Is the DNA relevant to the crime?

[BBB167893]

He is...The poor guy can't even RIP. It just sickens me how far the IDI's will go to "save" their "sainted Ramseys."

And, if possible, enrich themselves in the bargain.

 

[BBB167893]

Good question! LE, medical personnel, etc. were ruled out as possible innocent sources of contamination; this practice is standard protocol. I believe you can find the info in PMPT, for sure.

Even Bill Wise stated that it was unlikely that all of the LE and medical personnel who were involved were DNA tested.

 

[borndem]

Please listen to Tricia's radio show with the DNA instructor. I will link it when I have time. It's worth a listen, he explains this better than I could ever hope to do.

I will be back with the link as soon as RL allows me to search for it.

JMO

ETA: Here is the link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...t-8-pm-eastern

Good idea, tezi! While I was listening, I made a note that at 125 min. is when the DNA discussion gets started -- it was easy to understand and explains a lot about this case. I recommend it to everyone who hasn't heard it. The whole program has lots & lots of great info.

 

[tezi]

Good idea, tezi! While I was listening, I made a note that at 125 min. is when the DNA discussion gets started -- it was easy to understand and explains a lot about this case. I recommend it to everyone who hasn't heard it. The whole program has lots & lots of great info.

Yes, it was excellent wasn't it? I need to listen to it again!

JMO

 

[Tawny]

Let's recommend it to anyone, especially those who THINK they understand the DNA situation.

 

[tezi]

Well, if he was cleared by DNA then, the Ramsey's were too. For the record I'm not in either camp although I lean towards a Ramsey doing it, mostly John. Nothing is set in stone in my mind, actually, I was just asking a question! I'm new here and tried to start my own thread, but, I don't have enough posts to do so. Sorry if I clogged up your DNA thread with useless nonsense:seeya: I just was thinking with my fingers.

Still, the DNA exhonerated the Ramsey's , right? But, you still feel like they are guilty, right? And the DNA exonerated the Santa guy? I still feel like too many things are fn weird about his tale and plus he looks creepy too! Jmo

Before we get off of the wrong foot here cherisa, the DNA profile is not even a complete profile. It's also touch DNA, not blood, saliva, or semen.

The totality of the evidence assures me and a lot of others here that the Ramseys are at the very least guilty of being accessories to the crime of murder and guilty of child abuse resulting in death. Four people went into that house alive Christmas night and only three came out alive. You can do the math.

JMO

 

[Forthechildren]

Good idea, tezi! While I was listening, I made a note that at 125 min. is when the DNA discussion gets started -- it was easy to understand and explains a lot about this case. I recommend it to everyone who hasn't heard it. The whole program has lots & lots of great info.

Awww...the link has an error message for me:tantrum:

 

[BBB167893]

Before we get off of the wrong foot here cherisa, the DNA profile is not even a complete profile. It's also touch DNA, not blood, saliva, or semen.

The totality of the evidence assures me and a lot of others here that the Ramseys are at the very least guilty of being accessories to the crime of murder and guilty of child abuse resulting in death. Four people went into that house alive Christmas night and only three came out alive. You can do the math.

JMO

I'll take it a step further than that.

cherisa, I realize at first that it seems like we (RDI) are trying to have our cake and eat it too. But as ST and Mary Lacy reminded us, DNA was only ONE factor of many in the decision to clear or not clear a suspect. I guess the best way to explain it is this:

if you believe that the DNA HAS to be from an intruder, then if it doesn't match, you HAVE to let the person go, even if other evidence points to them. But if you consider the possibility (likelihood, IMO) that the DNA is irrelevant to the case, that still doesn't mean you can't use it as part of the overall investigation, but you're using other evidence in the process, too. It's the old school vs new school approach I've often spoken of.

Also, no amount of forensic technology in the world will ever replace good, old-fashioned legwork. That's the mistake too many people have made.

Here endeth my spiel.

 

[cherisa]

I'll take it a step further than that.

cherisa, I realize at first that it seems like we (RDI) are trying to have our cake and eat it too. But as ST and Mary Lacy reminded us, DNA was only ONE factor of many in the decision to clear or not clear a suspect. I guess the best way to explain it is this:

if you believe that the DNA HAS to be from an intruder, then if it doesn't match, you HAVE to let the person go, even if other evidence points to them. But if you consider the possibility (likelihood, IMO) that the DNA is irrelevant to the case, that still doesn't mean you can't use it as part of the overall investigation, but you're using other evidence in the process, too. It's the old school vs new school approach I've often spoken of.

Also, no amount of forensic technology in the world will ever replace good, old-fashioned legwork. That's the mistake too many people have made.

Here endeth my spiel.

