DNA links Denver burglary, child assault

[Ivy]

Originally posted by LovelyPigeon
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.

And because there never will be a match, the Ramseys will be "home free" forevermore.

imo

 

[Britt]

LovelyPigeon - Are you saying you believe the "intruder" was a complete stranger to JonBenet? Some criminal lurking in a DNA database waiting to be discovered?

Didn't everyone who was close to JB have their DNA tested?

If the intruder was a stranger, how do you explain the pineapple? The knowledge of the family? Ability to forge Patsy's handwriting? The staged crime scene and hidden body on the premises which John Douglas tells us means the perp is very close to the victim?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Lots of people were swabbed for DNA by the BPD. How many of those swabs were actually tested and profiles obtained, we don't know. We don't know how many profiles were compared to the case DNA evidence.

I don't know if a stranger killed JonBenét or an acquaintance. I don't know if people like the Whites' male guests from California that Christmas even gave DNA samples.

Many old and cold cases being solved currently are ones that had DNA evidence found on the victim and/or the crime scene, but didn't hit "matches" to any database until recently. Many times the suspects' DNA had not been submitted for database inclusion because the previous convictions were for burglary or other crimes that did not require DNA to be collected & added to a state's database.

Some states are now collecting DNA from those arrested for any felony, rather than just rape or murder cases. And when those DNA profiles are processesed in the data banks, there are hits on old cases of rapes, murders, assaults, etc

The pineapple could have been eaten before the Rs left for the Whites, the information in the note could have been culled from recent Boulder newspaper articles, Patsy's handwriting isn't on the note, and John Douglas doesn't believe the Rs had anything to do with JonBenét's death.

 

[BlueCrab]

The pineapple could have been eaten before the Rs left for the Whites

Lovely Pigeon,

That would be impossible. You don't understand the human digestive tract.

The pineapple was barely digested and was in the upper part of the small intestine. It was eaten 1 1/2 to 2 hours before death. The cracked crab meal had been turned into fecal matter and was in the large intestine. It had been eaten much sooner -- most likely about 6 or 7 hours before death.

The small intestine in a six-year-old is a small diameter coiled tube about 10 feet long. The large intestine is a larger diameter coiled tube about 5 feet long. There is no way the cracked crab dinner in the large intestine could have by-passed the pineapple in the small intestine.

The pineapple evidence proves there was no intruder in the house, unless he was someone who JonBenet knew and trusted. She wouldn't have snacked on pineapple in the kitchen during the middle of the night with someone she didn't know 1 1/2 to 2 hours before she died.

JMO

 

[Britt]

The pineapple could have been eaten before the Rs left for the Whites...

Scientifically impossible, which I see BlueCrab explains above.

...the information in the note could have been culled from recent Boulder newspaper articles...

Which article mentions the $118,000 bonus? Can you post the link, please?

...Patsy's handwriting isn't on the note...

It's not on the note. It IS the note.

...John Douglas doesn't believe the Rs had anything to do with JonBenét's death.

Well, sure, that's what they paid him to say.

But now I'll have to drag out my Mind Hunter quote again to show y'all Douglas's thinking before he started selling his opinion for cash:

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." Mind Hunter, p. 289.

So, again I ask: what "intruder" was THISCLOSE to JonBenet? Surely, someone so close would've had his DNA tested, yes?

 

[Shylock]

John Douglas doesn't believe the Rs had anything to do with JonBenét's death.

John Douglas was PAID by John Ramsey to develop a profile that fit an intruder.

Now don't you think Douglas would look pretty stupid if he developed that profile and then stated he didn't believe it? (So much for him ever selling any more of his profile services in the future!...LOL)

It's called "buying an opinion", LovelyPigeon. It shouldn't be too hard for you to figure that out.

 

[Shylock]

Lovely Pigeon,
That would be impossible. You don't understand the human digestive tract.

I'm expecting Toth to chime in at any time and regurgitate the old swamp lies that it was lemon rind which was served with the cracked crab...

