Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[TexasTuff]

Seriously? The housekeeper was looked at, simply because she was the first in a long line that was thrown under the bus by the Ramsey's . That woman broke down at the news of JBRs death, stood up for the Ramseys, and they never had the decency to even call her and tell her that her services were no longer required. Salt of the earth those Ramsey's.

Well excuse them for having a murdered child on their mind. Yeah really? The support turned to they did it at the GJ and then she sued to be able to talk about what she had told them. She made a few circuits on talk shows and made a few bucks and had her 15min of fame.

 

[icedtea4me]

Why hasn't the housekeeper seriously looked at? Patsy had loaned her $2,000. shortly before Christmas so she could pay her rent. Her husband was a drunk that when he did work worked construction. They didn't have two sticks to rub together it sounds like, and she had access to everything in the Ramsey house.

I hurry down the spiral staircase to the bottom floor and stop. What's this? I wonder. I turn around to look at three pieces of paper on a step near the bottom. I bend over. Must be a note from the cleaning lady, Linda, I think. Probably reminding me that she needs to borrow twenty-five hundred dollars. I must leave a check on the kitchen counter before we leave. (DOI, pp 10-11)

Here we have Patsy claiming she thought that Linda Hoffman-Pugh let herself in between 10 p.m. 25 Dec and 5:45 a.m. 26 Dec to leave a note reminding Patsy about a loan, a message that required three pages to communicate.

Patsy told Linda that she loan her the money, but she never wrote the check.

 

[Anti-K]

If the victim came in to contact with your couch carpet or floor, there is a potential for transfer.

Probably saliva, from the carpet to the inside crotch of her panties? Unlikely. And, if transfer could occur in this fashion, it would be Ramsey DNA because that is the vast majority of DNA that you would find in the Ramsey home.
…

AK

 

[InstantProof]

Oh, I’m sure they could have found something amongst all that trash that Christmas trash that they could have been used that would have been very difficult to trace back to them. The point here is that RDI often say that the Ramseys had no choice but to use that notepad, I am simply pointing out that that isn’t true. Choices were everywhere.
…

AK

Name one discarded item that would be in anyone's house at Christmas and I can explain to you how it can be traced back to them. In any event, someone wanted to write a long letter, so the notepad was chosen. Someone thought they were above scrutiny. It's that simple.

 

[InstantProof]

Probably saliva, from the carpet to the inside crotch of her panties? Unlikely. And, if transfer could occur in this fashion, it would be Ramsey DNA because that is the vast majority of DNA that you would find in the Ramsey home.
…

AK

If transfer can occur in this fashion? Have you never watched forensic programs?

 

[Anti-K]

To all you IDIs, one question.

That morning on December 26, there had to be two questions going through John Ramsey's mind. "Where is my daughter?" and "how did these people get in and out of my house?" So John goes by himself into the basement and finds two things; an unlatched and ajar window, and a suitcase that he would later immediately say "didn't belong there".

Did John tell the detectives that he had possibly found a point of entry or exit? Did he even mention that something was out of place? NO! In fact he claims that he shut the window and latched it.

My question is why? What possible reason would John have for not mentioning these things?

Are you hearing what I am saying here? This is not based on expert opinion or subjective science. These are the documented actions and statements of a man who is both a witness and a suspect.

Some of you moan about LEs rush to judgment in this case, but if you actually take the time to examine what we know to be fact, you will see that there are many many things that point straight to the Ramsey's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IIRC, Ramsey claimed that he may have mentioned the window to Arndt.
.

I don’t know if it is possible to “later immediately say,” but anyway, Andreww, you’ve raised these questions before, and they were answered before. I’ll try again.

Mr Ramsey saw nothing unusual when he noticed and latched the window, and the police ahd already been in the basement to look around so they had presumably already seen the window, so Mr Ramsay may have thought there wasn’t really anything to mention (it’s okay if you think he was wrong).
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Name one discarded item that would be in anyone's house at Christmas and I can explain to you how it can be traced back to them. In any event, someone wanted to write a long letter, so the notepad was chosen. Someone thought they were above scrutiny. It's that simple.

It’s a question of ease, though, isn’t it? This notepad is a Ramsey notepad. It doesn’t even have to be traced. But, a stray piece of cardboard insert or scrap of wrapping, etc isn’t quite as easy to trace and its use would at least show that they were trying to prevent the note form being traced back to them!
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If transfer can occur in this fashion? Have you never watched forensic programs?

Yes, however I’ve never seen or read about a case where DNA transferred from a floor to the inside crotch of someone’s panties. Have you?
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

Yes, however I’ve never seen or read about a case where DNA transferred from a floor to the inside crotch of someone’s panties. Have you?
…

AK

There's a ton of things we've never seen in this case, though, and at this moment the only "never seen" that works for IDI is the possible DNA transfer.

