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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No way. It is amazing to me. There is real evidence in this case and people want to ignore that and go with he said she said info.

 

[2 percent]

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...)

It seems like this always happens with the new toys. DNA had it's teething problems which would have been worked out eventually if they hadn't accepted the technology too quickly before the bugs were worked out.

Same with mitochrondrial DNA. It was going to be the wave of the future in criminal cases but seems to either confuse the issue or it's incomplete nature seems to hurt it in general. Of course it's been a huge step forward for missing and john/jane doe cases.

This will have its teething problems too but it scares the heck out of me that murderers could benefit from this. The only thing that helps is that most murders have more evidence than new, fairly untested DNA evidence.

I remember this one case that still scares me. There was a guy in Pennsylvania, I think, who was convicted of raping and murdering a 14 year old girl. He confessed, described the crime scene and the murder down to the last detail, some of which no one but the killer and the cops would know. 20 years later the DNA from the semen comes back as not matching him (but no match was found in CODIS interestingly enough). So here's the conundrum...how did he know exactly how she was murdered? Most people dismissed it as the police framing him but there are tapes that greatly suggest a true confession.

So did she have sex with someone else and he murdered her? Or is he truly innocent? Doesn't matter...DNA cleared him. Right? I wouldn't want him living in my neighborhood.

 

[pingpong]

GOP.

it's a cover story for September 11th.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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...)

DNA can be a great way of proving people innocent or guilty however it has to have purpose..

In this case having DNA that mingled with JBR blood and then another source of the same dna is a slam dunk. In any other case it would be celebrated.

 

[Linda7NJ]

DNA can be a great way of proving people innocent or guilty however it has to have purpose..

In this case having DNA that mingled with JBR blood and then another source of the same dna is a slam dunk. In any other case it would be celebrated.

You're wrong.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/touch-dna-crime-scene-crime-laboratory#.UjtmZI29LCQ

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You're wrong.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/touch-dna-crime-scene-crime-laboratory#.UjtmZI29LCQ

No, in this case I am not. They have 2 sources of DNA, Not one. Not just touch DNA but the touch DNA backs up the Biological DNA that was mixed with JBR blood. In any other case, DNA mixed with the victims blood would be a slam dunk.

In this case for some reason people treat it like it is nothing which I just do not understand.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Dan Abrams talks about JonBenet's case on Katie Couric's talk show:

http://katiecouric.com/videos/the-biggest-unsolved-cases-of-our-time/

Some notable quotes:

"You have to give Alex Hunter credit"

"It's become clear that the Ramseys had nothing to do with it"

 

[Linda7NJ]

Dan Abrams talks about JonBenet's case on Katie Couric's talk show:

http://katiecouric.com/videos/the-biggest-unsolved-cases-of-our-time/

Some notable quotes:

"You have to give Alex Hunter credit"

"It's become clear that the Ramseys had nothing to do with it"

Wow! What a load of crap!

 

[FrayedKnot]

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")

Well it is patently obvious that there are people who STILL don't understand the science of TDNA, and have completely twisted the practically meaningless findings into some agenda of innocence and persection.

So every person who ever handled my dry cleaning, repaired my fridge, or worked in the factory that produced my panties could be considered suspects should I turn up murdered? :waitasec:


Please read some research on the subject before attacking folks who have obviously done their homework. :seeya:

 

[FrayedKnot]

No, in this case I am not. They have 2 sources of DNA, Not one. Not just touch DNA but the touch DNA backs up the Biological DNA that was mixed with JBR blood. In any other case, DNA mixed with the victims blood would be a slam dunk.

In this case for some reason people treat it like it is nothing which I just do not understand.

No. You're just wrong. You don't understand what TDNA means and you keep trying to insinuate it as proof of something and it just isn't. I really think you ought to get some background on the subject because you keep posting that it is PROOF. Em. Proof of what? I just don't think you know what you are defending, no offense, but it is obviously not what you think it is. :facepalm:

Sometimes you are just wrong. And that's okay. The grace is in knowing when you are wrong and stepping off.

JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

No. You're just wrong. You don't understand what TDNA means and you keep trying to insinuate it as proof of something and it just isn't. I really think you ought to get some background on the subject because you keep posting that it is PROOF. Em. Proof of what? I just don't think you know what you are defending, no offense, but it is obviously not what you think it is. :facepalm:

Sometimes you are just wrong. And that's okay. The grace is in knowing when you are wrong and stepping off.

JMO

I so hear you!
It's frustrating when people go through the trouble of providing unbiased detailed information on the subject and others can't even be bothered to read it

 

[Venom]

No. You're just wrong. You don't understand what TDNA means and you keep trying to insinuate it as proof of something and it just isn't. I really think you ought to get some background on the subject because you keep posting that it is PROOF. Em. Proof of what? I just don't think you know what you are defending, no offense, but it is obviously not what you think it is. :facepalm:

Sometimes you are just wrong. And that's okay. The grace is in knowing when you are wrong and stepping off.

