The Ramseys are Cleared

[MrsMush99]

Exactly!

The dna evidence in this case is little more than grasping at straws.

So you think DNA evidence is grasping at straws???? OBVIOUSLY SOMEONE touched her on the long johns and panties to put the DNA there in the first place.

 

[Adalena935]

The lab outside of Washington DC did the test and gave them to the DA. The DA didn't develop this technology, she didn't do the testing and she doesn't own the lab. The parents didn't put this obscure dna on the child knowing Lacy would be the now-DA or that the technology would exist into the future.

The last person to dress that child after death was her killer. It is now proven it is not anyone in the immediate family.

DNA doesn't care who killed anybody.

 

[T-Rex]

JB's arms were over her head, so her longjohns would have been exposed all the way to the waist.
I think she was covered with a blanket, so there could have been male DNA on there.
She was laid under the Christmas tree; there could have been male DNA there too--especially after the party.
And someone put a sweatshirt over her--there could have been male DNA on that.

Now, if there were a lot of markers on the "Touch" sample, that doesn't matter, but I'm guessing there weren't

 

[MrsMush99]

JB's arms were over her head, so her longjohns would have been exposed all the way to the waist.
I think she was covered with a blanket, so there could have been male DNA on there.
She was laid under the Christmas tree; there could have been male DNA there too--especially after the party.
And someone put a sweatshirt over her--there could have been male DNA on that.

Now, if there were a lot of markers on the "Touch" sample, that doesn't matter, but I'm guessing there weren't

And how do you explain the SAME male DNA INSIDE her underwear??

 

[angelwngs]

Can someone please explain for those of us (me) who really have a tough time understanding DNA and the ways in which it can be contaminated, what is the explanation for strange DNA in her panties if the Ramseys did it? That's not quite what I mean; I get how foreign DNA could be present. But how do you know if it's blood or saliva or semen or skin cell DNA? And how do we know which one it was? And does it being found mingled with JonBenet's blood make any of this harder or easier to determine? Just a brief evidentiary recap for people who can't quite put it together (again, me).

Please read~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The paintbrush!~

The paintbrush was touched by the killer to make the garrote. The paint brush was touched by the killer to insert the end of it into JBR.

The killer had to hold the paintbrush to break it. If there were ALREADY male DNA on the paintbrush, when the killer broke the paintbrush to make the garrote, he/she could have gotten it on his hands and it would have transferred to the sides of JBR's long johns as well as off of the inserted paintbrush to intermingle with her blood and onto her panties!

 

[lilywhite]

JB's arms were over her head, so her longjohns would have been exposed all the way to the waist.
I think she was covered with a blanket, so there could have been male DNA on there.
She was laid under the Christmas tree; there could have been male DNA there too--especially after the party.
And someone put a sweatshirt over her--there could have been male DNA on that.

This explains the DNA on the long johns, but not the DNA in the panties. Foreign DNA is at crime scenes frequently, I'm sure, if we're all going around sloughing it off every minute of every day. It's the two separate places, that at a quick glance seem to be from separate instances of contamination, matching, that puts it in a whole other league of questioning.

I don't know, I'm trying to keep an open mind but I've always thought the intruder theory was bunk. It's hard to even think about it as a possibility when there are so many things to me that are like huge blinking neon signs that say "PATSY DID IT!" in capital letters.

Open minds are hard.

I liked mine just fine how it was. LOL

 

[T-Rex]

And how do you explain the SAME male DNA INSIDE her underwear??

My guess is that's going to be the catch--it's not necessarily the SAME; there just aren't enough DNA markers to prove it's NOT.

 

[LI_Mom]

Hi again wenchie

It's happened before.....maybe he wore gloves until he wanted to sexually touch his victim.....and put them back on afterward.

Were they tights or leggings?


No matter what... there should be those same exact touch prints in MANY areas of the garment.... it's impossible to dress a child & only touch the garment in ONE location.... especially a child who is not moving at all to help you.

 

[TexMex]

The lab outside of Washington DC did the test and gave them to the DA. The DA didn't develop this technology, she didn't do the testing and she doesn't own the lab. The parents didn't put this obscure dna on the child knowing Lacy would be the now-DA or that the technology would exist into the future.

The last person to dress that child after death was her killer. It is now proven it is not anyone in the immediate family.

DNA doesn't care who killed anybody.

Well said Adalena

The odds of the same DNA from saliva in the underwear matching DNA from skin cells on her long johns.....astronomical.

Sneeze from a "factory worker", Dr. Lee?

 

[Adalena935]

This same intruder who left "touch" DNA managed to crawl through a broken basement window without leaving one spot of "touch" DNA, one hair, or one clothing fiber?


Impossible, I say..................

I've had intruders in my home in the night while my family slept and you shoulda got a load of those boys. they came prepared. Covered from head to toe. The only thing not taped, dark, hooded, gloved was the openings in their ski hoods where their eyes were so they could see where they were going. Have to be able to see. Other than that premeditated cover so nothing would escape. Now mind you I had a gun & they only had knives. I caught them off guard. Lucky me!

I can tell you from experience that people who do breaking & entering come very well prepared. I have no way of knowing if my intruders would've taken their gloves off to do whatever they had planned for me. But I'm pretty sure they weren't there to take me to the Prom.

