Father says DNA could solve one of country’s biggest murder mysteries: Who killed JonBenét Ramsey

[Slebby]

You are incorrect.
Mitch Morrissey, of the D.A.'s office, was pulled in to give DNA input for the Grand Jury investigation, which began in Sept. 1998.

Morrissey revealed that it was Kathy Dressel, the CBI DNA analyst, who told him about the second spot of blood in JonBenet's underwear that had not yet been tested. He states that he told her to cut the dime-sized sample in half to test it, and that was when they discovered the nearly complete DNA profile. This testing was done in 1999, If you watch the YouTube interview, he talks about telling Cathy to test it and the almost full profile of the unknown male. Watch it from 50:37 time.

What am I incorrect about? That it will either yield something or nothing? Scratching my head…

 

[Deleted member 187229]

What am I incorrect about? That it will either yield something or nothing? Scratching my head…

You are incorrect about the test. It was not the test done in 1997, it was actually done in 1999 by Cathy dressel. If you watch the interview with Mitch he explains what he said to Cathy about testing the second blood spot and the almost complete dna profile. 50:37

 

[Slebby]

You are incorrect about the test. It was not the test done in 1997, it was actually done in 1999 by Cathy dressel. If you watch the interview with Mitch he explains what he said to Cathy about testing the second blood spot and the almost complete dna profile. 50:37

That wasn’t me

 

[Deleted member 187229]

That wasn’t me

Oh sorry, I must have sent it to the wrong person.

 

[Chypre]

DBM

 

[Chypre]

Patsy was a STEM class kind of girl evidenced by what? I only know about a bachelor's in journalism. That's more of a speech and language oriented field and not at all science related. Years back, no prerequisite in science was even required for that major.

ETA: Does anyone know how Patsy used her journalism degree professionally after she finished college?

Thank you for acknowledging her only source to success was not pageants.

 

[OneLove]

Or in this case, you put your child in a pageant where predators may watch her and later kill her? If either your or my example were true, then Scouts and pageants would both be outlawed. And they're not, despite known risks associated with both. And there must be a law against them for it to be possible for anyone to be charged with a crime just for using them. You can't break a law that doesn't exist.

That's what I don't understand about the language of the crime they were indicted on in the true bills. It sure sounds like it says they knowingly put their child in a dangerous situation where harm could reasonably be expected to come to her, and it did, so they are charged with this crime.

But what we know they did is something parents do every night and things that wouldn't ever be expected to present any risks to children. What is known, according to them, is that they put her to bed and went to sleep. Yes, I realize lots of people suspect they did all kinds of nefarious things that night, but on the record, all they did was put her to bed and went to sleep. So it couldn't be that that the true bill is referring to.

So what is it that the indictment is saying they did that put her in danger? What action that they took is it referring to? It must be referring to something! Is it just me that doesn't know, or is this a true unknown? Maybe it's just me. Maybe the jurors and the prosecutors know the answer to that. I don't think they could mean the pageants, since as I said, they're not illegal. So even if the harm did arise from the pageants somehow, I don't think they can charge them with a crime for having her in them, since they're legal. So what else? It sounds like it must mean that they allowed her to be around someone who was a known child predator. Which I would agree would be a crime. But if they mean that, don't they have to know who this person is? Maybe they do. But then wouldn't the person be charged with her murder? Nobody was. So what specific action (or inaction) did the parents take that resulted in her murder, that the true bill refers to in charging them with the crime they were indicted for?

I don't think they could charge them if they didn't have something specific in mind. But they did charge them, so what was it? They can't just say, she was murdered, so the situations you put her in must have been dangerous or she wouldn't have been murdered. That may be true, but I don't think that's how the law works. Just because in hindsight, we now know it was a dangerous thing to do to put her to bed that night and go to sleep, that doesn't mean they committed any crime by doing that. So I don't know what the indictment is saying they did that makes them suspected of the crime spelled out in the true bills.

This is just a question, not an accusation, as I am uninformed on many specifics & generally am more focused on potentials.

Was there a history of JBR and her brother fighting, as in physical fights? I'm scratching my head thinking of potentials for the charge that the Ramseys knowingly put her danger. Did that mean they left JBR and Burke up alone to snack then go to bed on their own while the parents went ahead to bed? With an early flight the next morning, I can see them wanting the kids to sleep through much of that flight so being short on sleep would be an advantage. Were the okay with the kids up unsupervised? Did they fight (as in the midnightish scream heard by the neighbor), had Burke ever taken JBR to that basement room for sex play before so they wouldn't be heard? How far would the Grand Jury have probed into this dynamic Was Burke known to be very jealous of JBR? After all, it was JBR that was given BOTH parents' names, not him.

You are incorrect.
Mitch Morrissey, of the D.A.'s office, was pulled in to give DNA input for the Grand Jury investigation, which began in Sept. 1998.

Morrissey revealed that it was Kathy Dressel, the CBI DNA analyst, who told him about the second spot of blood in JonBenet's underwear that had not yet been tested. He states that he told her to cut the dime-sized sample in half to test it, and that was when they discovered the nearly complete DNA profile. This testing was done in 1999, If you watch the YouTube interview, he talks about telling Cathy to test it and the almost full profile of the unknown male. Watch it from 50:37 time.

On the second spot of blood that had not been previously tested, there is a possibility it was contaminated in the 1st handling when the first spot was taken for testing, especially as they had no plans to test that 2nd spot.

 

[lonetraveler]

I'm a 81 old grandma and want to find out who killed that sweet little girl
I ve been through all the JonBenét Ramsey s trials and the Ramey's were innocent.
JonBenét Ramsey: The 1996 murder of JonBenét Ramsey remains unsolved

Google Search

Sorry but there have been no trials in this case.

 

[OneLove]

Thank you for acknowledging her only source to success was not pageants.

That's your answer to "a journalism degree isn't STEM"? I'm not following your point here. Was there something in Patsy's elementary and secondary education, extracurricular activities, interests, etc, that made her a "STEM kinda girl"??

I'm just trying to sort out fact from fantasy....

 

[sunspun]

Just curious.....did you look at her ( Cina's) analysis of the RN and Patsy's samples??? Did you notice that some letters were identical matches?? The odds are astronomical that an intruder could write an RN that so closely resembles Patsy's writing style

That's a subjective thing though. I personally don't see it like that. For example, I've always felt you can usually tell if it's a male or female who wrote something, and I see PR's writing as obviously female, and the RN writing looks like a male wrote it to me.

But watching the analysis of the handwriting in the RN in that video just made me laugh out loud. That seemed so unscientific to me and totally subjective. It was really laughable. And come on, there are only so many ways a particular letter can possibly be written, so there will always be similarities! My letter A is always going to be similar to your letter A, or one of them won't be recognized as a letter A. And there are lots of things that many people will do in their writing just because the physical act of writing is mostly the same for everyone. For example, they mentioned one certain word, I forget which, but I think it had an "le" in it, and she pointed out how both the RN and PR both hooked the 2 letters together or something like that. Which was a ridiculous thing to make note of, imo. There is a good, obvious reason that's done, and it's a very common thing that people will often do when just quickly writing something, and it's just so common and obvious and self-explanatory that emphasizing this as part of her "proof" made me realize how silly her whole "analysis" was. Silly and useless. You could put almost ANYONE'S writing up there on her whiteboard and say the same things she said about PR's writing. Everyone's individual letters will so VERY closely resemble each letter of the note when viewed separately like that. They have to, or they're not the same letter!

If you write legibly enough that your writing can be generally read and understood by people, then your individual letters will very closely resemble each individual letter in the RN. An A is an A is an A. Yes, there are some differences in how some write an A, but it still has to look like an A.

I don't find her analysis to be scientific or objective at all.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

This is just a question, not an accusation, as I am uninformed on many specifics & generally am more focused on potentials.

Was there a history of JBR and her brother fighting, as in physical fights? I'm scratching my head thinking of potentials for the charge that the Ramseys knowingly put her danger. Did that mean they left JBR and Burke up alone to snack then go to bed on their own while the parents went ahead to bed? With an early flight the next morning, I can see them wanting the kids to sleep through much of that flight so being short on sleep would be an advantage. Were the okay with the kids up unsupervised? Did they fight (as in the midnightish scream heard by the neighbor), had Burke ever taken JBR to that basement room for sex play before so they wouldn't be heard? How far would the Grand Jury have probed into this dynamic Was Burke known to be very jealous of JBR? After all, it was JBR that was given BOTH parents' names, not him.

On the second spot of blood that had not been previously tested, there is a possibility it was contaminated in the 1st handling when the first spot was taken for testing, especially as they had no plans to test that 2nd spot.

It’s wasn’t contaminated. The spots had already been cut from the underpants and sealed and stored for future testing. The second bloodspot matched the dna under her fingernails and the waistband of her longjohns. The second bloodspot was an ever better profile than the fingernails and the longjohns. It was the almost full profile from the second bloodspot that was entered into codis.

 

[lonetraveler]

There were.

Well, if there were samples of PR prior to the murder, I'd like to see those side by side with the ransom note. If you have them, I would appreciate if you could share. Thanks in advance.

 

[Chypre]

That's your answer to "a journalism degree isn't STEM"? I'm not following your point here. Was there something in Patsy's elementary and secondary education, extracurricular activities, interests, etc, that made her a "STEM kinda girl"??

I'm just trying to sort out fact from fantasy....

