Do you think a Stungun was used?

[andreww]

BBM

As far as I know, the oft-repeated claim of Meyer saying that the blood spots on the panties “did not correspond,” etc comes from the Boulder Search Warrant:
“Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth."

Of course, the conclusion some RDI draw from this – DeeDee249 for example – ignores the fact that Meyer’s opinion was that the “the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth."

Perhaps, DeeDee249 (I have seen other RDI voice the same) has a different source upon which her opinion is based but I don’t recall ever seeing such.
...

AK

So this is telling us that JB was assaulted, then dressed with the size 12s, then later undressed and wiped, then redressed?

 

[andreww]

What you need to understand is that RDI will do everything they can to distort the DNA evidence. They hate it because it is something that proves there was someone else there and the Ramsey's can't be responsible if someone else's DNA is in her underwear. They don't like that the R's have been cleared and so when they look at the DNA they have to cal lit junk science and try and dilute it when if there was DNA in the underwear of any other victim on WS we would be calling it a slam dunk

Thanks for keeping us on track.

Can I ask if the pubic hair on the blanket matched the DNA found in her underwear?

 

[Anti-K]

So this is telling us that JB was assaulted, then dressed with the size 12s, then later undressed and wiped, then redressed?

Well, first, it is no more than speculation on the part of some RDI posters that the victim’s panties were completely removed and then she was redressed in “new” panties. There is no real evidence that supports this claim. I’m rather fond of real evidence.

I think the evidence tells us that the blood seeped or dripped onto the panties after they were pulled up, after the assault and the wiping. Blood seeping/dripping from the INTERIOR would not necessarily leave “visible reddish stains” for Meyer to see on “the EXTERIOR pubic area.”

Or, the blood could have dripped from the paintbrush tip (or, finger, or, whatever was used for penetration) onto the panties during or after the assault, during or after the wiping or when the panties were pulled back up.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Can I ask if the pubic hair on the blanket matched the DNA found in her underwear?

Confusion regarding the hair/s found on the blanket persists.

Reportedly, two hairs were found, but maybe there was only one. I don’t know. Kolar – the most recent information we have - only mentions one hair and he writes that, “Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the source of the hair, and it was noted that it could have come from either her or someone else in her maternal lineage.” P. 266

However, it has long been reported that a MALE hair was found on the blanket.

So, are these two different hairs? Or, is this another example of Kolar’s inability to reason in a logical and sensible manner? Because if there was a single hair and if that hair was a male hair then I think we can exclude Mrs Ramsey. We could then say that some other Ramsey – “someone else [male] in her maternal lineage” – could not be excluded as the source.

The DNA from hair is if a different sort than found in skin cells, blood, etc, so you’re not gonna be able to “match” the samples. However, you could say (assuming “good” samples) there was x probability that they came from the same person or related persons.

As it is, if the DNA from the hair was consistent with someone in Mrs Ramsey’s maternal line then it necessarily cannot in any sense match the DNA found on the panties, and the tDNA found on the leggings.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

I can't believe people still ask about the "pubic' hair. There was NO pubic hair found. That hair on the blanket was ultimately proved to be a hair from the forearm of Patsy Ramsey.

 

[andreww]

I can't believe people still ask about the "pubic' hair. There was NO pubic hair found. That hair on the blanket was ultimately proved to be a hair from the forearm of Patsy Ramsey.

Well there is still mention of it in early stories, yet not much about what became of it. Funny how those early articles described it as the single most important piece of evidence pointing at an intruder.

Thanks for clearing that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

And while we are on the subject of Forensics, apparently there were fibers found on JBs clothes and body that CBI originally attributed to coming from the comforter that was in the suitcase. The FBI later refuted this and said those fibers couldn't be attributed to anything found in the home. It's hard to imagine an intruder who didn't use hi own pen, paper, flashlight, etc, bringing his own blanket! Were those fibers ever sourced?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

I can't believe people still ask about the "pubic' hair. There was NO pubic hair found. That hair on the blanket was ultimately proved to be a hair from the forearm of Patsy Ramsey.

