Jane Valez Mitchell & other Media People Who Know Only Ramsey Spin Let's Educate Them

[DeeDee249]

I'm sorry DeeDee249, it was not my intention to be confusing in my post about acandyrose. I was simply going by Tricia's, the OP, information that acandyrose had everything and I thought she meant links, etc. which would amount to many papers. Tricia's sentence just prior to mentioning acandyrose said something about backing up points in the letter with links.

As far as Patsy and family leaving and going to Michigan, I found that info in a couple places but one is here at this link (mentioning Patsy and Burke going) and the statement is just above the heading of "The Intruder Theory". Here's the link and hope it's a legitimate source:

http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

But more important than the above link was my point in that I would never have left (not including her funeral, of course) Boulder and would have camped on the steps of BPD and I know I would have been cooperative with them from the very beginning instead of legally dodging them. The rest of what you said I do know to have happened, i.e. their buying a house in GA and settling there, the house in Boulder, etc. I also was aware that they'd cancelled their plans and flight to Michigan the day JBR's body was discovered. When I posted about soon after, I meant after they'd buried their daughter, dear.

Thanks!

No need to apologize! That is what this forum is for- discussion! My comment was to simply clarify the events of that day. Many people (including me) feel as you do. I'd have had to be dragged from that house that day. And while I probably would not have wanted to continue to live in a home in which my daughter was so brutally killed (even if I were responsible for it), the almost immediate attempt to get out of town right after "finding" her body stunned me. She wasn't even in the morgue yet! She hadn't even been pronounced dead yet (while it was so obvious to anyone there -despite JR's inane question to Arndt "is she dead?") that she WAS dead when she was brought up but would still have had to be pronounced dead by an MD.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No need to apologize! That is what this forum is for- discussion! My comment was to simply clarify the events of that day. Many people (including me) feel as you do. I'd have had to be dragged from that house that day. And while I probably would not have wanted to continue to live in a home in which my daughter was so brutally killed (even if I were responsible for it), the almost immediate attempt to get out of town right after "finding" her body stunned me. She wasn't even in the morgue yet! She hadn't even been pronounced dead yet (while it was so obvious to anyone there -despite JR's inane question to Arndt "is she dead?") that she WAS dead when she was brought up but would still have had to be pronounced dead by an MD.

I honestly don't feel that it's important and it doesn't really indictate guilt.

I say this because I beleieve I would have also wanted to get away, leave.

I've thought about this many times and I'm deeply in awe of the parents of brutally murdered children that find the strength to seek justice for their child. I have a feeling I wouldn't be one of them and would probably just want to run away and die somewhere. Maybe in time...I could find the strength to care...but in the begining I can't even imagine caring about catching the killer. I would be unable to move from my child is dead. I think I'd get as far away as I could if I had another child..

I find it stranger that they allowed Burke out of their sight for even a second. "Hold your babies close" ...yeah right!

 

[Mamietwo]

So many questions, still. If it's this way for us, can you imagine what it's like for those that were close to the investigation within LE?

I realize there are many other cold cases that warrant the same frustrations but I wasn't captivated by them the way I was this case. It's like sore that hasn't healed---it gets a scab but anything new happens or surfaces in the case and it's fresh again. So the fresh thing for me is coming to Websleuths for discussion of it.

Thanks everyone!

JMO

 

[cynic]

Let's put together a letter that we can send out every time someone points out how innocent the Ramseys are.

Part 1

Lacy’s legacy:
Fear of a civil lawsuit, coupled with Mary Lacy’s strong belief in the intruder theory cemented the direction of the DA’s office under her leadership. While many in the general public believe that the Ramseys were exonerated in 2008, the record shows that they were essentially exonerated the moment that Mary Lacy took office.

