DNA links Denver burglary, child assault

[Jayelles]

Scottish police are making a breakthrough in a 25+ year old case. It seems like the perp may be nailed through the DNA of a relative. No exact match has been found to DNA extracted from semen stains on the clothing of two 17 year old victims but police have been exploring partial matches and although no arrest has been made, they say that they expect to make one soon.

Encouraging.

 

[Toth]

England already had a unique 'relative related' case solved that way.
Cold Case squad got a database "hit" on a rape/murder case. The profile included a very rare marker. Then someone noticed that the "hitee" was born six years after the crime took place, however, the cops figured if its that rare a marker they would look at the relatives. It was the "hitee's uncle" who had committed the crime but was not yet in any dna database.

 

[Shylock]

MIBRO, somehow we are back at the original argument. You think CODIS is some kind of quality control system and that just because a sample meets the minimum requirements of submission that makes it a valid DNA profile. That is not the case. CODIS is nothing but a database full of numbers. Any sample that meets the requirements can be submitted. It doesn't matter if that sample is contamination, stutter effect, or some other anomaly caused by degraded sequences of multiple donors.

I don't know where you get the idea that I think there are no "mathematical calculations in establishing useful forensic DNA conclusions", and that I challenged you on that fact. I can only assume you either have me confused with someone else, or I might have challenged you on some specific statement you made which I didn't agree with. I have known for YEARS about how much math is involved in the analysis of DNA. This isn't anything new. Anybody who watched or (like me) listened to the O.J. trial heard enough DNA ratio and statistical analysis math to last them a lifetime.

Well you didn't understand the "marble analogy", so it doesn't surprise me you don't get the "Pee Soup Theory" which is a physics reality. The jest of it is that if there was some source of DNA in JonBenet's panties prior to the molestation which caused the blood spots to also be deposited, the warm urine would have caused the DNA source and blood to become "comingled".
Not that it matters, the whole "comingled" and "DNA mixed with her blood" is nothing but a farce and RST propaganda anyway. I just thought I would have a little fun with the gullable minds of the RST. :razz:

 

[Jayelles]

England already had a unique 'relative related' case solved that way.
Cold Case squad got a database "hit" on a rape/murder case. The profile included a very rare marker. Then someone noticed that the "hitee" was born six years after the crime took place, however, the cops figured if its that rare a marker they would look at the relatives. It was the "hitee's uncle" who had committed the crime but was not yet in any dna database.

I don't know which case you are referring to, but I do know that last year, police in South Wales nailed one Joseph Kappen via the DNA of his son. Kappen was dead, but a match was made on exhumation enabling the police to clear up three 30 year old rape/murder cases. Kappen's DNA was obviously not on file, but police identified 100 people on the national database whose profiles were similar. Painstaking investigation then led them to their man.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Ivy, Lou Smit made the connection between the male DNA under the nails and the male DNA from a spot of blood in the panties. There were markers that were consistent although the profiles were incomplete.

 

[Barbara]

Ivy, Lou Smit made the connection between the male DNA under the nails and the male DNA from a spot of blood in the panties. There were markers that were consistent although the profiles were incomplete.

The key word here is "consistent". Consistent doesn't mean a "match". I'm sure not many people know that better than you LP. DNA can be "consistent", but it doesn't make it a match. Just like hair and other fibers. Remember the fuss the RST made about Patsy's fibers and the fibers found on JBR being only "consistent"? You were one of the posters arguing that it means nothing more than it is consistent.

Why is the DNA so different? Has anyone other than Lou Smit stated that they are the same? (Of course, that excludes Lin Wood)

 

[Shylock]

Lou Smit made the connection between the male DNA under the nails and the male DNA from a spot of blood in the panties.

Lou Smit also made the connection between the blue arc on a stun gun and a blue vein on JonBenet's back.

Lou Smit isn't qualified to make connections.

IMO

 

[Toth]

You mean they pay him all that money and he is not qualified? Strange that after so many years no one has discovered his lack of qualifications.

 

[Jayelles]

You mean they pay him all that money and he is not qualified? Strange that after so many years no one has discovered his lack of qualifications.

I thought he wasn't being paid for his continued work on the Ramsey case? I thought Tom ******* was the only person who was actually "hired" to investigate?

 

[Toth]

Irrespective of this case, it would be strange for him to have been hired for three days a week under the Retired Talent program in the state's most highly staffed sheriff's department if he were not qualified.

 

[BlueCrab]

I thought he wasn't being paid for his continued work on the Ramsey case? I thought Tom ******* was the only person who was actually "hired" to investigate?

