What would you ask the DNA owner?

[Sophie]

OK lets assume I let the droplet fall on my underwear and send it to a lab. They effortlessly find unknown DNA.

Now, I send my longjohns that I was wearing at the same time as the underwear to a lab and they find the SAME DNA PROFILE as was on the underwear. What does this cause you to believe? Hello??

Hello back. Your cognitive skills are failing you. I'm getting close to snapping point with you again. We were talking about your comment about the DNA being 'mixed' with blood. If the DNA was on the LJs before the blood fell on them, then the DNA would probably show up in a test. We have already accounted for the DNA itself being in multiple places before the murder.

To clarify:


As asserted by an FBI criminalist (TY, Dave), and should be readily apparent even to you, it is entirely possible to pick up someone's DNA (say, if you shake hands with some with a cough and get saliva and skin cells) and scratch your head and maybe touch your sweater, you will get the DNA in more than one place. In fact, this is one of the very bases of touch DNA.

This could conceivably have happened in JBR's case and I don't think anyone can dispute how much DNA she came into contact with on Christmas Day. Or her mother, who had had similar contact with many sources of DNA and may have had alien DNA on her (having by her timeline, not washed her hands or clothes before putting JBR to bed) and did touch JBR's undies and her longjohns - which she admitted to. Or the knickers may have had DNA on them from the factory and this may have touched the LJs - undies and LJs will have come into contact with one another. Obviously. This is precisely why so many DNA experts tell us to take care with touch DNA.


However, this eludes IDI.


And even if the DNA on JBR is not innocent, it still doesn't exclude the Ramseys as accomplices or of having some knowledge of the crime. Which IDI can't get through their skulls. The Ramseys would still have plenty to account for.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The DNA could be innocent transfer. The DA said as much. The question is on likelihood and prevalence.

The more prevalent the DNA is, the less likelihood its trancient. Obviously if there's a gallon of DNA material it becomes less likely it was there already from the factory.

The other angle that the DA seems to have used, is the one where we look in areas known to have been visited during a criminal act (like looking for crash scene evidence in the intersection first, not on the sidewalk). We know a criminal carried out a sexual assault. Areas related to the assault were checked, and the same DNA is turning up in more than one of these areas. This is pretty rational stuff. Don't take my word for it, I'm just the messenger.

When we read the news it reads I-D-I.

 

[Ravyn]

The media just a lovely source, like they don't make mistakes, hey they can't even keep the timeline right in the events of this crime...And as anyone ever notice that they can even get JonBenet's birthday wrong...So sorry if the news reads IDI...But if it read RDI,YOU would be saying the same thing RIGHT....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The media just a lovely source, like they don't make mistakes, hey they can't even keep the timeline right in the events of this crime...And as anyone ever notice that they can even get JonBenet's birthday wrong...So sorry if the news reads IDI...But if it read RDI,YOU would be saying the same thing RIGHT....

My point is that it USED to read RDI, but not any more. Now it reads IDI. Its not that they arbitrarily changed their coverage from RDI to IDI. They changed because of the DNA evidence and probably because lack of smoking gun evidence against the R's. Thats why the R's were never arrested and put on trial.

RDI is so weak it couldn't even generate an arrest. THats how weak it is. The RDI answer is that the investigation is corrupt, when really the case against the R's is obviously too weak to prosecute.

 

[BBB167893]

My point is that it USED to read RDI, but not any more. Now it reads IDI. Its not that they arbitrarily changed their coverage from RDI to IDI. They changed because of the DNA evidence and probably because lack of smoking gun evidence against the R's. Thats why the R's were never arrested and put on trial.

Actually, Sophie posted the reasons a little while back. I thought they were quite astute.

In a way, you're right about the lack of smoking gun evidence. The DA's office wouldn't go to trial without one. I guess they never heard of circumstantial cases. The VAST majority of convictions are won by circumstantial evidence and prosecutors who know how to put one together. It's just as I've always said.

RDI is so weak it couldn't even generate an arrest. Thats how weak it is. The RDI answer is that the investigation is corrupt, when really the case against the R's is obviously too weak to prosecute.

Really?

Is that why the police WANTED to arrest them?

Is that why the FBI TOLD them to arrest the Rs?

Is that why the Dream Team SAID to arrest them?

It's just as I've always said. I don't know if the case was weak, but the DA's office sure as hell was.

 

[redeemed]

one thing I dont understand- how could the FBI NOT be involved in a case like this??!!! my understanding is that the Ramseys did not want the FBI to be involved?!?!! is that right?? on what basis though?? doesnt make sense to me..if u want your daughter's killer to be brought to justice you would want the best there is to investigate...isn't it??even if they might place you initially as suspects, surely they will clear you eventually...thats' assuming, ofcourse, you are innocent to begin with...
oh...i forgot...the Ramseys were "officially" cleared a few years ago...haha...