"John and Patsy Ramsey have asked the Boulder County district attorney to find another police agency to investigate fresh leads into their daughter JonBenet's Christmas 1996 slaying."
"If that doesn't happen, the Ramseys may sue to force the Boulder Police Department to turn its case over to another agency, L. Lin Wood, the family's attorney, said Monday."
Daily Camera, Matt Sebastian, October 29, 2002

And

"Wood said he expects to file a civil lawsuit against the Boulder Police Department by the end of the year seeking compensatory damages for the Ramseys, and possibly seeking to transfer the investigation to another law enforcement agency."
Daily Camera,Katherine Vogt (Associated Press) November 20, 2002

One month later…

Based on the above and after consultation with Chief Beckner, I have made a decision to conduct further investigation from within my office, using our investigative resources.
We will work cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys, and the Boulder Police Department.
Please understand that this decision is being made for one reason only, the fact that a violent child murderer is at large.
Mary Keenan, Letter to Lin Wood, December 20, 2002

Lin Wood: "Well, I think the timing of the decision on Friday may have been affected by my letter. I did write Mary Keenan. I've been trying for over three and a half years as the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey to get this case out of the hands of the Boulder Police Department
NBC Today Show, Katie Couric interview with Lin Wood, Dec 23, 2002

"Keenan said Monday she agrees with a federal judge (Carnes) in Atlanta that the evidence points to an intruder, not the 6-year-old beauty queen's parents, as the girl's killer."
Denver Post, Marilyn Robinson, Apr 08, 2003

"Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood of Atlanta said Keenan's statement removes the long-standing "umbrella of suspicion" over the couple."
"This means that the nightmare that John and Patsy Ramsey have lived with, of being falsely accused of the murder of their daughter, is finally over," Wood said. "And, from the lawyer's perspective, the days of anyone accusing my clients of murder are also over."
Rocky Mountain News, Owen S. Good, Apr 08, 2003

"But Carnes' ruling was based only on the facts presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer, L. Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer, Darnay Hoffman - and not on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000-plus pages of evidence.”
Rocky Mountain News, Charlie Brennan. Apr 25, 2003

District Attorney Mary Keenan went public April 7 with her belief that evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case points to an intruder as the killer - not Patsy Ramsey.
But sources familiar with Keenan and the case say this isn't a new view for Boulder's top prosecutor. Keenan, in fact, has supported the intruder theory for nearly five years, dating to the summer of 1998, according to the sources.
It's not only law enforcement sources who say Keenan has long been a proponent of the intruder theory.
…
One source involved in those sessions recalls being told by colleagues that Keenan chided Haney for being too tough on Patsy Ramsey.
"Mary really had her nose in it, and thought that the Ramseys were being really pushed around," said another key law enforcement source.
Former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas, who quit the department in 1998, wrote a book detailing his theory that Patsy Ramsey hit JonBenet in a flash of anger over bed-wetting. He eventually reached an out-of-court settlement after they sued him for his comments.
In one section of his book, he wrote: "Alex Hunter said that he thought Patsy Ramsey was involved. That was more than offset by comments from his staff. Deputy DA Mary Keenan said the body language of John and Patsy wasn't suggestive of deception, and that men were not in a position to judge Patsy Ramsey's demeanor."
Rocky Mountain News, Charlie Brennan, April 25, 2003

Her belief in the innocence of the Ramseys clouded her ability to view the DNA in its proper perspective; consequently, the touch DNA finding was all that Mary Lacy needed to make her unprecedented proclamation of innocence with respect to individuals that were rightly primary suspects for years.
Let’s look at her statement regarding the touch DNA finding:
"The match of the male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us than an unknown male handled these items," Lacy wrote to Ramsey. "Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder."

Can there truly be “no innocent explanation” for this type of DNA evidence, as Mary Lacy claims?

