DNA links Denver burglary, child assault

[Shylock]

Where is the tape? Smart enough to ditch a roll of duct tape but too stupid to ditch the corpse?

Great logic Toth!
Stop by my house some day and I'll show you how to burn a roll of tape and flush the ashes. Guess what!--I can do the same with a bundle of nylon cord!
Oh, but in case you didn't know...it's pretty hard to flush a corpse.

 

[Britt]

Great logic Toth!
Stop by my house some day and I'll show you how to burn a roll of tape and flush the ashes. Guess what!--I can do the same with a bundle of nylon cord!

And then, Toth, stop by my house and I'll show you how to stash a roll of tape and nylon cord in a purse... jeez

But I don't think there WAS any extra tape or cord. IMO they were used in the staging as found.

 

[Shylock]

How do you go about demonstrating for us that the FBI database admits "mish-mashes of contamination"?
You MUST be kidding! THIS CASE is a perfect demonstration that the FBI will admit ANYTHING with 10-markers...regardless of where the 10 markers came from! Remember the words of the experts from CellMark, who couldn't be sure the DNA was from a single donor. Consider their words proof that "mish-mash" and "contamination" are accepted into the CODIS database.
Below is the URL for the FBI CODIS database. Nowhere will you find it said that submitted samples must be proven to be from a single donor:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/index1.htm

It's not myth that the male DNA from the panties is mixed with the spots of JonBenét's blood.
What is your source for this non-myth? Prove to us that the DNA was not "right next to" the blood spot, instead of "mixed" with it?
It's nothing but a myth based on word games, LP...Face the facts.

Dr Doberson is not a publicity hound by any standard.
Dr Doberson has certainly not impeached himself on the subject of stun gun injuries.
"You really can't tell from a photo," Dobersen said.
(The Boulder Daily Camera - January 13, 1998)
Sorry, but I call that "impeached", BIG time.

Louise Woodward is not mother to the child she was convicted of killing. She has no connection to the Ramsey case.
Hahaha, you consider it important that she was not "Mother" to the child? Her case PROVES a person - ANY PERSON - does not need pathology to commit murder.

Amateur attempts to "match" the handwriting on the note are just that: amateur.
Dueling experts and their opinions on the handwriting are just that: meaningless. In the end, a jury would be the ones to determine if Patsy wrote the note. The jusy would be all "amateurs", but their own eyes would tell them that nobody but Patsy could have written that note. The exemplars are clear on that fact.

Like it or not, the BPD investigation of the Ramseys that took place over several years resulted in convincing the most experienced detective on the case that the Ramseys were not involved with the death of their daughter.
The "most experienced detective on the case" has been called a "delusional old man" by the other detectives who worked the case. 72 hours after joining the case, without reviewing all the case evidence, he had a brainfart that caused him to pronounce the Ramseys innocent. That amounts to a loss of credibility in any LE book.

John Douglas, a renowned FBI agent who invented profiling, agrees.
John Douglas was paid by John Ramsey to develop a profile for an intruder. He did the job he was hired to do. He can't go back and write a different profile now, or he'll look as stupid as Doberson and Foster.

I believe the male DNA will eventually result in a "hit" on a databank, resulting in an investigation and arrest of the "match" to that DNA.
Plan on taking that belief to your grave.

 

[Shylock]

And then, Toth, stop by my house and I'll show you how to stash a roll of tape and nylon cord in a purse... jeez

Hey Britt, did ya get my golf clubs?

 

[Britt]

Hey Britt, did ya get my golf clubs?

Sure did, Shylock. Never go to a funeral without 'em.

 

[Toth]

Is this post yet another perpetuation of the myth that any golf clubs were ever removed or attempted to be removed from the premises shortly after the murder?

 

[Ivy]

From Steve Thomas's book (pb) p. 53

John was overheard to ask someone quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?" When I learned of that statement, it seemed totally out of order. There had been two golf bags in the house, but he had not specified which one he wanted. Neither bag was collected by police. Moreover, it was winter in Colorado, Michigan, and Georgia, not exactly optimal golfing conditions. Why would a man whose daughter had just been murdered be wanting his golf clubs anyway? I wondered what else might have been in the bag that was so important that Ramsey would even think to ask about it.

imo

 

[Britt]

The BPD searched the house (and the cars and the yard for 7 days and found nothing to match the human hairs, the beaver hair, the fibers, the cord, the duct tape, etc on JonBenét's body. They tried hard to connect the Ramseys to any of those items and could not.

What "human hairs"? Besides the one ID'd as Patsy's, that is.

As for the rest: Did they search:

Patsy's purse?
John's golf bag?
Burke's bag/Nintendo case?
Any other Ramsey bags/briefcases etc?
Patsy's pockets?
John's pockets?
Burke's pockets?
JonBenet's dolls?
Everything else Pam carted out of the house?

What? THEY DIDN'T? No searches of all that stuff and all those hiding places? Hmm, well I'm no Lou Smit or John Douglas, but I'd speculate they were looking in the wrong places. Ya think?

