Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[passionflower]

I often wonder how anyone can live with themselves that now the truth of what happened to a beautiful little girl that holiday night.....................was Christmas ever the same for any of them?

 

[Tadpole12]

poetry soup:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ed_jonbenet_730298+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca


"Who Killed JonBenet

Who killed little JonBenet?
And who placed her where she lay?

"Don't accuse poor poor me,
I'm not a monster" said Patsy. ...."

Copyright © 20152015 Keith Trestrail

___________________________________________


http://peterboyles.podbean.com/e/peter-boyles-show-nov-23-2015-hr-2/

The Peter Boyles Show
November 23, 2015
Alan Prendergast on the John Ramsey interview

 

[Anti-K]

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

.

I’m not going to do that, and, I’ll tell you why. Aussiesheila just answered your first request. You even quoted her and answered back! So, I don’t think your request is genuine. And, the DNA has been known to be male virtually since the day it was first reported on. Nothing needs to be cited because this fact is ubiquitous. You’re always on about Kolar. If you’ve read or listened to Kolar, then you know – it’s male DNA. if you’ve read anything about the DNA in this case, you know – it’s male DNA. So, I don’t think this question was genuine, either.

BTW, no, I don’t recall if the exact method used to determine gender was ever reported anywhere, and I don’t know if the same means was used for all samples, but I am pretty sure that they didn’t just flip a coin or use a crystal ball.

…

AK

 

[Ibiz]

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

YES! Their called TRANSFER fibers. They can be spread from anywhere to anywhere.

 

[Annapurna]

I would like to challenge IDIs to provide evidence other than the DNA (which it seems like every thread on here devolves into a discussion about).

If your theory is strong you won't need it.

All of the IDI evidence is ambiguous. There is however a great deal of more concrete evidence available in the rdi camp. All the evidence IDIs say is "proof" can very easily be turned the other way. This is not true of the RDI theory.

I'm genuinely open to alternate theories (unlike some...). If someone can provide a coherent theory (and please don't bring up Helgoth), I will seriously consider it. However please provide evidence & ideally sources as well.

Now I've given you all some homework! :laughing: Grades will not be assigned though

 

[BOESP]

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

One never knows ... maybe the panties were on wrong-side-out. Or maybe as she stepped into the panties DNA was transferred from the bottom of her foot. Iirc, JonBenet was found bare footed.

Really, this DNA stuff as a golden bullet that proves the Ramseys are innocent is not going to fly for every one, including me.

 

[Annapurna]

I've long had a theory that the source of the DNA is indeed from the party. It could very well have come from a young child, which is why they were never tested. Say the DNA is on the bottom hem of her shirt. When the long johns are put on that could transfer it to the inner waistband. She could have transferred the DNA to her private area (young children fidget with this area themselves, especially likely since she had chronic inflammation to the area, it could have itched...sorry if that's unpleasant to read). Additionally she was playing on the floor both at home and at the White's house, with various playmates. It has been noted in the interviews that PR didn't know the last time the child bathed or washed her hands. The tDNA could have come from playing with toys she had played with the children either at the party on the 23rd or the 25th. They had children traipsing through the playroom, burke's room and her room too probably. I don't believe the police tested any/all of these children.

I just really don't see the DNA as a magic bullet either. We're talking incredibly small amounts. How was the intruder supposed to transfer this to her? He obviously wore gloves as there are no fingerprints anywhere, so it didn't come from his hand. There was such a tiny amount as well, it probably would have been a larger amount if it were primary rather than secondary/tertiary transfer. There are plenty of easy innocent explanations for the DNA. More importantly however, it is really the only contested piece of evidence that holds water (barely). There is so much other evidence pointing in the other direction.

 

[icedtea4me]

One never knows ... maybe the panties were on wrong-side-out. Or maybe as she stepped into the panties DNA was transferred from the bottom of her foot. Iirc, JonBenet was found bare footed.

Really, this DNA stuff as a golden bullet that proves the Ramseys are innocent is not going to fly for every one, including me.

The underwear wouldn't have to be inside-out as DNA could easily go through the fibers.

 

[Ellie9]

The underwear wouldn't have to be inside-out as DNA could easily go through the fibers.

Agree. And also she had a habit of asking random adults for help wiping after using the bathroom. According to Nedra, PR mom. Whoever was within ear shot in the bathroom.

Did she even wear those giant panties to the party though? They looked more like part of the cover up and staging to me. They were for a girl twice her size. PR claimed that they were just in her underwear drawer, but police didn't find anything but size four. For day of the week underwear there would have been six more in there, and they didn't pull out any.

So DNA could have gotten on them in many ways if they were not originally on her when she was still alive. That could also have been part of the staging.

Then, if she did manage to find and wear panties twice her size to the party, anytime she used the bathroom they would be dragging all over the floor due to how huge they were.

I think this is a red herring. There was actually two different samples of DNA in the crotch. And two or more people is a stretch even for IDI. Especially considering the only evidence they both could have left behind was just two tiny DNA samples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Annapurna]

I think it is honestly almost impossible for her to have been wearing those panties. There was a fantastic poster by the name of Jayelles who did an experiment. She had a 6yo daughter nearly the exact same height and weight as JBR. She first tried them on her daughter and said it was impossible to wear them unless pulled all the way up to her armpits, and if they were around her hips they provided no coverage whatsoever. She made a plaster cast of her legs and put bloomies undies size 12 on the model to show us pictures. They hung down to the knees! Poster KoldKase (inactive i believe) has the image as her icon. I don't know where to find the original post, sorry Maybe one of our veteran posters could link?

My conclusion from the experiment (and supported by Jayelle's daughter) was that the undies would be extremely uncomfortable. Either the panties would have bunched up and looked lumpy in the pants (PR probably wouldn't approve, going to a party especially she'd want her to be presentable) or they would have sagged down into one or the other pant leg. Female posters can confirm that it is not comfortable to go commando in pants that have a seam up the middle (such as her Gap velvet pants had). A girl with toilet issues would probably not have been permitted by her mother to wear no panties,or panties so ridiculously large so as not to ruin her pants.

Now for how she got in those pants I am not sure. I firmly believe she did not put them on herself though.

ETA: I didn't know that about the 2 DNA samples in the crotch, very interesting! Goes to show it may not be related to the crime.

 

[Springrain]

I've long had a theory that the source of the DNA is indeed from the party. It could very well have come from a young child, which is why they were never tested. Say the DNA is on the bottom hem of her shirt. When the long johns are put on that could transfer it to the inner waistband. She could have transferred the DNA to her private area (young children fidget with this area themselves, especially likely since she had chronic inflammation to the area, it could have itched...sorry if that's unpleasant to read). Additionally she was playing on the floor both at home and at the White's house, with various playmates. It has been noted in the interviews that PR didn't know the last time the child bathed or washed her hands. The tDNA could have come from playing with toys she had played with the children either at the party on the 23rd or the 25th. They had children traipsing through the playroom, burke's room and her room too probably. I don't believe the police tested any/all of these children.

I just really don't see the DNA as a magic bullet either. We're talking incredibly small amounts. How was the intruder supposed to transfer this to her? He obviously wore gloves as there are no fingerprints anywhere, so it didn't come from his hand. There was such a tiny amount as well, it probably would have been a larger amount if it were primary rather than secondary/tertiary transfer. There are plenty of easy innocent explanations for the DNA. More importantly however, it is really the only contested piece of evidence that holds water (barely). There is so much other evidence pointing in the other direction.

That was my theory too, that is was from the party.

 

[Ellie9]

ETA: I didn't know that about the 2 DNA samples in the crotch, very interesting! Goes to show it may not be related to the crime.

