DNA Revisited

[MurriFlower]

If the child was sleeping there. I believe JB never went to bed that night. I believe Patsy DID get JB ready for bed, just as she said, but at that point I think the events of the night began. I believe BR was telling the truth when he told LE that his sister was awake and walked into the house that night when they returned from the White's.

That would be RDIs explanation. IDI would say the pillow was disturbed when she was taken downstairs. It doesn't prove, add to or subtract from either theory.

 

[WHITEFANG]

For those very reasons, I find it bewildering that they would test that region. Testing areas of items in evidence that were presumably not touched by the parents would be the most logical and be of the highest probative value.
If the ligature was not tested, it would amount to incompetence of the highest degree.

All the more remarkable that an unknown male's DNA was found in those places.

LHP accused Pat of closing the bathroom door tightly so that Joni's screaming couldn't be heard as she was punished for wetting herself. Apparently, it didn't work. For LHP cites the screaming as part of the ongoing strategy.

Do people give credence to this woman's accusations?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I believe PR's and JBR's DNA was present, JR's possibly.
I couldn't begin to imagine why any other profiles would be dismissed.

If PR DNA were present alongside unknown male DNA in the underwear or on the leggings, I for one would add that to the RDI side of the argument, because it adds to PR culpability. This is because we know that these garments were handled by a criminal during a sexual assault.

I therefore believe that your assumption that PR DNA was present and dismissed as innocent, to be false. If her DNA was present it should be reported as such, in the same sense that fibers are used to support RDI beliefs.

It would be wrong for Bode and the DA to withhold this information because they decided for us how it should be construed based on suspect testimony.

Its a two way street.

 

[WHITEFANG]

It was also found that the outside of the flashlight had been wiped down as well as the batteries, so the flashlight yielded no prints.
Patsy's prints on the bowl that she owned are NOT suspicious. the fact that she lied about putting it there are suspicious. Hers were the only prints on the bowl. Just as it didn't get into a cabinet without someone putting it there, it didn't get filled with pineapple and onto the table without someone putting it there, and it wasn't JB or BR.

If BBBBBB (Boulder's Big Bunch of Botching and Brainless ) got anything right, we'd have to conclude that miracles still happen. The more familiar I become with this seriously botched case, the more I wonder if even a small portion of what we have received from the Boulder cops resembles factual information.

 

[MurriFlower]

It was also found that the outside of the flashlight had been wiped down as well as the batteries, so the flashlight yielded no prints.
Patsy's prints on the bowl that she owned are NOT suspicious. the fact that she lied about putting it there are suspicious. Hers were the only prints on the bowl. Just as it didn't get into a cabinet without someone putting it there, it didn't get filled with pineapple and onto the table without someone putting it there, and it wasn't JB or BR.

Now, here we go again. There would be nothing supsicious about the R's prints being on their own flashlight. However, if there were no prints at all, wouldn't you therefore conclude that it was: 1. Not innocently placed there by the R's or anyone else, and 2. Not handled last by the R's because they would hardly wipe down the outside as well as remove and wipe the batteries? So therefore it was placed there by the IDI.

Now to the bowl, I thought someone said it had BR's prints on it as well as PR's but that's probably not important. The point I was making was that her prints being on the bowl is no proof she put it on the table, as her prints should have been on it from when she put it from the dishwasher to the cabinet.

 

[madeleine]

Now, here we go again. There would be nothing supsicious about the R's prints being on their own flashlight. However, if there were no prints at all, wouldn't you therefore conclude that it was: 1. Not innocently placed there by the R's or anyone else, and 2. Not handled last by the R's because they would hardly wipe down the outside as well as remove and wipe the batteries? So therefore it was placed there by the IDI.

Now to the bowl, I thought someone said it had BR's prints on it as well as PR's but that's probably not important. The point I was making was that her prints being on the bowl is no proof she put it on the table, as her prints should have been on it from when she put it from the dishwasher to the cabinet.

What Dee is trying to say (pls correct me if I am wrong) I think is that JB didn't put it there,BR didn't,JR didn't because their prints aren't on it.So if it was a Ramsey who put it there it must have been PR.

What I find unbelievable though is that they never tested the spoon (not for saliva,not for prints,NADA):banghead: and this is fact,it's in ST's book or PMPT somewhere
Didn't they think it's more important whether JB ate it herself or was fed?!Not only that but JB's prints on the spoon would probably indicate that she ate the pineapple there,at the kitchen table.Wouldn't this mean a lot?

