1214 users online (260 members and 954 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East Coast USA
    Posts
    482

    New article but no new news


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    portland, Ore
    Posts
    18,228
    Watching FOX news this morning, they did a spot on JB with Carol reporting from Boulder as she often does. The topic was the new interest in solving the case w/ the DA wanting to hire another full time investigator.

    At the very end of the spot Carole said there is one fact that has been a given in the case ever since the JB investigation started. I have been racking my brain to remember what that was {was baking cookies at the time while listening}, and heard Carol say this which might it.

    She said the DNA in JB's underpanties was male. There was such a small amount of this DNA that it was never tested. It was only enough for one test, and they didn't want to use it up.

    Does that sound like something no one here has heard before as a change in fact? Maybe Carol will do the spot again on The Big Story. I'll be listening. LOL Scandi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,810
    I've never heard that before. If their reasoning for NOT testing it was because there was such a small amount, and they didn't want to use it all up, well, then what would they be saving it for if NOT for a DNA test?????

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,391
    Quote Originally Posted by julianne
    I've never heard that before. If their reasoning for NOT testing it was because there was such a small amount, and they didn't want to use it all up, well, then what would they be saving it for if NOT for a DNA test?????
    I can assure if it wasn't tested then its so degraded it does not exist in any real sense now. I live here and never heard that. JMHO This sounds like so much malarky. If they had it they'd of tested it. I can't believe otherwise . As to Lacey wanting to hire another full time investigator. She better do something to make this case look like its still investigator. Can we spell new Governor Bill Ritter is preparing his oath of office speech. Yet only $40 grand. cmon
    lets spend more than that.......thats silly.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    portland, Ore
    Posts
    18,228
    That's what Carol McKinley FOX News did say, stupid as it sounds as to why thay never tested it.

    I thought they sent another DNA sample to somewhere in the Midwest to be examined, Not the panty DNA but some other fluid they found with JonBenet. Anyone know about that?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East Coast USA
    Posts
    482
    I don't mean to be gross but in my house, all of the undies are pretty much washed together. Some are bleached if possible. If it was the same in the Ramsey house, isn't it possible that some of John's "stuff" got on JB's underwear just from laundering? Or Patsy's stuff? Or Burke's stuff? I am a germ freak and I have done some basic reading about American washers. They are notoriously poor rinsers so I try to rinse my clothes twice just to make sure. Even if there was testable DNA, would that conclusively prove anything?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the prowl
    Posts
    26,409
    Nancy Grace is reviewing JonBenet's case tonight ~ on now!


    Rest in Peace
    Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joseph Mateo


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    5,605
    I thought I read that the DNA on JBR's underwear matched DNA under her nails. Wouldn't that mean DNA tests were done? I heard the test may have been botched (nail clippers may not have been cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails). I've heard that various people tested via DNA were not a match. Since these are all things I've heard, sometimes beyond here-say I don't know what to think.


    Was DNA tested or not tested, and if so, from where? I'm confused

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    JR says he beleives this case will be solved (yea..IMO,only if he confesses as to what really happened).
    Smit the schmuck says we need to wait for the dna databanks to fill up (with what? the kind of **** he spits out??????)
    ..and that dna can solve this case???He knows it can't,it can only eliminate.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    24,159

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by kidzndogznme
    I don't mean to be gross but in my house, all of the undies are pretty much washed together. Some are bleached if possible. If it was the same in the Ramsey house, isn't it possible that some of John's "stuff" got on JB's underwear just from laundering? Or Patsy's stuff? Or Burke's stuff? I am a germ freak and I have done some basic reading about American washers. They are notoriously poor rinsers so I try to rinse my clothes twice just to make sure. Even if there was testable DNA, would that conclusively prove anything?
    Laundry would not explain John's shirt fibers found in her crotch. They did not get there from his shirt! John had to have direct contact with her undressed body that night. I think he molested her and he probably was her killer- I don't know how much Patsy was involved in the killing, but Patsy wrote the cover-up "ransom note" IMO.
    This is the year to locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin NamUs MP#876 and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff NamUs MP#6410 and bring them home to their families!

    Parents watch your children. Free-range parenting leads to more child victims.

    Cruelty to humans begins with cruelty to animals.

    I believe in closure, not forgiveness. I'm also unapologetically judgemental.

    JeSuisJuif
    JeSuisCharlie



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by LionRun
    I thought I read that the DNA on JBR's underwear matched DNA under her nails. Wouldn't that mean DNA tests were done? I heard the test may have been botched (nail clippers may not have been cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails). I've heard that various people tested via DNA were not a match. Since these are all things I've heard, sometimes beyond here-say I don't know what to think.


    Was DNA tested or not tested, and if so, from where? I'm confused
    The fingernail DNA has not been matched to the underwear DNA. That the DNAs match is something that has only been said by these two RST PIs Gray and Augustin, and Lin Wood's not saying it, so I think he knows it doesn't match as well. There aren't enough markers found in the nail DNA to conclusively match it to anything. There are standard similarities in DNA - that's why we need a certain number of markers to make a definitive match. If there has been a match made, it was with those standard similarities, and it isn't a conclusive match because they would need more markers to make that match - and there aren't more.

    The coroner's office failed to use a sterile set of clippers for each nail as they are supposed to. They used the same set of clippers for all nails, so yes, there is a question of contamination.

