Why the DNA may NOT be important

[Theonly1]

In other words, the Kolar book pretty blatantly makes it apparent there were not intruders. That chapter was pretty ludicrous and it shows his disbelief in that theory.

 

[Anti-K]

Yes AK....I used matrilinear for clarity sake in lieu of mitochondrial so that people may be able to follow the train of thought that I was presenting. So we don't really know if they utilized mitochondrial methodology analyzing any of the DNA?

Also, I have read numerous times that DNA is not about excluding.

Okay, I understand. However, I think that the use of “matrilinear” confuses rather than clarifies simply because it is not a term used in forensic analysis. But, no worries, I know what you’re talking about now.

As I remember it, and I don’t always remember things correctly, mitochondrial DNA was used for the ancillary hair. Mitochondrial DNA and DNA are not the same thing, they don’t come from the same source(s) and you can’t get the same information from them.

I’m surprised that you’ve “read numerous times that DNA is not about excluding.” This is just not true. I’m almost shocked when I see people making this claim. I’d like to see at least one of those sources.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

Who said anything about impossible? And, no one is talking about “dropped tissues.” Venon was referring to the box of tissue that was on the table, near the bowl w/pineapple and the glass/tea bag.

The only one suggesting magic pants is you.
...

AK

No, I'm the only one calling it that.
The magical properties of the non fiber shedding pants (and other clothing, including gloves/not gloves) was already out there.

 

[Anti-K]

Perhaps you should reread the Kolar book. Also, try to see the humor and twists he has to contort the scene into to make the intruder theory match evidence.

I do see the humor. And, I hope it was intentional. But, it is also nonsensical and heavily flawed. I don’t mean this as a personal attack; it is a reference to his reasoning only. For example, his ridiculous claim that we must either accept or reject the six DNA samples. This is a False Dichotomy, and an incredibly stupid thing to assert.

Kolar tells us there are six samples, but he admits that one of those samples could be Jonbenet’s. If one of those samples could be Jonbenet’s than we don’t have to accept that all samples came from perpetrators. We could say that five samples came from perpetrators and one did not. So, why does Kolar then turn around and say that IDI must accept all 6? He’s already proven himself wrong! And, he doesn’t realize it. So sad.

The absurdity of Kolar’s foreign faction scenario actually serves to undermine his declaration that intruder theories must incorporate six perpetrators. It certainly does nothing to support the claim. The only rationalization that Kolar provides is to say that, “[t]o deny this physical evidence [the six unidentified samples] is akin to admitting that Distal Stain 007-2is an artifact that has no correlation to the murderer(s) in this case.” p. 426

Saying it doesn’t make it so (and, as noted, it is a false dichotomy). In between the extremes that Kolar offers there is a range of possibilities. Here are a few:

1 female and 5 male = 1 female and 4 male are perpetrators and 1 male is innocent transfer/artifact

1 female and 5 male = 1 female and 3 male are perpetrators and 2 male are innocent transfer/artifact

1 female and 5 male = 1 female and 2 male are perpetrators and 3 male are innocent transfer/artifact

1 female and 5 male = 1 female and 1 male are perpetrators and 4 male are innocent transfer/artifact

1 female and 5 male = 5 male are perpetrators and 1female is innocent transfer/artifact

1 female and 5 male = 4 male are perpetrators and 1female and 1 male is innocent transfer/artifact

So many choices. So obvious that Kolar is wrong in his assertion. His is a very poorly reasoned and fallacious argument.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

In other words, the Kolar book pretty blatantly makes it apparent there were not intruders. That chapter was pretty ludicrous and it shows his disbelief in that theory.

I think that the Kolar book “pretty blatantly makes it apparent” that Kolar has a vivid imagination and questionable reasoning skills.
...

AK

 

[Theonly1]

I think that the Kolar book “pretty blatantly makes it apparent” that Kolar has a vivid imagination and questionable reasoning skills.
...

