Lies point us to the truth #3

[Rain on my Parade]

UKGuy,
Okay, PR stated she wore velvet shoes and JR states she wore a Purple velvet dress.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
Okay, PR stated she wore velvet shoes and JR states she wore a Purple velvet dress.

Rain on my Parade,
Not to the White's Christmas Party. Remember BPD requested copies of any photographs taken at the Party, so they know what JonBenet wore.

As long as they are not in court, in the dock the Ramsey's can say anything they want. Outside of the court whatever you say can be characterized as hearsay and of no legal value. Since you can claim it represents amnesia, mis-speaking, mistaking, etc.

Look at all the nonsense that JR has been talking when he appears in those TV Documentaries, nobody is questioning the veracity of what he says, as long as it is box office the networks could not care less.

From memory JonBenet wore boots, black velvet pants, black velvet waistcoat and the White Gap top to the White's Christmas Party.

Patsy cited amnesia regarding what underwear JonBenet wore to the White's Party, despite claiming to undress her for bed on returning home.

As you must be aware John changed his version of events regarding his interaction with JonBenet on returning from the Party.

Might be the clothing you quote applies to Christmas Eve, when JonBenet was alive.

.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Might be the clothing you quote applies to Christmas Eve, when JonBenet was alive.

UKGuy,

JR and PR both stated JB wore a velvet dress on the 24th:

--​

John, Patsy, JonBenet and Burke Ramsey Christmas Eve 1996 "We had dinner, the kids colored. I think we drove up to -- after we left there I think we drove to the Star, might have driven a little bit to look at the lights. JonBenet was miffed because we wouldn't let her walk up to the star because she had on her church dress" (snip) "It was a purple dress" [0800-05 John Ramsey, BPD 6/98] PR: 97 BPD interview: PR: And then we drove around town looking at Christmas lights and we drove up to the star up on the mountain there and um, I remember JonBenet was miffed because we wouldn’t let her get out and she wanted to walk up into the star . . . TT: Um hum. PR: And uh, she just had her little velvet Sunday school shoes on, you know, so she was, she said, ‘Well, what’s the use coming up here if you can’t even go up to the star.’​

Are we referring to this?
My correction (in this statement) was PR stated JB wore velvet shoes and JR stated she wore a purple velvet dress; when JB wanted to walk to the ️.

In regards to the 25th:
We all know that JB wore the black velvet vest & pants, the gap ‘star‘ white shirt. Boots with animal print trim; to the White party.

What I wonder about the pants and underwear found on the bathroom floor. Since we know that JB wasn’t really zonked out when they got home. She was probably told to go to the bathroom and deposited the underwear and pants in one fell swoop. Then to put on her nightgown? Did somebody notice the soiled pants, their size and if they had Wednesday on them that fateful night?

What happened in this house on Christmas night and why?

How in the world would an intruder know where to find the size 12 bloomies?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

Are we referring to this?
My correction (in this statement) was PR stated JB wore velvet shoes and JR stated she wore a purple velvet dress; when JB wanted to walk to the ️.

In regards to the 25th:
We all know that JB wore the black velvet vest & pants, the gap ‘star‘ white shirt. Boots with animal print trim; to the White party.

What I wonder about the pants and underwear found on the bathroom floor. Since we know that JB wasn’t really zonked out when they got home. She was probably told to go to the bathroom and deposited the underwear and pants in one fell swoop. Then to put on her nightgown? Did somebody notice the soiled pants, their size and if they had Wednesday on them that fateful night?

What happened in this house on Christmas night and why?

How in the world would an intruder know where to find the size 12 bloomies?

Rain on my Parade,
Seems I got mixed up on the actual detail of the topic.

JR and PR both stated JB wore a velvet dress on the 24th:

So could the pants and/or underwear on the bathroom floor be part of what JonBenet wore to the 24th outing, yes it's possible.

Could they be part of whatever she wore to the White's Christmas Party on the 25th?
Yes, its possible.

This is where the definition of pants comes in. I'm not 100% convinced that what I saw in the video matches prior descriptions.

The pants do not look like black pants, they could be leggings, and the underwear and staining is nowhere to be seen.

Did somebody notice the soiled pants, their size and if they had Wednesday on them that fateful night?

BPD did. As for anyone else who knows? If they had been a Wednesday pair we would have heard about it by now, as Patsy was shown the crime-scene photo and nothing was said about the size!

Also it would mean JonBenet wore the pants on the bathroom floor beneath her black velvet pants, i.e. not likely.

Similar applies to the 24th outing e.g. a dress plus pants does not add up.

So either they were dropped on the bathroom floor earlier in the week, say after LHP went on vacation, or on either the 24th or the 25th JonBenet redressed herself after arriving back home, then deposited the pants on the bathroom floor prior to going to bed?

The standard explanation is this is what JonBenet was wearing out to play on Christmas Day afternoon, then probably before her bath she dropped them on the bathroom floor, then dressed in her new clothes for the White's Party?

How in the world would an intruder know where to find the size 12 bloomies?

They would'nt, so there was NO intruder. All backed up by an absence of intruder dna left at the crime-scene.

They tweaked the dna profile to get it to match the CODIS requirements.

All that needed was a nod and a wink from some dna profiler stating the bars all aligned properly on the graph.

That can be accomplished for fee. It's not illegal, its just someone's opinion.

What happened in this house on Christmas night and why?

Someone SA'd JonBenet. She took exception so possibly an argument ensued, followed by the head whack?

The other possibility is that many of JonBenet's injuries were faked to match that of an intruder?

BPD have never released the details relating to the underwear removed from her bathroom.

So we do not know if there is a missing pair of Wednesday Bloomingdale's, never mind if there any Bloomingdale's present at all?

Also if the details did not matter they would have told us by now.

Patsy and John would have known dressing JonBenet in any pair of pants from her underwear drawer would have been sufficient to deal with the redressing/staging issue. Since they can claim JonBenet redressed herself after the White's party.

IMO, only Burke would think they had to be a Wednesday pair?

Of course the intruder does not need to bother redressing JonBenet, as he will be leaving the Ramsey house, minus JonBenet!

The initial staging is so amateurish it looks like the case is BDI?

Then the parents step up to tweak as much forensic evidence as possible, with John even claiming to have broken the window earlier that year, with Burke present as a witness?

So basically it looks like the Colorado Child Safety Statutes have closed the case down.

Which is why the cold case investigation will go nowhere?

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

They would'nt, so there was NO intruder. All backed up by an absence of intruder dna left at the crime-scene.

They tweaked the dna profile to get it to match the CODIS requirements.

All that needed was a nod and a wink from some dna profiler stating the bars all aligned properly on the graph.

That can be accomplished for fee. It's not illegal, its just someone's opinion.

This remains untrue.

 

[DeDee]

UKGuy,
There are several references made especially by Kolar in interviews (talk radio, etc). What I am wondering is: are those pants the pair found on the bathroom floor or JB bedroom floor? It is stated that the pants she wore to the Whites party are there with her boots on the floor beside a sack. I didn’t see another pair of pants lying on the floor during the video under Media links.

Looks like upon entering JB's bdrm to the right, on the floor, are black pants, something else black, her little boots with fur trim and a gift bag in the screenshot (SS) from the video you posted. One boot is upright, the other on its side.

 

[UKGuy]

The pants Tom Haney is referring to in photo 378 are lying on JonBenet's BATHROOM floor, see interview.
1998 BPD Patsy Interview, Excerpt
Detective Tom Haney talking to Patsy (looking at photos), e.g. 378

16 TOM HANEY: How about 378?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her
18 pants.
19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular
20 pants, when she would have worn those last?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably
22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the
23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.
24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

...

21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that

22 bathroom at all?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say

24 for sure.

JonBenet's bed - bedroom crime-scene photo

JonBenet's pink pajama top is visible at the top of the bed.
The pink pajama bottoms along with her size-6 underwear are missing!

JonBenet's guest bed - bedroom crime-scene photo

The black velvet pants JonBenet's wore to the Whites can be seen on the guest bed above.

Kolar may have referred to the pajama bottoms found on JonBenet's bathroom floor as pants, similarly with the pants referenced in photo 378?

i.e. that is two separate items of clothing residing at two different locations, which Kolar might have termed pants?

Years ago, I'm sure I looked at a copy of photo 378? The debate then: were they soiled or was it underwear in the pants?

