Forensic evidence

[Mama2JML]

From the IDI thread:

Also keep this in mind, whatever clothing John had used to prepare Jonbenet's body would potentially have blood on it. It would make sense for Jon to dispose of all his clothes and then change when meeting the cops. Maybe that was why he was dressed in new clothes and Patsy was still in her old clothes. John needed to clean up.

Doubtful.

Explain why this is doubtful.

I find it difficult to believe the Ramseys would have successfully disposed of everything necessary to result in so many unsourced, unknown, foreign, etc. evidentiary items.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

There are no unsourced, unknown, foreign, etc. evidentiary items.

 

[bonjoviblonde]

I find it difficult to believe the Ramseys would have successfully disposed of everything necessary to result in so many unsourced, unknown, foreign, etc. evidentiary items.

Such as?

 

[THE BUNK]

I find it difficult to believe the Ramseys would have successfully disposed of everything necessary to result in so many unsourced, unknown, foreign, etc. evidentiary items.

So your saying the Ramsey's are unaware of how to properly cover up a crime scene and hence would most likely make critical mistakes in said cover up.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

And since there were no such mistakes there was no cover-up.

 

[Mama2JML]

Such as?

Whatever items produced the unsourced:

-blue fibers.
-brown fibers.
-shoe prints.
-animal hairs.​

Then, we should consider the unsourced:

-DNA.
-human pubic/ancillary hair.
-palm print.
-handwriting.​

...and, of course, we should heavily weigh the incredible lack of forensic evidence connecting any Ramsey to the crime scene & to the victim, herself.

Just for starters.

 

[gramcracker]

animal hair (ascertained to be beaver) = PR's winter boots that poofed

ancillary (erroneously referred to as pubic) hair = PR's forearm

palm print = MR, IIRC

DNA = smoke and mirrors

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Whatever items produced the unsourced:

-blue fibers.
-brown fibers.
-shoe prints.
-animal hairs.​

Then, we should consider the unsourced:

-DNA.
-human pubic/ancillary hair.
-palm print.
-handwriting.​

...and, of course, we should heavily weigh the incredible lack of forensic evidence connecting any Ramsey to the crime scene & to the victim, herself.

Just for starters.

All of the above have been accounted for and all of the evidence points to Patsy as the sole perp.

 

[Mama2JML]

animal hair (ascertained to be beaver) = PR's winter boots that poofed

ancillary (erroneously referred to as pubic) hair = PR's forearm

palm print = MR, IIRC

DNA = smoke and mirrors

Reportedly, Patsy owned (beaver) fur lined boots, but the animal hairs found on the victim have not been sourced to anything owned by any Ramsey.

According to Steve Thomas, the "ancillary" hair was determined not to have come from any Ramsey, let alone Patsy. In Ramsey v. Fox the hair in question is described as belonging to a male, non-Ramsey.

"Off the record" reports regarding the unsourced palm print conflict. The print was anonymously reported to belong to Melinda Ramsey. While Kolar has suggested the print may have been linked to John Andrew. Officially, however, according to Trip Demuth, Lou Smit, Wolf v. Rs, Rs v. Fox, & Robert Whitson, the palmprint remains unsourced.

 

[Mama2JML]

"32. Substantial evidence gathered by law enforcement officers in the investigation of JonBenet Ramsey's death links an intruder to her brutal murder, including:

• Male DNA found on JonBenet's panties that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
• Male DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails of both hands that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
• Two pairs of marks on JonBenet's body which indicate that a stun gun was used to subject and torture her;
• Evidence of an intruder found in the Ramseys' basement, including a broken open window with a suitcase and broken glass under it, and a window-well to this window with signs of recent disturbance;
• Material from the window-well found in the room where JonBenet was discovered;
• Male pubic or ancillary hair and numerous fibers found on JonBenet's body, clothing and blanket which do not match anything in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;