Unfortunately, many people mistakenly give all DNA evidence the same probative value.
Of course, DNA can be incredibly incriminating, however, that is true only if it derived from bodily fluid sources such as blood, or semen, for example.
How should we treat DNA evidence obtained from skin cells?
Because of the “mobility” of this DNA, it is not possible that it should carry the same weight as DNA from bodily fluid. It should be of approximately the same value as hair and fiber, and of lesser significance than fingerprint evidence.

Here is an opinion from a seasoned forensic biologist and DNA expert who clearly outlines that not all DNA has the same relevance.

The DNA vs. Fingerprints Debate
…
This raises the question, which of the two types is the stronger evidence? Answer: Fingerprints - and I say this as a DNA expert.
…
We also consider the nature of the transfer of evidence. If I were to touch a smooth surface such as a wall, I would deposit DNA and leave some fingerprints behind on the wall. This is called ‘direct’ or ‘primary’ transfer. However, if someone was to come along and wipe that wall with a cloth, it would remove my DNA onto the cloth and wipe the fingerprint off. If that person then uses that cloth to wipe the door handle, my DNA can then be transferred on to that door handle. Therefore, my DNA could be recovered from that handle without me ever coming into contact with it. This is referred to as ‘indirect’ or ‘secondary’ transfer. In this example, my DNA is transferred, but my fingerprint is not. This means that if my fingerprint is found on a surface, then I must have touched that surface; whereas, if my DNA is found on a surface, then I may have come into contact with that surface or it got there by secondary transfer.
-Graham Williams
http://www2.hud.ac.uk/sas/comment/gw260609.php

I am familiar with "Touch DNA" and limitations to this technique which includes the following:
No body fluid has been identified for the samples tested. If a DNA profile is identified in a "touch" or "contact" area, the result may be from an individual with no relation to the crime.
http://www.uis.edu/innocenceproject/cases/current/mcmillen/documents/Exhibit7toStateResponse.pdf

Factors that must be considered when determining the relevance of DNA evidence in this or any case:
Was the crime scene preserved?
Were the samples properly stored?
Were appropriate precautions taken to prevent contamination at all stages, from collection at the scene to final analysis at the lab?
With respect to DNA derived from epithelial cells, the following additional factors must also be considered:
Is there a possibility that secondary or tertiary transfer could explain the evidence?
Was a higher standard of protective wear employed, including masks, during all phases of collection and handling of evidence and samples?
Were masks worn by all individuals while near items of evidence to avoid contamination from speaking, sneezing or coughing?

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case should therefore be viewed in light of all the evidence, and a decision made as to its relevance. It should not dictate the relevance of the non-DNA evidence.

The experts agree:

As the sensitivity of multiplex STR PCR DNA profiling sensitivity increases, with less and less DNA required for the development of a DNA profile, the “forensic context” of DNA recovered at scenes of crime must be closely scrutinized.
…
Therefore, only after a thorough examination of the known facts surrounding a case, and a multidisciplinary forensic investigation, should conclusions be drawn."
-William C. Thompson, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California

…if biological evidence from a 20-year old case was handled by ungloved police officers or evidence custodians (prior to knowledge regarding the sensitivity of modern DNA testing,) then the true perpetrator’s DNA might be masked by contamination from the collecting officer or evidence custodian.
…
This scenario emphasizes the importance of considering DNA evidence as an investigative tool within the context of a case father than the sole absolute proof of guilt or innocence.
Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing, John M. Butler, pages 442-443

Any statement on the strength of the DNA evidence must be considered in the context of the case, DNA evidence should not be considered in isolation as it is affected by many factors like the type of biological material, method and time of deposition and the substrate on which it was deposited.
An Introduction to Forensic Genetics, William Goodwin, Adrian Linacre, Sibte Hadi, page 87

Can we trust the way the evidence was handled?
"When Meyer (the coroner) clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects." –
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, pages 45-46

It has been proven that simply speaking near evidence that is later tested for DNA can contaminate the evidence. Masks were not commonly worn by those handling evidence, or near articles of evidence, at the time of JBR’s death.
If the evidence was handled without the appropriate precautions and procedures in place, it could be worthless.

