Boulder police chief exonerates Fleet and Priscilla White in death of JonBenet Ramsey

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But there isn't any proof that "the" touch DNA was from anyone else! It could be a mixture of two people. If it's a mixed sample it won't be a "match" to either donor. We KNOW JR had hold of her waist when he carried her upstairs. PR admitted to putting the long johns on her. There you go! A mixture of JR/PR tDNA. Doesn't match either one of them, but gives the IDI theory it's only breath of life. This has been brought up just recently, with links provided by OTG (Thanks OTG!). Why is this still being said it couldn't be both the Rs & not some unknown intruder?

It is not Ramsey DNA. That is clear. So it is someone elses DNA. IT matches no one that was tested so far, but it does belong to someone.

 

[Nom de plume]

It is not Ramsey DNA. That is clear. So it is someone elses DNA. IT matches no one that was tested so far, but it does belong to someone.

No, that is NOT clear! Apparently you don't understand how a mixed sample would not match either parent, but could be the mixture of their DNA. It most certainly could be theirs!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry double post

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, that is NOT clear! Apparently you don't understand how a mixed sample would not match either parent, but could be the mixture of their DNA. It most certainly could be theirs!

.

There is DNA that does not match an r that was found mixed with jbr DNA. There is also touch DNA that matches that unknown DNA that does not match any of the Ramsey's or people who have been previously tested.
That is just fact. I will go as far also to say as time goes by and DNA testing gets even better it will be even clear that her attacker was not an R.

Jmo.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[Anti-K]

No, that is NOT clear! Apparently you don't understand how a mixed sample would not match either parent, but could be the mixture of their DNA. It most certainly could be theirs!

No, it could not be. You are wrong.
...

AK

 

[Nom de plume]

No, it could not be. You are wrong.
...

AK

Sorry, but I'm not wrong. Look it up! The tDNA may be a mixture from two different people. The mixed sample will not match either donor, and can never be matched to anyone since no one person will match. It may be inconvenient, but it's fact.

 

[Nom de plume]

.

There is DNA that does not match an r that was found mixed with jbr DNA. There is also touch DNA that matches that unknown DNA that does not match any of the Ramsey's or people who have been previously tested.
That is just fact. I will go as far also to say as time goes by and DNA testing gets even better it will be even clear that her attacker was not an R.

Jmo.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

It's not fact! As I said, you obviously don't understand. A mixed sample cannot match any one person! It never will! You want to deal with nothing but facts? Well that's a fact. Ignore it all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's not fact! As I said, you obviously don't understand. A mixed sample cannot match any one person! It never will! You want to deal with nothing but facts? Well that's a fact. Ignore it all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

I do understand and I know the DNA evidence. There was DNA found in her panties and touch DNA that matched it found on her clothing.
It is in CODIS. They don't put things in there that can't be matched.
DNA is fact.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's not fact! As I said, you obviously don't understand. A mixed sample cannot match any one person! It never will! You want to deal with nothing but facts? Well that's a fact. Ignore it all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

The DNA is in CODIS. And It can be matched or they would not put it in there.

CODIS does not except samples that can't be matched.

There is DNA and it is not Ramsey DNA. It can be matched when they find the killer. IMO.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_9844799

The genetic profile of the man some authorities believe killed JonBenet Ramsey is sitting in a massive federal database where it waits for a match.

Read more: Ramsey case DNA awaits match in federal database - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_9844799#ixzz2ukW1FcSy
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook




http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet


Q: Are there specific data requirements for the DNA records submitted to NDIS?
A: Yes. There are several requirements for the DNA data submitted to NDIS:

1. The DNA data must be generated in accordance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;
2. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that is accredited by an approved accrediting agency;
3. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that undergoes an external audit every two years to demonstrate compliance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;
4. The DNA data must be one of the categories of data acceptable at NDIS, such as convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, legal, forensic (casework), unidentified human remains, missing person or a relative of missing person;
5. The DNA data must meet minimum CODIS Core Loci requirements for the specimen category;
6. The DNA PCR data must be generated using PCR accepted kits; and
7. Participating laboratories must have and follow expungement procedures in accordance with federal law.

