764 users online (101 members and 663 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 150
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
    Posts
    19,942

    Day 7 The DNA/ 12 Days of JonBenet

    Where do we start...how about this. Let's make this as simple as possible.

    The DNA is a red herring. It is "touch" DNA meaning it's not bits of flesh or big blood stains.

    What is "Touch DNA"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA
    Touch DNA is a forensic method for analysing DNA left at the scene of a crime. It is called "touch DNA" because it only requires very small samples, for example from the skin cells left on an object after it has been touched or casually handled.[1] Touch DNA analysis only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of human skin.[2] The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination — for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results.[3][4] Because of the risk of false positives, it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.[5]
    Remember how excited people became because the DNA in JonBenet's panties (touch DNA) had to belong to the Intruder because the panties were brand new so where else could the DNA have come from?

    From James Kolar's book Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet : Page 272
    " Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigation scene, the FBI laboratory had already conducted random DNA tests on underwear purchased off the shelf. They determined that DNA samples could be obtained from new, unopened packages of children's underwear, suggesting the possibility that the genetic material deposited there had come from the manufacture/packaging end of the line.

    I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting, seamstress/handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.

    Under those sircumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the uderwear and that its presence may have nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenet"

    Even former Boulder DA Mary ( I never met a Ramsey intruder I didn't love ) Lacy had to admit that the DNA could be an artifact.
    She thought John Mark Karr was the killer and was just thrilled to parade him around. Of course, his DNA didn't match. So what does Mary Lacy say? She says, "The DNA might be an artifact". Even Mary Lacy is forced to admit there is a chance the DNA doesn't mean anything.
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...k-Karr-8-29-06

    Simply put I don't think it takes an expert to realize we all have touch DNA on use. All over us. It means nothing. It means we have come in contact with dust, air, and other people in our day to day routines.

    What about the DNA in the underwear matching the DNA on the long johns? Ok, easy explanation. When putting the underpants on JonBenet the underwear brushed up against the long johns. Transferred touch DNA.

    This is very easy to understand.

    There are so many members who are oodles smarter than I am. Please weigh in on the DNA.

    Let's put the DNA to rest once and for all.

    To pretend that the touch DNA is the key to solving this case you have to IGNORE the ransom note, IGNORE the pineapple and the bowl, IGNORE the Ramsey lies, IGNORE all the strange things that went on with Burke, IGNORE the beaver hair on the tape, IGNORE so many other things that they slip my mind.

    DNA, it can mean nothing in a criminal case.
    Help our Administrator Bessie
    Check out Websleuths Facebook page
    Follow Websleuths on Twitter
    Read Websleuths on
    Wikipedia

    Tricia Griffith
    triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
    6300 N. Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H # 214
    Park City UT
    84098






  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    East coast
    Posts
    476
    So ALL of the DNA they found was touch DNA...no blood, semen or saliva? I find it interesting that they never make that clear on all these shows. Like the ID show last night didn't even mention touch DNA at all. Just said unidentified DNA in her underwear (not sure if Part 1 or Part 2 I watched on demand).

    When the crime scene was not secured and dozens of people walked all through the house and JR and FW went to basement and moved the body...the touch DNA and the boot print just can't be used as any kind of evidence IMO.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    I would recommend the following threads over at Forums for Justice.
    The first link details DNA information from James Kolar’s book.
    The second link provides an overview of the issues surrounding DNA in this case and DNA in general
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10137-DNA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9966-Problems-with-DNA-results-amp-DNA-tutorials
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    63
    Hi all, although I have never posted before in this forum, I have followed this case for quite some time. I read PMPT awhile back and I admit to never fully committing to either RDI or IDI and remaining open to what I think is evidence strong enough to push me off that fence. DNA Evidence is one of those and I have always taken at face value the claims by Boulder PD and others in the know that the DNA was an artifact, and came from either the manufacturing process or contamination from the lab. I know many scoffed or dismissed the A&E Special, which admittedly was heavily pro-Ramsey, however there were a few points made or at least discussed that gave me pause and made me not be so quick to discount the DNA stuff anyway.

