IDI: Whats your problem?

[claudicici]

"This murder however, appears to be one of extreme hate. But who was the hatred directed at? Surely not JBR!"

I think extreme hate is just a step away from extreme love.If PR did it I think of it as a crime of passion...she identified so much with her daughter almost as if they were one and if she found out she was molested and she was molested as well I could imagine her acting all her hidden emotions out on JB and that's why it looked so much like staging......if an intruder did it I believe the R's knew who hated them with so much passion and took care of it themselves somehow and did not want LE to know what they know....JMO....and even if they did not know I feel like they deliberately did not tell the truth because of their mistrust in LE.....

 

[MurriFlower]

..the underwear issue really is a big deal to me and one of the things that make me lean towards RDI....just like DD said I remember what size underwear my daughter wore at any age,if I put longjohns on her christmas night and she was found dead the next morning,the type of underwear she wore would be one of the things forever etched into my mind.If she would have worn the size 12 that I bought for her niece I probably would have smiled that night and thought "oh she got out those panties and kept them for herself"...if she would not have worn any underwear that would have been an enormous red flag which I would have remembered without a doubt,if she would have worn her size underwear when I put her to sleep I would KNOW that the killer changed her....but why doesn't PR know? why is she lying?...like DD said ANY mother would know,I really believe that....

She said she didn't notice anything unusual. I don't have the issue that RDI does, assuming she is lying every time what she says doesn't agree with what we think we know. In fact, you could look at it from the point of view of 'why was LE lying about the size of the panties?'. It's a bit like the fibers tied in the garrote and in the paint tote. There is no where these things are spoken of except in her interviews. So we aren't sure if it is real evidence or an attempt by LE to trap her. Is there any corroborating evidence of any kind?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

She said she didn't notice anything unusual. I don't have the issue that RDI does, assuming she is lying every time what she says doesn't agree with what we think we know. In fact, you could look at it from the point of view of 'why was LE lying about the size of the panties?'. It's a bit like the fibers tied in the garrote and in the paint tote. There is no where these things are spoken of except in her interviews. So we aren't sure if it is real evidence or an attempt by LE to trap her. Is there any corroborating evidence of any kind?

No, there isn't any corroboration. Unlike the DNA, where we have a lab website reference, various DNA expert statements, news reports, DA statements all mutually corroborative. The paint tote and garrote fiber supposedly belonging to PR's jacket seems to be an absolute hoax (guess she was cold and needed one inside the house, what with all that panic writing, climbing stairs, staging, etc. going on!) .

 

[UKGuy]

Oh I see you edited.



Well, it is RDI that brings up the size and that they would have fallen off her. I find I have to investigate every single claim to establish if it is valid. This one, the 'oversized panties' of RDI fame, said to be size 12 (and by presumption to fit a 12 year old), I think I have established were more likely sized for girls 8-10, and were only 2" larger in waist than her regular panties, so were not the enormous ones pictured by another poster on a dummy. Each of these little things are what RDI uses to establish a 'body of circumstantial evidence' against the Rs. If they are taken and closely examined one by one, we find that they have little or no substance.



She did not say she wrapped the panties in the basement. That's misleading. She had some gifts wrapped in the store and apparently she had also wrapped some herself. To say that this was a gift, therefore it was wrapped and was in the winecellar is making an incorrect assumption. PR said these panties were in the drawer, and I think you agreed that this was also suspicious for another reason, but now it apparently suits your purpose to assume they were in the basement.

The fact remains, whether they were in the basement wrapped/opened or in the drawer in the box or not, why didn't BPD find them?

MurriFlower,
There were no size-12's found in JonBenet's underwear drawer or anywhere else in the house.

She did not say she wrapped the panties in the basement.

That is not the same as saying that the panties were not located in the basement.

The fact remains, whether they were in the basement wrapped/opened or in the drawer in the box or not, why didn't BPD find them?

Very simply because the Ramsey's removed them.

She did not say she wrapped the panties in the basement. That's misleading.

RDI suggests she unwrapped or opened the size-12's plastic container in the basement though. And that is not misleading at all.

To say that this was a gift, therefore it was wrapped and was in the winecellar is making an incorrect assumption.

Patsy is on record stating that she never gift-wrapped the size-12's, instead she gave them to JonBenet.

