richandfamous
New Member
SuperDave, what do you think of John Ramsey's actions and attitude when they arrested MJK?
If DNA Evidence Cleared Karr Then Why....
- Thread starter leighl
- Start date
LovelyPigeon
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 13,806
- Reaction score
- 29
The male DNA found in bloodspots in JonBenét's panties that she was wearing when found murdered, and the male DNA found under her fingernails do not match anyone in the Ramsey family. In addition, that DNA has not matched anyone whose DNA has been collected and compared, including other potential suspects like Wolf, McReynolds, etc, or family friends and acquaintances like the Whites.
As evidenced by Karr's DNA comparison and his release based on a non-match, the DNA is believed by the Boulder DA's office to belong to the male who sexually assaulted and murdered JonBenét on the night of December 25, 1996.
The Ramseys are innocent of any involvement in JonBenét's death. They loved and cherished JonBenét and did not harm her in any way.
The case is still open and I have both hope and confidence that the DNA will be matched to JonBenét's killer in my lifetime. The intruder will be indentified, sooner, I hope, than later.
As evidenced by Karr's DNA comparison and his release based on a non-match, the DNA is believed by the Boulder DA's office to belong to the male who sexually assaulted and murdered JonBenét on the night of December 25, 1996.
The Ramseys are innocent of any involvement in JonBenét's death. They loved and cherished JonBenét and did not harm her in any way.
The case is still open and I have both hope and confidence that the DNA will be matched to JonBenét's killer in my lifetime. The intruder will be indentified, sooner, I hope, than later.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 26
I think if the DNA in JonBenet's underwear had been left there by the killer on the night JonBenet was killed, then that sample of DNA would be as fresh and as complete as the sample of JonBenet's DNA.
It isn't, though - it's fragmented and degraded. Dr Henry Lee tested other packages of underwear the same as JonBenet's, and discovered DNA on those underwear as well - brand new and unworn before, the same as the underwear found on JB.
That indicates to me that there is a very good likelihood that the DNA on JonBenet's underwear was not deposited by the killer and was already there when the undies were put on her.
As for the Boulder DA's office - they don't exactly have the best reputation for being impartial and unbiased in this case. I wouldn't put too much stock into anything they do.
It isn't, though - it's fragmented and degraded. Dr Henry Lee tested other packages of underwear the same as JonBenet's, and discovered DNA on those underwear as well - brand new and unworn before, the same as the underwear found on JB.
That indicates to me that there is a very good likelihood that the DNA on JonBenet's underwear was not deposited by the killer and was already there when the undies were put on her.
As for the Boulder DA's office - they don't exactly have the best reputation for being impartial and unbiased in this case. I wouldn't put too much stock into anything they do.
TexMex
Punishment is justice for the unjust.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,615
- Reaction score
- 62
That's a red herring by Dr. Lee:
LKL Fri 8/25
I mean what are the odds that a factory worker sneezed on the exact spot where blood is found on a little girls underwear the night she is killed? The affidavit said the
KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, it's known that Dr. Henry Lee, another frequent guest on this show, found DNA on newly -- the newly purchased girl's underwear, tested right after the packaging. Do you think that fact may leave a misleading impression on the public?
KOBILINSKY: I think so actually, Larry. Let me explain why. When you take a garment, a brand new garment, you un-package it, you open it up, put it down on your laboratory bench and you look for the presence of DNA from its manufacturer.
What you do is you take a scalpel or a razor blade and you scrape the entire garment, the front, the back, the inside, the outside, so you're taking the entire area and then you take all of those scrapings and you isolate DNA. And, apparently Dr. Lee found the presence of some DNA.
That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a male. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.
LKL Fri 8/25
I mean what are the odds that a factory worker sneezed on the exact spot where blood is found on a little girls underwear the night she is killed? The affidavit said the
KING: Dr. Kobilinsky, it's known that Dr. Henry Lee, another frequent guest on this show, found DNA on newly -- the newly purchased girl's underwear, tested right after the packaging. Do you think that fact may leave a misleading impression on the public?
KOBILINSKY: I think so actually, Larry. Let me explain why. When you take a garment, a brand new garment, you un-package it, you open it up, put it down on your laboratory bench and you look for the presence of DNA from its manufacturer.
What you do is you take a scalpel or a razor blade and you scrape the entire garment, the front, the back, the inside, the outside, so you're taking the entire area and then you take all of those scrapings and you isolate DNA. And, apparently Dr. Lee found the presence of some DNA.
That is a very far cry from looking at the panties of JonBenet which had a discreet little droplet of blood and from that droplet they were able to isolate DNA and we now know that it is from a male. It is not related to any member of the Ramsey family and therefore it's likely that it comes from the perpetrator, the intruder.
Love_Mama
Rest In Peace
Tristan said:
Your sure right Tristan............it sure wasn't an intruder
xxxxxxxxxxxooo
mama
Oceanbreeze
New Member
I have a question, which the answer may be somewhere that I've missed and I apologize if I did but.....
The DNA in the panties and the DNA under the nails, are they a match to each other?
The DNA in the panties and the DNA under the nails, are they a match to each other?