Paid or unpaid is irrelevant. Keenan needs a name or two to refer to when someone asks how the "investigation" is going. The truth is there is no active investigation. IMO, the case was solved over 4 years ago, children too young to prosecute were involved, and it's been coverup, coverup, coverup, ever since.

IMO Beckner, Keenan, the GJ, the court, and selected others in local Boulder government know the truth. Everyone else is kept quiet by the protective court order, including Fleet White, who also likely knows who killed JonBenet.

Although IMO children were involved, I get the feeling from certain items of evidence that a person of prosecutable age may be getting away with murder because of the government mandated coverup to protect the identities of the children.

JMO

 

[Jayelles]

Are you familiar with the case of Mary Bell?

 

[Watching you]

this line of reasoning.

Although IMO children were involved, I get the feeling from certain items of evidence that a person of prosecutable age may be getting away with murder because of the government mandated coverup to protect the identities of the children...

Why would the government mandate a cover up like this? Juveniles commit crimes all the time and nobody covers for them. They are usually classified as a juvenile offender but more and more are tried as adults in cases of horrendous murder cases.

There would be reason to give a minor juvenile status in this case, but to cover up a crime by a minor is a crime in itself. I can't buy this theory; but, I will say that Boulder doesn't seem to conform to accepted legal standards practiced by other law enforcement agencies. Coddling, obstruction, and cover up seem to be status quo there, so nothing would surprise me.

 

[BlueCrab]

Are you familiar with the case of Mary Bell?

Yes. Mary Bell was a 10-year-old child killer who had a 13-year-old female accomplice. Mary killed two small children for fun in separate murders and tried to strangle 4 others before finally being arrested.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Why would the government mandate a cover up like this? Juveniles commit crimes all the time and nobody covers for them. They are usually classified as a juvenile offender but more and more are tried as adults in cases of horrendous murder cases.

There would be reason to give a minor juvenile status in this case, but to cover up a crime by a minor is a crime in itself. I can't buy this theory; but, I will say that Boulder doesn't seem to conform to accepted legal standards practiced by other law enforcement agencies. Coddling, obstruction, and cover up seem to be status quo there, so nothing would surprise me.

Each of the 50 states have their own criminal codes. In Colorado the Childrens' Code states that a person under 10 years old cannot be charged with a crime and the name of the child cannot be disclosed. Boulder authorities have no choice but to go along with the coverup.

In such cases the disposition of the case is confidentially resolved by the county district attorney, which would usually involve psychiatric counselling for the young perpetrator. IMO, this is exactly what Alex Hunter did.

JMO

 

[Barbara]

I understand what you are saying Bluecrab and as you know, the BDI theory is my first choice for what happened that night although not quite the theory you present in total.

My question is this: In Colorado, the laws are what they are and they are certainly forced to withhold the name, etc. of a minor child. BUT....with so many having to know about this, how is it possible and also, HOW is it legal to publicly state that this case is unsolved and to continue to pay investigators, etc.?

Also, if that were the case, why would the Ramseys allow Lin Wood to threaten a lawsuit if they didn't continue the investigation? Wouldn't they want this as quiet as possible? Why would they rock the boat if your theory is correct and they are protecting Burke

Doesn't quite make sense to me.

Like I said, I strongly believe that Burke is a likely suspect, but I can't understand the officials doing what you claim.

 

[Shylock]

Also, if that were the case, why would the Ramseys allow Lin Wood to threaten a lawsuit if they didn't continue the investigation? Wouldn't they want this as quiet as possible? Why would they rock the boat if your theory is correct and they are protecting Burke

I think the Ramseys are convinced (and with good reason) that they did such a perfect job of staging the cover-up that nobody suspects Burke. I think they are actually happy that Patsy is the primary suspect because that also takes the focus away from Burke.

As a parent, if your young child, with his entire future ahead of him, had accidently killed a younger child, wouldn't YOU want people to suspect YOU instead of your child?

 

[BlueCrab]

Like I said, I strongly believe that Burke is a likely suspect, but I can't understand the officials doing what you claim.

They have no choice. It's the law. To publicly infer the crime is solved by not "investigating" it, or by inferring it is solved but not naming the killer, would reveal that juveniles had to have been involved. The Colorado Childrens' Code created a catch-22 situation for Boulder authorities -- damned if you do and damned if you don't.

JMO

 

[Jayelles]

Yes. Mary Bell was a 10-year-old child killer who had a 13-year-old female accomplice. Mary killed two small children for fun in separate murders and tried to strangle 4 others before finally being arrested.

JMO

Do you believe her crimes were sexually motivated?

 

[jubie]

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