James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Touch DNA solves a case ONLY if the donor can be identified and sourced to a person who can be proved to have actually been in the location where the murder occurred. Without a name, it is useless.

The issue is the TDNA matches blood that was previously shown not to be sourced to any of the R's. So it is not just TDNA, But TDNA with a second source.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The issue is the TDNA matches blood that was previously shown not to be sourced to any of the R's. So it is not just TDNA, But TDNA with a second source.

Do you have a link for that?

I thought the only blood found was JB's...

:waitasec:

 

[Charterhouse]

SS Please read DeeDee's post #277 on the Linda Arndt thread.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Do you have a link for that?

I thought the only blood found was JB's...

:waitasec:

Yes.

"The DNA is not from a member of the Ramsey family and is almost definitely that of the killer, who would have presumably removed or otherwise handled the long johns, Ms. Lacy said.

The genetic material matches that from a drop of blood found on JonBenet’s underwear early in the investigation. The authorities determined then that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10ramsey.html?_r=0

 

[Roy23]

Yes.

"The DNA is not from a member of the Ramsey family and is almost definitely that of the killer, who would have presumably removed or otherwise handled the long johns, Ms. Lacy said.

The genetic material matches that from a drop of blood found on JonBenet’s underwear early in the investigation. The authorities determined then that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10ramsey.html?_r=0

Scarlett,

Even though I am IDI, I am going to correct you here as I have no agenda but justice for JBR. The drop of blood was JBR's blood. The DNA was found mixed in this blood and most experts suggest it was saliva. They do not have the killers blood or anyone else's blood besides JBR.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett,

Even though I am IDI, I am going to correct you here as I have no agenda but justice for JBR. The drop of blood was JBR's blood. The DNA was found mixed in this blood and most experts suggest it was saliva. They do not have the killers blood or anyone else's blood besides JBR.

Thanks Roy. I appreciate that. The fact that the blood was JBR's and the saliva was mixed in of an unknown person from her UNDERWEAR, and that there is TDNA that matches that same DNA from the saliva, is in fact a sign that someone else was there.

Can I ask where you got the clarification for the blood? Because I have been looking it up all afternoon and keep finding that it was a blood source. Thanks!

 

[BOESP]

Do you have a link for that?

I thought the only blood found was JB's...

:waitasec:

Sapphire, years ago the panty DNA and a DNA chart with several interesting individuals was compared either here, at FFJ, or some other board that I can't remember. The blood spot was determined to be JonBenet's and mixed in was a mixed profile of degraded DNA. Iirc, Jayelles posted this data.

Although the unknown mixed DNA was also mixed with JonBenet's blood, the unknown DNA did not come from blood; it was undetermined how it got there or whether it was one unknown person's DNA or a combination of two or more people. Interestingly, if it was two or more people then it can not conclusively eliminate all Ramseys since markers from the mix (after excluding JonBenet's markers) were found in some Ramsey family members.

Basically, the Sum Yung Gai argument for a garment worker in an Asian nation was believed to be the most probable theory.

If Jayelles still reads here maybe she can remember more about this.

It is unreasonable and unprofessional to discard all other evidence in favor of unknown DNA; Ramsey DNA was found at the scene too and although it doesn't show guilt or innocence it does show possibility.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sapphire, years ago the panty DNA and a DNA chart with several interesting individuals was compared either here, at FFJ, or some other board that I can't remember. The blood spot was determined to be JonBenet's and mixed in was a mixed profile of degraded DNA. Iirc, Jayelles posted this data.

Although the mixed DNA was mixed with JonBenet's blood, the unknown DNA did not come from blood; it was undetermined how it got there or whether it was one unknown person's DNA or a combination of two or more people. Interestingly, if it was two or more people then it can not conclusively eliminate all Ramseys since markers from the mix (after excluding JonBenet's markers) were found in some Ramsey family members.

Basically, the Sum Yung Gai argument for a garment worker in an Asian nation was believed to be the most probable theory.

If Jayelles still reads here maybe she can remember more about this.

Not with the saliva and mixture and matching TDNA.. Not when mixed with fluids. That would not be a responsible conclusion.

 

[chlban]

Ask Tommy Lynn Sells. BTK. Etc. It's been done...

2

. IDI, and the killer was psychotic enough to stalk the family for weeks (YES it's been done), rummage through their garbage for information and the like, break into their home when they're not there to case the place (YES it has been done) and pick up enough details about the family's life to a/ think he knew them, and b/ write that note, not to divert but to taunt the Ramseys and/or possibly the police

.

So the killer stalks the family for weeks and then somehow walks in, since ther was no evidence of a break, in on Christmas ?

