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

[lawstudent]

Hi all, have not followed this case other than just hearing things on the news every once in a while.

Can someone tell me what it means that the DNA sample on her underwear did not match to her immediate family members? Because in the news articles, they make it sound like that's what definitively means the immediate family members didn't do it...but I know from reading a little on this thread that it is pretty much accepted here that the Ramseys had something to do with it. And I trust you all way more than I do the mainstream media, but that's another story......

I feel the same way. I've gone over the evidence so many times, and I feel very strongly that the Ramseys did it - but I've never been able to explain why they would, and the DNA thing is still hard to deny. I understand that touch DNA can come from other sources, but it still seems like a stretch to say it means nothing when the cops have said otherwise. There are some people who do just act bizarrely but turn out to be innocent. I just don't know. It drives me insane that this hasn't been solved. I do think some people's theories are just crazy as to what happened - I just don't see the Ramseys as monsters. But I do see them covering it up no problem to keep up appearances. In the Caylee Anthony case, we often heard "who covers up an accident by making it look like murder?" but I bet more people would consider it than one thinks.

 

[DeeDee249]

I feel the same way. I've gone over the evidence so many times, and I feel very strongly that the Ramseys did it - but I've never been able to explain why they would, and the DNA thing is still hard to deny. I understand that touch DNA can come from other sources, but it still seems like a stretch to say it means nothing when the cops have said otherwise. There are some people who do just act bizarrely but turn out to be innocent. I just don't know. It drives me insane that this hasn't been solved. I do think some people's theories are just crazy as to what happened - I just don't see the Ramseys as monsters. But I do see them covering it up no problem to keep up appearances. In the Caylee Anthony case, we often heard "who covers up an accident by making it look like murder?" but I bet more people would consider it than one thinks.

It wasn't the cops who said otherwise. It was the R defense team, and their shills- the DA's office.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hi all, have not followed this case other than just hearing things on the news every once in a while.

Can someone tell me what it means that the DNA sample on her underwear did not match to her immediate family members? Because in the news articles, they make it sound like that's what definitively means the immediate family members didn't do it...but I know from reading a little on this thread that it is pretty much accepted here that the Ramseys had something to do with it. And I trust you all way more than I do the mainstream media, but that's another story......

The DNA samples found were "touch DNA" . that means it was skin cells. Very easy to transfer- you have someone else's touch DNA on your hands right now. Anything you touch that has been touched by another person transfers touch DNA. It is useless in crime solving UNLESS the donor can be identified. Not having an identified donor is not the same as clearing anyone. In fact, from a legal standpoint, no one present at the time of a murder can be cleared until and unless the killer is IDENTIFIED- by NAME.
To take a crash course in this case, read some of the books- I'd start with Steve Thomas or James Kolar. To take a 2-hour crash course, rent the DVD of Lawrence Schiller's book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town". Also available on YouTube.

 

[lawstudent]

The DNA samples found were "touch DNA" . that means it was skin cells. Very easy to transfer- you have someone else's touch DNA on your hands right now. Anything you touch that has been touched by another person transfers touch DNA. It is useless in crime solving UNLESS the donor can be identified. Not having an identified donor is not the same as clearing anyone. In fact, from a legal standpoint, no one present at the time of a murder can be cleared until and unless the killer is IDENTIFIED- by NAME.
To take a crash course in this case, read some of the books- I'd start with Steve Thomas or James Kolar. To take a 2-hour crash course, rent the DVD of Lawrence Schiller's book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town". Also available on YouTube.

Thank you - I do understand this. It just seems like every single crime would be having these false DNA leads given that we should all have a bunch of random DNA all over us. Is the issue here that they rarely if ever test such a small amount of skin cells, but were so desperate in this case that they did? I understand it can't clear any one or accuse anyone without proper identification, but it still raises my eyebrows. I just don't see completely discounting it as people have done. I agree all the other stuff points to the Ramseys, but I don't understand then why we don't have more of these cases with random DNA.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thank you - I do understand this. It just seems like every single crime would be having these false DNA leads given that we should all have a bunch of random DNA all over us. Is the issue here that they rarely if ever test such a small amount of skin cells, but were so desperate in this case that they did? I understand it can't clear any one or accuse anyone without proper identification, but it still raises my eyebrows. I just don't see completely discounting it as people have done. I agree all the other stuff points to the Ramseys, but I don't understand then why we don't have more of these cases with random DNA.

