http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/touch-dna-same-was-used-free-masters/
Thought this was interesting.
Thought this was interesting.
It is my understanding that the DNA in the underwear was mixed with Jonbenet's blood and this DNA was from saliva? At least that is what I recall. The DNA on the elastic waist band from the long johns was skin cells. Skin cells you can't see a stain that is why they do this touch DNA scraping technique, correct? Saliva and semen you can see some sort of stain that is how they know where is the best place to swab an item if they see something that looks suspicious. I definately no expert but maybe someone who understands this stuff can enlighten us.I don't know for sure but doesn't that mean if the underwear is a saliva stain and the waistband skin cells doesn't that elimate the chance that this is a innocent transfer? If it was a transfer wouldn't the waistband also have blood on it since that DNA they found in the panties was mixed with blood?
You really think a cold blooded killer sat down, wrote the note, left the pad and placed the pen they used to write it back in a pencil holder?
This is such great news that these people who have been judged, tried and convicted in the court of public opinion have finally been cleared. May Patsy and JBR rest in peace and maybe now Burke can live a normal life. I hope they find the killer now. Maybe now LE will start looking in the right places.
John's shirt fibers were found in JB's panties. Care to explain that? I'm not buying the "laundry" theory.
Do you think a parent would kill their child, then turn around and write their own ransom note?
Isn't that something?
Some crazy guy is talking about his fantasies about Jonbenet - and John Ramsey doesn't even say that hearing about it makes him want to vomit!
I have a couple of observations and I hope you all will bear with me. May mean something, may mean nothing but feedback is appreciated.
From Mary Lacys love letter to John Ramsey released today for public consumption:
"We became aware last summer that some private laboratories were conducting a new methodology described as "touch DNA."
I'm reminded when I read this that the Ramseys refused to take LE and FBI polygraph tests, instead hiring and paying professional polygraphers to administer private tests years after the crime. It took Patsy 3 tries to pass. Even the hired help couldn't help her with it. I believe John passed the first time. Mark Beckner released a statement about it saying the results would not be accepted by LE investigating this case.
My question here is , why is it ok to accept the results of a DNA test from a private laboratory on the findings of DNA and yet a polygraph administered by hired private polygraphers is not acceptable?
Seems to be a descrepency in protocol.
Or .....a difference in who is calling the shots and deciding which evidence is acceptable and which is not. It falls along the same lines as I said in a post before. Mary Lacy only released results that would give her justification to clear the Ramseys. Private polygraphs were not ok with Beckner, private laboratory results are A-OK with Mary Lacy. I wonder really how many items were tested before they came up with the results she was looking for. If she didn't test anything but the long johns, that is suspicious.
In a dryer clothing often sticks to each other and have to be literally pulled apart from the dryer. If the size 12 undies were brand new and unwashed, as I am thinking that they probably were, the fibers from John's shirt could have come from JBR's long- johns which could have been dried with John's shirt...Her longjohns touched her panties.
It's a stretch that both items worn by two different family members on the night JBR died were dried in the same load of clothes and transferred fibers...but it's possible, IMO.
Considering the fact that the panties were brand new out of a newly opened package....never made it to the laundry...where, by the way, John's wool sweater would have never been in the first place.
Makes it a bit hard to explain away.
This all just smells.
Dryell- Drycleaning using your dryer at home ... Freshen up stale woolen fabric in minutes...
from the underwear and the tights???? Two different places same DNA??? I think that is probably unlikely. Unless the tights and the underwear came from the same worker in the same factor, which I doubt.
I read there was the drop of blood inside the panties. They now have skin cells from pulling on or off the panties that matches the DNA of the blood. That makes the blood DNA a lot more credible to me. I would have previously said the blood was planted.
Nancy is a trip..she is pissy one second and then so sweet to her callers, then back to berating most of the people on her panel LOL
Nancy is delusional. Her sidekick, Wendy Murphy is a fourth-tier toilet attorney with a brain to match.
Well Wendy, what do you think of John Ramsey? He's a pedophile!
What about Santa Clause. He's also a pedophile!
The Easter Bunny? Another scummy pedophile!
I can't ignore the mountain of evidence against the Ramseys. But if John Ramsey repeatedly sexually abused his daughter, he still may not have been the pervert who killed her.
At the same time, I still think there could be legitimate reasons as to how the DNA could have been on the long johns. If she wore them ANYwhere else...to a pageant, etc, some adult could have picked them up to move them over, or help Patsy get their things together.
And then if the DNA on the long johns touched the panties as JBR was being dressed, then that DNA could have gotten on the panties.
We are not talking an actual finger print, right? Just some shedded skin cells? Shedded skin cells could be everywhere.
I"m sure they couldn't DNA test EVERYone the Ramsey's knew.
It's hard for me to discount all the other evidence against the Ramseys.
I can't remember, but did they ever get phone records to see if PR could have called someone to help her cover it up? If I remember correctly, the Ramseys didn't want to provide their phone records but eventually consented to do so, or were forced to provide them.
I do think this DNA is enough to legally exonerate the Ramseys. I do think if I was on a jury, i couldn't say they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would still have plenty of doubts, though.