Steely Dan
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 30,558
- Reaction score
- 107
Were JonBenet's panties brand new and never washed before?
Were JonBenet's panties brand new and never washed before?
Steely Dan,
Well the size-12's originated from a brand new pack of Bloomingdales size-12's, that Patsy claims she placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her personal use.
Nearly everyone and their dog believes the size-12's were brand new, never washed before, and never worn before that night!
The 64K question is why was it important to redress JonBenet in a Wednesday tagged pair of size-12's which were patently too large?
.
You've summed it up pretty well.
There will never be a trial of anyone in this case. Not without a confession which details exactly what happened and in which the confessor is able to put him/herself right there with the evidence.
As to the media brouhaha, when the Ramseys chose to go on TV the day after they buried their child, at a time long before they finally showed up 4 months later to be interviewed by the investigating agency, the BPD, they made themselves public figures. Here we are allowed to join the debate in the media and public once people use that same media for their own public relations events.
The Ramseys also held their second press conference the day after their 1997 interview with law enforcement: complete with a small group of invitation only media allowed to be present; allowing questions only on specified topics not involving the investigation or any of their lawyers, family and friends present; including a 30 minute cut off for the whole shebang; and with a secret location and password to even get in.
Then they wrote a book and released it in 2000, doing one of the most viewed book tours on national television, with only the most prestigious interviewers. After that, their "savior" Lou Smit went on another binge of "intruder" media presentations, guaranteed to favor the Ramseys and put forth only case information they chose to spread their propaganda for their own agenda: to present themselves as innocent.
Fine. It was their legal right, if many things about it are questionable.
But to allow only the Ramsey's and their representatives to "have the playing field alone," as the judge who dismissed their lawsuit against Fox News said after one small news report by Carol McKinley aired which included evidence not favorable to them, is hardly conducive to "equal justice under the law." It's the cornerstone of our freedom of the press to be able to communicate without censorship. The Ramseys were all about censoring anything they didn't want the public to hear, IMO.
John Ramsey once said he wanted to change how we get our news. In fact, he went a long way to that goal when he silenced others who don't have the money to fight the Ramseys' "slap suits," designed and effective in keeping people from saying something other than what the Ramseys want people to hear.
But that's still de facto censorship, and as an American who believes without a free press and freedom of speech our Democracy would fall by the wayside, and fast, I resent that as much as anything about the Ramseys.
The Ramseys have been staging this crime since the moment it happened, IMO, and it's why the rare person like Thomas or Kolar is so important. There's more at stake here than this one case. If our legal system is not one of blind justice, if rich people can manipulate our courts, our DAs, our judges, and our media so that they are given preferential and biased treament, then there is no Democracy and we are lost because even the hope of justice is a sham.
First of all this case is not about the Ramseys, it is about a Ramsey: JonBenet Ramsey.
Yes, there is a right to freedom of speech, but even in the US that is not an overriding right. Doctors do not have the right to talk freely about their patient's medical conditions to anyone they want to, the patient's privacy overrides the doctors right to free speech. People do not have the right to harrass someone else, the victims right to not be haressed, overrides the harrassers right to freedom of speech. We would not be happy if some random person decided to go around accussing us of something horrible on the basis we could not prove it was untrue. Proving a negative is nearly impossible.
Also we have to remember that whist there might be a right to freedom of expression, we also have a duty to be responsible with our rights, because grown adults have decided to exercise their right to freedom of speech, this case has been turned from a murder investigation to a reality TV show, and a six year old girl has been robbed of justice. people can talk on the internet, self publish all they want, but because of the media the chances of the person who took Jonbenet down to a cold basement the day after Christmas, sexually assaulted her (agony if she was conscious), garrotted her (that would be agony), and then hit her on the head, and just left her there is never going to be taken to court and face justice and hear a judge sentence them to prison for life.
back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible
1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found
or
2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall
Or
3) There never was an intruder.
First of all this case is not about the Ramseys, it is about a Ramsey: JonBenet Ramsey.
Yes, there is a right to freedom of speech, but even in the US that is not an overriding right. Doctors do not have the right to talk freely about their patient's medical conditions to anyone they want to, the patient's privacy overrides the doctors right to free speech. People do not have the right to harrass someone else, the victims right to not be haressed, overrides the harrassers right to freedom of speech. We would not be happy if some random person decided to go around accussing us of something horrible on the basis we could not prove it was untrue. Proving a negative is nearly impossible.
