A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[UKGuy]

For once I agree with you. BRs TDNA on the nightgown proves nothing, just like the unidentified TDNA proves nothing.

And while we're on the subject, I wonder if any thought was given to testing the workers at the factory where the Panties were made and packaged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
For once I must disagree with you. BR's TDNA on the nightgown proves he might have been in contact with JonBenet close to the time of her death. Patently absence of BR's touch-dna would not allow this inference.

The foreign dna found on JonBenet, unlike BR's sample, is unknown and unidentified.

.

 

[BOESP]

If the DNA is irrelevant “then a lot of ‘cleared’ people go into play again” IF (if, if, if...) the DNA is the only thing that “cleared” them.

It’s okay to be bricked into a corner if it’s the right corner.
...

AK

DNA that hasn't been sourced is just raw data that suggests perhaps it is related to the crime (or perhaps not). If proven to be related to the crime it is inclusive, not exclusive. Clearing people on DNA evidence alone is inept and useless.

 

[BBB167893]

In every case, we have to allow for the possibility of contamination and that is why precautions and diligence are taken. Because of those precautions and diligence (and, three matching samples from two articles of clothing, processed in separate labs, etc), the chance that this (tDNA/CODIS) DNA is the result of contamination is too small to realistically consider.

So, we’re back to the issue of relevance.
...

AK

That's certainly the issue with me. You wouldn't get much argument from me if this had been blood or semen. The fact that it took periods of years just to get readable material doesn't do much for me.

 

[BBB167893]

If the DNA is irrelevant “then a lot of ‘cleared’ people go into play again” IF (if, if, if...) the DNA is the only thing that “cleared” them.

Precisely.

It’s okay to be bricked into a corner if it’s the right corner.

I'll remember that.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,
Does the mean the foreign dna might have arrived on JonBenet after she was killed say at autopsy?

.

Bill Wise said that even he couldn't discount that possibility.
That's not what the FBI person meant, though. She said quite plainly that more and more irrelevant DNA will be found, leading to fewer and fewer convictions. Frankly, I don't think justice should be measured in convictions (unless you're North Korea), but as a society, we have a vested interest in seeing criminals punished.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Because the foreign dna is present on her clothing so why not on her person or elsewhere at the primary crime-scene?


Search Warrant 12-29-1996

So was dna left inside JonBenet, or on the paintbrush handle, did the alleged intruder wear medical gloves?


Patently, as you acknowledge regarding the digital penetration, you have much to learn, can I suggest Kolars book.

All three Ramsey's are linked by forensic evidence to the wine-cellar which is the alleged primary crime-scene, no other person has been linked in such a manner.

The difference between the dna sample found in JonBenet's underwear and that of BR's is that we know who the latter is. So BR can theoretically be eliminated if the forensic evidence allows.

The status of the foreign dna is unknown along with its owner. So we do not know if it even belongs to the person who asphyxiated JonBenet, who as per above might be BR, with the foreign dna representing contamination at a later date, e.g. at the autopsy!

.

The passage you quoted from the Search Warrant contains an error. “...an injury constant with digital penetration...” should read “...an injury CONSISTENT with digital penetration...”

Anyway, according to Arndt, Meyer said that “the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration.” This does not mean that the injury WAS from digital penetration, only that it was CONSISTENT with digital penetration.
.

Some theorize that the killer wore gloves but removed them for the sexual aspect of the crime.
.

All Ramseys are connected to the WC even without forensic evidence.
.

Trace evidence (DNA, hair, fiber) not sourced to the Ramseys or the Ramsey home (despite effort) exists.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

SuperDave,
Does the mean the foreign dna might have arrived on JonBenet after she was killed say at autopsy?

.

We can provisionally rule out this possibility because DNA from persons associated with the investigation (handling of body, autopsy, etc) as well as previous autopsies (8) were compared and no match was found.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

andreww,
For once I must disagree with you. BR's TDNA on the nightgown proves he might have been in contact with JonBenet close to the time of her death. Patently absence of BR's touch-dna would not allow this inference.

The foreign dna found on JonBenet, unlike BR's sample, is unknown and unidentified.

.

