Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion

[vlpate]

By the way, does anybody know where to get video of that January 97 interview? I've been looking all over and nobody seems to know. Just a shot in the dark here.

A portion of it with Patsy...wow, she was messed UP.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAFmNapkpfQ"]Patsy Ramsey on CNN - YouTube[/ame]


Here's the transcript...I think the video was pulled - did you try acandyrose?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/11/slain.girl.update/transcript.html

 

[UKGuy]

Right, because there was a ransom note. If IDI, it's unknown whether it was a botched kidnapping, or a murder all along with the ransom note meant to further menace the Ramseys or LE.

The point is, if they killed her, kidnapping is not the best story to come up with if the body is in the house anyway. If they hid the body somewhere outside the home, then kidnapping is more viable.




That doesn't support your claim at all. They're asking for information. I don't see how you can say with such certainty they were not angry their child was raped based on that quote.




Sorry, but this is very flimsy as to any indication of guilt.



Well, first I hope we're trying to find out the truth of what happened. But either way, if you're going to defend a hypothesis, you're going to have to explain not only how yours fits the evidence, but why other hypotheses do not fit the evidence. You can't skip that second part and hope nobody notices.

Pointing to a piece of evidence as though it only supports your position is misleading if the same evidence fits another position as well. It's not helpful for finding the truth.

Smelly Squirrel,

The point is, if they killed her, kidnapping is not the best story to come up with if the body is in the house anyway. If they hid the body somewhere outside the home, then kidnapping is more viable.

So, as per your requirement that competing hypothesis should be compared, contrasted and ranked, what in your estimation should have been the best story?

Well, first I hope we're trying to find out the truth of what happened. But either way, if you're going to defend a hypothesis, you're going to have to explain not only how yours fits the evidence, but why other hypotheses do not fit the evidence. You can't skip that second part and hope nobody notices.

Pointing to a piece of evidence as though it only supports your position is misleading if the same evidence fits another position as well. It's not helpful for finding the truth

You are being unduly unfair to Whaleshark here. There is no requirement to disconfirm alternative theories. There may be infinitely many depending on the evidence. Also competing theories might be completely consistent with the evidence, consider the size-12 feature, it has two different explanations. Currently neither can be confirmed or disconfirmed.

Consider IDI vs RDI: Whaleshark might come back to you and say on IDI There is no forensic evidence that links to anyone at all. Whereas with RDI the forensic evidence linking to the R's there is too much to list. Consider JR's shirt fibers found on the size-12's!


.

 

[Chrishope]

Right, because there was a ransom note. If IDI, it's unknown whether it was a botched kidnapping, or a murder all along with the ransom note meant to further menace the Ramseys or LE.

In some extremely hypothetical sense, yes, we don't know if its a botched kidnapping or a murder + menace.

In reality of course, we can be pretty sure. It's neither of those.

The "kindapping gone bad" or "botched" kidnapping theory needs to be explained. If we assume an IDI kidnapping, then we must assume complete innocence on the part of the Rs. This also means they are telling the truth, as far as they know it. So we must accept JB was put to bed by the Rs, and the Intruder took her from her bed to the basement. The question then is what could possibly have prevented the intended kidnapping from taking place? It doesn't really make sense that the intruder could take her from her bed -oh, and don't forget giving her a pineapple snack- but couldn't get her out of the house.

The note doesn't menace the Rs as much as the dead body, so why bother? And why redress and then wrap her in her favorite blankie? These acts are inconsistent with an intruder.

The point is, if they killed her, kidnapping is not the best story to come up with if the body is in the house anyway. If they hid the body somewhere outside the home, then kidnapping is more viable.

I agree. The body is inconsistent with a kidnapping. That's probably why the whole "botched" kidnapping scenario is invented.

 

[BBB167893]

If you killed someone and, to explain why the person's missing, you come up with a kidnapping story, you wouldn't then want the dead body found in your house. It defeats the point of the kidnapping story. The person shouldn't be there if they've been kidnapped. If you know the body is in the house, "kidnapping" is not the first story you'd come up with.

