Discussion of "Overkill - The Unsolved Murder of Jon Benet" doco crime scene footage

[Ambitioned]

Didn't know that. I've held out here for a while - not making Ramsey posts. I'll go away. I want to solve this crime; you guys just want to talk about it. But my signature speaks for itself.

I see it the other way around. We want to to solve it for the little girl and we try; IDI proponents just want to toss out red herrings. You can see the desperation in their posts, like grasping at straws.

 

[andreww]

I have never seen one compelling piece of evidence that points to an intruder. Instead, they take very small items that would be found in every household and try to fit it in to a theory. Every piece of evidence that Lou Smit pointed to can be explained from a Ramsey perspective, i.e.; John leaving the scuff marks on the wall and Burke leaving the boot print in the WC. We all knew the DNA was rubbish for decades despite the media reports, and now even that is being proven true. Any intruder theory I have seen has been full of misinformation and has never been devoid of the words "maybe", "what if", "possibly" or some such variant.

I commend Trish for taking this "No IDI" stance, I think the conversations have been more productive as we are not wasting time arguing imaginary theories for days on end.

 

[searchinGirl]

I have never seen one compelling piece of evidence that points to an intruder. Instead, they take very small items that would be found in every household and try to fit it in to a theory. Every piece of evidence that Lou Smit pointed to can be explained from a Ramsey perspective, i.e.; John leaving the scuff marks on the wall and Burke leaving the boot print in the WC. We all knew the DNA was rubbish for decades despite the media reports, and now even that is being proven true. Any intruder theory I have seen has been full of misinformation and has never been devoid of the words "maybe", "what if", "possibly" or some such variant.

I commend Trish for taking this "No IDI" stance, I think the conversations have been more productive as we are not wasting time arguing imaginary theories for days on end.

And yet, the DNA remains in CODIS. That's a fact.

 

[andreww]

And yet, the DNA remains in CODIS. That's a fact.

Doesn't prove that its legit or that it came from the killer does it? This is the kind of DNA that can be there simply because someone was in the vicinity of the object. Lacy tried to make put more importance on it by linking it to DNA found on the waistband of the long johns, but that turns out to be false as well. The thing is that the majority of people here knew it was wrong information simply because we knew IDI was BS, therefore we knew that it was highly improbable that foreign matching DNA would exist on two different garments. We knew that because the evidence simply points at the Ramsey's, nobody else. You have to be an idiot not to see that. So the DNA evidence always had to be bogus. The question is why would Lacy want to purposely mislead the public?

 

[searchinGirl]

Doesn't prove that its legit or that it came from the killer does it? This is the kind of DNA that can be there simply because someone was in the vicinity of the object. Lacy tried to make put more importance on it by linking it to DNA found on the waistband of the long johns, but that turns out to be false as well. The thing is that the majority of people here knew it was wrong information simply because we knew IDI was BS, therefore we knew that it was highly improbable that foreign matching DNA would exist on two different garments. We knew that because the evidence simply points at the Ramsey's, nobody else. You have to be an idiot not to see that. So the DNA evidence always had to be bogus. The question is why would Lacy want to purposely mislead the public?

I can't speak about Mary Lacy. I've never liked her and I don't appreciate her exoneration of the Ramseys. She is foolish. However, the DNA was submitted to CODIS under threat of sanctions - $250K and permanent loss of access to the database. If IDI is such BS, why would Boulder Justice submit an affidavit to NDIS attributing it to the "putative perpetrator"?

And, why are people here so threatened by the DNA being in CODIS? Whatever "side" you are on, finding the person who belongs to that a DNA is the key to solving this crime.

 

[buggiegirl]

And, why are people here so threatened by the DNA being in CODIS? Whatever "side" you are on, finding the person who belongs to that a DNA is the key to solving this crime.

Even if an intruder did it, that DNA is not guaranteed to be relevant to the crime! It's not blood, it's not semen, it COULD be nothing. Don't think anyone here is threatened by the DNA being in CODIS, we just don't put a definitive value on it because it could have no value.

 

[Tadpole12]

You convict on hearsay evidence alone, you increase your sins...African proverb

Heyya searchinGirl

Is that a Swahili proverb, or an amalgamation?

 

[Miz Adventure]

And, why are people here so threatened by the DNA being in CODIS? Whatever "side" you are on, finding the person who belongs to that a DNA is the key to solving this crime.

How can finding the DNA be the key to solving this crime?

The Ramseys DNA was all over that basement, as it would be - they lived there. So finding their DNA on items of clothing that had already been in the house would mean nothing.

And I have to say that even if foreign DNA was found on those items of clothing, I would still not believe an intruder had been in the Ramsey residence that night. The rest of the evidence against the presence of this bogus intruder is just too strong.

 

[andreww]

I can't speak about Mary Lacy. I've never liked her and I don't appreciate her exoneration of the Ramseys. She is foolish. However, the DNA was submitted to CODIS under threat of sanctions - $250K and permanent loss of access to the database. If IDI is such BS, why would Boulder Justice submit an affidavit to NDIS attributing it to the "putative perpetrator"?

