Like it or not, JBR murder a DNA case.

[Roy23]

It still doesn't mean that it belongs to the killer.It might very well belong to someone helping the R's cleaning the crime scene.(cause ALL the other evidence you ignore points to them).Maybe that person whiped her down ,hence touch dna on the waistband of her longjohns,he redressed her afterwards.We don't know what kind of dna was found in her underwear now do we.would have been helpful for IDI's if it were sperm.But we don't know.So I might very well speculate that the one helping them out sneezed or God knows what.

as far as i know dna must be coroborated with other evidence.what other evidence supports the intruder theory?and don't tell me the rn.

M,

I think you are making some really wild conspiricies here with someone cleaning. This is going to be my last post on this because I feel that you don't really want explanations. Especially when you say ALL the evidence points to the Ramsey's. That shows you are biased because no one involved in this case really believes that. Anyhow I will try.

Who would be helping the Ramsey's cleanup and why? Do you think it would be someone that is really close to them that they can trust or would they look in the yellow pages for this? I am guessing it would have to be a close friend or family member right?

Just keep in mind that LE tested quite a few close friends and a family member has been excluded. My .02

 

[madeleine]

M,

I think you are making some really wild conspiricies here with someone cleaning. This is going to be my last post on this because I feel that you don't really want explanations. Especially when you say ALL the evidence points to the Ramsey's. That shows you are biased because no one involved in this case really believes that. Anyhow I will try.

Who would be helping the Ramsey's cleanup and why? Do you think it would be someone that is really close to them that they can trust or would they look in the yellow pages for this? I am guessing it would have to be a close friend or family member right?

Just keep in mind that LE tested quite a few close friends and a family member has been excluded. My .02

I think I give up.
I am biased.I am speaking of wild conspiracies.Nothing points to the Ramsey's.There was an intruder.

And btw,I meant all the evidence that IDI's always intentionally ignore.

But I guess me and all the experts,cops and journos that think RDI are dumb,right?

Nevermind,I think I need a break.

 

[Ravyn]

I rather wait until this new investagations with the new DA brings up this DNA honestly it might point to a intruder but I have to remember how JR acted about JMK..But this is my opinion...

 

[BBB167893]

I think the DA used the same rationale to exhonerate the R's.

Look again, HOTYH: "in cases of rape." Actual, penile penetration with discharge. Sometimes I'm really disgusted with what I have to do around here.

Why does DNA exclude suspects in cases of rape? Because of the incriminating nature and location of the DNA. The idea there is that semen is found in the victim. If the victim is not sexually active, then the semen belongs to the rapist.

That's what I said! JB was not raped and there was no semen.

What is the nature and location of JBR's foreign DNA?

That's just it: no one can be sure what it's nature is.

Mixed with blood in her underwear, and on the surfaces of the waistband of her longjohns. Thats incriminating because it was deduced that an assailant that left DNA in JBR's underwear would also leave touch DNA on the waistband.

Deduced beforehand. It's funny, you'll trash on people for making assumptions, but not when it actually happens.

The key is in the incriminating nature and location. Your favorite lawyer is right and the DA applied the principle correctly, thus exhonerating the R's.

I don't think that could have gotten any more twisted.

 

[madeleine]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/09/da-mary-lacys-statement-ramsey-exoneration/

"The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist."

:waitasecid she test the panties?I mean,why the long johns and not the panties.The alledged intruder obviously touched the panties in the first place,you would think that's the first item an investigator would think of if dealing with sexual assault?!?!?!

"evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns"

Now I've never heard anything like this before. :banghead:
evidence supports the likelihood....either it does or it doesn't,I thought evidence supports FACTS not likelihoods.

removed and/or.....:waitasec:
if she was found in the same long johns then he didn't replace them.....he maybe replaced the panties but WHY is M.Lacy avoiding the panties I wonder.Maybe she was afraid of what she could find,like more JR fibers or God knows what else.



Geez,this woman is making me .........:scream: :scream: :scream: :scream: :scream:

 

[madeleine]

And sue me but in my paranoia I am starting to wonder how those DNA samples were handled in the first place and who they matched(MAYBE).The so called unknown male DNA.It's not that hard to switch some samples in a lab.Ok,going now before i get into trouble. :truce:

 

[Roy23]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/09/da-mary-lacys-statement-ramsey-exoneration/

"The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist."

:waitasecid she test the panties?I mean,why the long johns and not the panties.The alledged intruder obviously touched the panties in the first place,you would think that's the first item an investigator would think of if dealing with sexual assault?!?!?!

"evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns"

Now I've never heard anything like this before. :banghead:
evidence supports the likelihood....either it does or it doesn't,I thought evidence supports FACTS not likelihoods.

removed and/or.....:waitasec:
if she was found in the same long johns then he didn't replace them.....he maybe replaced the panties but WHY is M.Lacy avoiding the panties I wonder.Maybe she was afraid of what she could find,like more JR fibers or God knows what else.



Geez,this woman is making me .........:scream: :scream: :scream: :scream: :scream:

Here is what some of the typical RDI's would claim if they tested the panties. First of all, if you are not aware, DNA that matched the touch DNA was already found in the panties. So that blows that argument already. Now, if they had tested the panties again, some of you guys would be screaming transference again.