Squirrel, I've heard that argument a million times. And it just doesn't wash, for reasons I've explained many times before. They couldn't take her body out of the house, because it was too risky. There was too much risk of being spotted out on the road. And even if they got past that hurdle, where would they take her?

Plus, I don't think they could bear the idea of leaving her out in the elements where animals would gnaw on her. That would have prevented Patsy from gushing to her friends and relatives about how pretty JB looked in her coffin.

If they did kill her, they could have more easily said that they woke up and found her dead in the house. That scenario does happen.

Even assuming they were thinking clearly enough to consider that, and assuming they KNEW of such things, they probably would have discounted it as too risky. Without that ransom note, all they'd have is a dead girl in her own home with sexual injuries. Ask Ron Walker sometime how well that would have worked out. No, they NEEDED that ransom note to explain why JB was targeted by the "intruder." They needed to create a criminal to go with the created crime. And since ransom notes are only used in kidnappings, that locked them in.

A lot of people were there at the time of them hearing about the assault? Were they told at a public gathering?

I take it you've never seen the video of Patsy's interview with Tom Haney, then?

That he found her by opening a door in his house doesn't prove he had foreknowledge she was there.

Not by itself. But as with so much in this case, context tells the story. He opened the door, screamed and THEN turned the light on. Earlier, Fleet White had looked in that room and didn't see anything.

You know this for sure? Eyewitness testimony is always that precisely accurate and dependable on this kind of potentially split-second detail?

I think Fleet White would remember something like that!

Even given that, how do you know the body couldn't be seen without the lights on? (That White didn't see the body earlier doesn't prove she wasn't later in the day or to somebody else.) Here's a screen cap from a Bill Kurtis show, which isn't the right perspective, but does give some idea of the room.

All I can tell you is what Fleet White said. And I'd trust him more than most in this case.

 

[BBB167893]

A portion of it with Patsy...wow, she was messed UP.

Patsy Ramsey on CNN - YouTube

She was ALWAYS "messed up," vlpate! When Anna Nicole Smith had her TV show, I thought Patsy would sue for stealing her act.

(Lord, Ah apologize fer that. Be wit' the starvin' pygmies in New Guinea. Amen)

 

[vlpate]

She was ALWAYS "messed up," vlpate! When Anna Nicole Smith had her TV show, I thought Patsy would sue for stealing her act.

(Lord, Ah apologize fer that. Be wit' the starvin' pygmies in New Guinea. Amen)

lol
She was the consumate drama queen....if anyone could stage, I mean, take the stage, PR could :great:

 

[BBB167893]

lol
She was the consumate drama queen....if anyone could stage, I mean, take the stage, PR could :great:

All kidding aside, vlpate, that's part and parcel to my point. This was described by the pre-eminent authority on this case as a theatrical production totally fitting with Patsy's nature. This woman could not do anything small.

 

[vlpate]

All kidding aside, vlpate, that's part and parcel to my point. This was described by the pre-eminent authority on this case as a theatrical production totally fitting with Patsy's nature. This woman could not do anything small.

Nothing at all...even burying her child was a big production.

 

[treeseeker]

If JonBenet was re-dressed with the size 12 bloomies after her death, the longjohns necessarily were completely removed at some point. It's highly unlikely, IMO, the longjohns were put back on with no assistance without touching at least the ankle bands and probably at the knees. The same DNA found at the waistband should be in those locations, if it was the perp's.

 

[UKGuy]

If JonBenet was re-dressed with the size 12 bloomies after her death, the longjohns necessarily were completely removed at some point. It's highly unlikely, IMO, the longjohns were put back on with no assistance without touching at least the ankle bands and probably at the knees. The same DNA found at the waistband should be in those locations, if it was the perp's.

treeseeker,
Yes I agree. Not unless gloves were worn. Many think the longjohns were clean on her after the size-12's were sourced as a replacement for her normal underwear. And of course the DA has only told us if there was unidentified touch dna on the size-12's or longjohns. Not if there is any Ramsey touch dna present?


.