And, why are people here so threatened by the DNA being in CODIS? Whatever "side" you are on, finding the person who belongs to that a DNA is the key to solving this crime.

You can't speak for Lacy or Hunter, but both made efforts to sabotage this case. The function of a DA, correct me if I'm wrong, is to take the findings of LE and either prosecute or not. It is not their job to take the case in a completely different direction than what investigators tell them.

So it has been proven that both of them lied and misled the public. Are we to believe that the CODIS sample is legit? Maybe. But without the matching samples on the long johns it is simply inconsequential. Findings have shown foreign DNA on other packaged panties. It means nothing and likely has little relevance on this crime.

Why would Boulder Justice submit an affidavit to NDIS attributing it to the "putative perpetrator"? Quite simply, I would guess that they were considering the fraudulent matching DNA on the long johns when they made that claim.

 

[searchinGirl]

Even if an intruder did it, that DNA is not guaranteed to be relevant to the crime! It's not blood, it's not semen, it COULD be nothing. Don't think anyone here is threatened by the DNA being in CODIS, we just don't put a definitive value on it because it could have no value.

Well, it's value to the State of Colorado is significant if the sample in CODIS is irrelevant. $250K fine and permanent loss of access to the database. It is considered crime scene evidence attributed to the perpetrator.

 

[searchinGirl]

You can't speak for Lacy or Hunter, but both made efforts to sabotage this case. The function of a DA, correct me if I'm wrong, is to take the findings of LE and either prosecute or not. It is not their job to take the case in a completely different direction than what investigators tell them.

So it has been proven that both of them lied and misled the public. Are we to believe that the CODIS sample is legit? Maybe. But without the matching samples on the long johns it is simply inconsequential. Findings have shown foreign DNA on other packaged panties. It means nothing and likely has little relevance on this crime.

Why would Boulder Justice submit an affidavit to NDIS attributing it to the "putative perpetrator"? Quite simply, I would guess that they were considering the fraudulent matching DNA on the long johns when they made that claim.

The CODIS sample was submitted in 2003, the longjohns were tested five years later in 2008. It was the Denver crime lab that deduced the 2003 profile. There was no additional foreign tDNA on JonBenet's panties other than that found mixed with her blood.

I see the rift between the BPD and the DA as a failure in leadership. Say what you will about Mary Lacy/Alex Hunter duties as prosecutors/saboteurs, if a DA can't prosecute due to reasonable doubt already already pervasive in the community, then how to proceed?

 

[andreww]

The CODIS sample was submitted in 2003, the longjohns were tested five years later in 2008. It was the Denver crime lab that deduced the 2003 profile. There was no additional foreign tDNA on JonBenet's panties other than that found mixed with her blood.

I see the rift between the BPD and the DA as a failure in leadership. Say what you will about Mary Lacy/Alex Hunter duties as prosecutors/saboteurs, if a DA can't prosecute due to reasonable doubt already already pervasive in the community, then how to proceed?

When was the "putative perpetrator" affidavit made? I'm guessing after 2008.

And yes there was a rift, but why? This case was purposely sabotaged and I can guarantee that wasn't on behalf of some mysterious intruder.

 

[searchinGirl]

When was the "putative perpetrator" affidavit made? I'm guessing after 2008.

And yes there was a rift, but why? This case was purposely sabotaged and I can guarantee that wasn't on behalf of some mysterious intruder.

The affidavit was signed at the time of submission in 2003. CODIS has standards. If the DNA is irrelevant then it needs to come out of CODIS. I'm not at all sure how one would go about doing that. Maybe that was the strategy behind the Daily Camera article; to get them to do more tests on the Y chromosome and give them a way out of it. But there is a pattern in the DNA data that points to "unknown male 1" on the exterior waistband samples. The other samples tested in 2008 appear to be "composite" and don't identify anyone.

As far as the reasons for the rift between BPD and the DA, I don't think it helped to keep the DNA a secret while rumors swirled about. There's that; but recently I learned the CBS show built the stage set of the Ramsey house and filmed at CU. Perhaps relationships there should be looked at more closely in determining why this case is sabotaged.

 

[andreww]

The affidavit was signed at the time of submission in 2003. CODIS has standards. If the DNA is irrelevant then it needs to come out of CODIS.

Thats what I'm getting at. How can anybody say with any certainty that the sample does or doesn't have anything to do with the crime? If in fact it doesn't, chances are there will never be a hit on the CODIS sample, and 20 years later there still hasn't been. If in fact there were an intruder, the nature of the crime (how it was staged anyway) would suggest that some kind of crazed deviant was involved, and chances are he would commit more crimes. But nothing. The CODIS sample means nothing, not without a match from another piece of clothing or from something else in that house.

 

[kanzz]

I can't speak about Mary Lacy. I've never liked her and I don't appreciate her exoneration of the Ramseys. She is foolish. However, the DNA was submitted to CODIS under threat of sanctions - $250K and permanent loss of access to the database. If IDI is such BS, why would Boulder Justice submit an affidavit to NDIS attributing it to the "putative perpetrator"?

And, why are people here so threatened by the DNA being in CODIS? Whatever "side" you are on, finding the person who belongs to that a DNA is the key to solving this crime.

