Was BR involved? #2

[ukrberserker23]

Was JAR ever tested for a DNA sample? I thought I read somewhere that his DNA was on the blanket found in the suitcase. And, if JAR wasn't there on Christmas, then why did JR lawyer him up?

 

[andreww]

Was JAR ever tested for a DNA sample? I thought I read somewhere that his DNA was on the blanket found in the suitcase. And, if JAR wasn't there on Christmas, then why did JR lawyer him up?

If his DNA was found on a blanket, then it makes sense that he gave a sample. You kind of answered your own question lol. I just read in interview with JR where he stated that all his family members gave DNA samples.

 

[UKGuy]

No Ramsey DNA has been reported to have been found on the victim, her clothing, nor the instruments used to kill her. Foreign, male DNA was, however, found under her fingernails, in the crotch of her panties, on her long johns, & on the ligature cord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mama2JML,

No Ramsey DNA has been reported to have been found on the victim

Thats not quite the same as saying Ramsey dna was absent from the victim.

Just that they chose not to make it public. Yet they made the unknown touch-dna public! So is there any R touch-dna on the size-12's? BR's touch-dna is on the pink barbie gown. I reckon the R who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's will have their dna deposited on them?

.

 

[ukrberserker23]

I guess then they would have eliminated him. Wonder if the Whites or Stines ever gave samples. At least I have learned from this case how to commit the perfect murder. Just kill someone in your own home, and invite all your friends over to contaminate the crime scene.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks DeeDee, I had no idea about the DNA and still confused. (I understand about tDNA and I know what DNA is but obviously the killer(s) wore gloves? I mean there was no DNA right? And obviously the R's lived there so theirs would be everywhere. I do not understand how this was planned out so carefully(well mo)

It isn't proven that the killer wore gloves. And the killer may not be the same person as the stager(s). I'd say as the flashlight was wiped down, the person who bashed her did NOT wear gloves. Some things haveing to do with the staging gives some indication that the stagers wore gloves for at least some of it. Latex gloves of the type used when coloring your hair were found. Patsy colored her own hair, so that is not unusual. Some people think the birefringent material found inside JB's vagina could have been the type of talc found on latex gloves. No proof though. If you are asking about primary source DNA, such as semen, saliva or blood, then the answer is NO, there was no DNA found (other than JB's own blood). The DNA found on the waistband of her panties and on her long johns was skin cells. The DNA in the panty crotch that was mixed with JB's blood was never identified as to it's nature, but it was said NOT to be blood or semen. It could also be skin cells.
Yes, the Rs DNA would be everywhere because they lived there, it is true. BUT the presence of their fibers on items specific to the crime is what makes them suspects, IMO. If the Rs claimed to have not seen JB after they put her to bed until JR "found" her body, then Patsy fibers would never have been found on the inside of the duct tape, entwined in the cord knot and in the paint tote (especially since Patsy told police she never wore that fleece jacket in the basement and never painted wearing it). JR's fibers were inside the crotch of brand-new UNWORN and UNLAUNDERED panties. There was no way that could happen if he wasn't there at the time they were put on her.

 

[andreww]

I think the fibers tell us something but certainly don't give the whole story. There is always a way to explain fibers. For instance, PR may have worn a tshirt that was hung next to the jacket when she painted. JR may have laid in bed when he read to JB and fibers may have gotten in his bed.

I think the biggest piece of evidence against the Rs that you mention is the wiped flashlight. If there was an intruder, why didn't they simply take the flashlight like they supposedly took much of the other evidence? Some say they may have forgotten it, but that doesn't seem to be the case as it was wiped inside and out and the obviously didn't forget to take the cloth that they wiped it with.

IMO the Rs felt the flashlight was safe to keep. However, the paintbrush head is a little more difficult to clean, especially if the brush end had been inserted in the vagina and had blood on it. The duct tape and rope would also be safer to dispose of.

