Netflex JBR Documentary was full of false information.

[FergusMcDuck]

Thanks for this article! I didn't know about some of this.

Question for anyone who understands DNA: How did the DNA exclude other/external suspects if it was degraded/miniscule? Or is repeated testing the reason it's degraded? Or is it untrue that other suspects were excluded based on their DNA not matching?

It wasn't degraded or miniscule. There was enough for multiple tests that consumed a lot of it in the early days of DNA testing. I wrote about it here:

That comes from Kolar and what he claimed to learn from talking to LaBerge who did the final 13STR testing that identified enought markers to put the profile into CODIS. It does seem like Kolar misunderstood whatever LaBerge told him, because there had been multiple earlier tests of the DNA that had consumed plenty of it.

DQA1/polymarker test by CBI in Jan 1997 - minimum requirement 2 nanograms.
D1S80 test by CBI in jan 1997 and Cellmark in Feb 1997 - consumes between 0.5 and 40 nanograms (can be very wasteful)
13STR by CBI in Sep 1999 - the kits used consumed 1 to 2.5 nanograms
13STR by Denver Police Forensics Lab (LaBerge) in 2001 - again 1 to 2.5 nanograms

Basically, if LaBerge told Kolar there was 0.5 nanograms of unidentified male DNA, he had to have meant there was 0.5 nanograms remaining.

 

[Slebby]

In my opinion, the reason John Ramsey is pushing the DNA will find the killer theory is because he knows damn well the DNA will NOT lead to the killer/intruder. I'll post the link to the article written about l0 years ago that explains it. It's going to take me a bit to find it.
Patsy wrote the note, in my opinion, and therefore, no intruder. When you conclude Patsy wrote the note, all of the other intruder "evidence" goes out the window.
If anyone wants to post what intruder evidence they feel is strong please post it. We can show you why that evidence does not point to an intruder.

I am baffled by any assertions that WHO wrote the note is inconclusive. I believe strongly that it was written by PR. There is reliable expert analysis pointing to her. I believe it is by R power and influence alone that this has been minimized, down to “she could not be eliminated”. The fact that PR is also tragically dead from cancer has, imo, made the development of this angle almost a taboo subject.

What I wonder, is there any legal means for any investigative authority, such as the FBI, to formally name PR as the author of the RN? It would require someone with courage and character to go against the current of politics and money.
It would then place the ball firmly in the court of the R legal and PR machine to decide how to respond. Continue to stonewall? Deny deny deny? Sue a trained handwriting expert for their analysis? Throw PR under the bus?

I agree that this one element of the crime and coverup, the RN written by PR eliminates all IDI possibilities.
In recent years we have seen members of the powerful class taken down - Epstein, Weinstein, Cosby, Diddy, etc. People afraid or unwilling to spill details have finally done so. I believe there are folks with knowledge or at least suspicions who could say what they know. Even if there is no conviction, there is a measure of justice in exposing lies and obfuscations.
I would love to see someone develop a conscience, and I’d like to see it in JR’s lifetime. I believe there are folks who fell in line with the Rs, their friends and family, who either know or suspect more. Shame on them for doing nothing.

This is my own opinion

 

[CrimeTheorist]

I think a lot of people are afraid of being sued.

 

[hootdings]

On this thread, please post what in the documentary makes you believe there was an intruder.

• Unknown male DNA in her underpants
• What appear to be stun gun marks on her body
• Duct tape that can't be sourced inside the house
• Lack of a better explanation

 

[TizerisT]

• Unknown male DNA in her underpants
• What appear to be stun gun marks on her body
• Duct tape that can't be sourced inside the house
• Lack of a better explanation

Certainly the first two, and in particular the stun gun. Gary Oliva was caught burglarizing an art college for art supplies, armed with a stun gun.

 

[CloudedTruth]

The other thing that stood out for me in this "mockumentary" was how much time they spent on John Mark Karr. What was the point of that other than salaciousness? He had been ruled out as a suspect and for more than one reason. And Michael Tracey's credibility in all of this is a big question mark. What was his motive? He literally incited a media frenzy about it all, and then Mary Lacy stupidly decides to arrest Karr and transport him back to Colorado from Thailand at major expense to the taxpayers, only to have to let him go because it was all a sham. Between the inclusion of that nonsense and making it such a big part of the show, and the lack of other much more pertinent evidence, the obvious bias puts this in the category of cheap entertainment.

 

[cenazoic]

• What appear to be stun gun marks on her body
• Duct tape that can't be sourced inside the house

- the coroner’s report describes these as ‘abrasions’, not burns. The specific brand identified by Smit, Air Taser, specifically said their device did not cause these marks, and further, didn’t render people unconscious.