I am sure we do, but you have to remember this is a STAGED crime scene. In legitimate crimes, the perp always leaves something behind and takes away something. There is ALWAYS an exchange of DNA and/or fiber evidence.
In JB's case, if the DNA was left by the killer or someone who was resent during the crime, there would be MORE of it. It wouldn't be JUST on two pieces of clothing. It would be on doorknobs, the paintbrush pieces, the cord, the handle of the paint tote, the white blanket she was wrapped in, the tape on her mouth (particuarly)...the list is endless.
For the skin cells to be relevant, they must be found on these items that are so intimately connected to the crime itself. Remember, the reports that it also matched DNA under her fingernails is FALSE. There was NO usable evidence from her BODY. These skin cells appear in ONLY 2 places- her panties and longhohns. Two items BOTH parents touched.
If that DNA is ever sourced to a person that is the only way we will ever be able to see if it fits the puzzle. Right now, it is just a random piece.

 

[lawstudent]

I am sure we do, but you have to remember this is a STAGED crime scene. In legitimate crimes, the perp always leaves something behind and takes away something. There is ALWAYS an exchange of DNA and/or fiber evidence.
In JB's case, if the DNA was left by the killer or someone who was resent during the crime, there would be MORE of it. It wouldn't be JUST on two pieces of clothing. It would be on doorknobs, the paintbrush pieces, the cord, the handle of the paint tote, the white blanket she was wrapped in, the tape on her mouth (particuarly)...the list is endless.
For the skin cells to be relevant, they must be found on these items that are so intimately connected to the crime itself. Remember, the reports that it also matched DNA under her fingernails is FALSE. There was NO usable evidence from her BODY. These skin cells appear in ONLY 2 places- her panties and longhohns. Two items BOTH parents touched.
If that DNA is ever sourced to a person that is the only way we will ever be able to see if it fits the puzzle. Right now, it is just a random piece.

But there are plenty of crimes where there is no useable DNA found on key pieces of elements used in the crime. I know touch DNA is easily left, but I don't think it's so easily left that it remains on everything you touch, or a lot of cases would be solved much more easily. And I don't understand why it matters that bother her parents touched those longjohns - that's not suspicious. It is suspicious that someone else's DNA is there though. I know it could be totally innocent, but it also may not be.

 

[BOESP]

Thank you - I do understand this. It just seems like every single crime would be having these false DNA leads given that we should all have a bunch of random DNA all over us. Is the issue here that they rarely if ever test such a small amount of skin cells, but were so desperate in this case that they did? I understand it can't clear any one or accuse anyone without proper identification, but it still raises my eyebrows. I just don't see completely discounting it as people have done. I agree all the other stuff points to the Ramseys, but I don't understand then why we don't have more of these cases with random DNA.

There is DNA and there is Touch DNA. DNA from bodily fluids, a hair root, dentine, a chunk of flesh (sorry) is, imo, of higher forensic quality than is Touch DNA, which is microscopic skin cells whose forensic value ranks with fiber transfer.

An example of Touch DNA is I shake your hand and my hand receives Touch DNA from your skin cells. I then change my niece's diaper and your Touch DNA is transferred to the diaper from my hand. Does that mean you helped change the diaper? No.

A second example is semen is found in the vaginal vault of a deceased 6-year-old female. How likely is that if there is evidence the child was raped that it belonged to someone not associated with her assault and death?

Hope this helps or maybe I just misunderstood what you were asking?

 

[CherCher]

It's not as easy (or convoluted) as it seems. tDNA, from what I've read about it is very easily picked up by all of us. This I understand. I clean houses for a living and I know I pick up all kinds of tDNA, as well as other people's full DNA profiles. It isn't just ANY DNA that needs to be looked at, it's the whole "body of the crime". God forbid if I were murdered and one of my cleaning customers was accused because my clothing innocently carried their DNA.

 

[DeeDee249]

It's not as easy (or convoluted) as it seems. tDNA, from what I've read about it is very easily picked up by all of us. This I understand. I clean houses for a living and I know I pick up all kinds of tDNA, as well as other people's full DNA profiles. It isn't just ANY DNA that needs to be looked at, it's the whole "body of the crime". God forbid if I were murdered and one of my cleaning customers was accused because my clothing innocently carried their DNA.

This is totally true. We have to look at the entire crime scene. IF that tDNA is part of the crime, it would be on other items that are also part of the crime. It doesn't have to be everywhere. But if it was left on her clothes by someone who had killed her or staged the crime, it would also be on the tape that was on her mouth, the handle of the paintbrush, and on the cord where the knots were made.

 

[midwest mama]

I am sure we do, but you have to remember this is a STAGED crime scene. In legitimate crimes, the perp always leaves something behind and takes away something. There is ALWAYS an exchange of DNA and/or fiber evidence.
In JB's case, if the DNA was left by the killer or someone who was resent during the crime, there would be MORE of it. It wouldn't be JUST on two pieces of clothing. It would be on doorknobs, the paintbrush pieces, the cord, the handle of the paint tote, the white blanket she was wrapped in, the tape on her mouth (particuarly)...the list is endless.
For the skin cells to be relevant, they must be found on these items that are so intimately connected to the crime itself. Remember, the reports that it also matched DNA under her fingernails is FALSE. There was NO usable evidence from her BODY. These skin cells appear in ONLY 2 places- her panties and longhohns. Two items BOTH parents touched.
If that DNA is ever sourced to a person that is the only way we will ever be able to see if it fits the puzzle. Right now, it is just a random piece.

