The Ramseys are Cleared

[angelwngs]

What if the DNA is someone who was in the home and has an alibi?

Not the DNA of a known sexual predator but the DNA of someone who knew JonBenet, could have come into casual contact with her/her clothes and can not have committed the crime?

Does that mean 'science does lie' or that just maybe, 'touch DNA' on the clothes of a victim, in and of itself, doesn't prove or disprove any theory of the crime?

Exactly. That was my point with my theory of the "possibility" of the unidentified male dna coming from the paintbrush which had to have been touched by the killer, thus the possibility of transfer to both places the unknown male dna was found.

I do not understand anyone not considering "posibilities" which do not justify their own positions.

I genuinely feel strongly in my position of who I think is primarily responsible for JBR's death, but I still entertain all 'possibilities' which could indeed prove me wrong. I recently posted here that I think JBR's undies could have 'possibly been contaminated' by 'innocent' transfer fibers from JR's sweater, which would, if proven correct, exclude that particular 'evidence' against JR in my own long list facts pertaining to this case.

In the words of Super Dave... 'keep an open mind...'

Stubborn, 'brick walled' attitudes rarely solve cases, IMO, and they sure are giving me a headache. (I think I'll take some advil, now.)

 

[Medea]

I think this is a really dangerous road to go down. (I think from your post that you agree.) If we are truly shedding microscopic bits of DNA all the time every time we touch anything at all, and those bits of DNA can then be transferred in any number of innocuous ways, how can there not be unidentifiable DNA at many crime scenes?

It is true that DNA "doesn't lie." But it seems to me that based on the nature of DNA testing, DNA evidence can be very misleading.

Yep, you said it better than I did. We already see it to some degree, with defenses blabbing about 'untested evidence' all the time, and unidentified hairs and fibers found...and sadly, people increasingly are buying the idea that if every single item in a house isn't tested and every single hair/fingerprint matched to someone then its 'exculpatory'.....

As DNA testing is getting better, they ARE finding this kind of transfer stuff which is the goose that laid the golden egg for defense attorneys...it will always now be the 'unknown assailant' who left his 'touch DNA' at the crime scene...just forget that my client had means, motive and opportunity and a boat load of circumstantial evidence against him....

 

[Medea]

it is probably actively running through codis as we speak.....it isn't like csi you don't put it in and get ahit in 10 min

What's the rush to exonerate the Ramsey's then?

She couldn't wait until the DNA had run through CODIS, to possibly get a hit and actually apprehend this alleged intruder??????????

 

[kcksum]

Exactly. That was my point with my theory of the "possibility" of the unidentified male dna coming from the paintbrush which had to have been touched by the killer, thus the possibility of transfer to both places the unknown male dna was found.

I do not understand anyone not considering "posibilities" which do not justify their own positions.

I genuinely feel strongly in my position of who I think is primarily responsible for JBR's death, but I still entertain all 'possibilities' which could indeed prove me wrong. I recently posted here that I think JBR's undies could have 'possibly been contaminated' by 'innocent' transfer fibers from JR's sweater, which would, if proven correct, exclude that particular 'evidence' against JR in my own long list facts pertaining to this case.

In the words of Super Dave... 'keep an open mind...'

Stubborn, 'brick walled' attitudes rarely solve cases, IMO, and they sure are giving me a headache. (I think I'll take some advil, now.)

here i have some advil right here.....take some cuz i just took 4

 

[Wudge]

And still could NOT rule her out.

Now you can go read. You're welcome!

This will likely come as a shock to you, but Patsy's handwriting sample was not inculpatory evidence then nor did it ever become inculpatory evidence.

HTH

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me.

If this was a pedophile who wanted to abduct JonBenet, then why didn't he? Why when he got her out of the bedroom didn't he take her? The theory that he 'couldn't wait' and so he started abusing her in the house doesn't fly w/me because she wasn't raped. And this had happened--a pedophile who planned to abduct her, but couldn't wait, and then killed her in the house--wouldn't this pedophile leave, rather than hang around and write the ransom note? Or, the alternative theory that he was already in the house waiting and wrote the ransom note still doesn't explain why the sexually motivated criminal is increasing the odds of being caught by touching and moving all of these objects when what he really wants is the little girl.

Similarly, I don't believe a 'kidnapper' who accidentally killed his victim would stick around and create a fake sex crime, I think the kidnapper who accidentally killed his victim would do what was done in the Lindbergh case...take the body and try to get the money or, call it a night and leave.

