The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Smelly Squirrel]

Although there is touch-dna on JonBenet's clothing here is no touch-dna on any of the artifacts used in her killing, assuming they have all been tested.

I don't think we can assume that, because as I recall they specifically sent the longjohns out to be tested that way. Haven't heard that they sent other items.

But let's say there is no other touch DNA anywhere, which may be likely since there is no reported fingerprints either, that may be because the killer wore gloves most of the time, except took them off during the molestation.

Also we have not been told if there is any Ramsey touch-dna on JonBenet's clothing. And if so, which items? I reckon John's touch-dna should not be on her size-12's.

If it were, I'd assume LE would be touting it somewhere.

Is there any Ramsey touch-dna on the artifacts used to kill JonBenet, since if they were brought into the house, presumably they should be free of certain Ramsey touch-dna, barring cross-contamination?

There is no other touch DNA found as far as is publicly known.

You think the intruder was trying to frame John by wearing a black Israeli shirt after inadvertently leaving those black fibers on JonBenet's gential area?

You don't know that to be the case, that the killer wore an "Israeli shirt." We've gone over this before. You keep stating this as fact when it hasn't been proven so.

All this talk about exoneration, which is a religious term anyway, not a civil legal term is patent nonsense. Makes you wonder how thick the brown envelope was that exchanged pro quid pro?

Please provide proof of that allegation or retract.

Just like to mention again the Ramsey claim about the DNA plays on the fallacy that touch-dna and DNA are equivalent in biological terms!

Biologically, touch DNA and any other DNA are equivalent. Touch DNA is the same chemically as blood DNA. DNA is the chemical name. DNA, from whatever cell source, is DNA. If it weren't the same chemically, it would be called something else. Touch DNA is different than other sources forensically as to the typical number of cells yielded. The lower the number of cells, the harder it is to get a complete profile.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Your first sentence says it all. Private detectives hired by the Ramseys
are "convinced". Being "convinced" doesn't mean you have PROVED it. The FACT is that the coroner used unsterile clippers, and had this case gone to trial the fingernail DNA would not be allowed as evidence.
NO LE source involved in this case has identified the male DNA as saliva. Your own link said "though to be saliva". Then JMK goes on to say how "his saliva" got there. Except it wasn't HIS DNA and it wasn't his saliva and it wasn't saliva.
It was NEVER PROVED to be saliva.

I believe he was posting as to whether the fingernail DNA matched the other DNA, and that is as far as I know widely accepted. [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4371478&postcount=4"]Cynic[/ame] would agree as well. The issue with that match is that it was based on a low number of alleles, and so was very inconclusive evidence. The long john DNA, however, has reinforced the case for matching DNA and a unique individual.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yo, no Saliva! The IDI protagonist has gone from DNA to touch-dna and on to Saliva DNA.

It's all DNA, so what's your point?

We all know there will never be a coherent IDI theory until someone external to the Ramsey house is identified as a suspect.

Not identifying the DNA doesn't make IDI incoherent, just inconclusive. Incoherence would involve contradictions, not unknowns.

This is not a DNA case its a sexually motivated homicide with garnishings of staging.

It's a case that includes DNA evidence, as well as other evidence.

I doubt John Ramsey will be reading, since he is probably honey-mooning in Acapulca or Brazil with his new concubine. Prior to marrying I wonder if he stayed in strange hotels and made frequent requests for exotic room service?

This is an unfounded personal attack that says more about you than your target.

 

[DeeDee249]

The difference between touch DNA (skin cells) and DNA from a source like blood, saliva, or semen is that skin cells may have come from simply touching a surface that the donor of the skin cells also touched. The donor may have NOTHING to do with the situation the skin cells were transferred to.
With blood and especially semen, it infers a more primary contact- someone who was actually present at the crime scene. NO ONE's semen belongs on or in JB. None was found. Only her own blood was found. Saliva has never been publicly identified. ONLY skin cell DNA. That is the problem with making this a DNA case or weighing too heavily on the DNA. The skin cell donor may have had nothing to do with the crime whatsoever, and the skin cells may have simply been deposited there on the hands of someone else who had touched either the donor's hands or something they touched.
It isn't that the DNA itself from skin cells is different than the DNA of another type. It is the method of transfer of skin cell DNA that makes it a less reliable method of identifying someone who was present at a crime scene.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yes, touch DNA can be from transfer, but it makes it more unlikely so when it's found on more than one location.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think we can assume that, because as I recall they specifically sent the longjohns out to be tested that way. Haven't heard that they sent other items.

But let's say there is no other touch DNA anywhere, which may be likely since there is no reported fingerprints either, that may be because the killer wore gloves most of the time, except took them off during the molestation.



