury of regular, non-expert people like andreww and me. I just want everyone to keep that in mind.

No, I don’t think a “jury of regular, non-expert people like andreww and me [and, me]” would get to decide how credible any expert might be, or, be trusted to their own opinion on authorship. Things have changed, and continue to change, and admissibility of expert testimony is becoming more restricted and exact.

We saw this with Wong and with Epstein. You can disagree with Carnes findings but they remain soundly argued and I can’t see any Court disagreeing with them NOW. Standards are being set. And, there’s no reason to think that either of them would ever be used by the Prosecution, anyway (Wong was rejected by Kane for the GJ, I don’t think Epstein was ever considered).

You don’t know what Ubowski told the GJ. But, we all know that he did not make any identification and we know that he refused to give BPD what they wanted when it came to an identification, and you don’t know what impact a decent defence attorney would have on his testimony. A testimony which, as far as we know, failed to make an identification.

And, saying that “bleeding ink and disguised letters kept [Ubowski] from naming PR with certainty” is misleading. The unbiased way of saying this would be that “bleeding ink and disguised letters” would keep ANYONE from being identified with certainty.”
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

No, I don’t think a “jury of regular, non-expert people like andreww and me [and, me]” would get to decide how credible any expert might be, or, be trusted to their own opinion on authorship.

Is that not the whole point of the jury system?

Things have changed, and continue to change, and admissibility of expert testimony is becoming more restricted and exact.

But not necessarily improved.

We saw this with Wong and with Epstein.

I KNOW what we saw with Wong and Epstein, Anti-K. So do they.

You can disagree with Carnes findings

Damn right!

but they remain soundly argued and I can’t see any Court disagreeing with them NOW.

Apparently they DO, whether you can see it or not. Just to use Wong as an example, several courts accepted her before the Carnes case, and several have since. It's only THIS one that seemed to have any problems. Wonder why that might be...

And, there’s no reason to think that either of them would ever be used by the Prosecution, anyway

Oh, of that, I have no doubt. I just don't think it for reasons as ethical as you think.

(Wong was rejected by Kane for the GJ, I don’t think Epstein was ever considered).

Actually, to hear Wong tell it, Alex Hunter had final say on that. (Her exact description was of him as "gatekeeper.) And Epstein hadn't even completed his analysis until right around the time ML took office. I know he took his findings to both Hunter and Lacy, who wouldn't give him the time of day. He even offered to consult with Lou Smit, but apparently, Mr Openmindedness himself wasn't in the mood. I'll let everyone form their own opinions about that.

This is incidental to my point. I'm getting sidetracked.

You don’t know what Ubowski told the GJ.

Beyond what I said earlier, that's true.

But, we all know that he did not make any identification and we know that he refused to give BPD what they wanted when it came to an identification,

Not officially, for reasons I provided.

and you don’t know what impact a decent defense attorney would have on his testimony.

To say nothing of a defense attorney with no decency. (One Hal Haddon LEAPS to mind.)

And, saying that “bleeding ink and disguised letters kept [Ubowski] from naming PR with certainty” is misleading. The unbiased way of saying this would be that “bleeding ink and disguised letters” would keep ANYONE from being identified with certainty.”

That's fair to say. I was just going by what he said. I didn't apply it generally, but you could.

For my money, there's too much reliance on "expert" testimony in courts these days. I'm sure there are statisticians out there who can prove beyond any doubt that Mitt Romney actually won the last election. There's an accountant out in Hollywood who can show you that Avatar LOST money.

 

[andreww]

Pardon my butting in, but I'd like to raise two points:

1) He can say if I'm right or wrong, but I don't think that's what andreww meant

2) And more importantly, Chet Ubowski did identify her to the GJ, in a limited way (he said that only the bleeding ink and disguised letters kept him from naming PR with certainty). Tom Miller, Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein said unequivocally that she wrote it. I don't know how "credible" you think they are. Or any of these so-called experts are, for that matter. Ultimately, the issue would be decided by a jury of regular, non-expert people like andreww and me. I just want everyone to keep that in mind.

For the record Dave, I wasn't really referring to experts in my post, but to normal people like you or me. Look at the note, look at Patsy's samples and historical writings and look at the character comparisons. Then consider the obvious deceptive tactics Patsy used, and finally, consider the odds that a random intruder in that house would have handwriting so similar to Patsy's that not one expert could exclude her.

I am not talking about expert opinion Dave, I am talking about people with an ounce of common sense. I doubt that there isn't a person on this planet, with the exception of predisposed Ramsey lovers like AK, that I could not convince that Patsy wrote that note. It's not about experts, it's about using your eyes and your own common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE BUNK]

I think that the note was planned out, that is, not spontaneously created.

Are you insinuating the killer wrote the note before he entered the house? Are you also insinuating that this was a botched kidnapping?

I find it interesting that the note was well planned and the killer brought rope and tape with him.....yet didn't make the garrote. Was it his intention to kill anyone in the first place? Or was he making a money grab in a ransom attempt.

 

[andreww]

Are you insinuating the killer wrote the note before he entered the house? Are you also insinuating that this was a botched kidnapping?

I find it interesting that the note was well planned and the killer brought rope and tape with him.....yet didn't make the garrote. Was it his intention to kill anyone in the first place? Or was he making a money grab in a ransom attempt.

The killer never brought anything, it was all in the house already. The note is a diversion tactic and nothing more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk