You're wrong.
Simple question...
- Thread starter madeleine
- Start date
You're wrong.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
I didn't make it up, don't take my word for it. Read the news.
Have you read any RDI lately? Waiting for a book perhaps?
I'd say cynic addressed the issue quite well.
Like you said, HOTYH: it's just a matter of time.
The DNA may already have been on the panties when the blood (which consisted of some very small droplets) was dripped onto the panties. There is no way to prove they were deposited at the same time. If my husband cut his hand and bled onto a shirt, then gave the shirt to me to put in the hamper, you might find my DNA mixed with the blood. Doesn't mean I was there when it happened.
Ripley007
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
blah, blah, blah, blah..........whatever............
JesusC, one would have thought this new revelation of "touch" dna would have helped explain things, ie:brought the REAL issue back home where it belongs........but instead, we get this nonsense...........snooze.............wake me up when it's over.
JesusC, one would have thought this new revelation of "touch" dna would have helped explain things, ie:brought the REAL issue back home where it belongs........but instead, we get this nonsense...........snooze.............wake me up when it's over.
You may be in for a long snooze. I am not hopeful this case will be solved anytime soon. The REAL issue is there is still no one that has been linked to any of the DNA. Until we have a name....we have nothing.
On the other hand, we do have names for the source of the fibers that were found on the body in places exclusive to the crime. Patsy (fibers intwined in the garrote knot and inside the tape) and JR (fibers inside a pair of panties taken that night from a package that had been gift wrapped in the basement).
Gypsy Road
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 15,454
my first instinct was YES!!!!
Why shouldn't fibers from the Ramsey's clothing be found on their daughter. If they held her body close to theirs, as she was found, their fibers should be found on her. They touched and handled her lifeless little frame in anguish, passionately, as they grieved over her.
"John Ramsey fell apart on the death of Beth. The strong silent executive collapsed inward and nothing could soothe him. He would be heard in the middle of the night crying and wailing in the attic wrapped in pain." Detective Steven Thomas
Strange how people are labeled.
And, someone will say, "Well, see, he didn't display emotion like that over JonBenet. Guilty!" I will guarantee everyone who doubts, JR was equally devastated or more so over his six year old daughter's vicious, hideous murder.
The investigation has uncovered a smoking gun. Male DNA was found in three separate locations on the victim that matched. This evidence excluded Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey's DNA. The chances of this happening randomly, through someone without direct contact with the child, are so small think of string theory strings.
Therein lies the problem, WhiteFang: PR tried to explain the presence of her fibers that way. Problem was, it couldn't have happened that way because JB was already covered up. I hope PR asked her lawyer for her money back.
It isn't the parents' fibers on their daughter PER SE that are the problem. It is the parents' fibers on FOUR items EXCLUSIVE to the CRIME that are the problem. They are:
Patsy's fibers from a sweater jacket she wore THAT day (and was still wearing when LE arrived after the 911 call) - these fibers were found on on the INSIDE of the tape that had been on JB's mouth. Patsy told LE she never wore that jacket in the basement. Patsy claimed not to have seen JB after she went to bed that night so she never saw her with the tape on hr mouth. The tape was pulled off by JR before she was brought upstairs so Patsy had no way to handle the tape. UNLESS she was there when it was put on.
Patsy's same jacket fibers were found entwined in the knot of the garrote. Unless Patsy was there when it was tied, how would this happen? JB's body was covered with a blanket and a sweatshirt when Patsy was allowed to throw herself on the body. The knot was at the back of JB's neck, but JB was placed on the rug face up. No way could those fibers get entwined in the knot through a blanket and sweatshirt, and facing the wrong way.
Patsy's same fibers were found in the paint tray where the broken brush was found to have come from. Patsy told LE she never painted wearing that jacket and she was not the one who moved the tote to the basement anyway, she had told her housekeeper to do it days before.
