New Advanced DNA testing

Roy23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
61
BOULDER, Colo. — Boulder police and prosecutors are looking at new DNA testing technology that they hope will further the investigation of the unsolved 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

The move comes after an investigation by the Boulder Daily Camera (https://goo.gl/5a8tLv ) and KUSA-TV in Denver that the news organizations say uncovered flaws in the interpretation of previous DNA testing.
 
Hey Everyone,

When you start a thread in the JonBenet forum it does not appear immediately. It remains invisible to everyone until I approve it.

We had to do this because of all the trolls.

The problem is it's sometimes hard for me to remember to keep checking back.

If you do start a thread here please send me a PM or an email at triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com and let me know.

Thank you,

Tricia
 
Howdy, Roy! You may well have to change that signature of yours in the near future.

BTW, I hope I got you the right size. (Evil laughter)
 
Yes, and again tonight we heard that new DNA testing will be conducted in 2017. The whole 'exoneration' stuff has been rejected as it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

The skin cell tDNA is not the free pass it has been made out to be. It never was, except to the DA who last I knew, wasn't a scientist.
 
I wasn't sure until I heard the latest from Stan Garnett. He says he knows who killed her. And that he can't prosecute YET. But they are planning on re-testing. He can't prosecute dead Patsy. Nor Burke who was under 10. I'd be concerned if I were JR. That's all cause I know the forum turned BDI.

Happy hollidays all.
Justice for Jonbenet.
 
Yes, if he said he is waiting for further testing to confirm his suspicions and then prosecute, that would seem to indicate JDI.
Though I suppose it is still possible Burke bashed her head and John did the strangling.
 
I wasn't sure until I heard the latest from Stan Garnett. He says he knows who killed her. And that he can't prosecute YET. But they are planning on re-testing. He can't prosecute dead Patsy. Nor Burke who was under 10. I'd be concerned if I were JR. That's all cause I know the forum turned BDI.

Happy hollidays all.
Justice for Jonbenet.
Not all of us have turned Madeleine and yeah I also noticed the wording of that quote from Garnett.

John is as nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

I said a few months ago that John was likely laughing when the BDI storm hit. I think he may have finally stopped laughing. Now he realizes one more serious attempt is possibly coming down the pike and he is going to be in deep doo doo.

Its good to see you again. You don't seem to post as often as you used to.
 
I wasn't sure until I heard the latest from Stan Garnett. He says he knows who killed her. And that he can't prosecute YET. But they are planning on re-testing. He can't prosecute dead Patsy. Nor Burke who was under 10. I'd be concerned if I were JR. That's all cause I know the forum turned BDI.

Happy hollidays all.
Justice for Jonbenet.

John could be prosecuted for many obstruction offences, which would be the most any of us could hope for.
 
John could be prosecuted for many obstruction offences, which would be the most any of us could hope for.

Could he? Has time not run out by statute of limitations for this?
 
Could he? Has time not run out by statute of limitations for this?

RE: Statute of Limitatations.. Not so sure. The accessory can be charged as the principal if I understand correctly. Maybe (hopefully) this is what Garnett is pursuing?

Insofar as complicity, it is never the subject of a separate count in Colorado The grand jury would have been instructed, “A person is legally accountable as principal for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he or she aids, abets, advises, or encourages the other person in planning or committing the offense.”
source: http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/10/28/jonbenet-grand-jury-indictment-could-re-ignite-case/

There appears to be case law that sets precedent. Here are some:

The acts of the principal are the acts of the accessory, and the accessory may be charged and punished accordingly as a principal. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561, 424 P.2d 115 (1967).

An accessory charged as a principal for an accessory is deemed and considered a principal, punishable as a principal, and plainly shall be charged as a principal. Fernandez v. People, 176 Colo. 346, 490 P.2d 690 (1971).

A person who aids, abets, or assists in the perpetration of a criminal offense becomes an accessory to that offense and is chargeable and punishable as a principal. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).
 
All of what you stated is correct, kanzz, as I understand the statutes. However, I think you're doing the same thing I did until I corresponded with a lawyer about it (in a separate thread somewhere around here). The difference is between accessory after the fact (which is what John and Patsy were TB'd for) and accessory before the fact (referred to in statutes as an "accomplice"). As an accomplice, a person is accountable for the acts of the principal, and the SoL (and punishment) is the same as it is for the principal. An accessory is not responsible for the act itself, only aiding the principal to avoid prosecution, and is therefore only accountable to a lesser degree. The SoL is three years for an accessory, which can be "tolled" (extended) for up to five additional years if the person is out-of-state.
 
All of what you stated is correct, kanzz, as I understand the statutes. However, I think you're doing the same thing I did until I corresponded with a lawyer about it (in a separate thread somewhere around here). The difference is between accessory after the fact (which is what John and Patsy were TB'd for) and accessory before the fact (referred to in statutes as an "accomplice"). As an accomplice, a person is accountable for the acts of the principal, and the SoL (and punishment) is the same as it is for the principal. An accessory is not responsible for the act itself, only aiding the principal to avoid prosecution, and is therefore only accountable to a lesser degree. The SoL is three years for an accessory, which can be "tolled" (extended) for up to five additional years if the person is out-of-state.
Thanks for that clarification, otg. :sigh:
 
Thanks for that clarification, otg. :sigh:
I know it's confusing, but it's important to be clear about the differences because it has a bearing on the SoL imposed. (Maybe it's just me being "pedantic" again :blushing:. Sorry, I should have just let it go.)
 
