Why the DNA may NOT be important

[CathyR]

CathyR,


Where exactly in the house might you expect to find the gloves?


intruder-missing items do you mean the intruder brought these items in with him or left without them, or something else?

There is no evidence to demonstrate there was any intruder ever in the ramsey house!

So just how can you prove there are missing items?


.

If gloves were used and they were fabric then they would have left fibers on the cord. If Latex was used then no fibers.

A piece of the paintbrush is a blaring piece of evidence missing from crime scene.


The end piece of the paintbrush that is not found and was broken that night as the broken end it used to be attached to was examined and shows no sign of weathering or looked any different than the other end where the brush was broken off. Police and DA agreed paintbrush was broken on both ends that night and used in crime.

Where do you keep gloves in your home? Do you have a supply of latex ones for crafts or home improvement projects? That is why they call it a search warrant not a come take a look at what is out and obvious warrant.

All the items used to control JB were brought into the home. The cord, the tape, and Smit claims a stun gun (which I don't point out as not enough evidence one was used exists) were brought in and taken by the intruder, along with the broken paintbrush end..

If an RDI is true I ask why the parents didn't dispose of the pen, pad, flashlight, broken paintbrush end (the brush part) and the clothes they wore.
If those items were missing too then there would be no fiber evidence, no RN evidence, and even further proof an IDI did it as both ends of the brush would be gone. If they disposed of some items why not all?
Patsy would be wearing different clothes when the police arrived and the red fibers would be a big mystery. The police would be interested in knowing what Patsy, John, and Burke wore to bed- I hear nothing about that either. If they had the forethought to dispose of one end of the paintbrush why forget the other end? If the RDI is true and they disposed of items then the R's missed a lot of evidence that points to them and would be more pressing to get rid of like the note pad and pen the killer and RN author used, and the clothes they wore to commit crime.

The biological evidence of an intruder exists as well. 2 blood spots( both being mixed samples) were tested one yielded only limited markers but the second one had enough markers to submit to CODIS. The same DNA appears on the longjohns when touch DNA is used but touch DNA was not used to get the DNA from the second blood spot.


If it is a result of contamination don't you find it queer that the same DNA is found years apart on different pieces of evidence. The only way I can surmise that happening is if someone from the time the crime scene evidence was collected and the samples collected from them someone deposited DNA on the panties on the blood spots and then handled the longjohns barehanded. That person would be either from the DA's office, the coroners office, or the rescue personnel, FBI, BPD offices. Those people have their DNA on file so if it matched one of them I doubt we would ever know about it ( no press releases or even acknowledgment that the tests were done) as it would make that office look bad and call into question all cases that this individual was involved in. The results not matching the R's would not have been announced even by Lacy. Before a match can be made those people are compared FIRST to avoid embarrassment and public reprisals not to mention defense lawyer heaven. The DA can't say we have no match when it is known that the DNA is from some coroners assistant or police officer. The DNA does not match anyone it has been compared to- you can count all investigating branches as having been eliminated too, not just the R's.
John Douglas states that too much evidence exists of an outsider being the culprit.

 

[CathyR]

The dark fibers found on JB, in the area wiped down do not match Johns shirt. The Thomas book states they were close but not a match to Johns bathrobe and Schiller states the same thing. Once again you are trusting evidence that appears only on the internet at one certain site and cannot be validated from other sources.

Burke would not be able to carry on a normal life as he would engage in violence with other children he viewed as weaker than himself. If you are a stone cold killer at age 9 you are one at 25 too. If that is his nature he would not be able to control himself at some point he would have lost it and engaged in violent behavior with another child, it would be in his nature, his character. No amount of counseling would be able to change that.

 

[joeskidbeck]

The dark fibers found on JB, in the area wiped down do not match Johns shirt. The Thomas book states they were close but not a match to Johns bathrobe and Schiller states the same thing. Once again you are trusting evidence that appears only on the internet at one certain site and cannot be validated from other sources.

Burke would not be able to carry on a normal life as he would engage in violence with other children he viewed as weaker than himself. If you are a stone cold killer at age 9 you are one at 25 too. If that is his nature he would not be able to control himself at some point he would have lost it and engaged in violent behavior with another child, it would be in his nature, his character. No amount of counseling would be able to change that.

I have never heard Burke referred to as a "stone cold killer" but I have seen the stories about Burke hitting JonBenet in the face with a golf club. As I recall, she had to have stitches and Patsy was worried about her pageant future. If he hit her in the head with whatever it was, I don't think he meant to kill her (or almost kill her). None of what we suspect happened that night would necessarily make Burke a serial killer, rapist, or anything of that nature so I don't think you can make an accurate assessment due to the fact that he hasn't done it again since. As a matter of fact, he hasn't had a little sister since then either. I believe that Burke got to be the only child that he wished for, whether or not it was intentional. I don't believe for one second that he set out to kill her, he hit her and it was too hard. Her parents thought she was already dead and set it up to look like an intruder. Please, about John Douglas, when he can say that he looked at ALL the evidence, then his opinion will matter. As long as all he did was speak to the Ramseys for hours at a time, he may as well be Joe Blow off the street, or even Nancy Grace for that matter. That's about all the sleuthig she does.

 

[joeskidbeck]

CathyR, are you saying that you don't believe fibers from John's Israeli made shirt were located in JonBenet's underwear? They were and it is possible that since he had already gone to bed and was supposedly asleep, Patsy could have used his shirt in the staging so that he would look as guilty as she does. Everyone wonders why John covered for Patsy. It could have been because she saw to it that there was enough evidence against him that he had to help her. Patsy was a devious woman, she just about had to be in order to put JonBenet through those pageants. Yes, I have watched those tv shows about the pageat mothers, and honestly, they would do anything short of murder if it would help their daughters win. Patsy was no different. I think calling her devious is putting it nicely.

 

[SunnieRN]

If gloves were used and they were fabric then they would have left fibers on the cord. If Latex was used then no fibers.

A piece of the paintbrush is a blaring piece of evidence missing from crime scene.


The end piece of the paintbrush that is not found and was broken that night as the broken end it used to be attached to was examined and shows no sign of weathering or looked any different than the other end where the brush was broken off. Police and DA agreed paintbrush was broken on both ends that night and used in crime.

Where do you keep gloves in your home? Do you have a supply of latex ones for crafts or home improvement projects? That is why they call it a search warrant not a come take a look at what is out and obvious warrant.

All the items used to control JB were brought into the home. The cord, the tape, and Smit claims a stun gun (which I don't point out as not enough evidence one was used exists) were brought in and taken by the intruder, along with the broken paintbrush end..

If an RDI is true I ask why the parents didn't dispose of the pen, pad, flashlight, broken paintbrush end (the brush part) and the clothes they wore.
If those items were missing too then there would be no fiber evidence, no RN evidence, and even further proof an IDI did it as both ends of the brush would be gone. If they disposed of some items why not all?
Patsy would be wearing different clothes when the police arrived and the red fibers would be a big mystery. The police would be interested in knowing what Patsy, John, and Burke wore to bed- I hear nothing about that either. If they had the forethought to dispose of one end of the paintbrush why forget the other end? If the RDI is true and they disposed of items then the R's missed a lot of evidence that points to them and would be more pressing to get rid of like the note pad and pen the killer and RN author used, and the clothes they wore to commit crime.

The biological evidence of an intruder exists as well. 2 blood spots( both being mixed samples) were tested one yielded only limited markers but the second one had enough markers to submit to CODIS. The same DNA appears on the longjohns when touch DNA is used but touch DNA was not used to get the DNA from the second blood spot.


If it is a result of contamination don't you find it queer that the same DNA is found years apart on different pieces of evidence. The only way I can surmise that happening is if someone from the time the crime scene evidence was collected and the samples collected from them someone deposited DNA on the panties on the blood spots and then handled the longjohns barehanded. That person would be either from the DA's office, the coroners office, or the rescue personnel, FBI, BPD offices. Those people have their DNA on file so if it matched one of them I doubt we would ever know about it ( no press releases or even acknowledgment that the tests were done) as it would make that office look bad and call into question all cases that this individual was involved in. The results not matching the R's would not have been announced even by Lacy. Before a match can be made those people are compared FIRST to avoid embarrassment and public reprisals not to mention defense lawyer heaven. The DA can't say we have no match when it is known that the DNA is from some coroners assistant or police officer. The DNA does not match anyone it has been compared to- you can count all investigating branches as having been eliminated too, not just the R's.
John Douglas states that too much evidence exists of an outsider being the culprit.

We have NO way of knowing whether or not the other piece of paintbrush is in LE custody or not. Can't say something is missing unless you know for sure. Any and all links you wish to post would be appreciated and are necessary to prove your point.

As for materials being brought into the house, how do you explain the duct tape found in the Ramsy home, on pictures, boxes etc.

Rope, Patsy stated that Burke was always carrying around a piece of rope and tying it into things. How do you know that was not the rope used. You can come up with wild theories all day, but PROVE them.

The DNA has been discussed to death and beyond. It was not submitted to Codis as it was degraded and they couldn't even get 13 markers.

The dark fibers found on JB, in the area wiped down do not match Johns shirt. The Thomas book states they were close but not a match to Johns bathrobe and Schiller states the same thing. Once again you are trusting evidence that appears only on the internet at one certain site and cannot be validated from other sources.

Burke would not be able to carry on a normal life as he would engage in violence with other children he viewed as weaker than himself. If you are a stone cold killer at age 9 you are one at 25 too. If that is his nature he would not be able to control himself at some point he would have lost it and engaged in violent behavior with another child, it would be in his nature, his character. No amount of counseling would be able to change that.

There were red and black fibers found on JB and in the cord. There is a possibility of them being from Patsys beaver lined boots, or JR's shirt that was not turned in for eons and looked unworn and unlaundered.

As for Burke and what he may or may not have done since his sisters murder, plain and simple, you have NO knowledge of what he has done or not done, what type of person he is, or what has occured in his life. No one called him a stone cold killer. Read the posts concerning what has been said about Burke and his potential involvement. No one has called him what you have.

As for a child being that violent, go to Crimes in the News or other headings in this forum and read about what children, younger than BR are capable of. I can assure you it will sadden and shock you.

So Cathy, why do you believe without a shadow of doubt that all the Ramsys are innocent? There is no solid evidence of an intruder.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

CathyR, are you saying that you don't believe fibers from John's Israeli made shirt were located in JonBenet's underwear? They were and it is possible that since he had already gone to bed and was supposedly asleep, Patsy could have used his shirt in the staging so that he would look as guilty as she does. Everyone wonders why John covered for Patsy. It could have been because she saw to it that there was enough evidence against him that he had to help her. Patsy was a devious woman, she just about had to be in order to put JonBenet through those pageants. Yes, I have watched those tv shows about the pageat mothers, and honestly, they would do anything short of murder if it would help their daughters win. Patsy was no different. I think calling her devious is putting it nicely.

I agree that the pageants were serious business considering that JonBenet traveled to Michigan, Georgia, Texas, and was even going to Hawaii in January 1997 to compete in them. However, how does that tie into her murder if Patsy was the one who killed her? JonBenet can't compete in pageants if she's dead. Do you believe that JBR told Patsy when they got home from the Whites' house that she didn't want to do pageants anymore? I don't know how that would even come up though since it's not like they were planning on going to a pageant that night. I know we've had conflicting reports about whether JBR was awake or sleeping when she went from the car to her bed but I would imagine she would be tired and probably wouldn't decide to confront her mother about the pageants that night. However, didn't LE say that the bathroom smelled like bleach or hair dye? Is it possible that Patsy said to JBR that it was time to touch up your roots for the upcoming Hawaiian Tropic pageant and JBR was like "No, I don't want to go." and Patsy flipped? And JBR hit her head on the bathtub? I have lots of theories.

 

[DeeDee249]

The dark fibers found on JB, in the area wiped down do not match Johns shirt. The Thomas book states they were close but not a match to Johns bathrobe and Schiller states the same thing. Once again you are trusting evidence that appears only on the internet at one certain site and cannot be validated from other sources.

Burke would not be able to carry on a normal life as he would engage in violence with other children he viewed as weaker than himself. If you are a stone cold killer at age 9 you are one at 25 too. If that is his nature he would not be able to control himself at some point he would have lost it and engaged in violent behavior with another child, it would be in his nature, his character. No amount of counseling would be able to change that.

You are confusing the dark fibers found on JB's thighs and pubic area with the dark wool fibers found in JB's panty crotch. It is THESE wool fibers which match JR's wool shirt. Exactly.
There are many people who can kill carry on as usual. They are called "sociopaths" and walk among us every day. It is poor logic to suggest that just because BR may have killed his sister with an blow to the head that he would still be killing people.

 

[UKGuy]

If gloves were used and they were fabric then they would have left fibers on the cord. If Latex was used then no fibers.

A piece of the paintbrush is a blaring piece of evidence missing from crime scene.


The end piece of the paintbrush that is not found and was broken that night as the broken end it used to be attached to was examined and shows no sign of weathering or looked any different than the other end where the brush was broken off. Police and DA agreed paintbrush was broken on both ends that night and used in crime.

Where do you keep gloves in your home? Do you have a supply of latex ones for crafts or home improvement projects? That is why they call it a search warrant not a come take a look at what is out and obvious warrant.

All the items used to control JB were brought into the home. The cord, the tape, and Smit claims a stun gun (which I don't point out as not enough evidence one was used exists) were brought in and taken by the intruder, along with the broken paintbrush end..

If an RDI is true I ask why the parents didn't dispose of the pen, pad, flashlight, broken paintbrush end (the brush part) and the clothes they wore.
If those items were missing too then there would be no fiber evidence, no RN evidence, and even further proof an IDI did it as both ends of the brush would be gone. If they disposed of some items why not all?
Patsy would be wearing different clothes when the police arrived and the red fibers would be a big mystery. The police would be interested in knowing what Patsy, John, and Burke wore to bed- I hear nothing about that either. If they had the forethought to dispose of one end of the paintbrush why forget the other end? If the RDI is true and they disposed of items then the R's missed a lot of evidence that points to them and would be more pressing to get rid of like the note pad and pen the killer and RN author used, and the clothes they wore to commit crime.

The biological evidence of an intruder exists as well. 2 blood spots( both being mixed samples) were tested one yielded only limited markers but the second one had enough markers to submit to CODIS. The same DNA appears on the longjohns when touch DNA is used but touch DNA was not used to get the DNA from the second blood spot.


If it is a result of contamination don't you find it queer that the same DNA is found years apart on different pieces of evidence. The only way I can surmise that happening is if someone from the time the crime scene evidence was collected and the samples collected from them someone deposited DNA on the panties on the blood spots and then handled the longjohns barehanded. That person would be either from the DA's office, the coroners office, or the rescue personnel, FBI, BPD offices. Those people have their DNA on file so if it matched one of them I doubt we would ever know about it ( no press releases or even acknowledgment that the tests were done) as it would make that office look bad and call into question all cases that this individual was involved in. The results not matching the R's would not have been announced even by Lacy. Before a match can be made those people are compared FIRST to avoid embarrassment and public reprisals not to mention defense lawyer heaven. The DA can't say we have no match when it is known that the DNA is from some coroners assistant or police officer. The DNA does not match anyone it has been compared to- you can count all investigating branches as having been eliminated too, not just the R's.
John Douglas states that too much evidence exists of an outsider being the culprit.

CathyR,

A piece of the paintbrush is a blaring piece of evidence missing from crime scene.

So what do you think, you reckon the police have this as evidence, but sealed, or do you think the intruder liked the paintbrush so much he left with this particular bit, and replaced the remaining piece in the paint-tote?

If gloves were used and they were fabric then they would have left fibers on the cord. If Latex was used then no fibers.

Were there fibers left on the cord? If the intruder brought the cord with him, could his touch-dna be on the cord? If latex gloves are used they leave a birefringement residue behind, which has its own unique spectral signature. What if there is only ramsey dna on those items and no stanger dna, what does that suggest?

All the items used to control JB were brought into the home. The cord, the tape, and Smit claims a stun gun (which I don't point out as not enough evidence one was used exists) were brought in and taken by the intruder, along with the broken paintbrush end..

If you do not have enough evidence to admit Lou Smit's stun gun, then why give ownership of the cord and tape to some ethereal intruder who left no forensic evidence behind?

If an RDI is true I ask why the parents didn't dispose of the pen, pad, flashlight, broken paintbrush end (the brush part) and the clothes they wore.

How could they? They were photographed wearing those clothes at the White's party! The other items are simply household items that were not going to vanish overnight, or could obviously traced back to them, via prior use.

If they had the forethought to dispose of one end of the paintbrush why forget the other end?

Now you have nailed it down. Maybe they never disposed the other end, this is a IDI assumption or factoid. I reckon the police have the missing piece sealed as evidence, since it was recovered internally from JonBenet.

The biological evidence of an intruder exists as well. 2 blood spots( both being mixed samples) were tested one yielded only limited markers but the second one had enough markers to submit to CODIS. The same DNA appears on the longjohns when touch DNA is used but touch DNA was not used to get the DNA from the second blood spot.

Your biological evidence is simply touch-dna, it is not evidence of an intruder at all, since it has not been matched with anyone, and could have been sourced anywhere e.g. transferred from the Christmas wrapping paper that held the size-12's. Just because sommething cannot be matched to an owner at a crime-scene, it does not immediately follow that it belongs to crime-scene creator! there are lots of other items at the crime-scene that cannot be matched to an owner, since they are old unused, discarded objects. There is cord lying about in the basement, duct-tape elsewhere on paintings and boxes, who owns these, the intruder? All likely forgotten items?

Unrefutable evidence of an intruder would be: semen, blood, and various bodily fluids, less reliable might be hair samples.

If it is a result of contamination don't you find it queer that the same DNA is found years apart on different pieces of evidence.

By raising this issue you torpedoe your own claim that an intruder did it. There is genuine doubt about both the reliability of the touch-dna since both its source and sample quality are open to question e.g. did the touch-dna arrive on the longjohns at the autopsy, or did JonBenet pick the touch-dna up at the White's party whilst using the toilet?

John Douglas states that too much evidence exists of an outsider being the culprit.

Maybe he was paid to say that, he has form for delivering customized expert opinions? Since as I have demonstrated there is no evidence that matches or links to any intruder. e.g. not one hair, not one fingerprint, not one footprint, not one earprint, not one bite impression, not one semen sample, not one blood sample, not one saliva sample, not one urine sample, not one fecal sample, not one nasal sample. Then the case for an intruder does not exist, except as a ramsey defense, might you not expect this much from them? It was an intruder, yet 99% of the crime-scene evidence matches with Ramsey arifacts.

All IDI theories are incoherent and inconsistent, relying on factoids invented to substantiate the theory currently in fashion.



.

 

[SunnieRN]

If gloves were used and they were fabric then they would have left fibers on the cord. If Latex was used then no fibers.

A piece of the paintbrush is a blaring piece of evidence missing from crime scene.


The end piece of the paintbrush that is not found and was broken that night as the broken end it used to be attached to was examined and shows no sign of weathering or looked any different than the other end where the brush was broken off. Police and DA agreed paintbrush was broken on both ends that night and used in crime.

Where do you keep gloves in your home? Do you have a supply of latex ones for crafts or home improvement projects? That is why they call it a search warrant not a come take a look at what is out and obvious warrant.

All the items used to control JB were brought into the home. The cord, the tape, and Smit claims a stun gun (which I don't point out as not enough evidence one was used exists) were brought in and taken by the intruder, along with the broken paintbrush end..

If an RDI is true I ask why the parents didn't dispose of the pen, pad, flashlight, broken paintbrush end (the brush part) and the clothes they wore.
If those items were missing too then there would be no fiber evidence, no RN evidence, and even further proof an IDI did it as both ends of the brush would be gone. If they disposed of some items why not all?
Patsy would be wearing different clothes when the police arrived and the red fibers would be a big mystery. The police would be interested in knowing what Patsy, John, and Burke wore to bed- I hear nothing about that either. If they had the forethought to dispose of one end of the paintbrush why forget the other end? If the RDI is true and they disposed of items then the R's missed a lot of evidence that points to them and would be more pressing to get rid of like the note pad and pen the killer and RN author used, and the clothes they wore to commit crime.

The biological evidence of an intruder exists as well. 2 blood spots( both being mixed samples) were tested one yielded only limited markers but the second one had enough markers to submit to CODIS. The same DNA appears on the longjohns when touch DNA is used but touch DNA was not used to get the DNA from the second blood spot.


If it is a result of contamination don't you find it queer that the same DNA is found years apart on different pieces of evidence. The only way I can surmise that happening is if someone from the time the crime scene evidence was collected and the samples collected from them someone deposited DNA on the panties on the blood spots and then handled the longjohns barehanded. That person would be either from the DA's office, the coroners office, or the rescue personnel, FBI, BPD offices. Those people have their DNA on file so if it matched one of them I doubt we would ever know about it ( no press releases or even acknowledgment that the tests were done) as it would make that office look bad and call into question all cases that this individual was involved in. The results not matching the R's would not have been announced even by Lacy. Before a match can be made those people are compared FIRST to avoid embarrassment and public reprisals not to mention defense lawyer heaven. The DA can't say we have no match when it is known that the DNA is from some coroners assistant or police officer. The DNA does not match anyone it has been compared to- you can count all investigating branches as having been eliminated too, not just the R's.
John Douglas states that too much evidence exists of an outsider being the culprit.

The dark fibers found on JB, in the area wiped down do not match Johns shirt. The Thomas book states they were close but not a match to Johns bathrobe and Schiller states the same thing. Once again you are trusting evidence that appears only on the internet at one certain site and cannot be validated from other sources.

Burke would not be able to carry on a normal life as he would engage in violence with other children he viewed as weaker than himself. If you are a stone cold killer at age 9 you are one at 25 too. If that is his nature he would not be able to control himself at some point he would have lost it and engaged in violent behavior with another child, it would be in his nature, his character. No amount of counseling would be able to change that.

Ouch Cathy, you accused a poster of 'You just shot yourself in the foot dude.'

Maybe you actually did the same thing to yourself, concerning statements you made that can be disproven.

There were fibers found that matched Johns shirt.

If there were gloves used but you are concerned about there being no fibers from them, how do you explain the fibers from PR's sweater being in the rope?

Mixed samples of blood can be submitted to codis and but are not much help unless you can match the 13 needed CODIS STR's:

snip:
Mitochondrial analysis
Main article: Mitochondrial DNA

For highly degraded samples, it is sometimes impossible to get a complete profile of the 13 CODIS STRs. In these situations, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is sometimes typed due to there being many copies of mtDNA in a cell, while there may only be 1-2 copies of the nuclear DNA. Forensic scientists amplify the HV1 and HV2 regions of the mtDNA, then sequence each region and compare single-nucleotide differences to a reference. Because mtDNA is maternally inherited, directly linked maternal relatives can be used as match references, such as one's maternal grandmother's daughter's son. A difference of two or more nucleotides is generally considered to be an exclusion. Heteroplasmy and poly-C differences may throw off straight sequence comparisons, so some expertise on the part of the analyst is required. mtDNA is useful in determining clear identities, such as those of missing people when a maternally linked relative can be found. mtDNA testing was used in determining that Anna Anderson was not the Russian princess she had claimed to be, Anastasia Romanov.

mtDNA can be obtained from such material as hair shafts and old bones/teeth..

Article: [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling[/ame]

Very interesting BODE FAQ article, concerning mixed samples and touch DNA:

http://www.bodetech.com/faq/frequently-asked-questions

So, I have given you this information. There is also this:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682483/Is-This-a-DNA-Case#DNAinJBRCase

I think we can safely say that a mixed sample degraded DNA without the 13 CODIS needed markers will NEVER solve this case!


This is interesting. How could 'a mixed sample identify someone positively?
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/FSA/Documents/Codis.pdf

Good Video:
http://www.dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,75166109_117708432_117777954,00.html

Bye the way, why were only certain areas of the clothing checked for touch DNA and why was JR's touch DNA not found? He carried her up the stairs after all. This fact alone tells me that the finding are unreliable. Also PR admits to lying herself down on top of JB, hugging and touching her, after she was brought upstairs. Why wasn't her touch DNA found. Or for that matter Linda A. moved the body from the hallway into the living room under the Christmas tree, which INHO was a sick thing to do, as well as incorrect police work. Why wasn't her touch DNA found? No other DNA is talked about. Only certain areas were tested. Why and where is the clothing now?