DNA in and of itself cannot be date stamped, so we really have no idea when or under what circumstances that DNA got on the Barbie night gown.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Bill Wise said that even he couldn't discount that possibility.
That's not what the FBI person meant, though. She said quite plainly that more and more irrelevant DNA will be found, leading to fewer and fewer convictions. Frankly, I don't think justice should be measured in convictions (unless you're North Korea), but as a society, we have a vested interest in seeing criminals punished.

I guess we’re still waiting for your FBI person’s opinion to prove true.

Remember Y2K? Remember all the terrible things that people said were going to happen? But, they didn’t happen. They didn’t happen because everyone knew the danger/risks and steps were taken to deal with them.

This FBI person’s opinion shows that there is an awareness of the danger/risks involved. That’s a good thing and awareness of danger/risks usually goes a long ways towards minimizing (in some cases, eliminating) those dangers/risks.

IMO, all of this is off-topic, but I think that it is still a worthwhile and interesting conversation to have.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

The passage you quoted from the Search Warrant contains an error. “...an injury constant with digital penetration...” should read “...an injury CONSISTENT with digital penetration...”

Anyway, according to Arndt, Meyer said that “the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration.” This does not mean that the injury WAS from digital penetration, only that it was CONSISTENT with digital penetration.
.

Some theorize that the killer wore gloves but removed them for the sexual aspect of the crime.
.

All Ramseys are connected to the WC even without forensic evidence.
.

Trace evidence (DNA, hair, fiber) not sourced to the Ramseys or the Ramsey home (despite effort) exists.
...

AK

Anti-K,

Some theorize that the killer wore gloves but removed them for the sexual aspect of the crime.

Does this mean the killer might have left dna on JonBenet, other than the underwear sample?

All Ramseys are connected to the WC even without forensic evidence.

Of course they are, but BR, in particular is linked directly by his touch-dna to a crime-scene item, i.e. a bloodstained pink barbie nightgown.

Trace evidence (DNA, hair, fiber) not sourced to the Ramseys or the Ramsey home (despite effort) exists.

Any of this linked to the primary crime-scene?

.
...

 

[UKGuy]

DNA in and of itself cannot be date stamped, so we really have no idea when or under what circumstances that DNA got on the Barbie night gown.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Thats why BR is a suspect, if you have no idea, others do and their idea is that BR was present when JonBenet was assaulted?

Presumably there is also no way to datestamp the arrival of blood but I'll bet most people will accept the bloodstain arrived during the commission of a crime?

.

 

[BOESP]

"Consistent with" means the same as "indistinguishable from."

In other words, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck."

What other instrument or means, logically in JonBenet's case, would be consistent with digital penetration of the vagina?

 

[otg]

(bbm)

"Consistent with" means the same as "indistinguishable from."

In other words, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck."

What other instrument or means, logically in JonBenet's case, would be consistent with digital penetration of the vagina?

The end of a paint brush.

 

[otg]

The end of a paint brush.

I should have said:

"The MISSING end of a paint brush."​

 

[BOESP]

(bbm)The end of a paint brush.

otg, you know I value your knowledge on this case even though we sometimes (often :giggle disagree. Imo, a broken paintbrush would leave a different size and type of abrasion than a finger/fingernail. A gloved finger would leave different injuries than would an ungloved finger.

I'm pretty certain there were wooden fragments consistent with the paintbrush found in the vagina (based on what I've read) but the birefringent material may or may not have been from the paintbrush.

I think Dr. Meyer would have said consistent with penetration by a foreign object if he had thought the paintbrush was the means.

If JonBenet was penetrated by the paintbrush and Burke did it, wouldn't you think his fingerprints or DNA would have been on the paint tote and/or remaining end of the brush?

Thanks for your insights.

 

[otg]

otg, you know I value your knowledge on this case even though we sometimes (often :giggle disagree.

I think we actually agree much more than you might think. We only disagree on the details. What makes it seem like we disagree a lot is our ability to discuss those details (respectfully) more than we discuss our agreements. You know my feeling is mutual about your knowledge and critical thinking abilities.

Imo, a broken paintbrush would leave a different size and type of abrasion than a finger/fingernail. A gloved finger would leave different injuries than would an ungloved finger.