“But the sensitivity of the test also means it detects even the slightest contamination.
In January, the Seattle lab's DNA supervisor, George Chan, was chatting with a forensic scientist who was examining evidence in a child rape case. Although Chan had no other exposure to the case, a subsequent test found Chan's DNA, as well as that of the suspect, in the evidence -- a sample taken from a pair of boxer shorts. The likely culprit: saliva spewed during Chan's conversation.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

Aside from the possibility of contamination, there exists the very real possibility that DNA was transferred to the areas where it found through secondary transfer.
The easiest way to understand this is to realize that many people catch a cold or flu as a result of secondary transfer. When you touch someone’s hand that has a cold (or touch some surface that they have touched) and you then touch your face, you will likely contract a cold. In order to catch a cold as a result of primary transfer, the person with a cold would have to touch your face directly.

Secondary transfer of DNA is a proven fact. It has been observed in lab experiments and in the field.

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item.
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson Study.pdf

The case of Janelle Patton clearly illustrates that matching DNA in three locations can have an innocent explanation and have no bearing, whatsoever, on the prosecution of the case. The DNA of the man who committed the crime (McNeill) was not found on the body of the victim.

McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10395220
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...od-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.

Continued below…

 

[cynic]

Part 2

Clearly, there can be “an innocent explanation.”
There are many who remain unconvinced by the DNA evidence in the JBR case.

The DNA evidence could be significant, or, it could be contamination, there’s a debate about that.
Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy DA
-February 3, 2009

…whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”
…
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
-Henry Lee
Daily Camera, Vanessa Miller, July 10, 2008

Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer.
…
To the many questions that have plagued the Ramsey case we can now add another: is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on?
Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/jul/17/da-ties-hands-of-successor-in-ramsey-case/

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9839651

Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence.
"My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant.
…
Grant said he still sees evidence, and "unanswered questions" that would support either inside or outside involvement in JonBenet's murder - but that Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything.
"In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-formerdaletterclearingr-6959085,0,2592897.story

GRACE: To Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author of "And Justice for Some." Wendy, are you convinced that the discovery of this DNA, which matches DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear -- that DNA, a male DNA was found within blood of JonBenet Ramsey`s in her underwear. Does this really clear the Ramseys?
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: No. In my opinion, Mary Lacy has issues in terms of her judgments. She was the one who, after all, charged John Mark Karr, a completely innocent man, with the crime despite the fact that he had never even been in Boulder, Colorado. We all seemed to know that before she did. Let`s just say I`m not having a lot of faith in this woman`s judgment at all. Plus, she`s a lame duck politician. No.
And you know what, Nancy? I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/09/ng.01.html

"I don't think anybody is an idiot for believing in the intruder theory. But I do think those who do probably don't work in law enforcement"
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 108

On July 9, 2008, Cyril Wecht addressed the new findings, “The fact that this other DNA was found at this time matches previous DNA that was thought to be a contaminant does not alter the picture.” Of course not. This did not call for the public exoneration the DA rushed to give; it called for investigation. There was no way to know whether it belonged to the killer
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 131

City of Boulder's Chief of Police, Mark Beckner and Boulder’s current District Attorney, Stan Garnett both had the opportunity at a press conference to endorse the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not.
Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared?
Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don’t want to answer that question for a couple of reasons.
One, we are bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective, they are people who have never worked on this case, who are well known in the law enforcement and the district attorney field who can come in and look at this case, lay out the evidence on the table and tell us what they think, challenge us, ask us questions, give us ideas.
I think, to say anything, I would have to get into the evidence, and I don’t want to do that.
And secondly, I don’t want to set any expectations or biases for people coming into this committee.
If the police chief stands here and says, I think this, or, I think that, they may come in with some bias, we don’t want that, we want them to tell us what they think.
Boulder press conference, Feb 2, 2009

