POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?

[oceanblueeyes]

Yes, I believe his check was for a little bit OVER $118,000.

So small foreign factions can't round out figures?

Did the Ramseys keep personal financial records in their home?

imoo

 

[BBB167893]

The handwriting experts disagree with you - the match was rated very, very low.

Wrong. That's what the Ramseys' paid experts said. Hunter said that was "mumbo jumbo" on an episode of Greta Van Susteren's TV show back in 2000.

3 people on this forum alone have said they make their q's like 8's.

So what? Do they also write typescript "a"s? Make their "c"s like Pac-Man? Their lowercase "e"s like lizard heads? Their "f"s like fishhooks? Their capital "I"s with a bent stem? Their lowercase "k"s like cent signs? I can keep at this a while, you know! Look, I don't know about "experts," but I believe my own eyes! I can't not see what my eyes tell me. Seeing is believing.

Karr's handwriting was claimed a match - that says it all for the reliability of this analysis

Exactly: THEIR analysis. The people you're talking about weren't even tangientially involved with the case.

The intruder could have gotten in through any number of doors that could have been left open. They left, likewise, through any number of doors - or the window - I'm not sold on that spiderweb preventing it.

That spiderweb says "no way."

DNA is far stronger than any of this evidence. I don't buy elaborate conspiracy theories where the judge, scientists, DA, etc. are all corrupt or fools, nor do I buy transfer - I don't buy it when some defense attorney is trying to sell it, it sure doesn't fit here.

I haven't seen anyone here talking about any kind of conspiracy. We're talking about a runaway DA whose own actions have shown her to be unobjective and prone to do this kind of stuff. And as for transfer, I'm sure Dennis Dechaine will be glad to hear that. Means he can get out of prison.

 

[Ames]

No. You misunderstood me. The number on the ransom note is not what I'm talking about. But the amount of the check that John Ramsey got was not $118,000, so it didn't match what Mr, Ramsey got. The true amount of the check was corrected by the news several months later.

Yes, I did misunderstand. I am sorry! Duhhhh...I should have known you were talking about John's check. I didn't have on my thinking cap when I replied back to you. You are right though..John's check was for a little bit over 118,000.00. If I am not mistaken though...it was still 118 something though. For example...$ 118,976.97....I am totally using that for an example. But, it was something like that. Thanks for setting me straight...I feel like such an idiot now. Again...I say...sorry!!!!

 

[LinasK]

Onlt because the media told you so not because there is any thing that proves the piont at this time..

No, not because the media told me so. I have read one of the books in this case, and done much other background reading. I followed this case from day one. The Ramsey's own actions are those of the Guilty- like Scott Peterson and Hans Reiser. I don't need to prove my credentials to you. There is no evidence of an intruder for that matter...

 

[LinasK]

My opinion hasn't changed. The Rs either killed her or knows who killed her, and covered up the crime. They would not do this for anyone except a family member. Not even for a close friend UNLESS a family member was involved. Let's face it- Lacy wanted to clear the Rs before she left office. This Touch DNA technology has been around for a few years. And there are other items that need to be tested with it- the cord, tape, paintbrush.
There is so much that points to parental involvement- the RN, the pineapple, the fibers in the garrote and on the tape, the use of NEW panties that PR herself admitted she bought and which were wrapped in the basement, the BEHAVIOR after the fact, the refusal to cooperate with police, the refusal to exhume her to find out once and for all about the stun gun, the voice of BR on the 911 call...the list goes on.
The "new DNA" is really OLD DNA. We've always know there was foreign male DNA in her panties. The fact that it has been found on her longjohns really doesn't add anything new.
This was no stranger intruder. This was someone known to JBR. And all of the people they knew well already gave DNA samples.
It is so upsetting to see on the news that the DNA profile cannot be found in the database. Of course, because only people that have already committed a previous crime would be there. JBR's killer was not in that category. It was someone known to her.

They could still have been involved. It doesn't have to be their DNA. This DNA evidence doesn't cancel the fiber evidence found on the body- in the garrote, inside of the tape and inside her panties. Does it complicate it? Yes. But does it clear them? No. They will be cleared when the killer is KNOWN. Until then- the people in the home when she was killed can't really be cleared. Of course, Lacy can say whatever she wants. Doesn't make it true. She said Karr was the killer, too.

Excellent points!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[DeeDee249]

Lacy did more damage to this case than Hunter did, IMHO. TWICE she exploded onto the media stage with her news of FINDING THE KILLER. And just like Karr, this ain't it either.
Her refusal to test the garrote, paintbrush, tape, handle of the tote, JBR's doorknob, the metal grate, the LATCH on the wineceller door....now THERE's a place to test if ever there was one, because if that same male DNA was on that latch...
the person or persons who put JBR in that room were the last ones to touch that wooden latch until JR the next morning. God knows, Officer French couldn't figure it out.

 

[azwriter]

New evidence? I don't think so. Partial DNA is just such a small part to this crime.
I'm firm on my belief that Patsy killed her daughter in an accident. But, for some deep dark reason, her death had to be covered up.
Burke's comment to his parents "Why did JonBenet have to die?" will always stick in my mind as a clue.
JMO

 

[gracefuljf1505]

my mind isnt changed

 

[oceanblueeyes]

New evidence? I don't think so. Partial DNA is just such a small part to this crime.
I'm firm on my belief that Patsy killed her daughter in an accident. But, for some deep dark reason, her death had to be covered up.
Burke's comment to his parents "Why did JonBenet have to die?" will always stick in my mind as a clue.
JMO

I think it is very normal for little children to question why someone dies.

Even adults question it. I have heard many say....."why did xxxxx have to die?" "I wish it had been me instead." (example) When they lose a loved one.

imoo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This is the way I have felt, although I will add that I have always been a bit more on the side that the parents (particularly Patsy) had something to do with it. Still - it's so confusing - that I could have never said "I know without a doubt it was the Ramseys."

Yesterday, when this news came out, Jeana posted the following and it impacted me greatly:

"Originally Posted by Nedthan Johns
Okay here is what I found out. As you all may or may not know having followed this case for years and working in the Biotech industry I have direct access to very bright people who know a lot about DNA. Touch DNA is just a fancy term (one they never heard of and probably dubbed by the media they said) for a small or incomplete DNA marker. Such as a single cell found on clothing, which is what we have here according to Lacy in 3 places , she states: 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.

According to several of the Ph.D.'s I spoke with this is significant because the odds of it being in so many places and linked directly to the blood found in her panties, does in fact point to a third party. Again these markers are incomplete hence (my favorite Pasty Ramsey word) the word Touch DNA. It's a small sample, again where they can exclude someone but not link someone directly to the crime. So what are the odds this DNA is similar in 3 places on her longjohns? Probably more significant then finding them on her outer clothing. The consensus was by my group, THIS IS HUGE. Is the statement then accurate or too bold for Lacy to say the parents are vindicated? The group here thinks there was a third party in that house. I'm stunned."

If a bunch of disinterested, non-media DNA experts says this is a big deal, I find it hard not to believe that.

I still don't know who did this and my opinion has only shifted to a place where I now have serious doubts that the Ramseys harmed JonBenet or covered it up.

I find this information quite compelling and we can all be assured if they had this type of forensic evidence in any other case where the DNA profile was done and it hit on a match it would be used by the DA in the trial of the matching DNA suspect to show his DNA was the one found on the clothing of the murder victim.

I can certainly understand because to totally disregard it as meaning nothing is reckless. Jurors are very reluctant to give defendants coincidences in murder trials and imo it is no coincidence that it is HIS DNA that is present there.

It means nothing that this same male DNA was found under the victim's fingernails?

It means nothing that this same male DNA was found in the victim's panties in the blood on them?

It means nothing that now the same male DNA was found on the outer garment wear worn by the victim, inside the waistband and down the hip areas?

How convenient for this unknown male that it is his DNA that is on the very clothing of this poor murdered child and it is thought by some to mean absolutely nothing.

imoo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I will have you to know that I do think with an open mind and the only rational explanation is the Ramseys were involved at some level and this new old DNA changes nothing!!