Q: What are the 13 core CODIS loci?
A: The 13 core CODIS loci are:

CSF1PO
FGA
THO1
TPOX
VWA
D3S1358
D5S818
D7S820
D8S1179
D13S317
D16S539
D18S51
D21S11
Q: What are the minimum loci requirements for the STR DNA data submitted to NDIS?
A: The minimum CODIS Core Loci required for submission of DNA data to NDIS vary by specimen category. Generally, the 13 CODIS Core Loci are required for submission of convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, and legal profiles. The 13 CODIS Core Loci and Amelogenin are required for relatives of missing person profiles.

All 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted for other specimen categories with the following limited exceptions:

For forensic DNA profiles, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted but at least 10 CODIS Core Loci must have generated results for submission to and searching at NDIS.
For Missing Person and Unidentified Human Remains, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted.
Q: What are the requirements for submission of mtDNA data to NDIS?
A: Hypervariable region I (“HV1”; positions 16024-16365) and hypervariable region II (“HV2”; positions 73-340) are required for the submission of mtDNA data to NDIS.



The DNA is real. It is not incidental and CODIS does not take samples that don't meet their standards.

 

[Anti-K]

Sorry, but I'm not wrong. Look it up! The tDNA may be a mixture from two different people. The mixed sample will not match either donor, and can never be matched to anyone since no one person will match. It may be inconvenient, but it's fact.

Look it up where? What are you talking about? Whoever said that the tDNA was a mixed sample?
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

It's not fact! As I said, you obviously don't understand. A mixed sample cannot match any one person! It never will! You want to deal with nothing but facts? Well that's a fact. Ignore it all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

Nom de plume,
mmm, lots to consider here, not least that the touch dna sample mixed or not cannot demonstrate that it was deposited by the same person who sexually assaulted JonBenet.

That IDI proponents contuinue to insist it does, emphasises the desparate measures they will take to assert that the death of JonBenet was IDI!

When in reality their claims have no scientific basis and represent voices on the sideline shouting for their favorite outcome.

 

[Anti-K]

It's not fact! As I said, you obviously don't understand. A mixed sample cannot match any one person! It never will! You want to deal with nothing but facts? Well that's a fact. Ignore it all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

It’s not so much about matching any one person, as it is about EXCLUDING persons. So far the Ramseys and 200+ persons associated with the family, and the investigation, etc have been excluded.

On the point of mixed samples, if they can separate the samples than they can include or exclude to whatever degree of probability the identified markers allow. In this case, the mixed sample was NOT the tDNA, it was the panty DNA. That DNA was mixed with the victim’s DNA. The victim’s DNA was 1) female, and, 2) identified. They can “separate” the male from the female. And, knowing which markers matched the victim would have further eased the task of determining which markers belonged to which profile. This profile is in CODIS, so it must be a good, usable profile.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

It’s not so much about matching any one person, as it is about EXCLUDING persons. So far the Ramseys and 200+ persons associated with the family, and the investigation, etc have been excluded.

On the point of mixed samples, if they can separate the samples than they can include or exclude to whatever degree of probability the identified markers allow. In this case, the mixed sample was NOT the tDNA, it was the panty DNA. That DNA was mixed with the victim’s DNA. The victim’s DNA was 1) female, and, 2) identified. They can “separate” the male from the female. And, knowing which markers matched the victim would have further eased the task of determining which markers belonged to which profile. This profile is in CODIS, so it must be a good, usable profile.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Are you having a laugh, is it a comedy session? If its IDI we do require an individual, someone distinct from the Ramsey family?


Yet touch dna analysis cannot provide this can it, despite the passage of years, why do you concentrate on the exclusion of persons rather than their inclusion, what is the difference, i.e. the relevance of your evidence?

.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Are you having a laugh, is it a comedy session? If its IDI we do require an individual, someone distinct from the Ramsey family?


Yet touch dna analysis cannot provide this can it, despite the passage of years, why do you concentrate on the exclusion of persons rather than their inclusion, what is the difference, i.e. the relevance of your evidence?

.

The DNA exists independent of IDI or RDI. It is trace evidence found in incriminating locations.

It is known that the killer had contact with these incriminating locations and that he was the last person to have contact with these incriminating locations. This is the exact reason why these locations were tested, because these are the exact locations where investigators would expect to find trace evidence left by her killer.

