Henry Lee's comment on the Touch DNA

[BBB167893]

This is all rather rambling RDI stuff.

Not even a "thank you!" For some reason, Paul Simon's "The Boxer" is playing in my head.

Nothing in here to indicate JBR knew her attacker. Nothing at all, other than the RDI argument.

Oh, I see it now. You want a smoking gun. You're looking for one big thing instead of looking at the whole gestalt, like I'm doing. Big mistake. Took me a long time to realize it myself.

Was there a list of actual case facts (e.g. JBR heard screaming someone's name) that would cause us to believe she knew her attacker?

It's not like we can ask her if she screamed their name. Although I wonder if that happened, now that you bring it up.

Recap: Would JonBenet REALLY eat pineapple from somebody she didn't know? That's only one of many questions.

A claim of fibers or a claim of PR's stair climbing expertise aren't case facts at all, SD.

On the contrary! They go to the heart of the matter.

 

[DeeDee249]

This is all rather rambling RDI stuff.

Nothing in here to indicate JBR knew her attacker. Nothing at all, other than the RDI argument.

Was there a list of actual case facts (e.g. JBR heard screaming someone's name) that would cause us to believe she knew her attacker? A claim of fibers or a claim of PR's stair climbing expertise aren't case facts at all, SD.

Actually, JR said it was "an inside job". He said this to Arndt, I believe, shortly after he "found" his daughter.

As far as a wealthy foreign leftist revolutionary, well...there IS Fidel Castro- Cuba is just a hop, skip and a jump from Boulder...but at his age, I don't know. But then again he does practice Santeria, so you never know. Maybe his younger brother Raul...

 

[Chrishope]

A claim of fibers or a claim of PR's stair climbing expertise aren't case facts at all, SD.

Fibers aren't case facts?

 

[angelwngs]

A claim of fibers or a claim of PR's stair climbing expertise aren't case facts at all, SD.

Fibers aren't case facts?

Yep, Chris. I'd like for someone to tell that to Wayne Williams, convicted Atlanta child killer. Single most important evidence "carpet fibers".

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Parental fibers on JBR are case facts. The idea that they got there during crime is the claim I'm referring to. Unknown male DNA on JBR is also a case fact. Purporting to know how DNA got on JBR in three ways also constitutes a claim.

The difference between these two claims is obvious, though:

Parental fibers from clothing they wore that day can be expected to be all over JBR in about a dozen ways. Parental fibers are going to be all over JBR's hair, body, and clothing due to innocent transfer throughout the day.

DNA from an unknown male, not owned by anyone she was known to come in contact with that day, is not expected to be on JBR in three (3) criminally conspicuous ways (under fingernails, mixed with JBR's blood in her underwear, and on her longjohns waistband is pretty darned conspicuous, wouldn't you say?). Not in reality, anyway. It takes quite a stretch of imagination to even claim the DNA was innocently transferred. A stretch only those who were already hopelessly RDI have made. For example, those who had already published RDI books.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Actually, JR said it was "an inside job". He said this to Arndt, I believe, shortly after he "found" his daughter.

As far as a wealthy foreign leftist revolutionary, well...there IS Fidel Castro- Cuba is just a hop, skip and a jump from Boulder...but at his age, I don't know. But then again he does practice Santeria, so you never know. Maybe his younger brother Raul...

A wealthy foreign leftist is what you get if you believe the RN in whole, except for the ransom motive. The injuries to JBR, and the fact she was left behind, raise doubts on the ransom motive. There is nothing happening to raise doubts about anything else in the note, except a presumption of RDI. IOW there's no case facts that raises doubts about the rest of the note. Only those who already believed RDI raise doubt about the rest of the note.

 

[Chrishope]

Parental fibers from clothing they wore that day can be expected to be all over JBR in about a dozen ways. Parental fibers are going to be all over JBR's hair, body, and clothing due to innocent transfer throughout the day.

True enough. I wouldn't expect them in the garrotte or on the back of the duct tape though.

DNA from an unknown male, not owned by anyone she was known to come in contact with that day, is not expected to be on JBR in three (3) criminally conspicuous ways (under fingernails, mixed with JBR's blood in her underwear, and on her longjohns waistband is pretty darned conspicuous, wouldn't you say?).

Just another claim. If it is ever identified (unlikely) and it turns out to belong to a boy who attended the White's X-mass party, then there won't be anything "conspicuous" about it.

 

[Tadpole12]

A wealthy foreign leftist is what you get if you believe the RN in whole, except for the ransom motive. The injuries to JBR, and the fact she was left behind, raise doubts on the ransom motive. There is nothing happening to raise doubts about anything else in the note, except a presumption of RDI. IOW there's no case facts that raises doubts about the rest of the note. Only those who already believed RDI raise doubt about the rest of the note.

There is nothing happening to raise doubts about anything else in the note, except a presumption of RDI.

Hi HOTYH.

I dunno HOTYH. That note is whack. Even with no presumption of RDI, when I first read that note a few weeks ago .... I found it to have that indelible bs quality ...., still reads like a B movie script, to me ..... even without the profilers and hand writing experts conclusions.

 

[BBB167893]

Parental fibers on JBR are case facts. The idea that they got there during crime is the claim I'm referring to.

Why didn't you say so? And it's a lot more than a "claim;" it's more like an educated inference.

Parental fibers from clothing they wore that day can be expected to be all over JBR in about a dozen ways. Parental fibers are going to be all over JBR's hair, body, and clothing due to innocent transfer throughout the day.

AH! But as I pointed out, they weren't! They were only on those four key areas, and Patsy was unable to give an explanation for them being there that actually jibes with the KNOWN facts. I thought you noticed stuff like that.

DNA from an unknown male, not owned by anyone she was known to come in contact with that day, is not expected to be on JBR in three (3) criminally conspicuous ways (under fingernails, mixed with JBR's blood in her underwear, and on her longjohns waistband is pretty darned conspicuous, wouldn't you say?).

First of all, DNA under a person's nails is not criminally conspicuous unless it's a certain kind, like blood or heavy amounts of flesh. JB had neither of those.

Secondly, DNA is EVERYWHERE. You can't go anywhere or do anything without some on you. Most people don't know this, but dust is actually dried skin cells, least last I heard. If it were blood or semen it would be highly conspicuous. But they can't say what it is.

It takes quite a stretch of imagination to even claim the DNA was innocently transferred.

Not really. As the criminologist explained, the more sensitive DNA testing becomes, the more "slag" we have to filter out. Reality's a b**ch, ain't it?

A stretch only those who were already hopelessly RDI have made. For example, those who had already published RDI books.

Give me a break.

 

[BBB167893]

There is nothing happening to raise doubts about anything else in the note, except a presumption of RDI.

Hi HOTYH.

I dunno HOTYH. That note is whack. Even with no presumption of RDI, when I first read that note a few weeks ago .... I found it to have that indelible bs quality ...., still reads like a B movie script, to me ..... even without the profilers and hand writing experts conclusions.

Well said!

 

[Linda7NJ]

I may not be a DNA expert, but I know a few who aren't ready to jump off the DA's cliff.

and I am one of them. I am not jumping!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

AH! But as I pointed out, they weren't! They were only on those four key areas, and Patsy was unable to give an explanation for them being there that actually jibes with the KNOWN facts. I thought you noticed stuff like that.

PR was never obliged to explain how her fibers got on her own daughter. Secondary transfer of PR's fibers into the cord that also entwined her hair is good enough explanation for any rational person.

First of all, DNA under a person's nails is not criminally conspicuous unless it's a certain kind, like blood or heavy amounts of flesh. JB had neither of those.

You can't be serious. You have a murder by strangulation victim with male DNA under their fingernails, and you're going to reject it off-hand because its not the right TYPE of DNA? Tell me you're not in LE.

Secondly, DNA is EVERYWHERE. You can't go anywhere or do anything without some on you. Most people don't know this, but dust is actually dried skin cells, least last I heard. If it were blood or semen it would be highly conspicuous. But they can't say what it is.

Nice try, but you're not accepting what really happened at all. You are denying it for some reason. Its ridiculous to show any similarity to what was on JBR with what is on you or me right now. Right now, at this moment, I can guarantee you that I don't have unknown male DNA under my fingernails, on my waistband, or mixed with my blood that is on my underwear, that all match. See what I mean?

Not really. As the criminologist explained, the more sensitive DNA testing becomes, the more "slag" we have to filter out. Reality's a b**ch, ain't it?

For RDI, reality is apparently optional. If I were RDI I would stick to the DNA contamination of the crime scene. At least that would explain why the DNA samples all match and are in conspicuous places. Trying to sell this DNA as innocent transfer isn't based in reality at all.

 

[BBB167893]

PR was never obliged to explain how her fibers got on her own daughter. Secondary transfer of PR's fibers into the cord that also entwined her hair is good enough explanation for any rational person.

That wasn't the explanation she gave, though. The explanation she gave is completely at odds with John's own statements, among others. And it took her two+ YEARS between being told about it and actually trying to explain it. How is that rational? And no one has ever said there were any in JB's hair. That's what I was trying to tell you.

Try again.

You can't be serious.

I'm deadly serious, Holdon. And I'll be happy to explain why.

You have a murder by strangulation victim with male DNA under their fingernails, and you're going to reject it off-hand because its not the right TYPE of DNA?

Well, that's funny, Holdon, because there's a case where that happened, and the guy STILL went to prison! His name is Dennis Dechaine. Twenty years ago he kidnapped, violated and strangled 12-year-old Sarah Cherry to death in Maine. He was convicted and given life in prison. Now, in that time, there has been a movement to free him. The main evidence: DNA under Cherry's nails that isn't his. As a contemporary reviewer (whose name I won't mention due to the extreme reactions it inspires) said, quote:

"The world is fairly bristling with human DNA. Only in the case of rape is DNA capable of excluding a suspect--and even then if the victim was not sexually active and there was only a single rapist. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects; it can't exclude suspects."

As I mentioned before, it can't be dated, either.

Tell me you're not in LE.

You can rest easy, Holdon. I am not now nor have I ever been in LE.

Nice try, but you're not accepting what really happened at all.

I could say the same.

You are denying it for some reason.

Several reasons, in fact.

Its ridiculous to show any similarity to what was on JBR with what is on you or me right now. Right now, at this moment, I can guarantee you that I don't have unknown male DNA under my fingernails, on my waistband, or mixed with my blood that is on my underwear, that all match. See what I mean?

I see, but you don't. I can't be that sure. That's why I try not to think about it.

For RDI, reality is apparently optional.

Let me give you a heavy dose of reality:

In Depue's opinion, "The writer is a well-educated, middle-aged female. The writer used the term 'fat cat,' suggesting that the person is middle aged. 'Fat cat' is a term used in the 1960s and 1970s. The writer," Depue said, "is a close relative, friend, or business associate, in that order." Depue said that conclusion and the circumstances surrounding the note fit the profile of Patricia Ramsey.

In December of 2006, to mark a full decade since JonBenet had been killed, several forensic and behavioral experts were asked to weigh in. One of them was Robert K. Ressler, founder of the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit. He echoed many of DePue's sentiments, saying that "it's absolutely phony. Usually, a ransom note just gives the basics. But this one was full of colorful language and mixed messages. Then there's the matter of why any kidnapper would demand money when the victim's dead body was left behind. There's an almost maternal quality to comments like, 'the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. A hardened criminal would never use those terms. He also noted that the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was "FBI." Putting periods between letters in acronyms is a grammatical touch that has not been standard since the late 1960s. Patsy was born on December 29, 1956 and would have been a kid learning her English lessons in school before then. In those turbulent times, many organizations came along with "alphabet soup" names, and none of them used periods. There was SDS--Students for Democratic Society; PLO- Palestinian Liberation Organization; NOI-- Nation of Islam; SLA-- Symbionese Liberation Army (the people who kidnapped Patty Hearst and made the term "Stockholm Syndrome" famous); and the list goes on and on. Patsy was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was "To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J." That meant "To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism." Patsy Ramsey had graduated college as a journalism major. She knew how to write a good story, and the note, as written, contained an opening that was properly set off from the body of the ransom letter, the way we were all taught to compose a letter. "Mr. Ramsey" is set off in a way that "Dear John" would be. Also, the closing line "Victory! S.B.T.C." was set off the way "Yours truly" would be rather than contained in the block of writing. Patsy Ramsey's writings from before and after the killing contain a large number of exclamation points, as does the ransom note. Not only that, but the reference to John Ramsey being a "fat cat," is also interesting. Not only was it a popular way for lefties to refer to rich people they see as evil or corrupt in the Sixties (some of them still do it), but from what I can gather, it was a nickname for John Ramsey, a rich corporate executive, that was used by Patsy's mother and father. Ressler also notes that the letter tells John to use his "good Southern common sense." John Ramsey is not from the American South. He originally comes from Michigan, near the Canadian border. Patsy Ramsey was born in West Virginia, right on the Mason-Dixon line, and lived for a long time in Atlanta, Georgia. Patsy's mother Nedra was often heard to say that John had "good Southern common sense" as a joke because he was a great businessman and for marrying her daughter, Patsy. Isn't that a coincidence?
Ressler also pointed out the use of the word "attaché." It's a word with French origins. It is usually spelled with the accent over the "e" to denote the sound of an "a." Patsy had studied French and lived in Atlanta, which has a strong undercurrent of French heritage. JonBenet's own name is a pseudo-French version of her father's first and middle names, John Bennett. It is always spelled with the accent over the second "e." Who else would bother with something like that? Lastly, concerning the ransom letter, DePue and Ressler and several others mentioned the $118,000 bonus that John Ramsey got at the end of the year. Who would know that except someone who was very familiar with John?