The source for that is perfect murder perfect town. Kind of old though. Maybe there is new information on this.

I saw that post on the other forum actually! You're right they were way off in size.

Someone posted an interview with PR about this. The lying abounds. First when asked about JB size in underwear she tried to say it was between six and ten. Heh, no. The interviewer said all the panties collected were size four, I think maybe a couple size six.

She's always trying to weasel her way out of tricky questions by downplaying things or leaving out information or outright lying. Due to behaviour like this I am inclined to think that she at the very least played a role in cover up and staging.

The more I read on here and the more I read about the case through books and interviews etc, I'm starting to lean towards a heavy involvement from Burke. I never would have guessed a nine year old could have done that blow to the head, but the more I read the worse it looks for him. PR makes the most sense, her behaviour, sobbing, and screaming the day JB was found dead, as a mother who lost her daughter and feared losing her son, or just at least learning what her son is capable of made her deeply upset, as it would have done to me too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

YES! Their called TRANSFER fibers. They can be spread from anywhere to anywhere.

NO! They’re not! DNA aren’t fibers. Yes, they can be spread anywhere and in this case they were probably spread by her killer. Thank you.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I would like to challenge IDIs to provide evidence other than the DNA (which it seems like every thread on here devolves into a discussion about).

If your theory is strong you won't need it.

All of the IDI evidence is ambiguous. There is however a great deal of more concrete evidence available in the rdi camp. All the evidence IDIs say is "proof" can very easily be turned the other way. This is not true of the RDI theory.

I'm genuinely open to alternate theories (unlike some...). If someone can provide a coherent theory (and please don't bring up Helgoth), I will seriously consider it. However please provide evidence & ideally sources as well.

Now I've given you all some homework! :laughing: Grades will not be assigned though

I realize that we’re not in court and that some people think that such things are only applicable in court, however, there is such a thing as presumption and the Ramseys should enjoy that presumption. Anyone who says they did it, has to prove that they did it. The burden of prove is on RDI, not IDI and so far, that burden has not been met.
When an IDI suspect is identified (presumably, DNA-man) then IDI can try to build a case against him, but right now it is pretty hard to build a case against someone whose identity is unknown.

In the meantime, IDI consider things like the ransom note to be intruder evidence. We see the nature of the crime to be intruder evidence. We see the DNA and the unsourced hairs and fibers found in incriminating locations to be intruder evidence. We see a lack of family and/or behavioral history as being exculpatory (goes towards innocence).

For IDI, the complete failure of RDI – and, despite what some posters think, it is a failure, no one charged, arrested, tried, convicted, no consensus among believers as to who did what, when, how or why – is telling.

IDI see the case against the Ramseys as being incredibly weak with much of it amounting to no more than reason for suspicion and investigation (which occurred, and amounted to nothing). IDI see the case against the Ramseys as being greatly overstated by RDI.

You know when you’re accusing someone of a crime the standard of proof should be pretty high. IDI, for the most part, aren’t accusing anyone. Our suspect is unidentified. We’ll start with the accusing and the proving once an identification is made.

As to coherent theories, I’m not even sure what that means as no coherent RDI theory exists.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

One never knows ... maybe the panties were on wrong-side-out. Or maybe as she stepped into the panties DNA was transferred from the bottom of her foot. Iirc, JonBenet was found bare footed.

Really, this DNA stuff as a golden bullet that proves the Ramseys are innocent is not going to fly for every one, including me.

Well, it isn’t “a golden bullet that proves the Ramseys are innocent” It’s trace evidence that was found in incriminating locations and it represents a potential suspect who needs to be identified and investigated. It has exculpatory (goes towards innocence) value for everyone who is excluded as donor.

If the panties were in inside out, it would have been noted in the AR.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I've long had a theory that the source of the DNA is indeed from the party. It could very well have come from a young child, which is why they were never tested. Say the DNA is on the bottom hem of her shirt. When the long johns are put on that could transfer it to the inner waistband. She could have transferred the DNA to her private area (young children fidget with this area themselves, especially likely since she had chronic inflammation to the area, it could have itched...sorry if that's unpleasant to read). Additionally she was playing on the floor both at home and at the White's house, with various playmates. It has been noted in the interviews that PR didn't know the last time the child bathed or washed her hands. The tDNA could have come from playing with toys she had played with the children either at the party on the 23rd or the 25th. They had children traipsing through the playroom, burke's room and her room too probably. I don't believe the police tested any/all of these children.

I just really don't see the DNA as a magic bullet either. We're talking incredibly small amounts. How was the intruder supposed to transfer this to her? He obviously wore gloves as there are no fingerprints anywhere, so it didn't come from his hand. There was such a tiny amount as well, it probably would have been a larger amount if it were primary rather than secondary/tertiary transfer. There are plenty of easy innocent explanations for the DNA. More importantly however, it is really the only contested piece of evidence that holds water (barely). There is so much other evidence pointing in the other direction.

The CODIS sample – from the panties – is not tDNA. It is probably saliva. So, people should stop talking about the CODIS sample as if it were tDNA. Just stop, okay? Because it’s not tDNA and talking as if it is is just wrong.

Second, people, not even children wearing over-sized panties, aren’t walking around dragging their panties all over the ground, particularly when they’re wearing other clothing over top of the panties. I don’t even know if it’s possible to transfer DNA this way – contact with a floor - and I’ve read a lot of transfer studies!
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The underwear wouldn't have to be inside-out as DNA could easily go through the fibers.

Oh?
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Agree. And also she had a habit of asking random adults for help wiping after using the bathroom. According to Nedra, PR mom. Whoever was within ear shot in the bathroom.

Did she even wear those giant panties to the party though? They looked more like part of the cover up and staging to me. They were for a girl twice her size. PR claimed that they were just in her underwear drawer, but police didn't find anything but size four. For day of the week underwear there would have been six more in there, and they didn't pull out any.

So DNA could have gotten on them in many ways if they were not originally on her when she was still alive. That could also have been part of the staging.

Then, if she did manage to find and wear panties twice her size to the party, anytime she used the bathroom they would be dragging all over the floor due to how huge they were.

I think this is a red herring. There was actually two different samples of DNA in the crotch. And two or more people is a stretch even for IDI. Especially considering the only evidence they both could have left behind was just two tiny DNA samples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you are incorrect in saying that “[t]here was actually two different samples of DNA in the crotch.”
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

I think you are incorrect in saying that “[t]here was actually two different samples of DNA in the crotch.”
…

AK

It's from Perfect Murder Perfect Town. The book is older so new evidence could suggest otherwise. Do you have anything besides DNA, or not? There are at least possible explanations for the DNA there. Is there anything else that IDI's have to offer, though? Focusing in on one piece of potential evidence and excluding every other piece of the puzzle isn't a good strategy.

 

[Anti-K]

It's from Perfect Murder Perfect Town. The book is older so new evidence could suggest otherwise. Do you have anything besides DNA, or not? There are at least possible explanations for the DNA there. Is there anything else that IDI's have to offer, though? Focusing in on one piece of potential evidence and excluding every other piece of the puzzle isn't a good strategy.

BBM to show revision
If you read in PMPT that there were two different, distinct DNA samples obtained from the panties you better provide a quote and a page number because I think you are mistaken and as such are spreading false information. There were two blood spots, yes, but not two DNA samples.

As to whether or not I have more than the DNA, of course I do and I just posted on it here: http://tinyurl.com/zkfnqvx

IDI take a holistic approach and I have never yet met an IDI who focused only on the DNA. In fact, I know there are some IDI who think that the DNA is not related to the crime. IDI were around long before this DNA was found. The DNA merely confirms our position. It is corroboration.
…

AK