 

[cynic]

I figure no matter what the circumstances, you'll have an RDI argument for it. Of course, you're not alone because thats the same circular reasoning hogwash that has contaminated this case since day one.

You are confusing “hogwash” with DNA reality.
DNA from blood or semen, as I’ve said on countless occasions, would be a game changer; this, however, has the same issues as hair and fiber evidence.

Just remember, unknown male DNA on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear is BAD for RDI. There's no good way for RDI to look at it.

As I said above, “DNA from blood or semen, as I’ve said on countless occasions, would be a game changer; this, however, has the same issues as hair and fiber evidence.”

It doesn't add to RDI's argument. Now, consider that more matching DNA was found in two places on the leggings. That takes it from bad to what?

Three blood drops maybe, semen from a rape kit, that impresses me, this doesn’t.

Also note that the DNA had to come from somewhere, and answering 'wherever' isn't acceptable anymore, not since the discovery of the legging DNA. At least not if you're interested in credibility, because the deposts in three (3) locations suggests a nonrandom event. Where did this DNA come from? If it was from someone she recently came in contact with, why is it 'unknown male' DNA? Wouldn't it be more likely owned by a DNA tested person, if they tested most of the people with which JBR recently came in contact?

The Rs were at a party, and dropped off presents afterward, contact with a male donor, quite possibly a child is the likely scenario if secondary transfer is responsible.
That is not the only possible explanation, though. There are other possibilities including but not limited to contamination.

Finally, we KNOW that a criminal handled JBR's underwear and leggings DURING a sexual assault.

We do? Well, as long as you include JR and PR in your definition of criminal, then I would agree.

If PR DNA were present alongside unknown male DNA in the underwear or on the leggings, I for one would add that to the RDI side of the argument, because it adds to PR culpability. This is because we know that these garments were handled by a criminal during a sexual assault.
I therefore believe that your assumption that PR DNA was present and dismissed as innocent, to be false. If her DNA was present it should be reported as such, in the same sense that fibers are used to support RDI beliefs.

PR claimed to change JBR for bed. It would not be unusual or suspicious for her DNA to be there. As I said before, if PR’s profile was found on the ligature, especially if the “intruder” profile was not found there, that would interesting indeed.
The fiber evidence that RDI finds suspicious and inculpatory does not include areas where one would expect to find it.
JBR could have fiber from PR and JR all over the waist band of her long johns, and I would not consider that out of the ordinary.

It would be wrong for Bode and the DA to withhold this information because they decided for us how it should be construed based on suspect testimony.

Bode is a private lab, the scope of the work performed along with release of information from their analysis would be at the discretion of the client, in this case, ML.

 

[cynic]

The housekeeper perhaps, who washed and replaced the clothes in JBR's bedroom?

LHP was swabbed for DNA, her profile did not match the CODIS profile derived from the DNA in JBR's panties.

 

[BBB167893]

Supe,
I didn't mean he didn't have other important, vital qualities when I said he listened to his gut and compared you to him. That's not where I was coming from, at all. In fact, I was trying to express the exact opposite point of view. He and you stand for something, apart from what others may do or think. In addition to Douglas doing his homework and having years of experience in the field, he was willing to give them a fair shot at explaining what happened. By "hearing" them, by really trying to be impartial, like you have done, he paid a price. He was roundly criticized.

You had just stated that you had a cross to bear. Douglas, too. But, you and he have stuck to your guns. You have maintained your integrity. See what I'm trying to say?

Yeah, after having thought about it a little bit, I guess I do. To a degree, at least.

 

[BBB167893]

One of us should ask Bode, hey did you filter out JR, PR, and JBR DNA or was this unknown DNA on the waistband a standalone in that scraping.

I volunteer! Just give me the website and I'll do the rest.

Finally, we KNOW that a criminal handled JBR's underwear and leggings DURING a sexual assault.

THAT's the circular reasoning hogwash that's poisoned this case since Day One. Which is WHY we should ask Bode these questions.

 

[BBB167893]

Just wondering though, if the parents are suspects (as parents always are in such cases according to RDI), why then would their DNA be filtered out?

