You, the jury

[UKGuy]

The probability of your idea vs. the intruder's DNA isn't just a little different.

Holdontoyourhat,

I think I see why you're seeing things this way, if you're sincere and not just banging the RDI drum for the helluvit. You believe that we're all awash in everybody else's genetic material, and that it floats around like dust. Free to migrate from hand to hand, clothing item to clothing item. Thats fine, for you. Personally, I don't really need the DNA evidence to believe IDI. I was already IDI before the DNA. But I'm here to tell you that you wont find any unknown male DNA in my shorts or on my waistband! Save all the rhetoric for the intruder's defense, I KNOW he'll appreciate it.


If you check your posts you'll find you've spent a great deal of time trying to convince others that the old blood swab DNA and the newly discovered DNA that ML found is all meaningless. I can understand that, believe me!

Now if you could just convince the lab technicians, the DA's office, and just about every tabloid, TV show, and news report...

The probability of your idea vs. the intruder's DNA isn't just a little different.

The probability is, its four to one e.g. John, Patsy, Burke and JonBenet versus one intruder.

But I'm here to tell you that you wont find any unknown male DNA in my shorts or on my waistband! Save all the rhetoric for the intruder's defense, I KNOW he'll appreciate it.

Glad to hear you checked.

Now if you could just convince the lab technicians, the DA's office, and just about every tabloid, TV show, and news report...

When did any of the above become arbiters of justice, their job is to report information not decide who the perpetrators are, that is the function of the courts and the jury in the land of the free , is it not?

The current status of the touch dna found on JonBenet's clothing is unknown and unmatched, that is , it has no meaning, its simply biological detritus.

Semen dna, unknown and unmatched, has meaning, it would tell me that an intruder had been in contact with JonBenet.

You can continue to build IDI theories on the back of unknown and unmatched, touch dna, exploiting peoples assumption that touch dna and semen dna are somehow equivelant, but they will be shot down everytime because they do not add up.

IDI might be the correct theory, RDI might be populist speculation, IDI requires a smoking gun, and so far despite many attempts and countless intruder variations, nothing has surfaced, except the touch dna, which can have multiple explanations for its existence, one being the ethereal intruder.

 

[BBB167893]

Wow. In bold are things that can't be proven yet casually stated as fact. Somewhere between fantasy, fiction, and fortune-telling.

We learned from the best.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The probability is, its four to one e.g. John, Patsy, Burke and JonBenet versus one intruder.

OK seriously are you not an adult? If not our conversation is over.

The current status of the touch dna found on JonBenet's clothing is unknown and unmatched, that is , it has no meaning, its simply biological detritus.

Here you go writing your own news. If you don't mind I get my news from the papers:

A mystery man's DNA was found early on in a spot of blood on JonBenet's panties. Lacy said sophisticated new tests found the same DNA in two places on the waist of her longjohns, confirming it came from a suspect.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat..._clears_jonbenet_ramseys_f.html#ixzz0wPXgxsQM
​

You can continue to build IDI theories on the back of unknown and unmatched, touch dna, exploiting peoples assumption that touch dna and semen dna are somehow equivelant, but they will be shot down everytime because they do not add up.

Im not building theories on the back of DNA. My theory was IDI (FF) both before and after the DNA. After the DNA my theory is holding more water than yours, thats all.

IDI might be the correct theory, RDI might be populist speculation, IDI requires a smoking gun, and so far despite many attempts and countless intruder variations, nothing has surfaced, except the touch dna, which can have multiple explanations for its existence, one being the ethereal intruder.

A breakthrough. Now all we need is an ethereal intruder.

 

[UKGuy]

OK seriously are you not an adult? If not our conversation is over.



Here you go writing your own news. If you don't mind I get my news from the papers:

A mystery man's DNA was found early on in a spot of blood on JonBenet's panties. Lacy said sophisticated new tests found the same DNA in two places on the waist of her longjohns, confirming it came from a suspect.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat..._clears_jonbenet_ramseys_f.html#ixzz0wPXgxsQM
​

Im not building theories on the back of DNA. My theory was IDI (FF) both before and after the DNA. After the DNA my theory is holding more water than yours, thats all.



