Boulder Police meet with JonBenet Ramsey's now adult brother

[cynic]

I know you don't believe it but yes on they. They is the "committee". And your response on DNA is a very good explanation of touch DNA.

I know we don't agree Cynic so lets leave it at that and wait and see. I am not to hopeful that this round of new interviews is because of some new clues but I like that they are going back to the beginning.

Do you mean the task force?
I believe that they are looking at IDI as well as RDI scenarios. I don't believe that they are awestruck by the DNA evidence in the case, or at least they shouldn't be.
There's certainly nothing wrong with going back to the beginning.

 

[minazoe]

Thank you so much Cynic.

the DNA evidence is super wishy washy and virtually meaningless to me without anything else to weigh it down...like fingernail dna.

the prior sexual abuse issue is huge. I wonder how solid it is...in other words, in a range of possibility of 1-10, does it look like a six? or when you compare with similar abuse victims, jb is in the 9-10 range. I hate to say this , but....after all the books I have read, I feel a little tiny bit like...super star coroners love to be provocative for the press.

but maybe its just that the media loves them?

anyway, you must remember if wether or not the abuse was noted in the first autopsey?

 

[Roy23]

Is this the only touch dna found on jb? or is there touch dna from other sources, say patsy or john?

are you 100% sure on the matching dna? I haven't heard that or maybe i don't remember it..because I always thought there was the underwear dna which was attributed to a possible factory employee or handler of the item.

and that then there might be possible dna on the waistband of the long johns, but not
certain.

if they actually match this is a HUGE revelation..at least for me.

They have not said what other DNA was found due to the touch DNA testing.
Here is the deal as we know it.

Originally the DNA that was found in JBR's panties was scrutinized as a possible factory worker like you said. They never could source it but they did put together a full profile for it. A couple of years ago they found out about new touch DNA technology. They tested an area on both leggings based on their theory of how JBR was attacked assuming it was an intruder.

They struck gold and found DNA in two different areas that ultimately matched the DNA in the panties from many years ago. None of us knows if did further testing after that or if they also found other DNA profiles from their testing of other stuff. They ultimately just told the public enough to make the statement concerning the apology to the Ramsey's.

As you can see, there are still many more RDI's here than IDI's. Many also think the law enforcement still believes the Ramsey's did it. I don't and I find the DNA evidence as the smoking gun that an intruder did it. But LE ain't gonna tell us nothing. They won't make that mistake again.

Oh yeah, there are also reports out now that they also matched fingernail DNA. But there are also reports that it is contaminated because they used the same fingernail clippers on each nail. Much of the evidence contradicts one another on this and also on Sexual abuse. When I read between the lines, this case is now all about IDI. But I am in a huge minority although in my mind, I am absolutely certain that they are looking for the intruder.

 

[UKGuy]

They have not said what other DNA was found due to the touch DNA testing.
Here is the deal as we know it.

Originally the DNA that was found in JBR's panties was scrutinized as a possible factory worker like you said. They never could source it but they did put together a full profile for it. A couple of years ago they found out about new touch DNA technology. They tested an area on both leggings based on their theory of how JBR was attacked assuming it was an intruder.

They struck gold and found DNA in two different areas that ultimately matched the DNA in the panties from many years ago. None of us knows if did further testing after that or if they also found other DNA profiles from their testing of other stuff. They ultimately just told the public enough to make the statement concerning the apology to the Ramsey's.

As you can see, there are still many more RDI's here than IDI's. Many also think the law enforcement still believes the Ramsey's did it. I don't and I find the DNA evidence as the smoking gun that an intruder did it. But LE ain't gonna tell us nothing. They won't make that mistake again.

Oh yeah, there are also reports out now that they also matched fingernail DNA. But there are also reports that it is contaminated because they used the same fingernail clippers on each nail. Much of the evidence contradicts one another on this and also on Sexual abuse. When I read between the lines, this case is now all about IDI. But I am in a huge minority although in my mind, I am absolutely certain that they are looking for the intruder.

