1595 users online (337 members and 1258 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,915

    whos dna did they find?

    Its been awhile since i did any reading or anything really on the case just peeking in here occasionally, but didnt the DNA rule out the ramsey's? And could that DNA match burke? Did they check him? Thanks....

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Michelle,

    With what they had to work with,the DNA excluded all male Ramsey's

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by capps
    Michelle,

    With what they had to work with,the DNA excluded all male Ramsey's
    ok thanks, so i am guessing that would mean they are in the clear? I guess whoever killed her wasnt a ramsey then???

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pa, USA
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by michelle
    ok thanks, so i am guessing that would mean they are in the clear? I guess whoever killed her wasnt a ramsey then???
    Oh Brother, what you asked.

    Their not a Ramsey now either.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    13,721
    Quote Originally Posted by michelle
    ok thanks, so i am guessing that would mean they are in the clear? I guess whoever killed her wasnt a ramsey then???
    Patsey isnt a male

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote Originally Posted by dingo
    Patsey isnt a male
    Dingo,

    That's true. Technically,Patsy is also not a Ramsey,she is a Paugh.

    The reason I specified male in my post,is because michelle was asking about Burke. I believe the official statement was the Ramsey's were excluded from the DNA,which I assume would have been JR,PR,BR,JAR and MR.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    13,721
    Quote Originally Posted by capps
    Dingo,

    That's true. Technically,Patsy is also not a Ramsey,she is a Paugh.

    The reason I specified male in my post,is because michelle was asking about Burke. I believe the official statement was the Ramsey's were excluded from the DNA,which I assume would have been JR,PR,BR,JAR and MR.
    My mistake,but it still doesnt prove a Ramsey wasnt involved
    Last edited by dingo; 12-04-2005 at 08:20 PM. Reason: adding

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,915
    well didnt they exclude all ramsey's? what about the older brother?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,384
    It is my understanding they excluded the men and the sis. They only have partial dna and the reports say it seemed as if JonBenets body was washed in areas as the thighs and such.

    Cleaning would be a reason they only have partial dna that they don't know what to make of. PR is not excluded. She isn't excluded from the RN either.
    Hey my mom was a glorified witch. but she was head of the PTA and looked up to by the neighbors. She organised walks by all the kids in the area. Started a day care that made the children and the parents love her. She also refused to report sexual abuse of us and today plays the martry. She has a lot of PR's traits.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,607
    This is Why Nutt's post from the thread http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32880 The Undies and DNA
    Read this entire thread and it will help you to understand the situation with the DNA.

    Technically, it may not have even done that. The initial report states that if the DNA came from one person, the Ramseys are excluded. But the logical and scientific inference to make is that if the DNA is a mixture from two or more people, the Ramseys are not excluded. Logic would suggest that this means the markers have things in common with several Ramsey family members, but all of the markers do not appear in an individual Ramsey sample.

    Here is a little illustration. Suppose you find beads from some unknown number of charm bracelets on the ground. The beads used to form the first name of one or more people, with each letter appearing on a separate bead. If you find a bead with the letter O on it, you may be looking at a bracelet that belonged to John. If you find a bead with an A on it, the bracelet might have belonged to Patsy. Now, suppose you find two beads, an A and an O. If the beads came from one bracelet, it could not belong to either John or Patsy. But if the beads came from two bracelets, the beads could belong to both of them.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemiah
    This is Why Nutt's post from the thread http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32880 The Undies and DNA
    Read this entire thread and it will help you to understand the situation with the DNA.

    Technically, it may not have even done that. The initial report states that if the DNA came from one person, the Ramseys are excluded. But the logical and scientific inference to make is that if the DNA is a mixture from two or more people, the Ramseys are not excluded. Logic would suggest that this means the markers have things in common with several Ramsey family members, but all of the markers do not appear in an individual Ramsey sample.

    Here is a little illustration. Suppose you find beads from some unknown number of charm bracelets on the ground. The beads used to form the first name of one or more people, with each letter appearing on a separate bead. If you find a bead with the letter O on it, you may be looking at a bracelet that belonged to John. If you find a bead with an A on it, the bracelet might have belonged to Patsy. Now, suppose you find two beads, an A and an O. If the beads came from one bracelet, it could not belong to either John or Patsy. But if the beads came from two bracelets, the beads could belong to both of them.
    I read it, it doesn't exclude PR. Or anyof the R family.
    I ws talkin' theory or putting an idea out.

  12. #12
    IrishMist's Avatar
    IrishMist is offline You can't control the wind - but you can adjust your sails
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southeastern Tennessee
    Posts
    7,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Becba
    It is my understanding they excluded the men and the sis. They only have partial dna and the reports say it seemed as if JonBenets body was washed in areas as the thighs and such.

    Cleaning would be a reason they only have partial dna that they don't know what to make of. PR is not excluded. She isn't excluded from the RN either.
    Hey my mom was a glorified witch. but she was head of the PTA and looked up to by the neighbors. She organised walks by all the kids in the area. Started a day care that made the children and the parents love her. She also refused to report sexual abuse of us and today plays the martry. She has a lot of PR's traits.
    I had an aunt like that, and my ex-husband was VERY MUCH like that. I learned at a very young age that you never know what goes on behind closed doors...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,183
    Is this a DNA case?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Becba
    I read it, it doesn't exclude PR. Or anyof the R family.
    I ws talkin' theory or putting an idea out.
    Correct.

    I was responding to michelle's opening question.

    Thanks.