Like it or not, the BPD investigation of the Ramseys that took place over several years resulted in convincing the most experienced detective on the case that the Ramseys were not involved with the death of their daughter. John Douglas, a renowned FBI agent who invented profiling, agrees.

Speaking of John Douglas:

John Douglas in Mindhunter, Chapter 15, Hurting the Ones We Love, says:

But the crime had too many staging elements, which made me lean toward the second type [of perp]: someone who knew the victim well and therefore wanted to divert attention from himself. The only reason a killer would have felt the need to hide the body on the premises was what we classify as a "personal cause homicide." Mindhunter, paperback, p. 289.

Question for Ramsey apologists: What intruder knew JB so well he needed to stage the crime scene because he'd be immediately suspected and needed to divert attention from himself? What intruder could be considered a "personal cause" killer?

 

[Shylock]

From Steve Thomas's book (pb) p. 53
John was overheard to ask someone quietly, "Did you get my golf bag?"

Golf BAG?
Is this a subliminal mistake by John?
I've never heard a man use the expression "golf bag", it's always "golf clubs" or shortened to just plain "clubs".
"Hey, I'm always ready - my clubs are in the trunk of my car!"

Why "bag"? You don't play golf with a bag. Was something in the bag that was on John's mind?

Another example: People carry a cue for playing pool in a case.
A person would ask, "Did you bring your pool cue?"
They would never ask, "Did you bring your pool case?"

IMO

 

[Toth]

Ivy, honey, do you really believe he said that?
Don't you think it is more likely that Steve Thomas wanted to pepper his book and the case files with as much of that guff as he could?

 

[MIBRO]

Shylock, mixed stains can be separated quite easily. DNA testing is the examination of very specific markers with various locations on the 23 pairs of chromosomes. These very specific markers have been established for their unique identification. Forensic experts compare markers, or representative samples of DNA where it would be extremely unlikely for two people to have the same genetic pattern in those locations. They typically check the DNA pattern in four to six places to determine individuality.

In the Ramsey case, they know what peaks form at those locations for JonBenét's 'portion' of the DNA. They have her DNA (probably from tissue or blood taken at autopsy), a full complement and know what her peaks are at each location. Any peaks that do not fit her DNA are identified as foreign (unknown).

It is not a "mish mash" of confusion for the scientists to separate the known from the unknown. Forensic scientists are quite capable of separting mixed stains of, not only more than one contributor, but of multiple contributors.


DNA testing has come a long ways since 1997. Dr. Henry Lee’s Interpretation of Complex Forensic DNA Mixtures <1> states: “Forensic evidentiary samples routinely contain DNA from multiple contributors. The interpretation of these mixtures can be a challenging task for the DNA scientist.” He then discusses “Several approaches which have been employed to assess the significance of an inclusion/match when DNA mixtures have been detected in casework samples.”

“The process of mixture interpretation can be relatively straightforward or quite complex, involving laboratory and statistical considerations. While many of the technical challenges are routine features of forensic laboratory analysis and therefore cannot be eliminated, use of conservative statistical methods should obviate court objections and reduce the difficulties in mixture genotype assignment.”

 

[cookie]

Even if the DNA ever gets to court, there will be a huge deal made over the fact that the samples collected were not properly done. Remember, in Thomas's book, that the coronor used the same nail clippers on all her fingernails. If that statement is true, any defense attorney will jump on that like flies on honey. Until there is a positive match, I'll just go with Lee saying, "This is not a DNA case". That's as much about DNA as I know.
As far as an intruder goes, I can't past why anyone would go to the trouble of getting into the house, writing a kidnapping note, abducting the victim but only taking her to the basement instead of leaving, gently molest her, gently strangle her, wipe her down, pull up her clothes, leave a blanket on her, tie her hands in a position that would have been useless, place an also useless piece of tape on her mouth, after she was at the very least unconscious, and then take off without taking the stuped note. These are a few of my stumbling blocks to believing there was an intruder. The others pertain to the way the parents and others in the family behaved during the past seven years.

 

[Toth]

The kidnapping note was solely for his entertainment, there never was any intent to kidnap. The strangulation was brutal and prolonged, not gentle.

"way the parents behaved" ?? Do you mean calling 911? Constantly waging a campaign to have better investigators on the case? Signing zillions of release forms? Working with investigators who were actually looking at the intruder theory instead of the obsessed BPD who only wanted to look at the parents.

 

[BlueCrab]

"way the parents behaved" ?? Do you mean calling 911? Constantly waging a campaign to have better investigators on the case? Signing zillions of release forms? Working with investigators who were actually looking at the intruder theory instead of the obsessed BPD who only wanted to look at the parents.

No Toth. It was the way the parents lied about Burke being in bed when he wasn't; the way they refused to cooperate with investigators; the way they delayed interviews until 4 months after the murder; etc., etc. etc.

If the Ramseys had not lied; had they not avoided cooperating; and had they not foot-dragged; then they wouldn't have been obsessively looked at by the BPD. Correct? Of course that's correct, and you know it.