But it isn't old DNA findings. These are new test not the ones done years ago and were done on an article of clothing she was wearing the very night she was murdered.

I just don't see how you can say it means nothing. This new test was not done on the fingernails and panties. It is further substantiation that supports that this unknown male had his hands on the clothing the night she died.

Are you saying that if this was another murder case the DA would not use these forensic results against a suspect at their trial? You think a jury would just see it as "oh well, thats nothing"? I am honestly asking you if you really believe that a jury would just totally disregard that like the defense attorney would be hoping they would? I have seen more Forensic File shows than I can count and have seen cases solved when even a minuscule amount of a suspect's DNA was found on the victim's clothing.

You say you are logical then why is this same male's DNA profile found on the victim's panties, in blood and under the fingernails and now found on JBs long johns? And what test was done on the fingernails and panties back then? It wasn't touch technology so aren't we talking about two different types of DNA for this ? Blood, saliva etc. vs. skin cells?

I can just see some of these sexual predators just relishing in that stance ...the next thing their lawyers will be saying "oh he didn't molest the child, she just touched him earlier on the arm and that is how his DNA got on her clothing and on the crotch of her own panties."

imoo

 

[BBB167893]

I find this information quite compelling and we can all be assured if they had this type of forensic evidence in any other case where the DNA profile was done and it hit on a match it would be used by the DA in the trial of the matching DNA suspect to show his DNA was the one found on the clothing of the murder victim.

But it hasn't hit on a match, blueeyes. Not yet, anyway.

It means nothing that this same male DNA was found under the victim's fingernails?

DNA so worn out there's no way it could have come from that night.

It means nothing that this same male DNA was found in the victim's panties in the blood on them?

They found DNA in other pairs of the underwear.

It means nothing that now the same male DNA was found on the outer garment wear worn by the victim, inside the waistband and down the hip areas?

It MAY mean something. I may not. If, and it's a big if, it was the same as the fingernail DNA, JB could have put it there herself.

How convenient for this unknown male that it is his DNA that is on the very clothing of this poor murdered child and it is thought by some to mean absolutely nothing.

it's not a question of convenience. We no reason to TRUST the DA. And I'm more than willing to tell you why.

Are you saying that if this was another murder case the DA would not use these forensic results against a suspect at their trial? You think a jury would just see it as "oh well, thats nothing"?

Well, that's the problem, blueeyes: the more sensitive DNA science gets, the more likely it is to find DNA that is "nothing" as you put it. The reason DNA was so important to the Simpson case is because of what it was (blood), when it was deposited (that night) and that Simpson just happened to have a cut on his hand when they found him. DNA has its reputation because of rape cases where semen is left or the victim scratched the attacker enough to get some of him. DNA can only exclude suspects in rape cases. Other than that, it can include, and I've been saying for days that this SHOULD be followed up on, if for no other reason than to show it to be another wild goose chase that the Boulder DA's office is so fond of. But it can't exclude. Ask Dennis Dechaine if you don't believe me.

You say you are logical then why is this same male's DNA profile found on the victim's panties, in blood and under the fingernails and now found on JBs long johns?

Who knows?

And what test was done on the fingernails and panties back then? It wasn't touch technology so aren't we talking about two different types of DNA for this ? Blood, saliva etc. vs. skin cells?

No blood, no semen, and only the Ramsey lawyers claim it was saliva. No DNA was found on JB's body in those areas of the leggings and panties. Why?

can just see some of these sexual predators just relishing in that stance ...the next thing their lawyers will be saying "oh he didn't molest the child, she just touched him earlier on the arm and that is how his DNA got on her clothing and on the crotch of her own panties."

Sadly, that may become a reality. Like I said, it depends on the kind of DNA.

 

[Ames]

I find this information quite compelling and we can all be assured if they had this type of forensic evidence in any other case where the DNA profile was done and it hit on a match it would be used by the DA in the trial of the matching DNA suspect to show his DNA was the one found on the clothing of the murder victim.