I agree completely with what you stated here. A BROKEN paintbrush would cause much more damage to the delicate flesh than was noted in the AR. I believe the paintbrush was used before it was broken. I believe that because it most likely had blood on it, the person(s) who altered the crime scene chose to get rid of the evidence by breaking the rounded end of the paintbrush off and secreting it out of the house. This is some of what Dr. John McCann said in reference to this injury (from “Bonita Papers” -- emphasis mine):

It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

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 were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.
​

Additionally, I agree with your posit that a gloved finger might be more consistent with the described genital injuries (than an ungloved finger), and I don't think I've ever heard any so-called "experts" put forth that position. Excellent point!

I'm pretty certain there were wooden fragments consistent with the paintbrush found in the vagina (based on what I've read) but the birefringent material may or may not have been from the paintbrush.

True that. TMK, it has never been acknowledged that the “birefringent foreign material” was or was not the wooden splinter. It could be as Dr. Wecht speculated: talcum powder from a medical glove. It could also be varnish from the outside of the paintbrush which was described as being old and flaking off. All these things are birefringement (as I understand it). This is one of those things that I’m sure investigators know, and that we (the public) do not.

I think Dr. Meyer would have said consistent with penetration by a foreign object if he had thought the paintbrush was the means.

At the time he was describing the injuries he saw (according to a third-hand account), he had no idea what to consider as the possible cause other than to say it was “consistent with digital penetration” so as to differentiate it from what would ordinarily be considered (penile penetration) in a sexual assault.

If JonBenet was penetrated by the paintbrush and Burke did it, wouldn't you think his fingerprints or DNA would have been on the paint tote and/or remaining end of the brush?

I think that before the two pieces of paintbrush that were found were left behind, they were wiped free of fingerprints. Ever hear about Patsy’s fingerprints or DNA being found on Patsy’s paintbrush? If not, why not? Shouldn’t her fingerprints be all over one of her paintbrushes? As for DNA, was either piece of the paintbrush ever tested for DNA? I’ve never heard about it if it was.

Thanks for your insights.

Thank YOU, BOESP, for such engaging questions that make me (and everyone else who reads them) think about what we know and what it might mean. That’s why you and I have so many of what might seem like disagreements: BECAUSE WE WANT ANSWERS!

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Does this mean the killer might have left dna on JonBenet, other than the underwear sample?

You mean other than the underwear AND leggings; right? Are you asking if the killer, if IDI, could have left DNA on the victim after he removed his gloves for the sexual aspect of the crime? Assuming this is the question, then I suppose he could have but I don’t know if there would have been anyway to find out.

Of course they are, but BR, in particular is linked directly by his touch-dna to a crime-scene item, i.e. a bloodstained pink barbie nightgown.

BR’s DNA could have been on the Barbie nightgown long before it ever ended up in the basement.

The Barbie nightgown could have been brought to the WC without the killer, or anyone, even knowing it. Or, it could have been known but still unintended. Simply caught up in the blanket or the victim when she/it was moved.

DNA doesn’t care about who it came from or where it goes; it’s indifferent to IDI and RDI. It simply is, and it transfers in the same manner regardless of IDI or RDI. The “rules” of transfer remain the same.

This means that if one wishes to explain the unsourced tDNA as secondary transfer, perhaps by jbr herself, than one MUST acknowledge that Burke’s DNA could have also transferred to the Barbie nightgown through secondary transfer (perhaps, by jbr herself). The rules remain the same.

Of course, there are (good) reasons why we should believe that Burke’s DNA came to be on the Barbie nightgown through primary transfer. Those same reasons apply to the unsourced tDNA found on the leggings (and, the matching CODIS sample). The rule remain the same.

If one is going to argue that Burke’s DNA is on the Barbie nightgown because Burke touched it, than one MUST accept that the unsourced DNA is in the panties and on the leggings because an unidentified person touched them. The argument, the reasoning, the logic, the rules remains the same.

Any of this linked to the primary crime-scene?

.
...

