It wasn't just ONE thing, robotdog. It was a series of things. But I think the real turning point was when I saw someone trying to go through the window. He flopped like a fish. No way an intruder (who might have been much beefier than this skinny guy), wearing winter clothes, could have hauled all the stuff he'd need through that window without wiping the windowsill clean and leaving fibers all over the window frame.
POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?
- Thread starter Tristan
- Start date
New Posts
-
KS KS - Monica Rachelle Williams, 29, Sedgwick County, 1 Jan 2024
- Latest: Unalienable Rights
It wasn't just ONE thing, robotdog. It was a series of things. But I think the real turning point was when I saw someone trying to go through the window. He flopped like a fish. No way an intruder (who might have been much beefier than this skinny guy), wearing winter clothes, could have hauled all the stuff he'd need through that window without wiping the windowsill clean and leaving fibers all over the window frame.
i figured it wasnt one thing but several - thanks
when you say flopped like fish, what do you mean ?
what did you make of the ransom note before you changed your mind ?
thanks again
When I say "flopped like a fish," I mean, first he climbed into the well, stepping all over it. (you could see little flecks of debris falling into the room) Then he squatted, flung his legs inside, flinging more dirt and rubbing his bottom all over the sill, then he slid in, taking half the window with him.
Not much of anything. Although, even at the beginning, there was one thing that struck me. And that was, "why would this person try to sound like an Islamic jihadist?" They didn't even name the faction (Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda) My idea behind that now is that the Ramseys had seen the news earlier that year, when the names Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were first being heard in American living rooms (I remember that because it was my first year in high school and I brought up this guy bin Laden, who I had seen on TV that August, back when he was just "a Saudi terrorist in Afghanistan--the Taliban had just taken power in Afghanistan--pledging eternal hostility to the United States), and they just couldn't remember his name or know how to spell those names.
Not much of anything. Although, even at the beginning, there was one thing that struck me. And that was, "why would this person try to sound like an Islamic jihadist?" They didn't even name the faction (Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda) My idea behind that now is that the Ramseys had seen the news earlier that year, when the names Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were first being heard in American living rooms (I remember that because it was my first year in high school and I brought up this guy bin Laden, who I had seen on TV that August, back when he was just "a Saudi terrorist in Afghanistan--the Taliban had just taken power in Afghanistan--pledging eternal hostility to the United States), and they just couldn't remember his name or know how to spell those names.
got it !!
thank you very much
i never followed the case until fairly recently and only about the past week have i dug into it by reading the depositions and all the other stuff on the candy rose site.
so, there would have been a lot of debris in the basement had an intruder slunk in thru the window....makes sense
Yep. Although, I should inject this caveat: that instance didn't put me off the intruder theory per se, just the idea that the window was the entry and exit point. It was the rest of the stuff that brought my conversion to the forefront, but I guess when you start questioning one aspect of something like that, the rest just follows.
Not true.
"
Wickenheiser [1] states that While secondary transfer of trace DNA is possible, the transferred
DNA will be overwhelmed by the vector individuals DNA, or be a minor component in a mixed
profile. It is extremely unlikely for the vector individual to inadvertently transfer only the first
persons DNA, without also leaving his or her own DNA in a larger amount. The results
gained throughout our preliminary study contrast with this opinion, indeed in repeat 1.2 the first
persons DNA was dominant. This would support the proposal that the degree to which
secondary transfer exists is dependent upon the shedder status of the individuals
involved, although this is not the only explanation.
Conclusion:
1.Skin to skin to object secondary transfer of trace DNA was observed.
2.The final person to come into skin contact with an object is not always the donor of the
dominant profile recovered."
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/modified_sec_transfer_dna_poster_tcm44-12738.pdf
I posted this thought yesterday but would like to raise it again. Think about John's slip of the tongue "There were people running everywhere at 3.00am" or words to that efffect. Think about the missing phone records. It is, to me anyway, quite possible that this DNA, if connected to this crime, has come from someone helping the Ramseys to cover their tracks. Maybe a friend (although I would assume that all of the friends were tested way back when), maybe someone sent by the Assistant Governor - the one who said that morning to "treat these people as victims not suspects".
Unknown male DNA (if connected at all) simply places an unknown male at the scene. It does NOT mean that the Ramseys were not at the scene - it is an illogical jump,
Tina
Unknown male DNA (if connected at all) simply places an unknown male at the scene. It does NOT mean that the Ramseys were not at the scene - it is an illogical jump,
Tina
ok, thanks again
to me the ramsom note is, was and always will be the biggest heap of trash
i ever read....
did she think she was writing a play or something
it was so OVER THE TOP
I also think the handwriting gets better and less shaky as the note goes on. The xanax was probably kicking in.
I understand also.
Jayce,
"Our data indicate that the primary transfer of DNA by handling
is possible, but detecting an interpretable genotype is not assured.
Secondary transfer was not observed under our experimental conditions.
Therefore, our data do not support the inference that the interpretation
of DNA profiles from case samples could be compromised
by secondary transfer."
is possible, but detecting an interpretable genotype is not assured.
Secondary transfer was not observed under our experimental conditions.
Therefore, our data do not support the inference that the interpretation
of DNA profiles from case samples could be compromised
by secondary transfer."
You have to read the whole section Jayce; otherwise you might come away with a different interpretation than was intended.
And lets read the footnote:
a. Primary transfer detected with some amplifications – highly dependent on the individualAnd lets read the footnote:
And more:
That is the problem with those "handlers" - you have to watch them every minute or who knows what the results might be.
GREAT POST CYNIC.
I really just want the truth in this case and if it should happen that this DNA is found all over the place, e.g. the rope, the garrotte, other items of clothing, I would definitely give it consideration. But it is not SO FAR. And, this letter of apology is an absolute disgrace to the memory of this child who suffered so much.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
Duh, gotcha!
Not to be picky, but could you provide a link to something that says that routine testing was done, and that secondary transfer cannot be detected with a routine test? TIA
Absolutely.
If they can show me unidentified DNA somewhere incriminating where JBR could not have transferred it (garrote or tape for example) and that DNA matches the panty DNA I will take notice. Otherwise, they can find DNA in 100 places on her body, all they are doing is wasting time and money (and making John Ramsey and Lin Wood happy).
I think that would be a non-sequitur UK, as far as touting is used on this thread. Although in the movie Taxidrive, Harvey Keitel certain does some touting to Robert DeNiro about Jodi Foster. :crazy:
I did read the whole study. It seems as if you probably didn't. I am not talking about primary transfer, I am talking about secondary transfer. And the study is very clear that secondary transfer didn't allow for an interpretable genotype.
Sure. Routine testing issue-http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jh52kcyVPfSCXQv7rZ-DA9UO0l5gD91QJD180
Secondary transfer issue-http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/SecondaryTransferStudy.pdf
This study is only useful if they used routine STR testing. Where does it say this type of testing was used?
If they did use routine testing, it seems as if we have conflicting studies.