-8-

• Unidentified shoe prints in the basement and unidentified palm prints on the door to the room where JonBenet was found, which do not match those of anyone in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;
• JonBenet's autopsy findings, which indicate that she was sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured and then bludgeoned at or near the point of death physical evidence of the manner and timing of her death which does not fit the theory of an accidental killing by a parent or sibling followed by staging;
• The garrote and slipknots used to bind and kill JonBenet were sophisticated torture and bondage devices which no one in the Ramsey family had the knowledge to construct;
• Materials used to assault and strangle JonBenet the stun gun, nylon cord and duct tape - which necessarily existed but which were never owned by the Ramseys and were not found in their home;
• A missing portion of the paintbrush handle which was used to construct the garrote and may have been used to sexually assault JonBenet;

-9-

• A three-page handwritten ransom note which law enforcement experts have not identified as being authored by any member of the Ramsey family;
• Missing pages from the pad on which the ransom note was written;
• The "butler's" door found open the morning of the murder, near which was found an unsourced baseball bat that had fibers on it consistent with those found in the basement where JonBenet's body was found; and
• Complete absence of evidence of motive or history indicating that John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey were capable of murdering JonBenet or staging an elaborate cover up of the crime."

http://www.acandyrose.com/01062003ComplaintForDefamationRamsey-v-Fox-FINAL.htm

 

[aussiesheila2]

animal hair (ascertained to be beaver) = PR's winter boots that poofed

ancillary (erroneously referred to as pubic) hair = PR's forearm

palm print = MR, IIRC

DNA = smoke and mirrors

You have to feel sorry for Patsy - how did she ever manage to cope with forearm hairs that CBI investigators once reported as resembling male Caucasian pubic hairs?

 

[gramcracker]

my kindle is elsewhere so I can't look it up, but there was a powwow with CASKU, CBI, the DA's people, Henry Lee and that DNA innocence expert - Scheck?, and BPD, the BPD attys, and CO's AG. that whole group was shocked and appalled to hear that search warrants for items including PR's beaver boots were never approved/issued by AH. in one of the three books I usually cite (Schiller/Thomas/Kolar) the author states that the CBI ID'd the third WC door palm print as PR's (along with the other two)

re PR's forearm/ancillary hair, I can't look it up

that acandyrose link is the R's complaint from the Fox defamation suit, not exactly a source IMO. but, refresh my memory, how much was Fox ordered to pay?

 

[questfortrue]

my kindle is elsewhere so I can't look it up, but there was a powwow with CASKU, CBI, the DA's people, Henry Lee and that DNA innocence expert - Scheck?, and BPD, the BPD attys, and CO's AG. that whole group was shocked and appalled to hear that search warrants for items including PR's beaver boots were never approved/issued by AH. in one of the three books I usually cite (Schiller/Thomas/Kolar) the author states that the CBI ID'd the third WC door palm print as PR's (along with the other two)

re PR's forearm/ancillary hair, I can't look it up

that acandyrose link is the R's complaint from the Fox defamation suit, not exactly a source IMO. but, refresh my memory, how much was Fox ordered to pay?

Per the Daily Camera
Judge dismisses Ramseys' Fox suit
Tossed defamation claim family's first legal defeat

By Christine Reid, Camera Staff Writer
January 8, 2005

A Denver district judge has dismissed a $16 million defamation lawsuit against the Fox News Network filed by the parents of slain Boulder 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey. John and Patsy Ramsey filed the suit over a story that aired Dec. 27, 2002, in which Denver-based reporter Carol McKinley said there has "never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."

In the Ramseys' first legal defeat since their daughter's death, Denver District Judge Phillip S. Figa this week granted Fox News' motion to throw the suit out.

Kolar, Foreign Faction, Kindle 2972-2977
For example, the latent fingerprint found on the outside of the Wine Cellar door, still unidentified when Smit first joined the case, had subsequently been identified by CBI technicians as a palm print belonging to Patsy Ramsey. One other latent print from the same door had also been identified as belonging to her, and another belonged to John Andrew. A latent print lifted from the frame of the Train Room window was identified as belonging to John Ramsey. There were no other unknown latent fingerprints collected from that window.

Kindle 2979-2983
The FBI was later able to identify this as an axillary hair (underarm , back, chest) and determined it did not come from the pubic region of the body. Mitochondrial DNA tests were run on this hair, and the FBI technicians determined that the hair shaft did not belong to an unidentified stranger. 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.