And that's just for openings!

If I were RDI I would stick to the DNA contamination of the crime scene. At least that would explain why the DNA samples all match and are in conspicuous places.

Yes, it would. Holdon, I realize I don't tell you this often, but thank you. I shall think about it.

Trying to sell this DNA as innocent transfer isn't based in reality at all.

Tell that to the criminologists and forensic experts I mentioned a while back. It's not me coming up with this, it's them.

 

[UKGuy]

This is comedy at its finest. You mean the evidence that pretty much everybody besides this board feels is the missing link. Whether you agree with the experts who do this for a living or not, it is fact that this foreign DNA points to an intruder. It is not a matter of me being right or wrong, it is a matter of this is how it is. Pointing fingers at the Ramsey's is why this case has been unsolved for the last 12 years. Now the case stands a chance to be solved.

Roy23,

This is comedy at its finest.

Welcome to the JonBenet Ramsey case. Have you checked out J M Karr's emails, taped phone calls, his claims make for fine comedy. You should also check out Lou Smits Intruder Theory, its really a Cabbala masterclass in jokes. Or how about John Ramsey himself, check out some of his media interviews, its all about laughing all the way to the bank!

Whether you agree with the experts who do this for a living or not, it is fact that this foreign DNA points to an intruder.

Now you must stop this public clowning around, you will give comedians a bad reputation. I know of no expert who has linked any foreign dna discovered on JonBenet with any intruder!

There is zero forensic evidence linking any intruder with the death of JonBenet.

it is fact that this foreign DNA points to an intruder.

mmm, hey thats a good joke , I'm laughing my socks off, I'll bet its a Lacy water cooler joke heheheh.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Let me give you a heavy dose of reality:

In Depue's opinion, "The writer is a well-educated, middle-aged female. The writer used the term 'fat cat,' suggesting that the person is middle aged. 'Fat cat' is a term used in the 1960s and 1970s. The writer," Depue said, "is a close relative, friend, or business associate, in that order." Depue said that conclusion and the circumstances surrounding the note fit the profile of Patricia Ramsey.

