Prior Vaginal Trauma

[BBB167893]

The Barbie nightie is there because of static cling not intentionally. The perp may have grabbed the doll or asked JBR which one to take when in her bedroom. She may have been sleeping with it so it was the one taken with her. PEDOPHILES use lures on their victims. That is why the Santa suit neighbor was suspected as well. What 6 yr old is not going to follow Santa and be quiet along the way. "come on honey we don't want to wake your family, take your dolly, blankie what ever you think you will need to go give presents with Santa." Oh santa I'm hungry I need a snack before we get in your sleigh". It wouldn't have to be Santa ( the neighbor, or any other Santa) but someone JBR would not fight going with.
The kidnapping may not have gone right and ended in murder. The kidnappers destination may have only been to the basement as murder was planned once she was lured down there. Only catching an IDI would get us closer to those answer. The posing is part of the perps reaction to the crime.
What their particular "needs" are in the crime. If he murdered her around 12 am he had all night to "play" with her. Even if the parents get up and can't find her he has time to escape as he is in a basement with lots of hiding spaces. He will hear the calls for her and know then he has to get out quick. He could have had his "fun" and been long gone before the parents even knew she was not in bed. Part of the crime is the posing. The wrapping shows he had time to think about it and tried to conceal her. Or the covering is a way to minimize the guilt of having to look at her. In outdoor situations far away from normal public viewing areas, the perp will cover with leaves or other materials, to hide the body from easy view and to minimize the last view THEY have of the crime scene. In these remote locations the concealing is more of an overkill and says more about the psychology of the perp than the need to hide the body. In a way it lessens their responsibility for what they just did. The perp may have counted on the ransom note as a way to prevent her body from being found for awhile. This is all supposing it is an IDI.

I can see very valid points in both camps but more the IDI is a simpler answer and therefore, IMO, a more likely answer. Akems Razor theory used here.

It's funny you say that, CathyR, because Occam's Razor is precisely what leads to the Rs.

The problem I see with the RDI is is depends on armchair psychology.

That may be true. But even cops will tell you, sometimes a hunch is all you've got.

The Ramsey's did hire a lawyer. Everyone points to the fact that they believe the Ramsey's did not cooperate with police.
It is a crime to not cooperate and they were never charged with such a crime.

They couldn't have been, CathyR. Henry Lee said that there was certainly evidence to charge them for that, but CO law states that lesser charges cannot be filed in a murder case unless someone is charged with the actual murder. I hope I worded that properly.

So much of the RDI theories here are also dependant on the laymans interpretation of the autopsy reports, Chronic, acute,..... debates on what it means. Don't we have some real law enforcement people and possibly doctors who are members here. Shouldn't we be asking them what it means?

A lot of it is NOT the interpretation of laypeople, CathyR. Most of us aren't saying anything that hasn't been said by people who worked the case.

I hate to sumise anyone as a sex offender without proof. It is a horrible thing to say about someone. It reminds me of these cases of cyber bulling by teens. I want some good hard forensic evidence before I say for certain I think a family member is involved.

ITA.

If I am wrong, and a RDI, I haven't lost anything but some time. If I make accusations and theories about the family and they are innocent, a IDI turns out to be true, then I attacked a family who has already lost a family member and victimized them further. To me and my own sense of right and wrong --- that would be wrong.

I respect that.

 

[BBB167893]

Obviously RDI is going to cling to the idea of chronic previous sexual abuse come hell or high water.

Just you watch me.

Curious though is how many posters have presented all these unverifiable personal experiences as if they are relevant, in hopes that doing so will promote the 'anybody can do this and then stop at will' theory.

Speaking for myself (and ignoring the obvious cheap shot about being unverifiable), that's not the impression I get. The way I see it, these people are baring their traumas in the hope of showing:

1) How easy it is for child molesters to go undetected;

2) That spouses who are confronted with the facts will, sadly, blame the victim or lapse into denial.

These posters are free to correct me, of course!