 

[gramcracker]

^^^ well, well. imagine that. tip o' the hat to qft!

 

[aussiesheila2]

Per the Daily Camera
Judge dismisses Ramseys' Fox suit
Tossed defamation claim family's first legal defeat

By Christine Reid, Camera Staff Writer
January 8, 2005

A Denver district judge has dismissed a $16 million defamation lawsuit against the Fox News Network filed by the parents of slain Boulder 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey. John and Patsy Ramsey filed the suit over a story that aired Dec. 27, 2002, in which Denver-based reporter Carol McKinley said there has "never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."

In the Ramseys' first legal defeat since their daughter's death, Denver District Judge Phillip S. Figa this week granted Fox News' motion to throw the suit out.

Kolar, Foreign Faction, Kindle 2972-2977
For example, the latent fingerprint found on the outside of the Wine Cellar door, still unidentified when Smit first joined the case, had subsequently been identified by CBI technicians as a palm print belonging to Patsy Ramsey. One other latent print from the same door had also been identified as belonging to her, and another belonged to John Andrew. A latent print lifted from the frame of the Train Room window was identified as belonging to John Ramsey. There were no other unknown latent fingerprints collected from that window.

Kindle 2979-2983
The FBI was later able to identify this as an axillary hair (underarm , back, chest) and determined it did not come from the pubic region of the body. Mitochondrial DNA tests were run on this hair, and the FBI technicians determined that the hair shaft did not belong to an unidentified stranger. 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.

So what's the theory then? Patsy didn't ever shave under her arms in spite of having hairs there that looked like male pubic hairs? Then she managed to shed one on JonBenet's white blanket as she was putting her to bed?

 

[The Night Owl]

I was under the impression that it was from her arm possibly her forearm. Dont know about u ladies n gents but I've seen some hairy arms on women. Sometimes its dark as well.

 

[questfortrue]

I was under the impression that it was from her arm possibly her forearm. Dont know about u ladies n gents but I've seen some hairy arms on women. Sometimes its dark as well.

Hi, Night Owl,
That was my previous impression as well. Note, though, that Kolar also adds the bit about "mitochondrial dna". I remembered that aspect of dna coming through a mother. I had to check, though, to see if it was also inherited by a son. Here's the reference from a genealogy site:
Maternal DNA, referred to as mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA, is passed down from mothers to their sons and daughters. It is carried through the female line, however, so while a son inherits his mother’s mtDNA, he does not pass it down to his own children.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

"32. Substantial evidence gathered by law enforcement officers in the investigation of JonBenet Ramsey's death links an intruder to her brutal murder, including:

• Male DNA found on JonBenet's panties that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
• Male DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails of both hands that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
• Two pairs of marks on JonBenet's body which indicate that a stun gun was used to subject and torture her;
• Evidence of an intruder found in the Ramseys' basement, including a broken open window with a suitcase and broken glass under it, and a window-well to this window with signs of recent disturbance;
• Material from the window-well found in the room where JonBenet was discovered;
• Male pubic or ancillary hair and numerous fibers found on JonBenet's body, clothing and blanket which do not match anything in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;

-8-

• Unidentified shoe prints in the basement and unidentified palm prints on the door to the room where JonBenet was found, which do not match those of anyone in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;
• JonBenet's autopsy findings, which indicate that she was sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured and then bludgeoned at or near the point of death physical evidence of the manner and timing of her death which does not fit the theory of an accidental killing by a parent or sibling followed by staging;
• The garrote and slipknots used to bind and kill JonBenet were sophisticated torture and bondage devices which no one in the Ramsey family had the knowledge to construct;
• Materials used to assault and strangle JonBenet the stun gun, nylon cord and duct tape - which necessarily existed but which were never owned by the Ramseys and were not found in their home;
• A missing portion of the paintbrush handle which was used to construct the garrote and may have been used to sexually assault JonBenet;

-9-

• A three-page handwritten ransom note which law enforcement experts have not identified as being authored by any member of the Ramsey family;
• Missing pages from the pad on which the ransom note was written;
• The "butler's" door found open the morning of the murder, near which was found an unsourced baseball bat that had fibers on it consistent with those found in the basement where JonBenet's body was found; and
• Complete absence of evidence of motive or history indicating that John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey were capable of murdering JonBenet or staging an elaborate cover up of the crime."

http://www.acandyrose.com/01062003ComplaintForDefamationRamsey-v-Fox-FINAL.htm

All of the above has either been accounted for or dismissed as irrelevant to the case and is the typical weak ploy of the Ramsey apologists.

