1257 users online (241 members and 1016 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299

    ...and perhaps an innocent explanation...

    From RMN:

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet's blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.

    On March 24, 2008, (new DNA technology at The Bode Technology Group Inc., of 1Lorton Va.) informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.
    * The unexplained third-party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to popular belief, ML seems to be open and in fact made 'concerted efforts' to find the innocent explanation.

    I am asking RDI theorists to go ahead and provide possible innocent explanations that would account for DNA in these locations.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    From RMN:

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet's blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.

    On March 24, 2008, (new DNA technology at The Bode Technology Group Inc., of 1Lorton Va.) informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.
    * The unexplained third-party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to popular belief, ML seems to be open and in fact made 'concerted efforts' to find the innocent explanation.

    I am asking RDI theorists to go ahead and provide possible innocent explanations that would account for DNA in these locations.
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999"]DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Wow, thanks. A wealth of DNA information. But really I was looking for a f'rinstance. You know, a plausible scenario that would cause these results. A possible innocent explanation.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    122
    HOTYH- forgive me if I come across as blunt, but RDI are still waiting for your contribution in Madeleine's previous thread posted on 25-10-09 named "Beyond my understanding"....she had a few unanswered questions which remain unanswered to this day... why are we always expected and challenged to answer ALL of your questions, but you can get away with not answering some of ours???
    can you please offer a possible innocent explanation to the questions in the above-named thread? many thanks in advance
    "To do is to be"-Nietzsche
    "To be is to do"-Kant
    "Do be do do be do"- Sinatra
    Only your song matters in the end..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Wow, thanks. A wealth of DNA information. But really I was looking for a f'rinstance. You know, a plausible scenario that would cause these results. A possible innocent explanation.
    I give several there.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    I dunno I think JR was being open minded, maybe he was considering JBR could've been abused by someone else. I'm not sure.

    From my POV, prior abuse is a RDI myth, originally a subjective call made by armchair experts paid for by the tabloids after-the-fact (after the murder). It was conceived solely for the purpose of casting suspicion on the R's. The idea that JBR could be abused by a stranger was never raised.

    There is no corroborating evidence of prior abuse, it was not and is not proven. Its hype.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-05-2009 at 02:21 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    I give several there.
    Be so kind as to paste some here?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    I'm too busy to post much at the moment, but people have given many examples of how the DNA got there innocently. Mary Lacy didn't find them plausible because she was in an unGodly rush to exonerate the Ramseys. Any half-reasonable person would allow that there could be an innocent explanation. Nothwithstanding her recklessness in exonerating the Ramseys, Lacy demonstrates that that she is basing this exoneration on her own opinion: She uses the word, 'unlikely.' Not 'conclusively.' Unlikely is subjective; conclusive is scientific.


    The Ramseys had had huge exposure to stranger DNA that day; their clothes and hands and faces had not been washed; Patsy admitted to hating doing laundry and, in fact, JBR's bedroom floor was was scattered with dirty clothing (including undies with faecal matter on them) and no one knew when JBR had last been bathed or how freshly-laundered the LJs were; the Ramseys' clothes were not tested at the appropriate time to find whatever traces of DNA there were on them; this is touch DNA.

    FACT: THERE COULD INCREDIBLY EASILY BE AN INNOCENT EXPLANATION OF THIS DNA. AND EVEN IF THERE WEREN'T, IT WOULDN'T PRECLUDE RAMSEY KNOWLEDGE BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE CRIME. Any semi-competent criminal lawyer could easily see this and it's rather terrifying that someone who had risen to the lofty heights of DA of Boulder couldn't.

    What there isn't an innocent explanation of, is the litany of lies the Ramseys told about what happened when they got home that night.
    Last edited by Sophie; 11-05-2009 at 05:08 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    FACT: THERE COULD INCREDIBLY EASILY BE AN INNOCENT EXPLANATION OF THIS DNA. AND EVEN IF THERE WEREN'T, IT WOULDN'T PRECLUDE RAMSEY KNOWLEDGE BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE CRIME.
    Lets hear one. Just a f'rinstance.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Contrary to popular belief, ML seems to be open and in fact made 'concerted efforts' to find the innocent explanation.
    I'll bet. In all seriousness, HOTYH, I don't know about that. One of the people who worked with Mary Lacy described a meeting with her in 2003. When she told this person about a possible innocent explanation that the police had. Depending on which version of it you hear, this person very bitterly said that there was no possible innocent explanation for it and Lacy and he had a laugh at the expense of the police (whom this person had a grudge against). So I'm doubtful as to just how "open" she was.

