Serious DNA discussion

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Thanks for the info. guys.


But now I have a new question...if DNA is irrelevant in ruling out suspects, why aren't we still focusing on Karr? The guy confessed for god sake. Maybe he has more pertinent info. that would be released if only he were interrogated. If the Ramseys are still suspects, why isn't he?
 
"why aren't we still focusing on Karr? The guy confessed for god sake. Maybe he has more pertinent info. that would be released if only he were interrogated. If the Ramseys are still suspects, why isn't he?"

Because there is nothing other than his words to tie him to JonBenet or Boulder, 1996.

And the evidence does not point to his version of what happened.

IF Karr had done to JonBenet what he said he did, she would have been covered with DNA. Even if she had been cleaned, Karr would not have been able to get rid of it.

The DNA found on JB points away from a sex-crazed pedophile. Because if one had been in the basement with JB any DNA found would have been in the condition JB's was..instead of weak and degraded.

There also would have been more of it.

A MOTHER would have had to touch her daughter with a paintbrush handle to stage a sex crime. Not a slobbering child-molester.
 
Jolynna said:
"why aren't we still focusing on Karr? The guy confessed for god sake. Maybe he has more pertinent info. that would be released if only he were interrogated. If the Ramseys are still suspects, why isn't he?"

Because there is nothing other than his words to tie him to JonBenet or Boulder, 1996.

And the evidence does not point to his version of what happened.

IF Karr had done to JonBenet what he said he did, she would have been covered with DNA. Even if she had been cleaned, Karr would not have been able to get rid of it.

The DNA found on JB points away from a sex-crazed pedophile. Because if one had been in the basement with JB any DNA found would have been in the condition JB's was..instead of weak and degraded.

There also would have been more of it.

A MOTHER would have had to touch her daughter with a paintbrush handle to stage a sex crime. Not a slobbering child-molester.
Yep indeed. Karr is a wannabe. The Ramseys were the ONLY people who were provably in the house the night she was killed, and their versions of the events and their overall behavior stank.

They are suspects for that reason, plus the fact that there has never been any clear evidence of an intruder, despite their lawyer's simplistic representations. He's getting paid a lot of money for those self-assured smirks, y'all.

Karr was excluded by the limited DNA sample, so while it may be useless in positively identifying the killer, it has limited value as a means of excluding suspects.
 
Dna although helpful, is not a perfect science. Who knows if there were 2 involved, or if it was her panties from the manufacture that contaminated. Or someone else. I can tell you off hand that from personal experience, they do get it wrong.
 
julia said:
Dna although helpful, is not a perfect science. Who knows if there were 2 involved, or if it was her panties from the manufacture that contaminated. Or someone else. I can tell you off hand that from personal experience, they do get it wrong.
They sure do. Even if they had a full spectrum DNA sample it wouldn't necessarily have come from the killer - assuming there was a non-Ramsey killer.

If other circumstances/information placed a certain suspect in the house AND you had a full spectrum DNA match - you've got the guy.

Anything less, and you are struggling to build a case.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
"Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person."


That's one tricky factory worker, that can get his/her DNA in JBR's fingernails and mix it up in her blood stain!
The factory worker theory isn't believable. If that were the case, then LE would never be able to identify DNA from any crime scene, as every victims clothing would be contaminated ~ from the factory to the clothing store it was purchased from!
 
Jolynna said:
The DNA found on JB points away from a sex-crazed pedophile
I don't believe a pedophile killed JonBonet, but I am still of the opinion an intruder killed her.The crime scene reeks of resentment and hate.
I think the killer is an acquaintance of Patsy, John or both.
 
"If that were the case, then LE would never be able to identify DNA from any crime scene, as every victims clothing would be contaminated ~ from the factory to the clothing store it was purchased from!"

As DNA testing becomes more sensitive, tests ARE going to find more and more non-crime-related DNA. According to forensic experts, they already are.

But, that is not a bad thing.

Because along with the sneeze from the guy from the plant, pathologists are picking up evidence that would previously have been missed.

If the contaminated 10 marker DNA from JB's underwear had been a match to Karr's, none of JK's family's alibis would have prevented a conviction. (In my opinion)

Is it possible for DNA other than JonBenet's to be on her underwear? According to experienced pathologists, it is.

Would it be likely that DNA from someone who would have no reason to be around JonBenet would be found on her underwear? Especially DNA from a suspect who had also confessed? I, for one, do not think so.

The contamination and only 10 markers might not give one chance out of 100 million results. But, I think that even a likelihood of one in 10,000 would be enough for most jurists.
 
magnolia said:
I don't believe a pedophile killed JonBonet, but I am still of the opinion an intruder killed her.The crime scene reeks of resentment and hate.
I think the killer is an acquaintance of Patsy or John.
I agree that it wasn't a stranger/pedophile and that it was someone very close to the family ~ hence the personal "ransom note" addressed to John Ramsey. I still include someone in the house though, as no information has ever come forward of anyone who would have such a motive for killing JonBenet. If John Ramsey knew of someone he'd fired, or someone who'd want retailiation against him, why wouldn't he have led the investigation down that path?
:confused:
 
Jolynna said:
"If that were the case, then LE would never be able to identify DNA from any crime scene, as every victims clothing would be contaminated ~ from the factory to the clothing store it was purchased from!"

