Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Anti-K]

I get the feeling that either you didn't really read what I said, or if you did, you didn't get the idea I was trying to get across.



No good, for a couple of reasons.



One, I just gave you the reason. Now I KNOW you either didn't read it or didn't get it.

Two, I'll take that "Bizarroland" crack as a compliment. YOU say Bizarroland; I say facing the unpleasant fact that when people are backed into a corner, you don't know WHAT they'll do.

If I misunderstood you, then perhaps you could clarify. But, I suspect that the problem is with your reasoning and not with my understanding.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Like hell, it isn't! I've been hearing that line for years, but I have YET to hear an intelligent argument for it. Specifically, just WHAT is it that makes the Ramseys so different from everyone else. Because I got news for ya: every murderer, every child molester, every rapist, has one big thing in common, both with each other and with the rest of us: they come from the human race. They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another dimension. They're our parents, siblings, children and friends. That's a hard lesson for a hard world. And I'm a hard man because of it.



Ah, but that's what I'm getting at: the note was not minimizing THEIR forensic footprint. It was maximizing the "BAD PERSON'S" presence.



NO! You've mischaracterized it. Allow me to correct the record:

Essentially, if we are to accept RDI, we must accept that the Ramseys disposed of potentially incriminating evidence while creating ultimately self-incriminating evidence in an attempt to point elsewhere.



That's what I'm telling you.

Let me leave you with a few bits of wisdom as well.

One, the Ramseys didn't have to fool the cops. They didn't have to fool the DA or the experts or the forensic pathologists or the FBI. They don't have to fool SuperDave or Anti-K or Mama2JML. They have to fool one person out of twelve. THAT'S IT. And it's not that hard. The sad fact is, no matter how ridiculous your story is, SOMEONE out there will believe you. Ask OJ Simpson if you don't believe me. As PT Barnum supposedly said, "there's a sucker born every minute." And I'm sorry to say that a lot of those suckers end up on juries!

Two, as shocking as this might come to some people, there was a time, and it wasn't even that long ago, when we didn't HAVE DNA testing or any of these other seemingly magical forensic techniques, and yet the police and prosecutors were STILL able to make arrests and win convictions, and there was NOT an epidemic of wrongly-imprisoned people.

You seem off on a tangent. No one is saying the Ramseys were any different than anyone else (except, you. you claim that they are rarities).

The point is very simple, people who dispose of potentially incriminating evidence out of forensic concern don’t turn around and UNNECESSARILY create self-incriminating evidence with the intent of handing it over to investigators.

I’m not sure if you know how unreasonable “creating ultimately self-incriminating evidence in an attempt to point elsewhere” really sounds. Even if we accept that there was such a need – to point elsewhere – this would not explain unnecessarily creating self-incriminating evidence. Self-incriminating points towards self, not elsewhere! Good grief.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

You seem off on a tangent. No one is saying the Ramseys were any different than anyone else (except, you. you claim that they are rarities).

The point is very simple, people who dispose of potentially incriminating evidence out of forensic concern don’t turn around and UNNECESSARILY create self-incriminating evidence with the intent of handing it over to investigators.

I’m not sure if you know how unreasonable “creating ultimately self-incriminating evidence in an attempt to point elsewhere” really sounds. Even if we accept that there was such a need – to point elsewhere – this would not explain unnecessarily creating self-incriminating evidence. Self-incriminating points towards self, not elsewhere! Good grief.
...

AK

You don't create evidence. The note is NOT evidence in the murder, it is evidence of a coverup however. The forensic evidence of the actual murder was either cleaned or removed. Two different things that you don't seem able to grasp.

 

[andreww]

The fact that you, or others, find it easy to discount favorable evidence such as Behavioral History isn’t exactly favorable to your position!
To be skeptical of a claim is to be unpersuaded one way or the other. I am unconvinced. By either position. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. Show me.

I don't discount anything. I know JB was struck in the head and mortally wounded. I know Burke struck her with a golf club twice. I know Patsy's rage towards JB had been increasing in the weeks leading up to the murder. I know that JB had been making an unusually high number of visits to the doctor in the months leading up to the murder.

I'm not sure exactly how much behavioural history you want, but when you are talking about family dynamics of a family, those secrets are usually guarded pretty closely. I would,'t expect the Ramseys to come out and admit any past violence against their kids, would you? Just because we don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[andreww]

Foreign DNA may be “a pretty common occurrence,” but it’s always about the location found. Location, location, location...
...