Moving on to Burke, what if he didn't intend to kill her? What if he was upset, mad or afraid of getting into trouble, so struck her, meaning to scare her, shut her up, or keep her from telling Mommy or Daddy what happened, but certainly not kill her? Where is your proof that this should have caused him to kill again? If you use this reasoning with any accident, there would be many more repeat murderers than we already know to exist.

Hate to say it, but your RDI theory on disposing of evidence would work more strongly against an IDI than a Ramsey. Why would a small foreign faction leave behind ANY potential evidence. The R's fingerprints should be found on their notepads, pens etc. An intruder should have removed ANY and ALL evidence of their use of objects. Proof Cathy. It doesn't have to be proven that the Ramsey's were in the house that night.

 

[SunnieRN]

CathyR,

So what do you think, you reckon the police have this as evidence, but sealed, or do you think the intruder liked the paintbrush so much he left with this particular bit, and replaced the remaining piece in the paint-tote?


Were there fibers left on the cord? If the intruder brought the cord with him, could his touch-dna be on the cord? If latex gloves are used they leave a birefringement residue behind, which has its own unique spectral signature. What if there is only ramsey dna on those items and no stanger dna, what does that suggest?


If you do not have enough evidence to admit Lou Smit's stun gun, then why give ownership of the cord and tape to some ethereal intruder who left no forensic evidence behind?


How could they? They were photographed wearing those clothes at the White's party! The other items are simply household items that were not going to vanish overnight, or could obviously traced back to them, via prior use.



Now you have nailed it down. Maybe they never disposed the other end, this is a IDI assumption or factoid. I reckon the police have the missing piece sealed as evidence, since it was recovered internally from JonBenet.


Your biological evidence is simply touch-dna, it is not evidence of an intruder at all, since it has not been matched with anyone, and could have been sourced anywhere e.g. transferred from the Christmas wrapping paper that held the size-12's. Just because sommething cannot be matched to an owner at a crime-scene, it does not immediately follow that it belongs to crime-scene creator! there are lots of other items at the crime-scene that cannot be matched to an owner, since they are old unused, discarded objects. There is cord lying about in the basement, duct-tape elsewhere on paintings and boxes, who owns these, the intruder? All likely forgotten items?

Unrefutable evidence of an intruder would be: semen, blood, and various bodily fluids, less reliable might be hair samples.


By raising this issue you torpedoe your own claim that an intruder did it. There is genuine doubt about both the reliability of the touch-dna since both its source and sample quality are open to question e.g. did the touch-dna arrive on the longjohns at the autopsy, or did JonBenet pick the touch-dna up at the White's party whilst using the toilet?


Maybe he was paid to say that, he has form for delivering customized expert opinions? Since as I have demonstrated there is no evidence that matches or links to any intruder. e.g. not one hair, not one fingerprint, not one footprint, not one earprint, not one bite impression, not one semen sample, not one blood sample, not one saliva sample, not one urine sample, not one fecal sample, not one nasal sample. Then the case for an intruder does not exist, except as a ramsey defense, might you not expect this much from them? It was an intruder, yet 99% of the crime-scene evidence matches with Ramsey arifacts.

All IDI theories are incoherent and inconsistent, relying on factoids invented to substantiate the theory currently in fashion.



.

:dance:Wow, I was up with my sick grandson, so started my post and links prior to seeing your post. Just thought a simple thanks was not enough!

 

[UKGuy]

:dance:Wow, I was up with my sick grandson, so started my post and links prior to seeing your post. Just thought a simple thanks was not enough!

SunnieRN,
Thanks. The case for an intruder is none at all. Only Ramsey apologists promote it. If they had not been moneyed there would have been a court case by now.

Here is the statement regarding the black fibers:

Patsy's 2000 Atlanta Interview excerpt

10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.

Where are the intruders fibers?


.

 

[CathyR]

In 2002 enough DNA was recovered from the panties 2nd blood spot to be submitted to CODIS. This was using traditional methods for DNA testing.

Years later in 2008 another lab finds Touch DNA from the longjohns that are from the same source as the panties. They match. Two labs years apart find the same DNA on different items. I find that strange or at least too coincidental to ignore.


I think you have the fingernail DNA confused with the panty, 2nd blood spot, DNA. Maybe this will help.


1. Panty DNA Commingled with Blood. On November 19, 2002, an AP report(AP report from Internet poster Candy) stated: "But [Ramsey attorney Lin] Wood said the theory is meritless. The DNA was found commingled with blood, he said."
2. Possible Match with Fingernail DNA. The same AP report stated noted "its genetic markers may match evidence taken from fingernails on both of JonBenet's hands. 'There are common markers as to all three that would strongly suggest they are from the same source,' he [Lin Wood] said." According to CBS News: "The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name. Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails [Emphasis added].
3. Panty DNA Much More Than Trace Amount. Moreover, in a November 30, 1997 letter to Westward, Carol Martin of Walnut Creek, CA, claims to have written and gotten a reply from the producer of 48 Hours to complain about their November 28 show involving Michael Tracey and Lou Smit. She asserted: "The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount."
4. Trip DeMuth. In a 48 Hours interview aired on November 25, 2006, Trip DeMuth commented on the DNA evidence: "How likely is it that it would be anybody but the killer? I think it’s highly unlikely that it would be anybody else but the killer," he says.


Source link here
http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/fo...d=43702716634e33b2e37d50935727806a&view=print

John Douglas made it clear to the R's lawyers before he was hired his findings were not scewed by the fact that he was paid. His being paid was regardless of the outcome, good, bad, or ugly he wasn't for sale at any price. He did crime scene analysis not a perpetrator profile, what he is famous for. I give him far more credit than he may deserve ( you obviously think him unreliable) as I think him one of the best investigators our country has.

You have no knowledge of the paintbrush end and have decided, on your own with no proof that the police have it.

The tape-- no part of it can be found on a roll or used on any items found in the R home.
The same type is found on art work that was professionally framed and the tape was from the studio that framed them. They did not come from the same roll or even batch.

Where is the roll of tape or other pieces of it?


Where is any cord matching the one used to strangle JB in the home?




To Dee Dee you are right I have the two dark fibers confused.

But that makes me ask what is the source of the dark fibers found that are not from John's shirt? I think it was Thomas who described the fibers as being from what he supposed was a wash cloth.
Where is that item?
Add another item to the missing from crime scene inventory.



There is so much we don't know and also false information that we may all be counting on to further our own theories. The BPD even made that statement to the public.
I don't give Steve Thomas much credit as a homicide detective. JBR was his first murder investigation case and he worked years on it with no results. I'm sure he is a wonderful person, I hope he is happy and successful in life. I don't think he was a good homicide detective.
The problems with the police and DA were well known and the Ramsey's may have heard horror stories about how the justice system in Boulder was before JB was murdered. None of us know all the facts or what even the Ramsey's investigators found. Besides John Douglas the R's had several others working on the case and I'm sure they would never share online the information gleaned.

I am trying to make a decision based on facts I can confirm and until the BPD says we have the end of the paintbrush then it is missing.
Until they state we have the washcloth or fabric source for the dark fibers then they are missing items.
I can't assume anything or my assumptions may lead me to the wrong conclusion.


The red fibers- much has been said about Patsy wearing the same clothes twice in a row. If she had changed clothes and gotton rid of the red sweater and also her jacket the police would not know about those clothing items until they got the photos of her at the Whites home. If she disposed of them she could always claim I don't know where they are I left them in the home. I left all my dirty clothes there. The discovery of the body would be the same and at that point the police are more focused on the clothes she is wearing because she contaminates the scene the same way. One of the main points Steve makes in his book about the red fibers is that Patsy wore the same clothes twice to "explain" why her fibers are found on JBR. I would expect all of Patsy's recent clothing fibers to be on JBR she lives in the same home, she handles JBR's clothing as well as her own. JBR still requires help with daily hygiene.
Transfer transfer transfer. The RDI's love that word when it comes to DNA but hate it when it comes to Fibers.