 

[Roy23]

In some extremely hypothetical sense, yes, we don't know if its a botched kidnapping or a murder + menace.

In reality of course, we can be pretty sure. It's neither of those.

The "kindapping gone bad" or "botched" kidnapping theory needs to be explained. If we assume an IDI kidnapping, then we must assume complete innocence on the part of the Rs. This also means they are telling the truth, as far as they know it. So we must accept JB was put to bed by the Rs, and the Intruder took her from her bed to the basement. The question then is what could possibly have prevented the intended kidnapping from taking place? It doesn't really make sense that the intruder could take her from her bed -oh, and don't forget giving her a pineapple snack- but couldn't get her out of the house.

The note doesn't menace the Rs as much as the dead body, so why bother? And why redress and then wrap her in her favorite blankie? These acts are inconsistent with an intruder.




I agree. The body is inconsistent with a kidnapping. That's probably why the whole "botched" kidnapping scenario is invented.

I keep hearing about the redressing and wrapping in the favorite blanket. I will pose this Chrishope. I get what you are saying but why is all this foreign DNA on most likely was cleanly washed clothes. Undergarments especially. Plenty of proof could have been obtained that an intruder existed had they just secured the body and the crime scene. If it is so common to look at the family in these cases, WHY let this happen?

My opinion on the botched kidnapping is JBR was really hurt after being first silenced. That could be a stun gun, a whack over the head, or strangulation. I believe that JBR was intended to be taken out of the house by a child predator but the intruder panicked and hurt her too bad.

 

[Whaleshark]

My opinion on the botched kidnapping is JBR was really hurt after being first silenced. That could be a stun gun, a whack over the head, or strangulation. I believe that JBR was intended to be taken out of the house by a child predator but the intruder panicked and hurt her too bad.

If the intruder is that panicked why not leave her where she lies and get the hell out: clothes off, body exposed, not hidden in a locked room? The intruder has to know to find the blanket, the room, and then to secure that latch at the top of the door to lock her in the room before panicking and running out.

 

[treeseeker]

Well, but if gloves were worn, there would be no DNA at the waist. IMO it would be extremely difficult to dress a sleeping or unconscious person in longjohns pulling only by the waist. Unless they were much too large, the feet would snag, and require pulling the ankle band up over them.

Because of my personal experience dressing a child in longjohns, my initial thought about the DNA is that it was possibly deposited during toilet assistance, including wipe assistance. Unless other parts of the longjohns weren't tested at all. If I read correctly and the DNA is a touch-DNA sample, this could even be transfer from an embracing hand shake to the possible toilet assistant.

I'm on a learning curve here - I thought I knew about this case, boy was I wrong! Lots to think about and mull over.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, but if gloves were worn, there would be no DNA at the waist. IMO it would be extremely difficult to dress a sleeping or unconscious person in longjohns pulling only by the waist. Unless they were much too large, the feet would snag, and require pulling the ankle band up over them.

Because of my personal experience dressing a child in longjohns, my initial thought about the DNA is that it was possibly deposited during toilet assistance, including wipe assistance. Unless other parts of the longjohns weren't tested at all. If I read correctly and the DNA is a touch-DNA sample, this could even be transfer from an embracing hand shake to the possible toilet assistant.

I'm on a learning curve here - I thought I knew about this case, boy was I wrong! Lots to think about and mull over.

There are many of us who feel exactly the same way. They were at a party that day. They delivered gifts on the way home. They had to have had PLENTY of opportunity to pick up a few skin cells.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

A portion of it with Patsy...wow, she was messed UP.

Patsy Ramsey on CNN - YouTube


Here's the transcript...I think the video was pulled - did you try acandyrose?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/11/slain.girl.update/transcript.html

Thanks, I have seen that. The full program is nowhere to be found. I've seen that people have requested it from CNN but have been told it's not available. I don't understand how it's not anywhere. Someone must at least have a VHS tape. I guess this must be the work of Team Ramsey.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Smelly Squirrel,

So, as per your requirement that competing hypothesis should be compared, contrasted and ranked, what in your estimation should have been the best story?

If RDI, I think their best story would be that they found her dead in the morning.

