IDI: Whats your problem?

[tragco]

As far as the lab techs being "sure" they found the DNA of the killer- unless they were also eye-witnesses to the killing, NO ONE can say it is the DNA of the killer. It is the DNA of someone other than JB or her family. That is all. Even if that DNA belongs to someone who was in the house that night, intruder or not, that doesn't mean they were in the room when she was killed or that they killed her. That DNA doesn't place someone at the scene of the crime (her death, not the house) because it is not found anywhere else at the scene. Only on her clothes, NOT on her body, doorknob, suitcase handle, paint tote or paintbrushes, tape, garrote, white blanket, etc. Speaking of the blanket, someone involved with the crime had to have pulled that blanket over her AFTER she was dead. If they left DNA on the clothing, they were NOT wearing gloves. I doubt they'd wear gloves to wrap her in a blanket and not wear them as they actually handled her body or killed her. If it is on the blanket, then it brings the DNA into the crime scene. While it is only on the BODY, it may have been left while she was alive, and as PATSY says, if JB put those huge panties on herself, the DNA may not have had anything to do with the crime at all.
Here's a thought- let's say that JB was awake when she got home, not asleep. Let's say that she dressed herself in both the panties and the longjohns. After all, the parents' DNA was not mentioned as being found on the longjohns, though both parents said they touched them (Patsy when she claims to have put them on a sleeping JB and JR when he carried her body up from the basement). So let's say for argument's sake that she dressed herself. IF that DNA found its way onto her hands at the White's, that is a plausible explanation, IMO, for the DNA to be found there and no where else at the crime scene.

BBM: That is such a good point. I have always believd that if IDI, he/she was wearing gloves the entire time for your reasons stated above. I have a question: Touch dna from my understanding is from shedding skin, but is it possible one could recover "touch" type DNA from saliva or say, from the arm past the wrist where the gloves might not have been? Just curious.

Also someone pointed out on this thread that the touch DNA could be from any of the male children around at the time, whether at the party or at the home. If they were tested now and matched, I would be entrenched in the RDI scenario so fast. I wonder if they were or ever will be.

ETA: I completely discount ANY dna found from the fingernails. Those clippers were not sanitized and could have come from anyone... any other body from the coroner's office.

 

[DeeDee249]

BBM: That is such a good point. I have always believd that if IDI, he/she was wearing gloves the entire time for your reasons stated above. I have a question: Touch dna from my understanding is from shedding skin, but is it possible one could recover "touch" type DNA from saliva or say, from the arm past the wrist where the gloves might not have been? Just curious.

Also someone pointed out on this thread that the touch DNA could be from any of the male children around at the time, whether at the party or at the home. If they were tested now and matched, I would be entrenched in the RDI scenario so fast. I wonder if they were or ever will be.

ETA: I completely discount ANY dna found from the fingernails. Those clippers were not sanitized and could have come from anyone... any other body from the coroner's office.

I was one of the people who pointed out about the male children being the possible source of the male DNA. NONE were tested, either then or now.
Yes, the fingernail DNA could have come from another corpse. Because of that, any information from what was found under her nails must be discarded.
Frankly, if the fingernail DNA came from another corpse, the male touch DNA could have come from that same corpse. If the coroner was so sloppy and unprofessional as to use unsterile nail clippers on more than one body, the possibility of him not wearing gloves or somehow transferring some male DNA to her longjohns and panties (the ONLY location for the male DNA found at the crime scene) is very strong, and actually is a good explanation for why this male DNA was not found anywhere else at the crime scene. The coroner took off her clothing at the autopsy, and from there, they were put into evidence, where they still remain. So this theory gives more credibility to that male DNA having nothing to do with the crime, which is why it isn't found anywhere else. It was transferred to the clothes from the morgue.

 

[cynic]

I would LOVE to know whose names were X'd out

Ditto.

My guess is FW and his wife, PW.

IIRC, (many years ago,) some posters tried to substitute various names into the blacked out area and FW and PW did fit, for what it’s worth.

As all the Ramseys are mentined by name, I assume there would be legal ramifications to listing (on a TV show) the names of people other than JB's family.

I was always a bit puzzled as to how Erin Moriarty managed to get the okay to wave that report around like a flag on national television in the first place, but then again, with the Boulder DA’s office, I guess anything is possible.
It’s unfortunate that the report was not discussed in any significant way, but rather was used primarily as a prop.
My question would have centered on how bad the DNA from the panties must have been since they were clearly having trouble with the minor profile.

