Low copy number (LCN) DNA = Ramsey's far from cleared

[Solace]

I'm not disputing that there are people, heavily involved in the case, that believe the totality of the evidence points to the Ramsey's being guilty. Obviously that is true. I am disputing Solace's point that anyone who is familiar with the case knows the Ramsey's are "in it up to their eyeballs". Obviously that is not true.

The key word is familiar with the case Jayce. Anyone who is TRULY familiar with this case and I dont' mean has an overall picture, I mean familiar with all the bullchit that the Ramseys have tried to pass off, realize that the Ramseys are in it up to their eyeballs. It is fascinating to watch them lie. I have to say they are very good at it, until one starts reading about all the people they hurt in their quest to save themselves and then one begins to realize just how full of chit they are and then it becomes fascinating to watch their interviews.

And a few others like McCrary, Ressler, Wendy Murphy, Chet Ubowski - contrary to what some IDIs may post, he was ready to testify, pretty sure Alex Hunter also believed they were guilty but did nothing about it; and our own SuperDave is a convert after doing his own research; I believe someone on this forum just today said SD has now convinced her.

The truth is once someone starts digging into this case and sees just how the Ramseys played this game, the Ramseys once again become the center of their interest. I especially love the red heart scene with Patsy saying it was a really good heart, well drawn and then recanting that she ever saw it and read about it in the autopsy report instead. I don't recall them saying it was well drawn in the autopsy report though. And lets not forget John says they don't read them and reiterated that on LKL. Such kidders these two.

And the list goes on and on. Most IDIs who do not believe they are in it up to their eyeballs are misinformed as is evident by their posts and a good portion of them are just plain craza as is also evident by their posts.

And by misinformed, I mean just that and then some. Theories so ludicrous you have to shake your head and wonder. I realize it is hard to swallow that the Ramseys are involved in this horrific crime, horrific because she is not only killed, but defiled to protect themselves - but I can absolutely see Patsy rising to the occasion - this is a woman who in some ways lacks self esteem and in others is extremely strong. She has a very large personality. She is capable of much and one thing she is definitely capable of is living after doing this. A good percentage of people would succumb to alcoholism or suicide. She did not. She is very very strong. That could be debated by some, but that I feel is very true.

 

[trixie]

I, like SuperDave, thought they were innocent. UNTIL I READ THEIR BOOK. That alone convinced me. I think sometimes there is the one thing that can't be explained away that makes you start to think "Well, what if they did do it?" At that point you start looking at all the evidence in a different light and when that happens you start to see things your head and heart refused to see in the beginning. I tried so hard to find the evidence of innocence for them and it became a hobby or a study for me to find something to hang on to my belief. But as the evidence stacked up I had to admit this was done by someone in the house, probably Patsy. The turning point for me was the pineapple. It has yet to be explained in such a way to clear the Ramseys. Since then it's been the fibers in the garrote and of course Patsy wrote that note. No question there for me. If these things could ever be explained in a believable manner I might consider thier innocence again. But so far nobody can and therefore IMO all the evidence points to someone in the house. I think I am in very good company though because as soon as the FBI read the note they said look at the family. They strongly recomended to look at the family. This is our nations FBI. I think they know how to do their job.

 

[Solace]

I, like SuperDave, thought they were innocent. UNTIL I READ THEIR BOOK. That alone convinced me. I think sometimes there is the one thing that can't be explained away that makes you start to think "Well, what if they did do it?" At that point you start looking at all the evidence in a different light and when that happens you start to see things your head and heart refused to see in the beginning. I tried so hard to find the evidence of innocence for them and it became a hobby or a study for me to find something to hang on to my belief. But as the evidence stacked up I had to admit this was done by someone in the house, probably Patsy. The turning point for me was the pineapple. It has yet to be explained in such a way to clear the Ramseys. Since then it's been the fibers in the garrote and of course Patsy wrote that note. No question there for me. If these things could ever be explained in a believable manner I might consider thier innocence again. But so far nobody can and therefore IMO all the evidence points to someone in the house.