As DNA testing becomes more sensitive, tests ARE going to find more and more non-crime-related DNA. According to forensic experts, they already are.

But, that is not a bad thing.

Because along with the sneeze from the guy from the plant, pathologists are picking up evidence that would previously have been missed.

If the contaminated 10 marker DNA from JB's underwear had been a match to Karr's, none of JK's family's alibis would have prevented a conviction. (In my opinion)

The contamination and only 10 markers might not give one chance out of 100 million results. But, I think that even a likelihood of one in 10,000 would be enough for most jurists.
It would probably sway any jury, but I'm not sure it would stand up in court as being damning evidence, unless there were so many other indicators that the DNA would just be the icing on the cake. With Karr, it was all fantasy, and there was no indication he had even been in the same town on that day.

The 10-marker sample might well be enough to exclude some suspects, but as a matching entity, it could never legally stand as evidence in itself, other than as supplementary information.
 
Jolynna said:
"If that were the case, then LE would never be able to identify DNA from any crime scene, as every victims clothing would be contaminated ~ from the factory to the clothing store it was purchased from!"

As DNA testing becomes more sensitive, tests ARE going to find more and more non-crime-related DNA. According to forensic experts, they already are.

But, that is not a bad thing.

Because along with the sneeze from the guy from the plant, pathologists are picking up evidence that would previously have been missed.

If the contaminated 10 marker DNA from JB's underwear had been a match to Karr's, none of JK's family's alibis would have prevented a conviction. (In my opinion)

The contamination and only 10 markers might not give one chance out of 100 million results. But, I think that even a likelihood of one in 10,000 would be enough for most jurists.
I agree that the testing process has become so much more sophisticated than it was when this crime occurred. I also would trust the DNA test results, due to the statistical improbabilities of DNA belonging to another person being so great. I don't think that a jury would convict on a one in 10,000 probability without other evidence.
 
panthera said:
I agree that the testing process has become so much more sophisticated than it was when this crime occurred. I also would trust the DNA test results, due to the statistical improbabilities of DNA belonging to another person being so great. I don't think that a jury would convict on a one in 10,000 probability without other evidence.
The case has always bewildered me...

Let me see now... no clear evidence of an intruder... no full spectrum alien/non-Ramsey DNA, despite the prolonged and close contact the killer MUST have had with the child...

Hey, wait a minute... you don't think the Ramseys' could have been lying do ya?

And I never saw it comin'...
 
Originally Posted by magnolia
I read quite a bit of references being made to Markers as being used as the foundation for DNA testing.

Does anyone know anything about some of the latest advances of DNA testing such as PCR and the use of Str's which requires less sample?
Everything you ever wanted to know about DNA testing...
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html
 
Bronte Nut said:
The case has always bewildered me...

Let me see now... no clear evidence of an intruder... no full spectrum alien/non-Ramsey DNA, despite the prolonged and close contact the killer MUST have had with the child...

Hey, wait a minute... you don't think the Ramseys' could have been lying do ya?

And I never saw it comin'...
A full spectrum DNA sample was not required to exclude the Ramsey's.

I don't think anyone is so naive to believe that the Ramsey's wouldn't lie.
I do, however, believe the Ramsey's are a bit more intelligent than you are giving them credit for.
Who would compose a ransom note in their own writing in an effort to stage a kidnapping and leave the child in the basement of the home?:waitasec:

Don't you think it would have occurred to either Patsy or John that.....Hey, if we leave a ransom note, we need to remove the body from the house so the kidnapping will be believable. Do you think possibly they thought it was just too cold outside to consider taking the body to another location so they decided the basement would suffice.

Burke, being only nine at the time could have staged a better scenario than this.
 
"A full spectrum DNA sample was not required to exclude the Ramsey's."

You are right. It did not require a full spectrum DNA sample to exclude the Ramsey's. No Ramsey was the source of that sample.

But, because DNA testing has become so sensitive, it is more possible nowadays for that DNA to be non-related to the crime.

Which means, according to Barry Schek & Henry Lee, that not having DNA on the underwear does not exclude anyone from the crime.
 
The dna is a good sample. They use 10 markers in the UK. The dna can be traced to ancestry. If the person is caucasion they most likely have majority european ancestry. They can find out if the dna is majority east asian etc. I'm pretty sure they say it's caucasion. There were also many fibers and a caucasion pubic hair on her blanket that can't be traced to anybody. There are also animal hairs that can't be traced to anything from the ramseys. The shoe print they never traced. They can't explain away the stun gun marks either. There is no other plausible explanation and the button excuse doesn't cut it. Jonbenet wasn't hit on the head first, she died when she was strangled, she was barely alive when the blow came that is why there wasn't massive hemmorage. Fiber evidence is irrelevant because it won't convict or eliminate anybody anyway. There is no evidence John ever sexually abused any daughters or anyone else, period.
 