    1. The DNA came from several different places, not just one, making it highly unlikely that it was a manufacturing artifact. I also thought they said it was on different articles of clothing? I know for sure one was on either side of the waistband of her leggings which definitely seems like an odd place for random DNA as opposed to it resulting from the action of pulling those on/off.
    2. All lab workers, technicians, etc. were eliminated as a source of the DNA.
    3. That the person could likely be of Hispanic origin.

    Thoughts? It seems like everyone here is very strongly committed one way or another (mostly RDI) so I'm not trying to push one theory or another. I'm truly on the fence or maybe a flip-flopper is more accurate.

    Also, I know there has been a lot of discussion regarding Burke as a possible perp, but I saw the snapshot in which he was excluded as a source of DNA, and I just don't believe that a 9-year old wouldn't get DNA on the crime scene, not having the sophistication to understand or even know what that was. Also, I find myself skeptical that all DNA is that easy to clean - after all there are a number of cases in which the perp tries to use water, bleach, etc. to clean - unsuccessfully I might add.

    On the other hand...so so many bizarre things that are difficult to explain with an IDI theory...I mean really really illogical and difficult to IGNORE as was said above...so I don't know. This case drives me crazy!!!

    P.S. I just saw the links above by Cynic, I will be checking those out ASAP, thank you!!!
    Last edited by Kittybunny; 09-13-2016 at 01:51 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamima View Post
    So ALL of the DNA they found was touch DNA...no blood, semen or saliva?
    I don't know if ALL of it was tDNA, but there was definitely no blood or semen.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Forest Dweller.
    Posts
    10,165
    I'll just politely bow out of this thread.
    People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient, then repent. ~ Bob Dylan

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittybunny View Post
    1. The DNA came from several different places, not just one, making it highly unlikely that it was a manufacturing artifact. I also thought they said it was on different articles of clothing? I know for sure one was on either side of the waistband of her leggings which definitely seems like an odd place for random DNA as opposed to it resulting from the action of pulling those on/off.
    2. All lab workers, technicians, etc. were eliminated as a source of the DNA.
    3. That the person could likely be of Hispanic origin.
    Kolar says there are at least 6 different touch DNA profiles on her clothing, five male and one female. None of them came from the family. He makes a convincing case against the theory that six different intruders were trampling through the home all night without waking anyone up or leaving other evidence.

    I have never heard that the touch DNA led back to a Hispanic person, only that the DNA is extremely degraded. I think the DNA came from the manufacturer and is worthless anyway.

    I'm pretty sure the police think JBR's body was wiped down as part of the staging. As far as I know they didn't find anyone's DNA on the body itself, only her clothing.
    Last edited by IndianPaintbrush; 09-13-2016 at 02:56 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    Dr. Dan Krane is slated to appear in the Investigation Discovery series to discuss DNA,..
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittybunny View Post
    Hi all, although I have never posted before in this forum, I have followed this case for quite some time. I read PMPT awhile back and I admit to never fully committing to either RDI or IDI and remaining open to what I think is evidence strong enough to push me off that fence. DNA Evidence is one of those and I have always taken at face value the claims by Boulder PD and others in the know that the DNA was an artifact, and came from either the manufacturing process or contamination from the lab. I know many scoffed or dismissed the A&E Special, which admittedly was heavily pro-Ramsey, however there were a few points made or at least discussed that gave me pause and made me not be so quick to discount the DNA stuff anyway.

    1. The DNA came from several different places, not just one, making it highly unlikely that it was a manufacturing artifact. I also thought they said it was on different articles of clothing? I know for sure one was on either side of the waistband of her leggings which definitely seems like an odd place for random DNA as opposed to it resulting from the action of pulling those on/off.
    2. All lab workers, technicians, etc. were eliminated as a source of the DNA.
    3. That the person could likely be of Hispanic origin.

    Thoughts? It seems like everyone here is very strongly committed one way or another (mostly RDI) so I'm not trying to push one theory or another. I'm truly on the fence or maybe a flip-flopper is more accurate.

