1188 users online (195 members and 993 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    52

    Surely the truth must be this...

    Hey, don't call me Shirley.

    I made a similar point on another thread, but I just want to put this out there for some discussion, as I believe it addresses some of the core case issues, and it's about time we stopped going around in circles...

    If the case DNA had always been considered proof of an intruder, there is no way the Ramseys would have been under suspicion for the last ten years, weird and obstructive behavior or not.

    Yet they have. I would therefore suggest that either the case DNA sample is tainted and/or inadequate for a 'beyond reasonable doubt' comparison; or the authorities believe that the case DNA is unlikely to be the DNA of the killer.

    If there had been clear and unequivocal evidence of an intruder, there is no way the Ramseys would have been under suspicion for the last ten years, weird and obstructive behavior or not.

    There wasn't.

    The case has never added up. Whether people want to believe it or not, RDI remains the least confusing option.

    Unless JonBenet was really killed by a devil doll (hey, why did Patsy get rid of the Mytwinn so quickly?) the prospects for IDI have never looked good.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    42
    I agree with your entirely Bronte. There really isn't any proof of an intruder. But I still don't feel that anyone has offered a plausible reason why any of the Ramsey's would have killed her. I know that you don't always need a motive for a death, but I just cannot see how:

    a) Patsy could have killed her by accident and then covered it up, because I can't see why would she'd put a garotte around her neck and put a broken paintbrush in her vagina UNLESS it was to cover up that Patsy was the one molesting her
    b) John could have been molesting her, otherwise Patsy would have left him and NO WAY would she have defended him over JBR's death.

    The only thing that makes any sense to me, is if Patsy was molesting her, killed her by accident/fit of rage, did broken paint brush, garotte, ransom note staging, all while John was alseep, called police. Then when everything was in motion she told John, showed him JBR's body, convinced him it was accident (didnt' mention anything about molesting, however) and he went along with it.

    That is the ONLY thing that makes any plausible sense. arrgghh this whole thing is bothering me so much. I'm SOOO dying to know what happened.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega
    I agree with your entirely Bronte. There really isn't any proof of an intruder. But I still don't feel that anyone has offered a plausible reason why any of the Ramsey's would have killed her. I know that you don't always need a motive for a death, but I just cannot see how:

    a) Patsy could have killed her by accident and then covered it up, because I can't see why would she'd put a garotte around her neck and put a broken paintbrush in her vagina UNLESS it was to cover up that Patsy was the one molesting her
    b) John could have been molesting her, otherwise Patsy would have left him and NO WAY would she have defended him over JBR's death.

    The only thing that makes any sense to me, is if Patsy was molesting her, killed her by accident/fit of rage, did broken paint brush, garotte, ransom note staging, all while John was alseep, called police. Then when everything was in motion she told John, showed him JBR's body, convinced him it was accident (didnt' mention anything about molesting, however) and he went along with it.

    That is the ONLY thing that makes any plausible sense. arrgghh this whole thing is bothering me so much. I'm SOOO dying to know what happened.
    Yeah, I hear you, Omega. Your scenarios are entirely plausible, but as you suggest, even our very best guesses are nothing more than guesses, either way.

    A very messed up case.

    Later...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    132
    Now, the DNA has always been presumed to be the murderer's as it didn't match a Ramsey, but my question is.....if a child is at a Christmas get together with other kids and adults etc and she's playing and cavorting all over the house and sitting on adults laps to give hugs, perhaps petting an animal, sampling other people's food etc, wouldn't she have the DNA of multiple people on her?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    558
    What doesn't make sense to me is that the DA said that the DNA might be an artifact. But when asked if John Ramsey was still being considered a suspect, she said that he wasn't because his DNA didn't match. She also didn't charge Karr because his DNA didn't match. The DNA could be from the person who handled the panties at the factory in Thailand. If Lacy refuses to arrest someone unless his/her DNA matches, nobody will ever be charged with JonBenet's murder.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfpack Fan
    What doesn't make sense to me is that the DA said that the DNA might be an artifact. But when asked if John Ramsey was still being considered a suspect, she said that he wasn't because his DNA didn't match. She also didn't charge Karr because his DNA didn't match. The DNA could be from the person who handled the panties at the factory in Thailand. If Lacy refuses to arrest someone unless his/her DNA matches, nobody will ever be charged with JonBenet's murder.
    Yeah, there seems to be very contradictory info about the DNA.

