1021 users online (166 members and 855 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
    Posts
    19,495

    FINALLY SOMEONE SPEAKS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE "INTRUDER" DNA

    Thank God someone finally is telling the truth. Unfortunately the scientist won't let his or her name be used but she/he spells it out right here.

    From the Rocky Mountain News.

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html

    By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
    May 18, 2004

    A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

    "That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used.


    Advertisement



    The DNA sample was found commingled with blood in the underwear of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

    It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

    "You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

    The sample does not match any member of the Ramsey family or any known suspects in Boulder's unsolved Christmas night 1996 slaying, according to Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner.

    Ramsey, 60, who now resides in Charlevoix, Mich., announced May 11 he is running as a Republican for the 105th House District seat in the Michigan State Legislature.

    On Ramsey's campaign Web site, www.supportramsey.com, visitors can click on an icon titled "Family Tragedy/Update."

    "On Dec. 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the (Boulder) D.A.'s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenet. Consequently, all of the state and federal DNA data systems now have the entire profile of the unknown deposit, thanks to the identification of the 10th marker."

    It also states the following:

    "It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."

    But that's not necessarily the case, said the man who developed that tenth marker.

    "It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."

    He also said there is no way to "age" the sample, to determine whether it was left in the underwear at the time of JonBenet's murder or at some other point.

    Ramsey campaign manager John Yob didn't answer a call and e-mail Monday seeking comment.

    But Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, who has represented the Ramseys for several years but is not associated with John Ramsey's campaign, defended the campaign's assertion.

    "I agree with the statements on the Ramsey Web site," said Wood. "There is no doubt in my mind, based on my knowledge of this case over the course of five years representing this family, that the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear is the DNA of the killer.

    "Anyone in a law enforcement investigation who is searching for an innocent explanation for foreign male DNA found mixed in the victim's blood on her underwear is either incompetent or prejudiced to the point of being unqualified to participate in a fair and objective investigation.

    "I am sure that explains in part why this case was taken away from the Boulder Police Department."

    Another state forensics expert, who also asked not to be identified, said the significance of the DNA profile must be weighed conservatively, based on where it was found, and in what substance.

    Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."

    It is true that identifying the tenth genetic marker enabled Ramsey investigators to finally enter the unidentified genetic profile into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, a national database.

    As of March, the Ramsey sample was one of 78,475 unidentified forensic profiles entered in the CODIS system, where it is regularly searched for potential matches against genetic profiles of convicted offenders - 1.6 million of them, and counting.


    `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``

    YES this is what was needed for the truth to finally start coming out.
    Help our Administrator Bessie
    Check out our Facebook page
    Follow me on Twitter

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






  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Tricia

    Did you save this page? It has "disappeared". Link no longer working.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Ya gotta love science, don't ya?

    It was given to the humans by the Gods, just like fire was.

    Science and Truth, they go hand in hand.

    But!!!!!!!!!!! Given the chance, 99.99999999999999999999% of those humans that the Gods gave science to will prefer science fiction, religion and law to the truth.

    Here come da spin.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricia
    Thank God someone finally is telling the truth. YES this is what was needed for the truth to finally start coming out.
    Awww, that is sooooOOOoooo cute!

    Please tell me Trish, just what is "The Truth" that will come out???

    Thrill me with your acumen.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Did you save this page? It has "disappeared". Link no longer working.
    Jay, I had to go to the RMN homepage and do a search for "Brennan." The first story that came up was the DNA story dated May 18th. When I tried to copy and paste the link for you, it was the same one Tricia provided. I don't know why the link won't work by direct access, but at least it's still there by doing a search.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    Jay, I had to go to the RMN homepage and do a search for "Brennan." The first story that came up was the DNA story dated May 18th. When I tried to copy and paste the link for you, it was the same one Tricia provided. I don't know why the link won't work by direct access, but at least it's still there by doing a search.
    The link works from FFJ. I discovered that later on this morning but I assumed maybe the site had been down and had come back up.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    103
    BrotherMoon quote:

    Awww, that is sooooOOOoooo cute!

    Please tell me Trish, just what is "The Truth" that will come out???