Experts dispute stun gun theory

Two stun gun experts dispute an investigator’s theory that such a weapon was used by JonBenét Ramsey’s killer. JonBenét Ramsey | Daily Camera Archive

www.dailycamera.com

- Fiber from PR’s clothing worn at the Stein’s party and on the 26th were found under (on the adhesive side) the tape:

JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case: The Denver Post

extras.denverpost.com

 

[FergusMcDuck]

- the coroner’s report describes these as ‘abrasions’, not burns. The specific brand identified by Smit, Air Taser, specifically said their device did not cause these marks, and further, didn’t render people unconscious.

But their spokesman specifically said the wouldn't be from an Air Taser because the tased person would move. But if you look at the marks (called abrasions in scientific literature) on restrained victims they are essentially identical.

- Fiber from PR’s clothing worn at the Stein’s party and on the 26th were found under (on the adhesive side) the tape:

Fibers consistent with fibers from Patsy's jacket, yes. But also consistent with clothes made from the same mass-produced material. Fiber evidence just isn't as strong as DNA evidence.

 

[hootdings]

- Fiber from PR’s clothing worn at the Stein’s party and on the 26th were found under (on the adhesive side) the tape:

Right, but it's her house, and her child. Your clothing leaves trace fibers all over your house, all over other people's clothing when they're in your house or when you touch them, occasionally they move around in the air. The duct tape could have picked up fibers from a lot of places without Patsy putting the duct tape on JonBenet's mouth.

 

[Ponytale]

The other thing that stood out for me in this "mockumentary" was how much time they spent on John Mark Karr. What was the point of that other than salaciousness? He had been ruled out as a suspect and for more than one reason. And Michael Tracey's credibility in all of this is a big question mark. What was his motive? He literally incited a media frenzy about it all, and then Mary Lacy stupidly decides to arrest Karr and transport him back to Colorado from Thailand at major expense to the taxpayers, only to have to let him go because it was all a sham. Between the inclusion of that nonsense and making it such a big part of the show, and the lack of other much more pertinent evidence, the obvious bias puts this in the category of cheap entertainment.

I suppose they just wanted to sell the IDI theory to the audiences. They stopped for so long to introduce all the previous most known "suspects" in this case so that people watching the "show" would have reasonable doubt to think that "Hey, if those guys were doing and thinking so, then there probably is a real intruder somewhere and police should concentrate on that." At least I see that as the only reason why to put any of those three on the show... they just needed to make everyone see that the intruder theory is not fiction but there are real "crazy monsters" out there who would actually do something like that. An unnecessary introduction of an criminal mind, so to say. IMO. Only to make people point their fingers at someone else than the Ramsey's.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I suppose they just wanted to sell the IDI theory to the audiences. They stopped for so long to introduce all the previous most known "suspects" in this case so that people watching the "show" would have reasonable doubt to think that "Hey, if those guys were doing and thinking so, then there probably is a real intruder somewhere and police should concentrate on that." At least I see that as the only reason why to put any of those three on the show... they just needed to make everyone see that the intruder theory is not fiction but there are real "crazy monsters" out there who would actually do something like that. An unnecessary introduction of an criminal mind, so to say. IMO. Only to make people point their fingers at someone else than the Ramsey's.

I just watched the recent 20/20 documentary on the case yesterday.They also brought the previous known suspects up, but did so in a way that was in much more proper context. And of course the final comment on each was that the evidence ultimately was not there and that the DNA did not match.

I get why the director of the Netflix propaganda (and let's face it, that's what it is) chose to include the previous suspects, but they blew it all out of proportion, especially JMK. If you're going to devote that much of the show to him, at least include how police knew of him and ruled him out as early as 1997, and that the DA at the time (Mary Lacy) didn't even bother to look at the files to that regard. She was negligent, naive and spent a lot of taxpayer dollars sending a team to Thailand to arrest him and bring him back (all of them flew upper class $$$$$$$) only to find again that he was ruled out and then had to let him go. How much effort would it have taken them to speak with his family before jumping on a plane to find out he wasn't even in Colorado at the time of the murder?

It was put in for the salaciousness of the story, just like the Geraldo Rivera segment. At least make the connection that these high profile cases can bring out the nut jobs who have to be weeded out, instead of making it seem like JMK was ever actually a viable suspect. It's junk entertainment.

I do agree that it was done to push the intruder theory and point fingers away from the Ramseys, and for the dramatic effect that it brings to the story. But it also underscores the inherent bias of the piece. It isn't anywhere near up to standard as a comprehensive documentary that takes a truly critical look at this case.