Simple question...

[madeleine]

Why not the paintbrush?

Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF 181; PSMF 181. )

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

and


Q. Do you recall ever seeing in your

4 house brown kind of work gloves, cotton?

5 A. Brown cotton? John had -- I

6 don't remember brown work gloves.

7 Q. Can you picture what I am talking

8 about?

9 MR. WOOD: Do you have a photo

10 maybe or something?

11 MR. LEVIN: No, I, we, we don't.

12 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Have you ever

13 seen, they are kind of a --

14 MR. WOOD: No, I don't think so.

15 You got to do better than that. You can

16 conjure up a zillion different brown work

17 gloves.

18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Cotton brown work

19 gloves.

20 A. Cotton brown work gloves?

21 Q. Costs you about three bucks in

22 the grocery store. I am not creating any

23 images for you?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay.

0181

1 MR. WOOD: Me either.

2 MR. LEVIN: We will just leave

3 that.

4 CHIEF BECKNER: Before we go too

5 far, for clarification for me, when you were

6 asked about wearing garden gloves, you said

7 not usually, I believe. Does that mean

8 sometimes you would?

9 THE WITNESS: I don't remember

10 doing that. I mean, I do wear them now

11 because now I am wearing these funny

12 fingernails, I don't want to get them messed

13 up, but I don't think I was doing it then.

14 So I don't, I don't ever remember -- I am

15 not a big gardener, so I didn't have all of

16 the trappings, you know, all of that stuff.

17 So I do not remember having any gardening

18 gloves.

19 Q. (By Mr. Kane) You started to say

20 that John had. John had what?

21 MR. WOOD: Let's see exactly what

22 she said.

23 MR. KANE: Lin, she said John had

24 30 seconds ago. What did John have?

25 MR. WOOD: Excuse me. The

0182

1 question was, do you recall ever seeing in

2 your house brown kind of work gloves, cotton,

3 and you went brown cotton, and you said John

4 had, and you said I don't remember brown.

5 All I want to do is put it in the context

6 of what she said. Do you remember saying

7 that?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes.

9 MR. WOOD: Now, Mr. Kane, go

10 right ahead.

11 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Now that you've

12 had time to think about it for a minute,

13 what did John have?

14 A. What kind of gloves did he have?

15 Q. What were you about to say? You

16 said John had.

17 A. John had ski gloves.



S I G H




ETA:I guess Carne's text above could mean only one of two things :
1.An intruder wore brown cotton gloves or
2.The cord,tape,ligature ARE part of a R staging.

And btw,how the hell can she claim they don't match anything in the R home?They weren't busy testing many things in the first place!!

Even IF (lol) this would be true but it's obvious it isn't(they missed collecting most of the important things in this case) that still doesn't mean the R's couldn't have "lost" the gloves right after the murder...........and I forgot about PR sister "collecting" items from the house....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Even IF (lol) this would be true but it's obvious it isn't(they missed collecting most of the important things in this case) that still doesn't mean the R's couldn't have "lost" the gloves right after the murder...........and I forgot about PR sister "collecting" items from the house....

Wildcard excuses, not explanations. IOW while your statements seem to be explaining why items are missing, the explanation would work on ANY ITEM and does not require you to PROVE anything.

VERY WILDCARD.

 

[cynic]

Janelle and JBR are apples and oranges, really.

If you are unable to see the clear DNA correlation between the Patton and JBR cases, then there is no future for you in fruit inspection.

 

[DeeDee249]

Why not the paintbrush? The other underwear in the package of underwear? The basement floor?

BTW is it true that JBR's original underwear is missing?

Yes, hopefully the paintbrush pieces and tote remain in evidence. The other underwear was not returned to LE until (I believe) 5 YEARS later. There is no way to tell if they were really part of the original set Patsy said she bought for her niece. Bloomingdale's continues to sell Day-of-the Week Panty sets for girls, though of course the prints change with the styles of the day.
The basement floor is gone, as far as this case in concerned. The house was sold a few times, and the most recent owner did extensive basement renovations. The basement floor, as well as every other part of that house, will no longer yield any useful evidence. The group of R "supporters" who bought the house from the Rs, whitewashed every wall and pulled up every carpet, so any chance of further discovery of evidence was lost at that point.
From a legal standpoint, no subsequent owner is party to the case and has no obligation to allow any search of that property anyway.

As far as I know, the original panties that JB was wearing that day (in her proper size) was never found.

 

[BBB167893]

The original DNA was thought by many to exhonerate, and the new DNA simply to corroborate.

AHEM!

Has anyone checked for any more DNA from THIS unknown male? Would the DA consider it redundant since we've got all we need?

You don't suffer from overconfidence or anything?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You don't suffer from overconfidence or anything?

Lets just say its only a matter of time.

 

[BBB167893]

Lets just say its only a matter of time.

I know EXACTLY what you mean...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I know EXACTLY what you mean...

I doubt it.