The photo was blurry with block outlines, etc. Still, black pants could be made out.

Any other pants found on her bedroom/bathroom floor would be new?

.

 

[UKGuy]

This remains untrue.

This remains untrue.

You should review the Amanda Knox case, similar dna elements are available in the JonBenet case.

Consider the role played by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, the chief technical director of the forensic genetic section of the Rome Police in helping Knox to be cleared of Kercher's murder.

Stefanoni's lab generated a partial profile showing poor signal strength, with no reserve sample to retest and only crime-scene dna of questionable origin to to retest, Judge Hellman decided retesting on the latter basis was unreliable.

So because Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni made a procedural error in generating the dna profile, this led to Knox being cleared of Kercher's murder.

In the JonBenet case we have a partial profile which is added to by an additional dna sample, the reliability of the latter is unknown.

Were any procedural errors committed in generating the first or second profile?

Are all the loci peak signal strengths above the desired minimum of 50?

Is there a dna sample available to run the test again as confirmation, i.e. revalidation?

Can the CODIS entry be produced in a US court of law without sharing the same fate as that of Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni's outcome?

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

You should review the Amanda Knox case, similar dna elements are available in the JonBenet case.

Oh, I am well aware of the Meredith Kercher case.

Consider the role played by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, the chief technical director of the forensic genetic section of the Rome Police in helping Knox to be cleared of Kercher's murder.

Stefanoni's lab generated a partial profile showing poor signal strength, with no reserve sample to retest and only crime-scene dna of questionable origin to to retest, Judge Hellman decided retesting on the latter basis was unreliable.

The issue with Kercher's DNA on the blade wasn't that the profile was partial - it was definitely her DNA. It was how they got to it that mattered. At that point in the process, they were desperate for any physical evidence against Amanda, since she had immediately retracted her "confession" (made under duress) and her supposed accomplice (her boss) had provided an alibi. The knife was a kitchen knife, taken from the drawer of Amanda's boyfriend's house, not because it matched the wounds (it didn't, but the officer that took the knife didn't know that), but on a whim. The knife was then kept in unsterile conditions in a cardboard box, until Stefanoni decided to test it. What eventually got out at the trial (after the defense had finally gotten access to the documents, and independent experts had been assigned during the appeal) was that Stefanoni had tested the blade and found no trace of blood, not even any trace of human material. And when she tested for DNA she also got a negative result. Here is where she really screwed up. She picked one spot on the blade and decided to test for LCN (low copy number) DNA, despite not having the accreditation for it, or having followed the proper procedure - since the risk of contamination is very high, and the lab had been testing objects from Kercher's apartment for days. The test got Meredith's profile, but it also consumed everything. The independent experts held it likely that the source of Meredith's DNA was contamination.

So because Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni made a procedural error in generating the dna profile, this led to Knox being cleared of Kercher's murder.

Procedural error is a bit too euphemistic for my taste.

In the JonBenet case we have a partial profile which is added to by an additional dna sample, the reliability of the latter is unknown.

The situation for JonBenet is very different. To begin with, the original source for UM1 wasn't touch DNA. It was some kind of bodily fluid that made it into her underwear, and her blood. It is also not from a source that would be readily available. Knox and Kercher DNA could be found all over the apartment, and Kercher's objects were all being tested. However, there were DNA samples that didn't match any of them, that were on the body itself and that didn't belong to anyone who lived in or visited the apartment. As it turned out, that DNA from an unknown person - an UM1, if you will - turned out to belong to the killer Rudy Guede.

That's your proper comparison.

Were any procedural errors committed in generating the first or second profile?

I don't know, were there?

Are all the loci peak signal strengths above the desired minimum of 50?

Is there a dna sample available to run the test again as confirmation, i.e. revalidation?

All we have is what the police has. Unless they're lying, they still have remaining samples.

Can the CODIS entry be produced in a US court of law without sharing the same fate as that of Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni's outcome?

Only one way to find out.

 

[UKGuy]

Oh, I am well aware of the Meredith Kercher case.