Why did Mary Lacy clear suspects who, rather than being cleared, should have been prosecuted long ago?As Paul Campos asked “is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on?”
After all, even in the Casey Anthony case, there is unexplained DNA, and yet, not only has she not been exonerated, she is being prosecuted.
The mystery DNA was found on the adhesive side of the tape. An independent DNA expert, Dr. Henrietta Nunno, consulted by WKMG, told Pipitone this DNA evidence does not belong to Casey, Casey’s parents, Caylee, or the FBI lab analyst.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crim...e-Anthony-could-benefit-Casey-Anthony-defense

The threshold for prosecution, as defined by Boulder Deputy DA, Pete Hofstrom, in the early going of the Ramsey case, was as follows:
“If experts could determine prior vaginal abuse, and we could get an expert to identify the author of the ransom note, then the investigation would have reached a “turning point” toward prosecution.”
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 244

One document examiner (Cina Wong) found 243 similarities between PR’s exemplars and the RN.
… there are over 243 points of similarity between a sample of Patsy Ramsey's writings and the ransom note. "There are so many unique similarities between both writings."
http://www.cinawongforgeryexpert.com/mediaroom_dailypress.asp


The following is from one of the most highly qualified forensic document examiners and handwriting experts in the world, Gideon Epstein:
Q. What is your degree of certainty yourself as you sit here today that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note?
A. I am absolutely certain that she wrote the note.
Q. Is that 60 percent certain?
A. No, that's 100 percent certain.
DEPOSITION OF GIDEON EPSTEIN, May 17, 2002

Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 253

The panel of experts is identified here:
Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis.
Lawrence Schiller, Perfect Murder Perfect Town, page 563.

Who had the type of unquestioned access to JBR that would lead a panel of pediatric experts to conclude that there was chronic sexual abuse?
Who is most likely to have fed JBR pineapple shortly before her death?
Who is most likely to have written the ransom note in handwriting that was strikingly similar to PR?

The problem with this case is not a lack of evidence; it's the lack of a DA with a spine.

 

[cynic]

The letter should be a collaborative effort, and I know there's plenty more to be said.

 

[BBB167893]

WOW!

I can't think of a better group of writers to do it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It has been stated that the DNA in JonBenet's panties and under her finger nails was several days old and degraded. While Smit believed the hair found on the blanket belonged to an intruder, it has subsequently been identified as belonging to Patsy Ramsey. Molecular biologist Melissa Weber of CellMark Laboratories consulted several detectives after CellMark analyzed the DNA. Steve Thomas and Deputy DA DeMuth were at this meeting, Lou Smit was not. Steve Thomas said that Melissa Weber stated that the analysis showed the possibility that there may be DNA of another person mixed in with JonBenet's DNA found in the panties and under her fingernails. However, this foreign DNA could be the result of a false positive (stutter). Melissa Weber went on to say that if there were two sources of DNA and they were mixed together, then no one could be excluded. This is contrary to Lou Smit's statement that John and Burke had been excluded. Shortly after the meeting with Weber, Deputy DA DeMuth announced that the DNA did not match John Ramsey's DNA. While technically a true statement, a better statement would have been, "No DNA match is possible under present technology". st268
When CellMark Laboratories was given the job of testing the DNA under JonBenet's fingernails and in her panties, there wasn't enough DNA to test, so they had to grow more DNA from the small sample they did have. The process of growing more DNA from a small sample is called PCR amplification. Unfortunately, when you don't have a perfect sample, the DNA is old,degraded or damaged, the imperfect DNA is amplified also. Sometimes, this imperfect DNA, or non-matching DNA, gives a false impression that another persons DNA is mixed in with the sample. Having additional markers is a common problem with PCR amplification. Scientist call this problem, stuttering or shadow bands.
When the DNA under the fingernails and in the panties was tested there were more markers than there should have been. What caused these extra markers? Was it an indicator of an intruder's DNA mixed in with JonBenet's, or was it caused by amplifying degraded DNA (stutter bands). In the two samples, the location of the extra DNA markers should match exactly if the DNA under her fingernails and in her panties came from the same person, but they don't match. Since they do not match, you will have to conclude that there were two intruders or the mismatch was caused by the stutter effect. If the stutter (Amplifying degraded DNA) effect is responsible for the extra markers, then there was no intruder and there is no foreign DNA.

