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

[UKGuy]

Wait. One of us is not understanding the DNA findings.
All of the blood found is JBs, there was never any unknown blood DNA. What was found was a co-mingling of faint DNA that was theorized to come from either saliva or skin cells.

JBs blood in her panties co mingled with the touch or saliva DNA, which was not able to be tested at the time. Now it has and that co mingled DNA was shown to be touch DNA or skin cells which code as male DNA. That doesn't necessarily mean the male DNA was deposited at the time of the murder/sexual assault. If the fingernail DNA is the same as the co mingled panty DNA then the most likely source of contamination is JB herself by touching her underwear sometime during the day with dirty hands/fingernails.



I'm not tossing it away. I'm categorizing it under "Incidental Contact" until further notice. Why? Because any foreign attacker during the brutal sexual assault would have left much more DNA behind than faint skin cell traces.

2 percent,
This was also Kolar's opinion. He assumed a Foreign Faction i.e. plural, would leave multiple samples of touch dna all over JonBenet and the crime-scene in general.

With an absence of such evidence, patently the R's would have told us about any other stranger touch-dna, we can be confident that the touch dna found on JonBenet has some innocent explanation.

The R's and their promoters placed a lot of misinformation in the public domain, the DNA myth was one such item.

Do Prosecutors charge for exoneration in the USofA?


.

 

[SapphireSteel]

It is not hard to imagine people doing this, But there are ways they do it and ways they do not.. Further more DNA points away from the R's.

Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child's panties.\

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/

I find this to be an extraordinary statement.

Are you seriously saying that this couldn't have happened because parents don't kill their children "that way"?

Seriously?

:scared:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Wait. One of us is not understanding the DNA findings.
All of the blood found is JBs, there was never any unknown blood DNA. What was found was a co-mingling of faint DNA that was theorized to come from either saliva or skin cells.

JBs blood in her panties co mingled with the touch or saliva DNA, which was not able to be tested at the time. Now it has and that co mingled DNA was shown to be touch DNA or skin cells which code as male DNA. That doesn't necessarily mean the male DNA was deposited at the time of the murder/sexual assault. If the fingernail DNA is the same as the co mingled panty DNA then the most likely source of contamination is JB herself by touching her underwear sometime during the day with dirty hands/fingernails.



I'm not tossing it away. I'm categorizing it under "Incidental Contact" until further notice. Why? Because any foreign attacker during the brutal sexual assault would have left much more DNA behind than faint skin cell traces.

I can see this for what it is now. People want the R's to be guilty. IT is easier that way. But the DNA material in her underwear matched TDNA later identified as DNA testing improved. Now we have a match that is not the R's. How do we get around that? We pick at it, call it transfer. In any other case that would be enough to add weight to an intruder but not in this case. NOt as long as there is money to be had from writing books and ignoring the obvious.

The truth is out there. There is evidence it was someone else. If that is ignored there is not a full case to discuss.

 

[LinasK]

I can see this for what it is now. People want the R's to be guilty. IT is easier that way. But the DNA material in her underwear matched TDNA later identified as DNA testing improved. Now we have a match that is not the R's. How do we get around that? We pick at it, call it transfer. In any other case that would be enough to add weight to an intruder but not in this case. NOt as long as there is money to be had from writing books and ignoring the obvious.

The truth is out there. There is evidence it was someone else. If that is ignored there is not a full case to discuss.

What evidence??? No I do not want the Ramsey's to be GUILTY-that's using the "hater" mentality logic, but the point is that they are and got away with it. I wish they had never injured and harmed JB and that she had gotten to grow up to be a normal little girl.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What evidence??? No I do not want the Ramsey's to be GUILTY-that's using the "hater" mentality logic, but the point is that they are and got away with it. I wish they had never injured and harmed JB and that she had gotten to grow up to be a normal little girl.

There has been too much in this case and frankly in this forum that has been touted as fact and is not. The facts are there is DNA that points to someone else. With 2 sources. There is another event that happened 8 months after this that was similar if not spookily the same. The only difference is he was scared away. But the child was a dance class mate of JBR, The man hid in the basement for hours before they came home..

There is so much that points to a valid case toward intruder. By fact, Not fiction.

 

[2 percent]

I can see this for what it is now. People want the R's to be guilty.

Not new...you've been saying that for days.