I am still of the opinion that the head wound came first and also believe that whatever was used to cause that wound would have been removed by the Rs. If BR was indeed responsible, I would concentrate on the gift both kids received that day. Kids on Christmas don't tend to stray too far from their newest possessions. Of course the Rs aren't very likely to admit that BR might have gotten a brand new louisville slugger that day!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I guess then they would have eliminated him. Wonder if the Whites or Stines ever gave samples. At least I have learned from this case how to commit the perfect murder. Just kill someone in your own home, and invite all your friends over to contaminate the crime scene.

Yes, they all provided samples. But again, as there was only touch DNA and fibers found, a match wouldn't have painted a conclusive picture IMO. The object of the DNA search is to collect samples from everybody that spent time in the house. If you find DNA that doesn't match you hope it's from someone on a database or a future suspect that was never supposed to have been in the house. As that didn't work out, the DNA evidence does nothing more than cause confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Global Justice Ops]

Yes, they all provided samples. But again, as there was only touch DNA and fibers found, a match wouldn't have painted a conclusive picture IMO. The object of the DNA search is to collect samples from everybody that spent time in the house. If you find DNA that doesn't match you hope it's from someone on a database or a future suspect that was never supposed to have been in the house. As that didn't work out, the DNA evidence does nothing more than cause confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't workout? The DNA they found is still being scanned for matches on a weekly basis, along with all other unidentified samples. You speak of it like it came to an end.

It makes NO sense to say "Touch DNA" was found. DNA is DNA. Touch DNA refers to a specific technique used to lift DNA.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvMcfMHsJY4

 

[andreww]

What I meant is that touch DNA does not necessarily point to a guilty party. DNA extracted from semen for instance would be a much more incriminating piece of evidence. None of the DNA found on the body was from blood, semen or bodily fluids (excluding JBRs), so a match would not prove anything unless it came from somebody who had not at that point in time had any recent contact with JBR.

If after 18 years we still haven't had a match, I don't think its likely that we ever will. Likely because that DNA didn't come from some sexual sadist/pedophile/murderer.

 

[Global Justice Ops]

What I meant is that touch DNA does not necessarily point to a guilty party. DNA extracted from semen for instance would be a much more incriminating piece of evidence. None of the DNA found on the body was from blood, semen or bodily fluids (excluding JBRs), so a match would not prove anything unless it came from somebody who had not at that point in time had any recent contact with JBR.

If after 18 years we still haven't had a match, I don't think its likely that we ever will. Likely because that DNA didn't come from some sexual sadist/pedophile/murderer.

1.) Matching DNA was extracted from blood that belonged to JonBenet. It was the perpetrators DNA and her blood. This was the mixed sample Dr. Henry Lee and others talked about. They compared it to one person bleeding on the floor and another person spitting on the same spot.
I adhere to the theory that JonBenet was assaulted orally after the paintbrush was inserted, which caused the killer’s saliva to mix with her blood. It took years to separate the two profiles, but it was done eventually.

2.) How can you say the other DNA samples don’t mean anything? They show that an identified male handled JonBenet’s long johns and underwear that night. How can you say that it does not mean anything when matching samples were also found underneath her fingernail?

18 years ago the crime was committed in 1996. The DNA was submitted in 2003. It’s not accurate to say that we have been waiting for a DNA match for 18 years.

 

[Mama2JML]

What I meant is that touch DNA does not necessarily point to a guilty party.

Absolutely correct.

DNA extracted from semen for instance would be a much more incriminating piece of evidence.

I agree.

None of the DNA found on the body was from blood, semen or bodily fluids (excluding JBRs), so a match would not prove anything unless it came from somebody who had not at that point in time had any recent contact with JBR.

If after 18 years we still haven't had a match, I don't think its likely that we ever will. Likely because that DNA didn't come from some sexual sadist/pedophile/murderer.