A breakthrough. Now all we need is an ethereal intruder.

Holdontoyourhat,

OK seriously are you not an adult? If not our conversation is over.

OK, I'll recalculate, lets see, if we assume IDI then there were five people in the house at one point, and the touch dna may have been transferred by any one of those five, so I make that 1 in 5, or 20% probability?

The reason for that is that although an intruder may have killed JonBenet it does not follow that the dna on JonBenet's clothes is the intruders, it may simply be touch dna transferred by chance, by a Ramsey , but probably not JonBenet which would then change the probability.

I guess you might do probability different in the USA?

Here you go writing your own news. If you don't mind I get my news from the papers:

A mystery man's DNA was found early on in a spot of blood on JonBenet's panties. Lacy said sophisticated new tests found the same DNA in two places on the waist of her longjohns, confirming it came from a suspect.
​

But its not semen dna is it. Its touch dna, so its presence is suspect, it may even be circumstantial, but it does not confirm that the mystery man e.g. unknown person was present when JonBenet was killed, and since this mystery man has yet to be traced, the touch dna is unmatched. e.g. an uncleared suspect.

Im not building theories on the back of DNA. My theory was IDI (FF) both before and after the DNA. After the DNA my theory is holding more water than yours, thats all.

For me the touch dna is more important than any other crime-scene artifact, but its not a smoking gun, semen dna would be, until they match the touch dna all you have is speculation. As Borat says : Nice.., but not good enough!​

 

[DeeDee249]

The DNA is UNKOWN AND UNMATCHED. It doesn't belong to a "suspect" until we have a SUSPECT. When we do, if it matches, THEN we can say it is KNOWN and MATCHED.

 

[MurriFlower]

The DNA is UNKOWN AND UNMATCHED. It doesn't belong to a "suspect" until we have a SUSPECT. When we do, if it matches, THEN we can say it is KNOWN and MATCHED.

Yes, I agree. The DNA doesn't match anyone who is presently known. This in itself says something. It doesn't tell us who the killer was, but it does tell us there is good reason to believe that another person was present and had his hands in this little girl's pants.

If that seems innocent to some people, or if they want to dismiss it as being transferred from one place to another by a third party, well nothing I say will change that.

But here's the thing, and I think SD said this himself, it's the totality of evidence that makes up the picture.

So to recap:

1. there's DNA in the child's panties/longjohns that doesn't match the Rs
2. there's cord that wasn't sourced in the Rs house
3. there's tape that wasn't sourced in the Rs house
4. there's a pair of panties (bloodstained) that were not in the Rs house
5. there's fibers that were not sourced in the Rs house
6. there's the cloth/whatever was used to wipe the blood from her that was not found in the Rs house
7. there's the piece of broken paintbrush that was not found in the Rs house

Now, RDI have proposed any number of stories that covers these 'problems' to their theory.

They have individually and in combination, blamed PR, JR, BR and tried to implicte both DP and JAR (who were both out of town). About the only ones they have missed out blaming is Jacques (and of course he didn't bark, so he may be an accomplice) or JBR herself.

But there is one simple answer to each of the above and it's the totality of evidence that can lead to only one conclusion:

JBR was killed by person or persons unknown who was not amongst her immediate family members.

 

[claudicici]

1.there should be DNA on the long john's that match PR,since she claimed to have put them on JB
2.cord wasn't sourced at all
3.tape wasn't sourced at all
4.what pair of panties are you talking about? PR sourced the pair of panties JB was wearing to the house herself
5.there's fibers that were sourced to PR in very suspicious places
6.it wasn't found anywhere else either.
7.it was not found anywhere

again we have nothing so we can speculate anything.

JBR may have been killed by a person or persons unknown and/or someone amongst her immediate family members.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

again we have nothing so we can speculate anything.

As murders go, we have a tremendous amount of evidence. Weapons, long handwritten notes, and the body. We have practically everything. Speculation can be effective. There is enough information, IMO.