Ah, but it is not true that the hair in question was “ultimately proved to be a hair from the forearm of Patsy Ramsey.” Hair does not lend itself to such definitive and clear identification as that. Kolar more likely had it right when he wrote, as I quoted above, “Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the source of the hair, and it was noted that it could have come from either her or someone else in her maternal lineage.”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Well there is still mention of it in early stories, yet not much about what became of it. Funny how those early articles described it as the single most important piece of evidence pointing at an intruder.

Thanks for clearing that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the beginning they believed that it was a pubic hair, then it was decided that it might be an ancillary hair – Thomas discusses this in his book, p. 135 – 136. You can find fairly recent articles that still refer to it as a pubic hair so I think some confusion is understandable.

Incidentally, Thomas also wrote this in his book, “The hair displayed microscopic consistencies with Melinda Ramsey. But there were also a number of other hairs and fibers collected from the blanket – many of which were consistent with Jonbenet and Patsy Ramsey. Others were never sourced.” p. 136.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

And while we are on the subject of Forensics, apparently there were fibers found on JBs clothes and body that CBI originally attributed to coming from the comforter that was in the suitcase. The FBI later refuted this and said those fibers couldn't be attributed to anything found in the home. It's hard to imagine an intruder who didn't use hi own pen, paper, flashlight, etc, bringing his own blanket! Were those fibers ever sourced?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO, the FBI report on these fibers is more likely correct, but I don’t think it’s true that the FBI report “refuted” the CBI report. The reports are simply conflicting. If we use the FBI report, then those fibers were never sourced.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

Ah, but it is not true that the hair in question was “ultimately proved to be a hair from the forearm of Patsy Ramsey.” Hair does not lend itself to such definitive and clear identification as that. Kolar more likely had it right when he wrote, as I quoted above, “Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the source of the hair, and it was noted that it could have come from either her or someone else in her maternal lineage.”
...

AK

So, PR or her mother. And her mother was not placed in the house, ergo the hair belongs to Patsy. You're metaphorically splitting hairs with your post.

 

[questfortrue]

So, PR or her mother. And her mother was not placed in the house, ergo the hair belongs to Patsy. You're metaphorically splitting hairs with your post.

While not referenced in the post, maternal lineage using the mitochondrial tests which the FBI performed, also include BR. (btw, much appreciation for your "metaphorical splitting of hairs" analogy.)

 

[Tawny]

While not referenced in the post, maternal lineage using the mitochondrial tests which the FBI performed, also include BR. (btw, much appreciation for your "metaphorical splitting of hairs" analogy.)

Ah! I learned a new thing. I thought it indicated a female hair, but what you're saying makes sense too. Still indicates RDI tho

 

[Anti-K]

So, PR or her mother. And her mother was not placed in the house, ergo the hair belongs to Patsy. You're metaphorically splitting hairs with your post.

I think we can safely say that it is a Ramsey hair, but, scientifically, technically, we could only ever say, as Kolar puts it, that “anyone in Mrs Ramsey’s maternal line could not be excluded;“ but, I suppose one could reason – as you do in your post - that it was Mrs Ramsey’s.
Of course, your conclusion is proven to be incorrect because not only Mrs Ramsey and her mother, but anyone Mrs Ramsey gave birth to (Jonbenet or Burke); or anyone that her mother gave birth to, etc. becomes a possible source. Moms pass it on, Dads don’t.

So, DeeDee249 and anyone else boasting the same claim, is wrong when they say that the hair was sourced to Mrs Ramsey (never mind being sourced to her forearm!).

It would be more correct to say that the hair is probably (more likely than not) a Ramsey hair. Which, I guess makes it like a lot of the other hair/fibers found on the blanket that, according to Thomas, were “consistent with Jonbenet and Patsy Ramsey.”
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

While not referenced in the post, maternal lineage using the mitochondrial tests which the FBI performed, also include BR. (btw, much appreciation for your "metaphorical splitting of hairs" analogy.)