If it were, I'd assume LE would be touting it somewhere.



There is no other touch DNA found as far as is publicly known.



You don't know that to be the case, that the killer wore an "Israeli shirt." We've gone over this before. You keep stating this as fact when it hasn't been proven so.



Please provide proof of that allegation or retract.



Biologically, touch DNA and any other DNA are equivalent. Touch DNA is the same chemically as blood DNA. DNA is the chemical name. DNA, from whatever cell source, is DNA. If it weren't the same chemically, it would be called something else. Touch DNA is different than other sources forensically as to the typical number of cells yielded. The lower the number of cells, the harder it is to get a complete profile.

Smelly Squirrel,
Sounds like you are working for websleuths. Touch dna and semen dna are biologically distinct. They originate from different cell types. Semen dna can place a person at the scene of a crime, touch-dna cannot, its that simple. No amount of rhetoric can change this. The Ramsey defense is based upon what I term the DNA Fallacy e.g. equating touch-dna with say saliva dna. Have you ever considered why its called touch-dna?


.

 

[UKGuy]

It's all DNA, so what's your point?



Not identifying the DNA doesn't make IDI incoherent, just inconclusive. Incoherence would involve contradictions, not unknowns.



It's a case that includes DNA evidence, as well as other evidence.



This is an unfounded personal attack that says more about you than your target.

Smelly Squirrel,
You try really hard, but always fall down.

Not identifying the DNA doesn't make IDI incoherent, just inconclusive. Incoherence would involve contradictions, not unknowns.

LOL, contradictions would imply inconsistency, incoherence simply implies lots of true assertions that do not hang together. Any additional false statement is simply that and can be ignored since the underlying theory is incoherent.

It's a case that includes DNA evidence, as well as other evidence.

One day when you grow up and get a day job, you will convert to RDI, why?

Because there is no formal forensic evidence linking anyone from outside of the Ramsey house to the crime-scene!

Its an inside job. A case of sexual molestation, how a little girl was being abused, whilst being taught it was all normal, just part of every day life, just like her pageants!

Even John Ramsey said it was an Inside Job!



.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Smelly Squirrel,
Sounds like you are working for websleuths. Touch dna and semen dna are biologically distinct. They originate from different cell types.

You're mixing things up. Cells can be different, but DNA is the same from whatever cell it comes from.

Semen dna can place a person at the scene of a crime, touch-dna cannot, its that simple.

Wrong. Both can. Touch DNA could be secondary transfer, but it's not always or even mostly the case (see this paper). It is usually cells from the person who was at the scene doing the touching. Semen and blood could themselves be a result of secondary transfer. There is no "always" in either case. It depends on the surrounding evidence, which scenario is more likely.

In this case, we have matching DNA at three locations, and one location was likely not touch DNA. This makes secondary transfer even less likely.

No amount of rhetoric can change this. The Ramsey defense is based upon what I term the DNA Fallacy e.g. equating touch-dna with say saliva dna. Have you ever considered why its called touch-dna?

You're committing the fallacy here in thinking it always must be secondary transfer, when it's just that there is a small possibility that it could be.

It would already have been difficult to convict either Ramsey without this evidence. This DNA evidence makes it impossible to do so (barring new evidence that changes anything).

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Smelly Squirrel,
You try really hard, but always fall down.

This isn't very hard for me. Maybe because I don't have invested biases about the case.

LOL, contradictions would imply inconsistency, incoherence simply implies lots of true assertions that do not hang together.

Why don't they hang together? Because of inconsistencies. And it wouldn't be "true assertions," but theories or explanations.

Incoherent - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of INCOHERENT
: lacking coherence: as
a : lacking cohesion : loose
b : lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : inconsistent <an incoherent essay>
c : lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought <incoherent with grief>
[BBM]

Perhaps you didn't use the right word and meant something else.

One day when you grow up and get a day job, you will convert to RDI, why?

Because there is no formal forensic evidence linking anyone from outside of the Ramsey house to the crime-scene!

The unidentified DNA does not belong to any Ramsey.

Its an inside job. A case of sexual molestation, how a little girl was being abused, whilst being taught it was all normal, just part of every day life, just like her pageants!

Unproven speculation.

Even John Ramsey said it was an Inside Job!

This is another common RDI tactic of fudging the facts. First, it's a hearsay quote, and second, he wouldn't have been referring to his family, but either to someone who knows them or just that the killer was inside the house.

Noted that you have yet to retract your unfounded allegation and your gratuitous personal attack.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes, touch DNA can be from transfer, but it makes it more unlikely so when it's found on more than one location.