 

[cynic]

I have a question: Touch dna from my understanding is from shedding skin, but is it possible one could recover "touch" type DNA from saliva or say, from the arm past the wrist where the gloves might not have been? Just curious.

Touch DNA is more of a marketing term than anything else. DNA from contact has been recovered by a number of labs around the world for several years prior to receiving notoriety in the press as a result of the Ramsey case.
Often, because the sample size is so small, a lab will have to use special techniques in order to obtain usable information. This is sometimes broadly categorized as LCN DNA technology.
If enough of a sample is obtained (30 or more cells) the sample is analyzed using standard procedures.
DNA is traditionally recovered from visible stains by the use of a moistened swab, or a double swab method whereby the first moistened swab is followed by a dry swab.
(This method is also used to gather skin cells.)
And BTW, when I say visible, I mean visible in natural or alternative light, such as UV.
Touch DNA involves harvesting DNA from surfaces where contact is assumed to have been made but there is no visible stain.
That contact may be with any part of the body and involve various types of items from a crime scene. For example, a telephone handset, cigarette butt, gun, cap, gloves, socks etc., may all be candidates for touch DNA analysis.
Touch DNA is obtained by swabbing or razor scraping.
With respect to clothing, the danger of razor scraping for DNA is that if you scrape too large of an area, the cells found may have their origin from several people, and therefore yield a profile that may be very difficult to analyze.
Even if great care is taken to minimize the scraped area, there is still a chance that the profile will be mixed and somewhat difficult to analyze.
The cells that are liberated from clothing may involve cells from skin, mucous, saliva or potentially other body fluids as long as their quantities and or distribution are such that they have not left a visible stain. (As mentioned previously, a visible stain will be swabbed.)
The advantage of swabbing is that it minimizes the sample area, and therefore minimizes the possibility of a badly mixed sample.
The disadvantage is that there may not be enough cells in the sample for a usable profile.
The advantage of razor scraping is that it liberates significant quantities of cells.
The disadvantage is that there are often mixed profiles due to the size of the area scraped.
The razor scraping method was used on the long johns in the JBR case.

I completely discount ANY dna found from the fingernails. Those clippers were not sanitized and could have come from anyone... any other body from the coroner's office.

Absolutely, and I feel that this bad habit may well be symptomatic of a general lackadaisical attitude toward proper procedures.
As DeeDee has said, not only may the DNA from the fingernails be from a previous decedent, the other DNA may also be from a previous decedent.
Meyer should be very, very relieved that this case has not gone to trial. He would be completely destroyed on the stand.

 

[tragco]

I have to say THANK YOU to both Cynic and DeeDee . That is exactly the specific kind of information I was looking for. The DNA aspect of this case is the only reason I lean away from RDI, so it interests me greatly.

I learned so much from these posts, such as other reasons there might be matching DNA in different places and exactly what "touch" DNA can be.

WOW, awesome posts.

 

[BBB167893]

I have to say THANK YOU to both Cynic and DeeDee . That is exactly the specific kind of information I was looking for. The DNA aspect of this case is the only reason I lean away from RDI, so it interests me greatly.

I learned so much from these posts, such as other reasons there might be matching DNA in different places and exactly what "touch" DNA can be.

WOW, awesome posts.

cynic and DD are the very best.

 

[joeskidbeck]

cynic and DD are the very best.

Ditto that and add SuperDave!!!!!!:bow::bow::bow:

 

[MurriFlower]

Back to the panties.

This a quote from ACR, PMPT, LHP
"These weren't naughty children. They dressed themselves, and Patsy did JonBenet's hair. All her daughter's clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Dates on all their underclothes."

Dates on all their underclothes?? What does this mean? I'm surprised that there would be 'dates' on underclothes but that they then hadn't been washed/washed properly, so that there was 'fecal matter' on most of JBR's panties.

 

[DeeDee249]

Back to the panties.

This a quote from ACR, PMPT, LHP
"These weren't naughty children. They dressed themselves, and Patsy did JonBenet's hair. All her daughter's clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Dates on all their underclothes."

Dates on all their underclothes?? What does this mean? I'm surprised that there would be 'dates' on underclothes but that they then hadn't been washed/washed properly, so that there was 'fecal matter' on most of JBR's panties.