JMO

 

[Britt]

I repeat:

Pursuant to Ramsey-buddy and RST-quotee John Douglas's opinion:

What intruder knew JB so well he needed to stage the crime scene because he'd be immediately suspected and needed to divert attention from himself? What intruder could be considered a "personal cause" killer?

WHO had such a personal relationship with JonBenet other than her immediate family? And HOW did it benefit him to leave the rambling note rather than simply leaving quietly?

If the RST expects to sell Ramsey innocence, it needs to get past these most basic common sense busters, which come directly from RSTist John Douglas.

Shylock - excellent catch. Golf BAG.

Cookie and BlueCrab - good posts.

 

[Shylock]

Shylock, mixed stains can be separated quite easily.
It is not a "mish mash" of confusion for the scientists to separate the known from the unknown. Forensic scientists are quite capable of separting mixed stains of, not only more than one contributor, but of multiple contributors.

MIBRO, it sounds like you're pretty lost when it comes to DNA technology. You quoted passages from Lee's book, but then your comments make it obvious you don't understand what he's talking about.

A perfect example is your statement about scientists being able to "separate the known from the unknown". That's true - and they were certainly able to separate JonBenet's own/known DNA from the fractured mystery DNA.
HOWEVER, what they can't do is separate the unknown from the unknown.

The fractured mystery DNA found on JonBenet could very well be a mish-mash of more than one person. But because they don't have a control sample (or samples) of any of the mystery donors, they have no idea how many people are in the mash and where to even begin to start separating them.

This is why the experts from CellMark told the BPD that if the fractured DNA is from more than donor then nobody, including the Ramsey males, could be excluded as possible donors.

To make it simple for you, imagine a person who has no knowledge of color looking into a bucket of red, green, and blue marbles. That person sees no difference at all in the marbles--the are all the same. But now give that person a red marble, tell him it's "red", and they are able to pick ALL the red marbles out of the bucket.
The fractured mystery DNA in the JonBenet case has no red marble to separate from the mish-mash.

 

[Shylock]

The strangulation was brutal and prolonged, not gentle.

Toth, as usual your statements go against the known facts in this case--specifically the autopsy report.
The strangulation was NOT "brutal". The autopsy clearly states that there was NO damage to any of the underlying organs in her neck. No bruising whatsoever to the strap muscles and no bruising of the tongue.

Because of those facts, and the fact that the cord left a red hemorage mark only directly under itself, a good case can be made that the garrote was applied post-mortem to hide other marks on her neck from a prior strangulation.

 

[MIBRO]

Well, in reply, to start with I do not have Lee's book so I definitely DID NOT quote from it. I quoted from "Interpretation of Complex Forensic DNA Mixtures" (as noted in my post) contributed to the Croatian Medical Journal, 2001, by Carll Ladd, Henry C. Lee, Nicholas Yang, and Frederick R. Bieber

Secondly, of course they can separate out the unknown DNA. They have submitted IT TO CODIS!

("The detection and interpretation of mixtures is a routine, yet often challenging aspect of forensic DNA analysis. Occasionally we have observed profiles from highly degraded/low DNA quantify samples where one amplication kit detects multiple contributors, whereas the other system does not.")

Thirdly, my reply to you was to point out your erroneous statements that the DNA is a mish-mash. To point out that, of course, they can separate out the victim's DNA and to point out that they can separate out the UNKNOWN contributor(s) as well.

You have misrepresented the DNA facts all around, Shylock, and your marble example is YOUR view, not the reality of DNA analysis. It really is a shame that you are contributing to the misunderstanding of such a fine and valuable science.

 

[MIBRO]

=ShylockThe strangulation was NOT "brutal". The autopsy clearly states that there was NO damage to any of the underlying organs in her neck. No bruising whatsoever to the strap muscles and no bruising of the tongue.

Signs of MANUAL strangulation:

-- sustained pressure may cause congestion and blueness of the tongue, pharynx and larynx
-- haemorrhage under the skin of the neck and bruising of the strap muscles
-- damage to the larynx - particularly the superior horns of the thyroid cartilage, and the greater horns of the hyoid bone

The absence of those signs, Shylock, means she was not manually strangled. The presence of the ligature marks around JonBenét's neck as shown in the autopsy photos means she was strangled by ligature.

Because of those facts, and the fact that the cord left a red hemorage mark only directly under itself, a good case can be made that the garrote was applied post-mortem to hide other marks on her neck from a prior strangulation.

HOW do marks APPEAR ("the cord left a red hemorage mark") POST-MORTEM? Ummm, Shylock, the body doesn't hemorrhage after death ergo no POST-MORTEM hemorrhage marks.

 

[MIBRO]

Let me see if I can explain it to YOU, Shylock (as simply as possible). The very specific locations for DNA identification show two different peaks at each site (loci). One peak matches JonBenet's, the other 'identifies' the unknown contributor: Two different peaks, two different donors. At each loci the non-matching peaks (to JB's known sample) = the unknown donor's peaks. DNA profile of unknown donor = peaks not matching JBR's.