We also never have seen a note like theirs. And maybe it's not never, but it's got to be very rare to see so many items used from already inside the home if an outsider did it. . Also a body AND a kidnapping note, in the same home, has got to be rare if there was no cover up attempt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[icedtea4me]

Yes, however I’ve never seen or read about a case where DNA transferred from a floor to the inside crotch of someone’s panties. Have you?
…

AK

DNA [speaking ala William Shatner playing a dramatic struggling scene as Captain Kirk]: "Ughhh...Must....get....through....these....fi....bers....."

 

[icedtea4me]

Probably saliva, from the carpet to the inside crotch of her panties? Unlikely. And, if transfer could occur in this fashion, it would be Ramsey DNA because that is the vast majority of DNA that you would find in the Ramsey home.
…

AK

She had also been in the Whites' home that evening.

 

[aussiesheila2]

aussiesheila2,

BBM: What type were the cells that contained the DNA and please cite an official reference for this information.

.

UKGuy, an amylase test was performed on the spot of JonBenet’s blood on her panties and that showed up positive. This positive result indicated the presence of amylase.

From that researchers concluded there must have been saliva mixed in with the blood in the bloodspot since only saliva has high enough levels of amylase present to give such a positive result.

The cells within saliva that contain DNA are the epithelial cells that are sloughed off from inside the cheeks.

So the cells that contained the foreign DNA would have been an unknown male’s epithelial cells.

I’m sorry I can’t cite an official reference for this, however James Kolar made reference to the saliva determining amylase test in his book, Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, pages 137 – 138

“Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, . . . . .”



I can’t imagine CBI giving false information to LaBerge and I can’t see LaBerge giving false information to Kolar and I think Kolar is honest and would not write false information in his book, so I believe the cells in the blood stain that contained the foreign DNA were epithelial cells.

 

[aussiesheila2]

Didn't you mean to say the nine marker profile obtained from Jonbenet's panties that was later artificially enhanced to meet the minimum standard? IDIs have a habit of leaving that part out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andreww, can you please direct me to where you got this "artificially enhanced" term from? It is not a term that is normally used by molecular biologists when referring to PCR and other techniques used in obtaining DNA profiles so I suspect this term came from someone who is not a scientist.

Since I would prefer discussing on a scientific basis do you think you could please provide a scientific description or a link to a scientific discussion of what you believe was done with the DNA before I try to answer your question? Thanks

 

[TexasTuff]

UKGuy, an amylase test was performed on the spot of JonBenet’s blood on her panties and that showed up positive. This positive result indicated the presence of amylase.

From that researchers concluded there must have been saliva mixed in with the blood in the bloodspot since only saliva has high enough levels of amylase present to give such a positive result.

The cells within saliva that contain DNA are the epithelial cells that are sloughed off from inside the cheeks.

So the cells that contained the foreign DNA would have been an unknown male’s epithelial cells.

I’m sorry I can’t cite an official reference for this, however James Kolar made reference to the saliva determining amylase test in his book, Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, pages 137 – 138

“Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, . . . . .”



I can’t imagine CBI giving false information to LaBerge and I can’t see LaBerge giving false information to Kolar and I think Kolar is honest and would not write false information in his book, so I believe the cells in the blood stain that contained the foreign DNA were epithelial cells.

When amylase is discovered can it be determined if it is male or female?

 

[Ellie9]

When amylase is discovered can it be determined if it is male or female?

It's just an enzyme in saliva mainly, small amounts in blood and urine.

The DNA would be able to determine gender though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, an amylase test was performed on the spot of JonBenet’s blood on her panties and that showed up positive. This positive result indicated the presence of amylase.

From that researchers concluded there must have been saliva mixed in with the blood in the bloodspot since only saliva has high enough levels of amylase present to give such a positive result.

The cells within saliva that contain DNA are the epithelial cells that are sloughed off from inside the cheeks.

So the cells that contained the foreign DNA would have been an unknown male’s epithelial cells.

I’m sorry I can’t cite an official reference for this, however James Kolar made reference to the saliva determining amylase test in his book, Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, pages 137 – 138

“Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, . . . . .”



I can’t imagine CBI giving false information to LaBerge and I can’t see LaBerge giving false information to Kolar and I think Kolar is honest and would not write false information in his book, so I believe the cells in the blood stain that contained the foreign DNA were epithelial cells.

aussiesheila2,
Thanks for your post and detailed information.

UKGuy, an amylase test was performed on the spot of JonBenet’s blood on her panties and that showed up positive. This positive result indicated the presence of amylase.

From that researchers concluded there must have been saliva mixed in with the blood in the bloodspot since only saliva has high enough levels of amylase present to give such a positive result.

BBM: curiously strangulation can produce high levels of amylase in the blood, as can Macroamylasemia, an uncommon and harmless condition in which amylase is bound to a protein in the blood.

Also:

Saliva, which contains large amounts of amylase. Coughing, sneezing, or even talking over an uncovered urine or blood specimen can contaminate the specimen and artificially increase amylase values.

