John Ramsey on Oprah

[Roy23]

A thought just occurred to me. I know that when we lived in Montana, (not far from Colorado) in the winter months, my then 8 year old daughter always wore long johns under her clothing. WHAT IF JB was wearing those longjohns under the pants that she wore to the White's party, and since she was known to ask ANYBODY to wipe her...she could have gotten someone at the party to help her pull her pants and longjohns down, since longjohns are tight. Heck, it could be that person's touch DNA on her long johns..and it transferred to her panties. There is no telling where that touch DNA came from. Just because it is there, doesn't mean that it belongs to some unknown intruder/killer.

What if Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster were both found at the same time?

 

[Ames]

"But a whole lot of other stuff was found that DOES indicate that."

Name one piece of evidence that would indicate that the Ramsey's killed their daughter. Make it something that an average DA would take to trial. This board is a lynching crew that is ignoring the basics of DNA. And I will swear to you that as Dr. Lee and other experts keep talking you will have to let this go. There is a persons DNA out there who was in JBR's panties and clothes. It is not a factory workers DNA. And there is also a whole lot of information that you and I are not privy to that allowed Mary Lacy and numerous experts make the decision they made.

I have been involved in a number of cases that i have been wrong. I have learned how to not put all my eggs in one basket. I have learned from my mistakes. I have learned not to listen to the media or people who want to profit on the case. I have also learned that in a case like this they will find the source of this foreign DNA. And when they get him, the defense attorney is going to have a field day with all the screwups. Read my lips---Bank on it.

And YOU KNOW that the touch DNA was not that of a factory worker's? HOW? When even the experts don't know who it belongs to.

 

[Ames]

What if Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster were both found at the same time?

And NOW you are a comedian??

 

[BBB167893]

Trouble is, Roy: JB was known to do that.

 

[DeeDee249]

What if Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster were both found at the same time?

Well, you know very well they are the same person...

 

[Ames]

Well, you know very well they are the same person...

:clap: LOL

 

[DeeDee249]

The "touch DNA" does not prove there was another person in the R house that night. The DNA could have been transferred to JBR's, or her parent's, hands from somewhere else and then transferred to JBR's clothes.

 

[Roy23]

And YOU KNOW that the touch DNA was not that of a factory worker's? HOW? When even the experts don't know who it belongs to.

Actually you caught me on that one. It could be a factory worker that was in that house that night.

 

[Roy23]

The "touch DNA" does not prove there was another person in the R house that night. The DNA could have been transferred to JBR's, or her parent's, hands from somewhere else and then transferred to JBR's clothes.

Sorry, not true.

 

[Ames]

Actually you caught me on that one. It could be a factory worker that was in that house that night.

LOL..wrong answer...try again.

Just because Touch DNA was found, it doesn't mean that it was left there that night.

 

[Ames]

Sorry, not true.

I am afraid that it IS true!

Why don't you do us all a favor, and research Touch DNA Transference. Just Google it...you will be amazed at just what the internet world holds.

 

[JMO8778]

Bottom line? Transferable dna on JB does NOT mean it came from the killer!
Even if it were to match to someone,all things considered,that person would still have to be proven to be in Boulder,on that particular night,and in that house..not out at a party or public place or whatever during that time.

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry, not true.

Roy23,
You seem to think because the DA can make it up as she goes along and mandate that her office opines that the Ramseys are cleared, then you can proceed similarly?

e.g.

Name one piece of evidence that would indicate that the Ramsey's killed their daughter. Make it something that an average DA would take to trial. 1. This board is a lynching crew that is ignoring the basics of DNA. And I will swear to you that as Dr. Lee and other experts keep talking you will have to let this go. There is a persons DNA out there who was in JBR's panties and clothes. 2. It is not a factory workers DNA. And there is also a whole lot of information that you and I are not privy to that allowed Mary Lacy and numerous experts make the decision they made.

So in order your basic arguments are 1. ad hominem, 2. Evidence Based, 3. Authority. Lets take a look at them:

1. Your ad hominem attack on board members as a lynching crew and that of ignorance e.g. ignoring the basics of DNA. is standard fare which has nothing to say about the case in point, and simply maligns the board members.

2. Your evidence base here is patently zero since you do not have privileged access to the touch dna and its results. If you cannot reject the source as being that of a factory workers DNA., then you are not in any position to make any claims about the source of the touch dna at all!

3. Your argument from authority here e.g. numerous experts make the decision they made. is spurious, since again you have no privileged access to the touch dna and its results. It is not the anonymous experts who made the DA's decision it was Lacy's office


Unless the touch dna appears on other crime-scene artifacts which are not tied to JonBenet such as her clothing, then accidental transference cannot be ruled out, even then the case for an intruder is not foolproof.

e.g. The person who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, and the longjohns, may have worn gloves and those gloves may have touch dna from some prior contact?

Name one piece of evidence that would indicate that the Ramsey's killed their daughter.