 

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Shylock
I'm expecting Toth to chime in at any time and regurgitate the old swamp lies that it was lemon rind which was served with the cracked crab...

Yep, Shylock... and that it was the Intruder, and the Intruder alone, who ate the pineapple from the bowl of pineapple that was found on the table with only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on it. lol

imo

 

[Watching you]

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.

You are wrong that the DNA will solve this case. It can't.

I believe the story was that the DNA barely made FBI requirements. I also believe the story was that the DNA had been submitted to the FBI for their database, but I never heard that it was actually accepted. Perhaps someone has a source that would say the DNA was accepted into the FBI's database (that doesn't mean "accepted for testing," it means accepted into the database.

It seems obvious to me, but I'll point it out again - 10 markers will not convict anyone of a crime. It's just not good enough, any decent defense attorney would laugh that right out of court. So, you say that 10 markers match 10 markers in the defendent's DNA, sir? Don't you need all the markers to make a positive match? What if the missing markers are different? It's like fingerprint analysis - you have to have the entire fingerprint or it's no good.

The CODIS databank is a beautiful concept, but it's only as good as the DNA results entered into it. It's the same concept as computers - garbage in, garbage out. Surely the databank is yielding results and solving old cases, but I'd bet a lot of money those cases were solved on complete DNA, not on 10 markers.

 

[Watching you]

Criminal cases are not built on one element - they are built on several items of evidence. The RST has failed to find an intruder in their seven years of trying. Lou Smit has not found this elusive intruder, because there is no good evidence leading to the identity of an intruder.

There is the very slight possibility that a partial DNA sample from a suspect arrested on a lot of other conclusive evidence could be used only as a means to help bolster the case against that suspect, but that incomplete, inconclusive DNA will never be used as the only identifier in a case without other, stronger evidence. Obviously, there is none, and there could be a million different combinations that could complete that 10-marker strand of DNA. No matter how anyone tries to spin it, the DNA is still a non-issue.

 

[why_nutt]

It seems obvious to me, but I'll point it out again - 10 markers will not convict anyone of a crime. It's just not good enough, any decent defense attorney would laugh that right out of court. So, you say that 10 markers match 10 markers in the defendent's DNA, sir? Don't you need all the markers to make a positive match? What if the missing markers are different? It's like fingerprint analysis - you have to have the entire fingerprint or it's no good.

This is true.

Would you like to see hypocrisy in action?

Ramsey defenders routinely point to the Innocence Project to show that just one DNA marker can matter in a criminal case. They want so much for those ten markers which are present to match a suspect, any suspect, that they will throw a person in jail for life or even impose the death penalty if ten of a suspect's markers matched those found in JonBenet's underwear, but no other evidence of involvement in the crime, such as fiber evidence or proof of purchase of the cord or tape, existed. What they fail to notice is that this case has three missing markers. Any one of those markers, or all of them, could exonerate an accused intruder if by some outside chance the missing markers were found and did not match the intruder. Is this what the Ramsey defense wants to do? Risk convicting an innocent man just because some of the evidence matches, but nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt that all of it does?

Look, Ramsey defenders. There is a reason why 13 markers are considered important to establish unique identity. It is because 13 are truly considered the amount needed to push a jury beyond reasonable doubt in their deliberations about whether people who say they had nothing to do with the crime scene can be proven to be lying, through evidence of their unique identity via DNA. If you are only going to give a jury ten markers to work with, you are guaranteeing that any conviction you might against all odds temporarily achieve is going to be overturned on appeal, because Barry Scheck will bring the hammer down on your weak DNA identifications with the force of God.

If Ramsey defenders want to be less hypocritical, then they can at least be honest in telling the world that they do not care whether the absolute right person is convicted, just so long as it is someone who is not a Ramsey.

 

[Shylock]

You are wrong that the DNA will solve this case. It can't.
10 markers will not convict anyone of a crime.