JR's fibers from an Israeli-made dark wool shirt were found inside the crotch of the oversized panties found on the body. Patsy claimed she was unaware that JB was wearing panties that were not her proper size, claiming JB must have put them on herself. So why would JB's fibers get INSIDE the crotch? Even though he brought the body up, she was still wearing longjohns over her panties.
These are the fibers that are suspicious because they are linked to the crime itself, not just to the child.
Patsy's fibers from a sweater jacket she wore THAT day (and was still wearing when LE arrived after the 911 call) - these fibers were found on on the INSIDE of the tape that had been on JB's mouth. Patsy told LE she never wore that jacket in the basement. Patsy claimed not to have seen JB after she went to bed that night so she never saw her with the tape on hr mouth. The tape was pulled off by JR before she was brought upstairs so Patsy had no way to handle the tape. UNLESS she was there when it was put on.
Patsy's same jacket fibers were found entwined in the knot of the garrote. Unless Patsy was there when it was tied, how would this happen? JB's body was covered with a blanket and a sweatshirt when Patsy was allowed to throw herself on the body. The knot was at the back of JB's neck, but JB was placed on the rug face up. No way could those fibers get entwined in the knot through a blanket and sweatshirt, and facing the wrong way.
Patsy's same fibers were found in the paint tray where the broken brush was found to have come from. Patsy told LE she never painted wearing that jacket and she was not the one who moved the tote to the basement anyway, she had told her housekeeper to do it days before.
JR's fibers from an Israeli-made dark wool shirt were found inside the crotch of the oversized panties found on the body. Patsy claimed she was unaware that JB was wearing panties that were not her proper size, claiming JB must have put them on herself. So why would JB's fibers get INSIDE the crotch? Even though he brought the body up, she was still wearing longjohns over her panties.
These are the fibers that are suspicious because they are linked to the crime itself, not just to the child.
Ripley007
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
True. But the font and whether written left-handed by a right-handed person etc....really doesn't tell the story. What does tell the story, and thus the TRUTH-is LITERARY FORENSICS! "...since no two people use language in precisely the say way, our identities are encoded in our own language, in a kind of literary forensics-by which it becomes possible to unmask anonymous authors as they ultimatately betray their identities with their own work" (Don Foster-Author Unknown)
These scenes were dynamic, fluid, live, moment-by-moment human events. Are you adamant? You are certain since she had been covered that Patsy's embrace would not have shifted the blankets and sweatshirt as she wept and sobbed into, onto Joni's neck?
Take a piece of tape and drag it across your carpet in any room where you live. Assuming you've lived there for several months, you will find a wide range of debris from a wide assortment of clothing, people, pets, and miscellaneous. I bet you'll find fibers from the former occupiers'/owners' relatives. Do the same with clothes you wear, paint can lids, dog toys, books, etc., and see if you don't trap fibers and other identifiable material from likewise diverse sources.
Unknown male DNA found on JB's underwear. Unknown male DNA found on each side of long-johns she was wearing when corpse was found. All the DNA from unknown males, perfectly matched, that is to say, it came from one unknown male. Every male doctor/med-tech/emergency medical worker, cop, person who handled her corpse/items of clothing should have their DNA tested.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
As I think as Madeline has found, there is a difference between what the investigators said they had as evidence, and what they could prove was evidence. When the R's lawyer asked to see the report on the fibres, they could not/would not produce it. So if there were any fibres found that in any way resembled anything belonging to either parent is pure speculation.
While we're testing, let's see how many unsourced DNA samples would also be obtained.
Uh-huh.
Pretty close, anyway.
Fang, even if that did happen--and I have no reason to believe that it did--it just doesn't hack it. That story might explain fibers that were ON the cord, but not tied INTO the knots along with JB's hair. So how did the fibers work their way in? Moreover, it wouldn't explain how her fibers got onto the duct tape, the white blanket JB was wrapped in and in the paint tray--all of which remained downstairs in the basement, where PR claimed she had not been. They'd have to float down the stairs, down a hallway and around several corners.
It would require magic.