    Also, I know there has been a lot of discussion regarding Burke as a possible perp, but I saw the snapshot in which he was excluded as a source of DNA, and I just don't believe that a 9-year old wouldn't get DNA on the crime scene, not having the sophistication to understand or even know what that was. Also, I find myself skeptical that all DNA is that easy to clean - after all there are a number of cases in which the perp tries to use water, bleach, etc. to clean - unsuccessfully I might add.

    On the other hand...so so many bizarre things that are difficult to explain with an IDI theory...I mean really really illogical and difficult to IGNORE as was said above...so I don't know. This case drives me crazy!!!

    P.S. I just saw the links above by Cynic, I will be checking those out ASAP, thank you!!!

    It is a very frustrating case to say the least. From the DNA perspective, A theory was created as to how the crime happened if IDI and the touch DNA tests was based on such theory and they hit the homerun so to speak with matching DNA on different articles of clothing. But I have changed my stance as whole and agree to some extent that Mary Lacy went way too far by exonerating the Ramseys. Truth be told, no one knows just how relevant it is and only a biased person could say with certainty whether it is or isn't. Only if it is matched to someone will it ever be relevant at this point. It is just too bad that the Boulder PD was so incompetent to not control the crime scene.

    For me, the pineapple and slight discrepancies from the Ramsey's do not point me towards their guilt either. I can understand it somewhat. The FBI guy I saw the other day also got to me a bit. That note is a powerful piece of evidence even though the writer can't be sourced with certainty. It would point me much more in an RDI direction if LE would have done a decent job on day 1. It is just a baffling set of scenarios that we are at this point. I mean we have Ramsey friends cleaning up after investigators and LE not doing a complete search of the house. I just don't believe we would be in this situation without those 2 things.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Riga, Latvia
    Posts
    7,009
    Didn't know "where" to post this, but since is Day 7 - I guess this is as any place....

    CBS Scales Back JonBenet Ramsey Miniseries Plans

    "CBS has cut its planned true-crime special about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey from six hours to four. The move comes as a glut of projects investigating the 1996 murder of the six-year-old beauty-pageant contestant make their way to television.

    Production on “The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey” wrapped earlier this month. Producers and network executives subsequently came to the decision that, given the material gathered, the project would make more sense as a tighter, two-part, four-hour miniseries than as a more languid six hours spread out over three parts. The move frees up valuable real estate in the fall schedule as CBS looks to launch its new primetime season.

    Part one of “The Case Of” will premiere, as originally planned, Sunday, Sept. 18 at 8:30 p.m. ET and 8 p.m. PT, with part two following Monday, Sept. 19 at 9 p.m. CBS will no longer air a third installment, as previously scheduled, on Sunday, Sept. 25. Filling that schedule space, CBS will expand the season premiere of “NCIS: Los Angeles” — making its debut on a new night — from one hour to two, with back-to-back episodes beginning at 8:30 p.m. ET and 8 p.m. PT. The network will close out the night with an hour of reruns..."


    http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/cbs-...ey-1201858136/
    ~~Life isn't about waiting for the storms to pass... It's about learning to dance in the rain!~~
    ~~We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a human experience!~~
    ~~Veni, Vidi, Velcro! I came, I saw, I stuck around!~~


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricia View Post

    DNA, it can mean nothing in a criminal case.
    This.
    There is way too much faith in DNA.
    DNA is not the be all and end all.
    Contamination and mistakes can be made in collection and in testing.
    QuEsTiOn EvErYtHiNg
    absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Launceston, Tasmania
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain_Kat View Post
    I'll just politely bow out of this thread.
    Thats no fun
    QuEsTiOn EvErYtHiNg
    absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianPaintbrush View Post
    Kolar says there are at least 6 different touch DNA profiles on her clothing, five male and one female. None of them came from the family. He makes a convincing case against the theory that six different intruders were trampling through the home all night without waking anyone up or leaving other evidence.

    I have never heard that the touch DNA led back to a Hispanic person, only that the DNA is extremely degraded. I think the DNA came from the manufacturer and is worthless anyway.

