No intruder?

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

It is valuable dna. I do not doubt that. Please understand that if you do not know what cell type from which the underwear dna was extracted then others on this board cannot comprehend how you can issue absolute statements regarding the underwear dna?

I do not know precisely the cell type, but I'm willing to bet if it was anything other than touch-dna we would have heard about it by now.

This is the core of the Ramsey defense yet they obscure the dna cell type?

Try to explain to me what the cell type has to do with the value of DNA?

OK, if you extract DNA from semen in an vagina, then there is a good chance that person had sex with the DNA owner. Or they owned a turkey baster. Or someone got semen on their hands from another person and inserted a finger in a third persons vagina.

Or hair. Hairs stick on things. People use other people's brushes. Hair floats, flies.

Saliva can be deposited by sucking, spitting, coughing or from being transferred from one person's mouth via another's hands/mouth/clothes.

Do you understand now UkGuy that DNA is DNA. The collection method does not diminish it's value.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Try to explain to me what the cell type has to do with the value of DNA?

OK, if you extract DNA from semen in an vagina, then there is a good chance that person had sex with the DNA owner. Or they owned a turkey baster. Or someone got semen on their hands from another person and inserted a finger in a third persons vagina.

Or hair. Hairs stick on things. People use other people's brushes. Hair floats, flies.

Saliva can be deposited by sucking, spitting, coughing or from being transferred from one person's mouth via another's hands/mouth/clothes.

Do you understand now UkGuy that DNA is DNA. The collection method does not diminish it's value.

But if the dna is only touch dna, there is a plethora of ways it could have got onto the objects mentioned.

Saliva, semen, blood dna are all more difficult to pass on from object to object. Semen on a dead body most often does refer to a sexual crime. But touch dna, being skin cells need not be from an intruder. I could touch a door handle and then 20 minutes later a lady touches it after me. She then drops dead. My touch dna is on her skin -- doesn't make me a killer!

 

[MurriFlower]

But if the dna is only touch dna, there is a plethora of ways it could have got onto the objects mentioned.

Saliva, semen, blood dna are all more difficult to pass on from object to object. Semen on a dead body most often does refer to a sexual crime. But touch dna, being skin cells need not be from an intruder. I could touch a door handle and then 20 minutes later a lady touches it after me. She then drops dead. My touch dna is on her skin -- doesn't make me a killer!

I disagree that saliva, semen and blood are more difficult to pass from object to object. If the person was sexually assaulted before being murdered, and your DNA (from any source) was on two items of her underclothing, you might be questioned as to your alibi. If you sneezed into your bare hand and turned a door knob before the murdered person touched it, would that make you more liable to be guilty? Or if you had a cut on your hand and left blood? (I won't go into the other LOL).

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I disagree that saliva, semen and blood are more difficult to pass from object to object. If the person was sexually assaulted before being murdered, and your DNA (from any source) was on two items of her underclothing, you might be questioned as to your alibi. If you sneezed into your bare hand and turned a door knob before the murdered person touched it, would that make you more liable to be guilty? Or if you had a cut on your hand and left blood? (I won't go into the other LOL).

Of course saliva,blood and semen are more difficult to pass.

I only need to touch someone to leave my dna on them. My dna is in contact with many people everyday -- friends,family,pets,work colleagues, strangers.

When blood,semen or saliva dna is found, it implies a definite narrative i.e. semen on dead woman's raped body most probably came from the rapist. However, touch dna on her body could come from anyone she was in contact with from days ago.

 

[MurriFlower]

Of course saliva,blood and semen are more difficult to pass.

I only need to touch someone to leave my dna on them. My dna is in contact with many people everyday -- friends,family,pets,work colleagues, strangers.

When blood,semen or saliva dna is found, it implies a definite narrative i.e. semen on dead woman's raped body most probably came from the rapist. However, touch dna on her body could come from anyone she was in contact with from days ago.

Well, in the absence of DNA from semen, blood, saliva and the presence of DNA collected by the touch method, will you dismiss this DNA as being innocently deposited?

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Well, in the absence of DNA from semen, blood, saliva and the presence of DNA collected by the touch method, will you dismiss this DNA as being innocently deposited?

