No intruder?

[MurriFlower]

Not the touch DNA but if there are two types of DNA,for ex TOUCH DNA on the long johns and blood,semen or saliva in the panties,then yes this raises the possibility of someone unknown (to us at least) to have been there that night when JB was killed or redressed.


BUT!

this doesn't mean IDI= stranger
this could also very well mean an "INTRUDER" (intruder to US only but very well known to the Ramseys) - like an accomplice,cleaner,helper in the cover up (doctor,etc)

I get your point, but there is no way the owner of the DNA is an innocent, uninvolved, 'parcel wrapper' or 'door handle turner' or 'toilet helper'. The odds against this are immense. Whoever owns the DNA did it, or knows who did.

 

[SunnieRN]

One huge piece of evidence was not mentioned in above posts. The fibers from Johns Israeli shirt/sweater, found in JonBenets crotch area. That, along with Patsys arm hair and sweater fibers, adds up to a whole mess of evidence.

There is also still the matter of touch DNA contamination on the long johns. If Patsy had stated, I put her to bed in the black velveteen bottoms, her pink pj bottoms, or any other bottoms, I would buy the touch DNA, but with her saying that she put them on a sleeping JB, it should have been her touch DNA found. It's not an easy task to dress a sleeping child in long johns, I have tried. I most certainly could not have done it without touching the front, back and sides of the waist band, as well as the legs and near the feet.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

you just can't prove that the DNA owner KILLED JB,end of story IMO
it's like with the RN,if PR wrote it that doesn't mean she KILLED JB.period.

I agree.

The owner of the DNA is just that -- a person whose DNA has been rubbed off on clothing.If we were to do a DNA test on new clothes we bought, we would find a plethora of other people's DNA on it -- from when it was handled in the warehouses/factories etc.

However, the person who wrote the ransom note IS involved in the crime -- not necessarily the killer but involved. They deliberately created a false ransom note to divert from the truth of the event.

 

[MurriFlower]

I agree.

The owner of the DNA is just that -- a person whose DNA has been rubbed off on clothing.If we were to do a DNA test on new clothes we bought, we would find a plethora of other people's DNA on it -- from when it was handled in the warehouses/factories etc.

However, the person who wrote the ransom note IS involved in the crime -- not necessarily the killer but involved. They deliberately created a false ransom note to divert from the truth of the event.

Yeah, but as maddy said, you can try to discount the touch DNA on the longjohns, but you can't possibly say the same person in a factory/warehouse handled the panties and left matching DNA.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Yeah, but as maddy said, you can try to discount the touch DNA on the longjohns, but you can't possibly say the same person in a factory/warehouse handled the panties and left matching DNA.

The touch-DNA (used by intruder did it theorists) to imply neither John or Patsy were involved is really a strange issue. Fact is, if the dna came from a random person in the factory (very likely), then we will never determine whose DNA it is.

But to draw immediate correlation between the touch-DNA and an intruder is simply incorrect logic.

 

[MurriFlower]

The touch-DNA (used by intruder did it theorists) to imply neither John or Patsy were involved is really a strange issue. Fact is, if the dna came from a random person in the factory (very likely), then we will never determine whose DNA it is.

But to draw immediate correlation between the touch-DNA and an intruder is simply incorrect logic.

Ok, well give me correct logic (as you see it) to explain the same DNA being in three places on two separate items of clothing relating to the crime.

 

[UKGuy]

Not the touch DNA but if there are two types of DNA,for ex TOUCH DNA on the long johns and blood,semen or saliva in the panties,then yes this raises the possibility of someone unknown (to us at least) to have been there that night when JB was killed or redressed.


BUT!

this doesn't mean IDI= stranger
this could also very well mean an "INTRUDER" (intruder to US only but very well known to the Ramseys) - like an accomplice,cleaner,helper in the cover up (doctor,etc)

madeleine,

But there is no foreign blood or saliva in the underwear. There is JonBenet's blood mixed with some foreign touch-dna. This is why the IDI always describe it as biological, duh!


.

 

[MurriFlower]

madeleine,

But there is no foreign blood or saliva in the underwear. There is JonBenet's blood mixed with some foreign touch-dna. This is why the IDI always describe it as biological, duh!