Is there anything in particular in the book that convinced you or was it the overall book. Because I gotta tell you, it is difficult to get through that one, especially when he says he thought the police would have been more discreet when they came over that morning.

 

[BBB167893]

The book was only one of several things in my case.

 

[trixie]

Is there anything in particular in the book that convinced you or was it the overall book. Because I gotta tell you, it is difficult to get through that one, especially when he says he thought the police would have been more discreet when they came over that morning.

I have to admit it was the overall book and it was little things. Things like Patsy calling it a "paper sack" in the book and in the ransom note she said "paper bag." I know that's not that big of a deal but the obvious changing of what things are called made me think she was trying to distance herself from the ransom note. Kind of like wearing the same clothes two or three days in a row. IMO Patsy was too conscience of what she looked like to wear the same clothes more than once. Moreover she didn't have to. She had a maid that did the laundry. So why would she? Just little things like that. It's hard to read a book when you keep rolling your eyes every 2 minutes. I need my eyes to read and I just couldn't control them with that book.
I just wanted to add that to me reading that book was like reading the ransom note. Same linguistics, same way of writing, same phrasology. That book was a big mistake for them.

 

[Solace]

I have to admit it was the overall book and it was little things. Things like Patsy calling it a "paper sack" in the book and in the ransom note she said "paper bag." I know that's not that big of a deal but the obvious changing of what things are called made me think she was trying to distance herself from the ransom note. Kind of like wearing the same clothes two or three days in a row. IMO Patsy was too conscience of what she looked like to wear the same clothes more than once. Moreover she didn't have to. She had a maid that did the laundry. So why would she? Just little things like that. It's hard to read a book when you keep rolling your eyes every 2 minutes. I need my eyes to read and I just couldn't control them with that book.
I just wanted to add that to me reading that book was like reading the ransom note. Same linguistics, same way of writing, same phrasology. That book was a big mistake for them.

That is excellent Trixie. This is why I ask questions like that because sees this case and the evidence differently and it is interesting to see another's take on their guilt and why. That may seem small but I think it is extremely observant.

 

[Solace]

The book was only one of several things in my case.

How long did you research before you decided they were guilty?

 

[BBB167893]

About two years.

 

[Solace]

About two years.

Long time SD. You are a fair man.

 

[BBB167893]

A lot happened in those two years.

 

[Solace]

A lot happened in those two years.

mmmhm. It is an incredibly fascinating case. Any thoughts on what happened to the red turtleneck? Do you think it is with all the other evidence that no one seems to give a chit about?

 

[BBB167893]

I do.

 

[cynic]

The truth is once someone starts digging into this case and sees just how the Ramseys played this game, the Ramseys once again become the center of their interest. I especially love the red heart scene with Patsy saying it was a really good heart, well drawn and then recanting that she ever saw it and read about it in the autopsy report instead. I don't recall them saying it was well drawn in the autopsy report though. And lets not forget John says they don't read them and reiterated that on LKL. Such kidders these two.

Always interesting to read what jumps out at people when looking at the many things in the case that point to the Ramsey's guilt.
For me the ransom note/letter/novel was the clincher.
There have been many convictions on less circumstantial evidence than in this case - money trumps justice, however.

 

[BBB167893]

There have been many convictions on less circumstantial evidence than in this case - money trumps justice, however.

Scott Peterson leaps to mind.

 

[LI_Mom]

I, like SuperDave, thought they were innocent. UNTIL I READ THEIR BOOK. That alone convinced me. I think sometimes there is the one thing that can't be explained away that makes you start to think "Well, what if they did do it?" At that point you start looking at all the evidence in a different light and when that happens you start to see things your head and heart refused to see in the beginning. I tried so hard to find the evidence of innocence for them and it became a hobby or a study for me to find something to hang on to my belief. But as the evidence stacked up I had to admit this was done by someone in the house, probably Patsy. The turning point for me was the pineapple. It has yet to be explained in such a way to clear the Ramseys. Since then it's been the fibers in the garrote and of course Patsy wrote that note. No question there for me. If these things could ever be explained in a believable manner I might consider thier innocence again. But so far nobody can and therefore IMO all the evidence points to someone in the house. I think I am in very good company though because as soon as the FBI read the note they said look at the family. They strongly recomended to look at the family. This is our nations FBI. I think they know how to do their job.

