No intruder?

[DeeDee249]

Excuse me. By all means debate but don't misconstrue my words.
The one point I did manifestly state however, and you can take my word on this one instead of misconstruing my words, is that the author of the ransom note is also involved in the crime.

Unfortunately, you'll have to get used to that. It happens a lot around here.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Unfortunately, you'll have to get used to that. It happens a lot around here.

Lol. Thanks for the advice!

 

[MurriFlower]

Excuse me. By all means debate but don't misconstrue my words. I never said at any time that the dna came exclusively from a factory worker. No such words were typed by me. I said "if the dna came from a factory worker" and I said this in line with the view aforementioned.

Well excuse me too. I never said that you said exclusively from a factory worker, no such word was typed by me, so don't misconstrue what I have written. What you did say was this, my bold.

Originally Posted by Let_Forever_Be View Post
The touch-DNA (used by intruder did it theorists) to imply neither John or Patsy were involved is really a strange issue. Fact is, if the dna came from a random person in the factory (very likely), then we will never determine whose DNA it is.

So, you said the random factory worker was "very likely" to have been the source of the DNA.

I don't agree with the 'intruder' did it theory and nor do I think the new dna findings support such a thing -- I also don't think they 'exonerate' the Ramseys personally.

Well, other people who do not believe RDI, DO believe it exonerates them.

I drew caution between immediately correlating 'foreign' dna to an intruder theory. I also said it is very likely that foreign dna comes from factory workers.

my bold again. You are saying again that the 'foreign' DNA very likely comes from factory workers. How am I misconstruing your words when you repeat the same things and then deny them??

I will post my question for a third time and see if you can answer this time.

I have asked you to explain how you can logically discount BOTH lots of DNA in SEPARATE locations? Do you think it's logical that the same factory worker worked in two separate factories producing two different garments that both found their way onto the body of a murdered child? Or would it be more logical to think that they were deposited there by the person who owned the DNA and who was at the crime scene?

The one point I did manifestly state however, and you can take my word on this one instead of misconstruing my words, is that the author of the ransom note is also involved in the crime.

No argument there.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Well excuse me too. I never said that you said exclusively from a factory worker, no such word was typed by me, so don't misconstrue what I have written. What you did say was this, my bold.> you said "....the factory worker theory was your proposal". No it wasn't -- I said most foreign dna found on clothing is often from factories where people handle them before we wear the clothes ourselves. I never said that JonBenet's 'foreign' dna was exclusively from a factory worker. I did caution that the dna need not be the intruders dna. Difference.



So, you said the random factory worker was "very likely" to have been the source of the DNA.> I also said "If the dna came from..." The "if" denoting a sense of speculation. And speculation denoting the point it wasn't an exclusive fact I was stating.




Well, other people who do not believe RDI, DO believe it exonerates them.> And they are free to think that.I just personally disagree with such an opinion.



my bold again. You are saying again that the 'foreign' DNA very likely comes from factory workers. How am I misconstruing your words when you repeat the same things and then deny them??

I will post my question for a third time and see if you can answer this time.

I have asked you to explain how you can logically discount BOTH lots of DNA in SEPARATE locations? Do you think it's logical that the same factory worker worked in two separate factories producing two different garments that both found their way onto the body of a murdered child? Or would it be more logical to think that they were deposited there by the person who owned the DNA and who was at the crime scene?> I've already answered this in a previous post but you obviously did not bother to read my answer . In summary, it was predicated upon who's to say the items were not contaminated after the event. Dr Hnery Lee for example talks about how nailclippers were contaminated when used on JonBenet.



No argument there.

I've put my answers in red.Anyway, I've told you that the factory worker 'dna' transfer issue is not an exclusive fact I have postulated. So, until you develop the ability to mind read and divulge opinions from my brain, I'd appreciate it if you just accept my opinions as my opinions. Thanks.

 

[MurriFlower]

I've put my answers in red.

You still haven't answered my question.

You suggest it is more likely that the DNA was placed on one item by the factory worker. Then you suggest that it got onto the other item by being rubbed on it.

I'm asking you how this can be more logical than the DNA being placed on both garments by and IDI directly touching them during the course of the crime?

I can't fathom how someone can accuse IDI of lacking logic and then come up with this outlandish explanation in order to dismiss DNA evidence of an unknown male at the crime scene.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

You still haven't answered my question.