If the R's are staging they left a lot of evidence behind. The notepad, the pen, the clothes they wore, the brush end of the paintbrush. Too much IMO for people who are thinking about staging a scene, and making it appear as if a intruder was present.

Steve Thomas was so uninformed about certain aspects of crime scene investigation that he called John Douglas on it. The blanket on JBR's body was not wrapped tightly around her cocooning her as a loving gesture something a parent staging a scene might do. It was just thrown on top of her covering only her torso, her arms and legs were sticking out. This info came from Fleet White who saw the body as well as JR. It was not wrapped with any care or concern for JBR like a parent would do. Steve couldn't tell the difference and when John Douglas explained the difference he still refused to change his mind and instead of accepting he could be wrong or mistaken he states in his book that he caught John Douglas in an inconsistancy to previous statements about crime scene investigation.
To me his overblown ego is showing and he can't be wrong or even admit it. That is not the kind of personality needed to be a good investigator. No wonder his health failed and he had to retire from frustration and health issues. We are all human and when a personality like Steve's gets their ego challenged or percieves that his ego is being challenged they tend to be stubborn and frustrated, internalizing their fellings. They are shame based not blame based. Being wrong is so hard on them they can't handle it. They don't embrace their human nature, they can't allow themselves to be human and make errors in judgment, it is too shameful, too unforgivable. We all know somebody who is shame based it is that guy who will argue with a brick wall no matter what, if he thinks he is right he will try and talk those bricks into crumbling.

I want to follow the clues, not look for clues that fit my preconceived, or statistical likelihood theory. The answers are there we all just need the truthful evidence and not all this false information.

None of know if Schiller and Thomas agreed to print some false info in their books, the same false facts. An effort on both their parts to preserve some of the "secret information" the BPD holds close to the vest. I noticed John Douglas didn't touch on some of the information that Schiller and Thomas did. Thomas seems to want to lay blame solely on the DA's office and Schiller is slanted towards the DA's office and paints the BPD as being the problem. John Douglas said they were both, the DA and the PD, F&%&ed in the head and that they needed help, badly needed help.

 

[CathyR]

Ouch Cathy, you accused a poster of 'You just shot yourself in the foot dude.'

Maybe you actually did the same thing to yourself, concerning statements you made that can be disproven.

There were fibers found that matched Johns shirt.

If there were gloves used but you are concerned about there being no fibers from them, how do you explain the fibers from PR's sweater being in the rope?


I can't find a reliable source for that information, only an internet site, no BPD press releases, no references in Schiller or Thomas's books, Douglas does not comment on it. I can't confirm it so just like the stun gun I can't COUNT ON IT as being true.

Mixed samples of blood can be submitted to codis and but are not much help unless you can match the 13 needed CODIS STR's:

snip:
Mitochondrial analysis
Main article: Mitochondrial DNA

For highly degraded samples, it is sometimes impossible to get a complete profile of the 13 CODIS STRs. In these situations, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is sometimes typed due to there being many copies of mtDNA in a cell, while there may only be 1-2 copies of the nuclear DNA. Forensic scientists amplify the HV1 and HV2 regions of the mtDNA, then sequence each region and compare single-nucleotide differences to a reference. Because mtDNA is maternally inherited, directly linked maternal relatives can be used as match references, such as one's maternal grandmother's daughter's son. A difference of two or more nucleotides is generally considered to be an exclusion. Heteroplasmy and poly-C differences may throw off straight sequence comparisons, so some expertise on the part of the analyst is required. mtDNA is useful in determining clear identities, such as those of missing people when a maternally linked relative can be found. mtDNA testing was used in determining that Anna Anderson was not the Russian princess she had claimed to be, Anastasia Romanov.

mtDNA can be obtained from such material as hair shafts and old bones/teeth..


Yes I am aware of maternal DNA testing it has been used on egyptian mummies to help identify them. Since they tended to marry direct relatives like sisters and cousins their DNA is very limited in its "gene pool".

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling

Very interesting BODE FAQ article, concerning mixed samples and touch DNA:

http://www.bodetech.com/faq/frequently-asked-questions

So, I have given you this information. There is also this:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682483/Is-This-a-DNA-Case#DNAinJBRCase

I think we can safely say that a mixed sample degraded DNA without the 13 CODIS needed markers will NEVER solve this case!

I guess you have been ignoring all the test results I have posted as well as others.


This is interesting. How could 'a mixed sample identify someone positively?
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/FSA/Documents/Codis.pdf

Good Video:
http://www.dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,75166109_117708432_117777954,00.html

Bye the way, why were only certain areas of the clothing checked for touch DNA and why was JR's touch DNA not found? He carried her up the stairs after all. This fact alone tells me that the finding are unreliable. Also PR admits to lying herself down on top of JB, hugging and touching her, after she was brought upstairs. Why wasn't her touch DNA found. Or for that matter Linda A. moved the body from the hallway into the living room under the Christmas tree, which INHO was a sick thing to do, as well as incorrect police work. Why wasn't her touch DNA found? No other DNA is talked about. Only certain areas were tested. Why and where is the clothing now?




I am sure if the R's DNA was found on her body or Linda A's then we won't hear about it, we expect it to be there. The clothes are still evidence and I'm sure the BPD still maintains control of all the evidence collected from the crime scene. It is the fact that unknown DNA is found that is important. They never stated known DNA was found only that they found unknown DNA.

I think if there ever is a trial of a non R then those results would be asked for by a defense attorney. They may very well exist but there is no point in advertising they spent lots of money on tests to tell them yes Johns touch DNA is on the body exactly where Linda A and Fleet White said John touched her. Yes Linda A's touch DNA is found where she touched the body. You may actually be more convinced that touch DNA is accurate if they did those tests and then published those reports to the public.

Moving on to Burke, what if he didn't intend to kill her? What if he was upset, mad or afraid of getting into trouble, so struck her, meaning to scare her, shut her up, or keep her from telling Mommy or Daddy what happened, but certainly not kill her? Where is your proof that this should have caused him to kill again? If you use this reasoning with any accident, there would be many more repeat murderers than we already know to exist.


If it was accidental on his part it would have to be something truly unusual like dropping something very heavy on to her head. The amount of force needed to fracture her skull like that is way more than an average 9 year old can muster unless they are fighting for their life and having the biggest adrenaline rush of their young lives. I don't see Burke being that threatened by his smaller younger female sibling. If it was accidental that is the only way I can see The R's and Burke being able to pull this off. If appearances are so important to the R's then wouldn't it be better to be a parent to a troubled kid than to be a murder suspect in the eyes of the world. The need to protect him could have been better served using a different method.
His age protected him, his parents money could have kept him in a secure psychiatric facility where he couldn't be touched for the crime and the whole thing would have been, by law, covered up or sealed to protect Burke.

Hate to say it, but your RDI theory on disposing of evidence would work more strongly against an IDI than a Ramsey. Why would a small foreign faction leave behind ANY potential evidence. The R's fingerprints should be found on their notepads, pens etc. An intruder should have removed ANY and ALL evidence of their use of objects. Proof Cathy. It doesn't have to be proven that the Ramsey's were in the house that night.

Yes we all know they were there, it but it looks like an intruder took those things with him if they get rid of the notepad the pages were torn from. It proves that someone used those items, feared those items might have evidence on them and disposed of those items to cover up crime. Why do you think the police were asking the R's if they noticed anything missing from the home? Sometimes stupid stuff goes missing at a crime scene. Let me change the facts around to make a point. the R's have called police and when they are asked if anything is missing they say yes the phone in the back has a long cord and I went to use that phone to call you and the cord from the jack to the phone is missing. JBR later found with the phone cord around her neck. In this case the murder weapon the cord can be traced to the house. It is obvious the killer handles the cord, investigators will then make sure to dust for prints in that area look for DNA any clues as they know the killer removed the cord from the phone and wall jack. They know the killer was in that room and in that area they concentrate efforts to find something the killer left behind. What the killer takes with him is also just as important. If someone was stopped at a roadblock with cord, tape, a stun gun , a notepad and pen, a piece of a paintbrush, a serial killers kit in his trunk you can bet the police are going to notice ( well maybe not the BPD). Some killers take "trophy's" something from the victim.