You know.... reading their book also made ME start to believe something was way off with the way they behave.

It was so self-serving & it almost seemed as if mentions of JB were an afterthought.

One of the first things that I couldn't really wrap my mind around was when they discussed Patsy in labor w/ JB.

They called family members (can't remember who) & they would be over in a few minutes time....

And then they left 3 year old Burke home alone & headed for the hospital.

Sorry... you just never know if the person has a car accident & never shows up... you wait a couple of minutes OR you take your toddler with you & let someone pick him up at the hospital.

Weird story to include a book that's supposed to show the public what loving & careful parents you are. And how much you treasure your children.

 

[angelwngs]

Angel wings, if that had happened regarding breaking the paint brush first, they would have found wood shard evidence of the paint brush along with that DNA as well.

They found "wood fragments" in her vagina which lends itself to the possibility the brush was broken prior to pulling her pants down:

Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case 1:00-CV-1187-JEC
Carnes Order March 31, 2003 (Page 71 thru 80)


pg.74
"As noted, some wood fragments from the paintbrush used to create the garotte were found in JonBenet's vagina. Thus, given the existence of undisputed evidence that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and the discovery of DNA evidence on her person from an unidentified male--as well as no DNA from any Ramsey--" http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes71-80.htm

 

[robotdog]

the bedwetting with the kids and the ramseys constantly telling everyone that it was not a big deal........ is ludicrous



its not the kids fault, but most parents would take some action and get involved with "fixing" it by helping the kids


buying pampers by the case aint a fix

 

[BBB167893]

the bedwetting with the kids and the ramseys constantly telling everyone that it was not a big deal........ is ludicrous



its not the kids fault, but most parents would take some action and get involved with "fixing" it by helping the kids


buying pampers by the case aint a fix

More like a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

 

[robotdog]

More like a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

it really is

because is shows how phony balony they are


on one hand, prancing around on stage with expensive clothes and being so
sophisticated and when they get home its a totally different story


i really think patsy should have spent a little less time teaching JB how to act on stage and help her to be a little kid

its makes me want to puke :behindbar

 

[UKGuy]

They were able to get enough markers to enter into CODIS. They don't have enough for an ABSOLUTE match, but they have more than enough to be extremely confident.Wrong. You are confusing the fact that we all have a very high percentage of the same genes with the erroneous assumption that we therefore have a good number of the same genetic markers. The odds of two people, randomly chosen, even sharing a few of the same genetic markers isn't very good. The odds of all LOCI (I think they got 10) from the DNA in the underwear matching all the LOCI from the newly found DNA is astronomical. It isn't a for sure match, but its pretty close. It goes a long way to exonerating the Ramseys. The so-called "degraded" DNA, especially with advances in technology, is still very useful.

Jayce,
If you reckon the recent discovered dna nearly matches the prior dna recovered from her panties. Then what is it that is new?

Have the other longjohns been dna analysed just in case there has been some contact transfer? Remember according to the parents the longjohns were fresh on JonBenet that night, also you can bet the size-12's were clean, fresh out of the Bloomingdales panty tube, so how come there is only suspect dna on clothing that was clean on JonBenet that night?

Does this suggest to us that JonBenet was initially redressed in only her longjohns, thus transferring contact/touch dna, then redressed in the size-12's, so transferring the dna?

How come this mysterious intruder only left dna on her underwear but no where else, not a foreign cell left internally, none on her hands, face or head where she was whacked?

What other foreign dna was discovered on JonBenet's clothing, why is that not being released to the press, or might that suggest some kind of indecent group activity?

The dna means nothing since it cannot be shown to be directly linked with JonBenet's death e.g. semen dna would alter any interpretation.