The issue with Kercher's DNA on the blade wasn't that the profile was partial - it was definitely her DNA. It was how they got to it that mattered. At that point in the process, they were desperate for any physical evidence against Amanda, since she had immediately retracted her "confession" (made under duress) and her supposed accomplice (her boss) had provided an alibi. The knife was a kitchen knife, taken from the drawer of Amanda's boyfriend's house, not because it matched the wounds (it didn't, but the officer that took the knife didn't know that), but on a whim. The knife was then kept in unsterile conditions in a cardboard box, until Stefanoni decided to test it. What eventually got out at the trial (after the defense had finally gotten access to the documents, and independent experts had been assigned during the appeal) was that Stefanoni had tested the blade and found no trace of blood, not even any trace of human material. And when she tested for DNA she also got a negative result. Here is where she really screwed up. She picked one spot on the blade and decided to test for LCN (low copy number) DNA, despite not having the accreditation for it, or having followed the proper procedure - since the risk of contamination is very high, and the lab had been testing objects from Kercher's apartment for days. The test got Meredith's profile, but it also consumed everything. The independent experts held it likely that the source of Meredith's DNA was contamination.



Procedural error is a bit too euphemistic for my taste.



The situation for JonBenet is very different. To begin with, the original source for UM1 wasn't touch DNA. It was some kind of bodily fluid that made it into her underwear, and her blood. It is also not from a source that would be readily available. Knox and Kercher DNA could be found all over the apartment, and Kercher's objects were all being tested. However, there were DNA samples that didn't match any of them, that were on the body itself and that didn't belong to anyone who lived in or visited the apartment. As it turned out, that DNA from an unknown person - an UM1, if you will - turned out to belong to the killer Rudy Guede.

That's your proper comparison.



I don't know, were there?



All we have is what the police has. Unless they're lying, they still have remaining samples.



Only one way to find out.

FergusMcDuck,

I don't know, were there?

Yes.

To begin with, the original source for UM1 wasn't touch DNA. It was some kind of bodily fluid that made it into her underwear, and her blood.

On Beckners AMA, a poster asked:

Is there any way to know what kind of substance the DNA came from -- like was it from semen, blood, dead skin tissue, or something else?

Beckner replied:

Manufacturing process is one. Interactions with other people is another. Intentional placement is another. Belongs to an intruder is another. Yes, you can often tell where DNA comes from. In this case, it is small enough that it is difficult to tell. CBI thought it was either sweat or saliva.

Also on the Nancy Grace TV show in 2008 there was discussion regarding the alleged touch-dna found by Angela Williamson with Bode Technology. Angela Williamson claimed the underwear sample was NOT semen.

After various exchanges regarding dna types, i.e. getting nowhere, Nancy Grace says lets ask Ollie Gray.

Nancy Grace says:

Ollie, you and John San Agustin say that you have had inside information, that you've been able to review the files. Was the DNA in her underwear sperm?

Ollie Gray:

As far as I know, it was not sperm. It was a liquid, and it could have been either from the mouth, or it could have been from an insertion into the vagina area of part of the paintbrush that caused the fluid. As you remember, it was also mixed with blood.

Well BPD and Denver PD have not told us precisely what dna samples they have.

A test for amylase would confirm if saliva was present.

And a retest on the paintbrush would establish whether it was the source for the dna?

BDP, Denver PD and Bode might be satisfied if little or minimal data is released given it is likely procedural errors happened?

What is the probability that the paintbrush might yield multiple partial profiles, versus that of a coherent dna profile from a saliva sample?

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Yes.

What errors were those?

On Beckners AMA, a poster asked:


Beckner replied:

Probably saliva, as per Bode expert Williamson. Factory worker is highly unlikely; even Kolar admits that the DNA they found when testing new, unrelated underwear were never more than 1/10 of the strength of the UM1 sample. Not to mention the failure to explain why the profile would be on two separate garments of different age and origin, in non-adjacent locations and from different sources.

 

[UKGuy]

What errors were those?



Probably saliva, as per Bode expert Williamson. Factory worker is highly unlikely; even Kolar admits that the DNA they found when testing new, unrelated underwear were never more than 1/10 of the strength of the UM1 sample. Not to mention the failure to explain why the profile would be on two separate garments of different age and origin, in non-adjacent locations and from different sources.

FergusMcDuck,

What errors were those?

Well missing that the dna represented a composite sample is a start.

DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA’s exoneration of Ramseys


Also: Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (p. 413).