Why? I am friendly with my next door neighbors. I can tell you about what time they leave for work during the week and about what time they each get home. I can even tell you that on Thursday nights, the husband goes to his dad's for standing dart game so the wife will be home alone. However, I cannot even give a good guess whether they will be home on Christmas

They could be home all day and have guests. Or they could be going to a friends house and coming home about 10:00 P.M. Or they could be traveling out of town for the entire holday and won't be home until 3 days after Christmas. Or they could come home from their friends house at 10:00 P.M. and have Aunt Gladys and Grandma with them, so their kids might be sleeping with them and giving their rooms to the guests.

In other words, Christmas Day is not a day that anyone follows normal patterns. So "Stalking" people makes no sense if the intent is to commit the crime on that day! You stalk someone to establish their pattern. No one follows them on Christmas!

Also, it is not the day to be out of touch and busy waiting in someone's house for whenever they do or do not come home, for when they do or do not have guests staying at the house, etc. because your own family and friends will notice your absence. See I might not remember if cousin Jim was at Grandma's the last time I had dinner there. But if Cousin Jim wasn't there on Christmas I'm going to remember. I'm going to remember if my brother isn't around on Christmas Day.

So why would you stalk someone for weeks to attack on Christmas when you have no idea what the family you are stalking is doing that day? and why would you plan your crime on a day that everyone you know well is going to notice you were not around?

The timing of this crime has always steered me away from the IDI theory. Not, by any stretch, is that the extent of the reasons I bleieve RDI. It i just another in a very long list of common sense reasons.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ask Tommy Lynn Sells. BTK. Etc. It's been done...

2

.

So the killer stalks the family for weeks and then somehow walks in, since ther was no evidence of a break, in on Christmas ?

Why? I am friendly with my next door neighbors. I can tell you about what time they leave for work during the week and about what time they each get home. I can even tell you that on Thursday nights, the husband goes to his dad's for standing dart game so the wife will be home alone. However, I cannot even give a good guess whether they will be home on Christmas

They could be home all day and have guests. Or they could be going to a friends house and coming home about 10:00 P.M. Or they could be traveling out of town for the entire holday and won't be home until 3 days after Christmas. Or they could come home from their friends house at 10:00 P.M. and have Aunt Gladys and Grandma with them, so their kids might be sleeping with them and giving their rooms to the guests.

In other words, Christmas Day is not a day that anyone follows normal patterns. So "Stalking" people makes no sense if the intent is to commit the crime on that day! You stalk someone to establish their pattern. No one follows them on Christmas!

Also, it is not the day to be out of touch and busy waiting in someone's house for whenever they do or do not come home, for when they do or do not have guests staying at the house, etc. because your own family and friends will notice your absence. See I might not remember if cousin Jim was at Grandma's the last time I had dinner there. But if Cousin Jim wasn't there on Christmas I'm going to remember. I'm going to remember if my brother isn't around on Christmas Day.

So why would you stalk someone for weeks to attack on Christmas when you have no idea what the family you are stalking is doing that day? and why would you plan your crime on a day that everyone you know well is going to notice you were not around?

The timing of this crime has always steered me away from the IDI theory. Not, by any stretch, is that the extent of the reasons I bleieve RDI. It i just another in a very long list of common sense reasons.

People that want to get in are good at getting in.

I bet they knew exactly what the family was doing that day. They wrote the note they have to have some knowledge of family business.

 

[questfortrue]

Sapphire, years ago the panty DNA and a DNA chart with several interesting individuals was compared either here, at FFJ, or some other board that I can't remember. The blood spot was determined to be JonBenet's and mixed in was a mixed profile of degraded DNA. Iirc, Jayelles posted this data.

Although the unknown mixed DNA was also mixed with JonBenet's blood, the unknown DNA did not come from blood; it was undetermined how it got there or whether it was one unknown person's DNA or a combination of two or more people. Interestingly, if it was two or more people then it can not conclusively eliminate all Ramseys since markers from the mix (after excluding JonBenet's markers) were found in some Ramsey family members.

Basically, the Sum Yung Gai argument for a garment worker in an Asian nation was believed to be the most probable theory.

If Jayelles still reads here maybe she can remember more about this.

It is unreasonable and unprofessional to discard all other evidence in favor of unknown DNA; Ramsey DNA was found at the scene too and although it doesn't show guilt or innocence it does show possibility.

Good post. IIRC the only one who called it saliva was LW. BS, attorney and pretty good expert on dna evidence, has stated “we don't know whether that's saliva or what, whether that's skin cells, you know, there was -- it could be DNA from the original manufacturer of the underwear."

Former prosecutor MK told the RM News. "You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there: whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them," said Kane

Former Boulder DA investigator TB stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Good post. IIRC the only one who called it saliva was LW. BS, attorney and pretty good expert on dna evidence, has stated “we don't know whether that's saliva or what, whether that's skin cells, you know, there was -- it could be DNA from the original manufacturer of the underwear."

