Satiated

[Nedthan Johns]

Toth: CODIS. Difference between being entered into the database and searching the database despite having fewer than 13 markers. However the second blood spot provided a full CODIS satisfactory profile

Ned: BS. I spoke directly with Lou Smit, the blood was intermingled with fluids from JB, and wasn't even seen by the naked eye. It was so degraded, there is NO way it could be run through CODIS and never has been.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Ivy: Melissa Weber, chief molecular biologist at CellMark Laboratories, said that the extra markers in the DNA found in JonBenet's underpants and under her fingernails could very well be shadow bands ("stutter"), a false positive for foreign DNA that often occurs when degraded DNA is amplified. Weber also said that when two sources of DNA are mixed together, no one could be excluded as the donor. When Lou Smit said that John and Burke Ramsey had been excluded, he was wrong. What he should have said is that although their DNA didn't match the samples, a match to anyone was still technologically impossible.

Ned: Yes, thank you Ivy

The markers in the two samples of "foreign" DNA (one from the panties and one from the fingernails) didn't match each other, so I guess there must have been two intruders. Either that, or the "foreign" DNA is a false positive resulting from the amplification process.

Ned: Actually according to Lou who I spoke to in great detail told me that they did match, however, I find that hard to believe, and think the statement should be that could be a possible match as a positive match is not possible since the samples were poor

Please, Mibro, give us an update on new advances in DNA technology that have ruled out the possibilty that the "foreign" DNA was nothing more than a false positive resulting from the PCR amplification process...and when you've done that, please describe the process by which John and Burke have been excluded as the donors.

Ned: Yes I would like to hear this as well LOL

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Toth: Just reasons why one might be 'satisfied' after the JonBenet killing and not go on to "bigger and better things
Ned: First of all let’s get real, we first have to determine what kind of killer this is. Is he a burglar: Well no, he didn’t take anything, in fact left the house rather tidy wouldn’t you say? Was he a kidnapper? Well no he didn’t take the body with him, in fact he didn’t even bother trying to collect a ransom. Is he a pedophile? Well no again, he never penially penetrated the child, and no semen was left that we know of, and pedophiles USUALLY don’t kill their victims, they love them. Was he a crazed killer? Perhaps, but then why the careful clean up of the crime scene, why cover the child? Why re-dress her or hid her for that fact? Was he a serial killer? Well certainly not that we know of, no other child has been killed in this manner since. So if this imaginary intruder of yours fit one of the scenarios above then YES I would expect that he would have struck again, unless by some misfortune of his, he ended up in jail, and I can’t imagine he didn’t brag about pulling of one of the most notorious crimes of the century. Or perhaps Toth this crime scene is just as it seems: An accidental murder, staged to look like someone else perpetrated it by two parents that were hiding the obvious, the sexual abuse of their daughter, which they up until that night kept well hidden.

 

[Sabrina]

Sissy:"How dare he say the child was papoosed ,wrapped in a blanket??? He has no idea,he never saw this! "

But John Ramsey did and said so in one of his interviews. It's in the NE interrogation transcript book.

People are so quick to criticize Steve Thomas. I have yet to find a "lie", yet the Ramseys book is full of them, especially when compared to the interrogation tapes!

Toth: I am still waiting for the official source on the 12 markers. And also where is it said the DNA does not match fro her panties to nails. Do you know what that indicates? It indicates there was NO intruder. But I know that anyway.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Toth: would like this thread to focus on an intruder who killed JBR but then 'stopped'.

Ned: Well then you are on the wrong forum

Toth: Is he no longer a pedophile or was he never a pedophile?

Ned: Obviously Toth you don't have much education in criminal profiling, or apprently don't read much. There is NO cure for pedophillia, one does not become a pedophile for one day and quit. NO pedophile murdered JB.

Toth: Is he no longer leaving notes, but still killing?

Ned: Children? apparently not, how many serial killers do you know that change their MO? Not many.

Is he no longer leaving victims in the home or even having them found?
What would make a supposed pedophile 'take a vacation for so many years'?

Ned: LOL, the killer(s) is (are) on vacation alright, currently on their way to Charleoxville

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Ivy ROTFLMAO That was a great read!

 

[Toltec]

Originally posted by sissi
I'm tired and cranky tonight, spent the week re-reading almost all
of the "Jonbenet" books,and can honestly conclude one thing,that everyone will hate me for. Steve Thomas IMO is sociopathic.
How dare he use the information he received from Judith Phillips as the basis for so much of the crap he stated. How dare he say the child was papoosed ,wrapped in a blanket??? He has no idea,he never saw this!
If you re-read his book,he makes a better case for a few others ,something a real detective would have noticed.

Excuse me Sissi but you say you were re-reading all of the JBR books??? Did you read the NE Police Files? John Ramsey is the one who stated that JonBenet was wrapped "papoose" style. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

page 306: JR: Well, I saw a white blanket, thats folded across her body neatly...she was laying on the blanket...the blanket was caught up around and crossed in front of her as if someone was tucking her in.

page 309 MK: ...Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like...