I wouldn't or couldn't rule out an intruder per se. Afterall, the dna, touch dna that is, could come from an intruder.

However, if the dna is merely touch dna, and we know how common it is to have 'foreign' dna on us, this in and of itself doesn't mean there was an intruder. Indeed, it could be postulated, in accordance with all the evidence, that there is a much stronger case for a non-intruder.

If the dna were to be semen for example, and it was not from the Ramseys, then the case changes completely.

 

[MurriFlower]

I wouldn't or couldn't rule out an intruder per se. Afterall, the dna, touch dna that is, could come from an intruder.

However, if the dna is merely touch dna, and we know how common it is to have 'foreign' dna on us, this in and of itself doesn't mean there was an intruder. Indeed, it could be postulated, in accordance with all the evidence, that there is a much stronger case for a non-intruder.

If the dna were to be semen for example, and it was not from the Ramseys, then the case changes completely.

Ok, well this is a turn up. You wouldn't rule out an intruder then??

You say that there is a much stronger case for a non-intruder. Is this because pedophiles don't wrap their dead victims in blankets or redress them? Or because murderers don't write ransom notes with the pen and paper found in the house? Or intruders don't wipe down batteries and exteriors of flashlights they use to remove fingerprints?

So if semen was found in the house with the same DNA profile as that collected by the touch method, would you turn to IDI??

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Ok, well this is a turn up. You wouldn't rule out an intruder then?? > which I've said before. Do keep up.If dna was found that implicated an intruder then I would believe in such a thing. The current dna does not therefore I do not. Simple.

You say that there is a much stronger case for a non-intruder. Is this because pedophiles don't wrap their dead victims in blankets or redress them? Or because murderers don't write ransom notes with the pen and paper found in the house? Or intruders don't wipe down batteries and exteriors of flashlights they use to remove fingerprints? > No. This is because the sexual molestation, fibres from Patsy's top, illogical ransom note, no sign of entry from an intruder etc etc all favour the idea that the crime was committed by a family member.The totality of evidence is more weighted towards a family member.Let's deal in facts and not speculations.

So if semen was found in the house with the same DNA profile as that collected by the touch method, would you turn to IDI??>I would evaluate the evidence fairly and in light of all evidence.

I've put my answers in red for you. Please read them thoroughly and refrain from misconstruing me please as it appears to be a habit you have.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

"Deja vu all over again."

Welcome to the threads (again), LFB. Consider this your trial by fire. Prepare to be singed again...and again...and again....

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

"Deja vu all over again."

Welcome to the threads (again), LFB. Consider this your trial by fire. Prepare to be singed again...and again...and again....

lol.

Thanks for the warning. I guess some people think they know my opinions better than I do. lol

 

[Agatha_C]

Beck,

The priest, a Doctor and a lawyer, these are all people, that don't have to say a word, in fact, they can't say a word. The R's had all three, not that any of them helped, I'm just sayin...

 

[MurriFlower]

=Let_Forever_Be;5906524 which I've said before. Do keep up.If dna was found that implicated an intruder then I would believe in such a thing. The current dna does not therefore I do not. Simple.

Ok, then. It's so difficult to keep up with someone so vastly in advance of anyone here. The current DNA of an unknown male found in three separate places on two items of clothing and consistent with the fingernail (degraded) DNA, deposited on the underwear of a sexually abused deceased child is simply not an indication of an intruder. Sure, right!

No. This is because the sexual molestation, fibres from Patsy's top, illogical ransom note, no sign of entry from an intruder etc etc all favour the idea that the crime was committed by a family member.The totality of evidence is more weighted towards a family member.Let's deal in facts and not speculations.

Totality of evidence, which includes fibers which may have been transferred by JR or FW, unsubstantiated prior (to the night of the murder) sexual abuse, the RN that cannot be proven to have been written by PR and which ignores the fact that she didn't bother to take her own advice, and a house with many potential entry points for an intruder (who probably entered while they were at the Whites, not during the night) but excluding actual evidence, the DNA, which is simply not good enough for you.

I would evaluate the evidence fairly and in light of all evidence.

And even semen evidence (if it existed) would not be given as much weight as circumstantial evidence.

I've put my answers in red for you. Please read them thoroughly and refrain from misconstruing me please as it appears to be a habit you have.

