POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?

[Medea]

They passed LDT that were given by people they hired, that's not very compelling to me. Its like having the defense expert spout some unreliable mumbo jumbo that supposedly 'prove's the defendant couldn't have committed the crime...

And allegedly Patsy took 3 tries to pass.....not very convincing.

If they had passed a polygraph given by the FBI, then I might start to believe the intruder theory, but a polygraph that I took several times to get the right result which was given by my handpicked polygrapher....not very convincing.

 

[BBB167893]

They passed LDT that were given by people they hired, that's not very compelling to me. Its like having the defense expert spout some unreliable mumbo jumbo that supposedly 'prove's the defendant couldn't have committed the crime...

Actually, that's exactly what it is.

And allegedly Patsy took 3 tries to pass.....not very convincing.

After failing to pass a previous one.

If they had passed a polygraph given by the FBI, then I might start to believe the intruder theory, but a polygraph that I took several times to get the right result which was given by my handpicked polygrapher....not very convincing.

The FBI gave them a lot of chances to do just that.

http://antipolygraph.org/

http://crimemagazine.com/07/polygraph,0722-7.htm

http://jwarchive.tripod.com/10042000JW-PolygraphTidbits-312.txt

 

[TexMex]

How valid can results be IF you don't test ALL the objects you know the attacked had to handle?

How valid can results be IF you won't even bother to get samples from the boys she was playing with so you know for a FACT that the dna is from some unknown person?

Hi LI

The DNA in the panties is mixed with her blood. It matches the new DNA.

It is what it is....DNA left by whoever made her bleed and it's not her parents.

 

[BBB167893]

Or it was DNA left there she bled onto. No DNA was found in her.

 

[LinasK]

Or it was DNA left there she bled onto. No DNA was found in her.

And... the invisible intruder managed not to leave his DNA anywhere else that they tested, yet John and Patsy's fibers were found in places on JB where they shouldn't be found!

 

[BBB167893]

And... the invisible intruder managed not to leave his DNA anywhere else that they tested, yet John and Patsy's fibers were found in places on JB where they shouldn't be found!

Indeed.

 

[Medea]

Or it was DNA left there she bled onto. No DNA was found in her.

That's what I think. Has it been said definitively what the source of any of this DNA is? I know Lin Wood tried to make it seem like the panty DNA was saliva...but I have to believe that is a huge misreprentation since I think unknown male saliva in her panties would be pretty strong evidence of an intruder that BDP would not have overlooked and it would never have been put down to something from the manifacturer.

 

[LI_Mom]

Hi LI

The DNA in the panties is mixed with her blood. It matches the new DNA.

It is what it is....DNA left by whoever made her bleed and it's not her parents.

Hiya Tex.

That's true & the DNA evidence can ONLY be useful if you are willing to test for UNKNOWNS also.

We cannot be 100% sure that JB didn't have this male dna under her own nail for completely innocent reasons.

If it's under her own nail.... it's entirely possible that she transferred some to her own vaginal area when she used the bathroom or touched her own genitals.

It's also still possible that she touched her own waistband while she was asleep/awake.


The picking & choosing of what will & will not be tested is BAD, BAD SCIENCE. But that's hardly a surprise in such a shoddy investigation such as JB's has been.

This partial 'evidence' would be destroyed by any defense lawyer.... there are too many unanswered questions.

 

[TexMex]

All I know is it was enough to clear Karr yet with even more of the same DNA found it's not enough to clear the Ramseys.

Heck, ya'll were ready to believe a 'factory worker in China sneezed' on the panties (so of course it's not the Ramseys!)

It's a strange males DNA on the body of a dead six year old girl. In three spots....not coincidence.

 

[BBB167893]

Wrong. Karr was cleared because they couldn't even place him in the state that night, or any night.

Heck, ya'll were ready to believe a 'factory worker in China sneezed' on the panties (so of course it's not the Ramseys!)

That's what the investigators found. Henry Lee leaps to mind.

It's a strange males DNA on the body of a dead six year old girl. In three spots....not coincidence.

Not proof, either.

