DNA links Denver burglary, child assault

[Ivy]

Toth said...
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?

Yes, sweetie, I really do believe John asked someone, "Did you get my golf bag?" and no, I don't believe ST made it up, even though he didn't reveal his source. I don't agree with his PDI theory, but I also don't believe he fabricated any of the information contained in his book.

IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Do you believe her crimes were sexually motivated?

Perhaps, but it seemed to me that Mary Bell was having fun by killing small children. Mary had not been sexually active at 10. She did do some mutilations to the victims' sexual organs, but that was probably just part of the fun.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

May I jump in here and ask a question or two please? For those of you who believe Burke to be 'possibly' guilty of this do you think it was 'playing doctor' gone too far?

Did he actually force himself completely on her this time and she panicked and started screaming so he hit her head against the ground, hard?

When Mum and Dad come into the picture he's freaking out saying 'we do this all the time, I didn't mean to hit her head so hard!' Do they think she's dead at this point and stage the rest... I guess they could feel sorry for Burke IF they did accept that it was an accident during what otherwise was 'playing doctor' ...??

You all know so much about this, after all this time it sure is difficult to seperate fact from myth!!


Thanks
Jubie

JUBIE,

The BDI theory you describe in your post is believed by lots of others. Many BDI theorists believe it was a simple case of children playing doctor and an accidental death resulting, with the parents doing the staging and coverup.

I personally believe that BDI, but with an accomplice. There are too many unanswered questions unless there was a fifth person in the house that night, and that fifth person had been invited into the house by a Ramsey.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

May I jump in here and ask a question or two please? For those of you who believe Burke to be 'possibly' guilty of this do you think it was 'playing doctor' gone too far?
Yes, that's exactly what some of us believe. What supports this theory is the fact that the sexual molestation is best described as "child-like" and nothing like you would expect from an adult forcing himself on a very young girl.

Did he actually force himself completely on her this time and she panicked and started screaming so he hit her head against the ground, hard?
I don't think he "forced himself on her completely" because the evidence does not lead in that direction. There was a splinter found inside her which is generally assumed to have come from the broken paint stick. My guess is that this time, while playing "doctor", Burke decided to use the broken brush handle as a "doctor's tool" and insert it inside her. When his tool caused her to start bleeding and screaming at the same time, he hit her over the head to silence her with either the baseball bat or flashlight.

The other evidence which points to Burke's involvement sexually is the dictionary being open and dog-eared to the word "incest". When John and Patsy discovered what Burke had done to his sister, they (like most adults) would have known "incest" was sex between a parent and child, but probably didn't know if sex between siblings is considered "incest". They may have also looked the word up because they didn't know if "incest" is actually against the law, or just forbidden by religious faith. The dictionary wouldn't have answered that question for them, but it was the only place they could go at the time to look for an answer.

 

[Ivy]

jubie, I think that Burke and JonBenet were playing doctor, and when Burke inserted the art brush handle into her vagina, he hurt her without meaning to. When she reacted to the pain and tried to get up, Burke panicked (maybe he thought she'd tell their parents) and yanked hard on the neck cord, which was already in place around her neck, perhaps as part of a precursory lead-the-prisoner game). After yanking the cord, with his free hand he grabbed up the Maglite and struck her on the head with it. Then he gave the cord another yank and held it, pulling it taut. In his panic he held it too long. I think that John and Patsy staged the coverup, but I don't believe either of them caused any of the injuries found on JonBenet's body.

I think John and Patsy knew that sometimes Burke and JonBenet played doctor. Aside from the 11-24-98 Globe article and forum "rumors" saying that family friends had caught the two playing sexual games with each other, Patsy's dad gave Patsy the book, Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong. The author, William Kilpatrick, said that many kids were morally clueless because "our present culture sends out confusing and misleading messages about sex." He said that in most sex-education courses, sex is taught from the viewpoint that sex is an acceptable recreational activity. Kilpatrick said that's a formula for trouble. So...why did Patsy's dad give her the book? Maybe he knew that Burke and JonBenet liked to play doctor, and he felt that "Johnny" and "Jane" too, needed help in telling right from wrong.

imo

 

[jubie]

You guys are great, thanks so much.
'
Maybe what freaked JB out so bad this time was that Burke 'did' have an older friend with him this time... would explain it turing so ugly, the shoeprint, the unlocked door (as the friend/acquaintance takes off) male dna.... Maybe at first PR and JR didn't know anyone else was there and set it up to protect Burke ----> C'mon we all know that feeling of getting in trouble and everyone bolts and you're the one too stupid to run when the principal comes around the corner!!

Was the ransom note to buy time to let Burke calm down, maybe get medicated?

Jubie

 

[Toth]

Burke slept soundly throughout the night, as did Patsy Ramsey and John Ramsey.

 

[jubie]

Hey Toth,

Funny how even as my posts are 'speculative' in their tone so to do I have a disclaimer at the bottom saying my post is my opinion...

How is it that you state a fact AND you make no effort to acknowledge it as 'your opinion' WHEN I will hardly hold my breath you sat by their bedsides and watched them slumber through the night? :waitasec:


Jubie

 

[BlueCrab]

Burke slept soundly throughout the night, as did Patsy Ramsey and John Ramsey.

Logic dictates that only John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey or Burke Ramsey can make a statement like that. If you are not John, Patsy, or Burke, then you are not a credible person and NOTHING you post should be believed.

"TOTH" means "the other". Since Patsy gets most of the attention, that would make John "the other Ramsey". If you are John Ramsey then I apologize.