Roy23,
The dna recovered is not semen-dna. Therefore you cannot conclude that the recovered dna belongs to an intruder.

You are welcome to believe that the dna belongs to an intruder, just as I am free to believe in unicorns, but you belief or opinion is simply that, and has no privileged status as a theory, since there is zero forensic evidence to corroborate it.

For you to zero in on the recovered dna and

find the DNA evidence as the smoking gun that an intruder did it.

, to the exclusion of any other explanation, is the main reason why IDI is in a minority.

.

 

[minazoe]

well then they must be able to say with certainty that the waist of the pj's never touched the panties and so on. they were never stored together.

i still don't buy it. It bothers me. I do keep thinking about this case I am currently reading th Loeb and Leopold case..and another dynamic I just discovered in this case that was interesting to me is that because this murder they commited was part of a convoluted game, there were other murders and crimes they had commited together prior and none resembled the other in any way.

The reason I am drawing parallels is that if in fact it was an idi then I see it as a deeply fantastical crime commited by someone very mentally ill like Karr or Leob and Leopold where a child murder with a drawn out convoluted plan of many steps is part of the thrill.

I think it unlikely a person in this deep of a fantasy wouldn't make many mistakes and be caught right away.

 

[UKGuy]

Thank you so much Cynic.

the DNA evidence is super wishy washy and virtually meaningless to me without anything else to weigh it down...like fingernail dna.

the prior sexual abuse issue is huge. I wonder how solid it is...in other words, in a range of possibility of 1-10, does it look like a six? or when you compare with similar abuse victims, jb is in the 9-10 range. I hate to say this , but....after all the books I have read, I feel a little tiny bit like...super star coroners love to be provocative for the press.

but maybe its just that the media loves them?

anyway, you must remember if wether or not the abuse was noted in the first autopsey?

minazoe,
Sexual abuse was noted in the autopsy.

http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

Also:-

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

Dr. Ronald Wright opined:-

BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.

JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation Chapt. 24. states:-

In mid-September, a panel pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed

And JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation Chapt. 32. states:-

Detective Harmer presented a surprising anatomy lesson on vaginas to a meeting attended primarly for men. She showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of jonBenet. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse although the detectives referred to it only as 'prior vaginal trauma.'

This last quote seals the prior molestation issue for me. Its pefectly feasible for the acute and chronic molestation, or as Coroner Meyer describes it sexual contact and digital penetration to be separate issues but given the staging I doubt it.

JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide, with the staging added to hide the prior molestation. e.g. there is no need to hide the current sexual assault if an intruder inflicted her injuries.

JonBenet's killer likely flipped when abusing JonBenet, causing her physical injuries, probably because she refused to play ball, dress-up etc.


.
.

 

[UKGuy]

well then they must be able to say with certainty that the waist of the pj's never touched the panties and so on. they were never stored together.

i still don't buy it. It bothers me. I do keep thinking about this case I am currently reading th Loeb and Leopold case..and another dynamic I just discovered in this case that was interesting to me is that because this murder they commited was part of a convoluted game, there were other murders and crimes they had commited together prior and none resembled the other in any way.

The reason I am drawing parallels is that if in fact it was an idi then I see it as a deeply fantastical crime commited by someone very mentally ill like Karr or Leob and Leopold where a child murder with a drawn out convoluted plan of many steps is part of the thrill.

I think it unlikely a person in this deep of a fantasy wouldn't make many mistakes and be caught right away.

minazoe,

The most plausible reason for the touch-dna on the underwear and longjohns is either contamination at the autopsy, or transference from the size-12 underwear wrapping paper, which was wrapped by an FAO Schwartz employee. Note we have only been told that the touch-dna is on those specific locations and no where else at the crime-scene, yet the alleged intruder also handled the garrote cord, the paintbrush handle, blanket, barbie nightgown, etc the nightgown was spattered with blood, this absence of matching touch-dna is telling.

.

 

[Roy23]

Roy23,
The dna recovered is not semen-dna. Therefore you cannot conclude that the recovered dna belongs to an intruder.