No fantasies. I was following a theme of academic pursuits. IMO (no stats graph for you), Patsy pursued and completed a degree, and moved away, specifically to this case, from WV or Appalachia,that puts her in a group of students that were at the top of their game. I don't mean upper two percent. i mean she was a complete person and generally successful already. Edit to add: I have professional experience as well in that area.
I think some posts in general don't give any credit for that. She would have likely encouraged JonBenet to be well rounded. In Kolar's book he noted that even Patsy's friends admitted she never made JonBenet go if she didn't want to.

 

[sunspun]

I will look that up. I’m a relatively recent returnee to the JBR discussions, and I have forgotten a lot of what I once knew. I’m rereading my JBR books, and reviewing old threads here. This is why I use cautious language, like “it is my belief”, “iirc”, “my opinion”. I believe that words matter.

I think it would be helpful to the objectivity of our discussions of the handwriting if we could compile a comprehensive list of all analyses done on the handwriting, both that in favour of PR as the writer as well as not. I recently read here about other suspects whose handwriting is a closer match than PR, but when I asked for a source, none was given.

I am curious, GRT, objectively, if you look at the handwriting comparisons, do you see a compelling resemblance between PR and RN?

*I am really desperate for objective conversation, and not argument over theories, as though we are sticking up for our sports team*

Have you ever seen any of JR's handwriting, just out of curiosity? I have not, so this isn't trying to be a loaded question or anything. I'd like to see the samples of his that they used to compare to the RN that I believe led them to feel he could be ruled out as the writer of the note. I personally don't think he wrote it, not whatsoever, so that's not why I want to see his writing. I just think it's amazing that anyone decided PR's writing looked more like the RN than JR's. Makes me think JR must have some very unusual handwriting somehow!

To me, PR's writing doesn't look like the RN. Yes, I can see it when they compare single letters by themselves, but not when looking at her writing as a whole. And it's not the single letter comparison that counts for me, it's as a whole. As I've said, pretty much anyone's single letters compared to those in the RN will show a great resemblance always, because that's just the way it is. A letter has to look like that letter, and there are only so many things you can do to write it differently before it is not that letter anymore! Which is why I'm so curious to see JR's writing, because it must have looked less like the RN than PR's did and I can't imagine what that would look like!

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Well, if there were samples of PR prior to the murder, I'd like to see those side by side with the ransom note. If you have them, I would appreciate if you could share. Thanks in advance.

This is patsys writing prior to the murder.

 

[OneLove]

That's a subjective thing though. I personally don't see it like that. For example, I've always felt you can usually tell if it's a male or female who wrote something, and I see PR's writing as obviously female, and the RN writing looks like a male wrote it to me.

But watching the analysis of the handwriting in the RN in that video just made me laugh out loud. That seemed so unscientific to me and totally subjective. It was really laughable. And come on, there are only so many ways a particular letter can possibly be written, so there will always be similarities! My letter A is always going to be similar to your letter A, or one of them won't be recognized as a letter A. And there are lots of things that many people will do in their writing just because the physical act of writing is mostly the same for everyone. For example, they mentioned one certain word, I forget which, but I think it had an "le" in it, and she pointed out how both the RN and PR both hooked the 2 letters together or something like that. Which was a ridiculous thing to make note of, imo. There is a good, obvious reason that's done, and it's a very common thing that people will often do when just quickly writing something, and it's just so common and obvious and self-explanatory that emphasizing this as part of her "proof" made me realize how silly her whole "analysis" was. Silly and useless. You could put almost ANYONE'S writing up there on her whiteboard and say the same things she said about PR's writing. Everyone's individual letters will so VERY closely resemble each letter of the note when viewed separately like that. They have to, or they're not the same letter!

If you write legibly enough that your writing can be generally read and understood by people, then your individual letters will very closely resemble each individual letter in the RN. An A is an A is an A. Yes, there are some differences in how some write an A, but it still has to look like an A.

I don't find her analysis to be scientific or objective at all.

You said "I don't find her analysis to be scientific or objective at all".... yet you are the one who said you can tell male writing from female????? Surely you jest.

 

[Slebby]

You said "I don't find her analysis to be scientific or objective at all".... yet you are the one who said you can tell male writing from female????? Surely you jest.

That is funny. I had a boyfriend - talented football player, macho all-round jock - he had the prettiest handwriting!
Mine (I’m female) is the proverbial chicken scratch

 

[OneLove]

No fantasies. I was following a theme of academic pursuits. IMO (no stats graph for you), Patsy pursued and completed a degree, and moved away, specifically to this case, from WV or Appalachia,that puts her in a group of students that were at the top of their game. I don't mean upper two percent. i mean she was a complete person and generally successful already. Edit to add: I have professional experience as well in that area.
I think some posts in general don't give any credit for that. She would have likely encouraged JonBenet to be well rounded. In Kolar's book he noted that even Patsy's friends admitted she never made JonBenet go if she didn't want to.