The panty DNA, the sample that is in CODIS, that is the compelling sample. The tDNA merely corroborates the significance of that sample.
No one knows if this DNA came from an intruder, but we know that there are 200+ people associated with the Ramseys and the investigation to whom it does not belong. And, that too is significant.

Although we cannot say that the DNA definitely came from the killer, we can say that it represents an individual who needs to be identified and investigated. That DNA represents a suspect. And, it represents a suspect who is going to have to come up with a very good explanation for why his DNA was and on her leggings and commingled in her blood, on the inside crotch of her panties.
.

Why do we concentrate on exclusions and not exclusions? Because exclusions are 100 % certain; they’re definite, and easily determined. Even if your crime scene sample has only one identifiable marker, you can exclude with certainty. Inclusions are always probabilistic, and determined by number of identified markers and the frequency rate of identified markers. Exclusion is exculpatory and inclusion simply puts one in a suspect group.
...

AK

 

[Linda7NJ]

Patsy, herself, tells us that FW had been in the wine cellar prior to Christmas 1996. From PRs interview:



TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. In the months prior to Christmas of 1996 Fleet would have gone in there?

PATSY RAMSEY: I would say Fleet, the cleaning lady and –

TRIP DEMUTH: Maybe the husband?

PATSY RAMSEY: Maybe the husband and maybe the daughter.

TRIP DEMUTH: How about yourself?





From the Fleet White deposition:



A. There was a latch, as I recall, that was at the top of the door, and I unlatched it and then opened the -- opened the door and just looked in the room.

Q. Did you open the door completely to look in?

A. Wide enough to look in.

Q. And what did you see?

A. It was dark

Q. Totally dark?

A. As I recall, it was quite dark.

Q. Did any of the light in the hallway illuminate the area when you opened the door, to some extent?

A. Perhaps to some extent, but it was quite dark.

Q. It is my understanding you tried to find a light switch unsuccessfully?

A. Yes.

Q. Which side of the wall did you reach for? Left? Right? Describe for me the extent of your effort to locate a light switch in the wine cellar.

A. I believe I just reached in and felt the wall next to the door and didn't find one, so --

Q. Did you actually step into the room, though?

A. I may have put one -- I may have leaned in, placed one foot in.

Q. Would there be any reason why you would not have simply walked into the room, even though dark, to make an observation?

A. I don't -- I don't remember why I didn't walk in the room

Q. But you did not?

A. I did not walk in the room, other than to, perhaps, lean in or -- far enough to reach around and look for a switch.

Q. When you couldn't find a switch, what did you do?

A. I closed the door.

Q. Did you relatch it?

A. I believe I relatched it.

Q. Were you wearing gloves that morning?

A. No.



* * *



So we have FW, who walked around the morning of the 26th writing notes, stating he may have taken one step into the wine cellar. If the wooden latch is at the top of the door, why did he think JonBenet would have hidden herself inside that cold and moldy environment?



If JBR was kidnapped as the RN stated, why did FW think she would be in a windowless room that was locked from the outside?



The story about FW retrieving wine from the basement cellar is mentioned on several forums, including this one from the Wine Cellar thread.



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6166917&postcount=39]





John tells us in his 1997 interview that he screamed after he lifts JonBenet's body or maybe he could not scream at all:



JR: Right. I found her and I, the first hope of course is that she’s OK. I took the tape off her lips, and her lips were blue. And I tried to untie her hands and her arms. She was stiff, and so I was afraid that she was gone, and so I just picked her up, and screams, and the I went upstairs and laid her down on the floor





From JRs June 1998 interview with Smit:



LOU SMIT: How do you know they were tied



8 tight?



9 JOHN RAMSEY: Because they were -- you know,



10 her skin was swollen around. And they were not



11 easy to get off. I tried to untie them quickly and



12 I just picked her up carried her upstairs. I was



13 screaming. In fact, I couldn't even scream.



14 And then I brought her upstairs into the



15 living room and later there, at one point, tried



16 to untie the not further, and Linda Arndt stopped



17 me from doing it.





Quite frankly, it does not matter, in solving the case, whether or not JR screamed nor when he did.