Noted. I think I've got you sorted now!! No more misconstruction.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Totality of evidence, which includes fibers which may have been transferred by JR or FW, unsubstantiated prior (to the night of the murder) sexual abuse, the RN that cannot be proven to have been written by PR and which ignores the fact that she didn't bother to take her own advice, and a house with many potential entry points for an intruder (who probably entered while they were at the Whites, not during the night) but excluding actual evidence, the DNA, which is simply not good enough for you.

-Patsy's fibres (from clothing she wore to the White's Xmas party) were entwined in the garrotte.This doesn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt she did anything but is still an important piece of evidence.

-Out of the 73 people's handwriting analysed, Patsy's was the only one that couldn't be discounted. Additionally, why would an intruder write a ransom note on Patsy's notepad with her pen rather than come prepared? It could be that after JonBenet died, there was an obvious need for the perpetrator(s) to make a ruse to explain what happened (according to RDI logic). It's during the night, there's limited resources to create the staging. Thus, Patsy's notepad will have to do. It's all there is.

-Of course Patsy wouldn't take her own advice regarding the ransom note. How could she? She had to call the police. Her daughter was dead.They were due to leave for holiday. The whole event had to be initiated with a police phone call.If Patsy never called the police the implications were huge -- there wasn't a "small foreign faction" to worry about. There was a timeline to follow though -- the police had to be informed before the alleged 'time' stated in the ransom note.

-The house may have potential entry points but there is not evidence that they were used. There isn't fingerprints, intruder dna (proven to be so), footprints etc.

-I didn't say the dna isn't good enough for me. I'm not a police investigator in this case. But the dna, as several people have pointed out, has not be stated as semen,saliva or blood. Indeed, if it's touch-dna then that can be explained by many reasons (contamination etc). The sobering reality is : no-one can prove, beyond all reasonable doubt that the 'foreign' dna found on the underwear and longjohns is that of the intruder.And since it cannot be proven, I can't believe in it.It's really that simple for me.

 

[MurriFlower]

-Patsy's fibres (from clothing she wore to the White's Xmas party) were entwined in the garrotte.This doesn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt she did anything but is still an important piece of evidence.

She wore the same clothes the following morning. There is evidence (presented in Court) of four (4) red fibers consistent with PR's jacket found on the sticky side of the tape (amongst numerous unidentified fibers). These could have been transferred by JR or FW when they comforted her prior to discovering the body. JR took off the tape and FW later picked it up and examined it. Also there may have been fibers from the jacket on the blanket JBR was wrapped in from PR putting her to bed the previous evening.

The fibers supposedly entwined in the garrote were spoken of in an interview where the investigators were attempting to trap PR into a confession, and they refused to provide any evidence that they even existed.

-Out of the 73 people's handwriting analysed, Patsy's was the only one that couldn't be discounted. Additionally, why would an intruder write a ransom note on Patsy's notepad with her pen rather than come prepared? It could be that after JonBenet died, there was an obvious need for the perpetrator(s) to make a ruse to explain what happened (according to RDI logic). It's during the night, there's limited resources to create the staging. Thus, Patsy's notepad will have to do. It's all there is.

Handwriting analysis is an imprecise science. The 'unable to be discounted' as writer isn't the same as being identified as the writer. The RN was written supposedly by someone in the house, but there were other attempts that magically disappeared, so they were removed from the house. That and the tape, cord and (unsubstiantiated) soiled panties as well as the head bash weapon are all missing. It stands to reason that they were brought and taken away by an IDI. Why he failed to bring his own paper and pen is a mystery. Perhaps he was only intending to rob the house, but later decided, after casing the house, that it would be better to 'ransom' the child.

-Of course Patsy wouldn't take her own advice regarding the ransom note. How could she? She had to call the police. Her daughter was dead.They were due to leave for holiday. The whole event had to be initiated with a police phone call.If Patsy never called the police the implications were huge -- there wasn't a "small foreign faction" to worry about. There was a timeline to follow though -- the police had to be informed before the alleged 'time' stated in the ransom note.