    There is no proof that any DNA under JonBenet's nails came from the killer. Patsy said JB hadn't had a bath that day, and that she wasn't fond of washing her hands, so that DNA could have been there from the day before, or even the day before. If it had come from JonBenet scratching her killer, it would have been more complete and easier to obtain markers from because it would have been fresher.

    Same with the underwear DNA. It was fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete. Had the foreign DNA sample been deposited at the same time as JonBenet's, it would have been as fresh and complete. It wasn't. It's extremely likely the foreign DNA was already on the underwear before they were ever put on JonBenet's body. Dr Henry Lee obtained identical underwear, brand new and unwashed, and when he tested them, he found DNA on them.

    That's another important thing about these underwear JonBenet was wearing when she was found - they were brand new, unwashed, never been worn underwear right out of the package. They had never been laundered. They were size 12/14. JonBenet's drawer was full of her underwear, size 4/6...why was she found in underwear that were way too big for her? Who put them on her?

    As for Nancy Grace, she's about to get a nasty emnail from me for her shoddy show that basically highlighted the case from the JMK point of view. I normally like Nancy, but seeing a show about JB that pretty much focused on JMK was more than I could handle. That sick jerk doesn't deserve any more air time, and I'm thoroughly disgusted that he's gotten what he wanted, and now he's an integral part of the JBR investigation. That along with the announcement that the Rs "were eventually cleared" (they weren't and she should know that) is going to earn the Nancy Grace show an email from a less-than-satisfied viewer.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East Coast USA
    Posts
    482
    Just a way out there thought. JB was known to have a bed wetting/soiling problem. I personally know kids younger than 6 who are potty trained during the day and become highly embarrassed at the idea of having to put on a pull-up at night or at naptime. The mothers of these children often put panties on overtop of the pull-up so the child still feels like a big girl. Is it possible that the larger undies were used overtop of the pullup? The 4-6 size probably wouldn't have fit over a pull-up. This case has so many inconsistencies that it makes my brain hurt.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    The fingernail DNA has not been matched to the underwear DNA. That the DNAs match is something that has only been said by these two RST PIs Gray and Augustin, and Lin Wood's not saying it, so I think he knows it doesn't match as well. There aren't enough markers found in the nail DNA to conclusively match it to anything. There are standard similarities in DNA - that's why we need a certain number of markers to make a definitive match. If there has been a match made, it was with those standard similarities, and it isn't a conclusive match because they would need more markers to make that match - and there aren't more.

    The coroner's office failed to use a sterile set of clippers for each nail as they are supposed to. They used the same set of clippers for all nails, so yes, there is a question of contamination.

    There is no proof that any DNA under JonBenet's nails came from the killer. Patsy said JB hadn't had a bath that day, and that she wasn't fond of washing her hands, so that DNA could have been there from the day before, or even the day before. If it had come from JonBenet scratching her killer, it would have been more complete and easier to obtain markers from because it would have been fresher.

    Same with the underwear DNA. It was fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete. Had the foreign DNA sample been deposited at the same time as JonBenet's, it would have been as fresh and complete. It wasn't. It's extremely likely the foreign DNA was already on the underwear before they were ever put on JonBenet's body. Dr Henry Lee obtained identical underwear, brand new and unwashed, and when he tested them, he found DNA on them.

    That's another important thing about these underwear JonBenet was wearing when she was found - they were brand new, unwashed, never been worn underwear right out of the package. They had never been laundered. They were size 12/14. JonBenet's drawer was full of her underwear, size 4/6...why was she found in underwear that were way too big for her? Who put them on her?

    As for Nancy Grace, she's about to get a nasty emnail from me for her shoddy show that basically highlighted the case from the JMK point of view. I normally like Nancy, but seeing a show about JB that pretty much focused on JMK was more than I could handle. That sick jerk doesn't deserve any more air time, and I'm thoroughly disgusted that he's gotten what he wanted, and now he's an integral part of the JBR investigation. That along with the announcement that the Rs "were eventually cleared" (they weren't and she should know that) is going to earn the Nancy Grace show an email from a less-than-satisfied viewer.
    I have nothing to add but my own e mail to surely the slew of mails Nancy Grace is going to get. Eventually Cleared really sent me sky high. Also I totally agree about the JMK. He was not in Boulder that night and till that can be prove. Somebody get the shepherds hook and get him off stage ok.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    portland, Ore
    Posts
    18,228
    Nuisanseposter,

    During the JMK period of the case, I did some reading on the case. I remember reading about another DNA sample that had been sent to a lab in the midwest that they felt they would have success with. Do you know anything about this.

    About the same time I read that Dr Lee was on a talk show and said DNA would determine who the killer was in JB's death, and that is the last thing I had learned here at WS about the importance of DNA in the case.

    Scandi

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    5,605
    Quote Originally Posted by scandi
    Nuisanseposter,

    During the JMK period of the case, I did some reading on the case. I remember reading about another DNA sample that had been sent to a lab in the midwest that they felt they would have success with. Do you know anything about this.

    About the same time I read that Dr Lee was on a talk show and said DNA would determine who the killer was in JB's death, and that is the last thing I had learned here at WS about the importance of DNA in the case.

    Scandi
    I heard the above also. Can anyone elaborate on it? Also, this is the first I heard of size 12/14 underwear on JBR. Not only would I like to know why they were put on; but, who'd were they? Were there any more like it in the home?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. CNN News Article on Tara 10-1-2008
    By angelwngs in forum Tara Grinstead
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 02:12 PM
  2. Article in Raleigh News Observer
    By Moxie in forum Janet Christiansen Abaroa
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-27-2006, 01:40 PM