Boulder police chief exonerates Fleet and Priscilla White in death of JonBenet Ramsey

[Anti-K]

We know the bindings on her wrists were NOT tight.
John lied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr Ramey was understandably panicked and confused. The knots were tight, but the loops around the wrist were loose.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It was Christmas time. The time of year where hugging, handshaking happen probably more than any other, work, parties, etc...JonBenet hadn't been bathed in days.
That DNA could have come from anywhere JonBenet was in contact. She likely transferred it herself. It's simply an artifact ...like the other DNA found that matches no one.

Every DNA fragment found at a crime scene doesn't need to be matched to a source nor does it ever exonerate anyone.
....Especially when there isn't a shred of actual evidence that there was ever an intruder breaking into that house. If there was someone else in the house that faithful night, he was invited and came in through the door. IMO




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one is talking about “every DNA fragment found at a crime scene.” We’re talking about DNA found in incriminating locations for which, so far, no innocent explanation has been found.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Nevertheless, I would suggest that the DNA in this case is only one artifact of evidence and its evidentiary value must be considered in light of all of the other pieces of physical, testimonial and behavioral evidence that have been collected and analyzed over the course of this investigation. Technological advances in science now allow us to collect and identify microscopic evidence that had once not been available to the criminalist. As you know, this type of evidence can be very helpful in identifying a perpetrator or solving a crime, but I am concerned that one piece of trace evidence, to the exclusion of everything else, is dominating the theory and the investigative construct of this crime. If I am correct in my assessment, there may be a plausible explanation for the presence of the DNA in the underwear and it may have nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. Kolar, A. James (2012-06-14). Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Location 3820).
________________

There’s an irony to the DNA entered into the CODIS database. It does not have enough alleles to convict anyone in a court of law. IIRC, forensic DNA expert Dr. Dan Krane says case protocol for courtroom evidence doesn’t allow for DNA which cannot be given sufficient statistical weight to be accepted into evidence. This panties DNA could be used as an investigative tool, but not a tool for convicting someone.

For anyone interested Cynic has posted regarding cases which had no eyewitnesses, DNA not attributed to the suspect, and that the cases were won on the other evidence. Here’s the link and it’s post #90. DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book - Page 4 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

One last comment for AK, respectfully, please quote source for 200+ people tested for DNA samples (I’d seen it listed as 60 and I don’t even know where to source that from). And for the broad statement that contamination was not possible, I’d say, maybe so, maybe not. My source for contamination speculation is from Dr. Dan Krane, DNA forensic specialist. Even he claims it happens. moo

In most cases, DNA alone should not be enough to convict a person.

As to number of alleles (markers) – you may have misunderstood Krane. Identification is probabilistic and Random Match Probability (RMP) can be calculated with even one marker. Odds simply become more convincing as you add more markers. Statistical weight means that RMP can be calculated.

Krane does say that mixed samples with dropout have no evidentiary value because no statistical weight can be given, but this does not speak to the specifics of the DNA evidence in the Ramsey case. This specific DNA sample was accepted by CODIS, and CODIS does not accept inconclusive samples. If ten markers were identified, as they must have been, then a statistical weight can be given to that sample.

Beckner Statement:
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal. http://tinyurl.com/n6pt3kz

On contamination: contamination is the inadvertent introduction of “innocent” DNA to a crime scene sample that occurs during the collection, preserving and/or processing, etc. of the sample. In this case, the fact that samples were compared to persons connected to the investigation, the family and possible sources at the autopsy with no matches found pretty much eliminates that possibility.
...

AK

 

[Venom]

Here we go again down the DNA rabbit hole.

Never mind that the dna wouldn't stand up in court as you can't put a certainty on it.
Never mind that it may have been contaminated.
Never mind that it took years to get it up to CODIS standards.
It MUST be an intruder.
And that is all he left, just a teeny tiny spot of dna.
He must have planted those fibers on the duct tape and underwear. He's good-how did he not leave any fibers? :dunno:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Here we go again down the DNA rabbit hole.



Never mind that the dna wouldn't stand up in court as you can't put a certainty on it.

Never mind that it may have been contaminated.

Never mind that it took years to get it up to CODIS standards.

It MUST be an intruder.

And that is all he left, just a teeny tiny spot of dna.

He must have planted those fibers on the duct tape and underwear. He's good-how did he not leave any fibers? :dunno:

It's no rabbit hole. They don't put DNA into CODIS unless it is valid and complete according to their requirements and they think it will lead to perpetrator.
The DNA is not fictitious. It is real. It is in CODIS and it was complete enough to be matched.
There are other things in this case that could be debated but the DNA is evidence.



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[Venom]

Yes, the DNA is real.
This is the exact rabbit hole I was talking about. A long, drawn out argument over the DNA.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It is not a rabbit hole if we are discussing real evidence. A rabbit hole would be arguing it does not exist or that it is not evidence this case, when it is a clue that could point out the killer.

I think there is always something new to learn. Many of the RDI posts, Give me something to research and source. I enjoy talking about the case with you all, RDI or not. I think this forum is full of bright thinkers, and I enjoy reading many of the posts whether RDI, Or IDI or ?DI.

I have no hard feelings at all toward anyone that is RDI, and enjoy the conversations. I enjoy debating points and love that sometimes it makes me think about the case in a different way.

I don't think that it is a rabbit hole to discuss the facts. I think that is what this forum is for. JMO

 

[midwest mama]

It is not a rabbit hole if we are discussing real evidence. A rabbit hole would be arguing it does not exist or that it is not evidence this case, when it is a clue that could point out the killer.

I think there is always something new to learn. Many of the RDI posts, Give me something to research and source. I enjoy talking about the case with you all, RDI or not. I think this forum is full of bright thinkers, and I enjoy reading many of the posts whether RDI, Or IDI or ?DI.