Also we have to remember that whist there might be a right to freedom of expression, we also have a duty to be responsible with our rights, because grown adults have decided to exercise their right to freedom of speech, this case has been turned from a murder investigation to a reality TV show, and a six year old girl has been robbed of justice. people can talk on the internet, self publish all they want, but because of the media the chances of the person who took Jonbenet down to a cold basement the day after Christmas, sexually assaulted her (agony if she was conscious), garrotted her (that would be agony), and then hit her on the head, and just left her there is never going to be taken to court and face justice and hear a judge sentence them to prison for life.
back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible
1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found
or
2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall
But, my two scenerios do not exclude anyone intruder, parent or otherwise.
A person did this, a solid flesh and blood human being who would sweat, shed skin cells, drop hair, maybe even spittal if they were in a rage, it was not an air and vapour ghost. That is the one thing we know for certain about the killer. yet hardly any DNA (stranger's, or belonging to a ramsey other than Jonbenet) was found. Surely twisting the garrotte would cause skin cells to come off on to the rope. Therefore I think it is fair to say whoever did it was prepared for this and made sure they did not leave anything behind, or that it would be worth having everything examined again (in 1996 it was only eight years since DNA had first been used in a criminal case) because something was missed.
I also think it would be worth looking at the cothes of anyone who got blood on them to see if there were skin cells on them as I have heard this shoudl happen to the person who actually hits the victim, and that they do not show up for a while.
<snip>
back to the DNA, the lack of DNA present makes me think that one of two things are possible
1) The crime scene was not examined properly, and it might be worth going back over all the material gathered to see if more DNA can be found
or
2) That the person who did it came prepared, wore gloves, and maybe some sort of overall
It's unlikely all the test results have been made public.
Being somewhat familiar with criminalists and their work I doubt the crime scene was not examined properly. I've never understood why people think that. They are highly trained in gathering physical and/or trace evidence.
As to item 2 above, maybe I'm misreading, but it sounds like you believe an Intruder could have worn gloves. The same would hold true no matter who did it and iirc there is speculation Patsy may have used gloves of the type she used when using hair-coloring.
In my first post I relate that Kolar tells us that there were 6 genetically unique partial profiles.For some of the partial samples is it not impossible these came from the same person, going by the info provided?
Kolar's understanding is that it was traced to Taiwan.one way to test out the underwear dna theory is to trace where the underwear was made, and packaged. If they had the original packaging then it should not be impossible. A lot of this sort of clothing is manufactured in places like China. The dna may be able to be examined (depends on quantity and quality) to determine the race and likely origin of the donor. If the underwear was made in china, and the donor was a white male of northern european extraction then the chances are it was not put there during manufacture. It is not a foolproof idea, but it could help exclude some possibilities.
1996 was 2 years later than 1994 when the OJ Simpson case made DNA a household term.the thing I find odd about this case is not the dna that was found, but the lack of it. Jonbent was killed by another person that is beyond doubt. Another person hit her head, tied the garrote around her neck and twisted it, and sexually assaulted her and had to undress and dress her. Whoever did it, how did they not leave dna - more hair, skin cells on the rope, etc. It makes me think that the person who did it was quite prepared. HOWEVER, this was back in 1996, when forensic use of dna was not so good and people were not so aware of it.
It was publicized that when the JonBenet case was returned to the Boulder Police Dept. in 2009 that a task force would be convened to take a fresh look at the evidence.I think it would be worth re-examining all of the material to see if there is anything that could be used. (if this has already been done I apologize).
JonBenet suffered blunt force trauma that fractured her skull but her skin was not lacerated.One thing I read once was that when a person hits another person and damages the skin, as well as blood splatter there may also be tiny fragments of skin found on their clothes, which can help differentiate between innocent blood transfer, and transfer as the result of being the person who hit the victim. apparently it does take time to appear. I wonder if this is accurate and if it was done with any of the ramsey's clothing.
