No intruder?

[Holdontoyourhat]

I dont care what size those undies were, PR could not account for the undies. She probably, maybe, cant remember Nothing, because she is a liar. The interviews are the smoking gun on this murder. It might have taken 14 years but it is all there.
Toltec, faithful, long time defender of JBR, Thankyou.
I now believe JBR was not killed in her bathroom, even though PR was messy I think she would have flushed the toliet had she seen it and picked up fecal stained undies? She had stuff soaking that she never got to because she was busy writing a ransom note. I am resolved that it wasnt planned because of Toltecs info on the bathroom. something happened unexpected, otherwise fecal stuff wouldnt fit into the picture! Even a crazy mother gone bad would flush the toliet and put soiled panties in sink, no? it is too dirty.PR did not take care of her baby, She probably smelled to high heaven when killed thus the need for the wipe down.

The interrogators lied, not PR.

Aside from the interrogators who lied about the underwear, there's ST's book and THATS IT. This is like looking for real news when the only newspaper is Globe and Star.

We know they lied because the fiber and oversize underwear cant be independently sourced; there is no expert testimony on the fiber and there are no photos of JBR in those double-sized underwear.

Also, and most importantly, the interviews have had no effect on the case. Why wouldn't they arrest PR if they knew she lied? Because they lied. The purpose for the interrogators lies were to cause PR to cave and confess. She never did, because she didn't do it.

That should be a little concerning, no? RDI raises its own doubts by claiming that photos and testimony exists but we just can't access it. How convenient. With that kind of thinking RDI can develop anything they want and act like its in the bag.

The case is now fortunately driven by the evidence, and the evidence is the DNA.

 

[Agatha_C]

I found this while researching and thought it interesting. Since I found the site and then read about it on FFJ, I want to give FFJ their propers for having posted it first.

http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/...ch-of-dna.html

Monday, July 14, 2008

A Touch of DNA
by Pat Brown


A "bombshell" piece of DNA evidence has emerged in the long unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey and cleared John and Patsy of any involvement in the death of their daughter, according to District Attorney Mary Lacy, who has written a long letter of apology to the family.
Touch DNA, a new technology developed by Bode Laboratories near Washington DC, has discovered nonfamilial DNA on the sides of JonBenét's long johns. "Touch" DNA is a process which allows analysts to scrape targeted areas of clothing for DNA that might have been left by the perpetrator of a crime.
In JonBenét's case, it was surmised her killer might have pulled down her long johns to commit a sexual assault upon her, thereby leaving microscopic skin cells that the new Touch DNA technology could identify.
A knife was scraped along the waistband and sides of the long johns and previously undiscovered genetic material was found. Tests proved the DNA to be from a male unrelated to the Ramseys. This new DNA supposedly matches some other unidentified DNA found on JonBenét's panties years ago.

Quite convincing stuff until I realized what was missing from this picture: Patsy Ramsey's Touch DNA, and JonBenét's Touch DNA. When I further considered how easily this Touch DNA might have transfered off of any other person to the hands of Patsy or JonBenét—and then onto the little girl's long johns and panties—my confidence in this new evidence waned.

JonBenét had had an exciting and busy day, this last day of her life. She had gone to a party with her parents and enjoyed the company of a number of other adults and children. She then fell asleep on the way home. John carried her into the house and to her room. He laid her down on the bed and took off her coat and shoes. Then Patsy removed her pants and replaced them with the long johns.

Reviewing who might have touched what—and when and where they might have done so—we can see John would have had the least opportunity to touch JonBenét's underwear (if he were not involved in the crime) as while he was carrying her, the underwear was still covered by her outer clothing. Patsy, on the other hand, certainly must have handled her undergarments. Where then is her Touch DNA on the long johns that she forced onto the sleeping child? This is not an easy task and I would bet she had to get a good grip on the waist band to pull them on properly. Surely, she touched the sides of the long johns as well.

And what of JonBenét? Isn't it likely that her own Touch DNA is on her panties (as she would have pulled them up and down to go to the bathroom)? Wouldn't her Touch DNA also be on the long johns since even sleeping children's hands may come in contact with their clothes as they toss and move about?

Furthermore, skin cells pass easily from one human to another, so that Touch DNA on JonBenét's clothing may have come from someone she touched before she touched herself. Touch DNA, therefore, is better as a test of inclusion rather than exclusion. If some 40-year-old sex offender ends up matching the DNA on JonBenét's underwear, well then, he would have a lot of explaining to do. However, if the match is an eighteen year old—someone who was but six years old at the time of JonBenét's murder—then John and Patsy are hardly off the hook.

