Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[SapphireSteel]

I'd just like to take a second to give a quick shout out to all the patient hubbies who sacrifice their time and their comfort in the quest for truth.

A grown man allowing himself to be bound and tied by a sleuthing wife, with no kinky payoff even, is a true act of love.

Thanks guys.

:takeabow:

 

[Linda7NJ]

First of all, the only thing the presence of that TDNA proves, is that there is TDNA.

It can't prove who deposited it, when, how, or even if that person was in the room - only that their DNA has been found.

You're also presuming he/she did not wear gloves while handling the body and the Ramseys are entirely uninvolved (the TDNA found was not Ramsey).

They don't always find DNA or useable fingerprints. In some crime scenes there is absolutely nothing. It most certainly cannot be used to prove innocence, unless of course the DNA is inside the corpse in the way of semen...in which case, it's not TDNA, but complete.

Some things take fingerprints, some don't. A rope surface would not because it is too coarse.

Then, there's the expected forensics. Folks actually living in a house leave DNA and fingerprints everywhere. The presence of Ramsey TDNA on JB would mean nothing, ditto their fingerprints in the basement.

Saying "it can't be part of the crime as there is no matching TDNA to the TDNA on her underwear" is a mistake.

:cow:

The rope certainly would have TDNA without a doubt left by whoever tied it, if that person didn't wear gloves.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The rope certainly would have TDNA without a doubt left by whoever tied it, if that person didn't wear gloves.

Do you have a link for that? :waitasec:

ETA: found something.

Q: Is DNA always left on an object via touch?

A: It is important to note that not every contact leaves enough DNA behind to yield a DNA profile. Often the question is asked, “If a person touched this item, would they necessarily have left DNA behind?” The short answer is no, not always.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...elp-answer-some-common-questions#.UkNW26AiNH0

 

[Alyssa2013]

If Patsy or John killed JonBenet, why would they? I just don't see a clear motive here.

 

[2 percent]

Do you have a link for that? :waitasec:

It's common sense that touch DNA would be on the rope. The rougher the contact, the more skin cells would rub off.

Dr. Lee specifically mentioned the rope in a comment he made 5 years ago about touch DNA and this case. So even he thought it a likely place for touch DNA

Forensic expert says Ramsey investigation still ‘cold’
Henry Lee: Investigators are still waiting for a DNA hit
By Vanessa Miller
Thursday, July 10, 2008

Lee, who originally was called in to help on the case by former District Attorney Alex Hunter, has not been contacted by Lacy’s office to assist. But, Lee said, he wants to know if advancements in the “touch DNA” method of testing might turn up more supportive DNA on other pieces of evidence, such as the rope used in JonBenet’s death.

“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene.“Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”

Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.

 

[tezi]

If Patsy or John killed JonBenet, why would they? I just don't see a clear motive here.

Well, there (for me) isn't a clear cut motive either. However, I do believe the motive for the garotting was to cover the head wound and to end JonBenet's life. But, after years and years of reading and countless hours of research I have reached a conclusion. Sometimes just because "we" don't see a clear motive, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Alyssa, I would say the best thing you can do is your own research and then develop your list of probable suspects. I am not being snarky, just trying to convey some good advice, which I received way back when....

JMO

 

[SapphireSteel]

It's common sense that touch DNA would be on the rope. The rougher the contact, the more skin cells would rub off.

Dr. Lee specifically mentioned the rope in a comment he made 5 years ago about touch DNA and this case. So even he thought it a likely place for touch DNA

Forensic expert says Ramsey investigation still ‘cold’
Henry Lee: Investigators are still waiting for a DNA hit
By Vanessa Miller
Thursday, July 10, 2008

Lee, who originally was called in to help on the case by former District Attorney Alex Hunter, has not been contacted by Lacy’s office to assist. But, Lee said, he wants to know if advancements in the “touch DNA” method of testing might turn up more supportive DNA on other pieces of evidence, such as the rope used in JonBenet’s death.

“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene.“Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”

Lee said if the DNA that’s turned up now on both JonBenet’s panties and long johns shows up on other pieces of evidence, that would be even more powerful. But whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.

From the link on my last post -

What factors tend to increase the amount of DNA available for transfer?
Researchers aren’t exactly sure why sometimes DNA is transferred to an object via touch and sometimes it is not. However, some known factors that can affect the amount of DNA available for transfer include:

• Shedder status. Several studies have indicated that some individuals may be considered “good shedders,” someone who tends to slough or shed skin cells at a greater rate than others.10 However it should be noted that the use of the terms “good” and “bad” shedders has been debated as other studies have found that it is nearly impossible to determine someone’s shedder status as repeat tests on the same person on different days can give very different results.12

• Hand washing. Hand washing will remove many of the shed cells leaving little DNA available for transfer.

• Personal Habits. Some individuals touch their face, eyes, nose, hair, etc. more often than others, thus picking up DNA from those areas to be transferred onto the next thing that is touched. Wickenheiser1 described this as “loading” the fingers with DNA.

• Type of Contact. Factors such as pressure and friction can also relate to how much DNA is transferred onto a touched object. An increase in the amount of pressure applied tends to lead to an increase in the amount of DNA transferred and the application of friction to the contact increases the amount of DNA transferred even further.9

• Substrate. Rough surfaces (wood, concrete, grooved surfaces) tend to collect and retain skin cell DNA better than smooth surfaces.

• Perspiration. It is thought that sweat can increase the amount of DNA transfered for two reasons. First, as the sweat passes through the pores and makes its way to the skin surface, it can collect cells along the way and wash them to the surface.1 Second, it has been shown that sweat also contains both epithelial cells and cell-free nucleic acids.3

There it is, one tiny little detail. If you've just washed your hands, you aren't going to be leaving any DNA.