I am not excluding the family on the basis of someone perhaps wearing gloves - I cannot thing of any household that would not have some sort of rubber gloves in. It just seems for such a violent attack not much was left behind (an d an intruder or a ramsey should have left something behind)
As for the crime scene not being examined properly. It is always worth looking at that possibility. But I mainly think the fact that sixteen years worth of advances have gone by in the field of DNA analysis makes it worth looking again at the material. Why not? It has been sixteen years and no-one has been charged, surely it is worth someone going in and just looking at things afresh and having new examinations done. perhaps there is something that could be pixked up with the new advances.
And maybe you're not aware, but the head blow came before the strangulation. Just FYI.
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Wecht and have found myself agreeing with him in many instances, this is not one of them, though.Source? I've read several opinions on this and tend to go with Wecht since his theory makes the most medical sense. An intracranial injury that severe should have bled severely if flow hadn't been cut off at the neck.
There were many questions that many people wanted answered but unfortunately time constraints prevented getting into things too deeply. At one point Tricia said I probably had 300 questions waiting and that wasnt a bad guess.Uhh..here we go again..another try.
I listened to the radio show and was disappoínted. The touch DNA was not even discussed though that is the reason why M.Lacey "exonorated" the Ramseys.
Just to be clear. There are no full profiles in this case. There are only partial profiles and mixed partial profiles.I already knew that the panty DNA had only ten markers, but if the markers match those of the touch DNA then I understand why it is relevant. There may be an innocent explanation for the DNA but it should not be "laughed off". 10 markers is not a full profile but what are the odds that these 10 markers match in the panty DNA and in the touch DNA? The markers reveal genetic features and people can be at least excluded based on that information (in JBR case the DNA belongs to a male for example so women can be excluded as the source).
It depends, if the marker count is 5, as an example, it may be coincidental.Again, it is my understanding that the ten markers match (same genetic information) in the panty and in the touch DNA. Is it enough to conclude that the source of DNA is the same? I believe so if you consider that they happen to be on JB`s clothes.
Im not tired of hearing that the DNA means nothing because, although it may be hyperbole, its a nice change from John Ramsey, Lin Wood and a cadre of Ramsey shills saying it means everything.I also believe that the totality of evidence points to RDI but I'm tired of hearing about the "degraded DNA that means nothing". Yes there is foreign DNA on JB`s clothes and of course it is relevant to the case, meaning it should be considered as evidence. The degraded DNA in the panties does not provide enough genetic information to make a definite match to an individual but it is enough to exclude people as the source. From the touch DNA on the other hand 13 markers are found and an identification can be made.
This is how I understand the situation, do correct me if I`m wrong.
There were many questions that many people wanted answered but unfortunately time constraints prevented getting into things too deeply. At one point Tricia said I probably had 300 questions waiting and that wasnt a bad guess.
Just to be clear. There are no full profiles in this case. There are only partial profiles and mixed partial profiles.
The strongest DNA in this case is from Distal Stain 007-2. It made it into CODIS by the "skin of its teeth" with 10 markers.
With respect to matching, the DS007-2 does match the TDNA from the waistband on the leggings/long johns, however, even though marker counts were given for some items at the Cold Case Task Force presentation in 2009 which Kolar attended, Andy Horita was very tight lipped about how many markers were found on the leggings. Why??? Im guessing its because he was ashamed, but, regardless, he did say that it was weaker than DS007-2, therefore, less than 10, it could even be 5 or less for all we know. (Which would explain why he didnt share the amount.)
It depends, if the marker count is 5, as an example, it may be coincidental.
If its closer to 9, then its likely the same, but given that these two items were in contact with each other on her body and that we are not privy to evidence storage procedures, the result may the consequence of contamination via transfer.
It may also be from transfer at the morgue through sequential handling by the coroner.
There is a very good discussion thread over at FFJ outlining a number of issues that could lead to the type of DNA problems seen here.
Problems with DNA results & DNA tutorials - Forums For Justice
Im not tired of hearing that the DNA means nothing because, although it may be hyperbole, its a nice change from John Ramsey, Lin Wood and a cadre of Ramsey shills saying it means everything.
You are absolutely right about examining a case and forming conclusions based on the totality of the evidence. This is standard investigative procedure, or at least it should be. We cannot allow our heads to be turned by every stray, broken strand of DNA if the evidence points elsewhere.
It isn’t that simple.The TDNA found in 2008 is stated to be matching the panty DNA. It is that simple unless they are lying about it.