Patsy Ramsey's fibers embedded into the knotting of the garrote links her directly to the crime-scene as does her fibers on the sticky underside of the duct tape, despite Patsy stating she did not visit the wine-cellar! Then there are the size-12's which again link Patsy to the crime-scene since she says she placed all seven pairs into JonBenet's panty drawer, yet the investigators told Patsy they found no size-12's in JonBenet's panty drawer. So we have physical and verbal evidence. Then there is John Ramsey's fibers alleged to be sourced to his Israeli made shirt, found in JonBenet's genital region.

So far we do not have any foriegn fibers linked to the touch dna, no foreign human hairs, no foreign skin cells, no foreign semen, no foreign debri say from foreign shoes. The person from whom the touch dna originates must have worn a clean-room suit whilst killing JonBenet?

So to date there is zero evidence to support the notion that an intruder was in the Ramsey house the night JonBenet died, and more to suggest that the Ramsey's themselves were involved.

The size-12's are the big red flag in this case. They demonstrate staging either by an intruder or a family member. The size-12's can help with the intruder theory if you can work out why any intruder would want to redress JonBenet in size-12 underwear, then point out there is touch dna on both the size-12 underwear and her longjohns. The critical assumption here is that the touch dna arrived onto the longjohns and the size-12's in the same timeframe e.g. they have a common source. When actually the touch dna may have been deposited onto the longjohns at any point prior to JonBenet's death, and the touch dna in her size-12 underwear may have arrived there from her longjohns by accidental transference, either by a family member or a an intruder e.g. we have not been told if there is the same touch dna on the waistband of her size-12's.

So until that touch dna appears on the paintbrush handle, the garrote cord, or the duct tape etc then it proves little and can be used to clear nobody!

 

[Ames]

When Marc Klaas was accepting questions from posters, on a chat board a few weeks ago, I asked him if he thought that there was an intruder in the Ramsey case. And he simply said..."NO intruder, it was one of the family members inside the house that night". I wished now that I had of asked him why he thought that.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Sorry, not true.

Are you now pretending to be a DNA expert? What are your qualifications? I have a microbiology degree.

 

[Roy23]

Are you now pretending to be a DNA expert? What are your qualifications? I have a microbiology degree.

I am pretty good with DNA actually. Here is the issue though, I understand the problems with the touch DNA by itself. But that is not the case here. The police had another form of DNA sitting in storage for six years with their fingers up their fanny. It was somewhat degraded but they managed to get a profile. They did not clear the Ramseys when found either. They took expert reports from numerous professionals in their field, including Boulder PD, and theorized the manner of JBR's death.

Because of these theories and the complications with touch DNA, they single out two areas to test. It was a grand slam and this case is finally back on track after 12 years of listening to crap like is being spewed on this board. Now the case will be solved, thank God.

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry, not true.

Roy, do you know who Michael Baden is?

 

[BBB167893]

I am pretty good with DNA actually. Here is the issue though, I understand the problems with the touch DNA by itself. But that is not the case here. The police had another form of DNA sitting in storage for six years with their fingers up their fanny. It was somewhat degraded but they managed to get a profile. They did not clear the Ramseys when found either. They took expert reports from numerous professionals in their field, including Boulder PD, and theorized the manner of JBR's death.

You won't believe those experts, but you'll believe the DA? The person who gave us John Mark Karr (AGH! That NAME again!)

It was a grand slam and this case is finally back on track after 12 years of listening to crap like is being spewed on this board.

I'll ignore that.

 

[rashomon]

A thought just occurred to me. I know that when we lived in Montana, (not far from Colorado) in the winter months, my then 8 year old daughter always wore long johns under her clothing. WHAT IF JB was wearing those longjohns under the pants that she wore to the White's party, and since she was known to ask ANYBODY to wipe her...she could have gotten someone at the party to help her pull her pants and longjohns down, since longjohns are tight. Heck, it could be that person's touch DNA on her long johns..and it transferred to her panties. There is no telling where that touch DNA came from. Just because it is there, doesn't mean that it belongs to some unknown intruder/killer.

But in that case, wouldn't this mean JonBenet had been wearing the far too large size 12 Bloomies underpants to the Whites' party also?

 

[angelwngs]

But in that case, wouldn't this mean JonBenet had been wearing the far too large size 12 Bloomies underpants to the Whites' party also?

And as slack as PR was that possibility would not suprise me at all. JBR could have grabbed the size 12's in a rush to go outside and play with her new bike, put on the longjohns under whatever she top pants she wore during the day on the 25th. When PR got into the argument with JB about wanting her to wear the red top to match mom, she could have stormed off and said, "Fine then dress yourself..." JB could easily have taken off the top pants and replaced them with the ones she wore to the Whites party and only bothered to change her top after adding the top pants to the longjohns and size 12's. Also, the long johns would have held the much too big size 12 closer to her body so they would not have felt as uncomfortable....