AK

Ak,

Could you take a moment and answer one question for me? Who do you think has better perspective on the case evidence: Kolar, who has seen all the evidence, or us Websleuthers who have seen about 10 percent of the so-called evidence, half of which is allegedly inaccurate?

 

[Theonly1]

You do realize that hundreds of bits of data are held back? A guy who has seen almost all or all of it is helping us to see the truth. I wish it not to be a Ramsey as it would be the worst way to die - knowing a parent or sibling is killing you.

 

[2 percent]

I guess I'm missing my kids because i decided to torture myself today and research a bit. I found a few things. Interesting but not stunning.

First, I went to the Bode Technology website and saw this under the heading Cold Cases:
Touch DNA collection procedures were applied to evidence from the JonBenet Ramsey cold case that resulted in a potentially probative DNA profile

http://www.bodetech.com/forensic-solutions/dna-identification/cold-cases/

meh. Underwhelming.

The I went to to their Post Conviction DNA Testing and the first thing that pops up is:
Bode provided extensive forensic DNA testing in this case using advanced techniques and found that no genetic material recovered from the crime scene belonged to any of the three imprisoned men, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelly Jr. The convicted men’s defense team leveraged Bode’s work and a judge set the three men free on August 19, 2011.

http://www.bodetech.com/forensic-solutions/dna-identification/post-conviction-dna-testing/

Hmmmm....

July 2007, new forensic evidence was presented in the case and a status report jointly issued by the state and the defense team stated, "Although most of the genetic material recovered from the scene was attributable to the victims of the offenses, some of it cannot be attributed to either the victims or the defendants." On October 29, 2007, the defense filed a Second Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus, outlining the new evidence.[4]

Following a successful decision in 2010 by the Arkansas Supreme Court regarding newly produced DNA evidence,[5] the West Memphis Three reached a deal with prosecutors. On August 19, 2011, they entered Alford pleas, which allow them to assert their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them. Judge David Laser accepted the pleas and sentenced the three to time served. They were released with ten-year suspended sentences, having served 18 years and 78 days in prison.[6]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

Not exoneration by any means.

I got bored with Bode so wandered to the Pro Death Penalty website to check on scheduled executions. There was a strange increase in stays coming out of Texas in May, so I started following my nose. Robert Pruett stuck out because his appeals are based in part on touch DNA. He was given a stay a year ago for DNA testing; in January the DNA came back inconclusive. His latest stay was for appeals prep (I think his lawyer is trying mitigation like child abuse).

The basic facts of the case are that Pruett attacked a prison guard who had written him up, ripping up the disciplinary report and tossing it on the guard's body. The palm print didn't match Pruett but a teeny amount of DNA was s present, etc. But the DNA testing was inconclusive - including and excluding Pruett.
He was convicted on eyewitness testimony. A judge determined the DNA was inconsequential to the case (interesting in itself).

Aside: I remember during the Routier appeals, specifically during the fingerprint hoohaw, that it was discovered that afis had several duplicates and many were prints incorporating the palm. I don't know if that means anything....but interesting :angel:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

In other words, the Kolar book pretty blatantly makes it apparent there were not intruders. That chapter was pretty ludicrous and it shows his disbelief in that theory.

It makes it apparent that he THINKS there were not intruders. He does everything he can to shape this is a way to make a 9 yr old responsible.

I don't find him credible.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ak,

Could you take a moment and answer one question for me? Who do you think has better perspective on the case evidence: Kolar, who has seen all the evidence, or us Websleuthers who have seen about 10 percent of the so-called evidence, half of which is allegedly inaccurate?

My 2 cents...It does not matter if he has seen everything if he has an agenda.

There are others that saw all the evidence and came to different conclusions. One who worked for the DA first and knew they were wrong and so he stopped working for them and did not quit altogether.. NO sir. He kept going trying to find out who killed JBR.

 

[Anti-K]

Ak,

Could you take a moment and answer one question for me? Who do you think has better perspective on the case evidence: Kolar, who has seen all the evidence, or us Websleuthers who have seen about 10 percent of the so-called evidence, half of which is allegedly inaccurate?