 

[MurriFlower]

1.there should be DNA on the long john's that match PR,since she claimed to have put them on JB
2.cord wasn't sourced at all
3.tape wasn't sourced at all
4.what pair of panties are you talking about? PR sourced the pair of panties JB was wearing to the house herself
5.there's fibers that were sourced to PR in very suspicious places
6.it wasn't found anywhere else either.
7.it was not found anywhere

again we have nothing so we can speculate anything.

JBR may have been killed by a person or persons unknown and/or someone amongst her immediate family members.

I think you just don't get it Claudicici.

Even if there was just one thing that came from outside the house, that would be sufficient to suspect an 'intruder' or an 'outsider' if you prefer. But what I am saying is the totality of this number of things that couldn't be found or sourced means that it is obvious that they were brought in and/or taken out by an UNKNOWN PERSON.

The fact that things have not been found anywhere, means they were not found or sourced IN THE HOUSE in which she was killed.

This precludes an immediate family member. No amount of imaginative 'stories' can change this.

 

[claudicici]

the forensic evidence neither includes nor excludes anybody IMO

 

[claudicici]

no,what you're saying would only be true if the R's were isolated in their house and never left and never let anyone else in.

 

[claudicici]

...and after the murder these "things" could have been gotten rid of way before 911 was called ...or removed later .....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I guess you might do probability different in the USA?

Oh yes. For one example, there's a probabililty that I'm more English than you.

I suggest placing these hypothetical test results in order of relative probability, as far as the two scrapings on anyone's leggings are concerned:

• Nobody's skin cells are in either scraping.
• Nobody's skin cells are in one scraping, and somebody's skin cells are in one scraping but there aren't enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, but neither have enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, but only one scraping had enough cells to produce a DNA profile.
• Somebody's skin cells are in both scrapings, and both had enough cells to produce a DNA profile.

 

[MurriFlower]

no,what you're saying would only be true if the R's were isolated in their house and never left and never let anyone else in.

Now you need to start again with the 'stories' to explain away the evidence.

One object 'foreign' or 'missing' might be possible, but the weight of evidence favours an outsider.

 

[claudicici]

also maybe that was all the cord and tape there was so nothing may be missing

 

[DeeDee249]

I think you just don't get it Claudicici.

Even if there was just one thing that came from outside the house, that would be sufficient to suspect an 'intruder' or an 'outsider' if you prefer. But what I am saying is the totality of this number of things that couldn't be found or sourced means that it is obvious that they were brought in and/or taken out by an UNKNOWN PERSON.

The fact that things have not been found anywhere, means they were not found or sourced IN THE HOUSE in which she was killed.

This precludes an immediate family member. No amount of imaginative 'stories' can change this.

It doesn't mean that at all. I simply means they have not been sourced. There are things in my house (and yours) that you have no receipt for and no way to prove how they got into your house. You can SAY you bought it, but without a receipt with your verified signature, you can't prove it. It works the other way, too. I can look at photo of a tissue box in my home and say I never saw it before. Without proof that I bought it, there is no way to disprove it. Doesn't mean an intruder brought it into my house.

 

[MurriFlower]

It doesn't mean that at all. I simply means they have not been sourced. There are things in my house (and yours) that you have no receipt for and no way to prove how they got into your house. You can SAY you bought it, but without a receipt with your verified signature, you can't prove it. It works the other way, too. I can look at photo of a tissue box in my home and say I never saw it before. Without proof that I bought it, there is no way to disprove it. Doesn't mean an intruder brought it into my house.

Well, the tissue box is only an item, it is not directly involved in the death. Remember the Rs were shown photos of these items months after the trauma of her death and it's aftermath. The evidence I'm talking about here is not reliant on anything the Rs said or didn't say, it speaks for itself.

You see, part (sometimes a large part) of why RDI believes as they do, is the simple fact that she was murdered and left in her own home.

So when you see items were found that could not be sourced, what this means is the origins were unknown. In addition to that, items that were used were removed. This is items that were used in the killing.

Therefore you must find an explanation for their absence/presence at the crime scene. This leads to all sorts of RDI stories to try to account for this.

Without resorting to any information provided by the Rs or the cops, this evidence stands alone as proof of an 'outsider'.

 

[claudicici]

....but at least RDI can speculate,there's nothing at all to go on if IDI,most of my speculation concerning these items are directly related to how the R's reacted during their interviews.The only suspicions I have regarding the R's are the R's statements.If they are not directly involved IMO they knew exactly who did this to them and took care of it themselves.I just can't find any other explanation for them to have acted the way they did.Starting with calling LE and all their friends after reading the RN...................

 

[MurriFlower]

....but at least RDI can speculate,there's nothing at all to go on if IDI,most of my speculation concerning these items are directly related to how the R's reacted during their interviews.The only suspicions I have regarding the R's are the R's statements.If they are not directly involved IMO they knew exactly who did this to them and took care of it themselves.I just can't find any other explanation for them to have acted the way they did.Starting with calling LE and all their friends after reading the RN...................

Yes RDI is comparatively easy, take three people and blame them either singly or in conjunction and try to work up a theory about them. What they said, how they behaved, how they looked.

IDI is the rest of the world. That's a pretty big lot of suspects. But.......I'd better get started.


OK, Claudicici, where were you on the night of the 25 Dec 1996?

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, I agree. The DNA doesn't match anyone who is presently known. This in itself says something. It doesn't tell us who the killer was, but it does tell us there is good reason to believe that another person was present and had his hands in this little girl's pants.

If that seems innocent to some people, or if they want to dismiss it as being transferred from one place to another by a third party, well nothing I say will change that.

But here's the thing, and I think SD said this himself, it's the totality of evidence that makes up the picture.

So to recap:

1. there's DNA in the child's panties/longjohns that doesn't match the Rs
2. there's cord that wasn't sourced in the Rs house
3. there's tape that wasn't sourced in the Rs house
4. there's a pair of panties (bloodstained) that were not in the Rs house
5. there's fibers that were not sourced in the Rs house
6. there's the cloth/whatever was used to wipe the blood from her that was not found in the Rs house
7. there's the piece of broken paintbrush that was not found in the Rs house

Now, RDI have proposed any number of stories that covers these 'problems' to their theory.

They have individually and in combination, blamed PR, JR, BR and tried to implicte both DP and JAR (who were both out of town). About the only ones they have missed out blaming is Jacques (and of course he didn't bark, so he may be an accomplice) or JBR herself.

But there is one simple answer to each of the above and it's the totality of evidence that can lead to only one conclusion:

JBR was killed by person or persons unknown who was not amongst her immediate family members.

MurriFlower,

1. there's DNA in the child's panties/longjohns that doesn't match the Rs
2. there's cord that wasn't sourced in the Rs house
3. there's tape that wasn't sourced in the Rs house
4. there's a pair of panties (bloodstained) that were not in the Rs house
5. there's fibers that were not sourced in the Rs house
6. there's the cloth/whatever was used to wipe the blood from her that was not found in the Rs house
7. there's the piece of broken paintbrush that was not found in the Rs house

So what! None of the above mean that an intruder was ever in the house.

Even if all the above were correct, which they are not, then this is not enough to assume an intruder left all these crime-scene artifacts.

not sourced simply means unknown origin, it does not mean that they originated externally.

This mistake along with confusing touch dna with semen dna seems to be the core of the IDI, and both rely on assuming that because objects are unmatched to a legal owner and have an unknown source, then they must have been transferred to their current location by a similarly unknown and unmatched person external to the house, e.g. the intruder.

An intruder may actually have killed JonBenet, but the above crime-scene evidence does not demonstrate this. the reasoning seems to be : if i have an unknown and unmatched object, then it must have been transported to this location, by an unknown and unmatched agent.

So even if IDI is correct, using the crime-scene evidence to justify the exsistence on an intruder is fallacious.

Only semen dna would allow the conclusion that an intruder was definitely present, to reason otherwise is all mouth and no trousers!

.