One thing about the story which to me leans (paradoxically) towards IDI is the lack of an obvious entry point. I think there are possible points, but no obvious site that you can say that must have been it. If RDI, I would think they would have done more to show where a break-in occurred. JR has even downplayed the basement window since the beginning, saying he thought any break was from when he broke in (trying not to be too obvious? maybe).

Of course, an intruder may have had a key or a door may have been unlocked, as well.

You are being unduly unfair to Whaleshark here. There is no requirement to disconfirm alternative theories.

TherI could be reading wrong, but there is a responsibility to not mislead by either misrepresenting the evidence by making it say more than it does, or by portraying it as though only an RDI interpretation is possible.

There may be infinitely many depending on the evidence. Also competing theories might be completely consistent with the evidence, consider the size-12 feature, it has two different explanations. Currently neither can be confirmed or disconfirmed.

Agreed.

Consider IDI vs RDI: Whaleshark might come back to you and say on IDI There is no forensic evidence that links to anyone at all. Whereas with RDI the forensic evidence linking to the R's there is too much to list.

There is unidentified DNA.

Consider JR's shirt fibers found on the size-12's!

This is an example misrepresenting the evidence. First off, this information comes from an interview, where it's unknown how factual anything they said is. When pressed by Wood, they wouldn't show any report.

Even allowing the information is true, they do not say "fibers from JR's shirt were found in the underwear." The scientific claim would be that fibers consistent with the shirt were found. There's a significant difference.

Also needed for putting that evidence in context is what, if any, other fibers were found. Nobody here has seen the actual reports. If there are unidentified fibers and in greater numbers, that would diminish the importance of these fibers.

Having said that, I do think if fibers matching his shirt were found, that that is damning evidence for JR. Depending on how rare the fiber type is (saying it's from an "Israeli shirt" doesn't tell me that), I would find it very convincing toward his guilt unless he can explain how it got there (secondary transfer? from PR? from someone he saw that night?).

However, the fact of the lack of any prosecution then leads me to think this fiber evidence is not so definitive. We are looking at the evidence through a glass very darkly. We don't know what they have.

 

[KoldKase]

The ransom note gave them the opportunity to create a fiction to confuse LE, giving the Ramseys the excuse to get out of Dodge fast because of the threat to the family, thus avoiding intense interrogation immediately, which should have happened but for reasons unknown did not. Also, it allowed the Ramseys to give JB a "proper burial," which was on their minds obviously, if you read the note.

The size 12-14 Bloomies would not have stayed on the child if she had ever stood up in them. (See my avatar.) They were never washed, having come from a previously unused, new package, according to Patsy herself.

All the DNA found on the Bloomies and longjohns could have come from someone in the lab or even at autopsy. Think about the designated spots where it was found: the crotch of the panties and the waistband of the bottoms: if you were taking those off to examine the body, you would touch those spots. Dr. Meyer also touched the crotch of the Bloomies to the body, handling the panties to determine if the panty blood spots lined up with the blood found on the body. It did not, he noted.

In a lab, handling the clothing, one would carefully have to examine the blood spots, handle the longjohns, even fold them when finished. Have you folded a pair of pants? You start with the waistband.

Then there is Ollie Gray's theory: he stated on TV that maybe the DNA came from the paintbrush inserted into the child. The paintbrush was heavily used and Patsy had been to art classes, which is why she had the tote for her paints. I can think of a dozen ways the paintbrush might have gotten unsourced DNA on it.

It has become scientific fact in the last 20 years that DNA is so tiny and plentiful, it's all over the place. We're share it every day. If we can spread the flu from door handles, phones, food, and sneezes, we can spread DNA even more easily.

Finally, it is the totality of the evidence which is important. With only DNA to incriminate some unidentified donor, it's not enough to convict even if that person was identified. It would take so much more, especially since Patsy Ramsey has never been eliminated as the writer of the note.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

In some extremely hypothetical sense, yes, we don't know if its a botched kidnapping or a murder + menace.

In reality of course, we can be pretty sure. It's neither of those.