"He [Horita] went on to report, however, that additional samples of trace male DNA had been discovered on the cord used in the wrist bindings, and the garrote that had killed JonBenét. These trace 'Touch DNA' samples were genetically unique from one another, and were believed to belong to different individuals."

Might be the DNA Testing methodology was so new back then errors were to be expected?

Probably saliva,

It might be, who really knows, different theories lead to particular forensic evidence being favored. John Ramsey reckons his daughters murder is a DNA case, he has some numbers for us: John Ramsey offers a DNA sample number:

John Ramsey says there are possibly five to six pieces of evidence at the scene that he wants to be tested by private sources; he is adamant that advances in DNA technology can lead to a potential breakthrough in the case. Other DNA samples from the scene that had been previously tested did not lead to the identification of any suspect.

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/john-ramsey-wants-movement-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-case

More: Father of JonBenét Ramsey believes cold case can be solved in his lifetime as he pushes for new DNA testing
Father of JonBenét Ramsey believes cold case can be solved in his lifetime as he pushes for new DNA testing

Suburban Nightmare: JonBenét Ramsey

TV Movie 2022 1h 25m

Suburban Nightmare: JonBenet Ramsey covers renewed efforts and theories from JonBenet Ramsey's father about who is responsible for his daughter's death. The documentary, available on Tubi, is the latest production on a case that has captivated the nation for decades. Given the case is one of the most infamous mysteries in U.S. history, it is no surprise there is no shortage of theories as to who the culprit is.

JonBenet Ramsey was a six-year-old child beauty pageant contestant who was found dead in the basement of her parent's upscale home in Boulder, Colorado. Her father, John, found the body and ever since then has been searching to find the killer. In Suburban Nightmare: JonBenet Ramsey, he is the central character and spends much of the runtime discussing why he believes the police bungled the original investigation. He also shares his hopes about advances in DNA technology being the key to solving his daughter's murder. In addition to his theories on the case, there are other theories discussed that were not featured in Suburban Nightmare.

The Theories:
Suburban Nightmare: Every Theory About Who JonBenet Ramsey's Killer Is

Suburban Nightmare: JonBenét Ramsey (TV Movie 2022) ⭐ 6.4 | Documentary

1h 25m

www.imdb.com

Trailer:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mlD6eFkAa4

I've never seen the above movie, it might be a John Ramsey promo job, or just someones take on the JonBenet case, might be of interest for those new to the case.

If the fluid is saliva then the speculation might ask where did it come from, it's presence seems less likely than random envronmental touch-dna?

Knowing which dna samples you can ignore allows a focus on the remaining samples and their attendant theories.

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Well missing that the dna represented a composite sample is a start.

DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA’s exoneration of Ramseys

Nobody missed that because it isn't a fact. Actual experts who actually worked on the case were convinced UM1 was a single individual. That UM1 was a composite is theoretically possible - in the sense that a set of footprints that look like they're from a single individual is actually from two people with identical shoes, each jumping on one leg - but it isn't at all likely. We'd expect five or more alleles in at least one locus, yet at no point do we see more than four. I can't fathom why the experts consulted by the reporters (provided the reporters were truthful) ignore that, but again, the experts who actually had access to all data disagree.

Also: Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (p. 413). Might be the DNA Testing methodology was so new back then errors were to be expected?

That was touch DNA from the cord. Apples and oranges.

It might be, who really knows, different theories lead to particular forensic evidence being favored. John Ramsey reckons his daughters murder is a DNA case, he has some numbers for us: John Ramsey offers a DNA sample number:

The one piece of evidence I would love to see tested more than anything is the cigarette butt found close to the house. There won't be JonBenet's DNA mixed with that one.

 

[UKGuy]

Nobody missed that because it isn't a fact. Actual experts who actually worked on the case were convinced UM1 was a single individual. That UM1 was a composite is theoretically possible - in the sense that a set of footprints that look like they're from a single individual is actually from two people with identical shoes, each jumping on one leg - but it isn't at all likely. We'd expect five or more alleles in at least one locus, yet at no point do we see more than four. I can't fathom why the experts consulted by the reporters (provided the reporters were truthful) ignore that, but again, the experts who actually had access to all data disagree.



That was touch DNA from the cord. Apples and oranges.



The one piece of evidence I would love to see tested more than anything is the cigarette butt found close to the house. There won't be JonBenet's DNA mixed with that one.

FergusMcDuck,

The one piece of evidence I would love to see tested more than anything is the cigarette butt found close to the house. There won't be JonBenet's DNA mixed with that one.

Sure, so any valid profile might match that from JonBenet's crime-scene, e.g. CODIS entry? Also all the other partial profiles could be validated.

I'm skeptical regarding this outcome given what we now know about the unreliability of the initial touch-dna testing and reporting, even if its only Lacy being selective on what she uses to exonerate the Ramsey's.

The official lab report cannot say with certainty the DNA mixtures are from a single individual, since there were not enough DNA markers (12-13) to determine if it was one individual or a composite of several.

The Ramsey's were tested against the above partial, degraded DNA, and given a provisional all clear assuming the partial, degraded DNA sample represents a unique individual, and not a composite.

It's also likely during the postmortem phase of evidence gathering that there was Touch-DNA cross-transfer between items of JonBenet's clothing and body.

Touch DNA testing and knowledge was very new way back in 1996, so measures to counteract touch-dna transfer were probably non-existant?

Still a match to the cigarette butt would make IDI a distinct posibility.

I read somewhere that Horita said during the dna testing phase he saw a color flash that indicated the presence of Saliva.

So ignoring sneezing, saliva drops from the Autopsy participants, etc, there might actually be the presence of saliva!

.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

That was touch DNA from the cord. Apples and oranges.

McDuck,
This is not a dna case. Never has been; never will be.
As it were, let’s take a take a closer look @ the feces found in JB bedroom; that didn’t belong to her.
So, this is the way it is. There were 3 family members that remained alive in that house on that fateful night. Now if you were going to speak your truth wouldn’t your story remain true? Or would you feel the need to change your story over and over again? Or, better yet; develop the Ramnesia? Or be flabbergasted? Insisting all the while (these past 26 years) that it was not JB that was the victim here. Why it was the 3 remaining family members after the murder. They were the real victims.

The one piece of evidence I would love to see tested more than anything is the cigarette butt found close to the house. There won't be JonBenet's DNA mixed with that one.

Young girl’s unsolved 1997 rape could be linked to JonBenet Ramsey murder, victim’s dad alleges

“There are so many similarities between the two cases that I think there’s a very good chance it was the same person,” the father said.

nypost.com

Would we consider propaganda? The date of posting is interesting. It coincides with JR getting on his high horse about outside dna testing done, again. What did he think Bode was? Is he thinking, ’let us lead them astray’?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Sure, so any valid profile might match that from JonBenet's crime-scene, e.g. CODIS entry? Also all the other partial profiles could be validated.

I'm skeptical regarding this outcome given what we now know about the unreliability of the initial touch-dna testing and reporting, even if its only Lacy being selective on what she uses to exonerate the Ramsey's.

What unreliability?

The official lab report cannot say with certainty the DNA mixtures are from a single individual, since there were not enough DNA markers (12-13) to determine if it was one individual or a composite of several.

That is not how it works. The number of markers identified has nothing to do with determination whether it was an individual or a composite. The situation would be just the same if 13 markers had been identified. There is a theoretical possibility that 10 markers (or 13) come from two different individuals, but as I've said many times, it is an unrealistic and extremely unlikely scenario. If you want to determine whether it is a composite, you look at the number of alleles in each locus. Does it, at any point, exceed 4? Then you have a composite. But we didn't have that with UM1.

The Ramsey's were tested against the above partial, degraded DNA, and given a provisional all clear assuming the partial, degraded DNA sample represents a unique individual, and not a composite.

The DNA representing UM1 was not degraded. I've never heard anyone claim it was. It was incomplete, but it gave enough markers to eliminate suspects.

It's also likely during the postmortem phase of evidence gathering that there was Touch-DNA cross-transfer between items of JonBenet's clothing and body.

UM1 was found in saliva (or another bodily fluid), in the underwear of JonBenet that weren't removed until the autopsy. The DNA on the waistband 1. was touch DNA, i.e. from a different source altogether, meaning it could not have come from crosscontamination with the saliva, 2. was on a part of clothing that wasn't physically adjacent to the underwear stain anyway and 3. it matched UM1.