I don't think a group was involved, I think the info in the RN is bogus. I think the perp is new to a crime like this. The only thing the perp takes from the crime scene is what he brought with him and did not consume during the crime. He leaves behind some cord, he takes with him the tape. He is wearing gloves for most of the crime. He does not think about the notepad as being able to be traced back to him. That is why he uses it.

Douglas states that the RN is too long and rambling, it shows the person was at ease when they wrote it. He says that would not be the case if the killer had written it AFTER the crime. ANY killer not just the parents but any perp. He surmised that the killer might have brought a RN with him then when he saw the notepads(they had lots of them) and pens he rewrote it on one of the R's pads as he thought less evidence of him and an item not from his home would be left at the scene. He thought the killer not to be bright enough to have planned this far ahead of time as that would require Super Planning and the crime is not that organized, it shows more aspects of being committed by an amateur than a professional.

There is actually plenty of evidence that supports all the theories posted here.

There has got to be misinformation in some of those and the more I study on it the more RDI evidence is coming up as false or unverifiable than IDI evidence.
The Burke angle is something I haven't even entertained as I don't see him being able to be a stone cold killer and not act out again, only in an accidental theory can I see any involvement on his part. I have my own theory as to what happened with Burke and he doesn't have any direct involvement.


I do think he went downstairs with JB to get pineapple, he heard something and thought they were about to get caught by parents so he goes back to bed and it gives him motive to play asleep when his parents get up next morning. He figures JB got caught and she told on him, he had feigned being asleep when he thought it was his parents checking in on him that night.
He doesn't know who killed JBR and what he does know or assumed(he thought he heard his parents coming to catch them) is likely to look damming to R's. The RN might have been staged as they had already found the body and with Burke saying what he thought he heard well you get the picture. The RN isn't to protect Burke it is to convince him someone else did it.
JD states no one could hold it together long enough to write the RN after killing JBR but what if they didn't kill her just found her dead questioned Burke then staged the scene to make themselves look less guilty or suspicious.

I don't see Patsy having a toilet rage attack, I don't see John being a pervert, I don't see Burke as a sociopath. The theories that approach it from those angles are way too far out of line with the R's normal behavior that it makes it impossible for me to consolidate the two views into one person.

 

[UKGuy]

CathyR,

There is actually plenty of evidence that supports all the theories posted here.

There no evidence to support, never mind, substantiate an intruder theory.

Just because the Ramsey's say crime scene evidence is not theirs, does not make it so. Their one and only defense is that it was an intruder, so they will deny what they can deny.

Wherever the missing piece of paintbrush is located, its absence is not proof that an intruder removed it.

e.g. there is no evidence, just your supposition, which is fine, but it does not back up your IDI.

All the obsfucation and talk of unowned items pointing at unknown persons will never make the fact that there is no forensic evidence matching an intruder to the crime-scene go away.

.

 

[SunnieRN]

Cathy, from your link above, Zodiac Killer Forum:


There's indications the same male DNA was found under her fingernails, and the source located in her underwear was reportedly not only mixed with blood, but found in approximately ten times the amount as found when compared to unopened factory test garments (never mind that Jon Benet's underwear weren't likely new, and had probably visited a washing machine more than once. . .).

Ouch BIG mistake as PR admitted she had bought the undies for Jenny and she produced the rest of the package years later.


2. Possible Match with Fingernail DNA. The same AP report stated noted "its genetic markers may match evidence taken from fingernails on both of JonBenet's hands. 'There are common markers as to all three that would strongly suggest they are from the same source,' he [Lin Wood] said." According to CBS News: "The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name. Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails [Emphasis added].

Hmmm, they must be talking about the degraded DNA under the fingernails, that were cut with clippers that had been used on other corpses and JB as well. Oh and bye the way, they used one set for all the nails. Sorry, that DNA is contaminated and could not be used in a court of law. A lawyer would get it thrown out so fast, it would make your head spin.

3. Panty DNA Much More Than Trace Amount. Moreover, in a November 30, 1996 letter to Westward, Carol Martin of Walnut Creek, CA, claims to have written and gotten a reply from the producer of 48 Hours to complain about their November 28 show involving Michael Tracey and Lou Smit. She asserted: "The most interesting thing the producer said was that while traces of DNA have been found in unopened packages of underwear, the foreign DNA in JonBenét's was ten to twelve times that amount."


Where is a copy of the letter and the answer please. Thank you.

You know the author, Fools Gold is interesting to read. Thanks for the link, although I don't think he knows the facts of the case well, case in point the undies.

 

[SunnieRN]

Today, 11:57 AM
CathyR CathyR is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
Ouch Cathy, you accused a poster of 'You just shot yourself in the foot dude.'

Maybe you actually did the same thing to yourself, concerning statements you made that can be disproven.

There were fibers found that matched Johns shirt.

If there were gloves used but you are concerned about there being no fibers from them, how do you explain the fibers from PR's sweater being in the rope?


I can't find a reliable source for that information, only an internet site, no BPD press releases, no references in Schiller or Thomas's books, Douglas does not comment on it. I can't confirm it so just like the stun gun I can't COUNT ON IT as being true.

Mixed samples of blood can be submitted to codis and but are not much help unless you can match the 13 needed CODIS STR's:

snip:
Mitochondrial analysis
Main article: Mitochondrial DNA

For highly degraded samples, it is sometimes impossible to get a complete profile of the 13 CODIS STRs. In these situations, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is sometimes typed due to there being many copies of mtDNA in a cell, while there may only be 1-2 copies of the nuclear DNA. Forensic scientists amplify the HV1 and HV2 regions of the mtDNA, then sequence each region and compare single-nucleotide differences to a reference. Because mtDNA is maternally inherited, directly linked maternal relatives can be used as match references, such as one's maternal grandmother's daughter's son. A difference of two or more nucleotides is generally considered to be an exclusion. Heteroplasmy and poly-C differences may throw off straight sequence comparisons, so some expertise on the part of the analyst is required. mtDNA is useful in determining clear identities, such as those of missing people when a maternally linked relative can be found. mtDNA testing was used in determining that Anna Anderson was not the Russian princess she had claimed to be, Anastasia Romanov.

mtDNA can be obtained from such material as hair shafts and old bones/teeth..


Yes I am aware of maternal DNA testing it has been used on egyptian mummies to help identify them. Since they tended to marry direct relatives like sisters and cousins their DNA is very limited in its "gene pool".

Article: [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling[/ame]

Very interesting BODE FAQ article, concerning mixed samples and touch DNA:

http://www.bodetech.com/faq/frequently-asked-questions

So, I have given you this information. There is also this:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...e#DNAinJBRCase

I think we can safely say that a mixed sample degraded DNA without the 13 CODIS needed markers will NEVER solve this case!

I guess you have been ignoring all the test results I have posted as well as others.


This is interesting. How could 'a mixed sample identify someone positively?
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/FSA/Documents/Codis.pdf

Good Video:
http://www.dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/00/a...777954,00.html

Bye the way, why were only certain areas of the clothing checked for touch DNA and why was JR's touch DNA not found? He carried her up the stairs after all. This fact alone tells me that the finding are unreliable. Also PR admits to lying herself down on top of JB, hugging and touching her, after she was brought upstairs. Why wasn't her touch DNA found. Or for that matter Linda A. moved the body from the hallway into the living room under the Christmas tree, which INHO was a sick thing to do, as well as incorrect police work. Why wasn't her touch DNA found? No other DNA is talked about. Only certain areas were tested. Why and where is the clothing now?




I am sure if the R's DNA was found on her body or Linda A's then we won't hear about it, we expect it to be there. The clothes are still evidence and I'm sure the BPD still maintains control of all the evidence collected from the crime scene. It is the fact that unknown DNA is found that is important. They never stated known DNA was found only that they found unknown DNA.

I think if there ever is a trial of a non R then those results would be asked for by a defense attorney. They may very well exist but there is no point in advertising they spent lots of money on tests to tell them yes Johns touch DNA is on the body exactly where Linda A and Fleet White said John touched her. Yes Linda A's touch DNA is found where she touched the body. You may actually be more convinced that touch DNA is accurate if they did those tests and then published those reports to the public.