JMO

 

[Ivy]

Maybe our Toth is Thoth, the wisest of Egyptian gods, in cognito as just another WS poster. That might explain why Toth refuses to behave as a mere mortal and put "IMO" at the end of his posts. Thoth is associated with speech, literature, arts, and learning. He is the author of spells in The Book of the Dead, and he helps (or punishes) the dead as they try to enter the underworld. Depending on his mood I guess, Thoth sometimes has the head of an ibis and the body of a man, or is a complete ibis. Sometimes he has the head of a baboon and the body of a man, or is a complete baboon. Thoth is not known for his crime-solving abilities. In fact, Thoth is known for his inability to solve crimes. But hey, ya can't win 'em all.

imo

 

[sissi]

Alex Toth?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Barbara, there aren't "matches" in DNA comparisons because in order to have any absolute match every marker on every allele would have to be compared. Forensic science doesn't do that.

One sample with markers in only certain areas of the DNA strand are compared to the same areas of the DNA strand in other samples.

If the markers are consistently in the same areas on the compared samples the likelihood that the DNA is from the same person is extremely high. Not many (if any persons) on earth are thought to have the same arrangement of markers at the same areas.

If a sample from the crime scene is weak and some markers are missing, the samples can still be determined to be consistent or not-consistent.

As an example only, say the nail clippings sample is examined at 10 areas, and markers are missing at areas 5, 6, 7, 10 but present at areas 1,2,3,4,8, 9. We don't know if the markers are missing because it's a weak sample or because markers don't exist at those areas in that person's DNA.

The suspect's DNA sample has markers at 5,6,7, but is missing markers at 1, 2, and 3.

The comparison is inconsistent and can't be a match because the comparison shows 1,2,3 cannot match.

Another suspect's DNA sample has no markers at 5,6,7, either but has markers at 1,2,3,4,8, 9, 10. This sample is consistent with the crime scene DNA and can't be ruled out because the crime scene DNA is weak & incomplete.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I keep looking for an update on the case that started this thread, but still haven't found one.

 

[Ivy]

One thing I think many of us will agree on is that the Ramseys have a lifetime pass now that the sample--regardless of whether it's the result of lab contamination, innocent transfer, or stutter from the amplification process--is in the DNA database. There will never be a match, but as long as the sample is in the database, the Ramseys are home free.

imo

 

[LovelyPigeon]

If there were evidence that either parent killed JonBenét they could certainly be arrested, charged, and tried.

If the DNA is so inconsequential, so useless, and so non-related to JonBenét's murder, it would be worth a prosecutor's efforts to explain it away.

I believe the DNA will eventually make a "hit" and reveal the killer to LE, and eventually, to all of us.

 

[Ivy]

LovelyPigeon:
If the DNA is so inconsequential, so useless, and so non-related to JonBenét's murder, it would be worth a prosecutor's efforts to explain it away.

LP, it's obvious Keenan isn't the DA who's going to do that. Maybe the next DA will have the courage to ignore LW and his threats and forge ahead and get this case solved.

imo

 

[Shylock]

If the DNA is so inconsequential, so useless, and so non-related to JonBenét's murder, it would be worth a prosecutor's efforts to explain it away.

A good prosecutor could convince a jury that the DNA is meaningless to this case.
A good prosecutor could also convince a jury that Patsy wrote the note.

What a presecutor CAN'T do, is prove to a jury which of the three Ramseys is the one actually responsible for the death of JonBenet. No prosecutor will EVER be able to do that without a confession.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

The case will be easy to solve once that male DNA is identified. I believe that will happen, and hopefully in the near future.

I think we'll be reading a story like this one that took 7 years to solve with DNA:

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1743749&nav=8faOLrle

Her slaying remained unsolved until 2000, when the Washoe County crime lab made a positive match between blood found at the scene of the crime, and Herman's DNA profile, which had been added to a database.

Herman testified that he knew of Carter but did not know her personally and never had contact with her. But he was unable to explain why his blood was in the bathroom and on Carter's clothing.

 

[Watching you]

There has to be someone to compare the partial DNA with to to begin with. Even if they were to come up with a suspect who matched the partial DNA they have, it's not enough to convict anyone. That's the purpose of DNA comparison - you can't hang anyone based on partial DNA. It's not going to happen.

But, say they had a decent suspect, one whose DNA matched the alleles they they have in this case. The DNA still cannot specifically be connected to the crime, because they do not know when that DNA got there. It could have nothing at all to do with JBR's murder or murderer. DNA doesn't have a clock on it that says when it arrived at its destination. In this case, though, considering the degree of degradation, one might sensibly conclude it was older than JBR's blood DNA from which they were able to produce whole strands of DNA. Makes one wonder why the foreign DNA was only partial while JBR's was complete. The most obvious reason would be that it was there before the murder took place.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Partial DNA profile is what the original testing of the fingernail clippings and one spot of blood in the panties produced.

Testing of a second spot on the blood in the panties yielded a DNA profile of at least 10 markers. Good enough for FBI database, so the profile was sent to the FBI.

Just like dozens of cases in the past year have hit "matches" on a data base to DNA from evidence, the DNA profile from JonBenét's case stands a very good chance of being compared to a database and a "match" found. It doesn't matter that it hasn't hit a "match" yet--the comparison will be ongoing as more DNA is added as criminals' DNA is taken and added to the databases.

Just as in other cases, where defendants deny any knowledge of how their DNA got to the crime scene or on a victim, DNA "matching" that on JBR will outweigh a protest of innocence.