JonBenet's Dream Team

[madeleine]

Yep,she would have convinced me with the same unknown male dna on the garrote,RN and paint brush.....I THINK.....

Eeeeeeeven sooooooooo......how can you be sure the one who staged the scene is the same who killed her????


You know,it doesn't even matter,IF someone will be charged someday based on that DNA,I can come up with 100 strategies how his lawyer will make him walk.There is just too much circumstancial evidence that points to the R's.


Let's assume we will have the same dna on the garrote,rn and paint brush.


Do we have it on the murder weapon??

We DON'T HAVE a murder weapon!

We sill don't know what killed her,head bash or strangulation!

And it goes on and on and on.......



So saying that this is a DNA case and the dna belongs to the killer is BS.Good luck in finding AND charging AND sending that "intruder" to prison.

This was messed up with for too long.



MOO

 

[Ravyn]

That's why I find it strange that Mary Lacy only sent the longjohns and panties..And not JB's shirt,garrote paintbrush,tape,and cord...That is why I think ML was handing JR a gift cause a good DA would send in everything..And still I feel like the flashlight was the murder weapon but again I might be wrong....

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave wrote:
SOMETHING had to explain where PR's jewelry went. The jewelry which several police experts just HAPPEN to think caused the marks on JB's body. HMM!

Wow, interesting. What kind of jewelry was thought to explain the marks on JB`s body? Did the police experts have Patsys specific jewelry items in mind? Were those exact items supposedly stolen along with other things, or just them? This just might nail it for me. Unfortunately I`m reading DOI and don`t know if I want to finish it.


I`ll get back to the question of stun gun marks later, if there`s something I`m still wondering about. (I do think the marks on her back could be from a stun gun not switched on, but that`s of little value)

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
SOMETHING had to explain where PR's jewelry went. The jewelry which several police experts just HAPPEN to think caused the marks on JB's body. HMM!

Wow, interesting. What kind of jewelry was thought to explain the marks on JB`s body?

PR was known to wear several rings on each hand with clusters of stones. In a few pictures, these rings are shown as being on the inside of her hands. And Werner Spitz remarked a few years ago that the scratches said to be stun gun marks had curved indentations inside them.

Did the police experts have Patsys specific jewelry items in mind?

Werner Spitz and Cyril Wecht were saying that whatever made the marks had prongs on it. So it's possible.

Were those exact items supposedly stolen along with other things, or just them?

I know there were a few items stolen. Nothing of much value compared to other things in the house that would have been easy to take.

This just might nail it for me. Unfortunately I`m reading DOI and don`t know if I want to finish it.

I know the feeling. But I find it's always best to hear all the information. It's your call.

I`ll get back to the question of stun gun marks later, if there`s something I`m still wondering about. (I do think the marks on her back could be from a stun gun not switched on, but that`s of little value)

Just let me know.

 

[DeeDee249]

There was no blood taken from under her fingernails. This misinformation, along with the so-called "pubic hair" (which was proved to be a forearm hair belonging to Patsy) is hard to get rid of because these are two of the most reprinted (in news articles, especially) inaccuracies about this case.
NO useable DNA was ever obtained from under her nails. Two reasons: what was taken was degraded and incomplete. And the coroner failed to use a different, sterile clipper for each nail, violating standard protocol for autopsy. Any DNA obtained could have been from one of the other corpses in the morgue at the time. The same clipper may have been used for them all.

 

[DeeDee249]

That's why I find it strange that Mary Lacy only sent the longjohns and panties..And not JB's shirt,garrote paintbrush,tape,and cord...That is why I think ML was handing JR a gift cause a good DA would send in everything..And still I feel like the flashlight was the murder weapon but again I might be wrong....

Remember Lacy had NO intention of ever placing blame on the Rs. She simply would not allow herself to think of them as suspects (as did Hunter before her- remember she was Hunter's assistant DA then, under her maiden name).
The DA's office, then and until this point, did whatever it could to prevent evidence from being collected that could have pointed to the parents.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

DNA from under JBR's fingernails was used to compare with suspects.

 

[DeeDee249]

DNA from under JBR's fingernails was used to compare with suspects.

The only reports I have ever read state that the fingernail DNA was degraded and compromised (because of the non-sterile clippers). I have not read (and don't count the CNN reports or other misinformation) that the fingernail DNA was used for comparison. The panty DNA was used.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The only reports I have ever read state that the fingernail DNA was degraded and compromised (because of the non-sterile clippers). I have not read (and don't count the CNN reports or other misinformation) that the fingernail DNA was used for comparison. The panty DNA was used.

I have read that.

Wha?? I thought you were the head of the investigation and knew everything?

