Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[BBB167893]

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.

Something we can agree on! (Which is also scary! LOL)

DNA, which I think is saliva, was a good start. It was small sample.

It was more than just small, Roy. It was in such crummy shape that they needed to artificially amplify it just to get those 9-1/2 markers you're so enamored with. That's definitely not MY idea of a "good" sample.

But more than anything it was in the underpants of a 6 year old girl who contacted by sexual means.

We don't KNOW that it was contacted by sexual means, Roy. And by saying that, you have demonstrated precisely the problem I was attempting to explain. (I can be more specific, but I think the point's been made.)

The touch DNA only corroborated the DNA they already had.

I'm hard-pressed to say that anything could "corroborate" such a weak sample to start with.

It wasn't some Chinese factory worker anymore.

I'm starting to think you're right. If anything, I'd say it's likely that JB transferred it to herself.

And LE is looking for an intruder.

So you say. So far, I've not seen ANYTHING to suggest that they're working very hard on this case at ALL. It seems more like they're trying to bury it and forget about it. It's like I told you before, pilgrim: we call this a cold case, but it isn't cold. It's RADIOACTIVE. No one wants anything to do with it anymore, because it contaminates everything and everyone it touches.

 

[BBB167893]

I think you are right.

I won't let it go to my head!

They couldn't say it was or it wasn't.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider anyone hired by the Ramseys to be trustworthy. Birds of a feather, and all that.

 

[learnin]

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?

Good post, SD. Precisely. I have no doubt that guilty people will be turned loose simply because someone scrapes unknown DNA off someone's clothing.
Not saying that this new technology is not important and will not aid in convictions where it, formerly, would not have happen. But like everything in life, it's a double edged sword and presents new problems.

 

[Roy23]

Something we can agree on! (Which is also scary! LOL)



It was more than just small, Roy. It was in such crummy shape that they needed to artificially amplify it just to get those 9-1/2 markers you're so enamored with. That's definitely not MY idea of a "good" sample.



We don't KNOW that it was contacted by sexual means, Roy. And by saying that, you have demonstrated precisely the problem I was attempting to explain. (I can be more specific, but I think the point's been made.)



I'm hard-pressed to say that anything could "corroborate" such a weak sample to start with.



I'm starting to think you're right. If anything, I'd say it's likely that JB transferred it to herself.



So you say. So far, I've not seen ANYTHING to suggest that they're working very hard on this case at ALL. It seems more like they're trying to bury it and forget about it. It's like I told you before, pilgrim: we call this a cold case, but it isn't cold. It's RADIOACTIVE. No one wants anything to do with it anymore, because it contaminates everything and everyone it touches.

I think they are working it Dave. They were gonna go back to the beginning and check it out. I sure hope they are working it. It sure sux we don't hear anything about it until election time. Beckner pretty much said they ain't sayin nothing. Well, maybe come election time we get another tidbit. Can't wait for next years elections anyhow.

 

[BBB167893]

Good post, SD.

You're not bad yourself.

Precisely.

I was starting to think that no one understood what I was saying.

I have no doubt that guilty people will be turned loose simply because someone scrapes unknown DNA off someone's clothing.

That's already HAPPENING, learnin. Project Innocence has been doing it for years. We hear about people being "wrongly convicted" and released on DNA years later, but the great majority of those are technicalities. Usually DNA from a person the victim had sex with earlier that day. You could count the number of people in prison who are legitimately innocent on one hand.

So, yeah, I'm not looking forward to the prospect you outline. I'm even LESS enthusiastic about the other way: people being wrongly convicted.

Not saying that this new technology is not important and will not aid in convictions where it, formerly, would not have happen. But like everything in life, it's a double edged sword and presents new problems.

That's what I'm trying to say, learnin. DNA's a great thing to have, but it should not be relied on to the exclusion of everything else.

 

[BBB167893]

I think they are working it Dave. They were gonna go back to the beginning and check it out. I sure hope they are working it.