I think she meant that Patsy probably used a laundry marker to write a date on the underwear to indicate when it was purchased, and therefore when it was old enough to replace. Kind of an odd thing to do, sounds pretty anal to me, but I couldn't rule out Patsy being the type to do this. Much easier to just look at the undies and see if they were worn enough to toss out. As far as JB's stained panties- if a child has soiling issues after the point that they should, it would follow that most of their undies would have fecal staining, if they haven't been bleached in hot water. It seemed it was a fairly regular occurrence with JB, and would mean that her panties would have to be replaced after each wearing. Expensive, and wasteful, even for a wealthy mom. After all, that is what they make disposable Pull-Ups for- larger kids who have outgrown diapers and are not continent enough to wear cloth underwear.
My grandson, age 3, has been potty trained for a year and he allows NO one to help him use the toilet. (he asks for privacy- and he locks the door). Yet, because he IS only 3, he will not always wipe as well as he should. This is a rare occurrence though, and as he wears kids colored/printed undies, beach is not used. Pre-treating doesn't always work that well, and so his mom simply throws the stained undies away. This only happens once in a great while, but if it was a more regular event, he'd be put back in Pull-Ups right away.

 

[MurriFlower]

I think she meant that Patsy probably used a laundry marker to write a date on the underwear to indicate when it was purchased, and therefore when it was old enough to replace. Kind of an odd thing to do, sounds pretty anal to me, but I couldn't rule out Patsy being the type to do this. Much easier to just look at the undies and see if they were worn enough to toss out. As far as JB's stained panties- if a child has soiling issues after the point that they should, it would follow that most of their undies would have fecal staining, if they haven't been bleached in hot water. It seemed it was a fairly regular occurrence with JB, and would mean that her panties would have to be replaced after each wearing. Expensive, and wasteful, even for a wealthy mom. After all, that is what they make disposable Pull-Ups for- larger kids who have outgrown diapers and are not continent enough to wear cloth underwear.
My grandson, age 3, has been potty trained for a year and he allows NO one to help him use the toilet. (he asks for privacy- and he locks the door). Yet, because he IS only 3, he will not always wipe as well as he should. This is a rare occurrence though, and as he wears kids colored/printed undies, beach is not used. Pre-treating doesn't always work that well, and so his mom simply throws the stained undies away. This only happens once in a great while, but if it was a more regular event, he'd be put back in Pull-Ups right away.

I would wonder about a mother who dates the underwear but then takes no interest in whether or not it is properly washed. Doesn't add up.

I know there hasn't been too many mothers with babies in cloth nappies (diapers to you) for a few years now, but they were easily cleaned by soaking and washing, so there would be no excuse for someone of LHPs era not to know how to do this, especially if she was the mother of six children as she said.

Something's screwy here.

 

[DeeDee249]

I would wonder about a mother who dates the underwear but then takes no interest in whether or not it is properly washed. Doesn't add up.

I know there hasn't been too many mothers with babies in cloth nappies (diapers to you) for a few years now, but they were easily cleaned by soaking and washing, so there would be no excuse for someone of LHPs era not to know how to do this, especially if she was the mother of six children as she said.

Something's screwy here.

I just think it was a matter of JB's panties being laundered along with all the rest of her clothes and not particularly pre-treated or soaked. I think it was a matter of just saying well, she stains all her panties, so it if all doesn't come out in the wash, no big deal.
LHP was there for three days a week, and from all accounts the Rs house was a very messy one. (Not dirty, just messy) and that even Patsy's mother Nedra used to tell Patsy that she needed to try to be neater so LHP would have more time to clean and not spend so much time picking up stuff. I think she didn't have time to give special treatment to JB's panties.
Soiled diapers and fecal stains can be easily cleaned with bleach, but panties that are colored or printed can't be washed with bleach without ruining them. Of course, to me, the fecal stains ruin them anyway, so moot point.

 

[MurriFlower]

Okay, I get what you're saying. My point is this: if it were the attacker's gratification, the motive would be sex. If it was to humiliate the victim, it would be hatred. In either case, you would expect the damage to be far more extensive. I've been arguing that for some years now. And it's not just me. That was an element of the crime that the FBI studied closely, and they came to the same conclusion.

So did Nedra, incidentally. Her words were, "just a little bit molested."

Yes, I agree with you. The sexual aspect (I'm pretty sure I've said this on several occasions) seemed quite 'minor' in comparison to the violence of the murder. One would assume if it was a sexually motivated crime, then the genital injuries would have been more significant and the bash/strangle came later to shut her up. This looks like the murder was the object and the sexual assault was an addition.

So it then appears that the motive was hatred. We can only wonder who would hate a pretty little 6 yo enough to want to torture, humiliate and strangle her with a cord on a stick (not to mention the head bash)? The sexual assault issue can't be dismissed though, nor the other injuries as not being a significant aspect of the crime.