This crime mixes and matches details of the sex crime and the kidnapping for money which to me is more than enough evidence that it was staged by neither a sex criminal intruder or a kidnapper.

And all of this evidence doesn't even get into the behavior of the Ramsey's which is totally inconsistent with ever having believed their daughter was kidnapped.

I think he wrote the ransom note when he came in after they had left for the party. I think he rifled through their personal stuff and cased the place out.

I do think he had full intentions of kidnapping her but something went terribly wrong. Maybe JB became frightened and he bound her up and hit her with the stun gun to quieten her and then became very angry with her because she wouldn't comply without force. Maybe he realized since the basement window was so high he couldn't heave her up and over it to take her out.

Why would he care if he left the ransom note behind even though he knew he had killed her inside of her home instead? It sure would let them think she wasn't on the grounds but taken away and that would give him more than ample time to get far away from the crime scene.

There is just no generic cookie cutter profile for pedophile murderers. To say he has to be a certain way or wouldn't have done this or that...... is just guesstimating and speculation at best imo.

imo

 

[angelwngs]

This would be a good thread topic, or poll but I doubt they would see your point.

Gee let's see, touch DNA apparently COULDN'T be picked up by JonBenet somewhere and she COULDN'T have created any cross contamination herself by pulling down her longjohns to go potty then pulling them up again thereby depositing the fractional DNA not only into her panties, but along her longjohns too....

Right?

Thank You, Seeker. It is nice to know that at least one person here understands my point.

 

[Karole28]

Thank You, Seeker. It is nice to know that at least one person here understands my point.

Make that two. :clap:

 

[kcksum]

What's the rush to exonerate the Ramsey's then?

She couldn't wait until the DNA had run through CODIS, to possibly get a hit and actually apprehend this alleged intruder??????????

if i had solid evidence that there was dna proof that an unidentified person deposited dna in three seperate places i would announce it as soon as possible. the only thing that would be worse than having your daughter brutaly assaulted and murdered is to be accused of brutally murdering your daughter when you didn't do it. you better believe she didn't wait she didn't have to. she doesn't need to know whos dna it is in order to say it isnt johns or burks or patsy's

 

[angelwngs]

here i have some advil right here.....take some cuz i just took 4

4 was just the magic number here as well, but TY for the offer.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

My point is only that male skin cells found on the victim's clothing doesn't really inculpate or exonerate anyone.

If they were John or Patsy Ramsey's wouldn't they be equally worthless, since the skin of her parents would most likely be on her clothes?

It is ONE piece of evidence. It could I suppose mean that the whackiest intruder ever to walk the face of the planet did indeed kill JonBenet and coincidentally her parents chose to stonewall the police and her mother gives every indication of being a stone cold crazy narcissist. Or, it could mean nothing.

It troubles me that SKIN CELLS now apparently trump any and all evidence. DNA is not the be all and end all of solving crimes.

No, not imo. If this dna profile found in the blood on her panties and then the same DNA found on the inside of her waistband outer garment belonged to John Ramsey or any Ramsey male it would still be riveting evidence and Lacy would never have released her apology to the Ramsey family.

imoo

 

[Medea]

I think he wrote the ransom note when he came in after they had left for the party. I think he rifled through their personal stuff and cased the place out.

I do think he had full intentions of kidnapping her but something went terribly wrong. Maybe JB became frightened and he bound her up and hit her with the stun gun to quieten her and then became very angry with her because she wouldn't comply without force. Maybe he realized since the basement window was so high he couldn't heave her up and over it to take her out.

Why would he care if he left the ransom note behind even though he knew he had killed her inside of her home instead? It sure would let them think she wasn't on the grounds but taken away and that would give him more than ample time to get far away from the crime scene.

There is just no generic cookie cutter profile for pedophile murderers. To say he has to be a certain way or wouldn't have done this or that...... is just guesstimating and speculation at best imo.

imo

You don't think the first thing a parent would do is search the ENTIRE HOUSE? Good grief, the Ramseys' didn't even stay off the freaking telephone before their daughter's body was found?!

Who says he has to take her back out the basement window? He's already in the house and has the girl, he could have walked out any door.

Sorry, the pedophile intruder/kidnapper is not believable to me. It is much, much too complicated and it relies on just about everything that typically happens in these crimes, NOT happening in this case.

 

[Karole28]

This will likely come as a shock to you, but Patsy's handwriting sample was not inculpatory evidence then nor did it ever become inculpatory evidence.

HTH

We had a trial? When?!
==========================

Re the Intruder: There are a lot of things that weren't "Inculpatory".