.

Wrong again!! The DNA source is unknown to us, but it is not touch DNA. Touch DNA was obtained from scraping the sides of the longjohns.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Ok, well give me correct logic (as you see it) to explain the same DNA being in three places on two separate items of clothing relating to the crime.

I just did give you my logic.

DNA need not facilitate the 'intruder' theory. Nothing more, nothing less. That was my point which I wished to make.

 

[UKGuy]

you just can't prove that the DNA owner KILLED JB,end of story IMO
it's like with the RN,if PR wrote it that doesn't mean she KILLED JB.period.

madeleine,

nice and concise.

:dance:


.

 

[UKGuy]

Wrong again!! The DNA source is unknown to us, but it is not touch DNA. Touch DNA was obtained from scraping the sides of the longjohns.

MurriFlower,

Have you been smoking?

The DNA source is unknown to us

Patently otherwise someone would have been arrested.

You have a source that states it is not touch DNA. e.g. that is it is semen dna maybe?

If you do then we have a case for an IDI theory, bring it on.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

I just did give you my logic.

DNA need not facilitate the 'intruder' theory. Nothing more, nothing less. That was my point which I wished to make.

Here is what you wrote that I asked you to qualify: (my bold)

Originally Posted by Let_Forever_Be View Post
The touch-DNA (used by intruder did it theorists) to imply neither John or Patsy were involved is really a strange issue. Fact is, if the dna came from a random person in the factory (very likely), then we will never determine whose DNA it is.

But to draw immediate correlation between the touch-DNA and an intruder is simply incorrect logic.

I am trying to explain to you (I don't know how closely you have studied the case) that there was DNA found in a spot of JBR's blood in the panties back in 1999. Subsequently, the longjohns were tested for touch DNA by scraping both sides of the waistband in 2008. These two separate DNA samples were from the same unidentified male.

What you have asserted is that the DNA is most likely from a factory worker, and that IDI lacks logic. I have asked you to explain how you can logically discount BOTH lots of DNA in SEPARATE locations? Do you think it's logical that the same factory worker worked in two separate factories producing two different garments that both found their way onto the body of a murdered child? Or would it be more logical to think that they were deposited there by the person who owned the DNA and who was at the crime scene?

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Have you been smoking?


Patently otherwise someone would have been arrested.

You have a source that states it is not touch DNA. e.g. that is it is semen dna maybe?

If you do then we have a case for an IDI theory, bring it on.


.

"Early in the investigation, police found male DNA in a drop of blood on JonBenet's underwear and determined it was not from anyone in her family. But Lacy said investigators were unable to say who it came from and whether that person was the killer.

Then, late last year, prosecutors turned over long underwear JonBenet was wearing to the Bode Technology Group near Washington, which looked for "touch DNA," or cells left behind where someone has touched something.

The lab has only been using this technology for about three years.

The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party."

"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."

 

[wonderllama]

DNA/Touch DNA is a funny thing.

It's fundamental to the IDI case...much like how it was fundamental to the OJ Simpson case, and we all know how that turned out.

 

[MurriFlower]

DNA/Touch DNA is a funny thing.

It's fundamental to the IDI case...much like how it was fundamental to the OJ Simpson case, and we all know how that turned out.

You must have missed my question llama, I repeat it here and eagerly await your answer:

What you have asserted is that the DNA is most likely from a factory worker, and that IDI lacks logic. I have asked you to explain how you can logically discount BOTH lots of DNA in SEPARATE locations? Do you think it's logical that the same factory worker worked in two separate factories producing two different garments that both found their way onto the body of a murdered child? Or would it be more logical to think that they were deposited there by the person who owned the DNA and who was at the crime scene?

 

[wonderllama]

You must have missed my question llama, I repeat it here and eagerly await your answer:

What you have asserted is that the DNA is most likely from a factory worker, and that IDI lacks logic. I have asked you to explain how you can logically discount BOTH lots of DNA in SEPARATE locations? Do you think it's logical that the same factory worker worked in two separate factories producing two different garments that both found their way onto the body of a murdered child? Or would it be more logical to think that they were deposited there by the person who owned the DNA and who was at the crime scene?