The "kindapping gone bad" or "botched" kidnapping theory needs to be explained. If we assume an IDI kidnapping, then we must assume complete innocence on the part of the Rs. This also means they are telling the truth, as far as they know it. So we must accept JB was put to bed by the Rs, and the Intruder took her from her bed to the basement. The question then is what could possibly have prevented the intended kidnapping from taking place?

If the neighbor did hear Jonbenet scream, then it could be the intruder got mad or startled when she screamed, and then that would be when the head was struck.

It doesn't really make sense that the intruder could take her from her bed -oh, and don't forget giving her a pineapple snack- but couldn't get her out of the house.

I think the pineapple is a red herring. I believe she ate it earlier in the day.

The note doesn't menace the Rs as much as the dead body, so why
bother?

The note appears to be directed at JR. I think if IDI, then the note is to tell him it's his fault his daughter is dead.

Another thing about the note. I find it it unlikely they could come up with all these movie references just like that in the moment. I find it more likely it was written by someone who thought about this situation for some time, someone who has obsessed about it.

And why redress and then wrap her in her favorite blankie? These acts are inconsistent with an intruder.

You're asking why a psycho does what he does. Whoever did this is some kind of freak.

I agree. The body is inconsistent with a kidnapping. That's probably why the whole "botched" kidnapping scenario is invented.

If IDI, I don't believe it was ever meant to be a kidnapping for ransom. The note is obviously phony. The intruder would have taken her never intending to let her live.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If you killed someone and, to explain why the person's missing, you come up with a kidnapping story, you wouldn't then want the dead body found in your house. It defeats the point of the kidnapping story. The person shouldn't be there if they've been kidnapped. If you know the body is in the house, "kidnapping" is not the first story you'd come up with.

Squirrel, I've heard that argument a million times. And it just doesn't wash, for reasons I've explained many times before. They couldn't take her body out of the house, because it was too risky. There was too much risk of being spotted out on the road. And even if they got past that hurdle, where would they take her?

Plus, I don't think they could bear the idea of leaving her out in the elements where animals would gnaw on her. That would have prevented Patsy from gushing to her friends and relatives about how pretty JB looked in her coffin.

SD, you're answering why they didn't move the body. You're not answering why they came up with a kidnapping story, having not moved the body. And your following comments aren't very persuasive.

Even assuming they were thinking clearly enough to consider that, and assuming they KNEW of such things, they probably would have discounted it as too risky. Without that ransom note, all they'd have is a dead girl in her own home with sexual injuries. Ask Ron Walker sometime how well that would have worked out. No, they NEEDED that ransom note to explain why JB was targeted by the "intruder." They needed to create a criminal to go with the created crime. And since ransom notes are only used in kidnappings, that locked them in.

I don't follow your logic. The kidnapping story with the body in the house is riskier and more unbelievable.

A lot of people were there at the time of them hearing about the assault? Were they told at a public gathering?

I take it you've never seen the video of Patsy's interview with Tom Haney, then?

I've seen transcripts but haven't watched any of the interviews. Are they available somewhere?

Anyway, she didn't learn of the murder night assault during that interview. She was asked about prior molestation, which she said she would be shocked if true.

That he found her by opening a door in his house doesn't prove he had foreknowledge she was there.

Not by itself. But as with so much in this case, context tells the story. He opened the door, screamed and THEN turned the light on.

That's not proven fact, and if so, there is likewise no proof the body wouldn't be visible without the light on.

You know this for sure? Eyewitness testimony is always that precisely accurate and dependable on this kind of potentially split-second detail?

I think Fleet White would remember something like that!

What's so remarkable about Fleet White's memory and observation abilities, as opposed to most humans, that it is so unimpeachable that I shouldn't doubt it?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If JonBenet was re-dressed with the size 12 bloomies after her death, the longjohns necessarily were completely removed at some point. It's highly unlikely, IMO, the longjohns were put back on with no assistance without touching at least the ankle bands and probably at the knees. The same DNA found at the waistband should be in those locations, if it was the perp's.

Possibly, but we don't know if the area was analyzed.