The Ramseys are Cleared

[Details]

Touch DNA, according to the articles, you have to know where it is, and look there. You can't just process an entire house.

 

[txsvicki]

Touch DNA, according to the articles, you have to know where it is, and look there. You can't just process an entire house.

I wonder if the paper bag with rope inside that was found in the guest room will be tested.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Ummm, then why didn't they have Linda Arndt search the basement to be sure? :waitasecatsy used the basement to paint, and they had Christmas presents and a wine cellar down there. This was not an unused basement. I'd want my whole house searched immediately if my daughter was missing.

The family in Iowa whose situation I described wanted to find their son, very badly. From all accounts, they were a typical farm family, active in their church, no history or suspicion of child abuse or any other criminal activity.

Their basement wasn't unused. In the story after the body was found, one of the excuses law enforcement personnel used for not finding the body was that the basement was crowded with stuff stored down there.

Plus, I imagine the basement was used a couple times a year as a tornado shelter (I live very near their area).

Law enforcement personnel searched their house not just once but several times. Initially in the search for the missing boy, then in an effort to find evidence of a homicide.

One of the morals of the story is to never underestimate the resourcefulness of 13 year old kids who have something they want to hide ( mags and women's underwear). I actually wonder if the brother found the body because he, too, wanted a secret hidey-hole and suddenly wondered if there was something behind those old boards.

The other moral is that sometimes it's more difficult to search a house than it might seem.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

I'm not sure how to do links, so I hope this turns out correctly:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_jonbenet_ramsey_dna.html

This is an AP item about the case. It briefly outlines the method and testing used.

The method used is to scrape with a sharp blade an area where an investigator guesses there may be significant DNA. It's a guess because this method is used where there are no stains or marks present.

Once they find cells, they run one of two DNA tests: either the normal test or a low count DNA test. The normal test requires DNA from a minimum of 50 cells. The low count DNA test can get a full profile from as few as 5 cells and a partial profile from a single cell.

In the case of JonBenet's longjohns, they found enough DNA to run the normal test, which indicates they found quite a bit of skin cells, far more than just one or two.

This leads me to think that there is very little possibility that this DNA got there via transfer from DNA left on the panties from manufacturing. Or DNA left by a casual touch such as a light brush of the hand against the fabric (a touch such as might happen when walking in a crowd and brushing against a fellow pedestrian).

I'm hoping they are now subjecting other pieces of evidence to the same technique.

 

[Wudge]

Gotcha Wudge. But I guess because pineapple was found on the table it is just assumed that, that is what she ate.

Were JonBenet's fingerprints found on the bowl or just Patsy's and Burke's? What about on the spoon?

I've never saw or read a lab report that said whose fingerprints were found on the bowl.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

WS has a Thread:

Homeless Woman Who Lived Undetected in Japanese Man's Closet for a Year Caught

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360427,00.html

I'm just considering every possibility here...as unlikely as they might be...

How long could someone have gone undetected in the Ramsey home without leaving tons of dna?

There had to be unidentified touch dna all over that house from numerous unknown visitors recently in the home.

Were the construction workers ever located and tested for DNA?

We have too many vital questions with no answers from legitimate sources.

Wasn't there another case where that happened? Iirc, it was in the last year or two and the young woman went missing from her home. LE searched her home at least twice and the surrounding area throughly including down in the basement area where the laundry room was and did not find her. They suspected foul play.

I think it was about 2 weeks later or more due to the smell they found her where the killer had stuffed her body in a crawl space off from the laundry room and LE said they had called themselves checking that area.

Her place was small in comparison and not nearly as huge and complex as the Ramsey home.

imoo

 

[Squishified]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, this is an opinion piece written by Jeffrey Shapiro wodering how in the world Mary Lacy can clear the Ramseys:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html

 

[TexMex]

I'm not sure how to do links, so I hope this turns out correctly:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_jonbenet_ramsey_dna.html

This is an AP item about the case. It briefly outlines the method and testing used.

The method used is to scrape with a sharp blade an area where an investigator guesses there may be significant DNA. It's a guess because this method is used where there are no stains or marks present.

Once they find cells, they run one of two DNA tests: either the normal test or a low count DNA test. The normal test requires DNA from a minimum of 50 cells. The low count DNA test can get a full profile from as few as 5 cells and a partial profile from a single cell.

In the case of JonBenet's longjohns, they found enough DNA to run the normal test, which indicates they found quite a bit of skin cells, far more than just one or two.

This leads me to think that there is very little possibility that this DNA got there via transfer from DNA left on the panties from manufacturing. Or DNA left by a casual touch such as a light brush of the hand against the fabric (a touch such as might happen when walking in a crowd and brushing against a fellow pedestrian).

I'm hoping they are now subjecting other pieces of evidence to the same technique.

Thanks for the info Grainne D

 

[JMO8778]

Since when does a parent killing a child EVER make sense, Tex? And I'm not just saying that, either. Killing a child NEVER makes any sense to me. And the day it does, I will PRAY for death!

The Rams and all their supporters (the ones who knowingly betray her),shall someday stand before God and be held accountable.I'm going to be glad when that day comes.
As for chronic abuse mentioned earlier,chronic infiltrate into the vaginal cells was noted,and that simply couldn't have come from the night she was killed.
Dr Wecht said there was one injury in particular,about 72 hours old,and 72 hours would have been around the same time of the R's Christmas party,the same night that odd 911 hang-up call was made,and SS answered police via the intercom only.It was also the same night JB was found crying on the steps,saying she 'didn't feel pretty'.
It would also be interesting to know why JB saw the school nurse several times that Dec.,and always on a Mon.,as well as why patsy frantically called Dr Beuf 3x within 10 mins. in mid-Dec,yet she couldn't recall why.
And then lastly,the dictionary being found opened to word incest .

