Full DNA Profile

[My Take]

it has come to my attention that some rdi folks are so ingrained in their prior beliefs that they are unable to comprehend new information.

well, for those who missed it,

*they now have a full dna profile of the person who left foreign dna in jbr's blood*

it is not the same old partial dna match.

bpd didn't bother to check the second blood drop. when tested, it yielded a full dna profile that matched, in every way possible given the sampe limitation, the dna under jbr's fingernails and, apparently, dnax - found several feet from jbr's body.

After a murder investigation that went nowhere, the answer to the question, "Who killed JonBenet," is likely in the Denver police department crime lab.

"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

After a murder investigation that went nowhere, the answer to the question, "Who killed JonBenet," is likely in the Denver police department crime lab.

"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

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.

--------------------------

don't let your current paradigm filter out key information that may render your povs obsolete.

[Jayelles]

Are you saying that we've to suddenly take the media's word as gospel? That they are the authorities in the Ramsey case?

Tom Bennett felt so strongly about the misinformation which has been put out recently that he felt obliged to break his 2 hyear silence and speak out to say:-

no new evidence
no breakthrough

[My Take]

Are you saying that we've to suddenly take the media's word as gospel? That they are the authorities in the Ramsey case?

Tom Bennett felt so strongly about the misinformation which has been put out recently that he felt obliged to break his 2 hyear silence and speak out to say:-

no new evidence
no breakthrough
when you have to run from the evidence, your pov may well be faulty.

48 hours put up the guy responsible for the testng of this dna on their show.

the level of conspiracy required to make this guy hired by the bda to be actively lying to public is pretty steep.

only the bpd can get away with misleading statements and lies. -lol-

run, run, run as fast as you can - but the truth never gets tired.

the irony is that you likely still believe the burke tape nonsense - even after it has been proven factually false?

right??? -lol-

[My Take]

Are you saying that we've to suddenly take the media's word as gospel? That they are the authorities in the Ramsey case?

Tom Bennett felt so strongly about the misinformation which has been put out recently that he felt obliged to break his 2 hyear silence and speak out to say:-

no new evidence
no breakthrough
show me where bennett said "no new evidence."

cite your source.

[aRnd2it]

*they now have a full dna profile of the person who left foreign dna in jbr's blood*
Your information is WRONG (again).

If you want to spread Ramsey propaganda, the least you should do is get your story straight with the official Ramsey spin machine:

From: www.supportramsey.com
"On December 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the D.A.'s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenét."

TEN markers does NOT make a complete DNA profile. :slap:

[My Take]

Your information is WRONG (again).

If you want to spread Ramsey propaganda, the least you should do is get your story straight with the official Ramsey spin machine:

From: www.supportramsey.com (http://www.supportramsey.com/)
"On December 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the D.A.'s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenét."

TEN markers does NOT make a complete DNA profile. :slap:
you've not proved that the full dna profile wasn't made whole after 12/11/03.

the irony is you quote the ramseys as a better source than the guy who actually did the dna testing for the bda...

so, you trust the ramseys as a source now? -lol-

[My Take]

when bennett was talking about old information, he was talking about the idea that the dna now magically excludes the ramseys.

that was the context.

some folks will try and extend the context where bennett didn't apply it.

a full dna profile is "new evidence."

has any public official disuted the full dna profile claim since the time of the show?

[Jayelles]

show me where bennett said "no new evidence."

cite your source.
You're right, that wasn't Bennett, that was mary keenan:-

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/georgia/news-article.aspx?storyid=29501

[My Take]

you've not proved that the full dna profile wasn't made whole after 12/11/03.

the irony is you quote the ramseys as a better source than the guy who actually did the dna testing for the bda...

so, you trust the ramseys as a source now? -lol-
this is good... -lol- some more...

if it is proven another guy killed jbr, it will be a lot of fun to find out who the rdi people blame for their grave error in rational thinking ability.

my guess is that steve thomas gets tossed where he belongs - under the bus.

[My Take]

You're right, that wasn't Bennett, that was mary keenan:-

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/georgia/news-article.aspx?storyid=29501
from the article...

A year ago, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan issued a statement saying the weight of the evidence was more consistent with an intruder killing JonBenet than the Ramseys committing the crime.

;-)

Keenan could not be reached for comment on the latest report. But she said earlier this month she doubted the report would explore any new evidence.

this was said prior to the airing of the show. it was a guess on her part that you misapply as a factual statement. that is amateur at best.

[Jayelles]

it was a guess on her part that you misapply as a factual statement. that is amateur at best.
As I AM an amateur (never professed to be anything else), I thank you for saying that I am amateur at best. I'll take that as a compliment.

