A
ajt400
Guest
I just think DNA should be explained beyond, "Oh well, it came from a factory." It just seems to be shrugged off because it doesn't fit the Ramsey Did It profile.
Another Odd Thing
- Thread starter Barbara
- Start date
I just think DNA should be explained beyond, "Oh well, it came from a factory." It just seems to be shrugged off because it doesn't fit the Ramsey Did It profile.
Imon128
Former Member
Not all DNA can be explained at any crime site, IMO. I don't see that DNA in JB's case has been shrugged off at all. And particularly for the sole reason that it didn't fit a RDI profile. The BPD and all other investigators in this case surely have exhausted themselves checking out all pertinent info, on BOTH sides for BOTH reasons. JMO, though.
A
ajt400
Guest
True, good point, do you think there will ever be a resolution to this case?
Just curious, was the DNA ever tested, or just said to be contaminated or inconclusive?
Just curious, was the DNA ever tested, or just said to be contaminated or inconclusive?
Shylock
Former Member
The "mystery" DNA was not "contaminated", it might be "contamination". The experts have said it may not be related at all to the case and is actually a by-product of the testing procedure called "studder effect" That means the mystery DNA might not even exist to begin with.
They also tested fresh underwear right out of the package and found it to contain DNA from the factory. If the panties she was wearing came from an overseas garment factory the DNA probably belongs to Sum Yung Gai.
tipper
Former Member
I believe that's stutter effect
M
Maxi
Guest
Scheck said it could well be just "noise".
SisterSocks
What a wild and crazy trip its been
Hi Imon I am so happy to see you back
WE GOTTA BE FRIENDS CUZ I MISS YOU =)
Socks
Toth
Inactive
Given the rather small attendance at most of the pageant events and the fact that they were largely family and friends of contestants I think it unlikely that a pedophile was amongst them; its much more likely that some 'down and out' type on his way to a free meal at the Aquinas Youth Hall saw something he liked.
SisterSocks
What a wild and crazy trip its been
Bahahahahaha Shy good one =)
sissi
Former Member
Toth,you really do think it was a homeless type. I can see this,especially with a friendly little girl who wasn't watched very carefully,he may have had time and conversation with her,and in the light of Elizabeth Smart,it doesn't seem to require much exposure to become a victim. It could be,I have been a bit brainwashed by the media,seeing and hearing that the "home touches" had to be either family or close friend,someone who really KNEW the Ramseys. Since most of what we hear is garbage,if we dismiss the crap about psalms,dictionaries,bonus amounts,etc. and see the crime more simply,a man entering a home,writing a note,and killing a child, it could very well just be a wandering alley man. Many of the homeless are not as "harmless" as we like to think,they often suffer from substance abuse and/or mental illness. It's just such a confusing picture with all of the Boulder eccentrics playing a part,it's almost just too nuts to believe one child had so many "nuts" in her life.
It's easy to make a case for any one of the knowns to be the killer,and that is sad and crazy. Lord,this family was naive ,almost childlike in their trust of people. I hope if Keenan has a suspect she can find him ,transients are difficult to locate,if not impossible.
IMO JMO
It's easy to make a case for any one of the knowns to be the killer,and that is sad and crazy. Lord,this family was naive ,almost childlike in their trust of people. I hope if Keenan has a suspect she can find him ,transients are difficult to locate,if not impossible.
IMO JMO
Toth
Inactive
Contributing to the 'down and out type on his way to a free meal' is the utter absurdity of writing a note that says anything much less a note that talks about a ransom for a person already dead. Throw in the odd amount, the paltry amount, the fanciful topics in the note... it appears as if it well might be someone who lives in a fantasy world, perhaps aided by drugs or prior drug use.
I can't see that any business enemies actually exist. I just don't think anyone in their social group, even the weirdo McSantas, have sufficient motive for something like this.
I can't see that any business enemies actually exist. I just don't think anyone in their social group, even the weirdo McSantas, have sufficient motive for something like this.
Britt
New Member
Whoa, sissi. Are you saying JonBenét's parents were something other than perfect, attentive parents?
Exactly right, Toth! None of them do.
The only people with motive to commit and cover up this crime are the incestuous, child abusing perverts John and Patsy Ramsey. Allegedly, of course.
