Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Highly unlikely .... anyone sliding in through that small opening and then crawling back out would have destroyed the web. There was also another small spider web in the opening where the broken pane of glass was ... it is possible a person could have reached in to open the latch without disturbing that one.

Another red herring is the supposed "boot mark" on the wall under the window .... it is a water stain in the drywall ... nothing more.

As good as Lou Smit's detective skills were touted ... he was completely off base on quite a few things with his Intruder theory .... it bordered on "make believe" is the nicest way to describe it.

Unlikely does not mean impossible. And depending on the size of the intruder, It could indeed be possible.
Anyone with a spider phobia could have made a point of avoiding the web.

 

[BBB167893]

"A new technique of analysis, Ms. Lacy said in a letter to JonBenet’s father, John Ramsey, has found DNA traces, unobtainable by earlier methods, of an unidentified male on the long johns JonBenet wore the night she died."

"The DNA is not from a member of the Ramsey family and is almost definitely that of the killer, who would have presumably removed or otherwise handled the long johns, Ms. Lacy said.

The genetic material matches that from a drop of blood found on JonBenet’s underwear early in the investigation. The authorities determined then that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family but could not say whether it came from the killer, Ms. Lacy said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10ramsey.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1&

So it is TDNA that matches the BLOOD that was in her underwear. That is two hits on the same DNA.

As cynic and I TRIED to demonstrate at the bginning of this thread, Scarlett, the DNA from JB's underwear was incomplete, needing to be amplified to even meet the minimum standards for inclusion (among other problems with it). No investigator of forensic scientist with a SHRED of ethics would call a partial DNA profile a "match" to anything.

You want a match? Lacy's face and my butt! That's the match!:floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Dave, You can not replicate DNA into something other than what it is.

That it matches the DNA in the underwear, that Touch Dna is the key to this case.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave, You can not replicate DNA into something other than what it is.

That's precisely my point, Scarlett. I didn't mention the fact that the DNA in her underwear was not blood, either. The blood was JB's. Henry Lee himself said that it was likely that the blood landed on DNA that was already there.

That it matches the DNA in the underwear, that Touch Dna is the key to this case.

Again, that's my point! It cannot truly be said to be a match.

Scarlett, the world is BRISTLING with human DNA. If you knew how much you had on you right now, you'd probably flip.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Dave, You can not replicate DNA into something other than what it is.[.QUOTE]

That's precisely my point, Scarlett. I didn't mention the fact that the DNA in her underwear was not blood, either. The blood was JB's. Henry Lee himself said that it was likely that the blood landed on DNA that was already there.



Again, that's my point! It cannot truly be said to be a match.

Scarlett, the world is BRISTLING with human DNA. If you knew how much you had on you right now, you'd probably flip.

It is a match Dave. You can not mess with DNA. It is a match to the touch DNA and that is that. Find that source, Find the killer. IT is that simple.

 

[BBB167893]

It is a match Dave. You can not mess with DNA. It is a match to the touch DNA and that is that. Find that source, Find the killer. IT is that simple.

Like hell it is! You can't HAVE a match with an incomplete profile, Scarlett. You don't need an advanced forensics degree to figure that out.

And even IF IF it were a match, it's still completely incongruous with the facts of the crime. It's like I always say, and like the FBI told the cops: it's all about the totality of evidence.

Now if you'll excuse me. I've said my piece. You can go back to what you were doing.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Like hell it is! You can't HAVE a match with an incomplete profile, Scarlett. You don't need an advanced forensics degree to figure that out.

And even IF IF it were a match, it's still completely incongruous with the facts of the crime. It's like I always say, and like the FBI told the cops: it's all about the totality of evidence.

Now if you'll excuse me. I've said my piece. You can go back to what you were doing.

They matched the DNA. IT is that simple. It is a match. The whole world knows that it is a match.

It can not be ignored. Someone other than a Ramsey broke in and killed that baby. DNA says so.

 

[Tawny]

They matched the DNA. IT is that simple. It is a match. The whole world knows that it is a match.

It can not be ignored. Someone other than a Ramsey broke in and killed that baby. DNA says so.

They matched the DNA with who? (whom?)

I seem to recall there was unmatched DNA that was a mystery.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

They matched the DNA with who? (whom?)

I seem to recall there was unmatched DNA that was a mystery.

The DNA in her underwear matches the touch DNA found on her pajama bottoms/long underwear.

That is a match. WE don't know who yet.. But hopefully some day we will.

 

[txsvicki]

One thing I didn't realize til reading Kolar's book was that the dna was on the inside waistband of the longjohns. He says nothing about the outside, but like it rubbed off from the panty waist onto the inner waist of the pj bottoms. It was also in the binding of the panties leg and waist. "In" the binding, to me, means during construction and sewing.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

One thing I didn't realize til reading Kolar's book was that the dna was on the inside waistband of the longjohns. He says nothing about the outside, but like it rubbed off from the panty waist onto the inner waist of the pj bottoms. It was also in the binding of the panties leg and waist. "In" the binding, to me, means during construction and sewing.

Not to me. Not at all. I believe that is his interpretation and nothing more. HE has no idea how or when it got there. But I know that That touch DNA matches the Dna that was found in her panties.

"The genetic material matches that from a drop of blood found on JonBenet’s underwear early in the investigation. The authorities determined then that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family but could not say whether it came from the killer, Ms. Lacy said."