We have also, at this point, only the DA's word that the tests were done properly and that they yielded those particular results. The DNA evidence has not been made public nor has it been examined in a court of law for its validity.

Lastly, let's say we accept that the DNA evidence came from a third party. It would seem likely that there should be more of that DNA at the scene. Where is it? If the perpetrator was careless enough to not wear gloves while sexually assaulting JonBenét, should we not find many more of those skin cells on her shirt, on the blanket, on the ransom note, etc.?

While no one is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, the presence of DNA from an unknown source doesn't necessarily prove a one-time suspect innocent either. Of all people, the DA should know this and that letter of apology should have been kept in reserve until enough evidence surfaces to effect the arrest and prosecution of the actual killer of JonBenét Ramsey.

 

[Agatha_C]

Sorry the FFJ poster was KoldKase and I forgot Pat Browns link...

http://www.criminalprofilerpatbrown.com/

http://www.patbrownprofiling.com/biography.html

 

[RTC]

The interrogators lied, not PR.

Aside from the interrogators who lied about the underwear, there's ST's book and THATS IT. This is like looking for real news when the only newspaper is Globe and Star.

We know they lied because the fiber and oversize underwear cant be independently sourced; there is no expert testimony on the fiber and there are no photos of JBR in those double-sized underwear.

Also, and most importantly, the interviews have had no effect on the case. Why wouldn't they arrest PR if they knew she lied? Because they lied. The purpose for the interrogators lies were to cause PR to cave and confess. She never did, because she didn't do it.

That should be a little concerning, no? RDI raises its own doubts by claiming that photos and testimony exists but we just can't access it. How convenient. With that kind of thinking RDI can develop anything they want and act like its in the bag.

The case is now fortunately driven by the evidence, and the evidence is the DNA.

Well, the way I see it is that PR didnt do this interview for a while.... and she should have known by then the facts of what her daughter was wearing upon her BRUTAL murder! She did not deny in the interview the existance of the panties, in fact in her PR way tried to dismiss the panties. she never called out any cop for lying, pushing..... She is the outright Liar, How can you dismiss that?

I read all your posts, you expect me to believe the Intruder came in empty handed and left with
rope
tape
ransom note pages
smelly sized 6 undies
pajama bottoms
gloves
and molested her while she stunk to high heaven while leaving no junk of him/her self!

oh yeah the touch DNA does bother me but the rest of the stuff makes up for it. The touch DNA could have easily come from the sweatshirt/blanket that was placed upon her after she was carried up or in transport or at autopsy.
it doesnt account for PR lies. Nothing can dismiss her non recollection. Unless you want to call her a prescription drug addict and I dont think you want to go there.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, the way I see it is that PR didnt do this interview for a while.... and she should have known by then the facts of what her daughter was wearing upon her BRUTAL murder! She did not deny in the interview the existance of the panties, in fact in her PR way tried to dismiss the panties. she never called out any cop for lying, pushing..... She is the outright Liar, How can you dismiss that?

I read all your posts, you expect me to believe the Intruder came in empty handed and left with
rope
tape
ransom note pages
smelly sized 6 undies
pajama bottoms
gloves
and molested her while she stunk to high heaven while leaving no junk of him/her self!

oh yeah the touch DNA does bother me but the rest of the stuff makes up for it. The touch DNA could have easily come from the sweatshirt/blanket that was placed upon her after she was carried up or in transport or at autopsy.
it doesnt account for PR lies. Nothing can dismiss her non recollection. Unless you want to call her a prescription drug addict and I dont think you want to go there.

I think this idea is a hallucination. Standard routine of making up something absurd and then calling it IDI's idea and calling it absurd. Its become very trite and boring.