I wish I could believe that they are, Roy. But as far as I go, Beckner knows there's no point. He was there when it WAS worked, and I mean REALLY worked, as opposed to what we had from 2003-2009, where all Mary Lacy did was sit around with her thumb up her butt (alongside her HEAD) focusing on DNA to exclusion of all else. WHEN she wasn't attending the prime suspect's funeral, chewing out homicide experts for being "too tough" on said suspect, or bringing back phony confessors on the word of a low-rent Michael Moore to, and these are Craig Silverman's words, NOT mine, give a gift to her friends the Ramseys.

After three administrations of this, Roy, I have some trust issues.

It sure sux we don't hear anything about it until election time. Beckner pretty much said they ain't sayin nothing. Well, maybe come election time we get another tidbit. Can't wait for next years elections anyhow.

Even then, I doubt we'll get anything. The way I see it, the last chance we had for an election to make a difference in this case was back in 2006 when CO elected their governor Bill Ritter. Ritter, for those of you who remember, was actually part of this case and actually knew something about it. By that reasoning, I figured (hoped, more like) that he would do what should have been done: take Mary Lacy off the case (which SHOULD have been done after the JMK debacle) and appoint a prosecutor who would actually get things done.

Least, that's the way I feel about it.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

DNA's a great thing to have, but it should not be relied on to the exclusion of everything else.

Of course not. All evidence has to be judged in context. In this case there is no overwhelming evidence in any direction, so in that context, this DNA is very important.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

The case was reopened in 2009 after X year hiatus. If LE wasn't working on the case, they could just say that it was closed. One of the Denver channels did a segment on JonBenet's 21st birthday and interviewed Stan Garnett and he talked about how they get tips 2-3 times a week from all over the world. Now obviously just listening to tips doesn't mean an active investigation is taking place, but it doesn't make sense for him to be promoting the case in the media if he wants it to go away. And back in October 2010, the case was back in the national news when LE wanted to interview Burke, giving a lot of the general public the impression that they are working on this case. If LE wants the case to go away, it doesn't make sense to me that they are trying to make people think they are working on it. Why not just announce they closed the case which would be pretty normal for a 15-year-old cold case?

 

[BBB167893]

Of course not. All evidence has to be judged in context. In this case there is no overwhelming evidence in any direction, so in that context, this DNA is very important.

No overwhelming evidence in YOUR opinion, Squirrel. Far as I go, I've got what I need.

But you're right about one thing: evidence SHOULD be judged in context. Which is why I'm puzzled as to why you bring it up, because IDI has done everything it can do to make sure we DON'T.

 

[Tadpole12]

Link

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

ty, Junebug99,
'Damage control'


Police have never matched DNA found in JonBenet's underwear, thought to be a mix of her blood and the saliva of a white male, to any suspect in the case. Members of the Ramsey family, initially suspects in the killing, have been eliminated as having left the DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

The case was reopened in 2009 after X year hiatus. If LE wasn't working on the case, they could just say that it was closed. One of the Denver channels did a segment on JonBenet's 21st birthday and interviewed Stan Garnett and he talked about how they get tips 2-3 times a week from all over the world. Now obviously just listening to tips doesn't mean an active investigation is taking place, but it doesn't make sense for him to be promoting the case in the media if he wants it to go away. And back in October 2010, the case was back in the national news when LE wanted to interview Burke, giving a lot of the general public the impression that they are working on this case. If LE wants the case to go away, it doesn't make sense to me that they are trying to make people think they are working on it. Why not just announce they closed the case which would be pretty normal for a 15-year-old cold case?

Hi, eileen.

The way I look at it is, they don't announce that the case is closed for EXACTLY the reason that they want it to go away:

because the ONLY way they can justify keeping quiet and making sure the case file doesn't get made public is to keep up the facade that it's an open case still being investigated.

 

[Tadpole12]

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.

Roy,

I wonder why the unidentified white male youth,
the individual that was misidentified by Barnhill as JAR,
why 'he' is rarely considered within IDI scenarios?

As white male youth form the majority of those who practice AEA, why is Barnhill's witness account not considered relevant?