How can you be so sure though? I see your valid points, but also,the Santa guy makes me a bit nauseous. I fluctuate all the time as to who did it. I just don't know for 100% that a Ramsey did it? I don't. Sometimes, I'm sure they did especially with The seemingly endless parents who kill their children as of late, but some of the coincidences surrounding BM just makes my skin crawl. I guess, I wish I could be as confident, but, I'm sure I'd be confindently WRONG! And since the DNA is useless..... Well, then we cannot rule anyone out right?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I'll take it a step further than that.

cherisa, I realize at first that it seems like we (RDI) are trying to have our cake and eat it too. But as ST and Mary Lacy reminded us, DNA was only ONE factor of many in the decision to clear or not clear a suspect. I guess the best way to explain it is this:

if you believe that the DNA HAS to be from an intruder, then if it doesn't match, you HAVE to let the person go, even if other evidence points to them. But if you consider the possibility (likelihood, IMO) that the DNA is irrelevant to the case, that still doesn't mean you can't use it as part of the overall investigation, but you're using other evidence in the process, too. It's the old school vs new school approach I've often spoken of.

Also, no amount of forensic technology in the world will ever replace good, old-fashioned legwork. That's the mistake too many people have made.

Here endeth my spiel.

And a great spiel it was. Thank you, Dave.

:seeya:

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Before we get off of the wrong foot here cherisa, the DNA profile is not even a complete profile. It's also touch DNA, not blood, saliva, or semen.

The totality of the evidence assures me and a lot of others here that the Ramseys are at the very least guilty of being accessories to the crime of murder and guilty of child abuse resulting in death. Four people went into that house alive Christmas night and only three came out alive. You can do the math.

JMO

Succint, tezi........Simple and true. KISS and all that.

 

[Meara]

Didn't JBR say Santa came to visit her in the middle of the night or was coming to visit her that night? CREEPER

Somewhat creepier, Mendara. Megan Kostanik was a friend of JBR's. Megan's mother reported that JBR said that Santa was going to make a special visit to her after Christmas, and that it was a secret.

 

[Tawny]

Santa also gave hair, fingerprint, and DNA samples with NO MATCH, AND his alibi was checked MULTIPLE times.

 

[tezi]

Santa also gave hair, fingerprint, and DNA samples with NO MATCH, AND his alibi was checked MULTIPLE times.

Not to mention, the poor guy just had open heart surgery four months prior to JBR's murder. He was also on multiple medications.

JMO

 

[tezi]

Succint, tezi........Simple and true. KISS and all that.

Thank you ATasteOfHoney. I have always believed the math was key in this case.

JMO

 

[Nehemiah]

I recently watched a show on the Brianna Denison murder, a case that I had followed when it first occurred. The detectives harvested 'touch DNA' from the doorknob on the back door and that was used to find and ultimately help convict the killer. When they said this i thought about just how much DNA would be on a doorknob at any given time.

I had pretty much ruled out the touch DNA in the JBR case but now I wonder what's the difference in using that for the arrest of Brianna's perp vs using it for a JBR perp? Am I missing something?

 

[Mama2JML]

I recently watched a show on the Brianna Denison murder, a case that I had followed when it first occurred. The detectives harvested 'touch DNA' from the doorknob on the back door and that was used to find and ultimately help convict the killer. When they said this i thought about just how much DNA would be on a doorknob at any given time.

I had pretty much ruled out the touch DNA in the JBR case but now I wonder what's the difference in using that for the arrest of Brianna's perp vs using it for a JBR perp? Am I missing something?

Hello, Nehemiah...

I'm not familiar with the Briana Denison case, but one difference you've noted is location. The JBR evidentiary DNA, isolated in 2003, came from a bloodstain (matched to JonBenet) on the interior of the panties she was found wearing, & THIS DNA profile was said to match the TWO profiles obtained from the sides of her 'long john's' via touch collection in 2008.

 

[Anti-K]

Location, location, location, it’s always about location.

It is also telling that, to-date, and despite much effort and expenditure of resources no innocent source or innocent explanation has been found for this DNA (I specifically refer to the panty/leggings DNA).

Could there still be an innocent source or explanation? Sure. It just doesn’t seem likely. Not anymore.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

I recently watched a show on the Brianna Denison murder, a case that I had followed when it first occurred. The detectives harvested 'touch DNA' from the doorknob on the back door and that was used to find and ultimately help convict the killer. When they said this i thought about just how much DNA would be on a doorknob at any given time.

I had pretty much ruled out the touch DNA in the JBR case but now I wonder what's the difference in using that for the arrest of Brianna's perp vs using it for a JBR perp? Am I missing something?

What we are all missing in the JB case is the presence of that TDNA ANYWHERE else. As you state- the touch DNA in Brianna's murder was found on a door knob. Obviously that DNA became attached to a NAME and a person.
It is simply not possible for TDNA to be on JB's clothing and not on anything else in the crime scene or even the home and belong to the person who killed her or staged the crime.

 

[madeleine]

the more I think about it the more I become convinced that yes,the DNA is relevant and might not be just innocent transfer...

get the phone records and you might find out who the R's called over after the fact IMO and you might have your DNA owner

simple to me