Hmm well, she went to more trouble than she needed to and in doing so, took up a lot of time that would have been better spent tidying up the crime scene. She also put herself at risk by handwriting the note. There was just too much information in the note and it sounded phoney -- to everyone. The timeline she set herself was later than she phoned the cops. She could have spent another few hours and it would have made more sense. Instead of inviting everyone over to contaminate the crime scene, she could have spent the time cleaning up, therefore involving fewer people.

-The house may have potential entry points but there is not evidence that they were used. There isn't fingerprints, intruder dna (proven to be so), footprints etc.

There was also no evidence that the doors were locked when they went out in the afternoon. Everyone asks JR if he locked the doors before bed, but it was likely the IDI was already in the house hiding somewhere by then. As for leaving footprints, fingerprints, etc, let's just say our IDI was familiar with "Law Enforcement countermeasures and tactics" as he said in the note.

-I didn't say the dna isn't good enough for me. I'm not a police investigator in this case. But the dna, as several people have pointed out, has not be stated as semen,saliva or blood. Indeed, if it's touch-dna then that can be explained by many reasons (contamination etc). The sobering reality is : no-one can prove, beyond all reasonable doubt that the 'foreign' dna found on the underwear and longjohns is that of the intruder.And since it cannot be proven, I can't believe in it.It's really that simple for me.

Well, RDI is very happy to discount the DNA found, but then contradicts itself by placing great importance on the fibers which may or may not have been found as the cops only stated this in an interview.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Well, RDI is vey happy to discount the DNA found, but then contradicts itself by placing great importance on the fibers which may or may not have been found as the cops only stated this in an interview.

Not necessarily. Most people, even professionals, think that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Handwriting experts also believe she did. If she did, it goes without saying that she is involved in the crime.

If her fibres from her jacket were also present at the crime scene from clothing she wore the day/night of the murder then that is a huge deal.Indeed, there is fibre evidence which can be linked to someone involved in the crime.Entwined fibres in the garrotte belonging to the person who wrote the ransom note = suspicion!

That's completely different from speculating on touch dna which could belong to many people from many random, non criminal sources.

 

[MurriFlower]

Not necessarily. Most people, even professionals, think that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Handwriting experts also believe she did. If she did, it goes without saying that she is involved in the crime.

Some people think she wrote the note, some professionals also think that. Some people think she did not write the note, some professionals also think that. Handwriting experts saying that she couldn't 'be excluded' is not the same as thinking she wrote the note. There is another explanation; that she wrote the RN dictated in a telephone call made to her by the kidnappers. That means she both could have written the RN but was not involved in the crime. It also means, if true, that for reasons of their own they are not telling the full story.

If her fibres from her jacket were also present at the crime scene from clothing she wore the day/night of the murder then that is a huge deal.Indeed, there is fibre evidence which can be linked to someone involved in the crime.Entwined fibres in the garrotte belonging to the person who wrote the ransom note = suspicion!

Not really a huge deal as fibers can float and fly. We don't know if the jacket was washed/dried in the downstairs laundry prior to being worn. Fibers have only been suggested to be entwined in the garrote during an interview and no report has been made public, unlike the results of the DNA evidence.

That's completely different from speculating on touch dna which could belong to many people from many random, non criminal sources.

True, but infinitely more likely to be from the person who owned it depositing it directly.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Some people think she wrote the note, some professionals also think that. Some people think she did not write the note, some professionals also think that. Handwriting experts saying that she couldn't 'be excluded' is not the same as thinking she wrote the note. There is another explanation; that she wrote the RN dictated in a telephone call made to her by the kidnappers. That means she both could have written the RN but was not involved in the crime. It also means, if true, that for reasons of their own they are not telling the full story.

> Patsy never wrote the ransom note via dictation over the phone. No such evidence exists for that. That's absolute baloney as Judge Judy would say.I know you're just speculating but c'mon? And most people who have analysed Patsy's handwriting think with certainty that she wrote the ransom note. Her notepad, pens and handwriting patterns are all there. Of course, it is denounced by IDIs due to the fact that Patsy cannot be convicted due to the 'reasonable doubt' clause in the law.

Not really a huge deal as fibers can float and fly. We don't know if the jacket was washed/dried in the downstairs laundry prior to being worn. Fibers have only been suggested to be entwined in the garrote during an interview and no report has been made public, unlike the results of the DNA evidence.