    I suspect that the case sample may contain the 10-loci sequencing that Tricia referred to - 10 DNA markers out of the 13 needed for a very compelling match - and that the 10 markers matching John Ramsey's equivalent 10 markers e.g. hair color, eye color etc. didn't match.

    Still, as lovebites points out so brilliantly, the kid could have been covered in alien/non-family DNA from the party alone. This is why I feel the DA etc. don't feel the DNA is necessarily from the killer, which it ain't.

    The pathetic attempts to fit the late Michael Helgoth and his 'accomplices' to the crime scene - hard when they weren't even in the area, and in some cases, the state - partly due to the shambolic Tracey mockumentary, set the stage for the desperate search for an intruder...

    Even though there was no actual solid evidence of any intruder whatsoever.

    Sigh...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Detroit 'Burb
    Posts
    2,832

    Clothed at Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronte Nut

    Still, as lovebites points out so brilliantly, the kid could have been covered in alien/non-family DNA from the party alone. This is why I feel the DA etc. don't feel the DNA is necessarily from the killer, which it ain't.

    The pathetic attempts to fit the late Michael Helgoth and his 'accomplices' to the crime scene - hard when they weren't even in the area, and in some cases, the state - partly due to the shambolic Tracey mockumentary, set the stage for the desperate search for an intruder...

    Even though there was no actual solid evidence of any intruder whatsoever.

    Sigh...
    FWIW, I don't think she could get peoples' DNA from sitting on them at a party, since she was fully clothed at the party, size 6 panties, probably, and street pants over that, maybe even long johns too.

    The killing of Helgoth may actually be evidence, nobody realized at the time, so probably his DNA was not checked. He was shot from the left, though he was right-handed, remember. And that crime scene was also "staged" with the stun gun and boots, and I forget what else. Most likely the real killer did it to scapegoat Helgoth even if he wasn't there, and how do we know he wasn't? Matter of fact, I wonder if they checked Kanady's DNA. He was telling that Helgoth had been elated the previous fall about some job he and a pal would make $50 or $60,000 from, which fell through, and then claimed Helgoth was depressed and said he wondered what it would be like to bash in a human head. We have absolutely no way of knowing if he's speaking truth, or not. I forget which documentary featured his account.

    It also mentioned the two sets of footprints. BTW, imo, if someone packaging underwear innocently sneezed, he wouldn't be holding the crotch up to his face as if it were a tissue, now would he? Why would he be looking at the crotch of any pair? They may even get packed by machine. (?) Any assembly line would be moving faster than that, don't you think? Would all of the Wed. pants have been in one location, distributed by machine in between Tues. ones and Thurs. ones? Obviously I have no idea but someone might.

    I think that question needs to be asked. Exactly how do they assemble the packages of day-of-the-week undies? Judging by the food channel video's of how packages of cookies and things are made. They'd for sure be wrapped by machine. It's sometimes very complicated machines that do each step of the process.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    "a) Patsy could have killed her by accident and then covered it up, because I can't see why would she'd put a garotte around her neck and put a broken paintbrush in her vagina UNLESS it was to cover up that Patsy was the one molesting her"

    Maybe. More likely it was just that she needed to make it look like "on TV" and couldn't bear to actually tocuh it herself.

    "What doesn't make sense to me is that the DA said that the DNA might be an artifact. But when asked if John Ramsey was still being considered a suspect, she said that he wasn't because his DNA didn't match. She also didn't charge Karr because his DNA didn't match. The DNA could be from the person who handled the panties at the factory in Thailand. If Lacy refuses to arrest someone unless his/her DNA matches, nobody will ever be charged with JonBenet's murder."

    it makes NO sense, Wolfpack. Is it any wonder the DA is not highly thought of in some circles?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfpack Fan
    What doesn't make sense to me is that the DA said that the DNA might be an artifact. But when asked if John Ramsey was still being considered a suspect, she said that he wasn't because his DNA didn't match. She also didn't charge Karr because his DNA didn't match. The DNA could be from the person who handled the panties at the factory in Thailand. If Lacy refuses to arrest someone unless his/her DNA matches, nobody will ever be charged with JonBenet's murder.

    Good post. However, IF there had been any other evidence re: Karr, they may have continued with him regardless of the DNA. There can't be just one without the other. If the DNA doesn't match, but there is other evidence that someone killed her, they could proceed on that. I'll NEVER believe someone from the factory belongs to this DNA. That's too far fetched for me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    "I'll NEVER believe someone from the factory belongs to this DNA. That's too far fetched for me."