 

[MurriFlower]

A number of my posts mention primary transfer; as a matter of fact it’s mentioned twice in Post 162 on page 7
My posts are usually by way of rebuttal to posts that exclusively sing the praises of primary transfer, but I guess that sort of bias doesn’t bother you.
My aim is to provide the possibilities of “an innocent explanation” for the DNA which ML and those that follow her refuse to acknowledge.
As per my earlier post, my concern is that “the totality of the evidence is integral to the case. The mere existence of a DNA profile is not indicative of innocence or guilt.”

Hmm, well I don't think mentioning something in order to just propose the alternative gives the most probable scenario the creedence it deserves. Bias cuts both ways, where someone chooses to believe that evidence arrived on the crime scene in an unlikely (IMO very unlikely) manner, because it suits their own theory.

 

[cynic]

Hmm, well I don't think mentioning something in order to just propose the alternative gives the most probable scenario the creedence it deserves. Bias cuts both ways, where someone chooses to believe that evidence arrived on the crime scene in an unlikely (IMO very unlikely) manner, because it suits their own theory.

The overall context of the case determines the probability. That why DNA "evidence" is sometimes dismissed as innocent in the course of some investigations.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hmm, well I don't think mentioning something in order to just propose the alternative gives the most probable scenario the creedence it deserves. Bias cuts both ways, where someone chooses to believe that evidence arrived on the crime scene in an unlikely (IMO very unlikely) manner, because it suits their own theory.

If only the circumvention wasn't so, so obvious...there might be some credibility to cynic's argument.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Discussed before:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999&page=7

Other posters have also outlined good possibilities, even a certain HOTYH.
“Obviously if JBR had DNA on her hands, then there would be a mix of her touch DNA and the innocent stranger touch DNA on her long johns. I don't think she's going to deposit only someone else’s DNA and not her own.
Meanwhile, if JR or PR had it on their hands, then their DNA would also be present.
Whether the DNA is from an innocent or a criminal, there HAS to be other DNA on the waistband / underwear besides that DNA. It’s probably the only way to put the DNA in true perspective but we don't have that info.”
Take your post and ask yourself why PR’s DNA was not found, or found, but not reported.

And, as I’ve mentioned on many occasions, this only covers one possible explanation.
Contamination and innocent primary transfer are also viable given the type of DNA that we are dealing with. See the explanation by Dr. Baden in post #170 on page 7 of this thread.

This does nothing to propose an innocent primary transfer scenario for all three discoveries. In fact, it obfuscates a scenario.

Its very easy for the armchair expert to say 'oh its innocent, contamination, or secondary'. But its quite different to propose a plausible scenario that would result in the discoveries that have been made. Good luck with that and let me know when you've got one. As for me I don't have that problem because I, like others, pretty much figured out how the DNA got to those places.

Keep in mind that many people connected to this case have been DNA tested and are not a match. If the innocent transfer scenario is to be believed then there's nothing to stop a fast and easy DNA match from the lab tech, friend, or neighbor owner of the mystery DNA.

Instead the DNA owner is elusive for some reason. Whether innocent or guilty the DNA owner has the property of being elusive. Coincidence, or just more evidence of intruder?

There will come a time where RDI will fall apart. By reasonable standards that time has come and gone. Surely more matching DNA on cords or tape or whatever will simply yield another circular-reasoned RDI solution probably in less than 15 minutes. We've been told already by some RDI that without the owner, the DNA is valueless, while other RDI say finding more DNA on a different type of object would be significant.

 

[MurriFlower]

Actually, neither Patsy's nor LHP's dna should have been on those panties. They were wrapped as Christmas gifts in the basement. I would be extremely interested in knowing if either ladies dna showed up there.

I think you are confused here bec. The touch DNA was on the longjohns not the panties. The panties were not wrapped in the basement, but had been given to JBR to wear.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I am not confused. If the dna on the panties matches the dna on the longjohns as a couple of posters here have been arguing for days, what is there to be confused about? Patsy Ramsey LIED to LE about those size 12 panties being in JonBenet's drawer to wear (if she chose). You have the right to believe her lies, but I refuse to be "confused" by the bs the Ramseys have been slinging for 14 years. The panties were in the basement, wrapped as a gift for P's niece and were not opened until the night of JB's murder. It would seem as though confusion, on this board, is a relative term.