 

[BOESP]

If I remember correctly, the degraded DNA found with the blood spot had to be replicated in order to produce the minimum 13 markers required for submission to CODIS. This means the DNA, as found, was of such low quality that it had to be manipulated in order to meet minimum requirements.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If I remember correctly, the degraded DNA found with the blood spot had to be replicated in order to produce the minimum 13 markers required for submission to CODIS. This means the DNA, as found, was of such low quality that it had to be manipulated in order to meet minimum requirements.

The FBI was given the DNA samples that BPD had for years. Some of them were degraded and unusable. One sample was not, and was entered into CODIS.

That sample was found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, which placed the DNA owner at the crime scene.

 

[BBB167893]

I doubt it.

Have it your way :innocent:

 

[BBB167893]

If I remember correctly, the degraded DNA found with the blood spot had to be replicated in order to produce the minimum 13 markers required for submission to CODIS. This means the DNA, as found, was of such low quality that it had to be manipulated in order to meet minimum requirements.

Quite so. The sample HOTYH speaks so highly of was essentially politicked in.

 

[BOESP]

The FBI was given the DNA samples that BPD had for years. Some of them were degraded and unusable. One sample was not, and was entered into CODIS.

That sample was found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, which placed the DNA owner at the crime scene.

Degraded doesn't always mean unusable. The replicated DNA was not unusable. It was just low quality and had to be replicated in order to meet minimum CODIS standards.

If an arbitrary amount of blood drops onto a spot that has prior DNA how does that prove the DNA owner was at the crime scene? We've already discussed how the DNA could have been transferred by any one of several innocent (so to speak) means.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Degraded doesn't always mean unusable. The replicated DNA was not unusable. It was just low quality and had to be replicated in order to meet minimum CODIS standards.

If an arbitrary amount of blood drops onto a spot that has prior DNA how does that prove the DNA owner was at the crime scene? We've already discussed how the DNA could have been transferred by any one of several innocent (so to speak) means.

This is your characterization of the DNA and blood drop relationship. Maybe its possible your characterization is correct. However, my characterization where the DNA is mixed with blood was reported by the news whereas yours wasn't.

DNA mixed with blood = DNA owner was at the crime scene.

Still not sure? Check the whisps of DNA floating about on the outside of JBR's longjohns. You'll find it matches the blood spot DNA. There's one and only one way that could happen.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Quite so. The sample HOTYH speaks so highly of was essentially politicked in.

This is a generalization.

 

[BBB167893]

This is a generalization.

For what it's worth, HOTYH, you're right. It was more nuanced than that.

 

[BOESP]

This is your characterization of the DNA and blood drop relationship. Maybe its possible your characterization is correct. However, my characterization where the DNA is mixed with blood was reported by the news whereas yours wasn't.

DNA mixed with blood = DNA owner was at the crime scene.

Still not sure? Check the whisps of DNA floating about on the outside of JBR's longjohns. You'll find it matches the blood spot DNA. There's one and only one way that could happen.

Well, you've already told us you don't rely on hearsay so why give a news report such credence. It makes your argument look wishy-washy.

However, I don't recall reading ANY news report that said the chicken came before the egg or vice versa. There were reports of DNA being found with a blood spot and that the DNA had to be separated from JonBenet's DNA before it could be replicated. There is no way to tell when the unknown DNA arrived.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, you've already told us you don't rely on hearsay so why give a news report such credence. It makes your argument look wishy-washy.

I have nothing else besides news reports.

However, I don't recall reading ANY news report that said the chicken came before the egg or vice versa. There were reports of DNA being found with a blood spot and that the DNA had to be separated from JonBenet's DNA before it could be replicated. There is no way to tell when the unknown DNA arrived.

Well, yes there is.

There's DNA and there's JBR's blood. You're claiming one relationship while I'm claiming another. You can't prove yours or disprove mine.

My claim, however, is corroborated by the matching touch DNA. That is, touch DNA is very delicate and won't survive a wash, and is present on another item that was also at the crime scene.

Your claim that the DNA preexisted the blood cannot be corroborated. Maybe if this DNA showed up in the package of underwear things would be different (the touch DNA would contradict that finding however).

 

[BOESP]

I have nothing else besides news reports.



Well, yes there is.

There's DNA and there's JBR's blood. You're claiming one relationship while I'm claiming another. You can't prove yours or disprove mine.

My claim, however, is corroborated by the matching touch DNA. That is, touch DNA is very delicate and won't survive a wash, and is present on another item that was also at the crime scene.

Your claim that the DNA preexisted the blood cannot be corroborated. Maybe if this DNA showed up in the package of underwear things would be different (the touch DNA would contradict that finding however).

I said there's no way to know when the DNA was deposited. I made no claim one way or the other aside from plainly stating there is no way to know.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I said there's no way to know when the DNA was deposited. I made no claim one way or the other aside from plainly stating there is no way to know.

Just because you 'plainly state' there is no way to know, doesn't mean there's no way to know.

There IS a way to know and its right in front of you. The DNA was reported MIXED with blood, and matching touch DNA was also found.

There is one and only one way this could happen, and it requires the DNA be deposited with the blood and the DNA deposited on the longjohns at the crime scene.