Former prosecutor MK told the RM News. "You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there: whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them," said Kane

Former Boulder DA investigator TB stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

BBM: Completely irresponsible and shows how far they are reaching to pin this on the R's. No investigator throws out unsourced DNA. IT is absolutely something that they would hope would lead them to the killer.

SO many of these investigators and LE were completely bias and inept.

 

[SapphireSteel]

BBM: Completely irresponsible and shows how far they are reaching to pin this on the R's. No investigator throws out unsourced DNA. IT is absolutely something that they would hope would lead them to the killer.

SO many of these investigators and LE were completely bias and inept.

You claim the same thing on Madeleine McCann's forum too.

Inept investigators, inconclusive DNA.

The fact is that in M's case, the DNA is consistent with Madeleine, yet McCann supporters write it off as false, biased, wrong, etc.

On JB's thread, the DNA is somehow regarded as a solid indicator of the crime/offender even though it is incomplete, transferred, consisting of several different profiles.

You can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose the significance or validity of DNA depending on which case it is.

 

[BOESP]

Not with the saliva and mixture and matching TDNA.. Not when mixed with fluids. That would not be a responsible conclusion.

If the suspected saliva came from someone in the garment factory where the panties were manufactured (and Henry Lee stated that brand new panties have lots of unsourced DNA on them) and the person who sneezed on the panties or coughed on them also folded the panties then it could happen. Not to mention the combined unknown DNA contained markers from various unstated Ramsey family members. It's possible that could explain the unsourced DNA.

Just as relevant is Ramsey DNA being found on JonBenet and on crime scene objects. Yes, it was their home, but there is no proof the DNA was there by innocent means any more than nefarious means. It's 50/50.

Also, the current Boulder Chief of Police stated publicly that no one was off the table as far as being suspect.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the suspected saliva came from someone in the garment factory where the panties were manufactured (and Henry Lee stated that brand new panties have lots of unsourced DNA on them) and the person who sneezed on the panties or coughed on them also folded the panties then it could happen. Not to mention the combined unknown DNA contained markers from various unstated Ramsey family members. It's possible that could explain the unsourced DNA.

Just as relevant is Ramsey DNA being found on JonBenet and on crime scene objects. Yes, it was their home, but there is no proof the DNA was there by innocent means any more than nefarious means. It's 50/50.

Also, the current Boulder Chief of Police stated publicly that no one was off the table as far as being suspect.

It does not matter. The point is it could be from an intruder.. I have never seen so many people trying to not solve a crime. Is it possible? Sure but it is just as possible since it is saliva mixed with blood and has another source that it is indeed DNA that could belong to the killer.

I think the current DA is bowing to pressure to beat down the R's as most people seem to want. Although more and more I see people standing up and saying there is no way the R's did this. That they were hung out to dry.. as today with Dan Abrams on Katie.

This along with the break in 8 months after the crime, With someone that was in JBR dance class?? That ups the probability factor by 75%

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You claim the same thing on Madeleine McCann's forum too.

Inept investigators, inconclusive DNA.

The fact is that in M's case, the DNA is consistent with Madeleine, yet McCann supporters write it off as false, biased, wrong, etc.

On JB's thread, the DNA is somehow regarded as a solid indicator of the crime/offender even though it is incomplete, transferred, consisting of several different profiles.

You can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose the significance or validity of DNA depending on which case it is.

Well that is because it happens to be true. I can pick and choose although I find that that RDI's pick and choose more and throw away lots of real evidence like DNA in favor of how PR was dressed that am..

 

[SapphireSteel]

Well that is because it happens to be true. I can pick and choose although I find that that RDI's pick and choose more and throw away lots of real evidence like DNA in favor of how PR was dressed that am..

What happens to be true?

How do you know what's true and what's not, when there's been no arrest in either case?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What happens to be true?

How do you know what's true and what's not, when there's been no arrest in either case?

That the police and investigators were inept. We are discussing the R's but it is obvious from the beginning these people were over their heads and had no idea how to handle this.. Even when 8 months later a man sneaks into a house and stays there for 3 hours waiting for people to come home and tries to attack 12 yr old girl, The family had to fight the police to investigate and keep on it.

This LE team most likely is the reason there is no one convicted of this crime.

 

[CanManEh]

Iam surprised that no one on the JBR site is going nuts over what Dan Abrams said today on the Katie Couric show lol..

 

[2 percent]

Iam surprised that no one on the JBR site is going nuts over what Dan Abrams said today on the Katie Couric show lol..

Don't like her, don't watch her.
What did he say?