  • The dna is a good sample. They use 10 markers in the UK.
The Ramsey's HAVE absolutely been excluded as the source of DNA on JonBenet's underwear. However, see posts 13, 16, & 35. Many forensic experts have gone on the record saying that being excluded as the source of this sample should not exclude a suspect from guilt.
  • There were also many fibers and a caucasion pubic hair on her blanket that can't be traced to anybody.
Forensic examiners concluded the pubic hair is actually an arm hair. Many Ramsey houseguests slept in JonBenet's bed when she wasn't home.
  • The shoe print they never traced.
The mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots — something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot.
  • They can't explain away the stun gun marks either.
Dr. Spitz says that what appears to be stun gun marks aren't such marks.
  • Fiber evidence is irrelevant because it won't convict or eliminate anybody anyway.
You may be right in that the fiber evidence will not ultimately convict. But, it is far from insignificant.

There were the fibers that John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are " Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."
 
Whether JonBenet was strangled first and then struck on the head or the other way around is a matter of debate. As is whether or not she had been previously molested.

Another point of view:

Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault


Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says

[font=arial,helvetica]By Charlie Brennan [/font]



%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.

Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.

''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.

"She's had vaginal penetration.''

Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.

"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.

"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.

"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''

Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.

The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.

"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''

He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.

The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''

And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.

"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.

"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
Wright noted that the presence of "birefringent (shiny) foreign material'' in JonBenet's vaginal tract could be consistent with someone penetrating her while wearing rubber gloves.

That, combined with prior disclosures that someone appeared to wipe down the body, is inconsistent with a typical child sex offender.

"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.

"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''

Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.

Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.
 
Juliet10 said:
The dna is a good sample. They use 10 markers in the UK. The dna can be traced to ancestry. If the person is caucasion they most likely have majority european ancestry. They can find out if the dna is majority east asian etc. I'm pretty sure they say it's caucasion. There were also many fibers and a caucasion pubic hair on her blanket that can't be traced to anybody. There are also animal hairs that can't be traced to anything from the ramseys. The shoe print they never traced. They can't explain away the stun gun marks either. There is no other plausible explanation and the button excuse doesn't cut it. Jonbenet wasn't hit on the head first, she died when she was strangled, she was barely alive when the blow came that is why there wasn't massive hemmorage. Fiber evidence is irrelevant because it won't convict or eliminate anybody anyway. There is no evidence John ever sexually abused any daughters or anyone else, period.
I have no doubt the DNA is a good viable sample.

Advances in DNA testing now allows for good test results with less sample.
I also don't think the button theory is a reasonable explanation for the marks.

I am also certain any skeleton's the Ramsey's may have had in their closet would have long since been exposed for the World to see.
People are just not able to push any big secrets under the rug when going through a high profile investigation such as the one the Ramsey's went through. Burke, being only nine years of age when JB was killed, would have surely slipped up at some point in the last ten years and revealed any significant problems. You better believe he has been very discreetly asked many questions by friends, family members & people he is acquainted with. Most children pick up on minor details that some adults don't even pay any attention to. Something would have slipped out by now.
 
Jolynna said:
The Ramsey's HAVE absolutely been excluded as the source of DNA on JonBenet's underwear. However, see posts 13, 16, & 35. Many forensic experts have gone on the record saying that being excluded as the source of this sample should not exclude a suspect from guilt.

yes that's true. If they believe that the dna might be from a factory worker they should do an ancestry dna test. It will say if it is majority east asian or european etc. I don't know what part of the world they may think the underwear came from. If someone from the ramsey team say it's caucasion dna perhaps they meant that the majority ancestry is european. A factory worker from the 3rd world wouldn't have majority european ancestry.

It's a good sample either way. If they get a match they only need to tie that person to boulder or colorado 1996/7. That makes it pretty impossible for it not to be the person that matches the sample. Imagine if the person was proven to live only 5-10-15-20 miles away from the ramsey home. It would be pretty much over for that person after that.

Is the hi tech boot a small size or adult size? That would be helpful.

They need to explain what those marks are. Buttons doesn't cut it. button indentations disappear quickly and when you get elastic marks they disappear and they don't look like that. They aren't dark like that. Those looked like burn marks you get from a curling iron. It's likely stun gun marks. Spitz is probably biased. Many think they are stun gun marks.

The fiber evidence doesn't convince me of anything either way. There are probably hundreds of thousands of fibers from all over the home that could've been put there by anybody at anytime. Plus fibers are transferred all over the home at all times.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
3,365
Total visitors
3,508

Forum statistics

Threads
603,279
Messages
18,154,307
Members
231,694
Latest member
Jonnyfastball
Back
Top