>the red fibres from Patsy's jacket were found entwined.She denied being in the basement that night. They were fibres from her jacket -- the same jacket she had on at the White's Xmas party. How do they get entwined with rope?

I've put my answers in red.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Where was Patsy's touch dna on the waistband of the longjohns? If Patsy put longjohns on JonBenet as she claimed, why isn't her dna on the waistband too? Imagine putting on a pair of trousers -- most people have to touch the waistband.

Was Patsy lying when she said JohnBenet went straight to bed and was changed into longjohns. If so, why?

And if the 'intruder' (for those IDI theorists) didn't wear gloves (supposedly if they left touch dna) then why isn't there more touch dna on say, the ransom note? Why would skin cells be on the underwear/longjohns but not the ransom note?

 

[MurriFlower]

> Patsy never wrote the ransom note via dictation over the phone. No such evidence exists for that. That's absolute baloney as Judge Judy would say.I know you're just speculating but c'mon?

I'm speculating sure, but am suggesting a way that she may have written the note, but not been involved in the killing, because you stated the two went hand in hand

If she did, it goes without saying that she is involved in the crime.

If my speculation is correct then all she did is lie to the cops. Of course, if true, it would open up a whole new can of worms.

And most people who have analysed Patsy's handwriting think with certainty that she wrote the ransom note. Her notepad, pens and handwriting patterns are all there. Of course, it is denounced by IDIs due to the fact that Patsy cannot be convicted due to the 'reasonable doubt' clause in the law.

It goes without saying that RDI are committed to PR writing the note, but there was not enough evidence of this to charge her, so the reasonable doubt came into the matter well before it went to court.

>the red fibres from Patsy's jacket were found entwined.She denied being in the basement that night. They were fibres from her jacket -- the same jacket she had on at the White's Xmas party. How do they get entwined with rope?

The cops said they were from her jacket and were entwined in the garotte. This was during an interview that they never expected to be made public. To my knowledge no one from BPD or DA held a press conference where this was announced. Cops frequently tell a suspect they have evidence that they do not, in order to try to get a confession. It is usual tactics.

However, if you have evidence that there were fibers entwined in the garotte which are definitely from her jacket, (other than what was said in these interviews), I'd be pleased to see it.

I've put my answers in red.

Yes, that's not really necessary, I find red is not an easy colour to read.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

> Patsy never wrote the ransom note via dictation over the phone. No such evidence exists for that. That's absolute baloney as Judge Judy would say.I know you're just speculating but c'mon?

I'm speculating sure, but am suggesting a way that she may have written the note, but not been involved in the killing, because you stated the two went hand in hand If my speculation is correct then all she did is lie to the cops. Of course, if true, it would open up a whole new can of worms.> but we both know it's not true. The Police would have known. Was there evidence that an outside phone number contacted the Ramseys? We should only deal in facts and reasonable conjecture -- it is simply not true that the abductors dictated the ransom note to Patsy. How could they be sure she didn't know JonBenet was dead when they were doing it (if it was done over a phone). Why didn't she tell the police about them etc etc.



It goes without saying that RDI are committed to PR writing the note, but there was not enough evidence of this to charge her, so the reasonable doubt came into the matter well before it went to court.

>the red fibres from Patsy's jacket were found entwined.She denied being in the basement that night. They were fibres from her jacket -- the same jacket she had on at the White's Xmas party. How do they get entwined with rope?

The cops said they were from her jacket and were entwined in the garotte. This was during an interview that they never expected to be made public. To my knowledge no one from BPD or DA held a press conference where this was announced. Cops frequently tell a suspect they have evidence that they do not, in order to try to get a confession. It is usual tactics. > but it's an objective fact that Patsy's jacket fibres were entwined within the garrotte. There's no speculation needed.(I'll try and get a link or if someone else can that would be great) *update* In the interviews with Boulder prosecutors in August, 2000, prosecutor Bruce Levin summed up the evidence: MR. LEVIN: "I think that is probably fair. Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth, and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death...."

However, if you have evidence that there were fibers entwined in the garotte which are definitely from her jacket, (other than what was said in these interviews), I'd be pleased to see it.



Yes, that's not really necessary, I find red is not an easy colour to read.

I've put my answers in green this time. lol.