You are welcome to believe that the dna belongs to an intruder, just as I am free to believe in unicorns, but you belief or opinion is simply that, and has no privileged status as a theory, since there is zero forensic evidence to corroborate it.

For you to zero in on the recovered dna and , to the exclusion of any other explanation, is the main reason why IDI is in a minority.

.

I certainly can conclude that it is from an intruder. I don't care if it was from semen or not. It was cool to suggest that the DNA got there innocently when you only had it from inside the panties. It ain't cool anymore. All the DNA matches from reports that we read from inside the panties to the fingernails and now to the leggings of her long johns. How did it get there? Why can't they find the source of it when that is what LE tried to do all along is to find and answer as to why it is not pertinent to the case. And then they kept finding more and more of it.

You can believe what you want. But there is a reason why LE has changed the focus. I also got news for ya sport. Only on these websites is IDI in a minority. Most people understand that this is not about RDI anymore. The DNA is from a real person and the evidence portrays that it was from someone that came into that house, pulled down her pants and her panties, and JBR fought him.

 

[Roy23]

minazoe,

The most plausible reason for the touch-dna on the underwear and longjohns is either contamination at the autopsy, or transference from the size-12 underwear wrapping paper, which was wrapped by an FAO Schwartz employee. Note we have only been told that the touch-dna is on those specific locations and no where else at the crime-scene, yet the alleged intruder also handled the garrote cord, the paintbrush handle, blanket, barbie nightgown, etc the nightgown was spattered with blood, this absence of matching touch-dna is telling.

.

Nobody has ever said whether those items have been tested or not. Also nobody has ever said that those items did not contain DNA. And you need to understand that this case has been harmed whenever they find the killer. So they will never tell you more than the basics until it goes to the court room. They could have a John Doe match right now and still lose this case due to the stupidity of conflicting information that the media has reported in the past on this case. They won't do it again.

 

[minazoe]

i still find it wishy washy...I want to hear the fingernail evidence in detail.

I also have to wonder how this small foriegn faction slipped in and out of Boulder undetected. Also it is interesting that they haven't approached any other well heeled families in other kidnapping attempts, even if the first one went all wobbly on them.

and if it is only a single evil individual posing as a SFF in order to confuse the situation, how is it then that the ransom note is so personal?

tied to John's money and his bonuses etc...

grow a brain John...fat cat etc...very pesonal... did Pat Brown ever profile this killer? or Candace De Long ? (sic.)

sorrry kinda reveiwing...kinda stopped thinking about this case for awhile...

 

[Roy23]

i still find it wishy washy...I want to hear the fingernail evidence in detail.

I also have to wonder how this small foriegn faction slipped in and out of Boulder undetected. Also it is interesting that they haven't approached any other well heeled families in other kidnapping attempts, even if the first one went all wobbly on them.

and if it is only a single evil individual posing as a SFF in order to confuse the situation, how is it then that the ransom note is so personal?

tied to John's money and his bonuses etc...

grow a brain John...fat cat etc...very pesonal... did Pat Brown ever profile this killer? or Candace De Long ? (sic.)

sorrry kinda reveiwing...kinda stopped thinking about this case for awhile...

I am not even gonna try and explain the ransom note. Nor am I gonna explain why they haven't connected this case to another case. These are things that I don't know an answer to. I do understand DNA and it is my belief that without a shadow of a doubt that whomever left that DNA was in that house and attacked JBR. I don't claim to have answers about ransom notes. I can make a guess.

I think someone who knew of the Ramsey's wanted to extort money from them. My guess is that it is a family member of someone who worked in the Ramsey house before. I imagine they were immature and poor and there own stupidity is what makes the case so fascinating. Ultimately they panicked and killed JBR. But that is only a guess. They have been scared ever since.

I believe that the police also realize that the Ramsey's are innocent.

 

[UKGuy]

I certainly can conclude that it is from an intruder. I don't care if it was from semen or not. It was cool to suggest that the DNA got there innocently when you only had it from inside the panties. It ain't cool anymore. All the DNA matches from reports that we read from inside the panties to the fingernails and now to the leggings of her long johns. How did it get there? Why can't they find the source of it when that is what LE tried to do all along is to find and answer as to why it is not pertinent to the case. And then they kept finding more and more of it.