 

[learnin]

You're not bad yourself.
That's already HAPPENING, learnin. Project Innocence has been doing it for years. We hear about people being "wrongly convicted" and released on DNA years later, but the great majority of those are technicalities. Usually DNA from a person the victim had sex with earlier that day. You could count the number of people in prison who are legitimately innocent on one hand.

I was afraid of that, SD. There's no way in hades we've placed that many innocent people behind bars. If we have, we might as well forget the whole justice thing and shut er down.....

 

[Tadpole12]

fmi, http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13062285?IADID=Search-www.dailycamera.com-www.dailycamera.com

JonBenet Ramsey DNA timeline

Daily Camera staff
Posted: 08/28/2006 11:00:00 AM MDT





1997 — DNA collected from a blood spot on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear described as contaminated.
1999 — FBI releases new technology called Short Tandem Repeat to profile DNA. It uses 13 markers to raise the probability that a randomly selected individual would match it is one in 1 quintillion.
2001 — The new testing is allowed after a legal battle in Colorado's courts, and JonBenet's underwear is analyzed again resulting in between one and two markers out of 13 being defined.
2003 — Second blood spot on JonBenet's underwear tested resulting in between nine and 10 markers on the spot to be defined. That genetic fingerprint meets the threshold to be placed into a national database, Combined DNA Indexing System or CODIS, which holds DNA profiles of those convicted in most states of certain crimes. No match has been made.
JonBenet Ramsey Archive


JonBenet Ramsey Archive


Full coverage of the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Is there a source that says the majority of people released from jail due to new DNA evidence, was actually DNA from a person the victim had sex with earlier that day? I'm assuming that LE would have collected the DNA of any boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife/friend of the victim during their investigation and would've seen that the DNA wasn't the DNA's of the killer. Or are the majority of murder victims having one night stands a few hours before they get killed?

 

[Roy23]

Roy,

I wonder why the unidentified white male youth,
the individual that was misidentified by Barnhill as JAR,
why 'he' is rarely considered within IDI scenarios?

As white male youth form the majority of those who practice AEA, why is Barnhill's witness account not considered relevant?

I don't know. Nobody saw him go in the house I guess.

 

[BBB167893]

Is there a source that says the majority of people released from jail due to new DNA evidence, was actually DNA from a person the victim had sex with earlier that day?

That was one example, eileen. But as for a source, Wendy Murphy devotes an entire chapter to it in her book, And Justice for Some.

I'm assuming that LE would have collected the DNA of any boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife/friend of the victim during their investigation and would've seen that the DNA wasn't the DNA's of the killer. Or are the majority of murder victims having one night stands a few hours before they get killed?

It's more than that, eileen. If you notice, a lot of these cases learnin and I are talking about involve a person having gone to prison before DNA evidence was available to be used in criminal case and being released many years later, when many of the witnesses and cops who worked those cases are no longer available or have forgotten a lot of it.

 

[freecanadianguy]

The factory worker who sewed those panties defines your description.

I agree, neat trick how his DNA ended up under her fingernails though. The Unknown DNA from the underwear is also indicated in a drop of blood and under her fingernails. The same proflie!

 

[Anyhoo]

I agree, neat trick how his DNA ended up under her fingernails though. The Unknown DNA from the underwear is also indicated in a drop of blood and under her fingernails. The same proflie!

A lot of people want to ignore or claim the DNA evidence is fraudulent because it destroys a theory that they are clinging so tightly to, but the fact is that there is every indication that the DNA evidence is authentic and people must come to grips with that. I read the posts on this forum and see people claiming again and again RDI while pretending that this does not even exist. But it does exist and any theory people have must account for it.

My theory is that JR and PR know who murdered their daughter and are covering up for that person, and that the person they are covering up for is NOT BR.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree, neat trick how his DNA ended up under her fingernails though. The Unknown DNA from the underwear is also indicated in a drop of blood and under her fingernails. The same proflie!

Not so. The DNA under her nails was degraded, not usable because the coroner used contaminated clippers to cut her nails. And it did NOT match the DNA found in her clothing. The ONLY blood found was her own. NO intruder or other blood was found anywhere. The DNA that was found was NOT from blood or semen.