IMO, not in this case because the other locations were the waistbands of two garments worn together (panties and longjohns). Also, JR held JB around her waist in an upright position (like a mannequin) and his hands had to have touched both of the waistbands. Patsy said she dressed JB, and she admitted putting the longjohns on her, so we KNOW she touched the waistband of the longjohns.
If he parent(s) picked up the skin cells at the party, it wouldn't be out of the question to find it on multiple things they touched.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

IMO, not in this case because the other locations were the waistbands of two garments worn together (panties and longjohns). Also, JR held JB around her waist in an upright position (like a mannequin) and his hands had to have touched both of the waistbands. Patsy said she dressed JB, and she admitted putting the longjohns on her, so we KNOW she touched the waistband of the longjohns.
If he parent(s) picked up the skin cells at the party, it wouldn't be out of the question to find it on multiple things they touched.

That doesn't make it more likely that it's not primary transfer. Primary transfer is more common to begin with. With secondary transfer, at each step and each location of transfer, it becomes less likely, especially when you're positing JR touched someone the night before and then the material was still on his hands (both hands) the next day for transferring to the longjohns. I know JR is an irredeemable monster, but is his hygiene that bad?

It's much more plausible and parsimonious that the matching DNA on the longjohns and panties ended up there simply by primary transfer.

 

[DeeDee249]

That doesn't make it more likely that it's not primary transfer. Primary transfer is more common to begin with. With secondary transfer, at each step and each location of transfer, it becomes less likely, especially when you're positing JR touched someone the night before and then the material was still on his hands (both hands) the next day for transferring to the longjohns. I know JR is an irredeemable monster, but is his hygiene that bad?

It's much more plausible and parsimonious that the matching DNA on the longjohns and panties ended up there simply by primary transfer.

No one is irredeemable and it has nothing to do with his hygiene. If neither parent went to bed that night (and it is pretty likely Patsy did not), the chances are neither washed their hands before handling those garments. Patsy said she put the longjohns on JB- we can't be certain when that occurred. The skin cells (as far as RDI are concerned) did not necessarily get deposited the day the body was found, but as JB was being dressed or redressed the night before.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

No one is irredeemable and it has nothing to do with his hygiene. If neither parent went to bed that night (and it is pretty likely Patsy did not), the chances are neither washed their hands before handling those garments. Patsy said she put the longjohns on JB- we can't be certain when that occurred. The skin cells (as far as RDI are concerned) did not necessarily get deposited the day the body was found, but as JB was being dressed or redressed the night before.

DeeDee, you said "JR held JB around her waist in an upright position (like a mannequin) and his hands had to have touched both of the waistbands." You were saying it could have happened the next day when JR carried her.

 

[madeleine]

Patsy said she put the longjohns on JB- we can't be certain when that occurred.

and this,according to touch dna supporters,should mean that her dna must be on those waistbands right?this would actually confirm Patsy's story.i still wonder why nobody ever said anything re this.it's important.if her dna isn't on those longjohns then IDI's and dna fans have to agree that Patsy's story has a hole in it,no?
but I bet that if officials said Patsy's touch dna is present on the longjohns all IDI's would have jumped and said ,well,touch dna is easily transferred,this doesn't mean anything.why doesn't it also apply to when it comes to the mysterious dna owner then.

 

[UKGuy]

and this,according to touch dna supporters,should mean that her dna must be on those waistbands right?this would actually confirm Patsy's story.[b[i still wonder why nobody ever said anything re this.[/b]it's important.if her dna isn't on those longjohns then IDI's and dna fans have to agree that Patsy's story has a hole in it,no?
but I bet that if officials said Patsy's touch dna is present on the longjohns all IDI's would have jumped and said ,well,touch dna is easily transferred,this doesn't mean anything.why doesn't it also apply to when it comes to the mysterious dna owner then.

madeleine,
In isolation the so called touch-dna has a focus determined by the Ramsey defense e.g. it belongs to an intruder.

Yet we have not been told about any other dna found at the crime-scene and there must have been Ramsey dna everywhere. Not unexpected but why the absence?

Forget the longjohns consider the size-12's, in a court-case they would take center-stage since John Ramsey's dna should not be on them, are they?



.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee, you said "JR held JB around her waist in an upright position (like a mannequin) and his hands had to have touched both of the waistbands." You were saying it could have happened the next day when JR carried her.