My ego is not linked to this case and I have no horse in this race. I pray for JB and hope she suffered as little pain as possible when she died.
I also hope she soars with the angels now, untethered and at peace.

But this case is just a mystery to me, the Ramseys mean nothing to me but "puzzle piece".

IT is easier that way. But the DNA material in her underwear matched TDNA later identified as DNA testing improved. Now we have a match that is not the R's. How do we get around that? We pick at it, call it transfer. In any other case that would be enough to add weight to an intruder but not in this case. NOt as long as there is money to be had from writing books and ignoring the obvious.

The truth is out there. There is evidence it was someone else. If that is ignored there is not a full case to discuss.

Answer my question, how did you rule out JB as the source of contamination?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not new...you've been saying that for days.

My ego is not linked to this case and I have no horse in this race. I pray for JB and hope she suffered as little pain as possible when she died.
I also hope she soars with the angels now, untethered and at peace.

But this case is just a mystery to me, the Ramseys mean nothing to me but "puzzle piece".



Answer my question, how did you rule out JB as the source of contamination?

IT is good to know that. I am glad you posted that. I feel the same. This is not about ego for me but what is right. I feel bad for the R's because I can not imagine anything worse than your dd being brutally killed and then being accused of it in the public eye. They never got a trial to defend themselves and show people the truth, They had to endure years of innuendo.

I am not an IDI because it is against the grain, I am an IDI because I see more than a possibility that there was an stranger there that night. Along with the other evidence of another break in 8 months later that was freakishly similar, I can not dismiss it. I cannot ignore DNA that points away from the R's. I would not in any other case either. I need to see proof someone is guilty and all I see here is more possibility that it was a stranger that took this girl's life.

 

[hawkshaw]

I vote for the older brother.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not new...you've been saying that for days.

My ego is not linked to this case and I have no horse in this race. I pray for JB and hope she suffered as little pain as possible when she died.
I also hope she soars with the angels now, untethered and at peace.

But this case is just a mystery to me, the Ramseys mean nothing to me but "puzzle piece".



Answer my question, how did you rule out JB as the source of contamination?

Exactly, that little girl hadn't been bathed for days.

IMO this never was not and will never be a DNA case.

Some unsourced dead skin cells does not an intruder make, no matter how hard anyone tries.

 

[Harmony 2]

Why is it that touch dna, which is pretty much skin cells rubbed off, is found in such odd places and not in others?

This intruder had to touch a pen for a very long time...no touch DNA

This intruder had to touch the pad of paper and/or table where the ransom note was written...no touch DNA

This intruder had to climb in/out of a window where vigorous rubbing of the hands would take place...no touch DNA

This intruder had to handle a rough rope, tie it and tighten it at regular intervals for a long time...no touch DNA

Up to this point you may say "he wore gloves!" (although why there are no fibers or other evidence of this, who knows)

Okay. But it's obvious you believe this intruder didn't wear gloves to take down JB's longjohns or touch her panties.
So why is there no touch DNA in her vaginal and labial area where obvious contact had to take place, enough to make her bleed? Why is there no touch DNA mingled with her blood in the vaginal and labial area?

Were the pad of paper, table, broken window and rope tested for touch DNA? Where can I read those results? TIA

 

[redheadedgal]

Some unsourced dead skin cells does not an intruder make, no matter how hard anyone tries.

exactly. and cynic's dna thread posts clearly laid this out... years ago.

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://archive.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf

This cuts both ways.

The touch DNA in this case has been assigned too much importance by people that do not actually understand the science. Their willingness to believe its important IMO is directly related to the csi effect. IMO

IMO had the rope been tested and the same skin cell artifacts been found, that would be significant.

Not only hadn't she been bathed in days, she was known to call out to ANYONE around to come wipe her....and I do mean ANYONE. That tells me Patsy was disengaged in a huge and very troubling way. IMO

 

[Venom]

http://archive.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf

This cuts both ways.

The touch DNA in this case has been assigned too much importance by people that do not actually understand the science. Their willingness to believe its important IMO is directly related to the csi effect. IMO

IMO had the rope been tested and the same skin cell artifacts been found, that would be significant.