AK
I don’t think the “we’ve only seen 10% of the evidence” is an accurate statement.

I’ve seen forum posters stump Kolar in interviews.

I think Kolar’s “perspective” is heavily biased and his “theory” is based upon, as I stated above a vivid imagination and questionable reasoning skills.
...

AK

 

[chlban]

This is on topic, but won't start out appearing to be.I just finished a book about another famous murder that took place almost 60 years ago, Marilyn Sheppard. It is about a civil trial brought by the estate of Sam Sheppard against the sate of Ohio for, among other things, wrongful imprsonment.

The point of course, was to clear Dr. Sam's name, once and for all. As such, it really amounted to a third murder trial. In fact, much of the testimony from both the 1954 and 1966 trials was read back as part of this trial (because many, but not all, witnesses were deceased).

What I found very interesting about this "third trial" which took place in 2000, is that by that time, they had extracted DNA from the blood samples that had been retained. According to the tests, a third parties DNA was mixed in with the blood samples taken from the room Marilyn was killed in. That is mixed in, no periphal, which would certainly point to it being a part of the murder. The blood was not Marilyn's and it was not Sam's.

So, of course, I thought of all the IDI's in this case who are insistent that touch DNA is absolute, irrevocable proof of their mystery Intruder. There was significant evidence, undisputed on both sides, that Marilyn fought and fought hard for her life. There was disagreement about whether she had bitten her assailant, but whether or not she bit him, she fought. The idea that he would have bled at the scene was not disputed by either side (although obviously the State believed that was the explanation for Sam's injuries from that night).

However, the jury in this trial clearly did not find the DNA compelling enough to override all the evidence of Dr. Sam's guilt. Most of which, BTW, was circumstantial. It included things like his being the only other person in the house that night other than their 7 year old son who it appears really did sleep through it, the fact that Sam's story changed repeatedly, the fact that there was no evidence of a break in, the fact that the home appeared to have been "staged" . Any of this sounding familiar to anyone?

In this instance, the estate even offered up a suspect, a convicted murderer (he was convicted of another murder years after Marilyn's death but well before this trial took place) who worked as a window washer in the Sheppard home around the time of the murder, a fact that is not disputed.

The jury ruled in favor of the State of Ohio, thereby stating clearly that Sheppard was indeed guilty and therefore was not wrongfully imprisoned.

So, while the TDNA may or may not represent actual "evidence" in this case and certainly much of what we discuss here is circumstantial, It is clearly not all it takes as some like to opine.

 

[Venom]

This is on topic, but won't start out appearing to be.I just finished a book about another famous murder that took place almost 60 years ago, Marilyn Sheppard. It is about a civil trial brought by the estate of Sam Sheppard against the sate of Ohio for, among other things, wrongful imprsonment.

The point of course, was to clear Dr. Sam's name, once and for all. As such, it really amounted to a third murder trial. In fact, much of the testimony from both the 1954 and 1966 trials was read back as part of this trial (because many, but not all, witnesses were deceased).

What I found very interesting about this "third trial" which took place in 2000, is that by that time, they had extracted DNA from the blood samples that had been retained. According to the tests, a third parties DNA was mixed in with the blood samples taken from the room Marilyn was killed in. That is mixed in, no periphal, which would certainly point to it being a part of the murder. The blood was not Marilyn's and it was not Sam's.

So, of course, I thought of all the IDI's in this case who are insistent that touch DNA is absolute, irrevocable proof of their mystery Intruder. There was significant evidence, undisputed on both sides, that Marilyn fought and fought hard for her life. There was disagreement about whether she had bitten her assailant, but whether or not she bit him, she fought. The idea that he would have bled at the scene was not disputed by either side (although obviously the State believed that was the explanation for Sam's injuries from that night).