Okay, so you don't actually know what STEM is; you just threw it out there in case some bought that. Saying she graduated hs, finished college, and left West Virginia is undeniably accurate.

Saying there's not a lot in backwards WV who do that might even be fair. But painting Patsy as a STEM girl is just ludicrous. We had many many students who managed to eke out degrees that were far far from being "STEM" students. In some majors, it takes mostly money and diligence. Gosh, many in my generation did literature degrees because how hard could it be to just read?

What did Patsy do professionaly with her journalism major? I haven't been able to find that information.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

The cord was swabbed.

I don’t understand why the cord used to fashion the garrote wasn’t swabbed for DNA.
I’m pretty sure no gloves were worn when it was made.
The Ramseys claim the cord wasn’t theirs. John said he never saw the cord on her neck - so that handle & cord should contain the makers skin cells

The wrist ligature and the neck ligature were dna tested and they bith had the dna of an unknown male but it wasn’t the same person’s dna found in jonbenets underoants, fingernails, longjohns.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I never said they were the only reasons. I’ve listened to quite a lot of interviews about this case and it’s been explained that people can have similar handwriting traits. It’s not true that you’d need to score a 5 to be ruled out as the author of the note. 5 is no match. 4.5 is probably not/no match. It’s been explained so much I almost feel like an expert. Answer this. If people have been ruled out because they’re not a dna match, why do you think patsy did it? Patsy’s dna wasn’t in jonbenets underpants and her handwriting was an almost no match. She didn’t score a 1 or a 1.5. She didn’t score a 2 or a 2.5. She didn’t score a 3 or a 3.5. She didn’t score a 4. She scored 4.5 which has been explained that it means probably not - no match. Why would patsy kill JonBenet? There’s no motive, no history of abuse, the duct tape and nylon cord weren’t sourced to the home, there’s foreign dna found in an intimate location on jonbenets clothing, under her fingernails and on the waistband of her clothing. Her bed wasn’t wet and had hair and fibre evidence the sheets weren’t washed and had been slept in, the clothing she wore to the whites Christmas party were found in jonbenets room, the jacket and shoes placed on the floor next to her doll house and her pants folded on her spare bed, which is consistent with John removing the jacket and shoes and patsy removing the velvet pants. Corroborating john and patsy’s recollection of undressing her, putting her bed clothes on and putting her to bed. The ramseys didn’t kill jonbenet. The man who sexually assaulted her and murdered her and keft his dna in her did.

You tend to comment in absolutes.

"Patsy didn't write the note". "The Ramsey's didn't kill JonBenet". "bill McReynolds apparently scored a closer match but was ruled out due to his ill health. Linda Hoffman Pugh is another one who apparently scored a closer match but was ruled out because she had an alibi of being asleep."

These statements make it sound as if they were the only reasons for being ruled out, ill health and an alibi of sleep. Perhaps that's not what you intended, but that's what it sounded like.

Again, if 5 points means no match, 4.5 means that person cannot unequivocally be ruled out. Also again, the 5 point scale is not even widely used anymore because it has not been found to be accurate. There were only a few of the examiners in this case that counted on the scale to represent their findings. What I find far more significant, is that out of the 74 persons who gave samples, Patsy was the only one who could not be ruled out. You may think that her 4.5 score rules her out, but the facts are that it does not. An almost is not good enough.

There does not need to be a motive if there was a horrific accident caused by a moment of uncontrolled rage. The duct tape and cord were not found in the home, that is not proof that they were never there. The sheets on JB's bed had a strong smell of urine, but I don't really think that was a factor. We have only Patsy's word as to what she put JB to bed in, and even that she told two different stories about.

JB's blood was found on her white blanket and the most amount of her blood was found on the pink barbie nightgown, suggesting that may actually be what she was wearing that night before she was wiped down and her clothing changed. Fibers from John's shirt were found in her labia. Patsy's fibers from what she was wearing that night were found in the blanket, in the cord, on the sticky part of the duct tape and in her paint tote.

The foreign DNA may or may not be significant. More than one person's DNA was found, and most if it was mixed with JB's own blood. After more than two decades, there has never been a hit from the DNA uploaded to CODIS. If this person were the crazy pedophile as has been suggested, it's highly unlikely that no further crimes were committed and that this person is so adept as to never, ever leave evidence behind at any crime scene.

I am absolutely open to scenarios that promote an intruder did this. To date however, there is no compelling evidence to even come close to proving that theory. The Grand Jury rejected the intruder theory. The Grand Jury were convinced that Patsy wrote the note. The Grand Jury did not thing the DNA evidence was convincing or profound. And they saw evidence and heard testimony that we have not. They believed the parents were responsible.