That's pretty much the point. We don't know what the DA's office told Bode. If they told them, "look, we've got this DNA. Can you guys find anything that matches it so we'll have more to go on," then they might indeed filter it out. Bode's a private lab and they do what their clients pay them to do. Since it's obvious that ML had already made up her mind that the DNA was deposited criminally, I would expect her to tell Bode what cynic suggests.

Wouldn't it have been defeating the purpose to only look for unknown DNA? AND if DNA from known persons WAS filtered out, how about other potential suspects whose DNA may have been dismissed as innocently placed?

To answer both of those at once, we have to ask the question: "what WAS the purpose?"

 

[Tadpole12]

'ere ya go SD.

Bode Technologies

http://www.bodetech.com/

Contact Us/ Bode Technologies
http://www.bodetech.com/contact-us

 

[BBB167893]

'ere ya go SD.

Bode Technologies

http://www.bodetech.com/

Contact Us/ Bode Technologies
http://www.bodetech.com/contact-us

All right. I'll do my thing and I'll let you guys know as soon as I hear anything.

 

[MurriFlower]

LHP was swabbed for DNA, her profile did not match the CODIS profile derived from the DNA in JBR's panties.

And you know this for a fact Cynic?

 

[cynic]

And you know this for a fact Cynic?

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-linda-hoffmann-pugh.htm

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/DNA Evidence

 

[MurriFlower]

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-linda-hoffmann-pugh.htm

"Got DNA
YES
No
match
PMPT
Page
664sb"

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/DNA Evidence

"Who Has Been Cleared by DNA?

* 60 People Cleared. CBS News reports 60 persons have been "cleared" based on their DNA tests.
* Ramsey Family Members. The DNA does not match John Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey or Jeff Ramsey, the brother of John Ramsey (see Internet poster Jayelles post of 07-05-2004 02:29 PM). This is consistent with a statement by private detective Ollie Gray in a 48 Hours interview, in which he stated the DNA evidence eliminates the Ramseys. A transcript and (blurry) version of the DNA report are posted at Webbsleuths.
* Friends of Family. Internet poster Jayelles has deduced that the DNA also has cleared, Fleet White and Priscilla White
* Other Individuals. Internet poster Jayelles has deduced that the DNA also has cleared Mervin Pugh, the Ramsey's handyman."

Hi Cynic

Yes, I can read this too. You gave the impression that you knew more about this case than what is available for us all to read. Unless I'm mistaken the ACR info does not clear LHP nor does the pbworks article. Unless of course, you take the book PMPT as gospel? The fact that she was DNA tested does not automatically indicate that she was 'cleared', but perhaps as I suggested, it was just to eliminate the supposedly 'innocent' DNA. That a poster on the internet 'deduced' that MP was cleared does not make it correct either.

 

[cynic]

You gave the impression that you knew more about this case than what is available for us all to read. Unless I'm mistaken the ACR info does not clear LHP nor does the pbworks article. Unless of course, you take the book PMPT as gospel? The fact that she was DNA tested does not automatically indicate that she was 'cleared', but perhaps as I suggested, it was just to eliminate the supposedly 'innocent' DNA. That a poster on the internet 'deduced' that MP was cleared does not make it correct either.

There is a limited pool of information, of course, but LHP according to ST was the first suspect, as her name came up immediately when the Rs were asked by police for potential suspects.

 

[MurriFlower]

There is a limited pool of information, of course, but LHP according to ST was the first suspect, as her name came up immediately when the Rs were asked by police for potential suspects.
Besides, the DNA in question is male DNA.

Well if you scroll back to my original question, I asked if supposedly innocent DNA was excluded. As neither the Rs nor LHP were on record as having DNA found on either the body or clothing of JBR, then we can assume that it was.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well if you scroll back to my original question, I asked if supposedly innocent DNA was excluded. As neither the Rs nor LHP were on record as having DNA found on either the body or clothing of JBR, then we can assume that it was.

LE has not released all their information, including any "innocent" DNA that was found (for example, parental DNA on places the "unknown male" DNA was also found). Possibly there was certain DNA profiles that were excluded.

 

[cynic]

Well if you scroll back to my original question, I asked if supposedly innocent DNA was excluded. As neither the Rs nor LHP were on record as having DNA found on either the body or clothing of JBR, then we can assume that it was.

I hardly think that LHP's profile would be categorized as innocent. I may not be as hard on LE as some here are, but I really can't see them dismissing forensic evidence from LHP.