I know it sucks for RDI, but by now they have tested all kinds of stuff. And they don't us any information. And the DNA screams intruder and the Ramsey's are cleared.

 

[madeleine]

Here is what some of the typical RDI's would claim if they tested the panties. First of all, if you are not aware, DNA that matched the touch DNA was already found in the panties. So that blows that argument already. Now, if they had tested the panties again, some of you guys would be screaming transference again.

I know it sucks for RDI, but by now they have tested all kinds of stuff. And they don't us any information. And the DNA screams intruder and the Ramsey's are cleared.

If they tested all kinds of stuff where is the evidence that supports IDI?All I've seen was M.Lacy&L.Smit trying to twist this dna issue just so it fits their Ramsey's are innocent theory.Here's the tiny detail.They aren't trying to convince us there was an intruder,they're trying to convince us the Ramsey's are innocent.Smart eh.

 

[madeleine]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/09/ramsey-breakthrough-comes-touch-dna/

Although “touch DNA” scraping has been around for some time and is gaining ground, it’s still used seldomly in the U.S., Wojtowicz said.

The methodology also is not without its critics, said Charles Brenner, a forensic mathematician, speaking from his home in Oakland, Calif.

“Some controversy surrounds this kind of collection: the sample can be so small, it’s hard to be reliable,” Brenner said.

 

[madeleine]

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

Doubts abound about DNA taken from JonBenet scene


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.
The other "minuscule" sample, which is probably blood, was mixed with JonBenet's DNA, he said. That leaves investigators with the daunting task of trying to match a partial DNA strand with a sample from John Karr.

"The amount of DNA is small enough that it could exclude someone. But it could not go so far for the inclusion," Wise said.
Partial strands might narrow possible matches down to one person in every 100,000, he said.

"The beauty of DNA is that if you have enough of it, you can say there is only one person in the solar system with that DNA," he said. "But if there's not very much of it, you can't take it down that far."

 

[BBB167893]

If they tested all kinds of stuff where is the evidence that supports IDI?All I've seen was M.Lacy&L.Smit trying to twist this dna issue just so it fits their Ramsey's are innocent theory.Here's the tiny detail.They aren't trying to convince us there was an intruder,they're trying to convince us the Ramsey's are innocent.Smart eh.

:clap:

 

[Roy23]

:clap:

You can clap all that you want. They don't need to convince us that there was an intruder but they needed to clear the Ramsey's because they were tried in the court of public opinion. It is important for you to understand that because the day is coming that you will be doing the same thing.

 

[BBB167893]

You can clap all that you want.

Why shouldn't I? The bits madeleine posted confirm what I've been saying. Thus the problem.

They don't need to convince us that there was an intruder but they needed to clear the Ramsey's because they were tried in the court of public opinion.

And you don't see the problem there, Roy? The DA shouldn't CARE about the court of public opinion. That's not their job. I'm not the only one who says so.

It is important for you to understand that

I understand it just fine. That's the whole problem. That's why I decided to write the book in the first place.

because the day is coming that you will be doing the same thing.

(As John Wayne): That'll be the day, pilgrim.

 

[Roy23]

Why shouldn't I? The bits madeleine posted confirm what I've been saying. Thus the problem.



And you don't see the problem there, Roy? The DA shouldn't CARE about the court of public opinion. That's not their job. I'm not the only one who says so.



I understand it just fine. That's the whole problem. That's why I decided to write the book in the first place.



(As John Wayne): That'll be the day, pilgrim.

I think it is their job as public servants. For numerous reasons they should do so. Not only did they leak information to the press and publicly announce them under "an umbrella of suspicion", they also wrote books and articles after the justice system concluded that they failed. So subsequently when they, whether you agree or not, conclude they find the smoking gun it was more important to right their wrongs since they practically made the Ramsey's life a living hell.

 

[BBB167893]

I think it is their job as public servants. For numerous reasons they should do so. Not only did they leak information to the press and publicly announce them under "an umbrella of suspicion",

Like it or not, those are common tactics.

they also wrote books and articles after the justice system concluded that they failed.

You've got that just the other way around. They concluded that the justice system failed.

So subsequently when they, whether you agree or not, conclude they find the smoking gun it was more important to right their wrongs since they practically made the Ramsey's life a living hell.

No, what's important is bringing a little girl's killer to justice, not caring whether someone's feelings get hurt.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Like it or not, those are common tactics.



You've got that just the other way around. They concluded that the justice system failed.



No, what's important is bringing a little girl's killer to justice, not caring whether someone's feelings get hurt.

Initially implicating the parents in a little girl's murder, before all the facts were in, was probably a huge blow to finding justice in this case.

 

[BBB167893]

Initially implicating the parents in a little girl's murder, before all the facts were in, was probably a huge blow to finding justice in this case.

Now THAT's an argument I can and do respect, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Now THAT's an argument I can and do respect, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.

IDI or RDI there could've been a better investigation.

 

[BBB167893]

IDI or RDI there could've been a better investigation.

No argument here.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No argument here.

Who initially implicated the parents?