You could be right. I would have agreed with you more in 2003, but the likelihood that this (CODIS approved) male DNA profile arrived through innocent means has diminished a great deal since then. The same DNA profile, as that obtained from JonBenét's underwear, was isolated in two more incriminating locations after a span of 5 years. This should not be disregarded.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ukrberserker23]

Well, I understood that they had a reference sample from the Ramseys. Another dumb question. Was JBR's DNA ever found on the blanket in JAR's suitcase? I haven't read about it anywhere. There was at least one neighbor who saw JAR at the Ramseys on Christmas day. I believe this poor angel was passed around to all the male Ramseys. In this case, everything that the Ramseys wanted to distance themselves from wound up in the basement, except for the RN, the pineapple bowl, and the flashlight. And to families who are members of certain fraternal groups, symbolism is everything. The star on JB's white shirt. The red, white, black, and blue hair ties. The position of the body when found. I bet no one ever checked to see if her arms were pointing East when she was found. I didn't. The interior of the house was decorated in Masonic style. And the Ramseys picked that style. Lockheed Martin has a lot of ties to the government. They are mostly known for making weapons technology. And staffed by former military. Did you know that 80 percent of military officers are Satanists? I read that years ago. This case goes way deeper than just simple murder.

 

[andreww]

Absolutely correct.
I agree.
You could be right. I would have agreed with you more in 2003, but the likelihood that this (CODIS approved) male DNA profile arrived through innocent means has diminished a great deal since then. The same DNA profile, as that obtained from JonBenét's underwear, was isolated in two more incriminating locations after a span of 5 years. This should not be disregarded.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you have a link to that info? I'd never seen that mentioned before.

 

[Mama2JML]

Do you have a link to that info? I'd never seen that mentioned before.

Yes. I've bumped a more pertinent thread & included the requested source to continue this discussion, here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/mo..._url=http://www.websleuths.com/forums&lang=en


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

1.) Matching DNA was extracted from blood that belonged to JonBenet. It was the perpetrators DNA and her blood. This was the mixed sample Dr. Henry Lee and others talked about. They compared it to one person bleeding on the floor and another person spitting on the same spot.
I adhere to the theory that JonBenet was assaulted orally after the paintbrush was inserted, which caused the killer’s saliva to mix with her blood. It took years to separate the two profiles, but it was done eventually.

2.) How can you say the other DNA samples don’t mean anything? They show that an identified male handled JonBenet’s long johns and underwear that night. How can you say that it does not mean anything when matching samples were also found underneath her fingernail?

18 years ago the crime was committed in 1996. The DNA was submitted in 2003. It’s not accurate to say that we have been waiting for a DNA match for 18 years.

The Touch DNA does NOT show that an unidentified male handled JB's underwear and longjohns. It DOES show that SKIN CELLS from an unidentified male were transferred to the clothing-possibly on the hands of whoever put the clothing on her. Skin cells do not prove the primary donor of those skin cells handled the clothing himself. Skin cells are so easily transferred.

 

[andreww]

I feel like all this stuff has been exaggerated in a game of broken telephone. You say an unidentified male but if you read the link in the post directly above, a DNA expert states that you cannot identify a persons sex through DNA.

All I'm saying is that the DNA evidence can sidetrack a case, just like it was in the OJ Simpson case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Global Justice Ops]

I feel like all this stuff has been exaggerated in a game of broken telephone. You say an unidentified male but if you read the link in the post directly above, a DNA expert states that you cannot identify a persons sex through DNA.

All I'm saying is that the DNA evidence can sidetrack a case, just like it was in the OJ Simpson case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The “expert” is wrong. DNA CAN determine a person’s gender/sex. You can do this by sequencing a region of the chromosome. A ridiculously expensive procedure but NOT impossible to do.

DNA does not contribute to cases being sidetracked. Accusing other people of crimes without any solid evidence does, that is what happened in this case. Influenced by the media, people pointed the finger at the Ramsey family and the best evidence they could come up with was the fact that Patsy was the only person who could not be eliminated as the author of the ransom note. DNA profiling has solved hundreds of cases, and will continue to do so, because it is testable, verifiable science. It is the exact opposite of making sensational, baseless claims.