With surgical handgloves being reused during the autopsy, how can we be certain nobody sneezed, coughed or talked over the blood sample?

So the cells that contained the foreign DNA would have been an unknown male’s epithelial cells.

Why specifically a male, if gender can be determined how come nothing has been published, since this could rule out PDI or JDI?

I can’t imagine CBI giving false information to LaBerge and I can’t see LaBerge giving false information to Kolar and I think Kolar is honest and would not write false information in his book, so I believe the cells in the blood stain that contained the foreign DNA were epithelial cells.

I'll provisionally accept the epithelial cells assumption, but with the above qualifications.

I liked the evolutionary take on the AMY1 gene written up on wikipedia.


.

 

[aussiesheila2]

aussiesheila2,
Thanks for your post and detailed information.

BBM: curiously strangulation can produce high levels of amylase in the blood, as can Macroamylasemia, an uncommon and harmless condition in which amylase is bound to a protein in the blood.

Also:

With surgical handgloves being reused during the autopsy, how can we be certain nobody sneezed, coughed or talked over the blood sample?


Why specifically a male, if gender can be determined how come nothing has been published, since this could rule out PDI or JDI?


I'll provisionally accept the epithelial cells assumption, but with the above qualifications.

I liked the evolutionary take on the AMY1 gene written up on wikipedia.


.

UK Guy,
Just replying to your comment about amylase being present in other body fluids. Sure it is and forensic scientists are well aware of this fact and to overcome this problem have developed more advanced tests that can test specifically for the type of amylase present in saliva. So even if other body fluids are present, because they contain different types of amylase, the test won't show up as positive unless there is salivary amylase present.

We don’t really know what test CBI employed to determine that saliva was present in the panties bloodspot, all that we do know is that Kolar describes the test material that showed positivity for amylase as ‘flashing the color of blue’.

So I’ll take a guess here and suggest that the test CBI used was one of these advanced tests, one that uses monoclonal antibodies that are designed specifically to bind to the alpha-amylases present in saliva and the the test strip will only light up if there is saliva present. The monoclonal antibodies react only with the type of amylase present in saliva and will not react with the type of amylases present in blood etc so unless saliva is present there is no possibility of getting a positive result with this type of test.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

 

[aussiesheila2]

aussiesheila2,
Thanks for your post and detailed information.

BBM: curiously strangulation can produce high levels of amylase in the blood, as can Macroamylasemia, an uncommon and harmless condition in which amylase is bound to a protein in the blood.

Also:

With surgical handgloves being reused during the autopsy, how can we be certain nobody sneezed, coughed or talked over the blood sample?


Why specifically a male, if gender can be determined how come nothing has been published, since this could rule out PDI or JDI?


I'll provisionally accept the epithelial cells assumption, but with the above qualifications.

I liked the evolutionary take on the AMY1 gene written up on wikipedia.


.

Re the surgical gloves – I don’t know what you mean about surgical gloves being re-used during the autopsy. The coroner would not have used non-sterile gloves if that’s what you mean and if that is what you think then I really don’t know where you got that idea from because I doubt very much that it is true.

I imagine the coroner put on sterile gloves initially to perform the autopsy but they wouldn’t have stayed sterile for long as he was touching the body, which itself was not sterile. So as he moved from one piece of clothing to the other and then to the body I imagine he was transferring microscopic amounts of material from one place to another. But it would (or should) all just have been only material that was on the body and clothing to being with as it came out of the body bag.

So if, during the autopsy the coroner did not put on fresh sterile gloves when he removed the longjohns then yes, he could have transferred microscopic amounts of material to those longjohns.

As far as sneezing or coughing or talking, he would have had a surgical mask on as well, so none of his saliva would have gotten anywhere near the body.

However, it is my understanding that after the finding of the foreign DNA on the panties all the coroner and all his staff were DNA tested and none of their DNA matched that foreign DNA.

So I don’t think saliva from the coroner or any of his staff could possibly have been the source of the foreign DNA found on JonBenet’s clothing.


I don’t really understand your question about gender. It has been stated officially that the DNA was male.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

aussiesheila2,
Thanks for your post and detailed information.

BBM: curiously strangulation can produce high levels of amylase in the blood, as can Macroamylasemia, an uncommon and harmless condition in which amylase is bound to a protein in the blood.

Also:

With surgical handgloves being reused during the autopsy, how can we be certain nobody sneezed, coughed or talked over the blood sample?


Why specifically a male, if gender can be determined how come nothing has been published, since this could rule out PDI or JDI?


I'll provisionally accept the epithelial cells assumption, but with the above qualifications.

I liked the evolutionary take on the AMY1 gene written up on wikipedia.


.

Gender has been established. It is male. This is old news. It’s been reported everywhere.
…

AK

 

[UKGuy]

BBM

Gender has been established. It is male. This is old news. It’s been reported everywhere.
…

AK

Anti-K,
Cite the official reference to this amylase test being conducted and the method used for gender identification please?

.