    I thought that initially, Jeana. Then I applied logical thought to it: who would make THAT claim if they weren't sure? You'd make a damn fool of yourself!


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,902
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    "I'll NEVER believe someone from the factory belongs to this DNA. That's too far fetched for me."

    I thought that initially, Jeana. Then I applied logical thought to it: who would make THAT claim if they weren't sure? You'd make a damn fool of yourself!

    Oh, I'm sorry SuperDave. I thought that I'd applied at least a smidgeon of logical thought to it, but maybe not. LOL Maybe "never" is too strong a word. How about "almost never"??? I'm trying to think of one other case where there is foreign DNA that people are willing to overlook. I can't do it. Help me out here.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Now wait a minute! I never said anything against you! Don't put words in my mouth!

    "I'm trying to think of one other case where there is foreign DNA that people are willing to overlook. I can't do it. Help me out here."

    Gladly!

    Ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

    He's in prison here in New England for murder. He kidnapped a 12-year-old girl, Sarah Cherry, from her neighbor's house, took her into the woods, raped, stabbed and strangled her to death. The cops found him, searched his truck, found evidence, confronted him, and he confessed.

    But people say he didn't do it because Sarah had human DNA on her fingernails. It could have come from anywhere. Magazines, candy wrappers, etc. Doesn't mean anything.

    Does that help?

    It's more common than you realize.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,902
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    Now wait a minute! I never said anything against you! Don't put words in my mouth!

    "I'm trying to think of one other case where there is foreign DNA that people are willing to overlook. I can't do it. Help me out here."

    Gladly!

    Ever heard of Dennis Dechaine?

    He's in prison here in New England for murder. He kidnapped a 12-year-old girl, Sarah Cherry, from her neighbor's house, took her into the woods, raped, stabbed and strangled her to death. The cops found him, searched his truck, found evidence, confronted him, and he confessed.

    But people say he didn't do it because Sarah had human DNA on her fingernails. It could have come from anywhere. Magazines, candy wrappers, etc. Doesn't mean anything.

    Does that help?

    It's more common than you realize.
    No, I didn't think that you did! Sorry, didn't mean to give you that impression. What kind of DNA was found???

    Also, in the Ramsey case, there was DNA on her panties in two locations, correct?

    Foreign male DNA recovered from a spot of her blood in her panties, of only moderate quality.

    Foreign male DNA recovered from another spot of her blood in her underwear, with 10 genetic markers and considered of significant value. This DNA has not been tied to anyone in the Ramsey family.


    How do you think this happened? Surely not from a sneeze from Thailand.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    "What kind of DNA was found???"

    That I don't know.

    "Also, in the Ramsey case, there was DNA on her panties in two locations, correct?"

    That we know about. It's LIKELY it was there in other spots they didn't test.

    "Foreign male DNA recovered from a spot of her blood in her panties, of only moderate quality."

    That's putting it generously. It was old, degraded stuff.

    "Foreign male DNA recovered from another spot of her blood in her underwear, with 10 genetic markers and considered of significant value. This DNA has not been tied to anyone in the Ramsey family."

    Ten markers. Not 13, which SHOULD be there. Again, old, degraded stuff.

    "How do you think this happened? Surely not from a sneeze from Thailand."

    I just might think that. See, what happens is, when the blood hits the old DNA, it causes a chemical reaction which brings the old stuff out a little more, especially if it is a scattershot like a sneeze. Have you ever seen a shotgun work? The pellet spread is not even. Some of them clump. Could have happened here.

    To be honest, I could outline a few different scenarios, Jeana. But none of them involve and intruder. I"ll give you two reasons:

    One) If it were, there would have been much more of it, not just on her body, but near it and around the house

    Two) If it were, it would have been fresh, like JB's was. It wasn't. JB's DNA did not degrade.

    Makes no sense.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,902
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave

    To be honest, I could outline a few different scenarios, Jeana. But none of them involve and intruder. I"ll give you two reasons:

    One) If it were, there would have been much more of it, not just on her body, but near it and around the house

    Two) If it were, it would have been fresh, like JB's was. It wasn't. JB's DNA did not degrade.

    Makes no sense.
    You're right it makes no sense. I don't agree that there would be much more of it. I do agree that it should have been fresh. But we know that most of the time there is no DNA at all. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this case won't be solved using it alone, if at all. Something else has come to come up.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 219
    Last Post: 08-18-2006, 11:22 AM
  2. DOI and the truth
    By terralee in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-08-2005, 07:49 PM