Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[Roy23]

Smelly Squirrel,
In the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey if you have not located and physically identified some person e.g. using dna matching. Then you have no formal forensic evidence linking with anyone outside of the Ramsey household.


That in plain english means you personally have to know this persons identity before you can make any claims about an intruder!




.

Why cant you understand this simple concept? There are many unsolved cases here and in the UK. There is evidence that points in many different directions. But to say there is no evidence of an intruder is just not true. The foreign DNA itself in many areas suggests there might be an intruder. Now people like me think it suggests it 100%. And people like you can question it but to discount it as not evidence is just an absolute bias.

You don't have to know who the person is. If they did, we wouldn't have to speculate anymore.

 

[Junebug99]

Interesting link on touch DNA and people it has cleared. Why IDI theorist totally deny the significance of the touch DNA on JBR is beyond me.

http://www.dnaforensics.com/TouchDNA.aspx

 

[UKGuy]

Wth? This is one of the most ridiculous things i've seen regarding this case.
Many crimes today remain unsolved due to no DNA match, they have DNA, they know it belongs to the killer, but they haven't matched it yet, it's hardly a rare occurrence. :banghead:

Junebug99,
That may be so. But in the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey you personally do not know if the dna found on JonBenet belongs to someone external to the Ramsey househould.

Establish this as fact and you will have an intruder.

 

[Roy23]

Junebug99,
That may be so. But in the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey you personally do not know if the dna found on JonBenet belongs to someone external to the Ramsey househould.

Establish this as fact and you will have an intruder.

Wow! You really need to read up on this because you just said there is an intruder. You don't know you said it but you did. Do you know that the DNA is from a person? And only a person? And it is in five different places on her body. These aren't particles that fly through the air. It is from living cells from a human being. Did you also know that everyone knows this? And this includes RDI's posting here.

We all know it is from a person. Where we argue is how it got there. Did you also know that they ALL say it is not from a Ramsey? I am being for real with you. Did you know they tested LE and medical personel dealing in this case?
So it ain't them or a Ramsey. And everyone will admit to here that it is from a Human Being. Do the math.

 

[UKGuy]

Why cant you understand this simple concept? There are many unsolved cases here and in the UK. There is evidence that points in many different directions. But to say there is no evidence of an intruder is just not true. The foreign DNA itself in many areas suggests there might be an intruder. Now people like me think it suggests it 100%. And people like you can question it but to discount it as not evidence is just an absolute bias.

You don't have to know who the person is. If they did, we wouldn't have to speculate anymore.

Roy23,
Because I am not as naive as you! I have never ever accepted that the dna found on JonBenet demonstrates evidence of an intruder, for the Ramsey case I term this the dna fallacy.


The dna found on JonBenet's underwear has never been typed, but has been described as touch-dna. So we know its not semen or saliva dna.

The foreign DNA itself in many areas suggests there might be an intruder. Now people like me think it suggests it 100%. And people like you can question it but to discount it as not evidence is just an absolute bias.

Firstly its not foreign DNA, do you get that? Its just forensic evidence and has been described as touch-dna.

You are welcome to think anything you want, but that does not mean it will produce a coherent theory regarding the death of JonBenet.

In this case, you will have to match some person external to the Ramsey household to demonstrate that the touch-dna did not arrive on JonBenet by accident.

Until that happens you will have no evidence of an intruder!



.

 

[UKGuy]

Wow! You really need to read up on this because you just said there is an intruder. You don't know you said it but you did. Do you know that the DNA is from a person? And only a person? And it is in five different places on her body. These aren't particles that fly through the air. It is from living cells from a human being. Did you also know that everyone knows this? And this includes RDI's posting here.

We all know it is from a person. Where we argue is how it got there. Did you also know that they ALL say it is not from a Ramsey? I am being for real with you. Did you know they tested LE and medical personel dealing in this case?
So it ain't them or a Ramsey. And everyone will admit to here that it is from a Human Being. Do the math.

Roy23,
Nice! as Borat says, but you still do not have any formal forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey houshold.

Produce a match and you have someone we can clear or charge until then all you have is the Team Ramsey rhetoric.



.

 

[Roy23]

Roy23,
Nice! as Borat says, but you still do not have any formal forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey houshold.

Produce a match and you have someone we can clear or charge until then all you have is the Team Ramsey rhetoric.



.

Not at all UK. Do you not understand that there are hundreds of cases where DNA is found and no match has been found? LE has already cleared people due to DNA. You can read it. The BTK Killer, the Green River Killer, were cold cases that LE had DNA and no other corroborative evidence. You don't have to have a match first. It don't work that way. The fact that it is in CODIS is all you need to know.

The only argument RDI can make is that is was an innocent transfer. You aren't making that argument it seems. Unless you do, it is lack of understanding.

And this ain't Ramsey rhetoric, this is from LE. They admit they have multiple DNA samples that don't match a Ramsey family member.

 

[Junebug99]

Ukguy:

The DNA in her underwear is thought to be from Saliva, as a matter of fact some argued
it was from a worker sneezing, but that doesn't explain the same DNA under fingernails and on the sides of her long johns. I've provided several links in other threads indicating they think it's saliva, do you care to provide one that says it's NOT saliva?

 

[Junebug99]

Link

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200608/31/eng20060831_298460.html

 

[DeeDee249]

The tape used to over JBR's mouth and part of the Paintbrush was missing if I understood correctly.

The tape wasn't missing! How do you think it was tested for Patsy's fibers? Part of the brush-yes. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the poster I answered referred to someone having "broken into" the house. No evidence of that- no forced entry. Nothing was missing in the sense that there was NO robbery or kidnapping.
That paint brush part may not be as missing as we think it is.

