Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[txsvicki]

I looked and his book says that the distal marker test had shown a blue line that shows amylase. Kolar was thinking a sneeze or cough by possibly a boy in Taiwan working in a factory. He said that this dna was stronger than other new panties tested or was it less? I didn't understand that part.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I looked and his book says that the distal marker test had shown a blue line that shows amylase. Kolar was thinking a sneeze or cough by possibly a boy in Taiwan working in a factory. He said that this dna was stronger than other new panties tested or was it less? I didn't understand that part.

Kolar can think that all he wants but he has no idea. He is just making it up. He has no idea where it came from. Most likely it is from the killer. That would be the first place to start.

In any other case I never see people using taiwan as a source of DNA in underwear or on clothing. But in this case, People reach so far to try and make an R fit into the killer mold.

Kolar only has opinion. And it is a far fetched one IMO

 

[Tawny]

If the killer sneezed, drooled, or licked anywhere on JonBenet (as indicated by the fact that it's believed to be saliva), WHY is it only on the waistband of the panties, and transferred from waistband of panties to long johns? How do you contain a sneeze, drool, or lick to just a teeeeeeny little spot?

It is not logical.

 

[Tawny]

Kolar can think that all he wants but he has no idea. He is just making it up. He has no idea where it came from. Most likely it is from the killer. That would be the first place to start.

In any other case I never see people using taiwan as a source of DNA in underwear or on clothing. But in this case, People reach so far to try and make an R fit into the killer mold.

Kolar only has opinion. And it is a far fetched one IMO

The R's fit into the killer mold because of their actions, inactions, and lies. JMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the killer sneezed, drooled, or licked anywhere on JonBenet (as indicated by the fact that it's believed to be saliva), WHY is it only on the waistband of the panties, and transferred from waistband of panties to long johns? How do you contain a sneeze, drool, or lick to just a teeeeeeny little spot?

It is not logical.

It is logical. All he had to do is wipe his nose, mouth and it be on his hand which he transferred to the waistband when he pulled down her pants in a logical manner. By grabbing at the waistband.. What is illogical is that the only place DNA would show up from a worker from Taiwan would be only in the waistband.

It would be ALL over as they handled it all over to pack them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The R's fit into the killer mold because of their actions, inactions, and lies. JMO.

No. That is just fluff. There is no evidence that they did anything to her. Nothing. There is no DNA that connects them to this crime. But there is DNA of another person that points to someone there other than a family member. Ignoring that is just incredulous.

In any other case it would be key to solving it..

 

[Tawny]

So, it would be all over panties handled by someone in a factory, but not all over panties handled by the killer.

?

 

[Tawny]

It is logical. All he had to do is wipe his nose, mouth and it be on his hand which he transferred to the waistband when he pulled down her pants in a logical manner. By grabbing at the waistband.. What is illogical is that the only place DNA would show up from a worker from Taiwan would be only in the waistband.

It would be ALL over as they handled it all over to pack them.

How did he prevent the dna from being transferred to any other part of her panties, her thighs, or her waist?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So, it would be all over panties handled by someone in a factory, but not all over panties handled by the killer.

?

SURE. A killer is not handling her panties.. He is pulling them down and you would expect to find DNA exactly where there is DNA in that act. There is no need to handle it all. He could have sneezed, whatever into his hand / in fact gloved hand and grabbed that area and pulled on the pants transferring it.

If it was a worker in Taiwan, He would have to handle them in more than one place to fold them and put them away.

It makes no sense. I have never seen a case where someone was killed, There was DNA and people all started looking for the garment makers.. Only this one.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

How did he prevent the dna from being transferred to any other part of her panties, her thighs, or her waist?

IT is not hard. It is in the inside of his hand, He grabs it transfers it. He does not need to pull her pants off to assault her.

 

[txsvicki]

So, the theory of intruder has his dna transferring from panties to the inside of longjohns waist, but none on the outside? I can't see a man pulling up longjohns by only touching the inner waistband. Also, I don't know how sweatshops operate, but anyone that's ever sewn knows that you might lick your fingers to guide thread.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So, the theory of intruder has his dna transferring from panties to the inside of longjohns waist, but none on the outside? I can't see a man pulling up longjohns by only touching the inner waistband. Also, I don't know how sweatshops operate, but anyone that's ever sewn knows that you might lick your fingers to guide thread.

It has happened before in the Tim Masterson case. It is exactly where they found the DNA to clear him.

And it does make sense. Look at it. She is lying down, All they have to do is reach in.
It is perfectly plausible.

Lick fingers to guide thread? So now when when someone dies and we find DNA we should search for thread lickers?

They run on machines. There is no one licking thread to thread needle.

 

[Arnie M]

Killer in the house for many many hours
Killer is on second floor , main floor , and basement during those many hours
Killer writes lengthy note using household supplies
Killer strikes blow to head of child
Killer fashions garotte and chokes child
Killer possibly assaults child sexually
Killer re-dresses child
Killer wraps child in a blanket
Killer moves body to basement and hides it

.
.