[aRnd2it]

has any public official disuted the full dna profile claim since the time of the show?
You need to look up the expression "an argument from silence", and then come back here when you fully understand what it means... :confused:

[Jayelles]

You need to look up the expression "an argument from silence", and then come back here when you fully understand what it means... :confused:
Yes, if we're going to start taking silence/no comment from officials as affirmation, then what does that say about all the "BORG" stories in the press?

[My Take]

jayelles, ok, at least i know you are ok with spinning something out of context.

bottom line is that when evidence is so sparce, as it is in this case, the presumption of guilt is wrong and unethical.

i'm not claiming this evidence is factually true - i don't know. i am saying that if it is true as reported, a non ramsey was involved in this crime and it is unreasonable to believe a non ramsey wasn't involved.

i'm open to evidence saying it is false.

i'm not open to throwing out nonsense theories that could be factually impossible - and likely are.

[Jayelles]

jayelles, ok, at least i know you are ok with spinning something out of context.

.
eh? Not sure what you mean by this.

[aRnd2it]

you've not proved that the full dna profile wasn't made whole after 12/11/03.
The date of the testing was 12/11/03, not the date of the Ramsey press release. If additional testing had been done since that date, don't you think the Ramsey camp would have mentioned that in their press release?

You have NO information or proof that any further testing was done since then. It hasn't--if there had been and a complete profile was found - a second, more complete, profile would have been entered into the CODIS database. What was entered into the CODIS database was TEN markers--an incomplete DNA profile.

The known facts prove your statements about a complete profile incorrect.

[Show Me]

My Take....Bennett said no new evidence, Dr. Lee said it's not a DNA case....if the RST had new DNA evidence, don't you think John and Patsy would race to be in front of the cameras with the news?

Isn't it astounding, after almost 8 years, the only 'evidence' of an intruder is a piece of DEGRADED DNA? And yet the experts claim the DNA has nothing to do with the case?

However who is linked to the crime? Patsy.
Patsy's fibers in the garrote.
Patsy's paint brush.
Patsy's sharpie marker.
Patsy's note pad.
Patsy's phrases in the ransom note.
And so on and so on.

Patsy did it, Patsy did it, Patsy did it....

[K777angel]

My Take....Bennett said no new evidence, Dr. Lee said it's not a DNA case....if the RST had new DNA evidence, don't you think John and Patsy would race to be in front of the cameras with the news?

Isn't it astounding, after almost 8 years, the only 'evidence' of an intruder is a piece of DEGRADED DNA? And yet the experts claim the DNA has nothing to do with the case?

However who is linked to the crime? Patsy.
Patsy's fibers in the garrote.
Patsy's paint brush.
Patsy's sharpie marker.
Patsy's note pad.
Patsy's phrases in the ransom note.
And so on and so on.

Patsy did it, Patsy did it, Patsy did it....

Well Patsy may or may not have "done it" - but at the very least the forensic evidence shows that she was invovled in the staging, covering FOR someone else.
Hmm... wonder who that could be?
Either herself or her young son.
I just don't think she'd cover for John....
Unle$$ she had a motive.....

I've never been able to shake 2 facts in this case that disturb me.
1. John Ramsey has sued on behalf of his wife and his son Burke who
were accused of the crime - but never on behalf of himself who has
many times been accused of the crime.

2. Detective Linda Arndt's professional observation of and suspicion
of John Ramsey being involved in his daughter's death. Her expertise,
of which she'd even recieved an award for, in sexual assault crimes
gives her more credence and I have never thought she should be
dismissed as she was in her assesment of that day. (Note that she
was NOT the only police officer on the scene that day that reported
that the Ramsey's behavior was suspicious..... reasons which we have
not yet been told.)

[UKGuy]

JonBenet: DNA Rules Out Parents
"An investigator at Denver's police crime lab for forensics says DNA found at the Ramsey murder scene came from a male who was not associated with the case, thus ruling out family members as well as a convicted sex offender in Boulder who had been mentioned as a suspect."
http://news4colorado.com/topstories/topstories_story_352213930.html

Obviously above headline is true if and only if, the male with the un-associated dna killed JonBenet. But if three different locations match for foreign dna, then the *probability* of an IDI scenario increases.

Those size 12 pants, which were new and a recent purchase by Patsy as a gift for another relative.

I think JonBenet was redressed in that underwear, which was *new* and whilst I can accept cross-contamination may occur surely not to under her nails and externally.

Same reasoning applies to forensic cross-contamination, its possible, but why just those critical areas?