Moving on to Burke, what if he didn't intend to kill her? What if he was upset, mad or afraid of getting into trouble, so struck her, meaning to scare her, shut her up, or keep her from telling Mommy or Daddy what happened, but certainly not kill her? Where is your proof that this should have caused him to kill again? If you use this reasoning with any accident, there would be many more repeat murderers than we already know to exist.


If it was accidental on his part it would have to be something truly unusual like dropping something very heavy on to her head. The amount of force needed to fracture her skull like that is way more than an average 9 year old can muster unless they are fighting for their life and having the biggest adrenaline rush of their young lives. I don't see Burke being that threatened by his smaller younger female sibling. If it was accidental that is the only way I can see The R's and Burke being able to pull this off. If appearances are so important to the R's then wouldn't it be better to be a parent to a troubled kid than to be a murder suspect in the eyes of the world. The need to protect him could have been better served using a different method.
His age protected him, his parents money could have kept him in a secure psychiatric facility where he couldn't be touched for the crime and the whole thing would have been, by law, covered up or sealed to protect Burke.

Hate to say it, but your RDI theory on disposing of evidence would work more strongly against an IDI than a Ramsey. Why would a small foreign faction leave behind ANY potential evidence. The R's fingerprints should be found on their notepads, pens etc. An intruder should have removed ANY and ALL evidence of their use of objects. Proof Cathy. It doesn't have to be proven that the Ramsey's were in the house that night.

Yes we all know they were there, it but it looks like an intruder took those things with him if they get rid of the notepad the pages were torn from. It proves that someone used those items, feared those items might have evidence on them and disposed of those items to cover up crime. Why do you think the police were asking the R's if they noticed anything missing from the home? Sometimes stupid stuff goes missing at a crime scene. Let me change the facts around to make a point. the R's have called police and when they are asked if anything is missing they say yes the phone in the back has a long cord and I went to use that phone to call you and the cord from the jack to the phone is missing. JBR later found with the phone cord around her neck. In this case the murder weapon the cord can be traced to the house. It is obvious the killer handles the cord, investigators will then make sure to dust for prints in that area look for DNA any clues as they know the killer removed the cord from the phone and wall jack. They know the killer was in that room and in that area they concentrate efforts to find something the killer left behind. What the killer takes with him is also just as important. If someone was stopped at a roadblock with cord, tape, a stun gun , a notepad and pen, a piece of a paintbrush, a serial killers kit in his trunk you can bet the police are going to notice ( well maybe not the BPD). Some killers take "trophy's" something from the victim.

I don't think a group was involved, I think the info in the RN is bogus. I think the perp is new to a crime like this. The only thing the perp takes from the crime scene is what he brought with him and did not consume during the crime. He leaves behind some cord, he takes with him the tape. He is wearing gloves for most of the crime. He does not think about the notepad as being able to be traced back to him. That is why he uses it.

Douglas states that the RN is too long and rambling, it shows the person was at ease when they wrote it. He says that would not be the case if the killer had written it AFTER the crime. ANY killer not just the parents but any perp. He surmised that the killer might have brought a RN with him then when he saw the notepads(they had lots of them) and pens he rewrote it on one of the R's pads as he thought less evidence of him and an item not from his home would be left at the scene. He thought the killer not to be bright enough to have planned this far ahead of time as that would require Super Planning and the crime is not that organized, it shows more aspects of being committed by an amateur than a professional.

There is actually plenty of evidence that supports all the theories posted here.

There has got to be misinformation in some of those and the more I study on it the more RDI evidence is coming up as false or unverifiable than IDI evidence.
The Burke angle is something I haven't even entertained as I don't see him being able to be a stone cold killer and not act out again, only in an accidental theory can I see any involvement on his part. I have my own theory as to what happened with Burke and he doesn't have any direct involvement.


I do think he went downstairs with JB to get pineapple, he heard something and thought they were about to get caught by parents so he goes back to bed and it gives him motive to play asleep when his parents get up next morning. He figures JB got caught and she told on him, he had feigned being asleep when he thought it was his parents checking in on him that night.
He doesn't know who killed JBR and what he does know or assumed(he thought he heard his parents coming to catch them) is likely to look damming to R's. The RN might have been staged as they had already found the body and with Burke saying what he thought he heard well you get the picture. The RN isn't to protect Burke it is to convince him someone else did it.
JD states no one could hold it together long enough to write the RN after killing JBR but what if they didn't kill her just found her dead questioned Burke then staged the scene to make themselves look less guilty or suspicious.

I don't see Patsy having a toilet rage attack, I don't see John being a pervert, I don't see Burke as a sociopath. The theories that approach it from those angles are way too far out of line with the R's normal behavior that it makes it impossible for me to consolidate the two views into one person.



As with a post that HOTYH made, you answered my statements within my post, so to be able to 'see' everything I copied and pasted the entire response.

Your quote:
I can't find a reliable source for that information, only an internet site, no BPD press releases, no references in Schiller or Thomas's books, Douglas does not comment on it. I can't confirm it so just like the stun gun I can't COUNT ON IT as being true.

Fair enough, but I tend to believe the ideal that law suits brought by the Ramseys would have been VERY likely to have been brought if the fibers were not true.

This statement is from Lou Smit:

Red fibers: Lab tests on red fibers on the duct tape found that they were the same as those on Patsy's dress. But her dress contained both red and black fibers. "Why are only the red ones found and not the black?"

Other hairs and fibers: Smit said he has more hair and fiber clues but he would not reveal them for fear of alerting the perpetrator to the evidence.

Response: Thomas called the suitcase scenario a "convenient arrangement of the facts." Police consider the red fiber on the duct tape to be significant evidence.

Here are additional links:

9/29/1997

Little new information in search warrants

By Pam Regensberg
Daily Times-Call

BOULDER -- Search warrants in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case apparently put to rest the question of whether police found seminal fluid on the dead girl's body and debunks earlier media reports.

No semen was found.

But, Boulder County Coroner John Meyer said he found ``numerous traces of a dark fiber'' in JonBenet's pubic area, according to the warrants. Similar dark fibers and dark hair were also found on JonBenet's night shirt.

It also appeared the child's pubic area had been wiped with a cloth, the warrants stated.

***
PMPT, Pg 606: "Four fibers had been found attached to the duct tape; they were red and black."

***

http://www.denver-rmn.com/extra/ramsey/0917rams1.html

September 17, 1998

Prosecutors also may produce a piece of duct tape used to cover the mouth of the child, who was found beaten and strangled in a basement room of her parent's home the afternoon of Dec. 26, 1996. A fiber was found on the sticky side of the duct tape, which John Ramsey ripped from his daughter's mouth after he found her.

Analysis of the fiber showed a potential match to fibers on a sweater Patsy Ramsey wore Christmas night, Fox Television in Denver reported Wednesday. Detectives did not find the roll the tape came from during eight days of searching and removing evidence from the Ramsey's 15-room home.

"Numerous" traces of a dark fiber were found at autopsy near the victim's vaginal area, according to her autopsy report. Authorities have attempted to trace the bluish-fiber to material on clothing worn by people who were in the Ramsey home Christmas Day and night.

***
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03212000ramseytodaypt2.htm

Tuesday, March 21, 2000

Today Show - Part 2

JOHN AND PATSY RAMSEY DISCUSS WHO THEY THINK MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DAUGHTER JONBENET'S DEATH

NBC News Transcripts, March 21, 2000

KATIE COURIC reporting:

COURIC: Why were the fibers on the duct tape found on JonBenet consistent with fibers from your clothes, Patsy?

Ms. RAMSEY: I don't know. And I don't...

Mr. RAMSEY: Again, what we heard was that there were--there were some microscopic fibers which were consistent with a sweater of Patsy's found on the duct tape. There was also a lot of other fibers found on the duct tape.

***

2000 Atlanta Police Interviews

According to Barry Levin, not only do the red fibers on the duct tape match PR's sweater, but the fibers found in JB's panty crotch are black and match JR's Israeli sweater.

Not sure if this helps you, but it certainly helped me decide what was true and untrue.


Your statement: I don't think a group was involved, I think the info in the RN is bogus. I think the perp is new to a crime like this.

Seems to fit in with the R's being responsible. Are you actually telling me that you think a novice criminal could plan, execute and pull off this crime, while only leaving touch DNA on a couple of spots on JBR's longjohns? I find that much more unbelieveable than parents trying to cover the crime being committed.

As for Burke, he had hit JB prior with a golf club. The softball bat had JB's hair on it. Burke played baseball and according to his Mother was very good. He also took sailing lessons, so knot tying, loved to tie knots and make things out of rope and his 'whittling knife' was found near JB's body.

Does this make him a sociopathic killer, no, but does it raise suspicion and a need to explain the evidence that exists KNOWING he was in the house that night? Of course it does!

If the R's are ever truly cleared, then we can start looking for an intruder. Heck look for one anyway, but remember, the R's have NOT been cleared.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I agree that the pageants were serious business considering that JonBenet traveled to Michigan, Georgia, Texas, and was even going to Hawaii in January 1997 to compete in them. However, how does that tie into her murder if Patsy was the one who killed her? JonBenet can't compete in pageants if she's dead. Do you believe that JBR told Patsy when they got home from the Whites' house that she didn't want to do pageants anymore? I don't know how that would even come up though since it's not like they were planning on going to a pageant that night. I know we've had conflicting reports about whether JBR was awake or sleeping when she went from the car to her bed but I would imagine she would be tired and probably wouldn't decide to confront her mother about the pageants that night. However, didn't LE say that the bathroom smelled like bleach or hair dye? Is it possible that Patsy said to JBR that it was time to touch up your roots for the upcoming Hawaiian Tropic pageant and JBR was like "No, I don't want to go." and Patsy flipped? And JBR hit her head on the bathtub? I have lots of theories.

This makes it sound like I said that Patsy was devious because she killed JonBenet and that is not what I said. I said that Patsy could have used evidence to deliberatly frame John and THAT would have been devious.

 

[Agatha_C]

CathyR

I don't see Patsy having a toilet rage attack, I don't see John being a pervert, I don't see Burke as a sociopath. The theories that approach it from those angles are way too far out of line with the R's normal behavior that it makes it impossible for me to consolidate the two views into one person.

Little boys are molested by priests an act above their character. Little girls are molested every day by a family member that no one suspected, because it was out of his character. A father of twin babies, flips out and stabs them to death. His entire family, including his wife beg the judge for life sentence of the Death P, because they couldn't understand what made him do this horrible thing, as it was not in his nature and out of his character (this case is online) Caylee Anthony died because Casey Anthony was angry with her mother and jealous.

Everything you need to know about their dynamics can be found in the R's house. Everything up front, nothing out of place, spotless, a show room floor. The families actual living space was a disaster, full of clutter and mess (this from crime scene photo's not gossip). Just like their projection, everything up front perfect, but underneath its a mess. CathyR, she didn't even know when her child had last been bathed! Not so perfect I think. What do we really know about the R's normal behavior?

We also know that JR had had an affair (more then one if you ask me, in both marriages), he liked younger women. Did you know, that thats one of the signs (Readers, get you panties out of a wad, not all May, December means pervert), but it is an actual sign of pedophilia amongst other things.

Oh and by the way, I respect your opinion and integrity as with all the posters. Your voice however is different than most and I like that, so thanks for keeping it real.

 

[cynic]

Steve Thomas was so uninformed about certain aspects of crime scene investigation that he called John Douglas on it. The blanket on JBR's body was not wrapped tightly around her cocooning her as a loving gesture something a parent staging a scene might do. It was just thrown on top of her covering only her torso, her arms and legs were sticking out. This info came from Fleet White who saw the body as well as JR. It was not wrapped with any care or concern for JBR like a parent would do. Steve couldn't tell the difference and when John Douglas explained the difference he still refused to change his mind and instead of accepting he could be wrong or mistaken he states in his book that he caught John Douglas in an inconsistancy to previous statements about crime scene investigation.
To me his overblown ego is showing and he can't be wrong or even admit it. That is not the kind of personality needed to be a good investigator. No wonder his health failed and he had to retire from frustration and health issues. We are all human and when a personality like Steve's gets their ego challenged or percieves that his ego is being challenged they tend to be stubborn and frustrated, internalizing their fellings. They are shame based not blame based. Being wrong is so hard on them they can't handle it. They don't embrace their human nature, they can't allow themselves to be human and make errors in judgment, it is too shameful, too unforgivable. We all know somebody who is shame based it is that guy who will argue with a brick wall no matter what, if he thinks he is right he will try and talk those bricks into crumbling.

This is completely false.
(BTW, the one with the overblown ego is Douglas. His sell-out is of epic proportions, and he should be ashamed with every breath he takes.)

Regarding the blanket:

JOHN RAMSEY: Well I see a white blanket that's folded across her body neatly.
LOU SMIT: It was neatly folded across the body?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
LOU SMIT: Now describe that just a little bit? Was it --
JOHN RAMSEY: She was laying on the blanket.
LOU SMIT: Was it laying on the back?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. On the back. The blanket was caught up around and crossed in front of her as if somebody was tucking her in.
…
MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it like --
JOHN RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
MIKE KANE: Okay.
(1998 interview)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SwkXfkdyWc[/ame]

Here is what FBI profilers who were not paid by the Ramseys for their opinion said:

Q. " What is the significance of the blanket covering JonBenét body that was found in the basement? What does this mean in terms of profiling--what does it tell you about the needs of the perpetrator?"
"Ressler: Well often times the covering of a body, and in particular the covering of the facial features, from a profiling standpoint indicates a personal knowledge of that individual and it's an act of retribution of sort and an act of undoing. In other words, it becomes a matter of guilt on the part of the individual. It does not indicate some psychopathic personality like the individual that killed Polly Klaas. That's not what you'd see in that type of case. It's more or less a person that's known the child, and feels remorse for the crime."
Q. Is that a staged aspect of the crime, or is that...
"Ressler: No, I don't think that's necessarily a staged aspect as much as it is a reflection of the the guilt and the remorse on the part of the killer. Either intentional or accidental."


Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."
"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."
McCrary, though, feels that the Ramseys themselves have acted suspiciously. "I think John and Patsy Ramsey have created a lot of speculation about their involvement through their own behavior," says McCrary.
For example, police thought they were unhelpful, even evasive. "The common behavior of victim parents is that not only will they talk to police, you can't get them out of your hair," says McCrary.
"Separate attorneys to me almost speaks of a conflict of interest," McCrary continues. "In other words, why couldn't one attorney represent both of them if their interests were the same?"
And then there was the ransom note. "This is staging. The offender wants us to believthat some stranger came in here and tried to abduct the child for ransom," says McCrary. "An offender stages a crime scene for only one reason--without the staging, they're going to be the immediate logical suspect."
Who Killed JonBenet, 48 Hours Mystery

Also…

A criminal profiler who turned down an invitation to work for JonBenet Ramsey's family dismissed a portrait of the killer they released Wednesday as ``silly.''
``It's really fairly juvenile,'' said former FBI criminal profiler Gregg McCrary.
John and Patsy Ramsey's legal team asked McCrary in January to develop a profile of JonBenet's killer. McCrary, believing the killer would prove to be someone close to the family, declined.
Rocky Mountain News, July 24, 1997

John Douglas would have agreed if he wasn’t paid by the Ramseys to give an opinion contrary to everything he knew about murder within a family and staging:
"The child was found buried in the woods in his snowsuit, wrapped in a blanket, then completely covered with a thick plastic bag. A kidnapper or child molester would not have taken this much care to make him warm and "comfortable," or to try to shelter the body from the elements. While many murder scenes show obvious and prolonged rage, and dump sites often show contempt and hostility, the hallmarks of this burial were love and guilt."
Mindhunter p287 (John Douglas)

STEVE THOMAS: Well, that's certainly -- the colleagues, John Douglas' former colleagues in the FBI are not of that opinion. It's interesting that the defense-paid experts and investigators and so forth that are working on the case have one opinion whereas law enforcement and those in Colorado working this case have another.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

 

[joeskidbeck]

Thank you, cynic. This post deserved more than just the thanks button. How can IDIs read this information and not be able to see just a little bit of the truth here?