..... and only leaves a couple of tiny traces of DNA at the scene ??????????

I find that hard to accept

 

[Linda7NJ]

No. That is just fluff. There is no evidence that they did anything to her. Nothing. There is no DNA that connects them to this crime. But there is DNA of another person that points to someone there other than a family member. Ignoring that is just incredulous.

In any other case it would be key to solving it..

There's not just the DNA of one other person though is there? Surely, you're not suggesting 5 people were in the basement that night? And yet... That's seems to be exactly what you're suggesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[azwriter]

SURE. A killer is not handling her panties.. He is pulling them down and you would expect to find DNA exactly where there is DNA in that act. There is no need to handle it all. He could have sneezed, whatever into his hand / in fact gloved hand and grabbed that area and pulled on the pants transferring it.

If it was a worker in Taiwan, He would have to handle them in more than one place to fold them and put them away.

It makes no sense. I have never seen a case where someone was killed, There was DNA and people all started looking for the garment makers.. Only this one.

And I'm willing to bet you've never seen a worker in Taiwan fold or handle a garment. I would guess the folding and packaging could also be done by automated machine after it has been inspected by a person.
jmo

 

[Tawny]

We seem to be ignoring the fact that there was DNA that matched the parents on JB (how wouldn't there be? Hugs, helping change her clothes, holding her hand, etc). I'm surprised there wasn't more foreign tDNA on her, TBH.

How this one random string of DNA became so important is beyond me. Probably because the Ramsey's PR team made it so. JMO

 

[Anyhoo]

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.

I'm in a small minority of people here who hold an alternate view of the evidence. I believe most people here dismiss the DNA evidence because they are convinced of Ramsey guilt and cannot reconcile foreign DNA with that. I do not dismiss the DNA. Matching DNA from two different pieces of clothing is significant and indicates the involvement of a non Ramsey in this murder. But this does not absolve the Ramsey's of guilt. Their behavior indicates to me a knowledge of the crime that they would not have had if IDI. I believe PR probably wrote the RN, but this is not an indictment that either parent directly murdered their daughter. The truth is neither IDI or RDI that explains both the foreign DNA and the extremely suspicious Ramsey behavior. Moo.

 

[Mama2JML]

This subject is complex and confusing. My imperfect understanding of the DNA evidence in this case is posted below. I hope I don't muddy the waters or make too many errors. Eek. I REALLY hesitated before posting my thoughts, but maybe y'all can help reduce my confusion or that of others. Nothing to lose...

There's not just the DNA of one other person though is there?

Possibly. (& probably, IMO.)

The 1997 DNA analyses of JonBenet's panties and fingernail clippings yielded JonBenet's DNA profile, an incomplete female DNA profile (consistent with JonBenet's), and 3 incomplete, yet consistent, male DNA profiles.

In 2003, the 10 marker DNA profile was isolated (bloodstain/panties) & submitted to CODIS. This was matched to the profile obtained via TDNA collection in 2008.

Unfortunately, the 2003 & 2008 results can't be compared to the 1997 results b/c of differences in loci targeted.

So far...

The male profiles could belong to 1 unidentified male
-or-
2 unidentified males, with alleles in common
-or-
3 unidentified males, with alleles in common.

Surely, you're not suggesting 5 people were in the basement that night? And yet... That's seems to be exactly what you're suggesting.

No, not at all.

The info posted above has been in the public domain for years, and it has been corroborated by sources close to the investigation. BUT, the newest information, disclosed & evaluated in FF, hasn't been corroborated. ...YET.

I don't doubt Kolar has revealed what he believes is a strong possibility, but without more information I don't think it's safe to take the SFF theory & run with it.

JMHO.

 

[BBB167893]

Well the indictment part is a little weak quite frankly but yeah okay. Now on your book I still don't believe it until it is out in a store or somewhere. But congrats I guess. I will own up to just about anything if I am wrong. I can promise you that.

Number one, even if I agreed with you that the indictment was a little weak--and I would remind you that something like 95% of those who reach the indictment stage are guilty--the way it's worded suggests to me that the Grand Jury couldn't decide which one actually killed her and which one was the accomplice. Sound familiar, Roy?

Number two, I guess you're a "believe it when I see it" type of guy. I get that. That's sort of how I operate, too. I'll know more when the layout manager talks to me.

 

[BBB167893]

In any other case I never see people using Taiwan as a source of DNA in underwear or on clothing.

I should HOPE that people in other cases are smart enough not to consider DNA that's this crummy as proof, Scarlett! I'd like to think that my tax money pays people with SOME intelligence! Even Henry Lee said that DNA is irrelevant in HALF the cases in which it's found, and he said that back when you actually needed a good-sized sample to test DNA, not the tricks they have now which can use a single cell.

But in this case, People reach so far to try and make an R fit into the killer mold.

That is YOUR opinion, and a faulty one, far as I go. Nobody has to "reach" to "make" an R fit anything. That's MY opinion, and I've been doing this a hell of a long time. Don't forget, I was once one of you.