 

[Wudge]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, this is an opinion piece written by Jeffrey Shapiro wodering how in the world Mary Lacy can clear the Ramseys:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html

Shapiro has long supported the BPD. So I'm not surprised he takes off against Mary Lacy. I've never held Shapiro to be very bright (TTT), but he has tried to maintain some level of ethics in the past.

Another article

"It was time to start fighting back. One morning in October I found myself in the Denver Federal Building, sitting across from three federal agents who listened to my story of the Globe's attempt to pressure Steve Thomas. They were intrigued by it, and immediately began discussing whether or not they could convince the U.S. Attorney's Office to go after a media organization, since such pursuits were often public relations disasters. One of the agents suggested a sting operation to get the blackmail attempt on tape.

"Don't worry about that," I told them. "Why?" they asked. I opened my briefcase and pulled out a tape I had made with the telephone recording device Globe had bought me over a year before. "Because I've already got it on tape," I told the agents. "I've been taping them for months now."

To my surprise, days later, I learned that Steve Thomas had rejected the FBI's offer to investigate the Globe on his behalf. Without a victim, the government was powerless to move forward and the matter was dropped. Thomas' attorney, Margaret Miller, told The Washington Post that he "was tired of the Ramsey case and wanted to be left alone."

My guess was that Thomas was frightened of the Globe."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9906.shapiro.tabloid.html

 

[LI_Mom]

The force is powerful tonight.

(smile)

Sounds to me like the 'Darkside' probably ran out of cookies! lol


*For those who are confused:

http://tinyurl.com/5lhwpe

 

[Wudge]

Sounds to me like the 'Darkside' probably ran out of cookies! lol


*For those who are confused:

http://tinyurl.com/5lhwpe

(salute)

 

[LI_Mom]

I have seen that picture. There is just so much information on this case that it is hard to remember every little detail. So Patsy said she put her to bed in those underwear???

Patsy claims:

The too large package of panties HAD been opened by JB previously.

She doesn't remember whether or not JB was wearing them the night of the party... and she can't recall whether her underpants came down when she was trying to dress the sleeping JB.



Also of interest & rarely mentioned: the Barbie nightgown that was found near JB's body.

Wouldn't THAT have touch DNA evidence?

 

[azwriter]

I have to say that Websleuth members have benefitted greatly from Lacy's move to appoint John and Patsy saints in clearing them of the crime.
Look how many great comments we have received since that announcement.
I've been busy trying to keep up and find many new and fresh points of view here.
Keep 'em coming!

 

[LI_Mom]

If that were the case, why not leave her under the Christmas tree to REALLY dig it in?

What? And deny Arndt the chance to move the body there herself? LOL

 

[LI_Mom]

beep -wrong.


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/cyril_wecht/6.html

Here's the complete autopsy report:

Top of this page discusses the stomach contents:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet7.html

 

[Ames]

Patsy claims:

The too large package of panties HAD been opened by JB previously.

She doesn't remember whether or not JB was wearing them the night of the party... and she can't recall whether her underpants came down when she was trying to dress the sleeping JB.



Also of interest & rarely mentioned: the Barbie nightgown that was found near JB's body.

Wouldn't THAT have touch DNA evidence?

Yes, it probably would. I have mentioned the Barbie Nightgown needing to be tested, in several posts. I believe though that the blanket that JB was found wrapped "lovingly" in, had been in the dryer...(the one in the basement)...along with the Barbie nightgown, and the nightgown came out with it via static cling...(when Patsy grabbed the blanket from the dryer to wrap JB "lovingly"...."papoose style"....in.) When told about the barbie nightgown...JOHN SAID...."That wasn't supposed to be there". It's in one of his interviews...I will try and find it. Which leads me to believe...he nor Patsy knew it was there...(because it came out ACCIDENTLY with the blanket via static cling).

 

[LI_Mom]

And don't forget Johns X-ray vision. The decision is made to search the house one more time, John heads right down the stairs and "sees" Jon Benet in a pitch black room. :waitasec:

IIRC, it wasn't that the room was pitch black.... it was that Fleet White says that John reacted to seeing JB laying there BEFORE he even entered the direct field of vision... he was seeing around a wall.

 

[angelwngs]

IIRC, it wasn't that the room was pitch black.... it was that Fleet White says that John reacted to seeing JB laying there BEFORE he even entered the direct field of vision... he was seeing around a wall.

Just goes to show you my favorite motto is indeed fact:

"Timing is everything..."

 

[LI_Mom]

Yes, it probably would. I have mentioned the Barbie Nightgown needing to be tested, in several posts. I believe though that the blanket that JB was found wrapped "lovingly" in, had been in the dryer...(the one in the basement)...along with the Barbie nightgown, and the nightgown came out with it via static cling...(when Patsy grabbed the blanket from the dryer to wrap JB "lovingly"...."papoose style"....in.) When told about the barbie nightgown...JOHN SAID...."That wasn't supposed to be there". It's in one of his interviews...I will try and find it. Which leads me to believe...he nor Patsy knew it was there...(because it came out ACCIDENTLY with the blanket via static cling).

"Not supposed to be there" he's probably trying to say... she was not wearing it that night to bed.

If static cling was responsible for it being there... there's SURE to be touch dna on the nightgown. No intruder is going to slip gloves on & off & on & off while in the middle of an attack.