However, the jury in this trial clearly did not find the DNA compelling enough to override all the evidence of Dr. Sam's guilt. Most of which, BTW, was circumstantial. It included things like his being the only other person in the house that night other than their 7 year old son who it appears really did sleep through it, the fact that Sam's story changed repeatedly, the fact that there was no evidence of a break in, the fact that the home appeared to have been "staged" . Any of this sounding familiar to anyone?

In this instance, the estate even offered up a suspect, a convicted murderer (he was convicted of another murder years after Marilyn's death but well before this trial took place) who worked as a window washer in the Sheppard home around the time of the murder, a fact that is not disputed.

The jury ruled in favor of the State of Ohio, thereby stating clearly that Sheppard was indeed guilty and therefore was not wrongfully imprisoned.

So, while the TDNA may or may not represent actual "evidence" in this case and certainly much of what we discuss here is circumstantial, It is clearly not all it takes as some like to opine.

What's the name of that book? I'd like to read it.

 

[chlban]

What's the name of that book? I'd like to read it.

"Dr. Sam Sheppard on Trial: The Prosecutors and the Marilyn Sheppard Murder Trial" by Jack P. DeSario and William D. Mason.

I got it used at Amazon for a pretty good price.

 

[ssiegmund]

To me this is the only scenario that ever made sense, the parents lying to protect their son, even though it's really hard to imagine a 9-year-old killing his sister.

 

[pageantmom]

To me this is the only scenario that ever made sense, the parents lying to protect their son, even though it's really hard to imagine a 9-year-old killing his sister.

I don't think it was the kids I think it was the parents who did it , but , I agree that if it was B then that would be an obvious reason for both parents to unite and cover for him.
But, IF there is any possibility that it could have been John Andrew then I think that's just as likely as anything else really. Because I think they'd unite and cover for him too...lots of people don't think Patsy would have been willing to cover for John Andrew but I think she would have. She may not have wanted to cover for him, but ultimately she would have covered for him because of John(IMO)

 

[andreww]

JAR wasn't there that night. I'm sure LE would have checked his alibi very closely as he was obviously a person of
Interest. I remember when all of this happened, that the big theory was that the family was covering for JAR, but I think there would have been plenty of evidence of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

playing catch up with Dec 2014 JBR News

Justice For JonBenet! Retired Cops Club Vows To Hunt Down Her Killer As New DNA Claims Emerge Posted on Dec 18, 2014 @ 4:10AM
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/12/jon-benet-ramsey-retired-cops-vow-hunt-down-killer/
re: dna may belong to Asian factory worker

"Now the group of still-sharp retirees includes Bobby Brown, a former criminal defense investigator, 86-year-old Charlie Hess, a former FBI agent and Colorado Springs homicide investigator, and Steve Pease, a former detective."

Charlie Hess
http://www.amazon.com/Hello-Charlie-Letters-Serial-Killer/dp/1416544860

Steve Pease
http://www.denverpi.com/stevepease.php

Question .... is it BB, from Dog the Bounty Hunter?
Bobby Brown
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/bobby-brown/27/b28/45

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I think so. I found a Twitter from Bail Bonds Bobby Brown who was tweeting about JBR.

 

[BBB167893]

playing catch up with Dec 2014 JBR News

Justice For JonBenet! Retired Cops Club Vows To Hunt Down Her Killer As New DNA Claims Emerge Posted on Dec 18, 2014 @ 4:10AM
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/12/jon-benet-ramsey-retired-cops-vow-hunt-down-killer/
re: dna may belong to Asian factory worker

"Now the group of still-sharp retirees includes Bobby Brown, a former criminal defense investigator, 86-year-old Charlie Hess, a former FBI agent and Colorado Springs homicide investigator, and Steve Pease, a former detective."

Charlie Hess
http://www.amazon.com/Hello-Charlie-Letters-Serial-Killer/dp/1416544860

Steve Pease
http://www.denverpi.com/stevepease.php

Question .... is it BB, from Dog the Bounty Hunter?
Bobby Brown
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/bobby-brown/27/b28/45

Assuming there's any truth to the article, Tadpole12, it would seem that the "investigators" have finally wised up to what I've been saying for years.