 

[joeskidbeck]

If you really believe Patsy gave the panties to JonBenet to wear that day, what do you believe she did with the other six pair? They weren't found in the house.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Quote:
Curious though is how many posters have presented all these unverifiable personal experiences as if they are relevant, in hopes that doing so will promote the 'anybody can do this and then stop at will' theory.

Speaking for myself (and ignoring the obvious cheap shot about being unverifiable), that's not the impression I get. The way I see it, these people are baring their traumas in the hope of showing:

1) How easy it is for child molesters to go undetected;

2) That spouses who are confronted with the facts will, sadly, blame the victim or lapse into denial.

These posters are free to correct me, of course!

You are correct, SD. This was an incredibly cheap shot on the part of a master of cheap shots.

You are also correct as to my personal reasons for baring my soul on a public forum.

 

[KoldKase]

We've had numerous discussions previously about the size of the panties. According to Bloomingdales and to Wikipedia, the following are the US sizes for girls/children.

Size 6 - height 45"-46.5", weight 42.5lbs-48lbs, to fit children 5 years old, chest 25", waist 22", back to waist 10.5"
Size 12 - height 56"-58", weight 85lbs, to fit girls 9-10 years old, chest 30", waist 25.5", back to waist 13.5"

I don't think the panties depicted in your avatar are correct, as they are hanging down almost to the child's knees, whereas according to the size chart, they should be a maximum of 2.5" larger around the waist and probably less than 2" longer from waist to crotch than the smaller pair.

I would expect a new pair of size 12 panties with new elastic would be hardly discernable from an old stretched pair size 6.

Yeah, that's the argument Patsy made when she lied to LE in Atlanta about putting those Bloomies in JB's panty drawer. Sorry, it won't fly.

You can disbelieve a brilliant experiment that Jayelles, a long time, very credible, and personally responsible poster proven through the years to be exactly what she says she is--a teacher in Scotland, did, no problem for me. I'm not afraid to admit the evidence is what it is.

But you should try it yourself and see what the results are. You don't even have to have an average sized child handy, just do it on yourself, if you're a woman, or ask a child to participate, if you are a parent and have a female child. Buy underwear 2 sizes too large for yourself or her and see how that feels.

I personally know that wearing underwear even one size too big is uncomfortable: they bag, they drag themselves down in another garment, and I can't wait to take them off. Two sizes too big? Not gonna happen.

But nevermind. It's always important to take the words of the prime suspect as truth. That's how LE solves cases, after all.

By the way: Jayelles doesn't believe the Ramseys did it.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Yeah, that's the argument Patsy made when she lied to LE in Atlanta about putting those Bloomies in JB's panty drawer. Sorry, it won't fly.

You can disbelieve a brilliant experiment that Jayelles, a long time, very credible, and personally responsible poster proven through the years to be exactly what she says she is--a teacher in Scotland, did, no problem for me. I'm not afraid to admit the evidence is what it is.

But you should try it yourself and see what the results are. You don't even have to have an average sized child handy, just do it on yourself, if you're a woman, or ask a child to participate, if you are a parent and have a female child. Buy underwear 2 sizes too large for yourself or her and see how that feels.

I personally know that wearing underwear even one size too big is uncomfortable: they bag, they drag themselves down in another garment, and I can't wait to take them off. Two sizes too big? Not gonna happen.

But nevermind. It's always important to take the words of the prime suspect as truth. That's how LE solves cases, after all.

By the way: Jayelles doesn't believe the Ramseys did it.

At the age of 22, when I was 5'1" (still am) and 100 pounds (wish I still was), I could wear a girl's size 12 panty, so the experiment picture looks spot-on to me as to what someone JBR's size would look like wearing size 12 panties.

 

[joeskidbeck]

"Curious though is how many posters have presented all these unverifiable personal experiences as if they are relevant, in hopes that doing so will promote the 'anybody can do this and then stop at will' theory. "

Please show me where any poster that presented their own personal experience has said that "anybody can do this and stop at will". That has never been said by a victim of abuse of the JonBenet forum.
You do nothing for your credibility when you constantly call into question the credibility of others.

 

[KoldKase]

You are correct, SD. This was an incredibly cheap shot on the part of a master of cheap shots.