 

[bettybaby00]

You have to feel sorry for Patsy - how did she ever manage to cope with forearm hairs that CBI investigators once reported as resembling male Caucasian pubic hairs?

But what's so annoying, and BIASED is that the follow-up on these types of initial declarations was never reported by MSM. I remember hearing about the "pubic" hair, and thought, 'my god, when are they going to leave the Rs alone! It's obviously an intruder!' :facepalm:

They did that with a lot of info/evidence. I also never, ever, never, remember hearing there was suspected sexual abuse. Also:

*no footprints; BPD were effectively made to look incompetent
*spider webs can be re-spun within a couple of hours; oops not in the dead of winter
*the 911 call with BRs voice in the background; BR was asleep was maintained for quite a long time
*Rs refusing to cooperate, except if there was a TV camera nearby
*oh, mysterious footprints in the wine cellar; Psssst BR owned a pair
*broken window was definitely point of entry (LSs power point presentation was compelling, yea?)
*countless subpoenas and warrants never issued
*JMK was a viable suspect; except when he's not in the country
*DNA clears the Rs
*what true bills?

The Rs were able to successfully spin their own narrative while LE, and investigators were silenced by the rules of law. Without a courtroom and a jury, the Rs could say whatever they wanted publicly. And they did.

I admit I was duped for a long, long time.

 

[gramcracker]

A human hair also can be classified as to the region of the body from which it came. Using the same features listed previously, this designation can be made with considerable accuracy. Typically, the body-area determinations that can be made are head hairs (from the scalp), pubic hairs, facial hairs (beard and mustache), limb hairs (arm/leg), chest hairs, axillary hairs (armpit), and eyebrow/eyelash hairs. However, hairs may be encountered that cannot be categorized into one of these groups. These may consist of “transitional” hairs, that is, those hairs growing between two body regions, hair fragments that are not large enough to be identified, or hairs from other body areas.

The typical wording for a “no conclusion” is: “The questioned hair exhibits similarities and slight microscopic differences, and therefore, no conclusion can be reached as to whether or not the questioned hair is consistent with originating from the donor of the known hair sample.” When this conclusion is reached, these hairs may be submitted for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis.

Houck and Budowle (2002) stressed that microscopic hair comparisons are not a “screening test” and mtDNA analysis is not a “confirmatory test.” The combination of the two methods (microscopic hair comparison coupled with either nuclear DNA or mtDNA analysis) provides the judicial system with significantly more powerful information than either method does alone. Yet each technique on its own is useful.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for...ns/fsc/april2009/review/2009_04_review02.htm/

Different hairs from the same body region of a person exhibit variation in microscopical characteristics and features. Therefore, it is important to obtain a sufficient number of hairs in order to adequately represent the range of values of all characteristics present.

Almost every cell type in the human body is nucleated. Chromosomes are contained in the nucleus. Nuclear DNA (nDNA) is the major component of these chromosomes. In contrast, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is located in mitochondria, which are found in the cytoplasmic portion of all cells. Numerous mitochondria are present in each of these cells; therefore, there are many more copies of mitochondrial DNA in each cell. Although nuclear DNA is inherited from both parents, mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely from the mother. When appropriate, the analysis of nuclear DNA is the recommended approach because of its potentially greater discrimination power.

Hair roots that are in the active growing phase (anagen) contain an abundance of nucleated cells in the root and in the surrounding sheath material. Shed hairs from telogen follicles are the most commonly encountered in casework. Telogen hairs without follicular tissue may not be amenable to nuclear DNA analysis because of the lack of nucleated cells. These hairs may contain sufficient mitochondrial DNA in their roots and hair shafts for analysis.

www.swgmat.org/Forensic Human Hair Examination Guidelines.pdf0__5N.pdf