While we're splitting hairs , the test results would also exclude John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John Ramsey and so on.

 

[questfortrue]

While we're splitting hairs , the test results would also exclude John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John Ramsey and so on.

:floorlaugh: Tawny needs to take a bow - :takeabow: - for giving us hair-splitting tips.

 

[BBB167893]

I’d appreciate it if you would stop editing my posts when quoting. THIS IS DISHONEST.

Of course the DNA didn’t improve. How could it? What a silly thing to say!

And, if you don’t; understand the subject - it sure SEEMS as if you DON’T – than why comment on it? And, how can you vouch for the statements of others?

And, YES, you are spreading misinformation when you claim that “JB's DNA was fresh, the other wasn't.”

And, you’re making false (and, obviously), unsubstantiated claims when you say that the DNA (CODIS) sample “only got ‘meaning’ because of Team Ramsey's constantly pushing it and Boulder's inability to understand it.” Who even knows what “Boulder's inability to understand it” even means!! Hola!

The fact remains that the sample was accepted by CODIS because it met CODIS standards.

AK

1) It's not disinformation to say the other DNA was not fresh. That's what the Cellmark Labs tech told the police.

2) It's clear to me who doesn't understand it.

3) I can tell you what "Boulder's inability to understand it" means: it means that after ten years of never taking cases to trial, they had no greater understanding of the nuances than the average CSI viewer. (And that's giving them the benefit of the doubt.)

4) That's twice you've done that "dishonest" crap. STRIKE TWO

 

[Jgrabko]

Undecided, but I lean in favor of the stun gun.

 

[BBB167893]

What you need to understand is that RDI will do everything they can to distort the DNA evidence. They hate it because it is something that proves there was someone else there and the Ramsey's can't be responsible if someone else's DNA is in her underwear. They don't like that the R's have been cleared and so when they look at the DNA they have to call it junk science and try and dilute it when if there was DNA in the underwear of any other victim on WS we would be calling it a slam dunk

Thanks for keeping us on track.

Wrong on a LOT of levels, Scarlett.

1) The DNA has been distorted, but not by us.

2) You're damn right I'm upset that Mary Lacy cleared them, but not for the reasons YOU think.

3) DNA itself is not junk science. The devil is in how it's applied.

Which leads me to...

4) Most of all, and I DO mean most of all, it would not be a "slam dunk" if it were anyone else. As with almost everything, it comes down to the context. I'll give you some specific examples:

OJ Simpson was the case that established DNA evidence in the minds of the public. Simpson's blood was found at the scene, but that wasn't it. He had a fresh cut on his hand which he couldn't explain sufficiently. 2+2 = 4 in that instance.

I'll give you a better one: back in the 80s, a man named Dennis Dechaine was sentenced to life in prison for murdering a preteen girl, Sarah Cherry. His supporters have been trying to get him released due to the presence of unidentified DNA on her person. Even though Dechaine confessed (he led them to her body). But hey, by your logic, he MUST be innocent!

It all comes down to what Henry Lee said: he said that in as much as HALF (50%) of cases where DNA is found, it's not relevant to the crime. And he said that back in ye olden days when you actually needed a good-sized sample to get a reading. As DNA testing and detection methods improve, the problem is only going to get worse. That's the point Kolar was trying to make when he listed all the other DNA found at the scene.

 

[Anti-K]

1) It's not disinformation to say the other DNA was not fresh. That's what the Cellmark Labs tech told the police.

2) It's clear to me who doesn't understand it.

3) I can tell you what "Boulder's inability to understand it" means: it means that after ten years of never taking cases to trial, they had no greater understanding of the nuances than the average CSI viewer. (And that's giving them the benefit of the doubt.)

4) That's twice you've done that "dishonest" crap. STRIKE TWO

"That's what the Cellmark Labs tech told the police."

I don’t believe you. I am quite confident that you are mistaken. Prove it.
Eagerly anticipating STRIKE THREE!
...

AK