You are also correct as to my personal reasons for baring my soul on a public forum.

No one who has ever been the victim or known a victim of child abuse would ever believe that it just doesn't happen in nice families like the Ramseys because they said so. Neither would they minimize the damage or deny the life-long trauma the survivor lives with every day.

Well...they might, but the reasons they would are rather unsavory.

Some people are never going to get it, that's all. They obviously are not aware of how much child abuse goes on in this world. Lucky them. Because for every child abused, there is an abuser, and there are enablers of the abuser. Sadly, they are the reason there are so few consequences and it goes on largely unchecked.

I will never, ever get it. Never. Humans who abuse and refuse to protect children are sub-human, to me. But they're mostly males, and usually known to the child and family, and often are in the family, so they get away with it for so many reasons. My god, if the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, that was covered up, actively, in even this century, doesn't teach people the truth about the abuse of children, I guess nothing will. It's a dirty little secret that people in general just do not want to admit exists.

If we admit we do not protect our own children--what does that make us?

FACT: JonBenet had prior vaginal trauma, up to 72 hours old or longer. Her hymen was largely missing and the rim of her cervix showed erosion, which indicates it was done over a period of time. The evidence is in the autopsy and is inarguable.

FACT: Someone shoved a paintbrush into JonBenet's vagina the night she was murdered. The evidence is in the autopsy and only arguable as to exactly what was inserted into the child. Since Patsy's paintbrush was part of the crime scene and garrote, and is consistent with the evidence found in the victim's vagina, it's reasonable to conclude that was the instrument used on the child's vagina.

FACT: JonBenet was taken to the doctor numerous times with "vaginitis," which her pediatrician never associated with child abuse or was afraid to do so and let it go as "normal." That would be the pediatrician who--amazingly enough--was then said to be personal friends with...the Ramseys! So much so that he, instead of Patsy's usual doctor, showed up at the Fernie's that day and prescribed "medications" for Patsy to sedate her. How convenient.

FACT: Patsy called that same Dr. Beuf on the 17th (though this date is sometimes stated as the 7th, probably from a transcription which was based on what the transcriber "heard" in a videotape of Patsy's '98 interview) three times in 35 minutes, after office hours. That's the same month of, and if it was the 17th, 8 days before, JonBenet's murder, yet Patsy could not "remember" what it was for.

FACT: JonBenet was coached and dressed inappropriately to elicit winning pageant behavior, including strutting provocatively, wearing makeup and very adult costumes, and performing in that manner frequently. Patsy herself told friend and supporter Pam Archuleta, by Pam's own account, that she was worried about JonBenet "flirting" and being "too friendly." Pam stated to a reporter in a pro-Ramsey article that John and Patsy argued about the pageants, John not approving of them. Patsy and John, however, lied about this to LE when asked if they ever argued. They both said no, they didn't.

How any reasonable person can disconnect these facts when the child was found sexually abused, strangled, and bludgeoned in her own basement, her body staged with duct tape, wrapped in a blanket, and a fake ransom note left to "explain" it, is beyond my comprehension. It's tantamout to saying this is such a nice family, there has to be some other explanation than the obvious. Oh, it was bubble bath! Or she masturbated and what a coincidence she shoved that paintbrush up herself and then was murdered mere minutes later!

Puhleeze. I found out long ago there is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, or honor among thieves, either. Sexual abuse is real, it crosses socio-economic boundaries, and it's covered up to escape scandal, shame, and legal accountability. The victim is often blamed by everyone, especially the family who just doesn't want to deal with the problems that arise if the perp is brought to justice and stopped.

Anyone who doesn't know what I am talking about here should do some research with child abuse VICTIMS in mind, not just to find excuses to exhonerate the child abusers.

This my opinion. Period.

 

[KoldKase]

This does nothing to propose an innocent primary transfer scenario for all three discoveries. In fact, it obfuscates a scenario.

Its very easy for the armchair expert to say 'oh its innocent, contamination, or secondary'. But its quite different to propose a plausible scenario that would result in the discoveries that have been made. Good luck with that and let me know when you've got one. As for me I don't have that problem because I, like others, pretty much figured out how the DNA got to those places.