 

[DeeDee249]

Link

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200608/31/eng20060831_298460.html

Once again- the words "thought to be" are NOT PROOF that is is saliva. "Thought to be" is meaningless. The material on her thighs and pubic area were "thought to be" semen. UNTIL it was tested and PROVED to be her own blood.

 

[runsdeep]

Once again- the words "thought to be" are NOT PROOF that is is saliva. "Thought to be" is meaningless. The material on her thighs and pubic area were "thought to be" semen. UNTIL it was tested and PROVED to be her own blood.

maybe a condom was used?

 

[DeeDee249]

maybe a condom was used?

The material on her legs was TESTED and found to be her own blood.
This is how a fluoroscope works: the black light is shone on any areas deemed necessary- as blood was found in her panties, the body would of course be tested with a fluoroscope. When blood, semen, urine is present, the black light will reveal it. BUT the fluoroscope alone does not identify what the substance is. For that, swabs must be taken and tested- in this case two things were identified- JB's own blood and dark cotton fibers which the coroner said indicated the area had been wiped down with a cloth. A navy cotton bathrobe belonging to JR was found in an odd place- the den. I have no idea whether the bathrobe was tested against the cotton fibers for a match. If Aunty P got it before LE realized they needed it- well- there 'ya go.
Even with condom use, there is evidence of it. The coroner told LE present at the autopsy that he did not feel there was penile penetration, that it was digital penetration.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,



She would have also left the implements there in plain sight. On the other hand, the duct tape and cord have never been found. This is an inconsistency problem for RDI.

Not really. I'm of the mind that there may not have been any duct tape and cord LEFT to be found. As for the rest, they WERE left out in plain sight, last I knew.

That doesn't explain the match to the long johns, which was my point.

Squirrel, I'm hard-pressed to find any responsible investigator who would describe a partial profile as a "match" to anything.

 

[BBB167893]

That's a nasty thing to say.

Maybe so, but the sad part is, it's also true. It doesn't take an advanced degree in psychology to realize that Lin Wood's pose as being the legal equivalent of St. Jude is as phony as a $3 bill and that he has an overwhelming NEED--drawn from what happened to his family-- to see guilty people walk free. Someone on another forum nailed it when they described him as a "nemesis to justice."

 

[BBB167893]

The dna in her underwear is thought to be mixed with saliva, the same DNA which is skin cells under nails and on side of long johns, it's the DNA of the killer , and it's obvious.

A little bit of friendly advice, JuneBug: use sources OTHER than paid Ramsey stooges like Lin Wood and those two Phillip Marlowe-wannabes.

 

[BBB167893]

Why RDI theorist totally deny the significance of the touch DNA on JBR is beyond me.

http://www.dnaforensics.com/TouchDNA.aspx

Then let me help explain it, JuneBug. It's because the science of Touch DNA is the fulfillment (or at least, the beginning of fulfillment) of a prediction made several years ago by LE experts who understand the drawbacks of the science. Some of them even spoke about it in regard to this case in particular.

Specifically, no less than Henry Lee stated a few years ago that in HALF (read that again! HALF) of all cases where DNA is discovered, the DNA is irrelevant to the crime. Now, that was back in the halcyon days when you actually needed a SIZEABLE sample of DNA in order to do an analysis in the first place.

Flash forward to 2006, during the JMK debacle, an FBI criminologist was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. During that interview, she expressed a concern that is being taken up by others now: that as DNA testing methods get more sensitive, the MORE likely they are to detect DNA which is not relevant to the crime at hand. One must remember: as good as these machines get, they are still machines. They cannot tell what DNA is relevant and which is not.

Now triangulate that with this simple fact: human DNA is EVERYWHERE. The world is bristling with it. Each one of us is very likely COVERED with DNA which is not our own. Touch DNA does not require a sizeable sample, but as little as two or three skin cells, which could come from anywhere.

I'll be perfectly honest with you guys: if the DNA in question was something unmistakable, like blood or semen, I never would have my awakening, as such. But the idea of a test that can pick up DNA from a single skin cell scares the living CR** outta me. For now, I can only take solace in the idea that most LE agents, unlike the Boulder DA, are still wise enough to understand the limitations of forensic science and use it properly. But how long will that last?

 

[Roy23]

Touch DNA does have many scary attributes to it. It really does. You have to pick the scenario that it works and avoid when it is dangerous. DNA, which I think is saliva, was a good start. It was small sample. But more than anything it was in the underpants of a 6 year old girl who contacted by sexual means.

The touch DNA only corroborated the DNA they already had. It wasn't some Chinese factory worker anymore. And LE is looking for an intruder.

 

[BBB167893]

Ukguy:

The DNA in her underwear is thought to be from Saliva, as a matter of fact some argued
it was from a worker sneezing, but that doesn't explain the same DNA under fingernails and on the sides of her long johns. I've provided several links in other threads indicating they think it's saliva, do you care to provide one that says it's NOT saliva?

Maybe. I'm trying to remember it, and hopefully someone out there has immediate access to it, but in 2004, Tom Bennett, the head investigator at that time, felt compelled to publically CORRECT some of the assertions you're so fond of repeating. If memory serves, Bennett said that they could not say that it was saliva or anything else specific.

 

[Roy23]

Maybe. I'm trying to remember it, and hopefully someone out there has immediate access to it, but in 2004, Tom Bennett, the head investigator at that time, felt compelled to publically CORRECT some of the assertions you're so fond of repeating. If memory serves, Bennett said that they could not say that it was saliva or anything else specific.

I think you are right. They couldn't say it was or it wasn't.