Not only hadn't she been bathed in days, she was known to call out to ANYONE around to come wipe her....and I do mean ANYONE. That tells me Patsy was disengaged in a huge and very troubling way. IMO

Good article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[2 percent]

Were the pad of paper, table, broken window and rope tested for touch DNA? Where can I read those results? TIA

I don't know. Based on what we've seen so far, I have to assume none of that evidence has been swabbed for DNA because the rope specifically should be a gold mine of sloughed off cells or fibers.

However, all of it should still be part of the sealed evidence in this case, specifically the rope, pad and pen. The bigger items - probably 50-50 chance they were kept for evidence.

I'm not clear on the procedure for new testing in a cold case. But it seems to me if they could get retesting of the panties and longjohns, they could get it for the rope and other evidence. It seems odd to me the new testing areas were so limited.

 

[Venom]

Maybe they were tested for dna and the results are part of the evidence that the public doesn't know.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Maybe they were tested for dna and the results are part of the evidence that the public doesn't know.

He went on to report, however, that additional samples of trace male DNA had been discovered on the cord used in the wrist bindings, and the garrote that had killed JonBenét. These trace “Touch DNA” samples were genetically unique from one another, and were believed to belong to different individuals. It took several moments for this information to be absorbed by the cadre of law enforcement experts filling the room before one of the female laboratory technicians voiced her observation. It went something like this: “Are you telling me, based on trace Touch DNA testing results, that we are now looking at six different people being involved in this murder?” Horita reluctantly nodded his head. We collectively recapped the DNA evidence that had been analyzed in this investigation, and it included the following:
1.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that was identified as belonging to her.
2.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an unidentified male.
3.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female DNA.)
4.) There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-2.
5.) The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear.
6.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the wrist bindings that belonged to a different unidentified male.
7.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the garrote that belonged to yet another unidentified male.
By our count, we were looking at six separate and independent DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising a group that consisted of five males and one female.
But there was more. Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét. This Touch DNA belonged to Patsy and Burke Ramsey. No surprise there: they all lived in the same house.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 412 - 414
__________________
This time we get it right

 

[Venom]

Could any or all of the tdna on the cording be from the factory through packaging?
The dna on her fingernails could have come from the tainted nail clippers used at autopsy or even from not washing her hands.

 

[2 percent]

He went on to report, however, that additional samples of trace male DNA had been discovered on the cord used in the wrist bindings, and the garrote that had killed JonBenét. These trace “Touch DNA” samples were genetically unique from one another, and were believed to belong to different individuals. It took several moments for this information to be absorbed by the cadre of law enforcement experts filling the room before one of the female laboratory technicians voiced her observation. It went something like this: “Are you telling me, based on trace Touch DNA testing results, that we are now looking at six different people being involved in this murder?” Horita reluctantly nodded his head. We collectively recapped the DNA evidence that had been analyzed in this investigation, and it included the following:
1.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that was identified as belonging to her.
2.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an unidentified male.
3.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female DNA.)
4.) There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-2.
5.) The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear.
6.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the wrist bindings that belonged to a different unidentified male.
7.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the garrote that belonged to yet another unidentified male.
By our count, we were looking at six separate and independent DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising a group that consisted of five males and one female.
But there was more. Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét. This Touch DNA belonged to Patsy and Burke Ramsey. No surprise there: they all lived in the same house.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 412 - 414
__________________
This time we get it right

Let's step back for a minute.
For the sake of argument, let's say the touch DNA on the rope is from the murder, why would six people touch the rope?
I see one, maybe two people touching the rope at most. But all six? Unlikely.

 

[2 percent]

Could any or all of the tdna on the cording be from the factory through packaging?
The dna on her fingernails could have come from the tainted nail clippers used at autopsy or even from not washing her hands.

Could you imagine?! Touch DNA is the new technology only to find that the majority of the evidence on objects like ropes, underwear, etc. come from every single person who's touched it? The confusion and red herrings this new technology would result in....

The mind boggles (while simultaneously thinking "what a waste of time and money")

 

[madeleine]

Could you imagine?! Touch DNA is the new technology only to find that the majority of the evidence on objects like ropes, underwear, etc. come from every single person who's touched it? The confusion and red herrings this new technology would result in....

The mind boggles (while simultaneously thinking "what a waste of time and money")

and things will get worse IMO,just wait and see how many criminals will walk free based on stuff like "hey,my clients touch DNA is NOT on the victim>>>he's innocent!"...this was a real example unfortunately (but now I am forgetting the suspect's name...)