Firstly, let me state I'm not 100% up on the touch DNA info, I'm looking at it now to get the finer details.

However, I think claiming it is from a Factory Worker is a bit of a stretch.
Some poor 10 year old Thai child is probably the factory worker in question after all!

However, the finding of touch-DNA in 3 places need not be unusual given the items they were found on came in contact with each other.

If I pick up a new pair of socks and throw them in the washing basket with other items, might not my touch-DNA appear on these other garments? Garments manufactured in a different location?

All speculative of course, but then I'm not one for speculation.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Here is what you wrote that I asked you to qualify: (my bold)



I am trying to explain to you (I don't know how closely you have studied the case) that there was DNA found in a spot of JBR's blood in the panties back in 1999. Subsequently, the longjohns were tested for touch DNA by scraping both sides of the waistband in 2008. These two separate DNA samples were from the same unidentified male.

What you have asserted is that the DNA is most likely from a factory worker, and that IDI lacks logic. I have asked you to explain how you can logically discount BOTH lots of DNA in SEPARATE locations? Do you think it's logical that the same factory worker worked in two separate factories producing two different garments that both found their way onto the body of a murdered child? Or would it be more logical to think that they were deposited there by the person who owned the DNA and who was at the crime scene?

Who's to say that contamination when handling the objects, both the underwear and longjohns is not just that, contamination after the event.

I mean, it's widely accepted that the crime scene was compromised.

For example, Dr. Henry Lee told Carol McKinley the DNA under her fingernails was contaiminated by contaminated nail clippers in 5/2001.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Firstly, let me state I'm not 100% up on the touch DNA info, I'm looking at it now to get the finer details.

However, I think claiming it is from a Factory Worker is a bit of a stretch.
Some poor 10 year old Thai child is probably the factory worker in question after all!

However, the finding of touch-DNA in 3 places need not be unusual given the items they were found on came in contact with each other.

If I pick up a new pair of socks and throw them in the washing basket with other items, might not my touch-DNA appear on these other garments? Garments manufactured in a different location?

All speculative of course, but then I'm not one for speculation.

I share your sentiments.

The dna on the objects could have been transferred after the event.

 

[MurriFlower]

Firstly, let me state I'm not 100% up on the touch DNA info, I'm looking at it now to get the finer details.

Ok, no worries, you'll catch up.

However, I think claiming it is from a Factory Worker is a bit of a stretch.
Some poor 10 year old Thai child is probably the factory worker in question after all!

Originally Posted by Let_Forever_Be View Post
The touch-DNA (used by intruder did it theorists) to imply neither John or Patsy were involved is really a strange issue. Fact is, if the dna came from a random person in the factory (very likely), then we will never determine whose DNA it is.

I agree, but the factory worker theory was your proposal. You were the one who said IDI lacked logic.

However, the finding of touch-DNA in 3 places need not be unusual given the items they were found on came in contact with each other.

Well, the first DNA was found in the crotch of the panties mixed in a spot of JBR's blood, and the touch dna was obtained from the waistband of the longjohns. Funny that RDI are happy for DNA to contiminate other items, but can't see how fibers and float and fly into far flung locations.

If I pick up a new pair of socks and throw them in the washing basket with other items, might not my touch-DNA appear on these other garments? Garments manufactured in a different location?

All speculative of course, but then I'm not one for speculation.

Hmmm, well if you are going to support RDI you will need to hone up your speculation skills LOL.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I agree, but the factory worker theory was your proposal. You were the one who said IDI lacked logic.

Excuse me. By all means debate but don't misconstrue my words. I never said at any time that the dna came exclusively from a factory worker. No such words were typed by me. I said "if the dna came from a factory worker" and I said this in line with the view aforementioned.I don't agree with the 'intruder' did it theory and nor do I think the new dna findings support such a thing -- I also don't think they 'exonerate' the Ramseys personally.

I drew caution between immediately correlating 'foreign' dna to an intruder theory. I also said it is very likely that foreign dna comes from factory workers.

The one point I did manifestly state however, and you can take my word on this one instead of misconstruing my words, is that the author of the ransom note is also involved in the crime.