 

[BBB167893]

one thing I dont understand- how could the FBI NOT be involved in a case like this??!!!

Because it wasn't a federal crime. Whether or not the laws should be changed, that's moot now.

my understanding is that the Ramseys did not want the FBI to be involved?!?!! is that right??

QUITE right! JR said in 2000 that the case should be taken from the BPD. When the FBI was suggested, he shot that idea down cold. This is extra ironic since he himself said that they SHOULD have been involved from the get-go!

on what basis though??

JR's basis was nothing short of precious: because the FBI were "poisoned" by the BPD and were part of the big conspiracy against the Rs. What's worse is that some people were stupid enough to believe and regugitate this nonsense!

doesnt make sense to me..if u want your daughter's killer to be brought to justice you would want the best there is to investigate...isn't it??even if they might place you initially as suspects, surely they will clear you eventually...thats' assuming, ofcourse, you are innocent to begin with...

I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Because it wasn't a federal crime.

How was a federal crime ruled out?

I'd like to know, because it seems to me that we really don't know what happened. I mean, nobody does. There's no way to rule out three men crossing state lines to do crime on a child. There's no way to rule out that there was a kidnapping conspiracy. Ultimately when the truth is known it may be found out that there was a kidnapping or murder conspiracy, that people crossed international borders to do it.

Again, who says it wasn't a federal crime when we don't know what crimes were committed. You'd have to have been in the basement at the time to know what crimes were pr were not committed. There could be a dozen federal counts by the time it was over.

It has the potential to be a federal crime, and the more they exhonerate the R's the more potential there is.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Actually, Sophie posted the reasons a little while back. I thought they were quite astute.

In a way, you're right about the lack of smoking gun evidence. The DA's office wouldn't go to trial without one. I guess they never heard of circumstantial cases. The VAST majority of convictions are won by circumstantial evidence and prosecutors who know how to put one together. It's just as I've always said.



Really?

Is that why the police WANTED to arrest them?

Is that why the FBI TOLD them to arrest the Rs?

Is that why the Dream Team SAID to arrest them?

It's just as I've always said. I don't know if the case was weak, but the DA's office sure as hell was.

It was weak, SD. Really weak.

Prosecutors would not be able to definitively link either PR or JR to any part of the murder. Whether it be the writing of the note, the preparation of the garrote, the strangulation, the headbash, the sexual assault, the redressing, the feeding, or the moving of JBR around the house. Not one of these actions known to have been taken by a criminal that night could be definitively linked to either JR or PR.

 

[BBB167893]

How was a federal crime ruled out?

Generally speaking, murder is not a federal crime unless the person who got killed was taken over state lines or was affiliated with the government. JB was neither. She was killed in her home state.

I'd like to know, because it seems to me that we really don't know what happened. I mean, nobody does. There's no way to rule out three men crossing state lines to do crime on a child. There's no way to rule out that there was a kidnapping conspiracy. Ultimately when the truth is known it may be found out that there was a kidnapping or murder conspiracy, that people crossed international borders to do it.

Again, who says it wasn't a federal crime when we don't know what crimes were committed. You'd have to have been in the basement at the time to know what crimes were pr were not committed. There could be a dozen federal counts by the time it was over.

It has the potential to be a federal crime, and the more they exhonerate the R's the more potential there is.

I appreciate what you say, HOTYH, but in a spot like this, I think they have to have a strong basis for believing that before the feds can be called in. That's what I'm saying. One thing's sure: Lacy wasn't in any big hurry to call the FBI in when she took over!

It was weak, SD. Really weak.

People have been put away with less. But that's not really a fair comparison, for reasons I shall explain momentarily.

Prosecutors would not be able to definitively link either PR or JR to any part of the murder. Whether it be the writing of the note, the preparation of the garrote, the strangulation, the headbash, the sexual assault, the redressing, the feeding, or the moving of JBR around the house. Not one of these actions known to have been taken by a criminal that night could be definitively linked to either JR or PR.

HOTYH, I realize this may come as something of a shock, but in a way, you're absolutely right. In fact, I'm grateful to you for phrasing it the way you did. You just summed up the main problem in this case in a way that even I am impressed with: the cross-fingerpointing defense.

I of all people should have remembered the Rule of Two. From a legal standpoint, you cannot charge two people with a crime. In this case, you HAVE to charge one with the actual killing and the other with being an accomplice. The trouble is, and I've said this many times (even had a thread on it; have to get that one going again), the evidence was too ambiguous to tell which one did what. Moreover, it's one's word against the other, in case one ever does turn on the other.