JR: It was like an indian papoose...you know, the blanket was under her completely. It was brought up and folded over...at that time I didn't know the extent of the injuries - but it looked like somebody had just put her there comfortably, but tied up with her mouth gagged.

 

[Toltec]

Sorry Sabrina for posting what you just verified. Steve Thomas knows what he speaks...he has seen the evidence and participated in the interrogations of both John and Patsy.

Some people just can't handle the truth!

 

[Sabrina]

Lin Wood stated this in July on the Larry King show. I was told by the crime lab I called that 9 markers can be compared to the data banks and they do it all the time. I was told this is like a Google search. Why Lin Wood is saying it can take a year is beyond me. I don't believe they never tested it, but I do believe him when he says they have 10 markers.

Toth, sorry, but this says it was stretched to 10. (I incorrectly thought 9) He never said that they have all the markers.



KING: Why are you confident they're going to find someone?

WOOD: Because of the DNA. You know, you probably heard along the way that
the DNA evidence in this case was not necessarily of good quality, that it
might even be contaminant. Although there was a point in time when the
Boulder police were clearing people based on DNA, but not the Ramseys.

Here's what we now know. We knew that there was foreign male DNA found in
-- under the fingernails of both of JonBenet's hands. Foreign meaning it
was not the Ramseys. Male.

There was also a spot of blood. Intermingled in that blood was foreign
male DNA. Not the Ramseys.

Now, I've learned in the last few months, since Mary Keenan took this case
over, that in fact, there was a second spot of blood, both of these spots
of blood being in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear.

In 1998, someone finally said, "You know, we never tested the second spot
of blood. Let's do that." They did test it, and the results came back in
1999, and the results were strong. It has nine clear markers and a 10th
marker which is just at meeting the standard.

And the reason that's important is because you have to have 10 markers to
submit that DNA into the federal FBI CODUS (ph) databank.

One of the things that, I think, establishes without question the bias of
the Boulder Police Department is that they never, at any time, made any
effort to try to get the DNA evidence in this case into any of the state
DNA databanks or into the FBI CODUS (ph) databank system.

And Larry, that may come up with (UNINTELLIGIBLE) now. It may be a year.
KING: How do you capture someone, though?

WOOD: Well, with the CODUS (ph) databank, it actually keeps not only the
DNA on convicted violent criminals, it also maintains the DNA from
unsolved cases.

KING: Oh, it does.

WOOD: It does. And this DNA is not just strong enough to exclude, this DNA
is strong enough to identify. And no efforts were made to get it into the
databank. That is a priority, the number one priority of the new
investigation by Mary Keenan.

 

[Sabrina]

Twilight, in spite of what some of the public thinks, the police do NOT want to charge the wrong person with a crime. This IS worse for the law enforcement departments than charging NO person. Perhaps, you might find this mentality in some small time one sheriff southern town, but in the majority of the U.S. and especially the large cities that have the high crime rates, it's totally untrue.


There are some public defenders that are incompetent, and there are some that are excellent attorneys. They work on a rotating list. It's the luck of the draw who a defendant would get.

The national rate for clearing homicides is 62%. This is a much higher % than solving rapes,property crimes, robbery. It's still pretty bad when you figure it's more like 50% because there are many homicides that the authorities are not really aware of- missing persons,mainly runaways and prostitutes. If what you are saying is true, the clearance rate would be much higher.

If you go back and research the old cases of the "wrongly" accused--MOST were convicted on incorrect eye witness testimony. DNA technology was not available at the time of the trial and that is what is setting them free on these old cases.

I do agree though, that the Ramseys bought their freedom-- thanks to their lawyers and the relationships between these lawyers and the D.A. They were treated like no other suspect was ever treated, and the investigation was compromised because of the lack of interviews and cooperation--aside from the mistakes the police made. NO suspects should have access to the evidence as they did- they bargained for it -and now thanks to Smit and Wood everything practically was made public and the case is completely compromised. Sorry to be pessimistic, but there will never be a sucessful prosecution unless someone confesses.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Sabrina: I also got a lesson on "degraded" DNA-- I am sure you have too I am convinced the DNA was from some 6 year old playmate from several days before and they are never going to match it unless he commits a sex crime when he grows up!


Ned: Exactly

 

[Sabrina]

Ned,

My belief is the same as yours. The crime lab told me they are even taking samples for carjacking and robbery for the data bank now.

There were tons of kids in the neighborhood --even the Ramseys admit kids were in and out all day. No names were given in the interviews, nor were they asked. Besdies, Patsy wouldn't recall anyway. Who knows if they got all the kids' DNA and who knows if some of the kids had out of town guests playing with them as well.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Nedthan Johns
the DNA was from some 6 year old playmate from several days before

We've already solved the DNA issue, Ned. The BPD tested new underwear--right out of the store package, and found it to contain degraded male DNA.
This means the DNA in the Ramsey case was left by Sum Yung Gai, who works in an Indonesian garment factory.

 

[sissi]

Could you source this please,it sounds interesting . They actually tested underwear,a random package for dna?