Yes, there is DNA commingled with the victim’s blood on the inside crotch of her panties, on the outside hip areas of her leggings, on the wrist ligature and on the neck ligature. There are hairs in the victim’s hands, on the tape; fibers on the tape, on the ligatures, in the victims’ genital area; etc.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

"Consistent with" means the same as "indistinguishable from."

In other words, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck."

What other instrument or means, logically in JonBenet's case, would be consistent with digital penetration of the vagina?

"Indistinguishable from" digital penetration does not mean it was digital penetration. I think otg answered your question.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

You mean other than the underwear AND leggings; right? Are you asking if the killer, if IDI, could have left DNA on the victim after he removed his gloves for the sexual aspect of the crime? Assuming this is the question, then I suppose he could have but I don’t know if there would have been anyway to find out.





BR’s DNA could have been on the Barbie nightgown long before it ever ended up in the basement.

The Barbie nightgown could have been brought to the WC without the killer, or anyone, even knowing it. Or, it could have been known but still unintended. Simply caught up in the blanket or the victim when she/it was moved.

DNA doesn’t care about who it came from or where it goes; it’s indifferent to IDI and RDI. It simply is, and it transfers in the same manner regardless of IDI or RDI. The “rules” of transfer remain the same.

This means that if one wishes to explain the unsourced tDNA as secondary transfer, perhaps by jbr herself, than one MUST acknowledge that Burke’s DNA could have also transferred to the Barbie nightgown through secondary transfer (perhaps, by jbr herself). The rules remain the same.

Of course, there are (good) reasons why we should believe that Burke’s DNA came to be on the Barbie nightgown through primary transfer. Those same reasons apply to the unsourced tDNA found on the leggings (and, the matching CODIS sample). The rule remain the same.

If one is going to argue that Burke’s DNA is on the Barbie nightgown because Burke touched it, than one MUST accept that the unsourced DNA is in the panties and on the leggings because an unidentified person touched them. The argument, the reasoning, the logic, the rules remains the same.



Yes, there is DNA commingled with the victim’s blood on the inside crotch of her panties, on the outside hip areas of her leggings, on the wrist ligature and on the neck ligature. There are hairs in the victim’s hands, on the tape; fibers on the tape, on the ligatures, in the victims’ genital area; etc.
...

AK

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

If one is going to argue that Burke’s DNA is on the Barbie nightgown because Burke touched it, than one MUST accept that the unsourced DNA is in the panties and on the leggings because an unidentified person touched them. The argument, the reasoning, the logic, the rules remains the same.

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!

.

 

[BOESP]

I think we actually agree much more than you might think. We only disagree on the details. What makes it seem like we disagree a lot is our ability to discuss those details (respectfully) more than we discuss our agreements. You know my feeling is mutual about your knowledge and critical thinking abilities.

I agree and thank you for your kind words.

I agree completely with what you stated here. A BROKEN paintbrush would cause much more damage to the delicate flesh than was noted in the AR. I believe the paintbrush was used before it was broken. I believe that because it most likely had blood on it, the person(s) who altered the crime scene chose to get rid of the evidence by breaking the rounded end of the paintbrush off and secreting it out of the house. This is some of what Dr. John McCann said in reference to this injury (from “Bonita Papers” -- emphasis mine):

It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the
hymen.​

​

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.

<snipped for brevity>
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 were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

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

At the time he was describing the injuries he saw (according to a third-hand account), he had no idea what to consider as the possible cause other than to say it was &#8220;consistent with digital penetration&#8221; so as to differentiate it from what would ordinarily be considered (penile penetration) in a sexual assault.

And I had never thought about Meyer's intent being to distinguish digital penetration from penile penetration but that certainly could have been his line of thinking.

Thank YOU, BOESP, for such engaging questions that make me (and everyone else who reads them) think about what we know and what it might mean. That&#8217;s why you and I have so many of what might seem like disagreements: BECAUSE WE WANT ANSWERS!

And thank you in kind otg. I want answers and I want accountability. At this point, I'm exasperated with what was supposed to be the judicial system and another dose of "money and connections talk and the killer and accomplice walk."

As an old sheriff once said, "It's my job to find 'em then let the courts try 'em and sentence 'em and let the Good Lord sort 'em out."