The interesting part of this one is that NONE of the things you listed necessarily happened!:crazy:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I found this while researching and thought it interesting. Since I found the site and then read about it on FFJ, I want to give FFJ their propers for having posted it first.

http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/...ch-of-dna.html

Monday, July 14, 2008

A Touch of DNA
by Pat Brown


A "bombshell" piece of DNA evidence has emerged in the long unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey and cleared John and Patsy of any involvement in the death of their daughter, according to District Attorney Mary Lacy, who has written a long letter of apology to the family.
Touch DNA, a new technology developed by Bode Laboratories near Washington DC, has discovered nonfamilial DNA on the sides of JonBenét's long johns. "Touch" DNA is a process which allows analysts to scrape targeted areas of clothing for DNA that might have been left by the perpetrator of a crime.
In JonBenét's case, it was surmised her killer might have pulled down her long johns to commit a sexual assault upon her, thereby leaving microscopic skin cells that the new Touch DNA technology could identify.
A knife was scraped along the waistband and sides of the long johns and previously undiscovered genetic material was found. Tests proved the DNA to be from a male unrelated to the Ramseys. This new DNA supposedly matches some other unidentified DNA found on JonBenét's panties years ago.

Quite convincing stuff until I realized what was missing from this picture: Patsy Ramsey's Touch DNA, and JonBenét's Touch DNA. When I further considered how easily this Touch DNA might have transfered off of any other person to the hands of Patsy or JonBenét—and then onto the little girl's long johns and panties—my confidence in this new evidence waned.

JonBenét had had an exciting and busy day, this last day of her life. She had gone to a party with her parents and enjoyed the company of a number of other adults and children. She then fell asleep on the way home. John carried her into the house and to her room. He laid her down on the bed and took off her coat and shoes. Then Patsy removed her pants and replaced them with the long johns.

Reviewing who might have touched what—and when and where they might have done so—we can see John would have had the least opportunity to touch JonBenét's underwear (if he were not involved in the crime) as while he was carrying her, the underwear was still covered by her outer clothing. Patsy, on the other hand, certainly must have handled her undergarments. Where then is her Touch DNA on the long johns that she forced onto the sleeping child? This is not an easy task and I would bet she had to get a good grip on the waist band to pull them on properly. Surely, she touched the sides of the long johns as well.

And what of JonBenét? Isn't it likely that her own Touch DNA is on her panties (as she would have pulled them up and down to go to the bathroom)? Wouldn't her Touch DNA also be on the long johns since even sleeping children's hands may come in contact with their clothes as they toss and move about?

Furthermore, skin cells pass easily from one human to another, so that Touch DNA on JonBenét's clothing may have come from someone she touched before she touched herself. Touch DNA, therefore, is better as a test of inclusion rather than exclusion. If some 40-year-old sex offender ends up matching the DNA on JonBenét's underwear, well then, he would have a lot of explaining to do. However, if the match is an eighteen year old—someone who was but six years old at the time of JonBenét's murder—then John and Patsy are hardly off the hook.

We have also, at this point, only the DA's word that the tests were done properly and that they yielded those particular results. The DNA evidence has not been made public nor has it been examined in a court of law for its validity.

Lastly, let's say we accept that the DNA evidence came from a third party. It would seem likely that there should be more of that DNA at the scene. Where is it? If the perpetrator was careless enough to not wear gloves while sexually assaulting JonBenét, should we not find many more of those skin cells on her shirt, on the blanket, on the ransom note, etc.?

While no one is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, the presence of DNA from an unknown source doesn't necessarily prove a one-time suspect innocent either. Of all people, the DA should know this and that letter of apology should have been kept in reserve until enough evidence surfaces to effect the arrest and prosecution of the actual killer of JonBenét Ramsey.

Nah.

The glaring omission from your post is the original DNA found mixed with blood in the crotch of JBR's underwear. Huge, huge, huge omission. If the idea was to make a credible argument it failed because of this rather stunning omission.

Further, PR or JR DNA may have been found and deemed insignificant since they lived there. Who knows and who cares? They now have the DNA of JBR's assailant.

The underwear blood stain DNA and the touch DNA are mutually corroborative and this fact basically nullifies these types of arguments outright. Remember the original DNA found in 2004 is a different sample than the touch DNA found in 2008. Each was processed by separate labs but with the same profile result. Only the 2008 DNA is a complete profile and all markers matched the 2004 profile. All found in places already known to have been handled by a criminal. Quite a coinkydink, no?

 

[SunnieRN]

Well think on this SunnieRN. If BPD were not incompetent (and they DID in fact search for the panties) WHY would the Rs' have handed them over YEARS LATER if they were the killers? That is a much more interesting question.

