Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[Linda7NJ]

The point is circumstantial does not overcome proof of someone else actually bring there. What circumstantial evidence? They lived there? She had make up on in the morning? They were rich?

There is zero evidence supporting the touch DNA was left during the murder. Zero.
No one knows when it was left or if it was carried by someone else. (You should have read the link I provided earlier, you'd know and understand that) it could have come from JonBenet's OWN hands.

What about the other FIVE unknown sources left on the rope? You believe there were SIX unknown people in the basement that night?????

Circumstantial evidence is evidence. It's value is equal to direct evidence. Perhaps you should research that a bit. Sounds as if you have bought into defense attorneys favorite game of smoke and mirrors. They love to insinuate circumstantial evidence is somehow less than. It's not true. Listen to a judges instructions to the jury once in awhile.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is zero evidence supporting the touch DNA was left during the murder. Zero.
No one knows when it was left or if it was carried by someone else. (You should have read the link I provided earlier, you'd know and understand that) it could have come from JonBenet's OWN hands.

What about the other FIVE unknown sources left on the rope? You believe there were SIX unknown people in the basement that night?????

Circumstantial evidence is evidence. It's value is equal to direct evidence. Perhaps you should research that a bit. Sounds as if you have bought into defense attorneys favorite game of smoke and mirrors. They love to insinuate circumstantial evidence is somehow less than. It's not true. Listen to a judges instructions to the jury once in awhile.

So from now on when police find DNA on a body they should just ignore it?

The point is it is there and until it is sourced it had to be considered evidence as part of the crime.
Maybe we should stop collecting DNA at all then.

 

[2 percent]

So from now on when police find DNA on a body they should just ignore it?

No, law enforcement and forensic people still need to do their jobs.
No one here has said DNA should not be collected, run, etc. or that it has no place in evidence of a crime.

There are several types of DNA and as part of a debate forum that stresses missing person cases and criminal cases it's a good idea that we learn the different types and understand their role in crime investigation.

The point is it is there and until it is sourced it had to be considered evidence as part of the crime.
Maybe we should stop collecting DNA at all then.

Thing is, it may never be sourced. Although it meets the minimum NDIS standard it may not be a strong enough sample to match to anyone.
It may also never match to anyone because its transfer from someone who has never, and may never, had their DNA entered into CODIS.

 

[Linda7NJ]

So from now on when police find DNA on a body they should just ignore it?

The point is it is there and until it is sourced it had to be considered evidence as part of the crime.
Maybe we should stop collecting DNA at all then.

Are you aware of just how many skin cells the average person sheds daily? I'd link it for you, but you probably wouldn't even read it. Google is easy enough to use.


Let's say a husband & wife are in a flea bag hotel room. They had attended a huge Christmas party earlier at a friends.
Woman is found dead & stuffed under the hotel room bed in the early morning hours. She was murdered. The murder weapon was the husbands golf club and it too is found in the room. There isn't any evidence of a break in, nothing was stolen. The husband is caught in several lies. He was there, "asleep" the entire time...so he claims. How much sense to you, would it make to point to a few unsourced skin cells found on the wife's clothing? You really believe LE would even bother?

 

[Venom]

Yes it is. DNA is DNA. It is markers that match someone in the planet.

You want to discount it that is your choice. But it remains that it would not be dismissed by those trying to solve a crime.

It matters not really what you may feel about it. The same DNA has been used to clear and include people in crimes. Apparently the people trying to catch criminals think it is important.

Have you actually read any of the links on the tdna? I believe if you did you'd see what all of us are trying to tell you. The touch dna is basically skin cells which can come from anyone. It is easily transferable, that is the slight flaw to it. It could have been from a guest at the White's party, a garment worker, not JUST from an intruder.
Since this tdna is so important and is used by people who catch criminals, you can show us a case that's been solved by it? Remember, just tdna alone.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Being sure of your thoughts on something makes you who you are. Since there is no trial no conviction or even any charges the IDI side actually comes out stronger.

The fact that there is DNA that would not be ignored in any other case but this one means there is the possibility of some one being there that night and killing jbr.

Anything else is speculation.

But there is proof that there could have been someone else there. That is just fact.

 

[BOESP]

So from now on when police find DNA on a body they should just ignore it?

The point is it is there and until it is sourced it had to be considered evidence as part of the crime.
Maybe we should stop collecting DNA at all then.

Then every other DNA sample found on JonBenet, her clothing, rope, blanket, Barbie nightgown, etc., should stand up to the same scrutiny. It is evidence that might belong to the killer, no matter who that killer is or it may be totally innocent.

DNA does not carry a time stamp and there are multiple explanations already given here how DNA from a spray of saliva or mucous, and Touch DNA in particular, can arrive innocently.

A DNA contributor also being a household member does not negate the possibility the household member was the killer.

The bottom line is DNA evidence in this case in the public domain are pieces of information that by themselves mean little. They are neither for or against. If DNA from semen had been found on JonBenet, because it is semen and because there is no practical reason it should be on her, then that would mean something.