The other source than the Touch DNA was blood. IT is what is reported here and every where else except some books.. Where people are stating opinion and their own personal spin on the evidence.

 

[Mama2JML]

As cynic and I TRIED to demonstrate at the bginning of this thread, Scarlett, the DNA from JB's underwear was incomplete, needing to be amplified to even meet the minimum standards for inclusion (among other problems with it). No investigator of forensic scientist with a SHRED of ethics would call a partial DNA profile a "match" to anything.

Then feel free to use the term 'consistent'. Each locus from the 2003 profile was matched to each corresponding locus in the 2008 profile, thus, the profiles were consistent.

The private company conducting the sampling in the JonBenet case was The Bode Technology Group, of Lorton, Va. The company has been extracting and analyzing DNA from fingerprints for the past year, said Angela Williamson, Bode's director of forensic casework.

Lacy chose the firm after consultations with several law enforcement agencies, including the Boulder Police Department, a district attorney's news release said.

The way the DNA is collected is critical, Williamson said. Techniques include swabbing, lifting with tape and scraping.

"We had a discussion with the detectives, and they believed the suspect would have touched the outer garments and the undergarments," she said.

Previous tests had already determined an unidentified male left DNA evidence in JonBenet's underwear. Bode scientists scraped the area on JonBenet's leggings where someone would have placed their hands to pull them down, Williamson said.

"We did get a DNA profile," she said. "What we got is DNA that matched the undergarments."

In the past 10 years, Bode has analyzed more than 300,000 convicted offender samples from 13 states and more than 40,000 forensic case samples, according to its Web site. It also analyzed more than 25,000 DNA samples from the Alaska Airlines Flight 261 and American Airlines Flight 587 aircraft disasters and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

Wheeler-Holloway said the DNA evidence in the Ramsey case is strong in exonerating the Ramseys.

"If they're finding the same DNA pattern in more than one place on the clothing of JonBenet, it's extremely significant in pointing toward the perpetrators," she said. "It is significant evidence (the Ramseys) weren't involved in the murder of their child."

Source: http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/09/touch-dna-same-was-used-free-masters/

 

[txsvicki]

I realize that no one has ever actually said if the underwear was taken apart, but surely they did. If this dna was inside the sewn seams wouldn't that indicate dna deposited during manufacture of the panties? There was talk of it being in the seams, and I took that as real, but not sure if Kolar said it on a radio show or if it is interpretation, or interpretation of the wording in his book.

 

[Arnie M]

I realize that no one has ever actually said if the underwear was taken apart, but surely they did. If this dna was inside the sewn seams wouldn't that indicate dna deposited during manufacture of the panties? There was talk of it being in the seams, and I took that as real, but not sure if Kolar said it on a radio show or if it is interpretation, or interpretation of the wording in his book.

They checked some of the new panties that were still in the package and found traces of DNA on them (presumably from factory workers)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I realize that no one has ever actually said if the underwear was taken apart, but surely they did. If this dna was inside the sewn seams wouldn't that indicate dna deposited during manufacture of the panties? There was talk of it being in the seams, and I took that as real, but not sure if Kolar said it on a radio show or if it is interpretation, or interpretation of the wording in his book.

The underwear had the same DNA and it was Blood. Not touch DNA. There is no way around it. The R's did not leave it.. someone else did.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

They checked some of the new panties that were still in the package and found traces of DNA on them (presumably from factory workers)

But not blood. Not blood.

 

[Mama2JML]

The underwear had the same DNA and it was Blood. Not touch DNA. There is no way around it. The R's did not leave it.. someone else did.

The genetic material commingled with JonBenet's blood, in her panties, wasn't blood & it wasn't semen. The source is unknown, although many believe it was saliva. AND, Kolar mentioned (in FF) that when initial testing was conducted amylase was thought to be present. My bet is on saliva. ...of the perp, not a factory worker on a different continent.

 

[Tawny]

If it was of a perp, how would there be so little tDNA, instead of more? Even if we don't know who it matches, wouldn't there be more DNA on her or her clothing? She wasn't bathed post-mortem by the perp, so how is so little DNA present if it's from someone who murdered her?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The genetic material commingled with JonBenet's blood, in her panties, wasn't blood & it wasn't semen. The source is unknown, although many believe it was saliva. AND, Kolar mentioned (in FF) that when initial testing was conducted amylase was thought to be present. My bet is on saliva. ...of the perp, not a factory worker on a different continent.

Here is how simple it is for me. IT is DNA that does not match the R's. In any other case DNA is king. WE use it to exonerate and convict. In this case, DNA that is not biased, Just fact and points away from the R's is bent and stretched as to not mean anything so RDI theorist can sell books.

Could be saliva, What I know is that it was a good source of DNA. It matches the touch DNA. That in any other case would be a slam dunk to prove that the perp was there. In this case this does not match the R's.

They didn't do it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If it was of a perp, how would there be so little tDNA, instead of more? Even if we don't know who it matches, wouldn't there be more DNA on her or her clothing? She wasn't bathed post-mortem by the perp, so how is so little DNA present if it's from someone who murdered her?

Not necessarily. Maybe he wore gloves except when he was assaulting her. But she was touched and this perp left DNA. In more than one place.