Keep in mind that many people connected to this case have been DNA tested and are not a match. If the innocent transfer scenario is to be believed then there's nothing to stop a fast and easy DNA match from the lab tech, friend, or neighbor owner of the mystery DNA.

Instead the DNA owner is elusive for some reason. Whether innocent or guilty the DNA owner has the property of being elusive. Coincidence, or just more evidence of intruder?

There will come a time where RDI will fall apart. By reasonable standards that time has come and gone. Surely more matching DNA on cords or tape or whatever will simply yield another circular-reasoned RDI solution probably in less than 15 minutes. We've been told already by some RDI that without the owner, the DNA is valueless, while other RDI say finding more DNA on a different type of object would be significant.

You're just dreaming if you think you know every possibility in how that microscopic DNA got there.

I read this year about a lab tech who, it was discovered years after the fact, had contaminated quite a bit of lab samples resulting in "unknown" DNA that kept the actual guilty from being prosecuted or convicted in numerous cases. Thinking they had a "serial" perp on their hands, it turned out that a lab tech whose blood had been collected but never processed was the donor. He had not worked in the lab in years, so when his blood sample was found among some old vials in an evidence fridge, it was tested and "hit" as the source of this mystery "serial" perp. He had contaminated many samples and he was not the perp. So the cases at long last could move forward in finding the actual perps.

That's just one example. You are making excuses for DNA samples when it's obvious that someone easily could have handled the longjohns at the waist and the Bloomies when processing the blood spot and the clothes. Or it could have been JonBenet herself, as she is the one who had markers, few though they were, that were consistent with that found in the panties and on the longjohns. She could have gotten the DNA on the longjohns and herself, then it was moved in the flow of blood into the Bloomies.

Or a dozen other theories would account for it. To use the DNA to throw out all the evidence against the Ramseys is nothing but a desperate ploy. IDI have been waiting for 14 years for Intruder to commit this crime again, to show up in databases, to be snitched on for rewards, or to surface in any possible connection to the JB murder. Yet not one person has even come close because that DNA you hold onto so religiously is the very thing that is always going to "clear" everyone but some obscure donor who happened to cross a few DNA strands with those clothes somehow.

DNA science cannot tell us when it was deposited, how it got there, nor even who it belongs to at this time--14 years later. We would all be thrilled if it could, but here we are, having watched the real killer get away with it, in a crime obviously committed by someone who knew the victim and her family quit well, arguing about miniscule evidence that in the big picture can't even be sourced or traced to the point of deposit. It wasn't even semen--which was only found near the body in the suitcase used to point to an "exit" point instead of a chair, which held a children's Dr. Seuss book and a semen-stained duvet belonging to her elder brother JAR--and how interesting that the fibers from that very duvet were stated by Intruder Smit many times to "match" fibers found on the outside of clothing worn by JonBenet. Yet another "coincidence" of clear evidence leading straight TO THE FAMILY which IDI dismiss and somehow twist into more proof of an intruder, astonishingly enough.... (According to Jams, JAR incidentally requested that no one ever let out the truth about the name of that book because it was a gift from "someone" to him, also unnamed. Ah, the Ramseys love them some secrets.)

This is why this case is cold. The Ramseys are all about Secrets. Excuses, Obstruction, Evasions, and Lies. The "powers that be" and the "money that was" in Boulder knew exactly how to contaminate the crime with their bogus stun guns and laughable broken window, and most importantly, DNA cells which prove nothing more than JonBenet did not live in a vacuum nor was her body processed in one.

The Ramseys sure bought themselves some luck once they were unlucky enough to find themselves in a big old pickle barrel of child abuse and murder, that I'll give them.

 

[KoldKase]

If you haven't seen Jayelles full documentation of her experiment at FFJ, you can start here:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7107"]The Gigantic (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear Found On JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/ame]

and for the part of the experiment where Jayelles built the "model," here:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128"]Girls Size 12-14 "Bloomies" Modeled On a Six-Year-Old Like JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/ame]

These threads are exceptional discussions about this experiment and the issue of the Bloomies if you are interested, pulling in much of the pertinent case documentation.

