The Ramseys are Cleared

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Nedthan Johns said:
Okay here is what I found out. As you all may or may not know having followed this case for years and working in the Biotech industry I have direct access to very bright people who know a lot about DNA. Touch DNA is just a fancy term (one they never heard of and probably dubbed by the media they said) for a small or incomplete DNA marker. Such as a single cell found on clothing, which is what we have here according to Lacy in 3 places , she states: the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.

According to several of the Ph.D.'s I spoke with this is significant because the odds of it being in so many places and linked directly to the blood found in her panties, does in fact point to a third party. Again these markers are incomplete hence (my favorite Pasty Ramsey word) the word Touch DNA. It's a small sample, again where they can exclude someone but not link someone directly to the crime. So what are the odds this DNA is similar in 3 places on her longjohns? Probably more significant then finding them on her outer clothing. The consenes was by my group, THIS IS HUGE. Is the statement then accurate or too bold for Lacy to say the parents are vindicated? The group here thinks there was a third party in that house. I'm stunned.
Click to expand...

Quality post, understated final comment.
 
I'd like to talk to the Scientists who conducted these tests.

I stick to the evidence and this is hard core scientific evidence of a third party. I have to wonder though if they were able to pick up "Touch DNA" from her clothing, were they able to get any off of that rope, blanket or anything else this so called intruder touched? I take it at this point he took off his gloves and as Smit once said, digitally penetrated her? If they were able to get DNA off her long johns, that means this killer had his gloves off, if he was even wearing any.
 
LI_Mom said:
Declared innocent?

I think the DA might feel this proves their innocence but unfortunately to people who have been paying attention all along, this won't convince them.


Btw, OJ was declared innocent also.
Click to expand...

OJ was arrested and had two trials. One jury found him guilty.

There is no such thing as being declared innocent in a trial. It's only guilty or not guilty. Ramsey's were never charged with any crime. A federal judge ruled an intruder had murdered their dtr in a defamation lawsuit in 2003.
 
Details said:
Wouldn't surprise me. I don't think that is such a rare thing. Lots of people have trouble with that letter.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise you? Oh My....Patsy was a victim of the one in a bazillion odds that her daughter's murderer had the exact same handwriting that she did.......:waitasec:
 
Skigwy said:
Then you should be aware of Mary Lacy's documented history of utter incompetence and cowing in the face of Lin Wood legal threats.

And, since you mention Carnes, you should also be aware of the source of her "abundant evidence".


The Ramseys have asserted loads...they just won't assert their phone records.
Click to expand...

The declaration of innocence can only help Lin Wood in whatever business he might now wish to pursue.

"My first thought was obviously I wish Patsy Ramsey was here with us to be able to at least share vindication of her family," said L. Lin Wood, an attorney for the Ramsey family.

"There are many people in this country, if not around the world, that also owe John and Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey (their son) an apology," he said.


http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/breaking/news-article.aspx?storyid=113350&catid=17
 
how does male DNA that does not match anyone in the family or their known aquaintences find it's way on the underpants and long johns of a murder victim?
 
Here ya go trixie, thanks for the suggestion.


River, the 'q' is an excellent example but there really are so many that match up. I wonder how many IDIs actually have looked over all the samples. l


Ned. hmmmm. You being stunned has stunned me.:eek:
 
LI_Mom said:
Declared innocent?

I think the DA might feel this proves their innocence but unfortunately to people who have been paying attention all along, this won't convince them.


Btw, OJ was declared innocent also.
Click to expand...



I've been paying attention. I felt the Ramsey's were innocent from the get go.
Now DNA proves that.

OJ was found "not guilty".
 
You all are arguing about things outside of the evidence, stick to what we have here. Who cares what Lin Wood has to say or how close Patsy's handwriting matches the letter. I agree. Let's rebute the new evidence. HOW DID IT GET THERE??? ANY THOUGHTS? Oh....no more Asian factory worker theories, not possible now that this is on her long johns as well as her panties unless they were manufactered at the same time in the same plant by the same worker. Think folks!!! Was this someone the Ramsey's knew?
 