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/check/burke.html

 

[DeeDee249]

You know, it really is a shame that this case did not come to trial. This kind of thing is EXACTLY what would have been brought up, and ML would never have been able to sing the praises of that "touch DNA" and make her ridiculous 'exoneration".
The prosecutor would have had whoever was giving testimony on the DNA evidence make it VERY CLEAR that it is not certain this DNA belonged to an intruder, but could have belonged to a known male.

 

[Roy23]

I just can't wrap my brain around the notion I am supposed to give a few specks of degraded dna on long johns so much evidentiary value and at the same time ignore EVERYTHING else.

Fibers from Pasty's sweater IN the rope knot, under the tape that "covered" JonBenet's mouth and in the paint tray?
I am supposed to ignore where and how she was found and what she was wrapped in?
I am supposed to ignore that Pasty was still wearing the same cloths, the tea, the pineapple, the fact that after finding the "ransom note" the first thing Patsy does is break out her rolodex and start making calls and inviting folks over, despite the threat made to behead her daughter?

I could go on and on...but you get the idea.

Well I guess you can do whatever you want. The bottom line though is that many of the RDI's here believe what they do because of what the BPD said and they believed. But now, the BPD, believes it is an intruder case and is investigating it as such. We have heard here how DNA was degraded and old and thus not so important. But what you need to know too is that this DNA in another form---MATCHES the other source. Some RDI's will question whether the case has changed for sure to IDI. I think there is much that has been said over the last four years that suggests that RDI's are living in a world that is no longer relevant to the new discoveries.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well I guess you can do whatever you want. The bottom line though is that many of the RDI's here believe what they do because of what the BPD said and they believed. But now, the BPD, believes it is an intruder case and is investigating it as such. We have heard here how DNA was degraded and old and thus not so important. But what you need to know too is that this DNA in another form---MATCHES the other source. Some RDI's will question whether the case has changed for sure to IDI. I think there is much that has been said over the last four years that suggests that RDI's are living in a world that is no longer relevant to the new discoveries.

I see nothing to indicate that the Boulder BP now considers this an intruder case. I see acknowledgement that the "new" findings on "old" DNA could be significant in this case. It COULD. But it may turn out to add nothing new.

 

[joeskidbeck]

It is absolutely a significant finding. Chief Beckner would have been remiss to call it anything else. It would seem that he has learned from past mistakes on the part of everyone from the pd to the da's office. BUT, he did not say that it exonerates the Ramseys. Until the dna is sourced it does not exonerate anyone (except JMK, of course). Since the dna is not already on file as belonging to a known criminal, it would seem that they have a lot of dna testing to do. Would it be possible to start from scratch on the dna and test all persons who may have came in contact with JB in the days preceding her death? It may seem like a lost cause but I believe that since she was on Christmas holiday from school the list could be narrowed down to people from the various parties the family attended. After all these people have been tested and if there is no match, I could believe in a higher significance of the dna.