* * *



Burke did not know his sister was dead in the basement when he was being led from his bedroom by his father and family friend. He was told that she was missing. Why didn't Patsy run to Burke as he was leaving his home and hold her son close bc someone was out there? Further, when the children visited with Patsy while she was hospitalized, Burke did not ask any questions. Patsy said he stood around with his hands in his pockets. It was JonBenet who was curious and asked multiple questions. (See video in the media thread.)



In response to the assumption that I believe FW was involved in the murder, the answer is no, not at this time. I hold the belief that PR premeditated her daughter's murder so, to that end, all others must be eliminated, including FW.

We know the bindings on her wrists were NOT tight.
John lied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I do understand and I know the DNA evidence. There was DNA found in her panties and touch DNA that matched it found on her clothing.
It is in CODIS. They don't put things in there that can't be matched.
DNA is fact.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

It was Christmas time. The time of year where hugging, handshaking happen probably more than any other, work, parties, etc...JonBenet hadn't been bathed in days.
That DNA could have come from anywhere JonBenet was in contact. She likely transferred it herself. It's simply an artifact ...like the other DNA found that matches no one.

Every DNA fragment found at a crime scene doesn't need to be matched to a source nor does it ever exonerate anyone.
....Especially when there isn't a shred of actual evidence that there was ever an intruder breaking into that house. If there was someone else in the house that faithful night, he was invited and came in through the door. IMO




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[questfortrue]

Nevertheless, I would suggest that the DNA in this case is only one artifact of evidence and its evidentiary value must be considered in light of all of the other pieces of physical, testimonial and behavioral evidence that have been collected and analyzed over the course of this investigation. Technological advances in science now allow us to collect and identify microscopic evidence that had once not been available to the criminalist. As you know, this type of evidence can be very helpful in identifying a perpetrator or solving a crime, but I am concerned that one piece of trace evidence, to the exclusion of everything else, is dominating the theory and the investigative construct of this crime. If I am correct in my assessment, there may be a plausible explanation for the presence of the DNA in the underwear and it may have nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. Kolar, A. James (2012-06-14). Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Location 3820).
________________

There’s an irony to the DNA entered into the CODIS database. It does not have enough alleles to convict anyone in a court of law. IIRC, forensic DNA expert Dr. Dan Krane says case protocol for courtroom evidence doesn’t allow for DNA which cannot be given sufficient statistical weight to be accepted into evidence. This panties DNA could be used as an investigative tool, but not a tool for convicting someone.

For anyone interested Cynic has posted regarding cases which had no eyewitnesses, DNA not attributed to the suspect, and that the cases were won on the other evidence. Here’s the link and it’s post #90. [ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8246645"]DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Page 4 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

One last comment for AK, respectfully, please quote source for 200+ people tested for DNA samples (I’d seen it listed as 60 and I don’t even know where to source that from). And for the broad statement that contamination was not possible, I’d say, maybe so, maybe not. My source for contamination speculation is from Dr. Dan Krane, DNA forensic specialist. Even he claims it happens. moo

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It was Christmas time. The time of year where hugging, handshaking happen probably more than any other, work, parties, etc...JonBenet hadn't been bathed in days.
That DNA could have come from anywhere JonBenet was in contact. She likely transferred it herself. It's simply an artifact ...like the other DNA found that matches no one.

Every DNA fragment found at a crime scene doesn't need to be matched to a source nor does it ever exonerate anyone.
....Especially when there isn't a shred of actual evidence that there was ever an intruder breaking into that house. If there was someone else in the house that faithful night, he was invited and came in through the door. IMO




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The DNA in her panties did not come from hugging people. The DNA in her panties matches the DNA on her clothing. They entered it in CODIS because the DNA matters. It meets all the criteria needed to get a match.

People can argue all they want about entry or times but the DNA in this case IS evidence. It is not debatable. They don't enter junk DNA in CODIS.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[renah]

They really, really had to push to get that up to an acceptable sample, didnt they, Scarlett?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

CODIS does not take junk. The information and data exists in the data base because it was valid and true testing and has been substantiated.
They are very particular about the samples they take. This is real and true evidence. It is entered there because they believe it is the killers DNA. There is just no way to side step that.
It is evidence in the case.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.