This is known as the cross-fingerpointing defense. Unless you can say for certain that one person did the actual killing and the other was along for the ride, you're stuck. Two suspects equals no suspects.

The DA's office never got past that. You and I can go back and forth as to how much evidence there was against the Rs, but it doesn't matter because, from the court's standpoint, there is no "Rs." It's got to be "PR did this, JR did that." Even I'll admit that they were never able to do that.

Keep in mind, folks, that this isn't just something I came up with as a "wildcard." Several legal experts, good ones, have said exactly what I'm saying now. Even Pete Hofstrom said it: "So what if she wrote the note? It doesn't prove she killed her kid." Legally, he's absolutely right.

So that's something we can agree on.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, I realize this may come as something of a shock, but in a way, you're absolutely right. In fact, I'm grateful to you for phrasing it the way you did. You just summed up the main problem in this case in a way that even I am impressed with: the cross-fingerpointing defense.

I of all people should have remembered the Rule of Two. From a legal standpoint, you cannot charge two people with a crime. In this case, you HAVE to charge one with the actual killing and the other with being an accomplice. The trouble is, and I've said this many times (even had a thread on it; have to get that one going again), the evidence was too ambiguous to tell which one did what. Moreover, it's one's word against the other, in case one ever does turn on the other.

This is known as the cross-fingerpointing defense. Unless you can say for certain that one person did the actual killing and the other was along for the ride, you're stuck. Two suspects equals no suspects.

The DA's office never got past that. You and I can go back and forth as to how much evidence there was against the Rs, but it doesn't matter because, from the court's standpoint, there is no "Rs." It's got to be "PR did this, JR did that." Even I'll admit that they were never able to do that.

Keep in mind, folks, that this isn't just something I came up with as a "wildcard." Several legal experts, good ones, have said exactly what I'm saying now. Even Pete Hofstrom said it: "So what if she wrote the note? It doesn't prove she killed her kid." Legally, he's absolutely right.

So that's something we can agree on.

I understand what you say. Even if JR and PR stood together, each taking blame for crimes committed by either, they still could not link them to even one of these crime events.

Its not like they know that somebody who lived there killed JBR and they just don't know which one. Its not a 'whodunit'.

The original point being that the prosecution's case is weak because no linkage. Thats why no arrest. If there were definitive linkage, then you could say they bought their way out of trouble.

Lack of a definitive link between any R and any crime event is a sign in and of itself that an intruder did it. I think thats called 'Process of Elimination'. Who needs DNA?

 

[BBB167893]

I understand what you say. Even if JR and PR stood together, each taking blame for crimes committed by either, they still could not link them to even one of these crime events.

That's not what Henry Lee said. He said that there was more than enough evidence to bring cover-up charges against both of them. Problem there is, CO law prevents the bringing of charges against anyone when a murder charge is still in the offing. But as to the main point, you've pretty much got it.

Its not like they know that somebody who lived there killed JBR and they just don't know which one. Its not a 'whodunit'.

You and I could argue that point. Several people from the investigation have categorized it that way: "we know one of them did it. But we don't know which one." But it's the same result. That's my point.

The original point being that the prosecution's case is weak because no linkage. Thats why no arrest.

I stand by what I said, HOTYH. As do several other sources.

If there were definitive linkage, then you could say they bought their way out of trouble.

Well, I suppose that's where you and I have to part company. I believe strongly that they did buy their way out, at least inasmuch as they could avail themselves of resources that most people couldn't. Answer this: do you think that a blue-collar housepainter would have gotten the same treatment?

Lack of a definitive link between any R and any crime event is a sign in and of itself that an intruder did it.

There's certainly enough to convince me there's a link. "Definitive" is a somewhat subjective term.

 

[p7byrd]

How was a federal crime ruled out?

The FBI was actually called to the Ramsey house, because it involved a defense contractor (John Ramsey) and an alleged kidnapping.

The FBI agents on the scene, however, quickly concluded that it was an obvious staging, that the ransom note was fake, that there was no kidnapping, and that the individual(s) responsible for the young girl's disappearance was someone who lived in Ramsey home. They left, and allowed the Boulder Police to continue with their investigation.

 

[Ravyn]

My point is that it USED to read RDI, but not any more. Now it reads IDI. Its not that they arbitrarily changed their coverage from RDI to IDI. They changed because of the DNA evidence and probably because lack of smoking gun evidence against the R's. Thats why the R's were never arrested and put on trial.