You suggest it is more likely that the DNA was placed on one item by the factory worker. Then you suggest that it got onto the other item by being rubbed on it.

I'm asking you how this can be more logical than the DNA being placed on both garments by and IDI directly touching them during the course of the crime?

I can't fathom how someone can accuse IDI of lacking logic and then come up with this outlandish explanation in order to dismiss DNA evidence of an unknown male at the crime scene.

I answered it on the other page. That's my answer. You'll need to just accept what I have wrote because that's my answer.

Further, I never said IDI theorists "lacked logic" per se. I said it was illogical to immediately correlate 'foreign' dna to an intruder. Big difference.It's not outlandish to question if the dna was transferred after the event -- it's called speculating.

Oh, and I never said a factory worker transferred dna from the underwear to the longjohns. You are really wrong there. I said, for the umteenth time, that most foreign 'dna' found on clothing comes from factory workers and the like. Indeed, until 2008, it was widely thought that the dna on the underwear was just random dna. I have questioned if the dna from the longjohns and underwear could have came about after the event i.e. in the days,weeks,years after JonBenet died and her belongings were tested. I have also questioned if it was as a result of contamination.

That's twice you've misconstrued my posts -- once wrongly about my supposed 'factory worker' theory and now with wrongly saying I said IDI's lacked logic.. Please stop doing it as it is rather tedious. I'm here for civil discourse!

 

[MurriFlower]

I answered it on the other page. That's my answer. You'll need to just accept what I have wrote because that's my answer.

Further, I never said IDI theorists "lacked logic" per se. I said it was illogical to immediately correlate 'foreign' dna to an intruder. Big difference.It's not outlandish to question if the dna was transferred after the event -- it's called speculating.

That's twice you've misconstrued my posts. Please stop doing it as it is rather tedious.

No, I'm afraid it is you who are tedious.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

No, I'm afraid it is you who are tedious.

No need for personal insults. I have not insulted you. Infact, I have engaged in your debate even in spite of the fact you keep on misconstruing my words.

It says a lot about a person who attacks a new forum member by calling them names. How sad.But I realise you are just lashing out as I exposed your mistakes. Regards.

 

[wonderllama]

I certainly have never mentioned a factory worker ever!

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I certainly have never mentioned a factory worker ever!

lol! But if you ever did, I wouldn't hold it against you!

 

[UKGuy]

"Early in the investigation, police found male DNA in a drop of blood on JonBenet's underwear and determined it was not from anyone in her family. But Lacy said investigators were unable to say who it came from and whether that person was the killer.

Then, late last year, prosecutors turned over long underwear JonBenet was wearing to the Bode Technology Group near Washington, which looked for "touch DNA," or cells left behind where someone has touched something.

The lab has only been using this technology for about three years.

The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party."

"DNA from two sites on the long johns matched genetic material from an unknown male that had previously been recovered from blood in JonBenet's underpants. The matching DNA from three places on two articles of JonBenet's clothing convinced the district attorney that it belonged to the killer, and hadn't been left accidentally by a third party."

MurriFlower,

If you stand by what Lacy says e.g.

]police found male DNA in a drop of blood on JonBenet's underwear

Then you must accept that it is touch-dna otherwise it would be described as semen dna or saliva dna etc. This is a critical point even for Lacy if they were able to determine that it was not touch-dna then the case for an intruder would look very strong.

But Lacy has made no such determination and patently you yourself know no better e.g. you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

Just what is this genetic material is it semen or saliva or sweat or maybe they do not know, do you?

The matching DNA from three places on two articles of JonBenet's clothing convinced the district attorney that it belonged to the killer, and hadn't been left accidentally by a third party.

But its not DNA, which encompasses many biological types, its touch-dna unless you present evidence to the contrary I will personally correct you when you cite the touch-dna as DNA !


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Steve Thomas said on Larry King Aired May 31, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET "......Patsy cannot be convicted because of some reasonable doubt, but an intruder cannot be convicted either because of the same reasonable doubt. This case requires a confession"

Patsy responded that "It requires DNA identification."


