No intruder?

[MurriFlower]

HOTYH it is never a shame when someone is thinking, well at my age anyway LOL. I probably would have thrown in the crossing guards but she didn't walk to school, nor had she been examined 20+ times by one of them that I have been able to find documented, like we can with the good Doctor. And someone that sees a child 20+ times with vaginal problems should have done a more thorough exam after about the hmmmmm 6th time to see what could be going on (to protect and help kids). That is another good point, did PR tell him oh shucks I keep giving her bubble baths after you have told me 5,10, 15 times this is what is causing these problems?

I listen to your intruder theories and put thought in to them, sorry you don't like to listen to ours.

Looks like we've got a new category. DrBDI :waitasec:

 

[SunnieRN]

"DNA from two sites on the long johns matched genetic material from an unknown male that had previously been recovered from blood in JonBenet's underpants. The matching DNA from three places on two articles of JonBenet's clothing convinced the district attorney that it belonged to the killer, and hadn't been left accidentally by a third party."

MF these were the only sites tested. Were the long johns new? Was there DNA in any other areas that was not found?

Why did your esteemed ML choose to check these areas and no other? Why was there no mention of Patsy's touch DNA? She must have touched those same areas when dressing JB? Was any of JB's touch dan found on the garments? Most children toss and turn while asleep. She could and should have left touch DNA behind.

 

[MurriFlower]

MF these were the only sites tested. Were the long johns new? Was there DNA in any other areas that was not found?

Why did your esteemed ML choose to check these areas and no other? Why was there no mention of Patsy's touch DNA? She must have touched those same areas when dressing JB? Was any of JB's touch dan found on the garments? Most children toss and turn while asleep. She could and should have left touch DNA behind.

Far as I know they were the only thing tested. Touch DNA, because it can't be seen, is taken by the technicians from areas where they can assume the article would have been touched by a perp. I suppose had they the time and money, they could have scraped every single item in the house for touch DNA, BUT when the DNA obtained from BOTH SIDES of the waistband of the longjohns matched the previously discovered (years earlier) DNA in the bloodspot on the panties, it would have served no purpose. It proved there was an unknown male involved in the crime, and that was that. No amount of denials by RDI can change this.

 

[SunnieRN]

Far as I know they were the only thing tested. Touch DNA, because it can't be seen, is taken by the technicians from areas where they can assume the article would have been touched by a perp. I suppose had they the time and money, they could have scraped every single item in the house for touch DNA, BUT when the DNA obtained from BOTH SIDES of the waistband of the longjohns matched the previously discovered (years earlier) DNA in the bloodspot on the panties, it would have served no purpose. It proved there was an unknown male involved in the crime, and that was that. No amount of denials by RDI can change this.

MF, Patsy had to have touched those spots also. Why was her dna not found also and how can they isolate touch DNA from multiple touches to the same area?

 

[MurriFlower]

MF, Patsy had to have touched those spots also. Why was her dna not found also and how can they isolate touch DNA from multiple touches to the same area?

You need to ask Bode these questions.

 

[Agatha_C]

Look at all the people that touched her and those are just the people that we know about. Who touched those pants before? Who touched them at the autopsy? Who could have touched her while she laid under that dang tree for at least eight hours.

I find it funny that IDI argues and hangs its hopes on touch DNA found on the OUTSIDE of her clothing but totally disregard the fibers of her fathers shirt being on her vagina and her mothers hair in the ligature. Just to name a few, but then thats all you need to hang your head and shake it in disbelief.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Far as I know they were the only thing tested. Touch DNA, because it can't be seen, is taken by the technicians from areas where they can assume the article would have been touched by a perp. I suppose had they the time and money, they could have scraped every single item in the house for touch DNA, BUT when the DNA obtained from BOTH SIDES of the waistband of the longjohns matched the previously discovered (years earlier) DNA in the bloodspot on the panties, it would have served no purpose. It proved there was an unknown male involved in the crime, and that was that. No amount of denials by RDI can change this.

Its a valid argument that makes RDI a moot point.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Far as I know they were the only thing tested. Touch DNA, because it can't be seen, is taken by the technicians from areas where they can assume the article would have been touched by a perp. I suppose had they the time and money, they could have scraped every single item in the house for touch DNA, BUT when the DNA obtained from BOTH SIDES of the waistband of the longjohns matched the previously discovered (years earlier) DNA in the bloodspot on the panties, it would have served no purpose. It proved there was an unknown male involved in the crime, and that was that. No amount of denials by RDI can change this.

What you are saying here is that they tested the only areas that ML needed tested in order to "clear the Ramseys". She was very afraid to test lots of other areas because that dna was not going to show up anywhere else and that would have ruined her exoneration of the Ramseys. Let's all hope the new DA has a lot more dedication to justice and will test all the pertinent areas.

 

[SunnieRN]

Its a valid argument that makes RDI a moot point.

No hotyh, it explains nothing as Patsys DNA was not found or isolated in the same areas. She was a known factor as she stated she put the long johns on JB. Where is her touch DNA?

 

[Becky319]

Don't they call it unknown male? I am sure they found others but could match it to family members.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Its a valid argument that makes RDI a moot point.

Until the donor of the dna is identified, the dna itself is a moot point.

 

[SunnieRN]

Don't they call it unknown male? I am sure they found others but could match it to family members.

Than why didn't they say it? Not trying to argue with you Becky, but Patsy states she dressed JB with the long johns. Her DNA should have been found in those same spots. If it was, was the other touch evidence contaminated? It could have been, just as the other evidence, it could be degraded.

 

[Becky319]

I agree Sunnie, plus if they scrape the waist band (or any area) and there are 4 or 5 people that touched it how do they distinguish what DNA belongs to what person, I know DNA is 99% unique, but this was only 11 - 13 markers, seems like a lot of us would have similar markers doesn't it?

 

[Agatha_C]

Touch DNA on the outside of her pants and the very small amount (drop or flake) found on her panties, does not a killer make.

It simply places someones hands on her pants and nothing else. It doesn't even place that person in the house, just on her pants.

MF, you keep bringing up the DNA under the nails, correct me if I'm wrong, werent we told that it was contaminated making it useless? It places some dead person there, nice try but dead people can't hurt you, unless you see them and well then it just freaks you out and gets you a reality show on TLC.

 

[MurriFlower]

What you are saying here is that they tested the only areas that ML needed tested in order to "clear the Ramseys". She was very afraid to test lots of other areas because that dna was not going to show up anywhere else and that would have ruined her exoneration of the Ramseys. Let's all hope the new DA has a lot more dedication to justice and will test all the pertinent areas.

my bold.

I am saying no such thing. Please do not put your thoughts into my writing.

RDI is very afraid of the DNA, because it shows there was an unknown male who left his DNA in three place on two separate articles both of which were related to the sexual assault (panties, both sides of the longjohns). They try to discount it in every way but it remains a prime item of evidence that strongly supports IDI.

 

[MurriFlower]

Touch DNA on the outside of her pants and the very small amount (drop or flake) found on her panties, does not a killer make.

It simply places someones hands on her pants and nothing else. It doesn't even place that person in the house, just on her pants.

MF, you keep bringing up the DNA under the nails, correct me if I'm wrong, werent we told that it was contaminated making it useless? It places some dead person there, nice try but dead people can't hurt you, unless you see them and well then it just freaks you out and gets you a reality show on TLC.

my bold

I've not mentioned the nails. You must be reading some RDI posts I think.

No, it is in her underwear (in a spot of her blood) AND in two places on either side of the waistband of the longjohns.

 

[Agatha_C]

my bold.

I am saying no such thing. Please do not put your thoughts into my writing.

RDI is very afraid of the DNA, because it shows there was an unknown male who left his DNA in three place on two separate articles both of which were related to the sexual assault (panties, both sides of the longjohns). They try to discount it in every way but it remains a prime item of evidence that strongly supports IDI.

Murri, what source with link please, said both sides of the long johns?

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri, what source with link please, said both sides of the long johns?

You must try to keep up Agatha_C.

uote:
Originally Posted by Becky319 View Post
See paragraph 8, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4247767.shtml, also paragraph 6 in this article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4247767.shtml

Serveral other articles but they are all from news outlets not the official investigation documents, wish we could see them.

Cut and paste by MurriFlower
"DNA from two sites on the long johns matched genetic material from an unknown male that had previously been recovered from blood in JonBenet's underpants. The matching DNA from three places on two articles of JonBenet's clothing convinced the district attorney that it belonged to the killer, and hadn't been left accidentally by a third party."

 

[SunnieRN]

I agree Sunnie, plus if they scrape the waist band (or any area) and there are 4 or 5 people that touched it how do they distinguish what DNA belongs to what person, I know DNA is 99% unique, but this was only 11 - 13 markers, seems like a lot of us would have similar markers doesn't it?

Bingo Becky!! That's the true problem with dna evidence in this case. Degraded. Too small of an amount so it is replicated. Too few OR too many markers! And there is no accounting made for the dna that should be there!

 

[Agatha_C]

You must try to keep up Agatha_C.

Murri, I misread something and for that I apologize. I am however not going to play the childish games you play with your antagonizing. Done with you for the day... Bye Bye...