I have no hard feelings at all toward anyone that is RDI, and enjoy the conversations. I enjoy debating points and love that sometimes it makes me think about the case in a different way.

I don't think that it is a rabbit hole to discuss the facts. I think that is what this forum is for. JMO

I agree with you about the discussion of case relevant information about this crime, Scarlett. We can all continue to debate the DNA issue, but it seems we might be overlooking what we, as WSers, can do to take a proactive measure to using the DNA information more productively.

According to what I've seen on acandyrose.com, there are people with ties to this case who have NO DNA sample results recorded. Not saying they weren't taken and maybe not published, but if we have to use the published information we have as exclusion of suspects, then why can't we assume that no pulished information about a suspect's DNA test indicates they were never tested?

What I propose is that instead of anyone looking down that "rabbit hole", we try to actually go down it! If we can produce a valid list (since, to my knowledge there isn't another one gathered somewhere and published) of those case-connected suspects who have NOT given DNA samples, then maybe we'll come another step closer to moving this case out of "cold case" status and getting some justice for JB.

 

[Venom]

Yes, I just hate the arguing over the dna. Both sides tend to get heated and steadfast in our beliefs.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, I just hate the arguing over the dna. Both sides tend to get heated and steadfast in our beliefs.

I don't ever get heated. I just don't understand that. There is never a reason to be heated if someone does not agree with you, That is okay, That is their choice. If someone does not agree with me, It does not make me angry, It makes me look to see if I am either not saying it correctly, Being misunderstood or they understand and see it their way. Which is completely okay.

I never get upset at anyone. I think that sometimes when someone does not agree with us, We read their words with what we think they are thinking, not really just the words.

I hope that we can get past the old animosity of IDI vs RDI and just all be able to talk about the case without it being personal.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/bou...ask-judge-compel-police-records-claims-ramsey

Fleet and Priscilla White ask judge to compel Boulder police to release records

Ex-Ramsey friends seek information on California woman's allegations

03/19/2014

"The motion filed in Boulder District Court on Monday asks a judge to order Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner to show cause as to why the records should not be released to the Whites. If a judge grants the order, Beckner would have to present his case to a judge or release the records to the Whites.
The Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act requires the court to conduct a hearing on such a lawsuit "at the earliest practical time."
No hearing has yet been set in the case."

...

"The Whites first sued in 2002 for the release of the records in that investigation, but after reviewing seven "items" relevant to the case, a Boulder judge only released two interview transcripts, according to the complaint.
The Whites also sent letters to Beckner requesting the records in 2011 and again earlier this year, but Beckner denied both requests, citing the 2002 ruling.
In January, Beckner released a statement exonerating the Whites of any involvement in JonBenet's death.
It was the Whites' third public exoneration in the case.''

...

NK: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/16arams.html
No Ramsey link found
May 16, 2000

 

[bettybaby00]

Thanks posting.

I don't know the background on this however.

 

[UKGuy]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/bou...ask-judge-compel-police-records-claims-ramsey

Fleet and Priscilla White ask judge to compel Boulder police to release records

Ex-Ramsey friends seek information on California woman's allegations

03/19/2014

"The motion filed in Boulder District Court on Monday asks a judge to order Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner to show cause as to why the records should not be released to the Whites. If a judge grants the order, Beckner would have to present his case to a judge or release the records to the Whites.
The Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act requires the court to conduct a hearing on such a lawsuit "at the earliest practical time."
No hearing has yet been set in the case."

...

"The Whites first sued in 2002 for the release of the records in that investigation, but after reviewing seven "items" relevant to the case, a Boulder judge only released two interview transcripts, according to the complaint.
The Whites also sent letters to Beckner requesting the records in 2011 and again earlier this year, but Beckner denied both requests, citing the 2002 ruling.
In January, Beckner released a statement exonerating the Whites of any involvement in JonBenet's death.
It was the Whites' third public exoneration in the case.''

...

NK: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/16arams.html
No Ramsey link found
May 16, 2000

Tadpole12,
Well its so obvious, the BPD do not want the evidence made public, there is something they want kept hidden, hence Fleet White's third public exoneration.

.

 

[Tawny]

Maybe they'd like to bring a case of slander/libel (not sure which applies) against her for damages done to their entire lives.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Maybe they'd like to bring a case of slander/libel (not sure which applies) against her for damages done to their entire lives.

Or publically humiliate her for making stuff up.

The White's wouldn't last long on this forum would they?

Just kiddin' round.

 

[Tawny]

Or publically humiliate her for making stuff up.

The White's wouldn't last long on this forum would they?

I'm really not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

I'm really not sure what you mean by that.

You don't have to be sure, just consider the possibilities.

Just Kiddin" round.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The DNA in her panties did not come from hugging people. The DNA in her panties matches the DNA on her clothing. They entered it in CODIS because the DNA matters. It meets all the criteria needed to get a match.

People can argue all they want about entry or times but the DNA in this case IS evidence. It is not debatable. They don't enter junk DNA in CODIS.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

Are you aware that JonBenet would call out for anyone that was around to come wipe her?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

Was my post deleted?

 

[Mama2JML]

Maybe they'd like to bring a case of slander/libel (not sure which applies) against her for damages done to their entire lives.

They don't need the remainder of the case file for a defamation suit.

From Shively v. Bozanich, 2003:

"[w]hen the basis for a claim has been published in the public record or has been the subject of publicity, several cases have declined to apply the discovery rule, commenting that the plaintiff may be expected to be sufficiently diligent to discover the basis for his or her claim within the statutory period.

...

We can see no justification for applying the discovery rule to delay the accrual of plaintiff's causes of action beyond the point at which their factual basis became accessible to plaintiff to the same degree as it was accessible to every other member of the public."​