Do you think a Stungun was used?

[DeeDee249]

Just a quick question; all these samples come from JBs clothing, but were any samples taken from her body? I know she was wiped clean, but obviously there was a blood stain on her fresh panties, so there must have been blood on her body right? Unless she was dressed in the size 12s, bled on them, then was undressed yet again and wiped, then redressed. I just have a huge problem with that single blood spot of JBs blood being mixed with a single spot of an intruders saliva. If this happened via an attempt at an oral sexual assault as some have suggested, wouldn't there me massive amounts of intruder DNA on her body?

The DNA in the panties was never PROVEN to be saliva. Had there been oral sexual contact, this exact same DNA from saliva would be in and on her body. It was not. When her body was examined at the autopsy, a black light was used, and it picked up evidence of protein found in body fluids like semen, blood. At first police thought it might be semen, but when her body was swabbed, it was found to be her own blood. There was NO foreign DNA found on her body. Only that one spot in the panties, with a drop of her own blood that had oozed or dripped over it. The coroner made a comment to those present at the autopsy that the area of the blood on her body, as well as the location of the small amounts of blood in her vagina, did not seem to correspond to the blood drops on the panty, which leads me to believe the blood drops were not in the crotch but elsewhere. To me, the blood likely oozed out from blood that was still near the vaginal entrance after she was wiped down, and which was not seen by whoever wiped her. Once the clean panties, fresh from the package and unworn and unlaundered, were put on her and the urine stained long johns put on over them, the wet long johns also made the panties wet, but the stagers never saw the small blood drops on the panties, because it did not seep through to the long johns. No blood was found on the long johns. She did not bleed into the size 12 panties from whatever injury caused enough blood to have to be wiped from her pubic
area and thighs. If that had happened, there would have been far more than a drop of blood on them. I feel she bled with either no panties or the original panties she had been wearing that day. If these bloody panties existed, they were never found. Possibly spirited out of the house in the Rs clothing, coats, etc. The parents were never searched and were not asked to turn over the clothes they had been wearing, which was likely one of the mistakes Beckner regrets the police making. Especially since Patsy's clothes were the same ones she had worn that night.
She had to be undressed out of whatever she was wearing when the assault took place (or at least after whatever caused that injury and the bleeding. Then she was wiped down. Then redressed in what was initially clean panties, and then urine-stained/wet long johns put back on her. The then clean panties also became wet through contact with the wet long johns, and also a small amount of blood that dripped on them, but because she was lying down at that point, not standing up, the blood did not end up in the crotch, as it would have if she had been standing.

 

[BBB167893]

If at all possible, this one statement may actually be an understatement. I am not certain about today, but in the glory days of this case, you were a master of the facts.

I'm what you might call a"burn-out" these days.

 

[BBB167893]

Go on SuperDave, be more specific.

What I meant was that I've already written it down and if you want it, you can acquire it.

But, this one time, I'll indulge you. If Kolar's reasoning is anything like mine, he was taking a holistic view of the case. He wasn't just considering the fibers or their location, but the other fibers and the inability of the Ramseys to explain them without contradicting themselves.

 

[BBB167893]

Your faulty memory doesn’t change the fact that the sample was accepted by CODIS, and therefore must have met CODIS standards.

Nor does your faulty memory support your claim that the panty sample is in CODIS only because the FBI “didn't want the bad publicity that would have come from turning it down.” The sample is in CODIS because it met CODIS standards.

My memory's not so "faulty" that I've forgotten that CODIS standards require a DNA sample with 10 loci (at the bare minimum--13 is preferred) and this one only had 9-1/2, and they had to wait seven years until DNA identification methods had advanced enough to detect that many. (I also seem to remember that they had to use amplification, but I forget the proper name of that technique.)

However, I will concede that I forgot the source. It was Barrie Hartman, not Lin Wood, who drew politics into it.

Until the DNA sample in CODIS is innocently explained it will enjoy the presumption of relevance.

Yes, that's the word I'd use. You're free to make that presumption, but not me.

 

[BBB167893]

It seems, at best, somewhat dishonest to continually edit a person’s posts when quoting. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that this is against forum rules.

I wouldn't bring up the forum rules, if I were you. I don't take kindly to being called "dishonest."

Regardless:

In a November 30, 1996 letter to Westward, carol of Walnut Creek, CA, claims to have written and gotten a reply from the producer of 48 Hours to complain about their November 28 show involving Michael Tracey and Lou Smit. She asserted: "The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount."

Letters to the Editor
From the week of 12/07/2006

Great, funny article. I e-mailed 48 Hours because I had problems with statements like "the evidence shows blah-blah" without the show telling us what that evidence might be. The producer and Erin Moriarty both wrote me back. The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount. That was news to me.
Carol Martin
Walnut Creek, California
http://www.westword.com/2006-12-07/news/letters-to-the-editor/

Yeah, I knew about that. But given CBS's sad history with this case, I don't trust them to be accurate any more than I'd trust a scorpion not to sting.

Kolar also discusses this in his book, but like you I have some problems with memory.

I'll ignore that crack.

 

[BBB167893]

FF: WRKJB, p. 304:

"Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in ‘off-the-shelf’ children’s underwear.
...

He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenét’s underwear." (Kolar 2012)​

​

Much obliged. But you guys are forgetting one thing: the other samples hadn't been commingled with fresh DNA. This one was.

 

[BBB167893]

IOWs, the tDNA found on the leggings was from secondary transfer than we should expect those samples to have been mixed – 2 distinct profiles – one the unsourced DNA in question and the other the DNA of the person who transferred it. We don’t see this.

I remember when the tDNA story broke, CNN did a bit on it. They stated specifically that the process filtered out all other DNA.

Besides, there is no practical or believable way for this DNA to go from the inside crotch of the panties to the outside sides of the leggings.

There most certainly is: JB transferred it herself.

 

[Anti-K]

Just a quick question; all these samples come from JBs clothing, but were any samples taken from her body? I know she was wiped clean, but obviously there was a blood stain on her fresh panties, so there must have been blood on her body right? Unless she was dressed in the size 12s, bled on them, then was undressed yet again and wiped, then redressed. I just have a huge problem with that single blood spot of JBs blood being mixed with a single spot of an intruders saliva. If this happened via an attempt at an oral sexual assault as some have suggested, wouldn't there me massive amounts of intruder DNA on her body?

Let’s say the assailant used his saliva as a lubricant for the penetration. This is not an unreasonable or fantastic supposition. Maybe he uses a finger, or the missing paint tip of the paint brush handle or perhaps some other, similar object. The object, lubed with saliva causes the victim to bleed. Now we have the assailant’s DNA and the victim’s blood mixed together. The victim is wiped, but some of this mixed blood drips onto the panties once they are put back in place.

Not only is this a plausible explanation for the foreign blood spot panty DNA, but the known evidence – penetration, bleeding, minor foreign component probably saliva – elevates this explanation from plausible to probable.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

The DNA in the panties was never PROVEN to be saliva. Had there been oral sexual contact, this exact same DNA from saliva would be in and on her body. It was not. When her body was examined at the autopsy, a black light was used, and it picked up evidence of protein found in body fluids like semen, blood. At first police thought it might be semen, but when her body was swabbed, it was found to be her own blood. There was NO foreign DNA found on her body. Only that one spot in the panties, with a drop of her own blood that had oozed or dripped over it. The coroner made a comment to those present at the autopsy that the area of the blood on her body, as well as the location of the small amounts of blood in her vagina, did not seem to correspond to the blood drops on the panty, which leads me to believe the blood drops were not in the crotch but elsewhere. To me, the blood likely oozed out from blood that was still near the vaginal entrance after she was wiped down, and which was not seen by whoever wiped her. Once the clean panties, fresh from the package and unworn and unlaundered, were put on her and the urine stained long johns put on over them, the wet long johns also made the panties wet, but the stagers never saw the small blood drops on the panties, because it did not seep through to the long johns. No blood was found on the long johns. She did not bleed into the size 12 panties from whatever injury caused enough blood to have to be wiped from her pubic
area and thighs. If that had happened, there would have been far more than a drop of blood on them. I feel she bled with either no panties or the original panties she had been wearing that day. If these bloody panties existed, they were never found. Possibly spirited out of the house in the Rs clothing, coats, etc. The parents were never searched and were not asked to turn over the clothes they had been wearing, which was likely one of the mistakes Beckner regrets the police making. Especially since Patsy's clothes were the same ones she had worn that night.
She had to be undressed out of whatever she was wearing when the assault took place (or at least after whatever caused that injury and the bleeding. Then she was wiped down. Then redressed in what was initially clean panties, and then urine-stained/wet long johns put back on her. The then clean panties also became wet through contact with the wet long johns, and also a small amount of blood that dripped on them, but because she was lying down at that point, not standing up, the blood did not end up in the crotch, as it would have if she had been standing.