I agree with HOTYH to the extent a that motive for this type of hatred of an 'innocent victim' could very well be based on religious, cultural, economic and social bigotry.

I've also been thinking along the lines lately of a 'sacrifice', not in the traditional sense, but justified by a twisted religious doctrine. Jesus (who was good) was sacrificed for us (who are bad) so we could live. I asked this question before, but got no answer. When someone (who is bad) has their life saved, does someone (who is good) have to be sacrificed as atonement?

 

[claudicici]

Yes,Murry I completely agree.This does not sound like an act commited by a pedophile.
It sounds like an execution,a ritual....executed in a sort of twisted,disgusting playful manner,like a game with little clues left behind....the word "incsest" highlighted in the dictionary,the bible opened at PSALM 118 (or was it a different one?)....
why was it necessary to "sacrifice" sweet little JB?
if it wasn't the R's I do believe they knew exactly what happened to her.
PR's "premonitions":introducing death to christmas,seeing JB in the coffin
the way it seemed so easy for them to forgive the murderer.
I know that's the christian way but I don't care how strong your faith is wouldn't you still say "I try soooo hard to forgive whoever did this" instead of "sure thing whoever did this should join my church I'm glad to forgive"

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes,Murry I completely agree.This does not sound like an act commited by a pedophile.
It sounds like an execution,a ritual....executed in a sort of twisted,disgusting playful manner,like a game with little clues left behind....the word "incsest" highlighted in the dictionary,the bible opened at PSALM 118 (or was it a different one?)....
why was it necessary to "sacrifice" sweet little JB?
if it wasn't the R's I do believe they knew exactly what happened to her.
PR's "premonitions":introducing death to christmas,seeing JB in the coffin
the way it seemed so easy for them to forgive the murderer.
I know that's the christian way but I don't care how strong your faith is wouldn't you still say "I try soooo hard to forgive whoever did this" instead of "sure thing whoever did this should join my church I'm glad to forgive"

These things PR experienced would be natural -- bad dreams, trying to find a meaning for her death, feeling guilty in some way to have 'caused' it. The medication would have made the dreams seem more real.

I don't think it was her mother or her father or for that matter any of the 'family', but someone who knew them and hated them. Was she too pretty, too good, were they too rich, were their lives too perfect? When you got to know them, did you think this was more than they deserved?

You could 'forgive' her killer if you knew who and why, and that they had been punished or at least that they couldn't help themselves, and wouldn't/couldn't hurt anyone else. Knowing that and holding onto hatred wouldn't make sense, especially for a Christian. It would just be replaced by an overwhelming sadness for the daughter and the life you had lost.

 

[claudicici]

...so Murry,do you also beleive the R's knew who did this?

 

[MurriFlower]

...so Murry,do you also beleive the R's knew who did this?

I did think this initially, because of the RN having so much sarcasm and 'in jokes'. Not so confident now that they knew right away, but I think in their own minds they believe that whoever did it is now dead and that they either suffered sufficiently or were twisted/messed up so were not completely responsible for their actions. Remember, they also weren't keen to know too many details of what had happened to JBR, so in a way, they avoided the nastiest aspects as best they could.

 

[Chrishope]

You left out one poll option: Dead body and a fake RN in the same house. Absurd that an intruder would do that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You left out one poll option: Dead body and a fake RN in the same house. Absurd that an intruder would do that.

The ransom note on the stairs pretty much threatened JR not to call police and instead go to the bank. They found the note before they found JBR Why? Because JBR was in the far reaches of the house.

Doesn't this suggest to you that the note was intended to be found first, before JBR? And if JR/PR complied with the note and didn't call police wouldn't that allow someone to get outta dodge? Even across state lines?

Besides you don't know what the original plan was, and whether or not the intruder's got what they wanted.

Not so absurd after all.

 

[claudicici]

What is you guys take on why the R's did not comply with the note?
Not only did they call the police,they called their friends as well.Why?
I can't make sense of that.Unless they knew she was dead.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You left out one poll option: Dead body and a fake RN in the same house. Absurd that an intruder would do that.

It might be absurd that a ransom kidnapper would do that.

The botched ransom kidnapper scenario might be absurd because leaving a handwritten note seems too risky knowing the kidnapping was botched. But like I said, you don't know it was a botched ransom kidnapper. An intruder could have other motives. There are clues as to what those motives were, by the way.