[UKGuy]

Will DNA Name JonBenet Ramsey's Killer?

As the eighth anniversary of JonBenet Ramsey's murder approaches, her father says the family is confident the killer will be caught.

John Ramsey tells NBC's 'Today' show that he thinks DNA evidence will solve the case.

Evidence discovered on the six-year-old girl's underwear was not processed by Boulder, Colorado, police until 2002. When it was finally put into the FBI's computer, it failed to match any of the 1.5 million samples in the database. But Ramsey is confident there eventually will be a hit.

Ramsey and his attorney, Lin Wood, say the biggest break in the case came in January 2003 when District Attorney Mary Keenan took the case out of the hands of police.

Ramsey says he thinks the case now is in good hands and that "everything that can be done is being done."


http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=2713768&nav=3w6oUNRv

[LazyCat08]

Obviously above headline is true if and only if, the male with the un-associated dna killed JonBenet. But if three different locations match for foreign dna, then the *probability* of an IDI scenario increases.

Those size 12 pants, which were new and a recent purchase by Patsy as a gift for another relative.

I think JonBenet was redressed in that underwear, which was *new* and whilst I can accept cross-contamination may occur surely not to under her nails and externally.

Same reasoning applies to forensic cross-contamination, its possible, but why just those critical areas?[/QUOTE]
CAN someone help me out??? I just need this clarified:
I always wondered about the assertion that the body was "wiped & reddressed" and the size 12 underwear:

#1 Where medical examiners no able to dtermine that?? If there were smears consistent with attempts to wash the body was that not photographed or recorded somewhere???

#2 How does anyone know that the size 12 panties where "new" - was it ever determined exactly where in the house they came from? There are so many unanswered questions just right here alone - none of my relatives ever bought me underwear when I was young. Who was the this female relative for whom the underwear was for and she stay with the Ramsey's? If there was abuse occuring in the house - was there any evidence that other children in the family were victims as well?

#3 Did the DNA inside the panities match the DNA under her fingure nails? I always wondered how they knew that DNA wasn't there before the panties were put on her. What about the original pair (her size) she was wearing that night? were they ever found?
Without being too graphic, exactly what kind of DNA was mixed with her blood? Human tissue, semen?? Is that the only foreign DNA found on/in/near the body? :confused:

If someone could shed some light here I'd appreciate it. I've read so many thing online but never really found answers...

[princessmer81]

OTE=Brie]
CAN someone help me out??? I just need this clarified:
I always wondered about the assertion that the body was "wiped & reddressed" and the size 12 underwear:

#1 Where medical examiners no able to dtermine that?? If there were smears consistent with attempts to wash the body was that not photographed or recorded somewhere???
Yes, there was evidence that the crotch area had been "wiped down" there were also fibers found in the crotch area that indicated that it has been wiped down.
#2 How does anyone know that the size 12 panties where "new" - was it ever determined exactly where in the house they came from? There are so many unanswered questions just right here alone - none of my relatives ever bought me underwear when I was young. Who was the this female relative for whom the underwear was for and she stay with the Ramsey's? If there was abuse occuring in the house - was there any evidence that other children in the family were victims as well?
The size 12 underwear was bought as a gift for one of JonBenet's cousins on a trip. Patsy also purchased and identical set of size 6 panties for JonBenet. The new pkg. that the size 12 panties came in was open and the "Wednesday" pair had been removed.

#3 Did the DNA inside the panities match the DNA under her fingure nails? I always wondered how they knew that DNA wasn't there before the panties were put on her. What about the original pair (her size) she was wearing that night? were they ever found?
Without being too graphic, exactly what kind of DNA was mixed with her blood? Human tissue, semen?? Is that the only foreign DNA found on/in/near the body? :confused:
The size 6 panties were never found.
I have found all of these answers on WS from other posters posts. All of these answers can be cited but I am not going to take the time to do it right now. :)
If someone could shed some light here I'd appreciate it. I've read so many thing online but never really found answers...[/QUOTE]

[princessmer81]

it has come to my attention that some rdi folks are so ingrained in their prior beliefs that they are unable to comprehend new information.

well, for those who missed it,

*they now have a full dna profile of the person who left foreign dna in jbr's blood*

it is not the same old partial dna match.
"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."



In that same article LaBerge also says :
"Investigators must be careful not to put all the weight in the investigation on the DNA because the DNA, as important as it is, could be misleading them, depending on who it matches or who it doesn't match," says LaBerge.

So is the DNA misleading as long as it points to the Ramseys and is it not misleading if it points to an intruder? I just wanted to point out LaBerge's discrepancy.

Thanks for posting that article, it was interesting.