If I've ever read this before (RE: threat of sanctions), I've sure forgotten it. Could you please provide a reference/link?

What is NDIS?

Nobody is "threatened" by the DNA in CODIS. That is a logical fallacy.
The "side" we are on, BTW, is solving this case.
Thinking that "DNA is the key to solving this crime" is a path that leads nowhere. It's a dead end.

The term "putative perpetrator" was probably nothing more than professional terminology; usual and customary when submitting such a sample. I don't see any reason to read anything into it.

The "rift" between the BPD and the DA was much more than "a failure in leadership", imo. The DA's office was a roadblock in BPD's investigation from day one, protecting insulating the wealthy R family. Had they been anything but wealthy people, things would have been much, much different.
What Hunter did was to stall at every turn and then deceive the public. What Lacy did was to become an R apologist and defender. She should have been disbarred and prosecuted for misconduct.

 

[kanzz]

The affidavit was signed at the time of submission in 2003. CODIS has standards. If the DNA is irrelevant then it needs to come out of CODIS. I'm not at all sure how one would go about doing that. Maybe that was the strategy behind the Daily Camera article; to get them to do more tests on the Y chromosome and give them a way out of it. But there is a pattern in the DNA data that points to "unknown male 1" on the exterior waistband samples. The other samples tested in 2008 appear to be "composite" and don't identify anyone.

As far as the reasons for the rift between BPD and the DA, I don't think it helped to keep the DNA a secret while rumors swirled about. There's that; but recently I learned the CBS show built the stage set of the Ramsey house and filmed at CU. Perhaps relationships there should be looked at more closely in determining why this case is sabotaged.

Yes, CODIS has standards. Which is why the sample was pushed from 9 to 10 in order to get it into the database; with 10 being the minimum required.

For you to say "If the DNA is irrelevant then it needs to come out of CODIS," is blindly naive or sarcastically insulting. We all know that isn't going to happen.

Where are you headed about CU? I see nothing nefarious about it.

 

[searchinGirl]

Thats what I'm getting at. How can anybody say with any certainty that the sample does or doesn't have anything to do with the crime? If in fact it doesn't, chances are there will never be a hit on the CODIS sample, and 20 years later there still hasn't been. If in fact there were an intruder, the nature of the crime (how it was staged anyway) would suggest that some kind of crazed deviant was involved, and chances are he would commit more crimes. But nothing. The CODIS sample means nothing, not without a match from another piece of clothing or from something else in that house.

Saliva mixed in with her blood and dripped out of her body onto the panties after she was wiped down and redressed. I think the logic points to the perpetrator as being part of the crime scene as a more likely than not scenario.

Not having a "hit" yet means he's not incarcerated or convicted of a felony; it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. There are 15M offender records in CODIS or roughly 10% of the US male population. If ever there is a hit, then I think you will see the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

 

[searchinGirl]

If I've ever read this before (RE: threat of sanctions), I've sure forgotten it. Could you please provide a reference/link?

What is NDIS?

Nobody is "threatened" by the DNA in CODIS. That is a logical fallacy.
The "side" we are on, BTW, is solving this case.
Thinking that "DNA is the key to solving this crime" is a path that leads nowhere. It's a dead end.

The term "putative perpetrator" was probably nothing more than professional terminology; usual and customary when submitting such a sample. I don't see any reason to read anything into it.

The "rift" between the BPD and the DA was much more than "a failure in leadership", imo. The DA's office was a roadblock in BPD's investigation from day one, protecting insulating the wealthy R family. Had they been anything but wealthy people, things would have been much, much different.
What Hunter did was to stall at every turn and then deceive the public. What Lacy did was to become an R apologist and defender. She should have been disbarred and prosecuted for misconduct.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

item 16 addresses the sanctions, primarily speaks of losing privileges, the fine part is buried in the language of the DNA act itself and when I find it I'll get back to you; Item 22 - forensic casework samples are "considered crime scene evidence" and "must be attributed to putative perpetrator".

Mary Lacy's actions as DA didn't negate the science of the DNA

the reason I say the DNA is key is because I don't see how the case can move forward without explaining it; it can't be dismissed as nothing important.

 

[andreww]

the reason I say the DNA is key is because I don't see how the case can move forward without explaining it; it can't be dismissed as nothing important.

Someone sneezed when the panties were packaged. Explained.

If you are in need of explanations, then explain how Patsy's sweater fibres got all over the duct tape that covered JBs mouth. There is no innocent explanation for that.

 

[andreww]

Saliva mixed in with her blood and dripped out of her body onto the panties after she was wiped down and redressed. I think the logic points to the perpetrator as being part of the crime scene as a more likely than not scenario.

Not having a "hit" yet means he's not incarcerated or convicted of a felony; it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. There are 15M offender records in CODIS or roughly 10% of the US male population. If ever there is a hit, then I think you will see the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

Seems to me that DNA from unsolved crimes are compared against CODIS samples, so it seems that this imaginary psychopath stopped completely after this crime. And no, logic points to that DNA sample being on the panties when they were packaged.