The IDI's boot print. Burke
The IDI's broken window in the basement. John
The IDI's mysterious handprint. Melinda

=============================

The handwriting is extremely "inculpatoryish(TM)" in my opinion.

 

[Karole28]

You don't think the first thing a parent would do is search the ENTIRE HOUSE? Good grief, the Ramseys' didn't even stay off the freaking telephone before their daughter's body was found?!

Who says he has to take her back out the basement window? He's already in the house and has the girl, he could have walked out any door.

This was what first convinced me of their guilt.

 

[Medea]

No, not imo. If this dna profile found in the blood on her panties and then the same DNA found on the inside of her waistband outer garment belonged to John Ramsey or any Ramsey male it would still be riveting evidence and Lacy would never have released her apology to the Ramsey family.

imoo

Why? Wouldn't skin cells from her parents be expected to be on her clothing? How would this be inculpatory? It might be taken as inculpatory, but in reality, skin cells found on your daughter's clothing can't really by definition be inculpatory evidence because it would be expected. Just like your own fingerprints and hair being all over your own house.

 

[Rino]

You don't think the first thing a parent would do is search the ENTIRE HOUSE? Good grief, the Ramseys' didn't even stay off the freaking telephone before their daughter's body was found?!
.

That was my first clue to their guilt. How could they have missed her? Plus the instructions in the ransom note were not followed, they didn't even fake it

 

[angelwngs]

I think he wrote the ransom note when he came in after they had left for the party. I think he rifled through their personal stuff and cased the place out.

I do think he had full intentions of kidnapping her but something went terribly wrong. Maybe JB became frightened and he bound her up and hit her with the stun gun to quieten her and then became very angry with her because she wouldn't comply without force. Maybe he realized since the basement window was so high he couldn't heave her up and over it to take her out.

Why would he care if he left the ransom note behind even though he knew he had killed her inside of her home instead? It sure would let them think she wasn't on the grounds but taken away and that would give him more than ample time to get far away from the crime scene.

There is just no generic cookie cutter profile for pedophile murderers. To say he has to be a certain way or wouldn't have done this or that...... is just guesstimating and speculation at best imo.

imo

ocean, yours are the exact same things I posted here a long while back, in my theory of an IDI, so we were at least on the same page at one moment in time.

Could you please answer a few questions for me?

Do you think the killer studied PR's handwriting prior to the murder?

Do you totally discount that the multitude of 'things' which almost all RDI's note in their reasoning as to why they think PR, and/or possibly JR and BR were somehow involved in a 'cover-up'?

If so, would you please explain your reasoning for discounting just a couple of those well known actions and items?

I am sincerely trying to understand your position.

 

[Wudge]

We had a trial? When?!
==========================

Re the Intruder: There are a lot of things that weren't "Inculpatory".

The IDI's boot print. Burke
The IDI's broken window in the basement. John
The IDI's mysterious handprint. Melinda

=============================

The handwriting is extremely "inculpatoryish(TM)" in my opinion.

I truly don't think you even understand that "low probability" -- 4.5 out of 5 with 1 being a match -- does not support probable cause. In other words, it does not support going to trial much less represent inculpatory evidence. Oh, and the Grand Jury agreed.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

You don't think the first thing a parent would do is search the ENTIRE HOUSE? Good grief, the Ramseys' didn't even stay off the freaking telephone before their daughter's body was found?!

Who says he has to take her back out the basement window? He's already in the house and has the girl, he could have walked out any door.

Sorry, the pedophile intruder/kidnapper is not believable to me. It is much, much too complicated and it relies on just about everything that typically happens in these crimes, NOT happening in this case.

Why would they search the house when they saw she was not in her room and had just read a ransom note stating she was kidnapped for ransom? When did Patsy call 911?

I respect your opinion and all others but I do not agree. I don't see this crime as complex at all but find that some tend to make it complex when no one here has an earthly idea what was going through the mind of the killer from start to finish that night. Only they know what they did, when, where, how and why and there simply has never been any supporting evidence that the Ramseys did this imo.

imoo

 

[Medea]

That was my first clue to their guilt. How could they have missed her? Plus the instructions in the ransom note were not followed, they didn't even fake it

See that's the thing...

If they had gone into pure panic mode at the ransom note, called police and then waited by phone in a panic, done nothing other than go get Burke..then maybe that is believable, that they didn't search the house, they assumed the ransom note was real, JonBenet was gone and acted accordingly. They didnt'.

They started making calls right away. I can't remember if they were inviting people over before her body was found or not,maybe not.