 

[DeeDee249]

It is easy to forget the fact that although the DNA is male, it may not belong to an ADULT male. There were several male children who Patsy has said visited the R house Christmas day to play with BR; as well as several male children who were at the White's (who also had a son) party. Those then-kids (now all adults) were almost certainly never asked to give saliva or hair (or any other) samples, yet this male DNA could belong to any of them. I am NOT suggesting any of them were involved in any way with this crime. I AM suggesting that any one of them could be the source of the male DNA and it could have gotten there quite innocently, skin cells transferring from any surface at all onto JB's hands or the hands of her parents, and from there to her clothing.
Unfortunately, none of them can be compelled to give samples now. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them. With LS, LW and the Boulder DA's office so eager to pin this on someone other than a family member, they'd do whatever they could to try to link that (former_ child to the crime.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It is easy to forget the fact that although the DNA is male, it may not belong to an ADULT male. There were several male children who Patsy has said visited the R house Christmas day to play with BR; as well as several male children who were at the White's (who also had a son) party. Those then-kids (now all adults) were almost certainly never asked to give saliva or hair (or any other) samples, yet this male DNA could belong to any of them. I am NOT suggesting any of them were involved in any way with this crime. I AM suggesting that any one of them could be the source of the male DNA and it could have gotten there quite innocently, skin cells transferring from any surface at all onto JB's hands or the hands of her parents, and from there to her clothing.
Unfortunately, none of them can be compelled to give samples now. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them. With LS, LW and the Boulder DA's office so eager to pin this on someone other than a family member, they'd do whatever they could to try to link that (former_ child to the crime.

Let's not forget too that JonBenet wasn't bathed in days, JonBenet would call out to anyone available to come wipe her, reguardless where she was and since Patsy claims to wear cloths again and again...we don't know that the long johns were only worn once since they were laundered. They could have been worn a week before, a month before etc... Who knows, perhaps the child had worn them many times before they hit the laundry?

Link the touch DNA to someone, or find it on the rope........

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually, we know from Patsy's own comments that JB DID wear pajamas more than once. Patsy mentioned in her depos that she looked under JB's pillow for the pink pajamas that JB had worn the previous night (Christmas Eve). That was true because JB is seen wearing them in Christmas morning photos. Many kids keep their nighties in a pajama bag or under their pillow. I never did this with my own child (she wore a clean pair every night), but I know moms who did. As can easily be seen in the photo of JB's bed- the pillow had been moved to the middle of the bed and a pink garment, said by Patsy to be the pajama TOP of the set, can be seen on the bed. So Patsy's statement about looking under the pillow (where they were usually kept) for the pink pajamas was probably true. However, Patsy also said she couldn't find the bottoms (wonder if they had been wet?) and so she grabbed the long johns.
No word on whether LE ever found the pink bottoms, so we don't know if they were ever tested for urine. Like her panties, reported by LE as ALL having fecal stains, there may have been evidence of dried urine on those pink bottoms.
Take a good look at the photo (link below). You can see the pink top up near the wood headboard. Though the pillow is covered with clothes strewn about, you can see the pillow where it had been pulled down.
Here's the interesting point: I feel JB never went to bed that last night. NO one would sleep on that messy bed like that, and why wouldn't Patsy remove the clothes and put the pillow back where it belongs? NO intruder would put that pillow there and PUT CLOTHES ON TOP OF IT. Why? That was something that had nothing to do with the crime- they were simply clothes that Patsy had strewn around in preparation for packing for their trips.

Here's the bed: http://www.acandyrose.com/002jonbenetbed.jpg

 

[joeskidbeck]

Looking at that photo, I almost believe that something happened while Patsy was getting JB ready for bed that night (much later than when they returned home). The pink top is obviously right there but Patsy says she couldn't find the bottoms. That makes perfect sense; however, why didn't she go ahead and put the pink top on with the longjohns? It would have been better than putting her to bed with a shirt on that she had been wearing all day. I do not buy this story for one minute. It's just like Patsy stating she wore the same clothes 2 days in a row. I will never believe that.

 

[Roy23]

I see nothing to indicate that the Boulder BP now considers this an intruder case. I see acknowledgement that the "new" findings on "old" DNA could be significant in this case. It COULD. But it may turn out to add nothing new.