    Thrill me with your acumen.
    That was a brilliant post, BM. Not.
    Chew on this for a while:

    Quote:
    On Ramsey's campaign Web site, www.supportramsey.com, visitors can click on an icon titled "Family Tragedy/Update."

    "On Dec. 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the (Boulder) D.A.'s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenet. Consequently, all of the state and federal DNA data systems now have the entire profile of the unknown deposit, thanks to the identification of the 10th marker."

    This is just another example of the misleading statements put out by the RST.

    There is a burden of proof that a prosecutor must meet to say a certain suspect committed a certain crime. To do this, the analyst examines 13 locations (not 10) along the chromosome, known as "loci," which the relevent international scientific community has identified as suitable for comparison purposes. Each locus contains two alleles - one from each parent. When the STR's from a crime scene profile match an offender's profile, it means that there is a match from each and every one of the 26 alleles (genes) that comprise the 13 loci. The specificity of this forensic identification is one of the most significant powers of DNA.

    When scientists prepare the the crime scene evidence profile and the offender's profile, they look for a 100% match of the two profiles at the 13 loci.

    For verification purposes, the 13 core loci used for STR comparisons are: TPOX, D3S1358, FGA, D5S818, CSF1PO, D7S820, D8S1179, TH01, VWA, D13S317, D18S51, D21S11, D16S539.

    Reference http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/forens...undamentals.pdf for complete text on the above.

    There is a reason I listed the 13 core loci used for STR comparisons in crime cases. Simple arithmetic proves that the above statement on the Ramesy website regarding having a complete sample for DNA comparison is fraudulent. The criteria is 13 core loci, not 10. If even one of the loci is missing from the equation, the odds of proving the probability that a certain DNA sample came from a certain person drop considerably. Take away loci TPOX, FGA, and THO1, for example, and the odds of proving a "match" may drop from 1 billion to 1 to, say, 1000 to 1. That is not a scientific number, it's my way of making a valid point.

    So, while CODIS may have accepted the DNA from the Ramsey case with its 10 core loci, that DNA will NEVER EVER identify anyone. It can eliminate a suspect, but it will never identify a suspect, as the RST claim it can. Furthermore, the only worth the DNA has at this point is either as an eliminator of suspects or as supporting evidence, if there were any other evidence to support. Since it's been 7+ years, and the RST has yet to come up with a credible intruder suspect, it's a good bet they can't build a case against an intruder because they don't have any viable evidence, and the DNA will never help them because they don't have a viable suspect with supporting evidence.

    If they had someone they could prove through circumstantial evidence was in that house that night and had access to JonBenet during the crucial hours, and if the person had no alibi and couldn't pass a polygraph, and if they could say, well, we have a partial match to the partial DNA stored in CODIS, (partial simply because the CODIS sample is incomplete), then they might have something. The DNA in this case is not a stand-alone piece of evidence, and it never will be.

    The Ramseys are lying on their website, and so is Lin Wood when he spins the DNA to be something it isn't. Anyone who buys into this propaganda is a fool.
    All posts are my constitutionally-protected opinion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    47
    "Take away loci TPOX, FGA, and THO1, for example, and the odds of proving a "match" may drop from 1 billion to 1 to, say, 1000 to 1. That is not a scientific number, it's my way of making a valid point. "


    But if that is more or less accurate, and considering they have 1,6 milion of people in the DNA database, they already should have about 1,600 parcial and utterly useless "matches".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Cain
    "Take away loci TPOX, FGA, and THO1, for example, and the odds of proving a "match" may drop from 1 billion to 1 to, say, 1000 to 1. That is not a scientific number, it's my way of making a valid point. "


    But if that is more or less accurate, and considering they have 1,6 milion of people in the DNA database, they already should have about 1,600 parcial and utterly useless "matches".
    Actually, Cain, they've made no matches at all, not even utterly useless matches. And, they never will.
    All posts are my constitutionally-protected opinion.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Watching you
    So, while CODIS may have accepted the DNA from the Ramsey case with its 10 core loci, that DNA will NEVER EVER identify anyone. It can eliminate a suspect, but it will never identify a suspect, as the RST claim it can. Furthermore, the only worth the DNA has at this point is either as an eliminator of suspects or as supporting evidence, if there were any other evidence to support ...

