1132 users online (212 members and 920 guests)  


Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Did probability of intruder change with DNA evidence?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Probability went way up.

    17 28.33%
  • Probability went up somewhat.

    9 15.00%
  • Probability went down.

    0 0%
  • Probability was unchanged.

    34 56.67%

Page 1 of 34 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 508
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299

    Intruder probability more, less, or same?

    DNA Timeline

    1996: DNA is not mentioned.

    1997-2003: DNA sample is discovered but is referred to as degraded and unusable.

    December 2003: DNA from a spot of blood in JBR's panties was entered into FBI national database (CODIS) .

    July 2008: New technology was used to analyze the scant DNA left behind when someone grasped JonBenet's long johns. Prosecutors said that evidence matched the DNA earlier found in JonBenet's underwear.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Did the probability that an intruder killed JBR go way up in July 2008? Did it go up somewhat? Did it go down? Or, did it simply stay the same?
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 03-09-2010 at 01:32 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    off a dirt road in NE Georgia
    Posts
    209
    One thing I would like to know: Was the unidentified DNA the only DNA found during this testing? Shouldn't they have found Patsy's DNA since she stated she put the long johns on JB? I voted my probability went up somewhat because it does make you stop and pause when unidentified DNA comes in to the picture. This got me studying the case again if nothing else. I think RDI, I just wish it could be IDI so the face of her killer wasn't someone she loved and trusted.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Becky319 View Post
    One thing I would like to know: Was the unidentified DNA the only DNA found during this testing?
    I'm very curious about that myself.

    I think RDI, I just wish it could be IDI so the face of her killer wasn't someone she loved and trusted.
    Amen.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Becky319 View Post
    One thing I would like to know: Was the unidentified DNA the only DNA found during this testing? Shouldn't they have found Patsy's DNA since she stated she put the long johns on JB? I voted my probability went up somewhat because it does make you stop and pause when unidentified DNA comes in to the picture. This got me studying the case again if nothing else. I think RDI, I just wish it could be IDI so the face of her killer wasn't someone she loved and trusted.
    I've mentioned this before, too. Of course they should have found Patsy's DNA there- Patsy admitted putting the longjohns on JB that night.
    That unknown DNA could have come from any male at the party that night, including children. All that "unknown" male would have to do is shake hands with Patsy, who admitted she put the longjohns on JB. Or that "unknown" male could have been at the party and touched a doorknob, toilet handle, anything.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Becky319 View Post
    One thing I would like to know: Was the unidentified DNA the only DNA found during this testing? Shouldn't they have found Patsy's DNA since she stated she put the long johns on JB? .
    Unless she was wearing gloves at the time she was in contact with the long johns, her DNA profile would be found.
    “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
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Unless she was wearing gloves at the time she was in contact with the long johns, her DNA profile would be found.
    Why is PR's DNA significant? Was it PR's DNA in the blood spot on the underwear?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Unless she was wearing gloves at the time she was in contact with the long johns, her DNA profile would be found.
    A more accurate description is this: Unless she was wearing clean gloves at the time she was in contact...

    A person wearing gloves for hours, simply for the purpose of not leaving fingerprints, would tend to start spreading their own DNA around.

    Although I still don't know why PR DNA is signficant.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    A more accurate description is this: Unless she was wearing clean gloves at the time she was in contact...

    A person wearing gloves for hours, simply for the purpose of not leaving fingerprints, would tend to start spreading their own DNA around.

    Although I still don't know why PR DNA is signficant.
    She would not leave her DNA behind while wearing gloves, unless she made contact with her own skin and then touched other items.
    PR's DNA should have been found because she would have have pulled JBR's long johns on as she put her to bed.
    Razor scraping for skin cells should find her profile from that contact. No mention of her profile was ever made.
    Last edited by cynic; 03-10-2010 at 03:05 AM.
    “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)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Theoretically it went up somewhat.
    But it didn't seem to change anything,except allowing a stoopid DA to accomplish her mission which we all know was to kiss the R's #$% one more time and this time GOOD.


    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."

    —Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

    Last edited by madeleine; 03-10-2010 at 03:53 AM.
    The rice is already cooked...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    But it didn't seem to change anything,except allowing a stoopid DA to accomplish her mission which we all know was to kiss the R's #$% one more time and this time GOOD.


    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."

    —Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
    We all know? No WE don't. Got proof that the DA was on any kind of mission?
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 03-10-2010 at 11:29 AM.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    We all know? No WE don't. Got proof that the DA was on any kind of mission?
    She was wrong in exonerating them solely based on that DNA which could be NOT related to the crime or the killer and you know it.
    It's like exonerating them just because JMK "confessed".It's not enough,not in this case.
    The rice is already cooked...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Why didn't she exonerate everybody on the suspect list?Why didn't she send an apology letter to C.Wolf,Santa or F.White?
    They still are ALL on the suspect list as far as I am concerned.Eliminating them from it because their DNA doesn't match is WRONG.Maybe it's one of them and they had an accomplice and they get away just because we rely too much on DNA.She didn't drop the charges against JMK because his DNA didn't match,it happened because it was proven he wasn't even around.Do you think she would have let him go if he could have been placed in Boulder (even without a dna match?) I think NOT.
    The rice is already cooked...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Patsy's DNA may not have been in the blood spot, but it SHOUD have been on those longjohns. She admitted putting them on JB, and if she put them on a LIVE JB, she shouldn't have been wearing gloves.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    We all know? No WE don't. Got proof that the DA was on any kind of mission?
    How much time have you got?
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Do you think she would have let him go if he could have been placed in Boulder (even without a dna match?) I think NOT.
    No way! If they had had anything else, DNA match or not, they would have still tried to hang it on him. I'm convinced of it.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

Page 1 of 34 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 138
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 09:41 PM
  2. IDI Theories (intruder did it)
    By JBean in forum Lisa Irwin
    Replies: 411
    Last Post: 11-19-2012, 07:45 PM
  3. No intruder?
    By Holdontoyourhat in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 1178
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 04:35 PM
  4. If an Intruder...
    By Nehemiah in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 05-10-2004, 01:50 PM