IDIs On This Forum?

[sandraladeda]

In the Danielle Van Dam case, no forensic evidence of her killer (neighbor David Westerfield) was found in the Van Dam household, although it is assumed that he came into the house and took her out of her bed (all forensic evidence in that case was found in his home and motor home and on his clothing).
Wasn't there also a hair (maybe pubic?) found on JB's blanket that was never matched to anyone?

I would think that there would be little or no forensic evidence in a case where the intruder came in, took the kid, and went out.

Compare this to the Ramsey case, in which the "intruder" came in, grabbed the kid, moved thorughout the house, hung out long enough to write a lengthy ransom note, hung out long enough to stage a garrotting/sexual assault scene, etc. No forensic evidence? I don't think so....

imho

 

[BOESP]

I would think that there would be little or no forensic evidence in a case where the intruder came in, took the kid, and went out.

Compare this to the Ramsey case, in which the "intruder" came in, grabbed the kid, moved thorughout the house, hung out long enough to write a lengthy ransom note, hung out long enough to stage a garrotting/sexual assault scene, etc. No forensic evidence? I don't think so....

imho

Not to mention that it was Christmas night (not exactly a high-crime date) and the Ramseys, according to John, arrived home about 10:00 PM and according to the autopsy report, JonBenet, by estimate based on digested stomach contents, would likely have died before 2:00 AM on December 26th.

I'll throw this in, too. After arriving home, according to Patsy, she still had to pack and wrap presents in preparation for leaving early the next morning.

Just some things to think about.

 

[UKGuy]

In the Danielle Van Dam case, no forensic evidence of her killer (neighbor David Westerfield) was found in the Van Dam household, although it is assumed that he came into the house and took her out of her bed (all forensic evidence in that case was found in his home and motor home and on his clothing).
Wasn't there also a hair (maybe pubic?) found on JB's blanket that was never matched to anyone?

sister,

(all forensic evidence in that case was found in his home and motor home and on his clothing).

Precisely the point being made, at the crime-scene, there was forensic evidence deposited.

And the difference in JonBenet's case is that she was not removed from the house!


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

...we can assume that the intruder deposited his DNA there on December 26th. So his DNA SHOULD BE FRESH.

There is no scientific rule that states that the only DNA a criminal can deposit is complete and fresh, and in the same condition and age as their victims.

 

[Solace]

There is no scientific rule that states that the only DNA a criminal can deposit is complete and fresh, and in the same condition and age as their victims.

No? When a rape or a murder happens and the dna of the murderer is found, what does he leave DNA from six months ago?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

JonBenet will most likely have other examples of degraded dna on her body e.g. her hands , under her nails, her feet, but these will be recognized for being what they are, e.g. random degraded dna.

Also the degraded dna is to be found on her clean out of the packet size-12 underwear, why not on her white gap-top, or her longjohns, or on her genitals. Most likely because the dna was already present on the size-12's?


.

This is a really good point. If DNA was found elsewhere on JBR, on other clothing items, then it increases the likelyhood the underwear DNA was transient. If there is no similar DNA found on her other clothing items, only mixed in with blood on her underwear, then it seems far more likely to be DNA left by the perp.

 

[Amraann]

I am actually finding myself about to answer posts above from both sides of the fence LOL

#1 Someone asked why the rope was thought to be new as opposed to the last piece on the role...

Had the Rope been down to the last piece ... Where was the empty roll?
And why was there no other rope mathcing that used in or around the home or vehicles?
If it was an item already in the house and used down to the last piece then it stands to reason their would be some evidence of that..
Being that it was Christmas season it could be argued that the rope was cut to tie down a tree and left somewhere in the house where anyone including the R's could have used it... But the same cannot be said for the tape... Reused tape would have left tell tale signs of previous usage on something in that house and there would have been evidence of the same type of tape being used on other items in or around the house.

Someone already replied to my #2..
But here goes anyway..
I have to agree that the difference in the DVD Case and the JBR case is that DVD was not found in her home.
JBR was found in her home.