So were the Bloomingdales size-12's sent back to Boulder and gift wrapped by FAO Schwartz?
June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth

2 TOM HANEY: Would any of these packages be
3 opened?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably. Well, see, these
5 came up, I was at FAO Schwartz in New York when
6 JonBenet and I were up there for a trip, and I had them
7 sent back to Boulder and they wrapped them, free gift
8 wrapping.

If the size-12's were never located in the basement, then where were they kept, certainly not in JonBenet's underwear drawer, certainly in no place an intruder would know where to look.


Patsy states that she purchased underwear from Bloomingdales
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
3 know where they come from as far as what
4 store?
5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
6 Q. Who purchased those?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased
9 them?
10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.
11 Q. In the fall of 1996, how many
12 trips did you make to New York?
13 A. Two, I believe.

Patsy has amnesia as to whether she purchased one or two packs of underwear, but states she did purchase one pack.
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

1 A. I remember that.
2 Q. Which of those two trips did you
3 purchase the Bloomi's?
4 A. The first trip.
5 Q. Was it something that was selected
6 by JonBenet?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q. Was it your intention, when you
9 purchased those, for those to be for her,
10 not for some third party as a gift?
11 A. I bought some things that were
12 gifts and some things for her. So I
13 don't --
14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is
15 your best recollection that the purchase of
16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the
17 week, was something that you bought for her,
18 whether it was just I am buying underwear
19 for my kids or these are special, here's a
20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your
21 intention that she would wear those?
22 A. Well, I think that I bought a
23 package of the -- they came in a package of
24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
25 I think I bought a package to give to my
0081
1 niece.
2 Q. Which niece was that?
3 A. Jenny Davis.
4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
5 you remember that they come in kind of a
6 plastic see-through plastic container.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. They are rolled up?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,
11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your
12 niece, and one for JonBenet?
13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or
14 two.
15 Q. Do you remember what size they
16 were?
17 A. Not exactly.
18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the
19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your
20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you
21 can accept that as a fact, when she was
22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit
23 her. Were you aware of that?

Patsy states that she placed the underwear in her bathroom and JonBenet opened them up.
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to
22 understand is whether -- we are trying to
23 understand why she is wearing such a large
24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can
25 help us if you have a recollection of it.
0084
1 A. I am sure that I put the package
2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened
3 them and put them on.

Patsy states that underwear intended for Jenny Davis end up in JonBenet's bathroom e.g. they then cannot be located in the basement!
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
14 And I am not saying --
15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?
0087
1 A. Right.

Patsy now states that she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer in her bathroom. And that the size-12's never left the house.
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
8 think I bought them with the intention of
9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
11 together, so I just put them in her, her
12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

Patsy is told by police that JonBenet was found to be wearing size-12 underwear, and that there were no size-12 underwear found in JonBenet's underwear drawer, or anywhere else in the house. This directly contradicts Patsy's account.
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

In DOI (page 5), John describes Patsy as doing some last-minute gift wrapping of presents, including "a few things for the Charlevoix neighbor kids" that were to be taken to Charlevoix, and in the December 26th search warrant, "Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz" gifts (55KKY, 56KKY, 57KKY) are taken into evidence.

See in the wine-cellar the gift at bottom of photo in FAO Schwartz wrapping paper.

This places the partially-wrapped gifts in the room where JonBenet's body was found.

Its safe to assume that Patsy had wrapped the size-12's prior to, or on the 25th Dec, since she was leaving the next day, alternatively they were wrapped by FAO Schwartz e.g. not partially wrapped.

Wrapped or unwrapped, someone had to locate those size-12's, then break open the plastic seal and specifically select a Wenesday pair. I do not think any intruder would know where to find them, never mind bother redressing JonBenet in them, why, whats the point, she is dead?

No size-12's found in the house must mean the ethereal intruder removed them, since we know that the were in the house according to Patsy. But years later the Ramsey's discovered size-12's in a packing case which were then turned over to BPD.

So it appears that the intruder never removed the size-12's after all.