Ivy
Inactive
Toth, the note makes sense in this context: Initially, at the time Patsy penned the note, the Ramseys may have planned to remove JonBenet's body from the house and put it someplace where it would be easily found by searchers. For any of a number of reasons, they decided not to do that. However, regardless of whether they removed her body or left it in the house, they had to have evidence of an intruder to show the police to keep from becoming suspects themselves. That is why the note was a must. Without it there would be no "evidence" of an intruder.
Cherokee
Well-Known Member
But sissi, there is the really big question of how did a "homeless type" get Patsy to write the ransom note for him?
You can't compare Elizabeth's kidnapping with what happened to JonBenet. Mitchell didn't leave a three page ransom note in Lois Smart's handwriting.
It can't be explained away, and there is sealed evidence the public does not know. That evidence is the reason the Ramseys never got out from under the umbrella.
Why did the FBI bow out of the investigation? Because they told Boulder LE that there was no outside perp for them to discover. The FBI told LE all evidence led back to the Ramseys.
But there was already too much water under that bridge with contaminated evidence, and the Ramseys not being questioned immediately after JonBenet's death. So the case will never be prosecuted. The best we can hope for is continued leaking of evidence until we finally know the truth.
My opinion.
Britt
New Member
Exactly, Ivy.
Also, there were two stagers here. Two cooks in the kitchen. Maybe Patsy, who wrote the note, planned to get the body out of the house... but John pointed out how risky that was, how there would be evidence (car engine, tire tracks, etc.)... better to hide the body in the basement:
It has to be an inside job. It has to be somebody that knows the family. Nobody knows about the wine cellar in the basement. John Ramsey 12/26/96 (per Spade's notes).
Burke reported hearing loud voices during the night -- probably the two stagers arguing about how to stage.
If it were an intruder, he would've disposed of the incriminating note along with any leftover cord and duct tape, probably right before he wiped his prints off the maglite he left on the kitchen counter.
Britt
New Member
:bigthumb:
Imon128
Former Member
He probably told her she'd get to be on TV if she did...LOL!
Toth
Inactive
Burke slept soundly through the night and heard nothing.
Patsy did not write the note and most experts are 'close' to the point of formally excluding her but not at that point.
Patsy did not write the note and most experts are 'close' to the point of formally excluding her but not at that point.
Ivy
Inactive
Britt, yes, you are absolutely right--he would have. Heck, the intruder was so careful to leave no evidence that he apparently even wiped his prints off the flashlight batteries!
The Ramseys managed to dispose of the roll of tape (if the mouth tape came from a roll and not from the back of a picture, etc.) as well as the remainder of the cord (if there was any leftover), and they could easily have disposed of the note too. In fact, it would have been very easy to dispose of the note. But they NEEDED the note, even though, as Toth pointed out, it "talks about a ransom for a person already dead." The note was the only "proof" of an intruder the Ramseys could offer.
I'm a BDIer, but I am quite sure he wasn't involved in the staging. I can imagine John and Patsy arguing about how to do it and Burke hearing them from his bedroom. Whether he killed JonBenet or not, he must have been terrified. Regardless of which one of the Ramseys is actually the killer, I know without a doubt that John and Patsy staged the coverup.
The Ramseys managed to dispose of the roll of tape (if the mouth tape came from a roll and not from the back of a picture, etc.) as well as the remainder of the cord (if there was any leftover), and they could easily have disposed of the note too. In fact, it would have been very easy to dispose of the note. But they NEEDED the note, even though, as Toth pointed out, it "talks about a ransom for a person already dead." The note was the only "proof" of an intruder the Ramseys could offer.
I'm a BDIer, but I am quite sure he wasn't involved in the staging. I can imagine John and Patsy arguing about how to do it and Burke hearing them from his bedroom. Whether he killed JonBenet or not, he must have been terrified. Regardless of which one of the Ramseys is actually the killer, I know without a doubt that John and Patsy staged the coverup.
Toth
Inactive
aside from such obvious questions as to why on earth should they stage any sort of coverup, why would they have bought a brand new roll of duct tape, put some of it on a picture and then removed it from the picture and thrown the duct tape away in the middle of the night? Did they throw the duct tape away on the same automobile trip to the local 7-11 that they took to get some dna?