In December of 2006, to mark a full decade since JonBenet had been killed, several forensic and behavioral experts were asked to weigh in. One of them was Robert K. Ressler, founder of the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit. He echoed many of DePue's sentiments, saying that "it's absolutely phony. Usually, a ransom note just gives the basics. But this one was full of colorful language and mixed messages. Then there's the matter of why any kidnapper would demand money when the victim's dead body was left behind. There's an almost maternal quality to comments like, 'the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. A hardened criminal would never use those terms. He also noted that the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was "FBI." Putting periods between letters in acronyms is a grammatical touch that has not been standard since the late 1960s. Patsy was born on December 29, 1956 and would have been a kid learning her English lessons in school before then. In those turbulent times, many organizations came along with "alphabet soup" names, and none of them used periods. There was SDS--Students for Democratic Society; PLO- Palestinian Liberation Organization; NOI-- Nation of Islam; SLA-- Symbionese Liberation Army (the people who kidnapped Patty Hearst and made the term "Stockholm Syndrome" famous); and the list goes on and on. Patsy was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was "To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J." That meant "To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism." Patsy Ramsey had graduated college as a journalism major. She knew how to write a good story, and the note, as written, contained an opening that was properly set off from the body of the ransom letter, the way we were all taught to compose a letter. "Mr. Ramsey" is set off in a way that "Dear John" would be. Also, the closing line "Victory! S.B.T.C." was set off the way "Yours truly" would be rather than contained in the block of writing. Patsy Ramsey's writings from before and after the killing contain a large number of exclamation points, as does the ransom note. Not only that, but the reference to John Ramsey being a "fat cat," is also interesting. Not only was it a popular way for lefties to refer to rich people they see as evil or corrupt in the Sixties (some of them still do it), but from what I can gather, it was a nickname for John Ramsey, a rich corporate executive, that was used by Patsy's mother and father. Ressler also notes that the letter tells John to use his "good Southern common sense." John Ramsey is not from the American South. He originally comes from Michigan, near the Canadian border. Patsy Ramsey was born in West Virginia, right on the Mason-Dixon line, and lived for a long time in Atlanta, Georgia. Patsy's mother Nedra was often heard to say that John had "good Southern common sense" as a joke because he was a great businessman and for marrying her daughter, Patsy. Isn't that a coincidence?
Ressler also pointed out the use of the word "attaché." It's a word with French origins. It is usually spelled with the accent over the "e" to denote the sound of an "a." Patsy had studied French and lived in Atlanta, which has a strong undercurrent of French heritage. JonBenet's own name is a pseudo-French version of her father's first and middle names, John Bennett. It is always spelled with the accent over the second "e." Who else would bother with something like that? Lastly, concerning the ransom letter, DePue and Ressler and several others mentioned the $118,000 bonus that John Ramsey got at the end of the year. Who would know that except someone who was very familiar with John?

And that's just for openings!

You promised a dose of reality, instead its hearsay, third party opinion, wild speculation, and highly subjective observations.

Usually, reality is based in fact, and in this case, case fact. Any RDI argument is going to have to cope with the objective case facts, that aren't just an outsider's opinion.

The cold hard case facts are:

• Unknown male DNA trace found in three (3) criminally conspicuous places. Innocent transfer claim is bogus, oddly clung to by those already committed to RDI.
• Unsourced tape, found on JBR but not factually known to be used in any legitimate household application.
• Unsourced cord, found twice on JBR but also not found in any legitimate household application.

The unsourced tape and cord are a bigger problem for RDI than they would ever admit. Unless you're already predisposed to RDI, it clearly raises the prospect that the tape and cord were brought by an intruder for the purpose of kidnapping or killing JBR.

 

[BBB167893]

You promised a dose of reality, instead its hearsay, third party opinion, wild speculation, and highly subjective observations.

None of which you have a problem with, as your frequent references to Clint Van Zandt can attest.

Usually, reality is based in fact, and in this case, case fact. Any RDI argument is going to have to cope with the objective case facts, that aren't just an outsider's opinion.

Very well, then. Now I'm through being Generous George. Try this one:

The cord around JonBenet's neck had a fair amount of slack in it between where it was tied to the cord and where it met her neck. To use it effectively, the person would have to pull the cord up over their head almost; or wrap it around their arm. Not a very practical job, on the whole. The autopsy photos present a grim and grisly image of JonBenet's neck squeezed into an hourglass from the strangulation. To the eye, it looks horrific. Indeed, this has led many people to believe that no parent could do this to their child. But the autopsy reveals that there were no marks on JonBenet's tongue or on the inside of her mouth that would indicate her to have fought her killer. The report also reveals that the larynx, the strap muscles of the neck and the hyoid bone were all undamaged. In 1999, former Denver DA Norm Early was reported to have stated that when you stage strangulation, "you don't want the coroner to come back and say, 'oh, this couldn't have really killed somebody.' So you pull it deeper and deeper." Also, the little girl's hair was tied into both the neck knot and the handle knot. That means not only was it made on her body, but the killer had her face-down because they couldn't look her in the face. Most notably, the knot at the back of her neck and the knot on the stick had JonBenet's hair tied into it. This means that the garrote was made on her body, not prepared ahead of time.

And this:

Lastly, JonBenet's grave marker says she died on December 25, 1996. Since the time of death was never nailed down 100%, you have to wonder why the Ramseys would put that date on there.

And this:

In the autopsy report, JonBenet's intestine was explored. Inside was a greenish substance that could have been digested plant material such as fruit or vegetables. As Det. Thomas and Det. Smit later confirmed, it was, in fact, pineapple, the same kind that was found in the bowl on the counter of the Ramsey home kitchen. In Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, the coroner's report said that the pineapple was in "near-perfect condition" with "sharp edges" and appeared to have been "poorly chewed." The pineapple in the bowl was fresh, not canned. Smit told John Ramsey in 1998 that it was a "big bugaboo." The average rate of digestion for pineapple is two hours. It can take as little as one-and-one-half hours, or as long as three hours. This can be affected by the person's metabolism or any illnesses they might have. To narrow it down, the police investigated what JonBenet might have eaten that day. According to Fleet and Priscilla White, they did not serve pineapple at their party on Christmas night. They did serve cracked crab, and apparently, JonBenet liked it enough to ask to take some home. Fleet White obliged. It's likely that whatever she had eaten was already processed by the time of her death, since no cracked crab was found.
Now, the Ramseys have always said that JonBenet fell asleep in the car on the way home and remained asleep until she was killed. Oddly, in an early interview, Burke Ramsey told the authorities that JonBenet was awake and walked up the stairs ahead of him. He later recanted. I wonder why. But the pineapple is important because it puts the lie to the idea that JonBenet was asleep. The Ramseys arrived home at 10:00 PM. Dr. Werner Spitz estimated the time of death as around 1:00 AM. That means that JonBenet had to have eaten the pineapple after she got home. Since the only fingerprints found on the bowl and spoon belonged to Patsy and Burke, JonBenet didn't get to it herself. She couldn't reach the top of the counter, so she'd need to climb on something to reach it, but nothing was out of place. None of the kitchen chairs were moved. So, someone had to get it for her. This is the big lie the Ramseys were caught in. To this day, they contend that no one in the house fed it to her, and even they can't swallow the idea that an intruder gave it to her, then waited the two hours for it to digest before he killed her. If they had just said, "yes, we gave her some as a bedtime snack," that would have been the end of it. Only one parent would have to know. When I was a kid, my dad would give his two boys a piece of candy every now and then, saying, "here, fellas. Don't tell your mother." And we never did! But, since they had already told the cops that JonBenet was asleep and never woke up, thus they couldn't have fed her anything, their rice was already fried.

Now add that to what I said earlier.

The cold hard case facts are:

[*]Unknown male DNA trace found in three (3) criminally conspicuous places. Innocent transfer claim is bogus, oddly clung to by those already committed to RDI.

What I wouldn't give for a roundtable discussion about now!

[*]Unsourced tape, found on JBR but not factually known to be used in any legitimate household application.
[*]Unsourced cord, found twice on JBR but also not found in any legitimate household application.

One possibility: the dolls. But whether it was used or not, items matching the prices of the cord and the tape were found on PR's credit card records. It may not be a lead-pipe cinch, but sure is damn peculiar, wouldn't you say?

The unsourced tape and cord are a bigger problem for RDI than they would ever admit.

Not at all. Where I'm from, we have a saying: close enough for jazz.

Unless you're already predisposed to RDI, it clearly raises the prospect that the tape and cord were brought by an intruder for the purpose of kidnapping or killing JBR.

But they forget to bring everything else?

Prospect, maybe. But the BPD was quite convinced that they knew where it came from and who bought it, at least by the time they made their presentation in "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town." (Which I strongly recommend.) What became of it afterward is of lesser importance, wouldn't you say? Here's what I mean: if I can show it was there at the time, I don't really have to show where it went, now do I?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Very well, then. Now I'm through being Generous George. Try this one:

The cord around JonBenet's neck had a fair amount of slack in it between where it was tied to the cord and where it met her neck. To use it effectively, the person would have to pull the cord up over their head almost; or wrap it around their arm. Not a very practical job, on the whole. The autopsy photos present a grim and grisly image of JonBenet's neck squeezed into an hourglass from the strangulation. To the eye, it looks horrific. Indeed, this has led many people to believe that no parent could do this to their child. But the autopsy reveals that there were no marks on JonBenet's tongue or on the inside of her mouth that would indicate her to have fought her killer. The report also reveals that the larynx, the strap muscles of the neck and the hyoid bone were all undamaged. In 1999, former Denver DA Norm Early was reported to have stated that when you stage strangulation, "you don't want the coroner to come back and say, 'oh, this couldn't have really killed somebody.' So you pull it deeper and deeper." Also, the little girl's hair was tied into both the neck knot and the handle knot. That means not only was it made on her body, but the killer had her face-down because they couldn't look her in the face. Most notably, the knot at the back of her neck and the knot on the stick had JonBenet's hair tied into it. This means that the garrote was made on her body, not prepared ahead of time.

Heresay, wild speculation, massive and blind assumptions, and wrong conclusions based on exaggerated or inaccurate information. Thats what you have here.

Show me where it says hair was 'tied into' knots on an official report. I've got to see that one. Or do we just make these 'hair was tied into knots' observations on our own, having only seen photos?


I have one question for SD or anyone else. Isn't RDI missing a smoking gun? Really missing a smoking gun?

You have the victim, the murder weapon, a 1500 character ransom note, samples of the parents writing, their DNA, their psychological profile, etc. etc., and STILL can't find a smoking gun for more than ten years. Instead, pesky unknown male DNA showing up all over the place.

Tells you something, huh.

Theres no way to know for sure any of this stuff you present as fact. Its all just speculation. Probably the cord was tied ahead of time, as was the 2nd ligature.

 

[DeeDee249]

The fingernail DNA has been discussed many, many times, Holdon, yet you choose to ignore the facts. Don't take my word for it- do your own research and see for yourself.
There was NO usable DNA retrieved from under her fingernails, male or otherwise. It was both degraded, and contaminated by the coroners' poor choice of going against proper procedures and using the same nail clipper for each fingernail, instead of 10 sterile clippers, one for each nail.
This carelessness and failure to follow procedures makes all the DNA from her nails suspect- they may not have been sterilized before using them on JBR, therefore any DNA may have come from another corpse's fingernails.
It was never said anywhere except on IDI boards, that the fingernail DNA matched any other DNA on her body or clothes. The DNA in her panties has now been found to match the DNA on her longjohns, but NO DNA has been matched to her fingernails, male or otherwise.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The fingernail DNA has been discussed many, many times, Holdon, yet you choose to ignore the facts. Don't take my word for it- do your own research and see for yourself.
There was NO usable DNA retrieved from under her fingernails, male or otherwise. It was both degraded, and contaminated by the coroners' poor choice of going against proper procedures and using the same nail clipper for each fingernail, instead of 10 sterile clippers, one for each nail.
This carelessness and failure to follow procedures makes all the DNA from her nails suspect- they may not have been sterilized before using them on JBR, therefore any DNA may have come from another corpse's fingernails.
It was never said anywhere except on IDI boards, that the fingernail DNA matched any other DNA on her body or clothes. The DNA in her panties has now been found to match the DNA on her longjohns, but NO DNA has been matched to her fingernails, male or otherwise.

...while you choose to ignore the news? What you are saying is simply false.

From CNN (not an IDI board):

"Late last year, Lacy ordered a test using new methodology known as "touch" testing on genetic material found on a pair of long johns that had been pulled up over the girl's underwear. That material matched DNA that was found on the girl's underwear and under her fingernails in a test conducted in 1998. The DNA belongs to an unidentified man, Lacy said."

 

[DeeDee249]

...while you choose to ignore the news? What you are saying is simply false.

From CNN (not an IDI board):

"Late last year, Lacy ordered a test using new methodology known as "touch" testing on genetic material found on a pair of long johns that had been pulled up over the girl's underwear. That material matched DNA that was found on the girl's underwear and under her fingernails in a test conducted in 1998. The DNA belongs to an unidentified man, Lacy said."

Actually, CNN was wrong on that count. It happens, you know- they've been wrong before. There was NO usable DNA retrieved from under her fingernails.