Patsy admits opening the gifts?
June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth

2 TOM HANEY: Would any of these packages be
3 opened?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably. Well, see, these
5 came up, I was at FAO Schwartz in New York when
6 JonBenet and I were up there for a trip, and I had them
7 sent back to Boulder and they wrapped them, free gift
8 wrapping.
9 So like right here it looks like I kind of
10 peeled a little back to see what was in it because I
11 couldn't remember what was in them.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: If the wrapping has been undone
13 partially, that was --
14 PATSY RAMSEY: I probably would have done
15 that to peek to see what was in there.
16 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
17 TOM HANEY: Where did you do the bulk of your
18 Christmas shopping, the items you put in there?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, all of this stuff right
20 here was from FAO Schwartz in New York. JonBenet got a
21 bicycle that year. I got a university bicycle, and she
22 got a twin doll which I mail ordered, and --
23 TOM HANEY: Did she get to ride her bike?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: She got to ride her bike.
25 TOM HANEY: Christmas day?

So whether they were wrapped by FAO Schwartz or Patsy herself its safe to assume that the size-12's were gift-wrapped. So who would know that the size-12's existed and where they were located. My answer Patsy.

 

[UKGuy]

I think its clear to everyone that this 'zero evidence' assertion demonstrates an unwillingness to employ logic. That there would never be, according to you, any circumstances where touch DNA results could be used to infer a rational sequence of events.

The ad hominem argument on touch DNA itself, that its viewed as magical, certainly doesn't help. It makes your argument seem more emotional than rational.

I suggest looking up the word 'evidence' in the dictionary, where its defined as anything that tends to support a view. The FACT that the handwriting and DNA are not CLEARLY OWNED by anyone in the house supports the view of IDI, therefore the handwriting and DNA are evidence of IDI.

It really is that simple.

Holdontoyourhat,

Your doing it again, your making stuff up. You cannot make any inferences at all regarding the touch-dna found at the crime-scene. So please do not generalise to all touch-dna samples what I cite regarding the particular JonBenet crime-scene touch-dna. You are putting words into my mouth.

I think its clear to everyone that this 'zero evidence' assertion demonstrates an unwillingness to employ logic. That there would never be, according to you, any circumstances where touch DNA results could be used to infer a rational sequence of events.

There is zero evidence to support an IDI.

There is forensic evidence found at the crime-scene, but to date, none supports an IDI scenario, since nothing has been matched. As the police sometimes say, nothing has been ruled in, and nothing has been ruled out. The touch-dna is merely that, its source is unknown and its owner unmatched. So it cannot be used in court to demonstrate anything since it currently has the status of biological detritus.

The ad hominem argument on touch DNA itself, that its viewed as magical, certainly doesn't help. It makes your argument seem more emotional than rational.

ad hominem applies to the person not the arguement. I was stating your utter absence of probability numbers or statistical models to backup your claims renders them nonsense, non-verifiable, and if you keep employing them then obviously your belief in their validity must rest on either faith or magic.

I suggest looking up the word 'evidence' in the dictionary, where its defined as anything that tends to support a view. The FACT that the handwriting and DNA are not CLEARLY OWNED by anyone in the house supports the view of IDI, therefore the handwriting and DNA are evidence of IDI.

But evidence can be cited to support many parallel views. You reckon we must accept yours simply because you have consulted a dictionary? Lack of ownership may explained by an intruder bringing them into the house, but as I have to remind you, there is no corroborative forensic evidence e.g. there is no touch-dna on JonBenet's person, there is no matching touch-dna on any of the articles supposedly imported by the intruder, there is no matching touch-dna deposited elsewhere by the intruder, why should that be, do you have any probability numbers for this occurrence? And the other physical objects are neutral in evidential terms they neither support or deny an intruder theory.

That is there is zero forensic evidence to support an IDI.

You do not have a theory just a set of claims backed up by dictionary definitions and news media reports. That is not a theory it is merely hearsay, and would never make it into a court-room.

.
.

 

[claudicici]

....same thing with the fibers,if the police was lying and those fibers were not there why would PR answer the question so strangely as in "I may have borrowed the jacket from my friend who had a similar jacket because I was cold"....huh?????
....the main thing that makes PR look guilty IMO is PR......

 

[UKGuy]

No, there isn't any corroboration. Unlike the DNA, where we have a lab website reference, various DNA expert statements, news reports, DA statements all mutually corroborative. The paint tote and garrote fiber supposedly belonging to PR's jacket seems to be an absolute hoax (guess she was cold and needed one inside the house, what with all that panic writing, climbing stairs, staging, etc. going on!) .