JMO

:tyou::gthanks::tyou:

 

[Venom]

I so hear you!
It's frustrating when people go through the trouble of providing unbiased detailed information on the subject and others can't even be bothered to read it

Yes it is. Maybe some people can't see passed their own biases.

 

[FrayedKnot]

No, in this case I am not. They have 2 sources of DNA, Not one. Not just touch DNA but the touch DNA backs up the Biological DNA that was mixed with JBR blood. In any other case, DNA mixed with the victims blood would be a slam dunk.

In this case for some reason people treat it like it is nothing which I just do not understand.[/]

BBM

That, I agree with. I think a lot of people have tried to explain it to you and have provided plenty of links to back up what they are saying.

You seem to have a deep conviction that tdna is some kind of smoking gun pointing to SIX nefarious intruders and that the idea of that is much simpler than JBR was murderered by someone who lived in that house. I have no idea why, but it is obviously something very important to you, based on your posts. But I get that you really believe it.

It reminds me of one of my fave movies, "The Princess Bride". Inigo Montoya says to Wallace Shawn's character,(who utters the word 'inconceivable' over and over even when it is clear that the situation is NOT inconceivable, but real) " I do not think this word means what you think it means". :floorlaugh:

I love that line!

Sometimes we come to an impasse and I think this is one of those times.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No, in this case I am not. They have 2 sources of DNA, Not one. Not just touch DNA but the touch DNA backs up the Biological DNA that was mixed with JBR blood. In any other case, DNA mixed with the victims blood would be a slam dunk.

In this case for some reason people treat it like it is nothing which I just do not understand.

What are some of the problems DNA analysts encounter with touch DNA cases?

No presumptive tests
Partial profiles yielding low statistics
Complex Mixtures: A mixed sample may contain background DNA, crime-related DNA, and post-crime contamination, and it may be difficult to identify the relevant profile. •Increased chance of contamination
The profile may not be sufficient to enter into CODIS
A late touch DNA request for examination of shared evidence
Re-examination of cold cases which may not have been collected, stored, or examined with trace DNA detection sensitivities in mind.
Touch DNA does not tell you “when” or “how” DNA was deposited
Background DNA obtained from clothing which was handled by someone else or by the manufacturer
A bloodstain containing epithelial cells from another source
Successful Touch DNA Results
In my own experience, I have seen touch DNA results obtained from some unusual sources. These included DNA profiles developed from a pocket lining, grips from weapons, asphalt, face epithelials transferred to clothing, utensils, shoestrings, and a victim’s oral swab which contained DNA from the suspect’s tongue. On one occasion, I swabbed my own hand after handshakes at a social function to determine the presence of other epithelial cells. The laboratory was able to obtain a mixture of my DNA as well as two other individuals.

While touch DNA has become a much requested and successful test for DNA laboratories to perform, we must remember its limitations and be aware of the factors which may affect the results. These include:

Was the amount of DNA adequate for meaningful interpretation?
Was contamination minimized and accounted for?
Did uninvolved individuals have access to the scene or victim?
Was it likely that a suspect could have deposited epithelial cells on the surface of the evidence?
If every contact leaves a trace, as Locard stated, then we must be prepared to answer these questions.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/touch-dna-crime-scene-crime-laboratory#.UjxrdY29LCR

Gee, look how many of the above apply!



How many peoples hands do you think just John alone may have shaken that faithful day?

Without a source ... There is NOTHING definitive about it in this case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

 

[Venom]

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.

:banghead: The dna isn't "true" dna. It's touch dna, which is easily transferred from person to person. :banghead:
I hope I explained that right. By "true" I mean it's not dna from blood, semen, saliva.

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

It saddens me deeply that you refuse to even read what's been provided to you. It's been my experience that everyone that actually followed the case and did their own research comes to the same conclusion.... A Ramsey did it.

No one in their educated right mind would toss out a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing directly at the Ramsey's, in favor of few skin cells, shed who knows when or where....from at least 6 unknown individuals.


.... Just shaking my head.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

:banghead: The dna isn't "true" dna. It's touch dna, which is easily transferred from person to person. :banghead:
I hope I explained that right. By "true" I mean it's not dna from blood, semen, saliva.

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.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It saddens me deeply that you refuse to even read what's been provided to you. It's been my experience that everyone that actually followed the case and did their own research comes to the same conclusion.... A Ramsey did it.

No one in their educated right mind would toss out a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing directly at the Ramsey's, in favor of few skin cells, shed who knows when or where....from at least 6 unknown individuals.


.... Just shaking my head.

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?