 

[DeeDee249]

The claims are neither sensational or baseless. The Grand Jury voted to indict the parents for their involvement. The police knew the family was involved, though there were several theories of who did what. It was certainly not "just" Patsy having been unable to be ruled out as the author of the ransom note. It was the totality of the evidence, and yes- there was evidence. The public (including us) is not privy to all of it- there is much more still hidden than has been revealed. I trust the opinions of the police and the Grand Jury- who WERE privy to all the evidence. Too many people look at the family and say "It couldn't have been them"- for no other reason than they themselves couldn't have done it. Not good enough for me.

 

[Global Justice Ops]

The claims are neither sensational or baseless. The Grand Jury voted to indict the parents for their involvement. The police knew the family was involved, though there were several theories of who did what. It was certainly not "just" Patsy having been unable to be ruled out as the author of the ransom note. It was the totality of the evidence, and yes- there was evidence. The public (including us) is not privy to all of it- there is much more still hidden than has been revealed. I trust the opinions of the police and the Grand Jury- who WERE privy to all the evidence. Too many people look at the family and say "It couldn't have been them"- for no other reason than they themselves couldn't have done it. Not good enough for me.

Let me ask you a question. Why do people who believe the Ramseys did it always refer to the Grand Jury’s decision to indict BUT IGNORE the fact that a United States Federal Judge ruled that there is NO EVIDENCE that the Ramsey family did it? On top of that Boulder’s DA cleared them of any suspicion.

What I am saying is that there is a tendency in this case to refute all evidence if it implicates an intruder and not the Ramseys.

The public is not privy to all evidence. You are correct. BUT the two lead investigators on both sides resigned and went on to publicly present their cases, Steve Thomas and Lou Smit. So we have a very good understanding what evidence both sides were pushing.

There is no real evidence, if there had been then the Ramseys would be in jail. Alex Hunter knew there was no case against them.

 

[UKGuy]

Let me ask you a question. Why do people who believe the Ramseys did it always refer to the Grand Jury’s decision to indict BUT IGNORE the fact that a United States Federal Judge ruled that there is NO EVIDENCE that the Ramsey family did it? On top of that Boulder’s DA cleared them of any suspicion.

What I am saying is that there is a tendency in this case to refute all evidence if it implicates an intruder and not the Ramseys.

The public is not privy to all evidence. You are correct. BUT the two lead investigators on both sides resigned and went on to publicly present their cases, Steve Thomas and Lou Smit. So we have a very good understanding what evidence both sides were pushing.

There is no real evidence, if there had been then the Ramseys would be in jail. Alex Hunter knew there was no case against them.

Global Justice Ops,
Is that black Ops, as in disinformation?

Why do people who believe the Ramseys did it always refer to the Grand Jury’s decision to indict

So we can educate people such as yourself that other like minded citizens tasked with deciding what roles the Ramsey's played in the death of JonBenet adjudged they were negligent wrt the care of JonBenet, thus leading to her death.

What I am saying is that there is a tendency in this case to refute all evidence if it implicates an intruder and not the Ramseys.

This is because there is zero forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household. Yet all three Ramsey's resident in the house that fateful night are directly linked by forensic evidence to the wine-cellar crime-scene!

There is no real evidence, if there had been then the Ramseys would be in jail.

An example of unpublished evidence is which Ramsey touch-dna was found on JonBenet's clothing or body and precisely where i.e. legs, torso, size-12's, longjohns, etc.

The intruder is a chimera concocted by the Ramsey's and Lou Smit, such a mythical person does not exist, not outside fairy tales, or Greek Myths at least. Since when did you last read about the kidnapper who abducted his victim but left the victim behind, after dallying to perform some perverse acts on a dying body, before fleeing into the night, leaving a calling card in the form of a ransom note, and zero forensic evidence to connect him to the crime?

.