There has been some talk of this degraded DNA... I don't know if it was "degraded" so much as contaminated.
Which could have happend due to the police and their absolutely disgraceful investigation.

Everyone can blame the R's but the truth is the police handled the case terrably looong before they suspected the R's.
Their mishandling messed up the crime scene and who knows what all evidence by allowing everyone in the house and to wander about.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No? When a rape or a murder happens and the dna of the murderer is found, what does he leave DNA from six months ago?

Maybe its not so old or degraded.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

 

[Solace]

This is a really good point. If DNA was found elsewhere on JBR, on other clothing items, then it increases the likelyhood the underwear DNA was transient. If there is no similar DNA found on her other clothing items, only mixed in with blood on her underwear, then it seems far more likely to be DNA left by the perp.

Actually, the second paragraph was a really good point too. But you ignored that one. There is no other place on JonBenet's body that has DNA that matches that that was found in her underwear. None. There are however fibers from John's sweater found on JonBenet's genitals. This is another story though. But very very incriminating.

The Ramseys got downright lucky with this case. First they are in Boulder and second they actually get some DNA that was in underwear that was brand new.

 

[Solace]

Maybe its not so old or degraded.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

You are actually quoting 48 Hours. The show where no one, but no one does their research. They just blatantly go on tv and lie. You have to do better than this. 48 Hours is a joke and everyone knows it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

OK well that pretty much contradicts the published report:

"Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."

"Right now, the DNA profile that's in hand doesn't match anyone associated with the investigation, so that would include the parents," says LaBerge, the Denver police scientist who believes this is the last and best hope to crack the case. "If the DNA never matches someone, the case, depending on the rest of the investigation, may never be solved.”

 

[UKGuy]

This is a really good point. If DNA was found elsewhere on JBR, on other clothing items, then it increases the likelyhood the underwear DNA was transient. If there is no similar DNA found on her other clothing items, only mixed in with blood on her underwear, then it seems far more likely to be DNA left by the perp.

Holdontoyourhat,

The more dna must increase the probability that it is not transient or random.

If there is no similar DNA found on her other clothing items, only mixed in with blood on her underwear, then it seems far more likely to be DNA left by the perp.

So I assume you are conceding that if the dna is unique to her size-12 underwear and her size-12 underwear are fresh on her, and that there is no matching dna elsewhere on her person, then the dna may be associated only with her size-12 underwear?

Another source for the degraded dna may be the paintbrush handle, assuming it was used to assault her?

.

 

[Solace]

OK well that pretty much contradicts the published report:

"Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."

Holdon.

Lets not start jumping up and down yet:hand: . BECAUSE the fact is because Austin and Grey are does not make it so. Secondly, the forensic scientist that Austin and Grey used came out AND SAID, well it is not absolutely positive that it is a match. In other words, they should not have said that. And Austin and Grey are paid by the Ramseys. I have posted this article several times and can find it again.

You are also quoting from 48 Hours hosted by the infamous Erin Moriarity - the same Erin who had on Michael Tracey who is not above ruining a completely innocent man's life for the sake of making money on his documentary. What is he up to 4 now on this case. He used a man in his documentary that was COMPLETELY CLEARED BY THE POLICE. He saw the documentary and called up the police and they said no we are not looking at you. So much for 48 hours and their solid as a rock research.

 

[Solace]

OK well that pretty much contradicts the published report:

"Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."

"Right now, the DNA profile that's in hand doesn't match anyone associated with the investigation, so that would include the parents," says LaBerge, the Denver police scientist who believes this is the last and best hope to crack the case. "If the DNA never matches someone, the case, depending on the rest of the investigation, may never be solved.”

Reminds me of an interview Cyrill Wecht had with some very arrogant newwomand on MSNBC. She said exactly what you are saying that the DNA excludes the parents as killers.

He looked at her incredulously and said, I dont' mean to be rude, but I am beside myself that you would even assert something like that. Because it does not match the Ramseys, it does not mean it is exculpatory evidence as far as they are concerned. It just means we don't know who owns the DNA yet. It could easily be a handler.