That's the thing - we can talk about the DNA on the longjohns or the ligature being likely contaminated from the incompetently handled crime scene. I think the extra alleles and muddled profiles found are a great testament to that. But UM1 was there, on the waistband, a signal under the noise. And it can't be explained away as some evidence-gatherer, since said person had to be in a position to drool into JonBenet's underwear and somehow only hitting the blood stain. That leaves the coroner and his assistants, who I don't believe were gathering evidence for the BPD.

There are things to look for when it comes to contamination, and there likely was a lot of it. But the touch DNA shows us that UM1 isn't a mirage, nor a composite. A good lawyer could likely get the touch DNA tossed on grounds of possible contamination - if that was all of it. But UM1 in the panties? No such luck.

Touch DNA testing and knowledge was very new way back in 1996, so measures to counteract touch-dna transfer were probably non-existant?

Still a match to the cigarette butt would make IDI a distinct posibility.

So I have to wonder, why not test it? Are they afraid of what they will find? And I don't mean that in a conspiratoral way. It seems the BPD (or at least the ones in charge of the case) have made up their minds long ago, and so pretty much have to think the DNA is a red herring. And strengthening that red herring would only distract from their own "correct" theory.

I read somewhere that Horita said during the dna testing phase he saw a color flash that indicated the presence of Saliva.

So ignoring sneezing, saliva drops from the Autopsy participants, etc, there might actually be the presence of saliva!

Yeah, there's inconclusive information available whether amylase was actually found in the blood stain.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

McDuck,
This is not a dna case. Never has been; never will be.

No offense, but when you have a case with DNA found on the body in the victim's blood, DNA that has been entered into CODIS and that suspects are being tested against? That phrase becomes meaningless.

I do have to wonder. If it isn't a DNA case, what kind of case is it?

As it were, let’s take a take a closer look @ the feces found in JB bedroom; that didn’t belong to her.

Two questions. One, what feces? Two, where was it determined it didn't belong to her?

So, this is the way it is. There were 3 family members that remained alive in that house on that fateful night. Now if you were going to speak your truth wouldn’t your story remain true?

I've seen nothing from the Ramseys that was shown to be a lie.

Or would you feel the need to change your story over and over again?

I've seen no story changed "over and over again".

Or, better yet; develop the Ramnesia?

The Ramseys were honest when they didn't remember things. It's hardly strange, and anyone of us could be in the same situation. I can only hope the true crime community will learn from this at some point.

Or be flabbergasted? Insisting all the while (these past 26 years) that it was not JB that was the victim here.

Where did they say JonBenet wasn't a victim?

Why it was the 3 remaining family members after the murder. They were the real victims.

They're the family of a murder victim. Yes, they are indeed victims.

Young girl’s unsolved 1997 rape could be linked to JonBenet Ramsey murder, victim’s dad alleges

“There are so many similarities between the two cases that I think there’s a very good chance it was the same person,” the father said.

nypost.com

Would we consider propaganda? The date of posting is interesting. It coincides with JR getting on his high horse about outside dna testing done, again. What did he think Bode was? Is he thinking, ’let us lead them astray’?

John's been very clear on what he means. Genetic genealogy, which is done by "outside" firms like Parabon or Othram. We know UM1 is an unrelated individual, but we also know he isn't in CODIS. Genetic genealogy is a way of actually finding the person. Even testing the cigarettes (which they should do anyway) would not help with that.

 

[UKGuy]

McDuck,
This is not a dna case. Never has been; never will be.
As it were, let’s take a take a closer look @ the feces found in JB bedroom; that didn’t belong to her.
So, this is the way it is. There were 3 family members that remained alive in that house on that fateful night. Now if you were going to speak your truth wouldn’t your story remain true? Or would you feel the need to change your story over and over again? Or, better yet; develop the Ramnesia? Or be flabbergasted? Insisting all the while (these past 26 years) that it was not JB that was the victim here. Why it was the 3 remaining family members after the murder. They were the real victims.

Young girl’s unsolved 1997 rape could be linked to JonBenet Ramsey murder, victim’s dad alleges

“There are so many similarities between the two cases that I think there’s a very good chance it was the same person,” the father said.

nypost.com

Would we consider propaganda? The date of posting is interesting. It coincides with JR getting on his high horse about outside dna testing done, again. What did he think Bode was? Is he thinking, ’let us lead them astray’?