Holdontoyourhat,

Its not simply DNA, its touch-dna, source unknown and owner unmatched e.g. status indeterminate, and has no evidentiary value.

The touch-dna may not be from the same person who killed JonBenet, that is why an IDI based on touch-dna is pretty weak.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,
There were no size-12's found in JonBenet's underwear drawer or anywhere else in the house.


That is not the same as saying that the panties were not located in the basement.


Very simply because the Ramsey's removed them.


RDI suggests she unwrapped or opened the size-12's plastic container in the basement though. And that is not misleading at all.


Patsy is on record stating that she never gift-wrapped the size-12's, instead she gave them to JonBenet.

So were the Bloomingdales size-12's sent back to Boulder and gift wrapped by FAO Schwartz?
June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth


If the size-12's were never located in the basement, then where were they kept, certainly not in JonBenet's underwear drawer, certainly in no place an intruder would know where to look.


Patsy states that she purchased underwear from Bloomingdales
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview


Patsy has amnesia as to whether she purchased one or two packs of underwear, but states she did purchase one pack.
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview


Patsy states that she placed the underwear in her bathroom and JonBenet opened them up.
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview


Patsy states that underwear intended for Jenny Davis end up in JonBenet's bathroom e.g. they then cannot be located in the basement!
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview


Patsy now states that she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer in her bathroom. And that the size-12's never left the house.
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview


Patsy is told by police that JonBenet was found to be wearing size-12 underwear, and that there were no size-12 underwear found in JonBenet's underwear drawer, or anywhere else in the house. This directly contradicts Patsy's account.
2000 Atlanta Patsy Interview


In DOI (page 5), John describes Patsy as doing some last-minute gift wrapping of presents, including "a few things for the Charlevoix neighbor kids" that were to be taken to Charlevoix, and in the December 26th search warrant, "Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz" gifts (55KKY, 56KKY, 57KKY) are taken into evidence.

See in the wine-cellar the gift at bottom of photo in FAO Schwartz wrapping paper.

This places the partially-wrapped gifts in the room where JonBenet's body was found.

Its safe to assume that Patsy had wrapped the size-12's prior to, or on the 25th Dec, since she was leaving the next day, alternatively they were wrapped by FAO Schwartz e.g. not partially wrapped.

Wrapped or unwrapped, someone had to locate those size-12's, then break open the plastic seal and specifically select a Wenesday pair. I do not think any intruder would know where to find them, never mind bother redressing JonBenet in them, why, whats the point, she is dead?

No size-12's found in the house must mean the ethereal intruder removed them, since we know that the were in the house according to Patsy. But years later the Ramsey's discovered size-12's in a packing case which were then turned over to BPD.

So it appears that the intruder never removed the size-12's after all.

Patsy admits opening the gifts?
June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth


So whether they were wrapped by FAO Schwartz or Patsy herself its safe to assume that the size-12's were gift-wrapped. So who would know that the size-12's existed and where they were located. My answer Patsy.

You give me a headache!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Its not simply DNA, its touch-dna, source unknown and owner unmatched e.g. status indeterminate, and has no evidentiary value.

The touch-dna may not be from the same person who killed JonBenet, that is why an IDI based on touch-dna is pretty weak.


.

For the nth time you say the same thing. Why? Does it make it more true if you repeat yourself? No evidentiary value is your claim. It exhonerated JR therefore it had evidentiary value to someone who is more professional than you.

It seems you want to deal in absolutes: zero evidence, no evidentiary value, source unkonwn, status indeterminate are all YOUR characterizations, your high-handed judgements of which none seem to be shared at any level.

The DNA is powerful evidence of an intruder because its found in three places on two separate articles of clothing she was wearing at the time. Its not owned by a family memeber, instead its owned by an unknown male.

It would've been way better for RDI if the DNA belonged to PR or JR. The GJ would've indicted and there would've been an arrest.

Its very likely that the skin cells found in quantity on two separate locations on the longjohns were deposited by direct contact. Any other scenario is vastly more remote--exponentially less likely. The fact that RDI continues to make up numerous alternate secondary transfer scenarios ad nauseum without also mentioning the most likely scenario smacks of coverup.

 

[UKGuy]

You give me a headache!

MurriFlower,

They say the truth has that effect on some people!