 

[Tadpole12]

Okay - intruder = DNA = by 'touch' ultra-sensitive methods. Why is there not more?

Point B - intruder = left DNA that is measurable via touch - why not more DNA?

Is the idea that the intruder didn't have gloves, etc. at some point & left 'prints' - ? If not, it makes no sense that there would be ultra-sensitive markers but nothing 'obvious' to collect.....ok, maybe that made sense?
Goodnight!

Hi Jane Osa.

chance?

"results suggest that many factors significantly influence shedding, including which hand an individual touches an item with and the time that has elapsed since they last washed their hands. We have found that it may be more complicated than previously reported to categorise a person as being either a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ shedder and that if truly ‘good’ shedders exist they may be significantly rarer than some have estimated. In the current research no ‘good’ shedders were observed in a group of 60 volunteers."

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0379073806004981

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Point B - intruder = left DNA that is measurable via touch - why not more DNA?

There IS more DNA. Mixed with blood in her underwear, both sides of the waistband of her longjohns, and underneath her fingernails.

 

[madeleine]

There IS more DNA. Mixed with blood in her underwear, both sides of the waistband of her longjohns, and underneath her fingernails.

Did the dna under her fingernails MATCH the one found in her panties,I've never heard of such thing.Since LE claims that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value( http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html ) I assume it can't even be tested.We don't know who it belongs to .
And I don't remember lacy mentioning the dna found under her fingernails in her exoneration statement.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Did the dna under her fingernails MATCH the one found in her panties,I've never heard of such thing.Since LE claims that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value( http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html ) I assume it can't even be tested.We don't know who it belongs to .
And I don't remember lacy mentioning the dna found under her fingernails in her exoneration statement.

I think thats misinformation, because there's a CNN report that references the fingernail DNA as a factor. Also there's local news reports stating the fingernail DNA was in fact used to compare with suspect samples.

I guess you can't believe everything you read, huh?

 

[madeleine]

I think thats misinformation, because there's a CNN report that references the fingernail DNA as a factor. Also there's local news reports stating the fingernail DNA was in fact used to compare with suspect samples.

I guess you can't believe everything you read, huh?

You know what,I can bring you as many links as you need but ,sadly,it still won't make a difference.
"there's some dna,an intruder killed JB",that's all you wanna talk about.you don't respect other people's opinions,not only that but I am sick and tired of your attitude.What makes you better than anyone around here,are your sources different than ours,what is it.Take your arrogance and superiority elsewhere I am done with you.Think it's time to use the ignore feature for the first time since I joined here.

 

[madeleine]

For the ones who ARE interested in facts.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060824/ai_n16701397/

BOULDER, Colo. -- DNA swiped from John Mark Karr after his arrest last week in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey murder might be irrelevant, in part because "something got screwed up" when samples were taken from the crime scene in 1996, a former investigator on the case said.

Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.

Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.

"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.



IMO B.Wise is a better source than CNN.

 

[BBB167893]

I think thats misinformation, because there's a CNN report that references the fingernail DNA as a factor. Also there's local news reports stating the fingernail DNA was in fact used to compare with suspect samples.

There used to be news reports stating that Iraq had WMDs, too. Just goes to show what happens when the media doesn't do its due dilligence. But then, a certain someone has made it so they can't.

I guess you can't believe everything you read, huh?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have read that.

Wha?? I thought you were the head of the investigation and knew everything?

That's what I said- I have never read it, so it must not have been written. Thanks for acknowledging that I do, actually, know everything.


What are the first three letters in the word "IDIOT"?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's what I said- I have never read it, so it must not have been written. Thanks for acknowledging that I do, actually, know everything.


What are the first three letters in the word "IDIOT"?

Is this your way of saying fingernail DNA was never even reported at any time to be used for comparison?

 

[DeeDee249]

Is this your way of saying fingernail DNA was never even reported at any time to be used for comparison?

I am sure fingernail DNA was collected for comparison purposs. But it was reported at the time that it was degraded. It was also known even then that the coroner did not use separate sterile clippers for each finger. He may not have even sterilized them between autopsies. It isn't just RDI that the fingernail DNA is simply not useful for comparison purposes or any other. The possibility that any DNA under her nails belongs to the dead person last autopsied is very real.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am sure fingernail DNA was collected for comparison purposs. But it was reported at the time that it was degraded. It was also known even then that the coroner did not use separate sterile clippers for each finger. He may not have even sterilized them between autopsies. It isn't just RDI that the fingernail DNA is simply not useful for comparison purposes or any other. The possibility that any DNA under her nails belongs to the dead person last autopsied is very real.

Are you sure that the DNA was actually used in comparisons, or just collected in an attempt to do comparisons?