Umm- yeah. But if the skin cell transfer came from Patsy, that could have occurred just after they got home. Remember we are talking about a time frame that began approx. 10 pm (the family arrives home from the White's and JB is said to have been readied for bed by removing her black velvet pants and pulling the longjohns on over her panties- we have no way to know exactly which panties.)
To the time she was "found" by her father are carried upstairs at around 1 pm the following day, it was about 13 hours from her estimated time of death to being placed on floor in the foyer. (from there, she was moved again by Det, Arndt in yet another serious breach of police protocol.)
Det. Arndt was the one who described the position JB was in as she was carried up by her father. For those of you who have never seen a body in full rigor, the description "stiff as a board" is very accurate.
For those of you who have seen the movie PMPT, as macabre as it seemed to use a mannequin representing JB's corpse, the way she looked and sounded (creepy) as she was placed on the floor was accurate as well. The producers of that movie decided to use a mannequin for the scenes representing JB's corpse in the house and at the morgue because it was felt that portraying JB in death would be traumatic for the young actress portraying her in the movie.
Bottom line on the skin cells- the fact is that we have no way to prove exactly when they were left (which is why we cannot prove they belong to the killer/stager until we prove who the killer/stager is). We do not know for a fact exactly who put the longjohns on her or when they were put on her. We have only the parents' version of the events that took place on leaving the White's. And even then there are discrepancies. BR told LE his sister walked into the house, his parents claim JR carried her.
Because of the anterior (front) urine stains, we know the lonhjohns were on her when she died (bladder voids at death). There was blood on the panties but not on the longjohns. The panties were also urine stained on the anterior, but we don't know if they got wet at the same time as the lonhjohns or of they got we because they were placed under the already-wet longjohns.
We just don't know the truth of how it all happened.
But Patsy may be right- she said TWO people know what happened: the killer and the person the killer told. Now how could she know that two people know unless she knows who they are? Unless of course, the two people are family members.

 

[vlpate]

You're mixing things up. Cells can be different, but DNA is the same from whatever cell it comes from.



Wrong. Both can. Touch DNA could be secondary transfer, but it's not always or even mostly the case (see this paper). It is usually cells from the person who was at the scene doing the touching. Semen and blood could themselves be a result of secondary transfer. There is no "always" in either case. It depends on the surrounding evidence, which scenario is more likely.

In this case, we have matching DNA at three locations, and one location was likely not touch DNA. This makes secondary transfer even less likely.



You're committing the fallacy here in thinking it always must be secondary transfer, when it's just that there is a small possibility that it could be.

It would already have been difficult to convict either Ramsey without this evidence. This DNA evidence makes it impossible to do so (barring new evidence that changes anything).

If there were touch DNA on the garotte, the pen, the paper, the pineapple, the blanket, the stairs, the window sill, the suitcase, the paintbrush, the paint tray ... if it were anywhere else, Lin Wood would have put that out there in a big way - even I would be hard pressed to continue as RDI. The fact is, unless they only tested the long johns, there was no other areas found with the intruder's touch DNA.

You say the intruder may have worn gloves... of course that means nothing unless he wore a hazmat suit as well - we shed skin cells from more than just our hands.

Edited to add....I did more research and most sites say the touch DNA IS from actually "touching" a surface. Nevertheless - I can't imagine the "intruder" wore gloves when he was applying the tape or fashioning the garotte...and depending on the type of glove, with all that activity, he would surely have left something of the gloves behind.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

and this,according to touch dna supporters,should mean that her dna must be on those waistbands right?

No, there is no "must" about touch DNA. Touch does not usually leave recoverable DNA from the person touching. It happens even less so for secondary transfer. Most of the time, there is no touch DNA transferred.

So, Patsy's DNA could be there or not. And we don't know that it isn't. All we know is that this unidentified DNA is there.

this would actually confirm Patsy's story.

If her DNA is on there, it tells us nothing about her guilt or innocence.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Umm- yeah. But if the skin cell transfer came from Patsy, that could have occurred just after they got home.

DeeDee, you were the one who brought up JR carrying her, not me. You're arguing against yourself.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If there were touch DNA on the garotte, the pen, the paper, the pineapple, the blanket, the stairs, the window sill, the suitcase, the paintbrush, the paint tray ... if it were anywhere else, Lin Wood would have put that out there in a big way - even I would be hard pressed to continue as RDI. The fact is, unless they only tested the long johns, there was no other areas found with the intruder's touch DNA.

They may have only tested a few items. We have no idea what all they tested. Touch DNA can't be recovered well from any material. And touch DNA isn't usually going to be there even if the item was touched. They're lucky they found this much.

You say the intruder may have worn gloves... of course that means nothing unless he wore a hazmat suit as well - we shed skin cells from more than just our hands.

Yes, we shed, but what does that have to do with the forensics? Are you saying they collected dust and tested it?