.

 

[UKGuy]

For the nth time you say the same thing. Why? Does it make it more true if you repeat yourself? No evidentiary value is your claim. It exhonerated JR therefore it had evidentiary value to someone who is more professional than you.

It seems you want to deal in absolutes: zero evidence, no evidentiary value, source unkonwn, status indeterminate are all YOUR characterizations, your high-handed judgements of which none seem to be shared at any level.

The DNA is powerful evidence of an intruder because its found in three places on two separate articles of clothing she was wearing at the time. Its not owned by a family memeber, instead its owned by an unknown male.

It would've been way better for RDI if the DNA belonged to PR or JR. The GJ would've indicted and there would've been an arrest.

Its very likely that the skin cells found in quantity on two separate locations on the longjohns were deposited by direct contact. Any other scenario is vastly more remote--exponentially less likely. The fact that RDI continues to make up numerous alternate secondary transfer scenarios ad nauseum without mentioning the most likely scenario smacks of coverup.

Holdontoyourhat,

For the nth time you say the same thing. Why? Does it make it more true if you repeat yourself? No evidentiary value is your claim. It exhonerated JR therefore it had evidentiary value to someone who is more professional than you.

It was not tested in court. exhonerated is a religious term, not a legal term, exhoneration is not the same as not guilty, only a court can decide that.

The Ramsey's case status became cleared, but they can bcome uncleared at any point the LEA decides there is a case to answer.

The DNA is powerful evidence of an intruder because its found in three places on two separate articles of clothing she was wearing at the time. Its not owned by a family memeber, instead its owned by an unknown male.

Again its touch-dna not DNA, it cannot be powerful evidence of an intruder, since by your admission it is unknown and unmatched, its origin may not be from the same person who killed JonBenet. I reckon it originated from the FAO Schwartz wrapping paper. And from there onto the underwear then onto the longjohns.

It would've been way better for RDI if the DNA belonged to PR or JR. The GJ would've indicted and there would've been an arrest.

There is nothing to prevent touch-dna from the Ramsey's being present on the size-12's, there might be you cannot know otherwise.

Its very likely that the skin cells found in quantity on two separate locations on the longjohns were deposited by direct contact. Any other scenario is vastly more remote--exponentially less likely. The fact that RDI continues to make up numerous alternate secondary transfer scenarios ad nauseum without mentioning the most likely scenario smacks of coverup.

OK they arrived by direct contact, but the skin-cells were transferred from the FAO Schwartz wrapping paper, thats why they are only to be found restricted to those locations.

An IDI is only feasible if you have blood-dna, saliva-dna, or best of all semen-dna. Any of those would be a smoking-gun and blow any RDI out of the water. But all you have to cite as evidence is touch-dna which has an indeterminate status, so is of no value.

An IDI based on touch-dna is very very weak indeed.

.

 

[madeleine]

An IDI is only feasible if you have blood-dna, saliva-dna, or best of all semen-dna. Any of those would be a smoking-gun and blow any RDI out of the water. But all you have to cite as evidence is touch-dna which has an indeterminate status, so is of no value.



.

Yes the dna on the longjohns is touch dna but we don't know whether the foreign dna found in JB's blood is skin,saliva or blood.Pls give me an official source that says the panties dna is skin/touch dna.There is none.It could be blood or saliva.And if it's so the "transfer scenario" is dead.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

OK they arrived by direct contact, but the skin-cells were transferred from the FAO Schwartz wrapping paper, thats why they are only to be found restricted to those locations.

An IDI is only feasible if you have blood-dna, saliva-dna, or best of all semen-dna. Any of those would be a smoking-gun and blow any RDI out of the water. But all you have to cite as evidence is touch-dna which has an indeterminate status, so is of no value.

An IDI based on touch-dna is very very weak indeed.

.

What you're describing as direct contact isn't direct contact. That would be secondary: someone handling the wrapping paper, and the skin cells held by the wrapping paper then deposited themselves on JBR's longjohn waistband in two places AND in enough quanitity to produce a DNA profile. This is not nearly as likely as a touch from the skin cell owner.