This exchange clearly shows two mindsets regarding the Jonbenet case. The Ramsey camp were pushing for a case resting on dna. Steve Thomas, who felt Patsy killed JonBenet and that John Ramsey wasn't involved, felt only a confession would solve the case. In his views, the dna found on the underwear (which as of 2000 was all the police authorities knew) could be touch dna from a multitude of sources i.e factory workers who handle clothes etc.


Thus, the new findings in DNA are signalled by the Ramseys as evidence of an intruder -- how can foreign dna, from separate items of clothing possible match etc. However, if UKGuy is correct in what he has stated then the dna being not 'mixed' with Jonbenet's blood could still be 'touch' dna.It is plausible that the dna from the longjohns that supposedly matched that found in the underwear is a result of contamination after the crime. For MurriFlower, note that I'm saying it is possible and that it is only speculation.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Welcome to the forum, Let Forever Be. It gets rough, but we would like for you to hang around!

 

[UKGuy]

Steve Thomas said on Larry King Aired May 31, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET "......Patsy cannot be convicted because of some reasonable doubt, but an intruder cannot be convicted either because of the same reasonable doubt. This case requires a confession"

Patsy responded that "It requires DNA identification."


This exchange clearly shows two mindsets regarding the Jonbenet case. The Ramsey camp were pushing for a case resting on dna. Steve Thomas, who felt Patsy killed JonBenet and that John Ramsey wasn't involved, felt only a confession would solve the case. In his views, the dna found on the underwear (which as of 2000 was all the police authorities knew) could be touch dna from a multitude of sources i.e factory workers who handle clothes etc.


Thus, the new findings in DNA are signalled by the Ramseys as evidence of an intruder -- how can foreign dna, from separate items of clothing possible match etc. However, if UKGuy is correct in what he has stated then the dna being not 'mixed' with Jonbenet's blood could still be 'touch' dna.It is plausible that the dna from the longjohns that supposedly matched that found in the underwear is a result of contamination after the crime. For MurriFlower, note that I'm saying it is possible and that it is only speculation.

Let_Forever_Be,
Its possible for them to match if the source for the mis-described genetic material in JonBenet's underwear is the same as that of the longjohns.

This source may be direct as in an intruder, or indirect as from the gift wrapping the size-12's to the longjohns, or at the autopsy where we know correct procedures were not carried out.

Nobody has ever described the genetic material as blood cell(s), sweat cell(s), or semen cell(s) etc.

They know its male genetic material hence they must know the cell type, why have they never told us?


Answers on a postcard to John Ramsey.


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Welcome to the forum, Let Forever Be. It gets rough, but we would like for you to hang around!

Thanks for the advice! lol

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,
Its possible for them to match if the source for the mis-described genetic material in JonBenet's underwear is the same as that of the longjohns.

This source may be direct as in an intruder, or indirect as from the gift wrapping the size-12's to the longjohns, or at the autopsy where we know correct procedures were not carried out.

Nobody has ever described the genetic material as blood cell(s), sweat cell(s), or semen cell(s) etc.

They know its male genetic material hence they must know the cell type, why have they never told us?


Answers on a postcard to John Ramsey.


.

I agree.

There's many sound reasons as to why the 'material' on the underwear matches that on the longjonhs. The fact that items were brought into contact with one another, either at the time of the crime or even after via contamination is very plausible.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I agree.

There's many sound reasons as to why the 'material' on the underwear matches that on the longjonhs. The fact that items were brought into contact with one another, either at the time of the crime or even after via contamination is very plausible.

Or it could belong to an unknown party who came to the house to help stage the scene before anyone else was called.

 

[MurriFlower]

Or it could belong to an unknown party who came to the house to help stage the scene before anyone else was called.

Such as? Is this yet more people involved in the murder and cover up??

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Such as? Is this yet more people involved in the murder and cover up??

Could be. Why not? "Hey, So-and-So, we've got a hella crisis here. This is how it happened, but we sure can't let that get out, now can we? Can you help us out? Come right over. Just follow the flickering flashlight to the side door, and I'll let you in. Thanks, good buddy."

 

[MurriFlower]

Could be. Why not? "Hey, So-and-So, we've got a hella crisis here. This is how it happened, but we sure can't let that get out, now can we? Can you help us out? Come right over. Just follow the flickering flashlight to the side door, and I'll let you in. Thanks, good buddy."

Ahhh, good theory!