Alrighty MF, the reason the R's turned in the rest of the underwear, was to try and prove they were NOT lying. Patsy said that she had put the rest of the underwear in JonBenets drawer. Patsy said JonBenet liked the undies, so as far as she was concerned, 'they were free game'. BPD took into custody EVERY pair of JonBenets undies. There were NO size 12 undies. People have discussed the undies and why the rest of the pack never showed up. I mean poor dear Patsy, who never lies, stated she gave them to her daughter. Put them in her undie drawer herself. You tell me why they turned them in MF. It is clear to me and obviously many others here. Cover one lie, with another. Oh the tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive. The R's were VERY well versed in deception.

why were there not in the winecellar where you said there were?

Any answers?

Because someone moved them.

 

[MurriFlower]

Alrighty MF, the reason the R's turned in the rest of the underwear, was to try and prove they were NOT lying. Patsy said that she had put the rest of the underwear in JonBenets drawer. Patsy said JonBenet liked the undies, so as far as she was concerned, 'they were free game'. BPD took into custody EVERY pair of JonBenets undies. There were NO size 12 undies. People have discussed the undies and why the rest of the pack never showed up. I mean poor dear Patsy, who never lies, stated she gave them to her daughter. Put them in her undie drawer herself. You tell me why they turned them in MF. It is clear to me and obviously many others here. Cover one lie, with another. Oh the tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive. The R's were VERY well versed in deception.



Because someone moved them.

Let's just assume I'm right and JBR opened the size 12 panties (which were large but not humongous) and put on a clean, new, Wednesday pair, in honour of Christmas. What would she have done with the remaining pairs? Take a look at the bedroom and try to imagine her replacing them in the drawer. Likely? Not really. So, I'd guess the remaining panties were probably left where ever she was when she opened them. Perhaps in the bathroom or on the bed, or in some other room that she found scissors to cut the tie. They would not be back in the drawer where PR said she left them. Do you understand and agree with this likelihood? So BPD said they searched the drawers and didn't find the rest. Probably true. They also said they found soiled underwear, small underwear, but no size 12 underwear. Again possibly true. So, who do you think was putting soiled underwear in JBR's drawers? This is a far more important question.

Now we go to the panties in the wc theory. PR killed her daughter then took off her size 6 panties and opened a box of size 12's that were to hand and put one pair on. What did she do with the soiled panties? She was right next to the laundry, so the normal thing to do would be to put them in the machine or with the other dirty clothes - no? Then there is the problem of (not disposing of, but just removing) the remaining size 12 panties, including the plastic container they came in. Several years later, they produced the remaining panties in order to, um, um, can't think of a reason.

Your empathy with PR is touching.

 

[Ames]

I think this idea is a hallucination. Standard routine of making up something absurd and then calling it IDI's idea and calling it absurd. Its become very trite and boring.

The interesting part of this one is that NONE of the things you listed necessarily happened!:crazy:

The intruder did it scenaro is a big hallucination...and didn't happen.

 

[Ames]

Alrighty MF, the reason the R's turned in the rest of the underwear, was to try and prove they were NOT lying. Patsy said that she had put the rest of the underwear in JonBenets drawer. Patsy said JonBenet liked the undies, so as far as she was concerned, 'they were free game'. BPD took into custody EVERY pair of JonBenets undies. There were NO size 12 undies. People have discussed the undies and why the rest of the pack never showed up. I mean poor dear Patsy, who never lies, stated she gave them to her daughter. Put them in her undie drawer herself. You tell me why they turned them in MF. It is clear to me and obviously many others here. Cover one lie, with another. Oh the tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive. The R's were VERY well versed in deception.



Because someone moved them.

I am thinking that they left out in that golf club bag that JR insisted that he had to have, when PP when in to fetch a "few things" for the "funeral". PR said that she couldn't even remember the last time that JR even played golf, so why were those clubs and that bag so dang important to him? If my daughter had just been brutally murdered, the absolute last thing on my mind would be my golfbag and clubs....even if I played golf every single day of my life.

 

[MurriFlower]

I am thinking that they left out in that golf club bag that JR insisted that he had to have, when PP when in to fetch a "few things" for the "funeral". PR said that she couldn't even remember the last time that JR even played golf, so why were those clubs and that bag so dang important to him? If my daughter had just been brutally murdered, the absolute last thing on my mind would be my golfbag and clubs....even if I played golf every single day of my life.

Oh great!! Off the oversized panties and back onto the evidence removed in the golf bag. Goody!!

We couldn't combine this with another discussion of the Barbie dolls or of the dolly with the tape on it's neck, just to make it more interesting could we?

 

[Agatha_C]

Nah.