In case anyone is wondering what John Mark Karr thinks of this new DNA testing...(no? nobody? too bad.)

He told the National Enquirer that he's excited about the new testing because he's sure it will prove he was involved once and for all. And I thought Mary Lacy was delusional!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All this talk of statutes of limitations. Lets just say that Burke whacked her over the head. If Patsy pulled the cord, and her and John manipulated or destroyed evidence, and lied to police, surely they are every bit as culpable for the death of that little girl? I find it to be sickening that the kinds of crimes John & Patsy have committed would have any SoL.
 
RE: Statute of Limitatations.. Not so sure. The accessory can be charged as the principal if I understand correctly. Maybe (hopefully) this is what Garnett is pursuing?

Insofar as complicity, it is never the subject of a separate count in Colorado The grand jury would have been instructed, “A person is legally accountable as principal for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he or she aids, abets, advises, or encourages the other person in planning or committing the offense.”
source: http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/10/28/jonbenet-grand-jury-indictment-could-re-ignite-case/

There appears to be case law that sets precedent. Here are some:

The acts of the principal are the acts of the accessory, and the accessory may be charged and punished accordingly as a principal. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561, 424 P.2d 115 (1967).

An accessory charged as a principal for an accessory is deemed and considered a principal, punishable as a principal, and plainly shall be charged as a principal. Fernandez v. People, 176 Colo. 346, 490 P.2d 690 (1971).

A person who aids, abets, or assists in the perpetration of a criminal offense becomes an accessory to that offense and is chargeable and punishable as a principal. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).

In CA, and most states, the statutes for "accessory" are the same as they are for the underlying crime. So, in the case of murder where there is no statute of limitation, there would be none for the accessory to murder.

I don't know, specifically, for CO.

However, it seems to me he is saying he knows who killed her, not who assisted the killer.

The problem remains the same, IMO, whether it's Garrett, Hunter or any other DA. The State may very well be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone in that house killed JB. It's proving which one actually killed her that is the tricky part and you have one suspect already dead, another that cannot be charged due to his age at the time. You have the misinformation that the Ramsey team has put out over the years, aided quite well by that lunatic Lacey "clearing" the Ramsey's completely.

I just don't see a conviction on the horizon. I don't think there will ever even be a trial. That ship sailed when Hunter refused to indict, IMO.
 
In CA, and most states, the statutes for "accessory" are the same as they are for the underlying crime. So, in the case of murder where there is no statute of limitation, there would be none for the accessory to murder.

I don't know, specifically, for CO.

However, it seems to me he is saying he knows who killed her, not who assisted the killer.

The problem remains the same, IMO, whether it's Garrett, Hunter or any other DA. The State may very well be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone in that house killed JB. It's proving which one actually killed her that is the tricky part and you have one suspect already dead, another that cannot be charged due to his age at the time. You have the misinformation that the Ramsey team has put out over the years, aided quite well by that lunatic Lacey "clearing" the Ramsey's completely.

I just don't see a conviction on the horizon. I don't think there will ever even be a trial. That ship sailed when Hunter refused to indict, IMO.

The thing is that the case seems to be at least slightly active again. New DNA testing, a new DA, and lawsuits that will force the Ramsey's to give depositions. Every time these people open their mouths, more inconsistencies are revealed. For instance, Burkes' DP interview now confirms that Burke was the only one of the surviving three that left his room. So much for an intruder waiting outside JBs door right? When asked about the flashlight, he doesn't say "what flashlight" which to me is confirmation that yes, that was their flashlight and that Burke may well have used it (he didn't deny it). Recently we've had confirmation that the DNA evidence that Lacy uncovered is likely bogus. That has been the thorn in the side of RDI's for years.

Finally things seem to be happening which is a step in the right direction. And I think if John were to be arrested for covering up the crime, I think he would quickly crack with some decent interrogation.
 
https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/4484678


"More information from challenging casework samples
Y-STR analysis is useful for processing of complex casework samples with trace quantities of male DNA in presence of high level of female DNA. These samples may include rape kit samples, body fluid with few or no sperm present, and fingernail scrapings from female victims of violent assaults. These samples often show DNA degradation and contain inhibitors that can make the analysis difficult and lead to inconclusive results. The Yfiler® Plus kit harnesses the latest developments in PCR amplification technology to help provide cleaner baseline and improved recovery of alleles with mixtures and highly inhibited samples."
 
What if they break the dna into its separate component parts and any one part links directly to JR, PR, or BR, what happens then?


.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,190
Total visitors
1,369

Forum statistics

Threads
589,160
Messages
17,914,964
Members
227,743
Latest member
McKeith
Back
Top