DNA links Denver burglary, child assault

[Barbara]

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 is also the only unsolved murder where it was suggested, against the reports of the autopsy and the coroner and other medical experts that a stun gun was used. This is the only unsolved murder where the investigator, Lou Smit took a personal stance on this case, based on religion to defend the parents even when they are indefensible. This is the only unsolved murder where the detective attempted to slide through a window and make a fool of himself.

I guess these too are theories based on nothing more than wishful thinking by those who would like for the murderer to be anyone OTHER than the Ramseys even resorting to making up the evidence to try to convince others.

BTW, you are supposed to add a disclaimer to your posts Guppy. That is the rule at this forum.

 

[Britt]

This is also the only unsolved murder where it was suggested, against the reports of the autopsy and the coroner and other medical experts that a stun gun was used. This is the only unsolved murder where the investigator, Lou Smit took a personal stance on this case, based on religion to defend the parents even when they are indefensible. This is the only unsolved murder where the detective attempted to slide through a window and make a fool of himself.

And let's not forget... this is also the only unsolved murder where:

The victim's body was found inside the home along with a "ransom" note... and the "killer" deposited only a partial DNA sample which the DNA scientists say may include more than one donor and may be the result of the testing process and/or contamination.

 

[guppy]

Thanks for the link. I did read that back when it first came out, but had pretty much forgotten about it. I don't doubt the possibility of the DNA already being there when the panties were removed from the package, but I think, as a detective, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion and just throw the panties back into the evidence locker.




This post is my opinion.

 

[guppy]

I've never heard of the rule about using a disclaimer. I looked through some posts and apparently others haven't either. But, if it is a rule, I will follow it.

BTW, you might want to consider switching sides. Even The Globe has moved into the intruder camp.

 

[Shylock]

BTW, you might want to consider switching sides. Even The Globe has moved into the intruder camp.

Must be a slow day in tabloid land, huh Gup! I guess there were no alien abductions this week...

 

[Barbara]

I've never heard of the rule about using a disclaimer. I looked through some posts and apparently others haven't either. But, if it is a rule, I will follow it.

BTW, you might want to consider switching sides. Even The Globe has moved into the intruder camp.

Fortunately, I am one of those who aren't on a "side". The facts and corruption in this case have put me where the truth is, and the truth for me is that the Ramseys are the only ones who can solve this case. (tactful, eh?)

I would venture a guess that not only was it a slow tabloid week, but that article or one similar to that was part of the settlement the Ramseys made with the Globe, just like the Enquirer interview

 

[Toth]

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.

????
DNA is one of the most reliable tools of forensic science, far more reliable than fingerprints, footprints, tiretracks, fiber evidence or firearm lands and grooves stuff.

 

[Barbara]

????
DNA is one of the most reliable tools of forensic science, far more reliable than fingerprints, footprints, tiretracks, fiber evidence or firearm lands and grooves stuff.

You are absolutely right as far as DNA being a reliable source; however, what you omit is that the DNA all by itself is not the smoking gun unless it is a rape and is semen left in the vaginal area or panties of the victim, especially since not all the markers are there.

Also, as I float around the forums, it has seemingly never been verified that the DNA under the nails and the panties are the same. Is there some evidence of this by a reliable "impartial" source? Also, is there a reliable source that states the DNA is absolutely male DNA? Something recent? I have to go back and wonder why female DNA samples were being taken even after all the hubbub about male DNA surfaced. Why was Ariana Pugh's DNA taken after the male DNA found was announced?

 

[sissi]

Good question Barbara,why was Ariana tested a year or so after the crime?
Were they suspecting her father? Could the "dna from two individuals" have been the issue,and this an effort to separate a combined dna that shared markers? Were they checking to see if she had worn the panties before Jonbenet?
IMO?

 

[Barbara]

Good question Barbara,why was Ariana tested a year or so after the crime?
Were they suspecting her father? Could the "dna from two individuals" have been the issue,and this an effort to separate a combined dna that shared markers? Were they checking to see if she had worn the panties before Jonbenet?
IMO?

Your theory certainly could be right; however, nobody ever seems to be able to answer these questions with facts, but lots of theories, so I figured I'd ask them again, hoping that somebody could clarify all of this for us.

 

[Toth]

unless it is a rape and is semen left in the vaginal area or panties of the victim

ANY bodily fluid: semen, blood tissue, tears, skin oils, nasal secretions, sweat, ear wax, urine, feces. Sure semen is the easiest for the criminalists and the serology lab, but anything will do.

Yes.
Male dna.
fingernail and panties-dropOne have markers in common and no markers that would exclude a single source donor. Fingernail, Panties-dropOne and Panties-dropTwo have ten markers in common and no markers that would exclude a single source donor.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

This is the first reference to finding DNA in the oil in fingerprints I've ever seen:

Federal grant for DNA testing gives CBI chance to solve old cases
FORENSICS on fast forward
Grand Island Independent - Grand Island,NE,USA ... Evidence technicians and crime scene investigators can gather DNA from
saliva, blood, sweat, semen and the oil in fingerprints, Leonard said.
...
<"http://www.theindependent.com/stories/032104/new_csi21.shtml>

 

[Watching you]

ANY bodily fluid: semen, blood tissue, tears, skin oils, nasal secretions, sweat, ear wax, urine, feces. Sure semen is the easiest for the criminalists and the serology lab, but anything will do.

Unless things have changed in the past year or so, they cannot get DNA from urine, because urine itself is considered "sterile." What they can do is get DNA from any bacterial infection that might be present in the urine, and I'm not sure how that works - if the DNA is the bacteria's DNA or if they can get the carrier's DNA from that bacteria. I also think they possibly be able to get DNA from cast-off cells from the lining of the bladder, but I'm not sure about that, either. What I am sure of is that the urine itself has no DNA. That is straight from a DNA expert.

 

[Ivy]

WY, I read that urine has no DNA except when it contains cells from the lining of the bladder...so I am sure you are right. I also read that saliva has no DNA except when it contains cells from the lining of the mouth. Some people, called "shedders" give off these kinds of cells readily, whereas "non-shedders" don't.

imo