The date of posting is interesting. It coincides with JR getting on his high horse about outside dna testing done, again. What did he think Bode was? Is he thinking, ’let us lead them astray’?

Rain on my Parade,
I reckon you are spot on. JR is just promoting his Golden Goose Theory, i.e. an Intruder Did It!

The Smit Family/Foundation whatever say they are testing dna samples, JR should give them a phone?

The elephant in the room here is JR grandstanding about the Intruder theory. Why does he bother, have you seen recent photos of him? he looks as if he has been measured up and is just awaiting the trumpet call.

So why does JR bother with all his ham appearances in documentaries, why does he not give it a day and allow his family and related individuals, e.g. Paughs, to get on with their life?

JR's Intruder theory promotion cannot advantage him, given his advanced age, surely he his simply preparing the ground with intruder spadework for someone else?

The DNA in CODIS is of NO value, it will never be entered as a court production.

The case might become a DNA case if ALL the dna testing results were released, i.e. is BR's touch-dna on the size-12s? How about JR's touch-dna was it deposited on JonBenet or her clothing?

Although we should expect to see ramsey touch-dna anywhere on JonBenet, inside her size-12's would be a red flag.

So there is plenty to play for in the JonBenet case.

BTW someone has posted JonBenet by Steve Thomas audiobook version as a free download. check the usual places.

.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

No offense, but when you have a case with DNA found on the body in the victim's blood, DNA that has been entered into CODIS and that suspects are being tested against? That phrase becomes meaningless.

McDuck,
Suspects, who are they? There is no evidence of an intruder.

I do have to wonder. If it isn't a DNA case, what kind of case is it?

I would suspect, RDI.

Two questions. One, what feces? Two, where was it determined it didn't belong to her?

JonBenet Ramsey's 'disturbed' brother 'smeared her Christmas presents with poo' amid claims HE killed her

THE brother of murdered child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey smeared her Christmas presents with poo in the months leading up to her death, investigators have claimed. Sleuths investigating the death…

www.thesun.co.uk

I've seen nothing from the Ramseys that was shown to be a lie.

BR getting a bike for Christmas. BR being asleep when the 911 call was made.

I've seen no story changed "over and over again".

Did BR get a bike for Christmas? What was JB actually dressed in when put to bed?

The Ramseys were honest when they didn't remember things.

How do you know that exactly? Are you one of them?

Where did they say JonBenet wasn't a victim?

The Killing of Jonbenet: Her Father Speaks (2016)

They're the family of a murder victim. Yes, they are indeed victims.

Keep telling yourself this.

Genetic genealogy is a way of actually finding the person. Even testing the cigarettes (which they should do anyway) would not help with that.

Hum:

The one piece of evidence I would love to see tested more than anything is the cigarette butt found close to the house. There won't be JonBenet's DNA mixed with that one.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

The elephant in the room here is JR grandstanding about the Intruder theory. Why does he bother, have you seen recent photos of him? he looks as if he has been measured up and is just awaiting the trumpet call

UKGuy,
Yes, he does. No offense, reminds me of King Charles. The moment the Prince of Wales pledges: "I, William, Prince of Wales, pledge my loyalty to you, and faith and truth I will bear unto you, as your liege man of life and limb. So help me God.” Reading from a card instead of memorizing his lines. Then King Charles III looks up at him and thanks him? The kings expression speaks volumes here. Charles has pledged to serve instead of others serving him. Tell that to the guy that irons his shoe laces. Days of reckoning are to come.

The case might become a DNA case if ALL the dna testing results were released, i.e. is BR's touch-dna on the size-12s? How about JR's touch-dna was it deposited on JonBenet or her clothing?

Yes, JR had to have had touch dna all over JB. Where are those results? And I can not think for the life of me why BR touch dna should have been on the top and bottom of the Barbie night gown unless he was changing her cloths. What is a logical explanation for ‘why’ he would be doing this, ever?

BTW someone has posted JonBenet by Steve Thomas audiobook version as a free download. check the usual places.

Yes, thank you. I agree with ST except for one detail. I believe BDI and the folks covered it up. Yet again, reminds me of the spare.