Yes, needless to say, she was still arrogant and embarrassed. But she did not check her facts and went on national tv and asserted something that was not true.

Her last words to Dr. Wecht and this is true "Yeah, I get it, I get it, we all get it".

 

[Solace]

There has been some talk of this degraded DNA... I don't know if it was "degraded" so much as contaminated.
Which could have happend due to the police and their absolutely disgraceful investigation.

Everyone can blame the R's but the truth is the police handled the case terrably looong before they suspected the R's.
Their mishandling messed up the crime scene and who knows what all evidence by allowing everyone in the house and to wander about.[/quote]

DNA has 13 Markers. 99% of DNA is very similar, which means that it is that 1% that sets us apart. So when Lin Wood says there is a match in the DNA from the underwear and the fingernails, HE IS LYING PLAIN AND SIMPLE. The DNA was most certainly degraded and had about 10 markers.

If we are going to deal with the facts, then lets deal with them.

Although, I just watched an interview with John and Patsy, one I had never seen before, and I have to admit, they are good. You come away with the feeling, there is no way they did this.

And then you look at the evidence and you realize, yes there is a way they did this.

 

[Toltec]

I don't see why the degraded DNA should play the major role in this murder. JonBenet had her last bath Christmas Eve, (if so) and she had a pretty busy schedule those two days.

Christmas Eve she played at a friends house, went to church, went to dinner, went to the Whites.

Christmas Day she played outside with friends, played with her new toys, got dressed and went to the Whites.

See how much DNA she could pick up in that time frame....

 

[UKGuy]

I don't see why the degraded DNA should play the major role in this murder. JonBenet had her last bath Christmas Eve, (if so) and she had a pretty busy schedule those two days.

Christmas Eve she played at a friends house, went to church, went to dinner, went to the Whites.

Christmas Day she played outside with friends, played with her new toys, got dressed and went to the Whites.

See how much DNA she could pick up in that time frame....

Toltec,

I agree, but if she was wiped down, and redressed in clean size-12 underwear, then this reduces the probability that the dna came from an external source, but obviously does not exclude it.


.

 

[Nova]

Toltec,

I agree, but if she was wiped down, and redressed in clean size-12 underwear, then this reduces the probability that the dna came from an external source, but obviously does not exclude it.


.

Good point. But might it not just as well indicate JBR was awake and used her own, DNA-covered fingers to put on the panties (or at least touched the spot where the DNA was found)? Might be an important clue as to what happened that night.

 

[JMO8778]

Which Patsey Ramsey cannot be excluded as the writer. Practiced and written on a pad from the home.

and she even admitted writing the prior 'practice' salutation.
Patsy might as well have just signed her darn name to that so-called 'ransom note'.LOVE,PATSY.that would do it.
you would never be able to convince me in a million years that those 2 weren't good for it,each in some manner,and for the cover up as well.
actually make it a billion years.
enough said.

 

[JMO8778]

There has been some talk of this degraded DNA... I don't know if it was "degraded" so much as contaminated.
Which could have happend due to the police and their absolutely disgraceful investigation.

Everyone can blame the R's but the truth is the police handled the case terrably looong before they suspected the R's.
Their mishandling messed up the crime scene and who knows what all evidence by allowing everyone in the house and to wander about.

DNA has 13 Markers. 99% of DNA is very similar, which means that it is that 1% that sets us apart. So when Lin Wood says there is a match in the DNA from the underwear and the fingernails, HE IS LYING PLAIN AND SIMPLE. The DNA was most certainly degraded and had about 10 markers.

If we are going to deal with the facts, then lets deal with them.

Although, I just watched an interview with John and Patsy, one I had never seen before, and I have to admit, they are good. You come away with the feeling, there is no way they did this.
And then you look at the evidence and you realize, yes there is a way they did this.

absolutely.and the ones who are playing it for what's it worth dollarwise are so obvious...