This poor child had no such luck to have a gun and take her intruder by surprise as I did. Have you considered he might have removed his gloves at some point during the crime?

 

[T-Rex]

And hey--I admit, if it is truly the same, that's harder to write off. But I'm skeptical after Lacy's last big announcement.

 

[becklynn]

I am sure someone at the party helped JB go potty. It could be theirs or the DNA of whoever made tights or the panties. DNA wouls get transfered with her tights and undies moving down and up on each other. This means nothing except the da copped out for John and his family. Bet she will be taking a trip buy new things soon.

 

[philamena]

Ok, I haven't followed this case very closely through the years. But to those who have always felt the Ramseys were responsible. Wouldn't this change your mind?

I mean, they're saying the DNA on the leggings matches what was found in the underwear, and that DNA doesn't match anyone in the Ramsey family.

IMO, it appears the Ramseys are innocent.

Just wondering,
fran

No, fran, it doesn't change my mind; not for a nano second.
Patsy killed JBR and John staged the scene.
Patsy wrote the ransom note. (Read RiverRat's siggy.)
I'd put my life on the line....I have no doubt they are guilty as sin itself.

 

[Credence]

And how do you explain the SAME male DNA INSIDE her underwear??

That is THE question. There is no innocent explanation for the same male DNA found IN her underwear and on the longjohns. It's from the same killer and if nothing else proves it was not a factory worker who deposited that DNA there.

 

[lilywhite]

Please read~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The paintbrush!~

The paintbrush was touched by the killer to make the garrote. The paint brush was touched by the killer to insert the end of it into JBR.

The killer had to hold the paintbrush to break it. If there were ALREADY male DNA on the paintbrush, when the killer broke the paintbrush to make the garrote, he/she could have gotten it on his hands and it would have transferred to the sides of JBR's long johns as well as off of the inserted paintbrush to intermingle with her blood and onto her panties!

Panties, check. Long johns, check.

But (for the sake of argument) how do we know the killer wasn't (for example) Patsy, with some random DNA on her hands from, I don't know, shaking someone's hand at the Christmas party? Getting change at the convenience store? With the infinitessimal (sp?) amount of DNA we seem to be debating, how can we know?

The thing is, there is more than enough evidence to satisfy everyone who comes down on either side of this case. Maybe this is like politics and religion -- you can talk about them but it will almost always get ugly and no one will change their mind.

Short of an actual guy being produced who fits the DNA profile (a confession would help too) this will just be one that never gets solved; I really believe that.

I still lean heavily toward the RDI scenario. As a parent, I don't necessarily want to, but I do.

Thank you for your reply; it was kind of obvious, wasn't it? Where's my dunce cap?

 

[TexMex]

I've had intruders in my home in the night while my family slept and you shoulda got a load of those boys. they came prepared. Covered from head to toe. The only thing not taped, dark, hooded, gloved was the openings in their ski hoods where their eyes were so they could see where they were going. Have to be able to see. Other than that premeditated cover so nothing would escape. Now mind you I had a gun & they only had knives. I caught them off guard. Lucky me!

I can tell you from experience that people who do breaking & entering come very well prepared. I have no way of knowing if my intruders would've taken their gloves off to do whatever they had planned for me. But I'm pretty sure they weren't there to take me to the Prom.

This poor child had no such luck to have a gun and take her intruder by surprise as I did. Have you considered he might have removed his gloves at some point during the crime?

ALWAYS take a gun to a knife fight.
Glad you are OK, Miss Ada.
Hope the intruders are in :behindbar. Lucky they aren't six feet under.

 

[Adalena935]

Well said Adalena

The odds of the same DNA from saliva in the underwear matching DNA from skin cells on her long johns.....astronomical.

Sneeze from a "factory worker", Dr. Lee?

Oh yes I agree with you. Impossible for it to be anyone but the killer. I think some day they'll ID him.

But hey I kinda liked Dr. Lee.

 

[lilywhite]

I have no way of knowing if my intruders would've taken their gloves off to do whatever they had planned for me. But I'm pretty sure they weren't there to take me to the Prom.

I know this is a serious topic, and I'm awfully sorry that happened to you (though good for you coming out on top!) -- but this made me literally LOL.

 

[angelwngs]

Please read~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The paintbrush!~

The paintbrush was touched by the killer to make the garrote. The paint brush was touched by the killer to insert the end of it into JBR.

The killer had to hold the paintbrush to break it. If there were ALREADY male DNA on the paintbrush, when the killer broke the paintbrush to make the garrote, he/she could have gotten it on his hands and it would have transferred to the sides of JBR's long johns as well as off of the inserted paintbrush to intermingle with her blood and onto her panties!

I want to know what male was likely to have touched Patsy's paintbrushes....

Someone please tell me how this is not a logical transferrance of DNA to both places...

If the killer wore gloves his/her dna might not located anywhere but the male dna already on the painbrush sure would....

 

[Adalena935]

ALWAYS take a gun to a knife fight.
Glad you are OK, Miss Ada.
Hope the intruders are in :behindbar. Lucky they aren't six feet under.

Thank you. O brother was I ever lucky that nite.