    If they had someone they could prove through circumstantial evidence was in that house that night and had access to JonBenet during the crucial hours, and if the person had no alibi and couldn't pass a polygraph, and if they could say, well, we have a partial match to the partial DNA stored in CODIS, (partial simply because the CODIS sample is incomplete), then they might have something. The DNA in this case is not a stand-alone piece of evidence, and it never will be.
    Excellent post, WY.

    1. If they had someone they could prove through circumstantial evidence was in that house that night
    2. and had access to JonBenet during the crucial hours,
    3. and if the person had no alibi
    4. and couldn't pass a polygraph,
    5. and if they could say, well, we have a partial match to the partial DNA stored in CODIS ...


    And if I may add to your list of necessary evidence ...

    6. and their handwriting and linguistics was matched to that of the ransom note.


    IMO


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,199
    Wow, what a great article! Thanks for posting it, Tricia. It might never have been written had John not decided to run for the Michigan House. I wonder what else about the case will be revealed during his campaign. Just thinking about it makes my heart go pitty-pat.

    Also, thanks for your informative post, Watching you.

    Cherokee, glad you added the "bussiness" about the note. How interesting that five of the points appear to implicate Patsy.

    imo

  12. #12

    Dna?

    Please remember that I'm new here and haven't heard it all before. But, as it relates to the Ramseys, does DNA mean Do Not Arrest? By the way, I used to be thrilled with acumen when I was a boy. They were the army that followed Aquaman. (Wince)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    Interesting that it is confirmed from an unidentified male...

    DNA was taken from hundreds of people in the Ramsey circle.

    Very few things I'm certain of - and one is the killer knew the Ramseys.

    They were brand new panties - straight from the package.
    IMO -

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Optimism is not objective.

    Objectivity is crucial to the practice of the scientific method.

    Objectivity can be achieved only when the person doing the observing recognizes the human proclivity to PROJECT UNCONCIOUSLY onto what they observe.

    This DNA news will fall like a lead balloon, just like the petition to the Governor, just like the trip to Colorado.

    The only way anything will be done about the freedom the Ramseys enjoy is when the villagers take their torches and march up the hill to do away with the monster. Fortunately, John is acting like a dunce. Instead of cruising along under the radar he has managed to corner himself in Charlevoix with stated reasons for staying and then he even attempts to climb the hill of political office making himself and his wife a target for the villagers.

    What I find interesting is the timing, not to mention the content, of Charlie Brennan's articles. He seems to be counterpunching the "good news" that surfaces supporting the Ramseys. It also seems he has a bank of information from which to draw or he has a source that is the bank.

    Brennan is a metaphorical villager. But he does not express unwarranted optimism. He's holding his cards.

    Patsy Ramsey herself has told the truth in the ransom note and in DOI. But she will never be prosecuted for creating an angel through the deliberate killing of her daughter. She won't even be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. The closest thing to justice will be if the Ramseys continue to expose themselves and become increasingly isolated as social pariahs.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver CO
    Posts
    797

    Dna

    Quote Originally Posted by Cain
    "Take away loci TPOX, FGA, and THO1, for example, and the odds of proving a "match" may drop from 1 billion to 1 to, say, 1000 to 1. That is not a scientific number, it's my way of making a valid point. "


    But if that is more or less accurate, and considering they have 1,6 milion of people in the DNA database, they already should have about 1,600 parcial and utterly useless "matches".
    In every case on trial I've heard of where a suspects DNA was connected to the scene, forensics has stated that the probability of it belonging to someone else is 1 in 6 billion or higher. Sometimes much higher. IOW the suspect was demonstrated to be the only person expected to have that profile in the world. Looking at probabilities, I would expect that for a sample with 10 markers the odds would be in the neighborhood of 1 in 1 million, that another person would have those same 10 markers. Since it has been suggested that the DNA originated at the foreign location of manufacture, this would make it unlikely that a similar sample existed in the CODIS databank.

    Hypothetically, if a suspect was found that had a couple of circumstantial things linking them to the case and their handwriting was checked and found to be in the possible catagory, and their DNA matched 10 markers from CODIS, then I feel a jury could rightly vote to convict, both reasonably and correctly.
    This is my opinion, and change is good.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast