Henry Lee's comment on the Touch DNA

[Roy23]

Roy23,

Only if you can link it to an intruder. Also to avoid confusion we should be told if Patsy's touch dna is on the longjohns, or even John's? We need to know this so we can take the foreign touch dna seriously. Also is there foreign touch dna on the waistband of the size-12's, is John's touch dna to be found there? Without these questions being answered, the foreign touch dna, does not mean much, not unless you wish to use it to exonerate the Ramsey's?


.

UK,

Here is my point. Until it is linked to someone, because of all the other bungles from a variety of different things, enough reasonable doubt would exist that a conviction would be almost impossible. I am saying forget all the opinions that people here have, including me. I am just saying it doesn't matter who the DNA belongs to but until they find it, a killer would not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt short of a confession.

This DNA may be able to be explained away by some on this board, although I and whole lot of other experts would disagree, but it would still create enough reasonable doubt.

 

[BBB167893]

Everybody is getting all bent out of shape here. I think it is time to change the focus here.

We're just people trying to navigate the choppy water, Roy. Just like you.

They had 12 years to prosecute the Ramsey's and no matter the reason, it is not going to happen unless one thing happens. We can spin this 1000 different ways but until they match this "foreign DNA" nothing this case is stalled.

Or they get a confession from John or Burke. Unlikely, though. There is one thing. Not that it matters in any way, but when Patsy died (a terrible day, all around, no matter my feelings) she didn't make a confession. Some people might say she had nothing to confess, other may claim she was determined to take it to her grave. It might be simpler than all that. She may not have been able to speak. When my mom was dying from her cancer, she was kept heavily sedated. When she was awake, she could not speak. She was so devastated by it, she couldn't talk at all. Like I said, it really doesn't matter. I'm just spitballing.

But it put things in perspective a little bit. There is no hate left in me for Patsy Ramsey, not one bit. And not for a long time. Only sadness. Whatever she did or did not do, I forgive. I don't ask anyone to agree with me. I'm just saying.

If you want justice, this is what has to happen. No matter who is right or wrong, it is impossible to convict anyone until it happens.

Looks that way.

Dave has all this circumstancial evidence that he thinks points to the credibility of the Ramsey's.

Not only me.

Assuming that most of it is factual,

I have good reason to believe it is.

I still don't think you convict until the DNA question is resolved.

It is crucial no matter what is true. Agreed?

Agreed, sir. Well said.

 

[BBB167893]

UK,

Here is my point. Until it is linked to someone, because of all the other bungles from a variety of different things, enough reasonable doubt would exist that a conviction would be almost impossible. I am saying forget all the opinions that people here have, including me. I am just saying it doesn't matter who the DNA belongs to but until they find it, a killer would not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt short of a confession.

This DNA may be able to be explained away by some on this board, although I and whole lot of other experts would disagree, but it would still create enough reasonable doubt.

Roy, when you put forth your feelings like that, we can get along just fine. I see what you mean, and with a few exceptions, I can't really argue with you.

 

[Roy23]

Roy, when you put forth your feelings like that, we can get along just fine. I see what you mean, and with a few exceptions, I can't really argue with you.

Some people say they want justice for JBR. If it died with Patsy, then I would like to know. I want them to go all out to find the source of that DNA because until it happens, justice would never be served in my opinion. A defense attorney would shred this case apart no matter if the defendant was guilty or not.

 

[Chrishope]

Some people say they want justice for JBR. If it died with Patsy, then I would like to know. I want them to go all out to find the source of that DNA because until it happens, justice would never be served in my opinion. A defense attorney would shred this case apart no matter if the defendant was guilty or not.

It's quite possible there will never be a match. If going all out is putting the dna profile on CODIS and waiting for a match, they've already gone all out. If going all out means trying to match it to every male (of every age) who had or may have had contact with JBR from say the 23rd through the 25th, well, I just don't see that happening.

Lacy is happy to have dna not belonging to a Ramsey. For her, that's enough, because her interest is in exonerating the Rs, not in finding JBR's killer.

If it's matched, it's possible it will destroy the last glimmer of hope for the IDI theory. For example, it could match to a boy who was 8 years old in 1996, who played with JBR at the White's X-mass party.

It's possible that it matches an adult who has a perfectly reasonable explanation for touching the waistband of the LJs. (Helped her go to the bathroom)

It's also possible of course, that it could be matched to a known sex offender, who was in Boulder at the time and has no reasonable explanation for touching the waistband (wasn't at the X-mass party, didn't help JBR go to the bathroom).

Please note that there is not "explaining away" going on here. Any of the above scenarios are possible. We simply won't know until/unless there is a match.

As an aside, does anyone know how old the LJs were? What I'm getting at is if they had been recently purchased, then it might be "factory worker" dna after all, with a small amount being transfered to the panties by JBR herself. OTOH, if they were a year or so old, and had been washed many times, the "factory worker" source is less likely.

 

[Roy23]

It's quite possible there will never be a match. If going all out is putting the dna profile on CODIS and waiting for a match, they've already gone all out. If going all out means trying to match it to every male (of every age) who had or may have had contact with JBR from say the 23rd through the 25th, well, I just don't see that happening.

Lacy is happy to have dna not belonging to a Ramsey. For her, that's enough, because her interest is in exonerating the Rs, not in finding JBR's killer.

If it's matched, it's possible it will destroy the last glimmer of hope for the IDI theory. For example, it could match to a boy who was 8 years old in 1996, who played with JBR at the White's X-mass party.

It's possible that it matches an adult who has a perfectly reasonable explanation for touching the waistband of the LJs. (Helped her go to the bathroom)

It's also possible of course, that it could be matched to a known sex offender, who was in Boulder at the time and has no reasonable explanation for touching the waistband (wasn't at the X-mass party, didn't help JBR go to the bathroom).

Please note that there is not "explaining away" going on here. Any of the above scenarios are possible. We simply won't know until/unless there is a match.

As an aside, does anyone know how old the LJs were? What I'm getting at is if they had been recently purchased, then it might be "factory worker" dna after all, with a small amount being transfered to the panties by JBR herself. OTOH, if they were a year or so old, and had been washed many times, the "factory worker" source is less likely.

That is all I am saying. I am reading a lot more about the case and it is clear that a whole lot of things should be done that were not. Some of it is LE's fault, some of it is the DA's fault, and some of it falls on team Ramsey. This is a weird case with weird events. The experts that I have read from today can make arguments against and for the Ramsey's. They have a problem with this case from all angles and I see that now.

It is pertinent that they find this DNA to get a conviction or get to the truth. I do hope that they continue to investigate all the other aspects of the case instead of waiting on a Codis hit. That is now a fear of mine.

 

[BBB167893]

Some people say they want justice for JBR. If it died with Patsy, then I would like to know. I want them to go all out to find the source of that DNA because until it happens, justice would never be served in my opinion. A defense attorney would shred this case apart no matter if the defendant was guilty or not.

Then we understand each other.

 

[BBB167893]

That is all I am saying. I am reading a lot more about the case and it is clear that a whole lot of things should be done that were not. Some of it is LE's fault, some of it is the DA's fault, and some of it falls on team Ramsey. This is a weird case with weird events. The experts that I have read from today can make arguments against and for the Ramsey's. They have a problem with this case from all angles and I see that now.

Sort of 50/50.

It is pertinent that they find this DNA to get a conviction or get to the truth. I do hope that they continue to investigate all the other aspects of the case instead of waiting on a Codis hit. That is now a fear of mine.[/QUOTE]

A well-justified fear, Roy23, if you ask my opinion.

 

[DeeDee249]

That is all I am saying. I am reading a lot more about the case and it is clear that a whole lot of things should be done that were not. Some of it is LE's fault, some of it is the DA's fault, and some of it falls on team Ramsey. This is a weird case with weird events. The experts that I have read from today can make arguments against and for the Ramsey's. They have a problem with this case from all angles and I see that now.

It is pertinent that they find this DNA to get a conviction or get to the truth. I do hope that they continue to investigate all the other aspects of the case instead of waiting on a Codis hit. That is now a fear of mine.

This is a point well taken, and I agree, especially with your last paragraph. I wish all IDIs were as reasonable as you, it makes a dialogue so much more productive.
Yes, matching the DNA to a donor WILL help solve this case, for sure. Either it will match an intruder, possibly one with a prior record- or as has been just said, will match someone at the White's party and there may be an innocent reason for the DNA to be there (as in JBR touched something and got the skin cells on her own hands, or someone helped her and touched her clothing. What has made this more difficult, and I think you may agree, is that it was wrong of Mary Lacy to state that the DNA belongs to the "KILLER". It may or it may not. It's presence alone, while needing to be explained, need not indicate participation in the crime.
I am very glad you are reading more on this case. I read for a few years before I joined this board, including 6 books on the case, as well as nearly every thread on this site and all of acandyrose.
No matter what side of the fence we sit on (IDI or RDI) we ALL want the same thing- solving this awful crime and justice for a murdered little girl.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's possible that it matches an adult who has a perfectly reasonable explanation for touching the waistband of the LJs. (Helped her go to the bathroom)

No it isn't possible, not based on news reports. The DNA on the LJ's matched DNA that was 'mixed with blood' in her underwear, which also matched DNA under JBR's fingernails. You can't pick and choose which tests or which DNA you want to include and which you want to exclude. Its there in three locations, and all locations are pertinent to a violent sexual assault. Thats the whole point of the DA's statement, that RDI casually dismisses thru ad hominem argument.

I think the audio tape testing had even more RDI attention than does the DNA testing, for obvious reason.

 

[DeeDee249]

Here he is with the fingernails again....:banghead:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That is all I am saying. I am reading a lot more about the case and it is clear that a whole lot of things should be done that were not. Some of it is LE's fault, some of it is the DA's fault, and some of it falls on team Ramsey. This is a weird case with weird events. The experts that I have read from today can make arguments against and for the Ramsey's. They have a problem with this case from all angles and I see that now.

It is pertinent that they find this DNA to get a conviction or get to the truth. I do hope that they continue to investigate all the other aspects of the case instead of waiting on a Codis hit. That is now a fear of mine.

Me too, as I believe the perp is remote. Not subject to either handwriting comparisons or DNA testing. And knew it at the time of the crime.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Here he is with the fingernails again....:banghead:

The DNA under JBR's fingernails is frequently referred to in the media as DNA evidence. Even if it doesn't match other DNA, it still can be matched to an owner, otherwise its not DNA evidence. IDI can have more than one DNA owner because there can be more than one intruder.

 

[Ames]

Here he is with the fingernails again....:banghead:

LOL...I KNOW! What part of the fingernail DNA was degraded and unusable does he not understand? EVEN PAM, the aunt...said this, and she should know. Also, the blood...how many times do we have to tell him that the blood belonged to JB, not the killer.

 

[Roy23]

I don't think that Nancy Grace is the most credible source to use for this case but one of the clips I saw of her might be of note to some of you. A caller asked about the possibility of touch DNA falling into her underwear. She pretty much blew that out of the water before her expert guest did as well. They said the only possiblility of something crazy like that happening is if it were a liquid DNA.

Remember that I really don't want to use Nancy to try and prove a point but many here do. It is obvious that her take on this case has changed. I think she might believe that the Ramsey's are in the know but not the killer. She has backtracked.

 

[Ames]

I don't think that Nancy Grace is the most credible source to use for this case but one of the clips I saw of her might be of note to some of you. A caller asked about the possibility of touch DNA falling into her underwear. She pretty much blew that out of the water before her expert guest did as well. They said the only possiblility of something crazy like that happening is if it were a liquid DNA.

Remember that I really don't want to use Nancy to try and prove a point but many here do. It is obvious that her take on this case has changed. I think she might believe that the Ramsey's are in the know but not the killer. She has backtracked.

Hi Roy, this is the wrong thread for this...(I have a Nancy Grace thread that you should put this on), but that's okay. You seem like a good guy, I will let you slide this time . Nah, but seriously...I would really like to know what she thinks about this case. I don't believe that she is a great source on this case either, but in my Nancy Grace thread, I just thought that it was interesting that she said that the touch DNA HARDLY exonerated the Ramseys. I take more stock in what Marc Klaas has to say...he has been there and done that (lost a daughter to murder), and HE believes that there was NO intruder. This is even after the touch DNA evidence came out. (I would love to know why Nancy has backtracked though).

 

[Roy23]

Hi Roy, this is the wrong thread for this...(I have a Nancy Grace thread that you should put this on), but that's okay. You seem like a good guy, I will let you slide this time . Nah, but seriously...I would really like to know what she thinks about this case. I don't believe that she is a great source on this case either, but in my Nancy Grace thread, I just thought that it was interesting that she said that the touch DNA HARDLY exonerated the Ramseys. I take more stock in what Marc Klaas has to say...he has been there and done that (lost a daughter to murder), and HE believes that there was NO intruder. This is even after the touch DNA evidence came out. (I would love to know why Nancy has backtracked though).

I can answer that somewhat but I will do it later on the appropriate thread.

 

[Ames]

I can answer that somewhat but I will do it later on the appropriate thread.

Thanks Roy, I hope that you know that I was only kidding. I don't care what thread you put your comment about Nancy Grace under. But, probably more people that are interested in what Nancy Grace has to say, will click on the Nancy Grace link, and read your comments, whereas they may not read it under Henry Lee's link.

 

[BBB167893]

The DNA under JBR's fingernails is frequently referred to in the media as DNA evidence.

And you believe everything the media says? That "news" bit suggests that the nail and panty DNA were matched to each other back in 1998. But we know they weren't because, among other things, Schiller wrote in PMPT that they still had not been able to do that.

The only sources I've seen for that have been Lin Wood, John San Augustin and Ollie Gray: ALL of whom are hired goons for the Ramseys themselves. Tom Bennett, an investgator for the DA, came out and said that the DA's office didn't believe the fingernail DNA was of any value because of contamination issues. If I'm lying, may I be struck dead.

Even if it doesn't match other DNA, it still can be matched to an owner, otherwise its not DNA evidence.

Now you're talking.

IDI can have more than one DNA owner because there can be more than one intruder.

Perhaps I spoke too soon.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't think that Nancy Grace is the most credible source to use for this case but one of the clips I saw of her might be of note to some of you. A caller asked about the possibility of touch DNA falling into her underwear. She pretty much blew that out of the water before her expert guest did as well. They said the only possiblility of something crazy like that happening is if it were a liquid DNA.

Remember that I really don't want to use Nancy to try and prove a point but many here do. It is obvious that her take on this case has changed. I think she might believe that the Ramsey's are in the know but not the killer. She has backtracked.

Who knows what's in a person's heart, Roy?