A few comments on DeeDee249’s post quoted here. I’ve put in bold that which I wish to address.

First, on the saliva: though not “PROVEN to be saliva” it is sad to “probably” be saliva. In scientific terms “probably” means “more likely than not.” Also, as Kolar states in his book “the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI's initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva...”
.

There was more than one blood spot and foreign DNA was discovered in more than one blood spot.
.

I’d like to see a source for the claim that “the coroner made a comment to those present at the autopsy that the area of the blood on her body, as well as the location of the small amounts of blood in her vagina, did not seem to correspond to the blood drops on the panty.” Please.
.

It is not a fact and is mere forum conjecture and speculation that the victim’s panties were removed and that she was redressed in a new pair. Nor is it a fact that the victim’s panties and/or leggings were completely removed at any point during or after the assault/murder. The killer may have simply pulled them down.

Jonbenet was found wearing over-sized panties, but they had blood and urine on them. This strongly suggests that these are the panties that she was wearing when assaulted.

The victim urinated through the panties and the leggings and onto the carpet (face down) before the panties were pulled down or removed for the sexual assault.
The sexual assault occurred at or near point of death.

The panties were pulled up after the sexual assault, or, after “at or near point of death.”

It all seems very simple and clear.

As to DeeDee249’s claim that the victim was redressed in wet leggings one must wonder why? I mean, if they removed and replaced the panties because of the urine than would they not also replace the leggings for the very same reason!?!?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

My memory's not so "faulty" that I've forgotten that CODIS standards require a DNA sample with 10 loci (at the bare minimum--13 is preferred) and this one only had 9-1/2, and they had to wait seven years until DNA identification methods had advanced enough to detect that many. (I also seem to remember that they had to use amplification, but I forget the proper name of that technique.)

However, I will concede that I forgot the source. It was Barrie Hartman, not Lin Wood, who drew politics into it.



Yes, that's the word I'd use. You're free to make that presumption, but not me.

Which does nothing to change the simple fact that the sample was accepted by CODIS, and therefore must have met CODIS standards.

Incidentally, the CODIS requirement is 13 for a known source (for ex. an offender) and 10 if the sample is from an unknown source.

Saying that it “was Barrie Hartman, not Lin Wood, who drew politics into it” does nothing to substantiate your claim that the panty sample is in CODIS only because the FBI “didn't want the bad publicity that would have come from turning it down.”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I wouldn't bring up the forum rules, if I were you. I don't take kindly to being called "dishonest."



Yeah, I knew about that. But given CBS's sad history with this case, I don't trust them to be accurate any more than I'd trust a scorpion not to sting.



I'll ignore that crack.

Then please stop editing other people’s posts when you respond to them.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Much obliged. But you guys are forgetting one thing: the other samples hadn't been commingled with fresh DNA. This one was.

What? This makes no sense. I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I remember when the tDNA story broke, CNN did a bit on it. They stated specifically that the process filtered out all other DNA.



There most certainly is: JB transferred it herself.

I’m confident that on this point your memory remains faulty. There was some mention of “discarded DNA” made by Williamson of BODE. They only “use’” a very small portion of the DNA strand and the rest of it – almost all of it – is, um – I dunno; discarded?
.

It is not reasonable to believe that Jonbenet transferred the DNA from the inside crotch of her panties (probably saliva and commingled with her own blood) to the outside of both sides of her leggings where it magically became (most likely) skin cells.

Also, this doesn’t explain where the foreign DNA came form in the first place. If Jonbenet was transferring other people’s DNA around then she should have been transferring mom’s, dad’s, brother’s DNA first – along with her own. The evidence does not support this.
...