The glaring omission from your post is the original DNA found mixed with blood in the crotch of JBR's underwear. Huge, huge, huge omission. If the idea was to make a credible argument it failed because of this rather stunning omission.

Further, PR or JR DNA may have been found and deemed insignificant since they lived there. Who knows and who cares? They now have the DNA of JBR's assailant.

The underwear blood stain DNA and the touch DNA are mutually corroborative and this fact basically nullifies these types of arguments outright. Remember the original DNA found in 2004 is a different sample than the touch DNA found in 2008. Each was processed by separate labs but with the same profile result. Only the 2008 DNA is a complete profile and all markers matched the 2004 profile. All found in places already known to have been handled by a criminal. Quite a coinkydink, no?

Did I make my post as an argument that required you to reply, or did I state that I found it interesting? Whether you agree or disagree, doesnt matter, I didnt write it, therefore I did not omit anything.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Did I make my post as an argument that required you to reply, or did I state that I found it interesting? Whether you agree or disagree, doesnt matter, I didnt write it, therefore I did not omit anything.

Well then nice job with the copying and pasting.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The intruder did it scenaro is a big hallucination...and didn't happen.

Yes it did. How else would the DNA of an unknown person get all over JBR's clothing she was wearing at the time?

Who owns the cord, tape, blunt instrument, handwriting, linguistics, or violent personality? JR? PR? RDI can't prove even ONE of these things belong to EITHER PR OR JR. THats a lot to not prove, and a lot to not know, to profess IDI didn't happen. Even BPD doens't say that, so you're out there on a limb. Way out.

 

[Zak]

Yes it did. How else would the DNA of an unknown person get all over JBR's clothing she was wearing at the time?

Who owns the cord, tape, blunt instrument, handwriting, linguistics, or violent personality? JR? PR? RDI can't prove even ONE of these things belong to EITHER PR OR JR. THats a lot to not prove, and a lot to not know, to profess IDI didn't happen. Even BPD doens't say that, so you're out there on a limb. Way out.

My bold.

The same can be said for IDI. IDI can not prove that any of the items didn't belong to the R's.

 

[Ames]

Oh great!! Off the oversized panties and back onto the evidence removed in the golf bag. Goody!!

We couldn't combine this with another discussion of the Barbie dolls or of the dolly with the tape on it's neck, just to make it more interesting could we?

Well, they had to have went SOMEWHERE, considering the Ramsey's turned them in a year later, saying that they "found" them (the remaining pairs) in a crate when they moved. So...they were "lost"...and then bam, they show up. They left out of that house some way or another, because they were no where to be found the morning after the murder. They were not in her panty panty drawer....and an intruder would have just left the package on the floor...IMO...why hide it?? So where WERE they???? If not taken out of that house by PP??

 

[Ames]

Yes it did. How else would the DNA of an unknown person get all over JBR's clothing she was wearing at the time?

Who owns the cord, tape, blunt instrument, handwriting, linguistics, or violent personality? JR? PR? RDI can't prove even ONE of these things belong to EITHER PR OR JR. THats a lot to not prove, and a lot to not know, to profess IDI didn't happen. Even BPD doens't say that, so you're out there on a limb. Way out.

Right. Suuureee it "did", just keep telling yourself that, because the rest of us know better.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Right. Suuureee it "did", just keep telling yourself that, because the rest of us know better.

Then please explain how the DNA from a person who was not at the Whites and not at the lab got all over JBR's clothing she was wearing at the time, including mixed with assault blood. I'd love to know exactly how that happened, especially getting it mixed with JBR's blood since there wasn't that much of it.

When you're done explaining your happenstance, like we're all then expected to just believe it, please reread your explanation and note how inferior it is to an intruder placing 'his' hands on JBR that night. It seems Occams Razor favors IDI in the circumstance of the DNA because direct transfer by criminal is by far the simplest explanation for the evidence.

 

[madeleine]

My bold.

The same can be said for IDI. IDI can not prove that any of the items didn't belong to the R's.

I kinda disagree with this one.
The cops and the DA have to prove the items belong to the Ramseys.you gotta prove guilt not innocence.
Until then they are not sourced,not to the R's ,not to an intruder.
Same with the Dna,until it's sourced it doesn't matter if it DOESN'T match the R's.It will matter when it does match someone.

 

[madeleine]

Who owns the cord, tape, blunt instrument, handwriting, linguistics, or violent personality? JR? PR?

Nobody knows.
We can't trace them back to the Dna owner either though.