For her experiment, Jayelles began at the beginning, taking photos of the two sizes of Bloomies underwear she had bought at Bloomingdale's in New York during visits there.

She wrote this about the photo above:

And this is the size 12/14 and size 4/6 side by side. My daughter is almost exactly the same weight and height as Jonbenet was when she died (and she is almost exactly the same age too - 6 years and 6 months). I won't be getting her to model the larger knickers as I don't think it would be right to do so. The dimensions of the knickers are as follows:-

Size 12/14 - measure 12 inches from waistband to bottom of crotch and waistband is 22 inches unstretched.

Size 4/6 - measure 8.5 inches from waistband to crotch and waistband is just under 17 inches unstretched.

The size 4/6 fit my daughter just now.

My observation without her trying them on is that they would be very "gapey" at the crotch and would hang down at the crotch. The legs look very wide.

Notice in the following photo that the plastic packaging included a plastic loop with price tag which had to be cut/broken to open the package, which Patsy first said JB did all by herself. Not to worry, Patsy changed that story in minutes.

 

[KoldKase]

We've had numerous discussions previously about the size of the panties. According to Bloomingdales and to Wikipedia, the following are the US sizes for girls/children.

Size 6 - height 45"-46.5", weight 42.5lbs-48lbs, to fit children 5 years old, chest 25", waist 22", back to waist 10.5"
Size 12 - height 56"-58", weight 85lbs, to fit girls 9-10 years old, chest 30", waist 25.5", back to waist 13.5"

I don't think the panties depicted in your avatar are correct, as they are hanging down almost to the child's knees, whereas according to the size chart, they should be a maximum of 2.5" larger around the waist and probably less than 2" longer from waist to crotch than the smaller pair.

I would expect a new pair of size 12 panties with new elastic would be hardly discernable from an old stretched pair size 6.

Here were the measurements of Jayelles daughter when she took the for the model, documented on this thread at FFJ:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128"]Girls Size 12-14 "Bloomies" Modeled On a Six-Year-Old Like JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/ame]

Girls Size 12-14 "Bloomies" Modeled On a Six-Year-Old Like JonBenet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK I apologise in advance for my shoddy workmanship and poor photography. My model collapsed a little when I moved it - a shoulder and one of the legs. I left it over the weekend to dry and this evening I carefully padded it out so that the measurements were accurate. It's a bit lumpier than a human model would be, but the measurements are correct and that is the main thing.

My Tootsie's measurements are as follows:-

Height 47 inches (same as Jonbenet)
Weight 46 lbs (1lb heavier than Jonbenet)
Chest - 22 inches
Waist - 20 inches
Hips - 23 inches
Thigh - 13 inches

There are photos of her measurements of the dummy, as well.

Then she put the Bloomies in the two sizes on the dummy and made photographs. Here are a couple, and you can see more angles on the thread:

If you don't like the questions raised by this simple, if amateur, experiment, argue that Jayelles lied or somehow manipulated the photos, model, and sizes of Bloomies to get the outcome. If you don't want to consider how jarring this is, if it's in fact an accurate demonstration that indicates that JonBenet did not put those Bloomies on herself and Patsy lied about all of it, so be it.

But anyone who really wants to know the truth in this case will have to consider the truth about the Bloomies, because you can duplicate the experiment with any children's underwear yourself, just to prove that wearing underwear two sizes too large is uncomfortable and unreasonable to ask of anyone. Who does that? Not a child who was pampered and dressed in expensive clothing all her life, some custom made for her.

Add in that the many pairs of underwear LE found in JB's panty drawer were no larger than a size 4-6; how can you not wonder why Patsy tried so hard to stretch that FACT when being questioned about it by LE in Atlanta in 2000, KNOWING this was important evidence? But there's Patsy, saying oh, JonBenet had grown into a size 8, really...and why Patsy hadn't bothered to buy her any size 8s, oh well, la de da....

Suit yourself. To me, the truth is the truth and it doesn't change. Patsy's story did. Patsy clearly wasn't telling the truth about the Bloomies, how they got on JonBenet, and JonBenet's actual underwear size at the TOD.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Please show me where any poster that presented their own personal experience has said that "anybody can do this and stop at will". That has never been said by a victim of abuse of the JonBenet forum.
You do nothing for your credibility when you constantly call into question the credibility of others.