You can believe what you want. But there is a reason why LE has changed the focus. I also got news for ya sport. Only on these websites is IDI in a minority. Most people understand that this is not about RDI anymore. The DNA is from a real person and the evidence portrays that it was from someone that came into that house, pulled down her pants and her panties, and JBR fought him.

Roy23,
Its not what I believe but what the evidence says. The touch-dna recovered at the crime-scene is simply that, touch-dna, which may have arrived there in more than one way. Only semen, or blood dna would allow me to say it belonged to an intruder, but mere shedded cells, can belong to anyone!

What you describe as a conclusion is no more than wishful thinking, imagining, at best mere opinion, nothing more.

It is not backed up with any forensic evidence!


.

.

 

[WestCoastLady]

Please forgive me for my ignorance, but this is the first thread I've read on JonBenet's murder.

Can someone please tell me what the following abbreviations stand for?

IDI, RDI, SFF

They're probably obvious, but I'm clueless!

Thanks!

 

[LinasK]

Please forgive me for my ignorance, but this is the first thread I've read on JonBenet's murder.

Can someone please tell me what the following abbreviations stand for?

IDI, RDI, SFF

They're probably obvious, but I'm clueless!

Thanks!

IDI= Intruder Did It- theory
RDI= Ramsey Did It- theory
SFF= Small Foreign Faction- referred to in the Ransom Note

 

[LinasK]

I believe that the police also realize that the Ramsey's are innocent.

Ummm, think again:

JOHN AND PATSY RAMSEY HAVE NOT BEEN CLEARED IN THE KILLING OF THEIR DAUGHTER JONBENET. THE NEW BOULDER D.A. STAN GARNETT HAS NOT CLEARED THEM OF ANYTHING READ THE DAILY BEAST ARTICLE PLEASE​

.

 

[minazoe]

this is the only piece of evidence that points away from them. .. does anyone remeber that weird santa guy who wrote a story about a child murdered in a basement...they concluded he was to ill and feeble to commit the crime...

i still wonder though...such a strange coincidence.

 

[Roy23]

Ummm, think again:

JOHN AND PATSY RAMSEY HAVE NOT BEEN CLEARED IN THE KILLING OF THEIR DAUGHTER JONBENET. THE NEW BOULDER D.A. STAN GARNETT HAS NOT CLEARED THEM OF ANYTHING READ THE DAILY BEAST ARTICLE PLEASE​

.

I have read it. My stance doesn't change at all by anything in that article.

And UKguy, DNA is already forensic evidence. You need to realize that nothing ever happens in this case until the DNA is identified to the male that left it there. There is no way around it. If they could identify it to a police officer or coroner or anyone known to a Ramsey they could try to prove your theory. But they know that DNA just doesn't fall on peoples clothes like some suggest here. And it matches DNA that was inside her panties.

 

[cynic]

The DNA is from a real person and the evidence portrays that it was from someone that came into that house, pulled down her pants and her panties, and JBR fought him.

There is so much to respond to, but I'll start here.
Other than at the depths of your imagination, where is there any sort of evidence that JBR fought your alleged intruder???
I certainly hope that you are not going to suggest that she scratched anyone because there was no flesh or blood beneath her nails.

 

[LinasK]

And UKguy, DNA is already forensic evidence. You need to realize that nothing ever happens in this case until the DNA is identified to the male that left it there. There is no way around it. If they could identify it to a police officer or coroner or anyone known to a Ramsey they could try to prove your theory. But they know that DNA just doesn't fall on peoples clothes like some suggest here. And it matches DNA that was inside her panties.

Brand new, never washed too large panties from which touch DNA could have easily been deposited by a factory worker, someone who's DNA wouldn't be in a database!

 

[cynic]

But they know that DNA just doesn't fall on peoples clothes like some suggest here.

Who has been suggesting that?