    This person wasn't the only one. ST described his dealings with Lacy in less-than-glowing terms, saying that at least AH would listen to all opinions, whereas Lacy was like Paul Simon's "Boxer:" hearing what she wants to hear and disregarding the rest. He summed it up by saying that Lacy "makes Hunter look like Rudy Giuliani."

    I am asking RDI theorists to go ahead and provide possible innocent explanations that would account for DNA in these locations.
    We've been giving explanations for that for a while now.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    From my POV, prior abuse is a RDI myth,
    For what it's worth, HOTYH, I WISH I could believe that it was a myth. (Moreover, that attributes an awful kind of imagination to RDI. PR tried the same insinuation in DOI.)

    originally a subjective call made by armchair experts paid for by the tabloids after-the-fact (after the murder).
    ONE armchair expert paid by the tabloids. The other eight were legit.

    It was conceived solely for the purpose of casting suspicion on the R's.
    I think you're giving RDI a little too much credit.

    The idea that JBR could be abused by a stranger was never raised.
    I think it may have been, but the question then becomes "would she keep quiet about it?"

    There is no corroborating evidence of prior abuse,
    What exactly are you looking for?
    Last edited by SuperDave; 11-05-2009 at 05:54 PM.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    We've been giving explanations for that for a while now.
    Not really.

    Not a scenario. I mean, like a sequence of events that would lead up to DNA in CODIS matching DNA on longjohn waistband.

    Innocently, of course.

    If you've been giving explanations for a while it should be easy to fetch one and paste it here?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Not really.

    Not a scenario. I mean, like a sequence of events that would lead up to DNA in CODIS matching DNA on longjohn waistband.

    Innocently, of course.

    If you've been giving explanations for a while it should be easy to fetch one and paste it here?
    Well, just off the top of my head, here's something. As you know, kids at that age get into a lot of trouble. I certainly did. When I was that young, we had Christmas parties at other people's houses too. During the evening, it was customary for the kids to be alone with the kids and the adults to be alone with the adults. This was usually just before dinner. It seems possible that this could have happened. So, JB and the other children are alone and they start getting ideas. Pretty soon one of the boys decides to see what makes a girl a girl. I don't know why, but that idea has always struck me.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    She wasn't wearing those underwear or longjohns during the evening, was she? How does the DNA move?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Be so kind as to paste some here?
    My “DNA Revisited” thread is meant to provide both context and foundation for my “innocent explanations”. As such, I would rather not simply paste over information from there. The thread outlines multiple ways that a false conclusion could be reached in terms of DNA, and innocent means of transfer.
    Here is a portion of one explanation:
    “If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits. (By way of explanation: #7 refers to bloodstains from panties. #14L,#14M are right and left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.) (From a lab report held up by Erin Moriarty on "48 Hours Mystery”)
    [ame="http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290578"]Questions about the DNA - Crime Library Message Boards[/ame]

    I always looked at this as saying that there was a mix of JonBenet’s blood and an unknown male DNA minor profile, in other words the mystery “intruder” profile.
    While true, I overlooked the other possibility which is clearly spelt out:
    If it is not a single contributor then a DNA mix involving two of the following people: John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, and Jeff Ramsey may be what produced the minor profile and not an intruder after all. (At least one of the two people would have to be a male, as there is a Y marker present) This means that the DNA found in the panty blood stain could simply be a mixture of JonBenet’s blood cells and skin cells from JR and PR as one example.
    The following is one possible explanation of how the mixture happened:
    John Ramsey breaks a paint brush previously used by Patsy and containing her DNA. The portion of handle now containing both his and Patsy’s DNA (skin cells) is inserted into JBR’s vagina causing a small amount of bleeding. The size 12 panties are put on, and JBR’s blood mixed with JR’s and PR’s DNA is deposited. JR pulls up the long johns which PR admittedly handled earlier and once again a mixture of their DNA is left behind.
    The Bode lab simply found and declared a match to the same mixed profile found in the panty underwear sample.”
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999"]DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


    Other possibilities include:
    · Primary transfer from an “innocent” male donor. An example would be kids playing “doctor” as suggested earlier by SD.
    · Secondary transfer via hand contact by one or more of the following: JBR, PR, JR.
    · Secondary transfer through use of a contaminated item such as a wash cloth or towel.
    · Contamination and / or cross-contamination by someone involved in the collection, testing or storage of the long johns and panties.

    If you take exception with any of this, HOTYH, I really would prefer that you read my entire thread and post your critique there.
    Last edited by cynic; 11-05-2009 at 08:42 PM.
    “It saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicole’s murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.”
    - Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Possible explanation: Why are there no Ron Cummings tapes?
    By ilovemew in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-13-2010, 10:52 AM
  2. PICTURE/PAINTING; EXPLANATION...Yes/No/?
    By ayjey in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-03-2003, 03:20 AM