AK

Yes, and that foreign DNA was only found in the area that she was wiped. On her hands? No. On her face? No. On her back? No. On her neck? No.

Find what she was wiped with and you will have a source for the DNA.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, and that foreign DNA was only found in the area that she was wiped. On her hands? No. On her face? No. On her back? No. On her neck? No.

Find what she was wiped with and you will have a source for the DNA.

No. The DNA was spread by the wiping.. unless you are insinuating that someone brought a rag, full of unknown fluid DNA that they then wiped over this child. It does not originate with the rag. This is the craziest theory yet IMO. DNA mixed with the Childs IN HER UNDERWEAR, Not on her body where she was wipe cleaned but mingled in her underwear indicates fluid and deposit. Not transfer and wiping.

 

[Tawny]

It wasn't in her underwear. That makes it sound like it was inside the lining that touches her genitalia. It was on the waistband of the long johns.

 

[andreww]

No. The DNA was spread by the wiping.. unless you are insinuating that someone brought a rag, full of unknown fluid DNA that they then wiped over this child. It does not originate with the rag. This is the craziest theory yet IMO. DNA mixed with the Childs IN HER UNDERWEAR, Not on her body where she was wipe cleaned but mingled in her underwear indicates fluid and deposit. Not transfer and wiping.

Not sure how you can make that determination. I think it is safe to say that JB was in the basement when she was wiped down. We know that the downstairs bathroom was primarily used by non family members. We also have no evidence whatsoever that the DNA found on JB was anything more than skin cells. If a worker or guest were to use a towel in that bathroom to aggressively wash their hands, as workers need to do at the end of the day, that towel could be covered in skin cells. If the towel is then wet and used to wipe her, those skin cells would be all over the wiped are. As the panties and long johns are pulled up over her damp skin, the skin cells now attach to the inside of the cloth. As JB bleeds, her blood mixes with skin cells in her panties to form the commingled sample.

There is no solid evidence that any of the DNA samples were from saliva. If there was saliva, why was it not detected in the swabs?

From Chief Kolar's AMA

The samples were too minute to determine a biological origin, although CBI lab technicians thought Distal Stain 007-2 might have been from saliva due to a blue flash during testing that suggested an enzyme was present.

This is far from a definitive conclusion but the notion that saliva was found seems to have been taken as fact my most intruder theorists.

 

[Mama2JML]

It wasn't in her underwear. That makes it sound like it was inside the lining that touches her genitalia. It was on the waistband of the long johns.

It certainly was in JonBenét's underwear and "inside the lining that touches her genitalia." The 10 marker, unsourced, male DNA profile in CODIS was isolated from a bloodstain (blood sourced to JB) in the the crotch of her panties. Kolar refers to this sample as "distal stain 007-2". In 2008, this DNA profile was found to match the two separate DNA samples obtained from the right and left sides of the victim's longjohns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Yes, and that foreign DNA was only found in the area that she was wiped. On her hands? No. On her face? No. On her back? No. On her neck? No.

Find what she was wiped with and you will have a source for the DNA.

Were her hands, face, neck & back swabbed for DNA analysis? Doubtful. We know foreign male DNA was isolated from her fingernail clippings, but we do not know if that same male contributed the samples found in her panties and on her longjohns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, and that foreign DNA was only found in the area that she was wiped. On her hands? No. On her face? No. On her back? No. On her neck? No.

Find what she was wiped with and you will have a source for the DNA.

The lack of that DNA that is already two places does not invalidate the DNA. If the child was unconscious during the attack, Then why would it be on her face and hands, back and neck? Is that a requirement for valid DNA?
IT not being in those places actual negates the wipe down transfer. If it was wipe down transfer in her underwear then it would be ALL OVER HER when she was wiped with whatever it was. And it is not. It is specific to the place where the sexual assault took place and where someone would pull down her pants to expose her and then pull up the pants when done.

The evidence here on the DNA is clear and concise.

 

[Anti-K]

The problem here is that you say the commingled DNA is saliva. I've seen reports that disagree with that, specifically because no saliva was indicated from the swabs of various areas on her body. So it is quite likely that all we have is touch DNA, and that could have easily been transferred from whatever was use to wipe her down.

The Team Ramsey plan was very clever. First the exaggerated the importance of the DNA, then they worked their asses off to get it in CODIS. By offering up sacrificial lambs like John Karr and others, knowing they would be cleared by DNA (actually by evidence, but that didn't suit their needs) they set a president. If you are going to eliminate suspects based on DNA, why not eliminate the Ramseys? Their ruse worked and Mary Lacy made it official.

You say LE failed to consider any other suspects than the Ramsey's. I say the DAs office failed to consider any other explanations for the presence of the DNA. They have ruined this case by buying in to the idea that the DNA must have come from the killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So many things wrong.
First, Andreww, I have never, not once in my 15 years of posting ever said that “LE failed to consider any other suspects than the Ramsey's.” that is a complete fabrication on your part. You should retract this falsehood. Seriously.
.
Another thing that I have never said is that the commingled DNA IS salivaou’re putting words in my mouth for some bizarre reason. What I have said is that the commingled samle is PROBABLY (more likely than not) saliva.

I have never seen even a single report disagreeing with the panty DNA being saliva. Are you making this up, too? Did you read Beckner and/or Kolar’s AMAA; or Kolar’s book?

Either BPD, or the DA’s office would have been responsible for the DNA and its submission to CODis.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You don't create evidence. The note is NOT evidence in the murder, it is evidence of a coverup however. The forensic evidence of the actual murder was either cleaned or removed. Two different things that you don't seem able to grasp.

Writing a ransom note IS creating evidence. Handwriting IS forensic evidence. Materials used – forensic evidence. ETC. Good grief!
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I don't discount anything. I know JB was struck in the head and mortally wounded. I know Burke struck her with a golf club twice. I know Patsy's rage towards JB had been increasing in the weeks leading up to the murder. I know that JB had been making an unusually high number of visits to the doctor in the months leading up to the murder.

I'm not sure exactly how much behavioural history you want, but when you are talking about family dynamics of a family, those secrets are usually guarded pretty closely. I would,'t expect the Ramseys to come out and admit any past violence against their kids, would you? Just because we don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sorry, but this family was investigated to death. Go read Kolar’s AMAA. You seem to be missing, even making up, things.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Not sure how you can make that determination. I think it is safe to say that JB was in the basement when she was wiped down. We know that the downstairs bathroom was primarily used by non family members. We also have no evidence whatsoever that the DNA found on JB was anything more than skin cells. If a worker or guest were to use a towel in that bathroom to aggressively wash their hands, as workers need to do at the end of the day, that towel could be covered in skin cells. If the towel is then wet and used to wipe her, those skin cells would be all over the wiped are. As the panties and long johns are pulled up over her damp skin, the skin cells now attach to the inside of the cloth. As JB bleeds, her blood mixes with skin cells in her panties to form the commingled sample.

There is no solid evidence that any of the DNA samples were from saliva. If there was saliva, why was it not detected in the swabs?

From Chief Kolar's AMA


This is far from a definitive conclusion but the notion that saliva was found seems to have been taken as fact my most intruder theorists.

Read your own Kolar quote: might have been from saliva due to a blue flash.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It wasn't in her underwear. That makes it sound like it was inside the lining that touches her genitalia. It was on the waistband of the long johns.

The DNA (CODIS) sample was indeed in her underwear, commingled with her blood on the inside crotch.
The tDNA was on the outside of the leggings (both sides).
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

The DNA (CODIS) sample was indeed in her underwear, commingled with her blood on the inside crotch.
The tDNA was on the outside of the leggings (both sides).
...

AK

Yeah I realize now that we were talking about 2 separate DNA samples.

 

[andreww]

Read your own Kolar quote: might have been from saliva due to a blue flash.
...

AK

"might be saliva" = "might not be saliva"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Sorry, but this family was investigated to death. Go read Kolar’s AMAA. You seem to be missing, even making up, things.
...

AK

Tell me what I'm making up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Writing a ransom note IS creating evidence. Handwriting IS forensic evidence. Materials used – forensic evidence. ETC. Good grief!
...

AK

Again you miss the point. Your assertion was that because they discarded and destroyed forensic evidence, it didn't make sense that they would then create more forensic evidence.

My point is they destroyed evidence of the actual murder. The note is part of the coverup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk