Another Year Has Passed.

[DeeDee249]

Go back and look at the autopsy photo of JB's fractured skull. That did not happen from being thrown, or from falling, or even from being slammed into a wall. That happened just as the coroner said it did. BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA. Also called a bludgeoning.
I can't rule out the kids' possible sex play, that night or any other. And I can't rule out that it happened on the night of her death. Maybe it did. But there are two things of which we can all be certain, whether RDI or IDI.
One, that something was inserted in her vagina THAT night that caused bleeding (which was then wiped off) and
Two, that she was bashed on the head with enough force to punch a large piece out of her skull and nearly crack it half.

 

[fay]

I just saw a show about a man who was cleared of murder by sophisticated dna, skin cells. And in the show they said the same technology cleared the parents Ramsey of the murder of JonBenet. However many disagree with this finding, why? I was convinced Patsey did it, but now with this info, I'm not so sure. Same dna on 4 different places? That leads me to believe something else happened. But then there is the ransom note. aaarrrggghhh!
Sorry if this is in the wrong place, never posted here before, feel free to move it.
Thanks.

 

[Tricia]

I just saw a show about a man who was cleared of murder by sophisticated dna, skin cells. And in the show they said the same technology cleared the parents Ramsey of the murder of JonBenet. However many disagree with this finding, why? I was convinced Patsey did it, but now with this info, I'm not so sure. Same dna on 4 different places? That leads me to believe something else happened. But then there is the ransom note. aaarrrggghhh!
Sorry if this is in the wrong place, never posted here before, feel free to move it.
Thanks.

This is the perfect place to put this.

First, Mary Lacy and others on Team Ramsey always fail to mention the 3 page ransom note that matches Patsy's handwriting .

Fail to mention John's fibers from his high priced shirt being found in JBR's underwear.

Fail to mention fibers from Patsy's jacket found intertwined in the rope that is around JonBenet's neck.

That is the start of a very long list of things pointing to a Ramsey as the culprit.

Now, let's look at the DNA. That DNA is so insignificant because it is very likely it was DNA just literally floating around. Touch DNA is so minuscule that it is easily transferred.

If this really was from the "Intruder" then it would be all over the place, it would be on the note, on the rope, on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in.

Most likely this came from the manufacturer of the underpants since they were new.

Until logical explanations are made for the other pieces of HUGE evidence that points away from the intruder the DNA is really nothing.

Because Mary Lacy is one of worst most ineffective and dumb DA's I have ever seen and the media just grabs on to something like DNA because it's easier than actually researching it, the false information campaign of the Ramseys is doing well and fine.

Someday we will know the truth. I don't know who did what to JonBenet but when you look at all the evidence there is only one logical conclusion, there was no an intruder.

 

[fay]

I am skeptical of the new dna test done because I'm not sure how widely used or tested this is, I never heard of it until 3 days ago when that show was on. Your right about the skin cells, they should have been everywhere-the scientists should have looked at where they are not. I didn't think of that, thank you.
I still can't get beyond the ransom note, or the behavior of them after the murder and the other evidence collected. I pray this case will be solved however the DA has closed the door on the obvious and that is a travesty.

 

[fay]

Go back and look at the autopsy photo of JB's fractured skull. That did not happen from being thrown, or from falling, or even from being slammed into a wall. That happened just as the coroner said it did. BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA. Also called a bludgeoning.
I can't rule out the kids' possible sex play, that night or any other. And I can't rule out that it happened on the night of her death. Maybe it did. But there are two things of which we can all be certain, whether RDI or IDI.
One, that something was inserted in her vagina THAT night that caused bleeding (which was then wiped off) and
Two, that she was bashed on the head with enough force to punch a large piece out of her skull and nearly crack it half.

bbm What rapist does that? None. thats who. Like the comment in the note about getting some rest, it appears to be someone with a caring instinct towards the victim. Wonder who? :waitasec:

 

[BBB167893]

This is the perfect place to put this.

First, Mary Lacy and others on Team Ramsey always fail to mention the 3 page ransom note that matches Patsy's handwriting .

Fail to mention John's fibers from his high priced shirt being found in JBR's underwear.

Fail to mention fibers from Patsy's jacket found intertwined in the rope that is around JonBenet's neck.

That is the start of a very long list of things pointing to a Ramsey as the culprit.

Now, let's look at the DNA. That DNA is so insignificant because it is very likely it was DNA just literally floating around. Touch DNA is so minuscule that it is easily transferred.

If this really was from the "Intruder" then it would be all over the place, it would be on the note, on the rope, on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in.

Most likely this came from the manufacturer of the underpants since they were new.

Until logical explanations are made for the other pieces of HUGE evidence that points away from the intruder the DNA is really nothing.

Because Mary Lacy is one of worst most ineffective and dumb DA's I have ever seen and the media just grabs on to something like DNA because it's easier than actually researching it, the false information campaign of the Ramseys is doing well and fine.

Someday we will know the truth. I don't know who did what to JonBenet but when you look at all the evidence there is only one logical conclusion, there was no an intruder.

:applause: Wonderful.

Just to add on to that, fay: DNA testing equipment can only find DNA. It can't tell the difference between criminal DNA and non-criminal DNA. Indeed, (and it's not just me saying this) as DNA testing methods become more sensitive, it increases the likelihood of detecting DNA that is not relevant to a crime. So it still takes human intelligence to know what to go with and what not to. That's where it gets really messed up, because Mary Lacy had a vested interest in clearing the Rs from Day One. (Read ST's book, Mark Fuhrman's book and Frank Coffman's articles if you don't believe me.) The perfect storm, indeed.

 

[DeeDee249]

The thing with the touch DNA is that Patsy SAID she put those clothes on JB. If Patsy shook hands with someone at the White's party (which she certainly could have done) or touched something someone else had touched (this is a certainty- door knobs, etc.) that is how the strange DNA could have gotten on JB'c clothes. The touch DNA is skin cells. That's what it is. It can not be known how old the male who left it is, either. If JB touched something that was touched by one of the boys at the party, it could have transferred to her own hands and then to her clothes.
The DNA most certainly does NOT exonerate the parents in this case, regardless of what the reckless and negligent statement by an exiting DA says. Even if it isn't their DNA, it doesn't prove that it belongs to the killer and doesn't prove that they were not responsible for her death themselves. It only proves that the touch DNA does not belong to them.

 

[KariKae]

But why was the touch DNA of just one person found? If Patsy shook hands with multiple people, wouldn't there be multiple spots of touch DNA?

And the same DNA was in multiple places on her clothing? And in the crotch of her panties? I can see it being in waist band area. Sometimes you hold them open so the child can step in. But there's really no reason to touch the crotch.

But I just can't wrap my mind around why the intruder would remove his/her gloves to redress the body. And why an intruder would leave miniscule spots of DNA on the panties and long johns, but no other evidence anywhere in the house. No fibers, no fingerprints, no hairs. This was a violent murder and there is no other evidence other than miniscule spots of DNA.

Just doesn't make sense from a RDI or IDI perspective.

 

[DeeDee249]

But why was the touch DNA of just one person found? If Patsy shook hands with multiple people, wouldn't there be multiple spots of touch DNA?

And the same DNA was in multiple places on her clothing? And in the crotch of her panties? I can see it being in waist band area. Sometimes you hold them open so the child can step in. But there's really no reason to touch the crotch.

But I just can't wrap my mind around why the intruder would remove his/her gloves to redress the body. And why an intruder would leave miniscule spots of DNA on the panties and long johns, but no other evidence anywhere in the house. No fibers, no fingerprints, no hairs. This was a violent murder and there is no other evidence other than miniscule spots of DNA.

Just doesn't make sense from a RDI or IDI perspective.

You are correct on all counts. An intruder wouldn't do any of those things.
As far as Patsy's DNA- of course it SHOULD be on JB's clothes. Patsy admitted dressing JB in the longjohns, so the absence of Patsy's DNA from the longjohns is as suspicious as the absence of Patsy and/or JR prints on flashlight and the batteries inside that belonged to them. Wiped-down flashlight is one thing, wiped-down batteries is something else. No intruder would need to do that because an intruder would have ever handled the batteries. But a family member who used the flashlight as a bludgeon would very much need to wipe down the batteries so they could deny the flashlight belonged to them.

 

[JMO8778]

Deedee,if she was bludgeoned,and I surely think that's possible...I'm just wondering if there is any reason it would not have broken the skin on her scalp,since it was a closed-head wound.I wonder if it's possible the flashlight was rubber-coated,and if that part was removed,that was the original weapon as it was.
My other thoughts are that maybe a ponytail or JB's shirt or other clothing cushioned the blow,as well as maybe a pillow was used to cushion it.recall there was blood on JB's pillow that she was q'd about.any thoughts?

 

[KariKae]

As far as Patsy's DNA- of course it SHOULD be on JB's clothes. Patsy admitted dressing JB in the longjohns, so the absence of Patsy's DNA from the longjohns is as suspicious .

That is interesting. Particularly if Patsy were wrestling the long johns onto a sleeping child, her DNA should be all over the long johns. And FTR, if JBR were really sound asleep, I still don't understand why she had to change her. Velvet pants are warm enough and comfortable enough to sleep in.

 

[cynic]

But why was the touch DNA of just one person found? If Patsy shook hands with multiple people, wouldn't there be multiple spots of touch DNA?

And the same DNA was in multiple places on her clothing? And in the crotch of her panties? I can see it being in waist band area. Sometimes you hold them open so the child can step in. But there's really no reason to touch the crotch.

But I just can't wrap my mind around why the intruder would remove his/her gloves to redress the body. And why an intruder would leave miniscule spots of DNA on the panties and long johns, but no other evidence anywhere in the house. No fibers, no fingerprints, no hairs. This was a violent murder and there is no other evidence other than miniscule spots of DNA.

Just doesn't make sense from a RDI or IDI perspective.

With regard to the touch DNA, the lab which was hired to do the testing was more than likely given the instruction: “Is there a match to the CODIS ("intruder") profile established from DNA testing on the bloodspot in the panties?” They went hunting for that profile and would ignore/eliminate other data.
Labs like everyone are busy and are not going to do more than they have to.
Have a read of my DNA thread if you want more detail.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999"]DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[DeeDee249]

Deedee,if she was bludgeoned,and I surely think that's possible...I'm just wondering if there is any reason it would not have broken the skin on her scalp,since it was a closed-head wound.I wonder if it's possible the flashlight was rubber-coated,and if that part was removed,that was the original weapon as it was.
My other thoughts are that maybe a ponytail or JB's shirt or other clothing cushioned the blow,as well as maybe a pillow was used to cushion it.recall there was blood on JB's pillow that she was q'd about.any thoughts?

It isn't that usual to have a closed-head wound, depending on what the weapon was. I do recall reading that one of the forensic specialists (possibly Cyril Wecht or Spitz) had actually used a similar flashlight in an experiment and found that it left a depression nearly identical to the depressed fracture on JB's skull. The flashlight had a rubberized coating, and that, taken as a whole with the fact that it was wiped down, and the batteries were also found to have been wiped down, indicates to me that the flashlight WAS the bludgeon, that it did belong to the Rs, and that the fact that the batteries were wiped down tells me that one of the family members in the house that night used it to bash JB on the head. There is simply no other reason for taking the batteries out, wiping them and putting them back inside. If it was an intruder, they'd not have cared about the batteries at all, or would have felt that a family member's prints (which would of course be expected to be on the batteries) would implicate the family. Instead, it was the deliberate wiping of the batteries, more so even than wiping the flashlight itself, that points to a family member being the one who bashed JB.

 

[JMO8778]

It isn't that usual to have a closed-head wound, depending on what the weapon was. I do recall reading that one of the forensic specialists (possibly Cyril Wecht or Spitz) had actually used a similar flashlight in an experiment and found that it left a depression nearly identical to the depressed fracture on JB's skull. The flashlight had a rubberized coating, and that, taken as a whole with the fact that it was wiped down, and the batteries were also found to have been wiped down, indicates to me that the flashlight WAS the bludgeon, that it did belong to the Rs, and that the fact that the batteries were wiped down tells me that one of the family members in the house that night used it to bash JB on the head. There is simply no other reason for taking the batteries out, wiping them and putting them back inside. If it was an intruder, they'd not have cared about the batteries at all, or would have felt that a family member's prints (which would of course be expected to be on the batteries) would implicate the family. Instead, it was the deliberate wiping of the batteries, more so even than wiping the flashlight itself, that points to a family member being the one who bashed JB.

thank you so much!!
and the fact it was left on the counter...to me indicates they were trying to distance themselves from it,(it's not like they could put it in the drawer and then pretend it wasn't theirs) and possibly hoping someone would take it by mistake (knowing they were going to call LE and plenty of other ppl over).it was also too large to try and smuggle out.and asking aunt pam to retrieve it? as the actual weapon,that was too risky (duct tape and cord can have multiple uses,much easier to smuggle out,as per Patsy's paintings she is said to have retrieved),and I don't think PP,or any R supporters or friends,for that matter,at that early point in time knew she was bludgeoned that night.so to ask her,or anyone, to take it would mean they would risk pointing out the murder weapon,and I believe everyone was told this was an accident.

one more thing...I think ST purposely left the murder weapon out in his PDI scenario,as he would have been legally bound to do so.

 

[BBB167893]

With regard to the touch DNA, the lab which was hired to do the testing was more than likely given the instruction: “Is there a match to the CODIS ("intruder") profile established from DNA testing on the bloodspot in the panties?” They went hunting for that profile and would ignore/eliminate other data.

cynic, one of the techs at that lab actually said that's what they did.