The Boulder DA's "belief" isn't worth squat. They and the majority of the Boulder LE have done nothing but bungle for the last 10 years. I truly hope that the R's are completely innocent and I truly hope that the murderer is found and punished one day, but I wouldn't stake my opinion with the "beliefs" of the Boulder DA's office.LovelyPigeon said:
Oceanbreeze
New Member
Linda7NJ said:
Thank you, Linda!!
"OK, obviously Hunter (and LE) bungled this big time, and if Hunter truly went about this like he was in business with the Ramseys, why then when a fresh, new DA came aboard, were charges not filed then?"
Answerr:
"Because the fresh, new DA was not fresh and new. She spent a lot of her career as a part of the old bungling DA's team and mindset."
That's a short version of my answer! But julianne, if you reread what I had to say:
You can see clearly that I already answered that one. I put a lot of time and effort into that post! I'd hate to think it was wasted!
"SuperDave, what do you think of John Ramsey's actions and attitude when they arrested MJK?"
Boy, isn't that a loaded question! But to be honest, I thought it was extremely odd. If it were ME, I'd have been doing handsprings in the aisles!
"I think if the DNA in JonBenet's underwear had been left there by the killer on the night JonBenet was killed, then that sample of DNA would be as fresh and as complete as the sample of JonBenet's DNA."
Right.
"It isn't, though - it's fragmented and degraded. Dr Henry Lee tested other packages of underwear the same as JonBenet's, and discovered DNA on those underwear as well - brand new and unworn before, the same as the underwear found on JB.That indicates to me that there is a very good likelihood that the DNA on JonBenet's underwear was not deposited by the killer and was already there when the undies were put on her."
Likely. What you have to remember is that Kobalinsky is regurgitating the fiction of Lin Wood. He's the one making this claim about this "new, good DNA," and I have had dealings with him that show he is not to be trusted.
"As for the Boulder DA's office - they don't exactly have the best reputation for being impartial and unbiased in this case. I wouldn't put too much stock into anything they do."
They're a joke. And it's not funny.
Answerr:
"Because the fresh, new DA was not fresh and new. She spent a lot of her career as a part of the old bungling DA's team and mindset."
That's a short version of my answer! But julianne, if you reread what I had to say:
You can see clearly that I already answered that one. I put a lot of time and effort into that post! I'd hate to think it was wasted!
"SuperDave, what do you think of John Ramsey's actions and attitude when they arrested MJK?"
Boy, isn't that a loaded question! But to be honest, I thought it was extremely odd. If it were ME, I'd have been doing handsprings in the aisles!
"I think if the DNA in JonBenet's underwear had been left there by the killer on the night JonBenet was killed, then that sample of DNA would be as fresh and as complete as the sample of JonBenet's DNA."
Right.
"It isn't, though - it's fragmented and degraded. Dr Henry Lee tested other packages of underwear the same as JonBenet's, and discovered DNA on those underwear as well - brand new and unworn before, the same as the underwear found on JB.That indicates to me that there is a very good likelihood that the DNA on JonBenet's underwear was not deposited by the killer and was already there when the undies were put on her."
Likely. What you have to remember is that Kobalinsky is regurgitating the fiction of Lin Wood. He's the one making this claim about this "new, good DNA," and I have had dealings with him that show he is not to be trusted.
"As for the Boulder DA's office - they don't exactly have the best reputation for being impartial and unbiased in this case. I wouldn't put too much stock into anything they do."
They're a joke. And it's not funny.
Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention it.
5) OJ Simpson. I think Bill Maher said it best last night on LKL: even when you have a solid case, you have Dream Team attorneys against a crappy, civilly-paid team.
Which is what happened here.
No one has answered me: How many of us could afford big-time expert witnesses?
5) OJ Simpson. I think Bill Maher said it best last night on LKL: even when you have a solid case, you have Dream Team attorneys against a crappy, civilly-paid team.
Which is what happened here.
No one has answered me: How many of us could afford big-time expert witnesses?
Julianne?
No one has anything to say about this? After all the time and effort I put into it?
Julianne (and I'm asking these questions completely without malice or sarcasm), you seemed so sure that they didn't go to trial because there was no evidence. Are you now questioning that?
Did I cause you a moment's doubt?
Are you now asking the unspeakable: that the LE in Boulder were more interested in saving their careers than in finding justice for JonBenet? Could it be possible that money bought justice?
It's not a nice thought, is it? I know it isn't. But it has to be asked.
I have presented my proof. And I happen to think I did a good job.
No one has anything to say about this? After all the time and effort I put into it?
Julianne (and I'm asking these questions completely without malice or sarcasm), you seemed so sure that they didn't go to trial because there was no evidence. Are you now questioning that?
Did I cause you a moment's doubt?
Are you now asking the unspeakable: that the LE in Boulder were more interested in saving their careers than in finding justice for JonBenet? Could it be possible that money bought justice?
It's not a nice thought, is it? I know it isn't. But it has to be asked.
I have presented my proof. And I happen to think I did a good job.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 103
- Guests online
- 1,498
- Total visitors
- 1,601