Nedthan Johns said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3085204.ece

Read the link above and lets just jump the fence for a moment...just for kicks and forget all the known evidence that points towards the Ramsey's. How do we explain this new evidence without the intruder scenario???
Click to expand...


Here's another question.....

if an intruder wasn't wearing gloves at one point.... why aren't there touch cells found on MANY, MANY locations of her clothing & just in a few spots that they managed to test?


That makes no sense to me.


No touch dna on the letter.... none on the glass in the kitchen?
 
Nedthan Johns said:
Okay here is what I found out. As you all may or may not know having followed this case for years and working in the Biotech industry I have direct access to very bright people who know a lot about DNA. Touch DNA is just a fancy term (one they never heard of and probably dubbed by the media they said) for a small or incomplete DNA marker. Such as a single cell found on clothing, which is what we have here according to Lacy in 3 places , she states: the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.

According to several of the Ph.D.'s I spoke with this is significant because the odds of it being in so many places and linked directly to the blood found in her panties, does in fact point to a third party. Again these markers are incomplete hence (my favorite Pasty Ramsey word) the word Touch DNA. It's a small sample, again where they can exclude someone but not link someone directly to the crime. So what are the odds this DNA is similar in 3 places on her longjohns? Probably more significant then finding them on her outer clothing. The consenes was by my group, THIS IS HUGE. Is the statement then accurate or too bold for Lacy to say the parents are vindicated? The group here thinks there was a third party in that house. I'm stunned.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Oh about my previous posts I hadn't read the full article, there was DNA on other parts of her clothing. I don't get why Patsy Ramsey said she didn't recognize the panties then. Well if it's not her, I still don't get why the Boulder police have never found the murderer then. This DNA won't lead them anywhere if it's truly an intruder who did so, I think it was an isolated crime, he is not gonna kill the daughters of all the people he is jealous of. I don't think he was a pedophile. Just a jealous man.
 
I am NOT putting this forward as fact, I'm simply asking if it's at all possible. IF there were painting gloves or work gloves of some kind and patsy wore these so as not to have to touch JonBenet while forcing herself to do what she had to do (panic survival mode) could DNA transfer from the outdside of these gloves to JB... say a worker left them behind?
 
Jubie,

Don't be stunned. I'm just an evidence guy. This DNA is shouting at us once again, and now it's appeared in another place it shouldn't be. I would like to know if there is further testing going on, on her sheets, pillows, blanket, rope, paint brush. Because if this "Touch DNA" starts showing up elsewhere, I am going to have an even harder time knowing this guy is still out there. We all pretty much came to the conclusion that IF the Ramsey's had done this crime, it was accidental in nature. Think for a moment if someone had gotten away with this for all these years? No matter what happens, I still do believe the Ramsey's hindered this investigation from the get go and their actions are bizarre. But they just may be bizarre people. I live back in Colorado now folks and I can tell you as well as Camper that Boulder houses the nuts in this state. Where are you Camper??
 
Didn't Patsy at one point say there were 5 people in the house that night, but later changed it to 4?

Like another poster said, there were just too many "little" lies told by the Ramsey's. Too many inconsistent statements made to LE and the public about what they did and wore during those days.
 
Jubie,
Yes, but the problem is the blood evidence. I may be wrong here and correct me if I am, but If I recall correctly the DNA in her panties was confirmed as BLOOD DNA. So that would mean it could not have gotten there by secondary transfer from gloves.
 
Nedthan Johns said:
Jubie,
Yes, but the problem is the blood evidence. I may be wrong here and correct me if I am, but If I recall correctly the DNA in her panties was confirmed as BLOOD DNA. So that would mean it could not have gotten there by secondary transfer from gloves.
Click to expand...

You're correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 93 more.
Total: 1,635 (members: 94, guests: 1,541)

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
1,541
Total visitors
1,635
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,578
Messages
18,097,018
Members
230,886
Latest member
DeeDee214
Back
Top