No, you don't get it. I never said that a poster said that. I'm claiming the purpose, on the stories I've read, is to promote the 'anybody can do this' or 'it can happen to anybody' attitude when it comes to child sexual abuse and murder.

Child sexual abuse, where the child is 6, is rare and is exclusive to pedophilia.

Rarer still is child sexual assault and murder.

IMO there are no personal 'sexual abuse victim' experiences expressed by forum members so far that relate in any known way to what happened to JBR. And since there are no stories of victimization by strangers, they have the appearance of being posted to garner support for familial abuse link to JBR case when none factually exists. A cheap shot, really.

Its like propaganda.

 

[cynic]

This does nothing to propose an innocent primary transfer scenario for all three discoveries. In fact, it obfuscates a scenario.

Its very easy for the armchair expert to say 'oh its innocent, contamination, or secondary'. But its quite different to propose a plausible scenario that would result in the discoveries that have been made. Good luck with that and let me know when you've got one. As for me I don't have that problem because I, like others, pretty much figured out how the DNA got to those places.

Keep in mind that many people connected to this case have been DNA tested and are not a match. If the innocent transfer scenario is to be believed then there's nothing to stop a fast and easy DNA match from the lab tech, friend, or neighbor owner of the mystery DNA.

Instead the DNA owner is elusive for some reason. Whether innocent or guilty the DNA owner has the property of being elusive. Coincidence, or just more evidence of intruder?

There will come a time where RDI will fall apart. By reasonable standards that time has come and gone. Surely more matching DNA on cords or tape or whatever will simply yield another circular-reasoned RDI solution probably in less than 15 minutes. We've been told already by some RDI that without the owner, the DNA is valueless, while other RDI say finding more DNA on a different type of object would be significant.

It’s clear that you give all DNA evidence the same probative value.
Of course, DNA can be incredibly incriminating, however, that is true only if it derived from bodily fluid sources such as blood, or semen, for example.
Because of the “mobility” of this DNA, it is not possible that it should carry the same weight as DNA from bodily fluid. It should be of approximately the same value as hair and fiber, and of lesser significance than fingerprint evidence.
I am familiar with "Touch DNA" and limitations to this technique which includes the following:
…If a DNA profile is identified in a "touch" or "contact" area, the result may be from an individual with no relation to the crime.
http://www.uis.edu/innocenceproject/...teResponse.pdf

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case should therefore be viewed in light of all the evidence, and a decision made as to its relevance. It should not dictate the relevance of the non-DNA evidence.
ML, because of her clear bias, has completely mischaracterized the DNA evidence.
Fortunately, the BPD is back in charge and has asked for help from what is hopefully a competent group of individuals that comprise the task force.
Perhaps that is why Lin Wood has been “unleashed” again. His ally in the DA’s office is gone.
Consider what he said about Lacy:
Wood said. "And, from the lawyer's perspective, the days of anyone accusing my clients of murder are also over."
Rocky Mountain News, Owen S. Good, Apr 08, 2003
Well guess what, I think things have changed. For one, I don’t believe that the Ramseys are “exonerated” anymore.
Both Stan Garnett and Mark Beckner have been asked directly whether the Lacy exoneration stands and both have refused to comment.
“Seated at his office in Boulder, Garnett was unsparing in his criticism of how the case had been handled by his predecessor, Mary Lacy.”
Perhaps in this new environment the DNA will be put in its proper perspective, as a single piece of the puzzle, rather than the only piece.
This sentiment is echoed below:
Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence.
"My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant.
…
Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.
"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-former...,2592897.story

I have given heavily sourced arguments as to why there can be an “innocent explanation” this DNA evidence. Clearly, you wish to side with the only source that claims that there can be no “innocent explanation.”
You are impressed that three locations have been found with unknown DNA.
I have given you examples of other criminal cases where unknown DNA was found, (including multiple matching locations,) and was unrelated to the person that was ultimately found to be responsible for the crime.