 

[TexMex]

Hiya Tex.

That's true & the DNA evidence can ONLY be useful if you are willing to test for UNKNOWNS also.

We cannot be 100% sure that JB didn't have this male dna under her own nail for completely innocent reasons.

If it's under her own nail.... it's entirely possible that she transferred some to her own vaginal area when she used the bathroom or touched her own genitals.

It's also still possible that she touched her own waistband while she was asleep/awake.


The picking & choosing of what will & will not be tested is BAD, BAD SCIENCE. But that's hardly a surprise in such a shoddy investigation such as JB's has been.

This partial 'evidence' would be destroyed by any defense lawyer.... there are too many unanswered questions.

Hiya back LI

We sure do agree on a bad investigation. This kid deserved better.

 

[Jayce]

If it's under her own nail.... it's entirely possible that she transferred some to her own vaginal area when she used the bathroom or touched her own genitals.

It's also still possible that she touched her own waistband while she was asleep/awake.

Extremely unlikely. The DNA found on the leggings and in her panties were almost certainly not the result of Secondary Transfer (as I have explained elsewhere). That means that an unidentified male had direct contact with both her leggings and her underwear. This is very hard to explain innocently.

 

[BBB167893]

Someone had contact with the leggings and it got into the underwear. it wasn't a complete profile. JB's DNA was. If they were left at the same time, there's not reason for it not to be complete.

 

[Jayce]

That's what the investigators found. Henry Lee leaps to mind.

Investigator's found that in some packages of unopened underwear, a factory worker's DNA was present. However, the findings of the same DNA on the leggings blows this theory out of the water.

 

[BBB167893]

Directly, yes.

 

[Jayce]

Someone had contact with the leggings and it got into the underwear. it wasn't a complete profile.

Couldn't have happened because there was enough DNA in the underwear to do a routine STR test. Therefore it couldn't have gotten there as a result of secondary transfer. And they were able to get about 10 LOCI, which is enough to be extremely confident in a match.

 

[TexMex]

Extremely unlikely. The DNA found on the leggings and in her panties were almost certainly not the result of Secondary Transfer (as I have explained elsewhere). That means that an unidentified male had direct contact with both her leggings and her underwear. This is very hard to explain innocently.

The calvary has arrived! Thank you Jayce.

I don't particularly care for the Ramsey's. But at the same time I truly do not believe they killed their daughter.
I have relatives involved with dance/pagents...they spend obscene amounts of time and money doing this activity and make our little neice up to look like a 25 year old and it disturbs me that they encourage/allow the make up and costumes. To me kids should be kids for as long as possible....plenty of time to be grown up later!

IMO the Ramseys DID contribute to their daughters death in this fashion: a
stalker/pervert saw her, targeted her and murdered her after seeing her in her made up, costumed glory at one of these affairs.

 

[BBB167893]

Standard DNA tests are much more revealing than they were years ago.

10 loci is not a full profile. JB's had a full profile. This did not. highly unlikely it could have been from that night.

Lacy would look on the netherside of hell if she thought she'd find an intruder.

 

[LI_Mom]

All I know is it was enough to clear Karr yet with even more of the same DNA found it's not enough to clear the Ramseys.

Heck, ya'll were ready to believe a 'factory worker in China sneezed' on the panties (so of course it's not the Ramseys!)

It's a strange males DNA on the body of a dead six year old girl. In three spots....not coincidence.

It's easy to exclude a person if you can find NO PROOF that they were at the murder scene.

That's why most people while they believe this touch dna might be proof of a 'stranger'... are shocked that Lacy would pretend this is enough evidence to exclude a person she KNOWS was there.

Especially since Lacy herself once admitted it is possible the dna has NOTHING to do with the case. This 360 degree turn stinks to high heaven. And if she doesn't understand how illogical her new announcement was.... then she's UNFIT to be a dog catcher... let alone a DA.

 

[Jayce]

Standard DNA tests are much more revealing than they were years ago.

They are very revealing. But they aren't going to detect Secondary Transfer DNA. For that, you need LCN testing.