JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
Wudge
New Member
The DNA was mixed with her blood and left on her panties. Given that that same DNA was then found on two separate places on her leggings, it's not reasonable to look at that innocently.
Darlene733510
Active Member
This DNA could have came from a lot of places, including the blanket she was wrapped in.
The blanket belonged to the older brother - also it was stated that there were often friends of the children who spent the night at the Ramsey home.
Until all evidence is tested there is no proof of anything.
Mary Lacey may have just as well put a big bow on this letter, because it is just her departing gift to the Ramseys. She is a disgrace, and should be ashamed of herself that she has done so little to solve this case.
The blanket belonged to the older brother - also it was stated that there were often friends of the children who spent the night at the Ramsey home.
Until all evidence is tested there is no proof of anything.
Mary Lacey may have just as well put a big bow on this letter, because it is just her departing gift to the Ramseys. She is a disgrace, and should be ashamed of herself that she has done so little to solve this case.
It really would not matter if matching unknown male DNA was found in a dozen places on JBR. The question is how did it get there.
1. Deposited by the killer.
2. Deposited by JBR
If it was deposited by the killer then why no matching DNA anywhere else in the room where JBR was found.
Is it not reasonable to assume that a child with poor hygiene habits (as most children have) could have easily made contact and deposited the very small samples of DNA that we are talking about here?
It is wildly speculative and highly irresponsible to say that the DNA is the "killer's". The killer may not have been the donor, and the donor may not have actually killed her. The only place that DNA would be that points to the killer is 1. the CORD around her neck and 2. the TAPE taken from her mouth. Those 2 items are specific to this murder.
The DNA could have been transferred accidentally- from JBR's hands to the waistband of her longjohns and her panties. She was alwake after they came home that night-the pineapple proves this, and if she picked up that DNA at the White's party (and as she was such a reluctant hand-washer, according to her mother) she didn't wash it off, and could have transferred the skin cells as she pulled her pants up and down to use the toilet. There was evidence that the toilet in JBR's bathroom had been used and not flushed.
TEST ALL MALES AT THE PARTY. TEST THE CORD. TEST THE TAPE. Then come and talk to me.
The DNA could have been transferred accidentally- from JBR's hands to the waistband of her longjohns and her panties. She was alwake after they came home that night-the pineapple proves this, and if she picked up that DNA at the White's party (and as she was such a reluctant hand-washer, according to her mother) she didn't wash it off, and could have transferred the skin cells as she pulled her pants up and down to use the toilet. There was evidence that the toilet in JBR's bathroom had been used and not flushed.
TEST ALL MALES AT THE PARTY. TEST THE CORD. TEST THE TAPE. Then come and talk to me.
Quite true, maybe John will set her up with a nice little pension plan.
You are contradicting yourself. First you said that the DNA wasn't liquid. Then you said that the DA said that they didn't know what source the DNA was from. If they didn't know what it was from, then how are you concluding that it wasn't liquid? Did the DA ever say that it wasn't liquid?
Like I said, the investigators thought that it was saliva sourced DNA.
Did you put an accidental comma, or are you actually agreeing with Mary Lacy?
Wudge
New Member
The DNA recovered from her panties was mixed with Jon Benet's blood. Again, we are dealing with "reasonable", nothing else. You will find reasonable expressed in: proof beyond a "reasonable" doubt.
I'd love a clarification on the DNA that was "mixed" with her blood.
Was it deposited over a drop of her blood, was it deposited AS she bled so it was actually mixed it with it, was it also blood (as in 2 distinct blood donors)?
Anyone know for sure which it was?
Was it deposited over a drop of her blood, was it deposited AS she bled so it was actually mixed it with it, was it also blood (as in 2 distinct blood donors)?
Anyone know for sure which it was?
Darlene733510
Active Member
Of course the DNA was mixed with JB's blood, which probably was caused by the paint brush put up inside her.
What we don't know is where the DNA on the panties came from. Henry Lee stated it could have came from a factory worker where the panties were made.
Reasonable doubt can be discussed after all other items have been tested, such as all those in storage in a warehouse in boulder, and when it is certified that Patsy Ramsey's DNA was on the underwear, because she is the one who put them on JB. You tell me why her DNA was not on those underwear.
There are too many unanswered questions here, and too little was done to solve this case from the time Mary Lacey became involved, because she did not in an way or form, make the proper effort to get to the bottom of this. She looked at this case as a mother, and a friend of the Ramseys.....Perhaps whoever takes her place will get the job done.
What we don't know is where the DNA on the panties came from. Henry Lee stated it could have came from a factory worker where the panties were made.
Reasonable doubt can be discussed after all other items have been tested, such as all those in storage in a warehouse in boulder, and when it is certified that Patsy Ramsey's DNA was on the underwear, because she is the one who put them on JB. You tell me why her DNA was not on those underwear.
There are too many unanswered questions here, and too little was done to solve this case from the time Mary Lacey became involved, because she did not in an way or form, make the proper effort to get to the bottom of this. She looked at this case as a mother, and a friend of the Ramseys.....Perhaps whoever takes her place will get the job done.
All I know is that Bennett said it probably wasn't saliva
Those "investigators" were the PIs working the keep the Ramseys out of prison.
Neither. I'm saying there was DNA, but no way as yet to show an intruder left it.
I think it was the last one.
Absolutely. Mary Lacy is banking on this DNA without considering the other evidence. You have to put it in context.
Wudge
New Member
The DNA that was found mixed with JonBenet's panties could not have come from a male at the panty manufacturer, because her leggins were made elsewhere and the same DNA was found on her leggins in two distinct places. Moreover, there was so much touch DNA found on her leggings, they were able to test the DNA in the standard fashion.
The thrice-matched DNA is, indeed, exonerating evidence.
Darlene733510
Active Member
This still does not convince me. JB could have gotten this DNA from a male and put it there herself. Touch DNA is easily transferred. She had used the bathroom, because she did not flush the toilet. Pulling down the longjohns to used the bathroom DNA could have been transferred to them from her own hands. It was stated by her Mother in deposition that JB did not practice good hygiene - having been at the Whites party she could have picked up the DNA there.
Wudge
New Member
There was too much DNA recovered for that to be reasonable.
Fraid it is, reasonable, Wudge. That's the trade-off with DNA technology. The better it gets, the more irrelevant stuff it picks up. And that's NOT just my opinion. A criminologist told O'Reilly the exact same thing, and if I'm lying, may I be struck dead.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
the fact there is no blood trail lends credence to that,IMO.
I don't think that there is a single source that indicates that there are significant quantities of DNA found on JB.
Wudge
New Member
It's the amount of touch DNA that was recovered. There was so much of it, they were able to test it in the standard process. Moreover, the same DNA was mixed with blood in her panties. It is not reasonable to say the DNA evidence is not exonerating.
Where and when? Although he is more noncommital than other investigator's I have read (who have concluded that it was liquid), I've read that he suggested that it could have been from saliva or liquid from a sneeze etc.
Aha. Its interesting how you denigrate the motives and analysis of the investigators that disagree with you. Just because some of them worked for the Ramsey's does not mean that their analysis or information was wrong.
Ok. But what I am saying is that whoever killed JonBenet (whether the Ramsey's or an intruder), was in contact with her leggings and undergarments. The fact that an unidentified male's DNA was found on 2 articles of clothing and in 3 separate locations is compelling evidence that he was the killer.