Dont forget matching DNA in solution with blood in JBR"s underwear that you don't know originated in the underwear itself. This is DNA that was found on the murder victim's body, in fluid that had contacted fabric. Thats what the evidence suggests but RDI circumvents that, not even mentioning it as a possibility when it obviously can't be ruled out, and this is one of the reasons this is starting to look like a coverup of some sort. The truth or potential truth is being obfuscated at every turn.

Touch DNA produces a DNA profile that is arrived at using the same methods they use for blood, semen, etc. The end game is the same: A DNA profile of one person. Therefore, your trite argument about touch DNA being 'weak' isn't even valid! You're dealing with a standard DNA profile when the labwork is all done. I suggest reading up in touch DNA and what it is.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes the dna on the longjohns is touch dna but we don't know whether the foreign dna found in JB's blood is skin,saliva or blood.Pls give me an official source that says the panties dna is skin/touch dna.There is none.It could be blood or saliva.And if it's so the "transfer scenario" is dead.

madeleine,

Blood or saliva dna would place an intruder at the crime-scene and it would be a smoking-gun for an IDI. Just as semen-dna would be, my understanding is that all the samples e.g. underwear, longjohns, fingernails are skin-dna?

If they were otherwise the Ramsey's would have told us long ago!


.

 

[UKGuy]

What you're describing as direct contact isn't direct contact. That would be secondary: someone handling the wrapping paper, and the skin cells held by the wrapping paper then deposited themselves on JBR's longjohn waistband in two places AND in enough quanitity to produce a DNA profile. This is not nearly as likely as a touch from the skin cell owner.

Dont forget matching DNA in solution with blood in JBR"s underwear that you don't know originated in the underwear itself. This is DNA that was found on the murder victim's body, in fluid that had contacted fabric. Thats what the evidence suggests but RDI circumvents that, not even mentioning it as a possibility when it obviously can't be ruled out, and this is one of the reasons this is starting to look like a coverup of some sort. The truth or potential truth is being obfuscated at every turn.

Touch DNA produces a DNA profile that is arrived at using the same methods they use for blood, semen, etc. The end game is the same: A DNA profile of one person. Therefore, your trite argument about touch DNA being 'weak' isn't even valid! You're dealing with a standard DNA profile when the labwork is all done. I suggest reading up in touch DNA and what it is.

Holdontoyourhat,

What you're describing as direct contact isn't direct contact. That would be secondary: someone handling the wrapping paper, and the skin cells held by the wrapping paper then deposited themselves on JBR's longjohn waistband in two places AND in enough quanitity to produce a DNA profile. This is not nearly as likely as a touch from the skin cell owner.

OK its secondary contact. Somehow for you it means you can do some maths and decide which event was more likely, fine but that does not rule out the touch-dna being transferred from the FAO Schwartz gift wrapping paper, then onto the size-12's as they were removed to to be placed onto JonBenet.

Dont forget matching DNA in solution with blood in JBR"s underwear that you don't know originated in the underwear itself. This is DNA that was found on the murder victim's body, in fluid that had contacted fabric. Thats what the evidence suggests but RDI circumvents that, not even mentioning it as a possibility when it obviously can't be ruled out, and this is one of the reasons this is starting to look like a coverup of some sort. The truth or potential truth is being obfuscated at every turn.

I'm suggesting to you that it is touch-dna transferred from the FAO Schwartz gift wrapping paper , found at the crime-scene.

If it was semen-dna or saliva-dna, or blood-dna all which can be typed due to their cellular structure, then you would be home and dry. Until you have a match to your unknown touch-dna owner it means nothing. It might mean an intruder it might mean secondary transfer, you just do not know and you have no probability numbers or models to guide you. Its plain guesswork.

Touch DNA produces a DNA profile that is arrived at using the same methods they use for blood, semen, etc. The end game is the same: A DNA profile of one person. Therefore, your trite argument about touch DNA being 'weak' isn't even valid! You're dealing with a standard DNA profile when the labwork is all done. I suggest reading up in touch DNA and what it is.

The DNA profile may be the same, but the the type of dna discovered at a crime-scene determines how credible it is as forensic evidence and touch-dna is the weakest, since it need not map one to one onto the perpetrator. Whereas blood, saliva, and semen will.

Big letters for you Holdontoyourhat: NOT ALL DNA SAMPLES CARRY THE SAME FORENSIC OR EVIDENTIARY VALUE.