This is why the experts from CellMark told the BPD that the DNA would be able to eliminate suspects, but wouldn't be able to positively identify anyone.

While X-percentage of the male population won't match the 10 markers, the real question is what percentage WILL match those markers? Based on comments by Dr. Lee, the fact that the Ramseys are still the prime suspects, and the BPD's lack of interest in entering the DNA into any database, I think that percentage must be high enough to make chasing DNA suspects a waste of time.

 

[Watching you]

If you are only going to give a jury ten markers to work with, you are guaranteeing that any conviction you might against all odds temporarily achieve is going to be overturned on appeal, because Barry Scheck will bring the hammer down on your weak DNA identifications with the force of God.

To me this kind of thinking, not just by Ramsey defenders, but also by at least one of Keenan's investigators (Lou Smit) in her "new" investigation is just indicative of how incompetent the alleged investigation really is. There can be no confidence in an investigation where a conclusion is based on a premise filled with holes. Spin might get them through another day on TV, but it won't work in a courtroom where there will be experts up the ying yang.

 

[Ivy]

I don't anticipate a DNA "suspect" to be found, period. This "Pin the DNA on the Intruder" game is just that...a game. It's part of the "Tell a lie long enough and people will believe it" campaign the Rs described in their book.

 

[Britt]

Spin might get them through another day on TV, but it won't work in a courtroom where there will be experts up the ying yang.

Exactly, WY. RST smoke&mirrors and their followers' Scarlet O'Hara can'tthinkaboutthat mentality would be laughed out of a courtroom.

 

[Britt]

It's part of the "Tell a lie long enough and people will believe it" campaign the Rs described in their book.

Right on, Ivy. The Ramseys really do reveal a lot of truth in their utterances and writings, in spite of themselves. Like the above example where they reveal one of their own strategies. That's one of the reasons I like Dr. Hodges' books - he's very good at decoding them. But some of it is so obvious it doesn't need to be decoded. The subconscious is driven to tell the truth, even in liars like the Ramseys.

 

[BrotherMoon]

Right on, Ivy. The subconscious is driven to tell the truth, even in liars like the Ramseys.

I would say it's function is to compensate for the wayward ego.

And it does it in the language of symbol (Victory! S.B.T.C 118, delivery etc.) which has to be interpreted to some extent. The difficulty is in separating the personal projections from the pure symbol. This is where Hodges fails, due to the influence of Freudianism and his own lack of professionalism. One does not bring one's own amplifications of another's material to the discussion without saying these are MY amplifications and they have more to do with me than the source (person) of the material being studied.

 

[Nehemiah]

Does anyone know whose DNA has been compared to this new discovery?
IMO

 

[guppy]

There was a segment on Fox News a couple of years ago in which Carol McKinley - I think that was her name - said the palm print was Melinda's. That was based on viewing a home video in which Melinda had her hand on the door in the area where the print was found. I only saw this once, and never heard about it again.

WRT the DNA, this is the only unsolved murder case I have ever heard of in which DNA on a victim was suggested to have originated in the manufacturing of her clothing, not from the killer. That is good a reason to disregard this silliness. It is a theory based on nothing more than wishful thinking by those who would like for the Ramseys to be guilty.



This post is my opinion.

 

[Jayelles]

There was a segment on Fox News a couple of years ago in which Carol McKinley - I think that was her name - said the palm print was Melinda's. That was based on viewing a home video in which Melinda had her hand on the door in the area where the print was found. I only saw this once, and never heard about it again.

WRT the DNA, this is the only unsolved murder case I have ever heard of in which DNA on a victim was suggested to have originated in the manufacturing of her clothing, not from the killer. That is good a reason to disregard this silliness. It is a theory based on nothing more than wishful thinking by those who would like for the Ramseys to be guilty.

Yo Guppy!

Actually, I believe that the theory of the worker's DNA being present on the underwear is as a result of testing other new underwear.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html