Nice capsule of reasoning as to how minor the tDNA really is as usable evidence in this case. It would quickly be put to rest in court.

 

[dodie20]

This indictment coming out has me rethinking this thread. JR doesn't act like an innocent man. This isn't about a man who protected his wife...shoot, he admitted after she died, that he barely thought about her. Does this sound like a man who would go through he!! on earth for her? Every time I've listened to him speak or read his words, my 'hinky meter' flies off the radar. Something's not right there. IMO, PR wrote that note and her fibers were all wrapped up in the garrote, so she was there and in the thick of things, no doubt about it-but it was JR's robe fibers, (right? or was this disproved?), that were found in the new underwear. If they had been found in the old underwear the fibers could have been explained away, but these were brand new underwear that he had no business being near. This is one of the few pieces of evidence that points to JR and actually, it's devastating evidence. When LE said try as they might, they couldn't link JR to the crime, how did they explain this? For this to go more or less dismissed just shows how much spin JR and his lawyer had. all moo

 

[Chelly]

This indictment coming out has me rethinking this thread. JR doesn't act like an innocent man. This isn't about a man who protected his wife...shoot, he admitted after she died, that he barely thought about her. Does this sound like a man who would go through he!! on earth for her? Every time I've listened to him speak or read his words, my 'hinky meter' flies off the radar. Something's not right there. IMO, PR wrote that note and her fibers were all wrapped up in the garrote, so she was there and in the thick of things, no doubt about it-but it was JR's robe fibers, (right? or was this disproved?), that were found in the new underwear. If they had been found in the old underwear the fibers could have been explained away, but these were brand new underwear that he had no business being near. This is one of the few pieces of evidence that points to JR and actually, it's devastating evidence. When LE said try as they might, they couldn't link JR to the crime, how did they explain this? For this to go more or less dismissed just shows how much spin JR and his lawyer had. all moo

It was fibers from JR's new Israeli wool shirt, that were found in the crotch of his dead daughter's size 12 underwear.

I agree that way too much discussion and importance has been placed on the touch DNA.

 

[Estelle]

This indictment coming out has me rethinking this thread. JR doesn't act like an innocent man. This isn't about a man who protected his wife...shoot, he admitted after she died, that he barely thought about her. Does this sound like a man who would go through he!! on earth for her? Every time I've listened to him speak or read his words, my 'hinky meter' flies off the radar. Something's not right there. IMO, PR wrote that note and her fibers were all wrapped up in the garrote, so she was there and in the thick of things, no doubt about it-but it was JR's robe fibers, (right? or was this disproved?), that were found in the new underwear. If they had been found in the old underwear the fibers could have been explained away, but these were brand new underwear that he had no business being near. This is one of the few pieces of evidence that points to JR and actually, it's devastating evidence. When LE said try as they might, they couldn't link JR to the crime, how did they explain this? For this to go more or less dismissed just shows how much spin JR and his lawyer had. all moo

BBM I don't think that JR is an innocent man either. IMO why PR has been implicated is that JR threatened her. IMO he could have forced her to write that note and intimidated her to cover up for him. Isn't the fact that he wrote another book in 2013 evidence that he is probably still protecting himself?

 

[midwest mama]

:blushing: vbb..

BBM I don't think that JR is an innocent man either. IMO why PR has been implicated is that JR threatened her. IMO he could have forced her to write that note and intimidated her to cover up for him. Isn't the fact that he wrote another book in 2013 evidence that he is probably still protecting himself?

It's at least proof that he figures he can make a few more bucks off being "victimized" along with his beautiful dead daughter.

 

[aa9511]

Only the Ramseys' and the McCanns' know exactly what is going through each other's minds......

 

[Estelle]

Only the Ramseys' and the McCanns' know exactly what is going through each other's minds......

Good comparison.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Only the Ramseys' and the McCanns' know exactly what is going through each other's minds......

And the Bradley/Irwins........of course, the Franzia helps....:needdrink:

 

[Chelly]

Wonder how many people who voted on this thread about who they believed killed JBR have changed their vote?

 

[BOESP]

I still think Patsy did it but some act between JonBenet and Burke may have precipitated the event(s) that led to JonBenet's death, imo. It's not good to speculate without seeing all the evidence but, to me, that fits with both Thomas and Kolar's work.

 

[rose222]

My educated guess is that Patsy killed her daughter either by accident or in a fit of rage. JR had to go along with the cover-up because Patsy knew that he had been abusing JonBenet.