RDI is so weak it couldn't even generate an arrest. THats how weak it is. The RDI answer is that the investigation is corrupt, when really the case against the R's is obviously too weak to prosecute.

And this DNA for the intruder is weak too...Wouldn't you say...Still no arrest on the killer....But the media still and never be a good source...And using never don't make RDI...Never is a common word to use

 

[DeeDee249]

It was weak, SD. Really weak.

Prosecutors would not be able to definitively link either PR or JR to any part of the murder. Whether it be the writing of the note, the preparation of the garrote, the strangulation, the headbash, the sexual assault, the redressing, the feeding, or the moving of JBR around the house. Not one of these actions known to have been taken by a criminal that night could be definitively linked to either JR or PR.

JR's fibers in the panties (which did not belong to JB and were put on her during the crime) and Patsy's fibers both on the inside side of the tape and entwined in the garrote cord link the parents to the crime. Definitively. The tape, garrote and the size 12 panties are linked to the crime and not to a pre-crime JB.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JR's fibers in the panties (which did not belong to JB and were put on her during the crime) and Patsy's fibers both on the inside side of the tape and entwined in the garrote cord link the parents to the crime. Definitively. The tape, garrote and the size 12 panties are linked to the crime and not to a pre-crime JB.

For any given fiber found on JBR's clothing, the probability of it being owned by:

• A family member: really high
• A friend or neighbor: high
• A complete stranger: low

It might help to understand a normal relationship between a father and six year old daughter, and that JBR's shirt fibers would naturally be completely covering JBR's clothing or legs (depending on pants or dress) as residue from a Christmas day.

If JBR wore a dress, her legs would be fully contaminated by JR's shirt fibers, in a normal father / 6 year old daughter relationship.

This is just common sense.

 

[DeeDee249]

For any given fiber found on JBR's clothing, the probability of it being owned by:

• A family member: really high
• A friend or neighbor: high
• A complete stranger: low

It might help to understand a normal relationship between a father and six year old daughter, and that JBR's shirt fibers would naturally be completely covering JBR's clothing or legs (depending on pants or dress) as residue from a Christmas day.

If JBR wore a dress, her legs would be fully contaminated by JR's shirt fibers, in a normal father / 6 year old daughter relationship.

This is just common sense.

She wore pants that day- according to her mother and LE who saw the photos from that day.
I'd expect to see fibers from the parents on her clothes from the day. What is suspect is the presence of parent's fibers on items found on the body that were NOT part of her day. They were found on items that were exclusively part of the CRIME. Specifically- the tape, garrote knot and inside the crotch of the size 12 panties that were put on her during the staging. These areas should have contained NO fibers from anyone who was not present when they were put on JB DURING the crime.
You have already stated that you do not believe the tape and cord came from the house. If true (which I disagree with) then it is even less likely that parents' fibers would be on these items innocently.

 

[Ravyn]

Here is one media source from the Denver post back in 2004




June 4: Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood said DNA found in JonBenet's underwear did not match any of 1.5 million samples in an FBI database of convicted violent offenders.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

She wore pants that day- according to her mother and LE who saw the photos from that day.
I'd expect to see fibers from the parents on her clothes from the day. What is suspect is the presence of parent's fibers on items found on the body that were NOT part of her day. They were found on items that were exclusively part of the CRIME. Specifically- the tape, garrote knot and inside the crotch of the size 12 panties that were put on her during the staging. These areas should have contained NO fibers from anyone who was not present when they were put on JB DURING the crime.
You have already stated that you do not believe the tape and cord came from the house. If true (which I disagree with) then it is even less likely that parents' fibers would be on these items innocently.

We KNOW that JR's clothing would've contacted JBR's hands that day. We KNOW JR's clothing would've contacted JBR's clothing. Therefore, we KNOW JR's clothing fibers would be subject to secondary trasnfer. There's just nothing that remarkable about R fibers on their own daughter. There isn't now and there sure won't ever be, not with unknown male DNA mixed with blood in the crotch of her panties! I mean, you've got to be kidding, right? That DNA matches other DNA found in two places on the waistband of her longjohns!

You've got brand new size 12 panties out of a new package that have DNA and blood on them that coincidentally occur at the same spot. You don't know what form that DNA is. That same DNA can be found in skin cell form on the longjohns! That's it right there. Are you going to buy the coincidence that the DNA and the blood got to the same spot separately and nowhere else?

Time to get real.

Besides, the fibers are just blown out of proportion by RDI. All you could ever say is that fibers 'consistent with' JR's shirt were found. You have no idea if these fibers came from JR's shirt.

 

[cynic]

... secondary transfer...Time to get real.

Time to read this again:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999"]DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]