AK

 

[otg]

What may seem “very simple and clear” to some is not necessarily correct if all things are not considered. The idea that the size-12 panties and the long johns were simply pulled down during the sexual assault and then pulled back up afterwards does not take into account the conditions noted in the AR by Dr. Meyer. JonBenet’s wiped blood was found on both legs in the thigh area. Other areas where blood was found indicate she probably bled quite a bit. If those same lower garments were simply pulled down, it would be almost impossible for there not to be more blood present than the few droplets found in the crotch of her panties. If she was wearing the size-12 panties and the long johns prior to the assault, they would surely almost have to have been completely removed in order to not have blood all over them. And yet, there in the blanket found wrapped around her was her Barbie nightgown with her blood found on it (the amount we don’t know), along with Burke’s DNA (something not by itself incriminating).

 

[Mama2JML]

What may seem “very simple and clear” to some is not necessarily correct if all things are not considered. The idea that the size-12 panties and the long johns were simply pulled down during the sexual assault and then pulled back up afterwards does not take into account the conditions noted in the AR by Dr. Meyer. JonBenet’s wiped blood was found on both legs in the thigh area. Other areas where blood was found indicate she probably bled quite a bit. If those same lower garments were simply pulled down, it would be almost impossible for there not to be more blood present than the few droplets found in the crotch of her panties. If she was wearing the size-12 panties and the long johns prior to the assault, they would surely almost have to have been completely removed in order to not have blood all over them. And yet, there in the blanket found wrapped around her was her Barbie nightgown with her blood found on it (the amount we don’t know), along with Burke’s DNA (something not by itself incriminating).

We also don't know how much she bled, how much blood evidence was discarded, how much blood evidence went undetected, how much remained, all the items/locations containing blood evidence, etc. We DO know there was blood on the white blanket and on her shirt, as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

What may seem “very simple and clear” to some is not necessarily correct if all things are not considered. The idea that the size-12 panties and the long johns were simply pulled down during the sexual assault and then pulled back up afterwards does not take into account the conditions noted in the AR by Dr. Meyer. JonBenet’s wiped blood was found on both legs in the thigh area. Other areas where blood was found indicate she probably bled quite a bit. If those same lower garments were simply pulled down, it would be almost impossible for there not to be more blood present than the few droplets found in the crotch of her panties. If she was wearing the size-12 panties and the long johns prior to the assault, they would surely almost have to have been completely removed in order to not have blood all over them. And yet, there in the blanket found wrapped around her was her Barbie nightgown with her blood found on it (the amount we don’t know), along with Burke’s DNA (something not by itself incriminating).

Ah, but “the idea that the size-12 panties and the long johns were simply pulled down during the sexual assault and then pulled back up afterwards [DOES] take into account the conditions noted in the AR by Dr. Meyer.”

It’s possible to pull one’s pants down and p**p, pee, or even bleed and not get anything on them. It happens all the time.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

We also don't know how much she bled, how much blood evidence was discarded, how much blood evidence went undetected, how much remained, all the items/locations containing blood evidence, etc. We DO know there was blood on the white blanket and on her shirt, as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you remember if urine was found on the white blanket in which she was wrapped?
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Do you remember if urine was found on the white blanket in which she was wrapped?
...

AK

If this information has been disclosed, then I do not recall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

Do you remember if urine was found on the white blanket in which she was wrapped?
...

AK

No, I do not believe it was. To me, this could suggest either that the urine on her long johns and panties was already dried when she was wrapped in the blanket, but there is also the possibility that, as the urine stains were anterior (on the front of her clothes, suggesting she was on her stomach when her bladder voided) yet she was placed on her back on the blanket and the sides of the blanket were loosely pulled around her, that the blanket simply did not touch the wet clothes.

 

[otg]

Ah, but “the idea that the size-12 panties and the long johns were simply pulled down during the sexual assault and then pulled back up afterwards [DOES] take into account the conditions noted in the AR by Dr. Meyer.”

It’s possible to pull one’s pants down and p**p, pee, or even bleed and not get anything on them. It happens all the time.
...

AK

I wouldn’t even consider trying to rationalize a forced sexual assault as being equivalent to a voluntary bodily function that is done on a daily basis. Shame on you for trying. If you don’t see the difference, I won’t attempt an explanation.