On a fairly complete search I found this,quote by Charlie Brennen..... Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination

Just who is this anonymous investigator who thought this,and
claims another anonymous investigator has tested "identical" packages and found human dna???? Can they tell us who they work for,the BPD,themselves? I hate this kind of information...as it grows roots and becomes fact.
There were two stains,one ignored for years,one tested early on,amazing that this dna was only found within the blood stains,not elsewhere on these undies.

What will this do to forensic science when they get wind of it,that all of the rape ,and murder cases that hinge on dna results are invalid,unless of course we can prove the dna was not asian,and then again,how many male asians work the sweat shops,I don't know the numbers. IMO JMO

 

[Maxi]

The DNA used to convict rapists is usually taken from inside the woman. It's one heck of a lot harder to explain DNA found inside a woman than on her clothing.

I have no idea if anyone actually conducted a test on packaged day-of-the-week panties from Bloomies and found foreign DNA in the crotch. I did see a tv show in which package underwear was found to have body fluid traces on it. Disgusting! Wash everything before wearing!

 

[vicktor]

It makes sense to suspect that a pedophile commited the crime. The act may have been over the top for him, brought his conscience into play, where he didn't have much desire to repeat it. All the publicity and a fear of getting caught next time might have restrained his urges. IMO, he hasn't done it again, but still has fantasies about sexual activities he would like to pursue with a similar victim as JBR. If given a chance, I believe he would try to start some kind of relationship with a girl.

Since he abducted JBR but didn't leave the house, there was a real possibility he might be found out and IMO that limited the activities he thought he could get away with. Maybe he thought of rape but didn't think he could pull it off without leaving direct evidence implicating himself, or losing control of the situation. This person seems very much at odds with himself and with those around him. This would explain a lot about the case and it's aftermath.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by twilight
The trick here is that many of the wrongfully accused are disadvantaged. The police - if such happens- find a suspect with low probability of staging an adequate defence and nail him for the sake of expendience. NOTE: I said 'if such happens' and I meant it. I'm not convinced it's a common occurrence.

There have been cases of wrongful conviction, but they are never wealthy people with good legal resources. (oh, except for poor OJ of course...if you could hear me you would notice a dollop of sarcasm dripping from my tongue).

Were the BPD to want to frame some inidividual for this crime, they would pick some frameable individual.

Praise goes to the cop who solves the crime and expediates the process...bigger praise goes to the cop who can present enough evidence to make the case fly in court. That's how the system works. It is $$ based...like any other system in a capitalist economy.

Nobody goes after wealthy well-lawyered suspects as a first choice. This is a path to disaster. Overtime - fiscal loss. Spin teams and difficult trials...tying up manpower for many hours.

What the BPD were stuck with was no other choice. They wanted to eliminate the Rams who would not cooperate. This is a big red flag and hard to get around - non-cooperation.

In the meantime, you can't tell me they wouldn't have been ecstatic if some weird, wanked ped had stumbled into the station and confessed all. Case closed - no more money spent - budget saved - Yeah! Yeah! WWP goes to legal aid and everyone breaths a ~sigh~ of relief.

WHERE'S THE JUSTICE FOR "JONBENET" IN THIS MESS?

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by twilight
The trick here is that many of the wrongfully accused are disadvantaged. The police - if such happens- find a suspect with low probability of staging an adequate defence and nail him for the sake of expendience. NOTE: I said 'if such happens' and I meant it. I'm not convinced it's a common occurrence.

There have been cases of wrongful conviction, but they are never wealthy people with good legal resources. (oh, except for poor OJ of course...if you could hear me you would notice a dollop of sarcasm dripping from my tongue).

Were the BPD to want to frame some inidividual for this crime, they would pick some frameable individual.

Praise goes to the cop who solves the crime and expediates the process...bigger praise goes to the cop who can present enough evidence to make the case fly in court. That's how the system works. It is $$ based...like any other system in a capitalist economy.

Nobody goes after wealthy well-lawyered suspects as a first choice. This is a path to disaster. Overtime - fiscal loss. Spin teams and difficult trials...tying up manpower for many hours.

What the BPD were stuck with was no other choice. They wanted to eliminate the Rams who would not cooperate. This is a big red flag and hard to get around - non-cooperation.

In the meantime, you can't tell me they wouldn't have been ecstatic if some weird, wanked ped had stumbled into the station and confessed all. Case closed - no more money spent - budget saved - Yeah! Yeah! WWP goes to legal aid and everyone breaths a ~sigh~ of relief.

http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aa101600b.htm

 

[Toth]

Do any of you think the dna found in a bag fresh from the factory in Asia had Caucasian dna?

 

[sissi]

Maxi..The DNA used to convict rapists is usually taken from inside the woman. It's one heck of a lot harder to explain DNA found inside a woman than on her clothing.


and not surprising Maxi is very often right!!

Most case that are solved with dna do have this in common,however,there are many cases where all they have
is clothing from the victim.

Toth,exactly!
How many caucasion men are working sweatshops?
IMO