Maybe you are working Websleuths producing nice copy because touch-dna is a very very weak basis on which to base a theory, and I reckon you know this full well!

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

They say the truth has that effect on some people!

No, I think its your voice I can hear.

You've gone to a lot of trouble to try to prove to me something, I'm trying to get clear in my mind just what it is.

All the snippets from interviews you posted have led you to draw a conclusion that appears to support your theory. That theory is very complex.

It involves PR killing her daughter in the basement, sexually assaulting her and taking off the bloodied panties (which I assume weren't on her when she sexually assaulted her, but what would I know?) unwrapping the gift wrapped panties, taking one pair out and putting them on her, pulling up the longjohns and in doing so transferred DNA from the man who gift wrapped the parcel to a spot of blood on the panties and both sides of the longjohns.

Well, gosh, how tidy is that?? You must be mightily pleased with yourself?

If I were to ask you where the rest of the panties, the box they were in and the paper they were wrapped in as well as the bloodied panties went, you glibly say "the Rs got rid of them". That makes me laugh!! You just went to so much trouble to get the panties on her, then everything else that doesn't fit your scenario just disappears??

I don't think so.

 

[BBB167893]

What problems?

Well, just offhand, I'd be willing to bet that the great majority of them involved sexual assault, and almost all of them involved bodily fluids.

The only problem I'm aware of is a guilty unknown male walks free.

Yeah, it's obvious that's the only problem you're aware of. That's kind of my point.

Find the owner of the DNA and you've found JBR's killer.

MAYBE. And that's an awfully big maybe. Now, finding out who caused her genital injuries? THAT's your killer, or at least close to it.

There is doubt on this only among the irrational and the hell-bent.

Don't you wish!

It could be a coverup because the direct transfer scenario isn't being presented along with these bulk secondary transfer or contamination postings.

You seem to be posting it quite regularly.

Or if PR jacket fiber in the tote box was even real.

It must be real enough. PR didn't deny it. That wasn't my point anyway.

Its single-sourced, and you have to admit investigators sometimes lie.

POLICE lie, HOTYH. Prosecutors can't, as I've explained many times.

They were obvioiusly attempting to convince PR they had smoking gun evidence of PR's involvement in murder.

I'd say they did a pretty good job of it, given her immediate reaction and obvious attempt at hoodwinking two years later. Maybe you forgot that.

Why is this fiber evidence not discussed by experts,

You mean like Michael Kane?

the media,

Gee, I can't imagine why the media wouldn't discuss it!

or a forensic lab?

Are you kidding? I don't see why you'd expect a forensic lab to make that public. You may have noticed that BODE wasn't exactly forthcoming with me when I asked some simple questions. You're welcome to try.

If this evidence is so damning, why can't you source it past these interviews where they were obviously telling PR lies?

Well, it is pretty damning, or the Rs probably wouldn't have taken the tack they did. As for it being an obvious lie, try getting your talking points from sources OTHER than paid Ramsey mouthpieces. It might work on some people, but not me.

There is no paint tote containing PR jacket fibers.

Good luck with that.

 

[BBB167893]

MurriFlower,

They say the truth has that effect on some people!


.

LOL! I needed a good laugh.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,

Blood or saliva dna would place an intruder at the crime-scene and it would be a smoking-gun for an IDI.

Blood yes,saliva not necessarily,saliva could also mean it was a R accomplice.

Just as semen-dna would be,

definitely

my understanding is that all the samples e.g. underwear, longjohns, fingernails are skin-dna?

where did you get that?

If they were otherwise the Ramsey's would have told us long ago!


.

We don't know whether the panty dna is blood,saliva or skin.No one ever said what it is.And if they never bragged about it doesn't mean it's not so.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes the dna on the longjohns is touch dna but we don't know whether the foreign dna found in JB's blood is skin,saliva or blood.Pls give me an official source that says the panties dna is skin/touch dna.There is none.It could be blood or saliva.And if it's so the "transfer scenario" is dead.

madeleine,

Why should the transfer scenario be dead, if the same person handled both sets of clothing?

My understanding is that the dna comingled in the blood is degraded that is biologically it has started to break down, at a molecular level it is disintegrating.

So how they get an exact match is beyond me, maybe you can enlighten me, why has nobody stated if it was semen-dna or blood-dna, or saliva-dna, these all have particular chemical markers?

.