If you've just handled a washcloth before the rope, ditto.

Who knew?

 

[tezi]

Very interesting SapphireSteel. I will have to start washing my hands a lot more than I do now, so my TDNA isn't transferred...LOL

 

[Linda7NJ]

Do you have a link for that? :waitasec:

ETA: found something.

Q: Is DNA always left on an object via touch?

A: It is important to note that not every contact leaves enough DNA behind to yield a DNA profile. Often the question is asked, “If a person touched this item, would they necessarily have left DNA behind?” The short answer is no, not always.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...elp-answer-some-common-questions#.UkNW26AiNH0

A person manipulating an item like a rope, holding it taunt to cut it, tying knots, pulling knots tight.,, would leave TDNA. There would be a whole lot of friction on an item.....a flashlight, not so much, even breaking the paintbrush handle wouldn't likely leave much... The manipulation of the rope... I think so.

 

[Linda7NJ]

If Patsy or John killed JonBenet, why would they? I just don't see a clear motive here.

Parents murder their own children all the time, I've yet to hear of a motive that makes any sense to me. Please enlighten me if you have.

 

[DeeDee249]

If Patsy or John killed JonBenet, why would they? I just don't see a clear motive here.

You've got a lot of catching up to do! That being said, welcome to the forum!

There doesn't always have to be a motive. ONLY Murder in the first degree requires a motive and premeditation.
JB's death was probably unintended. One hard bash to silence her when she screamed and the process was set in motion- her death from a bash like that was inevitable.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

If Patsy or John killed JonBenet, why would they? I just don't see a clear motive here.

There is never a clear motive for why parents kill their children. But they do.

 

[Venom]

If Patsy or John killed JonBenet, why would they? I just don't see a clear motive here.

Most likely it was accidental.

To me, I don't see a clear motive an intruder would have. jmo

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Patsy killed JonBenet so that she could have a fantasy and imagine it was real.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Hahahaha me too!

It was the Darlie Routier case for me. Darlie claims she was attacked by a man and had her neck slit from under her left ear almost to the other side. The weapon was what they called a butcher knife, I call a chef's knife. You know, the one in the butcher's block that is the widest blade and usually the biggest.

Anyway, I had my husband lay on the couch the way Darlie described while I tried, first, to slash his neck (don't panic, I used a ruler). Second, I had him fight me like she said she was doing trying to see if there should be more injuries to both her and the fake leather couch. Last, I did a very interesting test. Darlie had bruises on the inside of her arms from armpit to knuckles. The assumption was that the intruder/murderer held her with his legs but I tried to sit on my husbands arm with my knees. I found the legs (from knee down, kneeling) just weren't long enough to cause all of the bruises unless the intruder/murderer was moving up and down her arms while kneeling.

Sometimes you have to test to understand. And sometimes you have to test to challenge assumptions.

Unfortunately I created a monster. My husband insisted on showing me all of the mistakes I made in my test :waiting:
You can imagine how it turned out :slapfight:

This reminds me of my rigatoni and maple syrup on the kitchen floor experiment for the Travis Alexander case. I skipped uncooked rigatoni across a puddle of maple syrup on my kitchen floor to see if the top of the pasta (bullet casing) could remain syrup (blood) -free had it been kicked across the floor and into the pooling blood.

Mr. Knot stood in the kitchen door and observed silently my maniacal ministrations before finally shaking his head and saying "You need to take a break!".

:floorlaugh:

We become so invested in these cases.......but IMO, it's not a bad thing.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Parents murder their own children all the time, I've yet to hear of a motive that makes any sense to me. Please enlighten me if you have.

Sixth-grade pre-algebra?

I kid, I kid.
Sorta.

I need a martini and some dark chocolate STAT! :thud:

 

[FrayedKnot]

Very interesting SapphireSteel. I will have to start washing my hands a lot more than I do now, so my TDNA isn't transferred...LOL

OMG, after the TDNA Praise-a-Thon these last few weeks, I am terrified to put a hand on my preschool students or even let them sit on my lap when they are crying because should anything happen to them, we all know TDNA pinpoints the perp!

Unless of course the TDNA belongs to the parents. In her panties. And behind the mouth tape.

Then it's not at all suspicious.

 

[2 percent]

If Patsy or John killed JonBenet, why would they? I just don't see a clear motive here.

I understand the need to know the "why" but motive doesn't need to be proven in court so I rarely debate it.

Parents have been murdering their children since time began. The three most prevalent motives I've seen are inconvenience, mercy and nutball.

 

[Ausgirl]

This reminds me of my rigatoni and maple syrup on the kitchen floor experiment for the Travis Alexander case. I skipped uncooked rigatoni across a puddle of maple syrup on my kitchen floor to see if the top of the pasta (bullet casing) could remain syrup (blood) -free had it been kicked across the floor and into the pooling blood.

Mr. Knot stood in the kitchen door and observed silently my maniacal ministrations before finally shaking his head and saying "You need to take a break!".

:floorlaugh:

We become so invested in these cases.......but IMO, it's not a bad thing.

Omg, This made me laugh.. I've employed my daughter, housemate, friends, two cats and various bits of kitchen gear to test theories as well.. "Never mind -why- dear.. can you just lie on the floor over there for one minute while holding the end of this bit of string? That'd be awesome.."

Sometimes got a good bit of insight too, as well as looking 'eccentric'. :B

 

[tezi]

OMG, after the TDNA Praise-a-Thon these last few weeks, I am terrified to put a hand on my preschool students or even let them sit on my lap when they are crying because should anything happen to them, we all know TDNA pinpoints the perp!

Unless of course the TDNA belongs to the parents. In her panties. And behind the mouth tape.

Then it's not at all suspicious.

I hear you!! LOL about the TDNA Praise-a-thon!

JMO