See this is where we have to stop our dialogue because I have seen two statements by Beckner that show me without a doubt that the case has changed. I can understand that some, including him, would speculate that this was a Ramsey for hire case. But the DNA evidence he is very specific about what all the DNA together means. And I reckon that other DNA has been identified along with what we know because this is how they will have to make their case now that so many cats have been let out of the bag to the media.

Beckner also acknowleges that the DA's office and BPD worked very well together during the GJ investigation. SD is gonna call it hogwash and politics but it sounds sincere especially when he goes as far to basically admit that the GJ made the right decision. Anyhow, I look forward to hearing them tell us more but I am afraid it won't be until they have sourced the DNA. That is pretty much why they are telling us anything. Pretty obvious to me at least.

 

[DeeDee249]

See this is where we have to stop our dialogue because I have seen two statements by Beckner that show me without a doubt that the case has changed. I can understand that some, including him, would speculate that this was a Ramsey for hire case. But the DNA evidence he is very specific about what all the DNA together means. And I reckon that other DNA has been identified along with what we know because this is how they will have to make their case now that so many cats have been let out of the bag to the media.

Beckner also acknowleges that the DA's office and BPD worked very well together during the GJ investigation. SD is gonna call it hogwash and politics but it sounds sincere especially when he goes as far to basically admit that the GJ made the right decision. Anyhow, I look forward to hearing them tell us more but I am afraid it won't be until they have sourced the DNA. That is pretty much why they are telling us anything. Pretty obvious to me at least.

You have to realize that the GJ not returning an indictment does not automatically mean that they felt the Rs were innocent. Rather, it could be an indication of any of these things:
They felt the evidence was insufficient. (NOT the same as the evidence not indicative of their guilt).
They felt the evidence was compromised or tainted by mistakes made by LE at the very beginning of the investigation.
They could not make a definite decision as to WHICH of the two parents were responsible.
The perp was under the legal age for prosecution in Colorado.
I too, look forward to hearing more, especially identifying a donor for the male DNA. But I am not hopeful.

 

[DeeDee249]

Looking at that photo, I almost believe that something happened while Patsy was getting JB ready for bed that night (much later than when they returned home). The pink top is obviously right there but Patsy says she couldn't find the bottoms. That makes perfect sense; however, why didn't she go ahead and put the pink top on with the longjohns? It would have been better than putting her to bed with a shirt on that she had been wearing all day. I do not buy this story for one minute. It's just like Patsy stating she wore the same clothes 2 days in a row. I will never believe that.

I thought of that, too. Patsy said she removed the velvet jeans from a sleeping JB and pulled on the long johns, leaving the white shirt on so as not to wake her.
Well, BR claimed his sister was awake and walked into the house. But I will concede that she may have been sleepy and cranky, and I myself have been in that situation. I recall carrying a sleeping child and putting them into bed and leaving the shirt they were wearing on them. It was usually a soft cotton jersey or knit anyway. So I can see Patsy doing that, but the mystery of the red turtleneck remains. Why was it wet? When was it worn? Was it used to twist around JB's neck and strangle JB (unintentionally) and that's why a strangulation had to be staged?

 

[Roy23]

You have to realize that the GJ not returning an indictment does not automatically mean that they felt the Rs were innocent. Rather, it could be an indication of any of these things:
They felt the evidence was insufficient. (NOT the same as the evidence not indicative of their guilt).
They felt the evidence was compromised or tainted by mistakes made by LE at the very beginning of the investigation.
They could not make a definite decision as to WHICH of the two parents were responsible.
The perp was under the legal age for prosecution in Colorado.
I too, look forward to hearing more, especially identifying a donor for the male DNA. But I am not hopeful.

I haven't dialogued with you much but I can say with what has happened that you make better points than your leader. And that is not to criticize SD. You can believe your post above and I can respect your thoughts. It must kind of suck though because while not too farfetched you have to know that you are committed to a case that you never see a Ramsey indicted again. Unless the DNA donor points a finger as being hired.