You find that my arguments for the DNA evidence in this case to be unconvincing and you, of course, are free to believe, or disbelieve whatever you wish.
Similarly, I don’t find your explanation for the fiber evidence to be compelling, namely that one of the intruders was wearing Patsy Ramsey’s clothing.

While you are free to side with ML, I will side with a growing list of people who have investigated her claims and found them to be based more on bias than fact:
Dr. Henry Lee, Chief Emeritus of the Connecticut State Police, Founder and Professor of the Forensic Science Program at the University of New Haven

Dr. Michael Baden, Former Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York

Dr. Cyril Wecht, Former Medical Examiner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania , former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Bob Grant, Former Adams County District Attorney

Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy District Attorney

Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado

Wendy Murphy, Former prosecutor and author.

Mark Fuhrman, Former LAPD detective and author.

Dr. Cyril Wecht

Dr. Michael Baden

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It’s clear that you give all DNA evidence the same probative value.
Of course, DNA can be incredibly incriminating, however, that is true only if it derived from bodily fluid sources such as blood, or semen, for example.
Because of the “mobility” of this DNA, it is not possible that it should carry the same weight as DNA from bodily fluid. It should be of approximately the same value as hair and fiber, and of lesser significance than fingerprint evidence.
I am familiar with "Touch DNA" and limitations to this technique which includes the following:
…If a DNA profile is identified in a "touch" or "contact" area, the result may be from an individual with no relation to the crime.
http://www.uis.edu/innocenceproject/...teResponse.pdf

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case should therefore be viewed in light of all the evidence, and a decision made as to its relevance. It should not dictate the relevance of the non-DNA evidence.
ML, because of her clear bias, has completely mischaracterized the DNA evidence.
Fortunately, the BPD is back in charge and has asked for help from what is hopefully a competent group of individuals that comprise the task force.
Perhaps that is why Lin Wood has been “unleashed” again. His ally in the DA’s office is gone.
Consider what he said about Lacy:
Wood said. "And, from the lawyer's perspective, the days of anyone accusing my clients of murder are also over."
Rocky Mountain News, Owen S. Good, Apr 08, 2003
Well guess what, I think things have changed. For one, I don’t believe that the Ramseys are “exonerated” anymore.
Both Stan Garnett and Mark Beckner have been asked directly whether the Lacy exoneration stands and both have refused to comment.
“Seated at his office in Boulder, Garnett was unsparing in his criticism of how the case had been handled by his predecessor, Mary Lacy.”
Perhaps in this new environment the DNA will be put in its proper perspective, as a single piece of the puzzle, rather than the only piece.
This sentiment is echoed below:
Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence.
"My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant.
…
Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.
"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-former...,2592897.story

I have given heavily sourced arguments as to why there can be an “innocent explanation” this DNA evidence. Clearly, you wish to side with the only source that claims that there can be no “innocent explanation.”
You are impressed that three locations have been found with unknown DNA.
I have given you examples of other criminal cases where unknown DNA was found, (including multiple matching locations,) and was unrelated to the person that was ultimately found to be responsible for the crime.

You find that my arguments for the DNA evidence in this case to be unconvincing and you, of course, are free to believe, or disbelieve whatever you wish.
Similarly, I don’t find your explanation for the fiber evidence to be compelling, namely that one of the intruders was wearing Patsy Ramsey’s clothing.

While you are free to side with ML, I will side with a growing list of people who have investigated her claims and found them to be based more on bias than fact:
Dr. Henry Lee, Chief Emeritus of the Connecticut State Police, Founder and Professor of the Forensic Science Program at the University of New Haven

Dr. Michael Baden, Former Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York

Dr. Cyril Wecht, Former Medical Examiner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania , former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Bob Grant, Former Adams County District Attorney

Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy District Attorney

Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado

Wendy Murphy, Former prosecutor and author.

Mark Fuhrman, Former LAPD detective and author.

Dr. Cyril Wecht

Dr. Michael Baden

A primary innocent transfer scenario forming three (3) discoveries please. Lets hear it from you OK?

Two discoveries are each a collection of skin cells in sufficient quantity to produce a profile, on opposite ends of the waistband. One discovery is genetic material in solution with JBR's freshly shed blood.