Television programs are there to entertain and make money for the producers and station owners. They are not generators of forensic evidence.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Have you actually read any of the links on the tdna? I believe if you did you'd see what all of us are trying to tell you. The touch dna is basically skin cells which can come from anyone. It is easily transferable, that is the slight flaw to it. It could have been from a guest at the White's party, a garment worker, not JUST from an intruder.
Since this tdna is so important and is used by people who catch criminals, you can show us a case that's been solved by it? Remember, just tdna alone.

I have read it. The fact that there is biological DNA that matches that tdna. Makes it even more probable that someone else killed her.
It is not tdna alone.

 

[Venom]

I have read it. The fact that there is biological DNA that matches that tdna. Makes it even more probable that someone else killed her.
It is not tdna alone.

Where is the biological dna? The only blood found was JB's, no semen, no saliva.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Where is the biological dna? The only blood found was JB's, no semen, no saliva.

The tdna matches DNA that was found mixed with jbrs blood. I have posted many links on it.
It's there. Just because a book may refute it does not mean it is not there. It is.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I have read it. The fact that there is biological DNA that matches that tdna. Makes it even more probable that someone else killed her.
It is not tdna alone.

Heavy sigh.... It's all biological...eye roll

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Heavy sigh.... It's all biological...eye roll

Correct. So it all has value

 

[Linda7NJ]

The tdna matches DNA that was found mixed with jbrs blood. I have posted many links on it.
It's there. Just because a book may refute it does not mean it is not there. It is.

So let's say JonBenet picked up touch DNA on her own hands.... She grabs the long johns and panties and pulls them on. Any DNA on her hands is now on her panties and her long johns. That's just one far more likely scenario.

Are you claiming there is ZERO evidence of any kind, including DNA, on her or items brought to the crime scene belonging to a Ramsey? Or simply excusing its presence?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Correct. So it all has value

You keep ignoring the same touch DNA by your standard means there were SIX unknown people in that basement that night. Account for that?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So let's say JonBenet picked up touch DNA on her own hands.... She grabs the long johns and panties and pulls them on. Any DNA on her hands is now on her panties and her long johns. That's just one far more likely scenario.

Are you claiming there is ZERO evidence of any kind, including DNA, on her or items brought to the crime scene belonging to a Ramsey? Or simply excusing its presence?

They DNA has been excluded from the source mixed with her blood and the tdna that matched it.

There is nothing that says any if the R's did this. There fibers are supposed to be there so them being there does not mean anything more than they lived in the house.
The matched DNA mingled with jbr blood does not match the r's. Not any of them.

Pretty much evidence that excludes them

 

[Linda7NJ]

They DNA has been excluded from the source mixed with her blood and the tdna that matched it.

There is nothing that says any if the R's did this. There fibers are supposed to be there so them being there does not mean anything more than they lived in the house.
The matched DNA mingled with jbr blood does not match the r's. Not any of them.

Pretty much evidence that excludes them

This post makes no sense at all. It's not coherent

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This post makes no sense at all. It's not coherent

It's coherent. It's just not what you agree with.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Correct. So it all has value

It has no value.

Lots of items are collected as evidence. Often when it's collected, no one knows if it will be of any value or not....

When all is said and done, this TdNA, unless and until it's sourced, is useless. Right now, it means nothing. It's as significant as the other five unsourced people whose TDNA was found on the rope.
You ignoring that fact, proves it means nothing!

 

[Agatha_C]

The issue is here there are two sources of the same DNA.. One from her Long johns and one from her Panties that was mixed with JBR blood. There is just no way to spin that into it not being important and most likely pointing to an intruder. That along with the crime that took place 8 months after this horrific murder, is enough for anyone to accept the possibility of someone else committing this crime.

(bbm)

Are you referring to the Amy Attacker? It took place 2 miles from where the R's lived.

If so, let me clear some things up for you. The father, a psychologist (his name can be found in the links I'll provided at the bottom of this post) hired a PI that happens to be an IDI or to be more specific a Santa did it theorist; he discovered that the mommy in that case had a boyfriend. One that came in one door and left by the balcony and that she brought him in quite a bit. Mommy was lying about the intruder.

Now if that's not enough to clear it up then take into consideration.... Amy was 14 not 7, she was not tied up, beat up, strangled, bashed in the head, nor was a stun gun used on her. Her attacker did not take her from her bed nor did he leave the War and Peace of a ransom note pretending to be a foreign faction that only needed $118,000.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 1997
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-september97-intruder.htm

1999-09-24: Peterson Press Conference, Regent Wilshire Hotel, Beverly Hills, Ca.

(Representatives from ABC, KABC, KCAL, KCBS, KNBC, FOX, KCOP, CNN, Extra and others attended)
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09241999petersonconference.htm

 

[FrayedKnot]

"It has been stated in publications that forensic scientists can obtain a DNA profile from as few as five to six cells. However, just because a surface is touched and a few skin cells are left behind does not guarantee a meaningful DNA profile can be obtained. Detecting and obtaining an interpretable DNA profile are two different concepts."


http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/touch-dna-crime-scene-crime-laboratory#.Ujy3BXy9KSM