I can certainly understand because to totally disregard it as meaning nothing is reckless. Jurors are very reluctant to give defendants coincidences in murder trials and imo it is no coincidence that it is HIS DNA that is present there.

It means nothing that this same male DNA was found under the victim's fingernails?

It means nothing that this same male DNA was found in the victim's panties in the blood on them?

It means nothing that now the same male DNA was found on the outer garment wear worn by the victim, inside the waistband and down the hip areas?

How convenient for this unknown male that it is his DNA that is on the very clothing of this poor murdered child and it is thought by some to mean absolutely nothing.

imoo

We can also ask you...it means nothing that fibers from John Ramsey's Iraeli Sweater was found on and inside of JB's panties and crotch area?

 

[Ames]

But it hasn't hit on a match, blueeyes. Not yet, anyway.



DNA so worn out there's no way it could have come from that night.



They found DNA in other pairs of the underwear.



It MAY mean something. I may not. If, and it's a big if, it was the same as the fingernail DNA, JB could have put it there herself.



it's not a question of convenience. We no reason to TRUST the DA. And I'm more than willing to tell you why.



Well, that's the problem, blueeyes: the more sensitive DNA science gets, the more likely it is to find DNA that is "nothing" as you put it. The reason DNA was so important to the Simpson case is because of what it was (blood), when it was deposited (that night) and that Simpson just happened to have a cut on his hand when they found him. DNA has its reputation because of rape cases where semen is left or the victim scratched the attacker enough to get some of him. DNA can only exclude suspects in rape cases. Other than that, it can include, and I've been saying for days that this SHOULD be followed up on, if for no other reason than to show it to be another wild goose chase that the Boulder DA's office is so fond of. But it can't exclude. Ask Dennis Dechaine if you don't believe me.



Who knows?



No blood, no semen, and only the Ramsey lawyers claim it was saliva. No DNA was found on JB's body in those areas of the leggings and panties. Why?



Sadly, that may become a reality. Like I said, it depends on the kind of DNA.

SD,
Patsy put those long johns on JB in the first place, to wear to bed. Where is HER so called "touch dna"? John brought JB's body up from the basement, while carrying her around her hips and upper thigh area...so where is HIS "touch dna"? I would love to force Mary Lacy to test the garotte, the sharpie pen, the rn paper...AND the blanket that JB was wrapped in. Mary Lacy will not have those things tested, because she is afraid of what she might find. IMO...they wouldn't find any unknown male DNA on any of them.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, maybe she will, or maybe her successor will.

In his case, I'd advise reading the file first!

 

[Ames]

Well, maybe she will, or maybe her successor will.

In his case, I'd advise reading the file first!

LOL...I concur!

 

[LI_Mom]

Did the Ramseys keep personal financial records in their home?

imoo

It would be a valid to suppose an intruder could have rifled through John's desk drawers & seen his financial records & the bonus amount.

Now that's a pretty low maintenance kidnapper.... here he has a very rich little girl & all he wants is her daddy's bonus check. And there he claims he wants to HURT John & he barely asks for enough to make him blink.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It would be a valid to suppose an intruder could have rifled through John's desk drawers & seen his financial records & the bonus amount.

Now that's a pretty low maintenance kidnapper.... here he has a very rich little girl & all he wants is her daddy's bonus check. And there he claims he wants to HURT John & he barely asks for enough to make him blink.

Yeah as highly as the Ramseys thought of JonBenet you would think he would have asked for millions because to them I am sure she was priceless.

But I have always thought this was all a mind playing game anyway and he wanted them to know he had been all up in their business and they hadn't known a thing or that he was even there until it was too late.

imoo

 

[BBB167893]

I know I said this case was senseless, but even I have my limits.

 

[tezi]

Noooooooooo......that would be mame. Tez spoke the Truth! :clap:

Apparently, I missed something!!! (Like that would be the first time! LOL) I did speak the truth when I said Lacy is an idiot and that she loves criminals. Well, except those who have the gall to steal a bicycle. LOL

The DNA is not the best evidence! It is DEGRADED!!! There is much better evidence, the fibers!!!!