    I'm pretty sure the police think JBR's body was wiped down as part of the staging. As far as I know they didn't find anyone's DNA on the body itself, only her clothing.
    So I was trying to find a link or something about the DNA being of a male of hispanic origin, but on the A&E Special they definitely said that it was the first time that that information was revealed because my ears perked up everytime they said that and also that those findings were as a result of their DNA experts' analysis. The two experts that spoke about the DNA were Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, who I remembered quite well from his appearances on Nancy Grace, and this guy - Richard Eikelenbloom, who I have definitely heard of on another cases (that I can't remember anything about at this moment) and after Googling him I found this and wow, really calls his credibility into question, if not pretty much destroys it:

    http://kdvr.com/2016/09/01/dna-exper...ked-in-denver/

    So...I'll just leave that there and head off to read more of the links...I'll fully admit to being conditioned to overrate DNA as such an important piece of evidence, but in this case, it seems that it might be a red herring.
    Last edited by Kittybunny; 09-13-2016 at 10:52 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittybunny View Post
    Hi all, although I have never posted before in this forum, I have followed this case for quite some time. I read PMPT awhile back and I admit to never fully committing to either RDI or IDI and remaining open to what I think is evidence strong enough to push me off that fence. DNA Evidence is one of those and I have always taken at face value the claims by Boulder PD and others in the know that the DNA was an artifact, and came from either the manufacturing process or contamination from the lab. I know many scoffed or dismissed the A&E Special, which admittedly was heavily pro-Ramsey, however there were a few points made or at least discussed that gave me pause and made me not be so quick to discount the DNA stuff anyway.

    1. The DNA came from several different places, not just one, making it highly unlikely that it was a manufacturing artifact. I also thought they said it was on different articles of clothing? I know for sure one was on either side of the waistband of her leggings which definitely seems like an odd place for random DNA as opposed to it resulting from the action of pulling those on/off.
    2. All lab workers, technicians, etc. were eliminated as a source of the DNA.
    3. That the person could likely be of Hispanic origin.

    Thoughts? It seems like everyone here is very strongly committed one way or another (mostly RDI) so I'm not trying to push one theory or another. I'm truly on the fence or maybe a flip-flopper is more accurate.
    1) Like Kolar says, there were six different profiles from the scene. The waistband of the panties had the same DNA as the waistband of the long johns. There's a thing called cloth-to-cloth transfer.

    2) The technicians themselves were eliminated, but what about the DNA from other people they could have brought with them?

    3) That "expert" is a known fraud.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    It is a very frustrating case to say the least. From the DNA perspective, A theory was created as to how the crime happened if IDI and the touch DNA tests was based on such theory and they hit the homerun so to speak with matching DNA on different articles of clothing. But I have changed my stance as whole and agree to some extent that Mary Lacy went way too far by exonerating the Ramseys.
    I'd say that home-run has been ruled a foul.

    Truth be told, no one knows just how relevant it is and only a biased person could say with certainty whether it is or isn't. Only if it is matched to someone will it ever be relevant at this point. It is just too bad that the Boulder PD was so incompetent to not control the crime scene.

    For me, the pineapple and slight discrepancies from the Ramsey's do not point me towards their guilt either. I can understand it somewhat. The FBI guy I saw the other day also got to me a bit. That note is a powerful piece of evidence even though the writer can't be sourced with certainty. It would point me much more in an RDI direction if LE would have done a decent job on day 1. It is just a baffling set of scenarios that we are at this point. I mean we have Ramsey friends cleaning up after investigators and LE not doing a complete search of the house. I just don't believe we would be in this situation without those 2 things.
    I think so, too.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Day 2 The Pineapple in the Bowl/ 12 Days of JonBenet
    By Tricia in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: 12-01-2016, 02:15 PM
  2. Day 3 SBTC - The 12 Days of JonBenet
    By Tricia in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 11-30-2016, 03:51 PM
  3. Day 12 The Ransom Note/The 12 Days of JonBenet
    By Tricia in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 11-06-2016, 12:05 PM
  4. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-04-2016, 07:05 PM
  5. Day 10 / The Stun Gun / The 12 days of JonBenet.
    By Tricia in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-17-2016, 11:39 PM