...and perhaps an innocent explanation...

New Posts

H

Holdontoyourhat

Former Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
5,299
Reaction score
12
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.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
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.
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999"]DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
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
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
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.
Click to expand...
I give several there.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Sophie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lets hear one. Just a f'rinstance.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Contrary to popular belief, ML seems to be open and in fact made 'concerted efforts' to find the innocent explanation.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

We've been giving explanations for that for a while now.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
From my POV, prior abuse is a RDI myth,
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I think you're giving RDI a little too much credit.

The idea that JBR could be abused by a stranger was never raised.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

What exactly are you looking for?
 
SuperDave said:
We've been giving explanations for that for a while now.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
She wasn't wearing those underwear or longjohns during the evening, was she? How does the DNA move?
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Be so kind as to paste some here?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
From RMN:
Contrary to popular belief, ML seems to be open and in fact made 'concerted efforts' to find the innocent explanation..
Click to expand...
All I can say to that statement is that if we are to find some common ground it is not going to be on the basis of ML’s intentions, competence or lack of bias. I think JR referred to her as employee #23612.
 
SuperDave said:
We don't know for sure that she wasn't wearing at least one of those items, do we?
Click to expand...

OK so you think JBR picked up this DNA from a friend.

The report stated that the first DNA was found in drops of blood in the crotch area. Are you saying that DNA was deposited in one spot on the underwear, and later that same day blood was deposited on the same spot?

I would discount this scenario as implausible, SD. Its not likely that a blood drop produced during sexual assault landed on a spot that contained DNA from playing doctor that same day. Further, that a 6 year old would be involved in a voluntary act on the same day as an involuntary one is too far-fetched for me to even consider.

I'd like a better, more realistic scenario that doesn't involve two acts in one day.
 
Perhaps JB WAS wearing the lj's all evening.after all,the R's felt it necessary to 1- leave her in the same shirt she was wearing that evening and 2- change her underwear to match the same day (Wednesday)even though it was obviously far too large for her (and yes,I DO think they saw to it that it was changed!).I think it was changed to match what she was previously wearing.(only in the right size,of course).
so why couldn't she have been wearing the lj's as well?
 
DNA doesn't "move" but it can get transferred from one surface to another. That is how "touch" DNA is recovered in the first place. Skin cells rub off when they come into contact with something.
Here's a F'irinstance.
IF one of her parents shook hands with the male donor at the White's (or touched something the male donor had touched) some of the donor DNA transferred to the parent(s) hands. When they pulled the longjonhns and panties on some of the skin cells got on those items.
JB herself could also have touched those same surfaces at the White's, including toilet handles and surfaces. This could explain the lonhjohns, but not the panties unless she wore those huge size 12s to the White's (as Patsy suggested) but I don't think she did.
I am baffled as to how IDI repeatedly refuses to accept the FACT that the autopsy DID indicate prior abuse. There were bruises and contusions that were NOT from the time of death (because they were in various stages of healing) as well as an eroded hymen (which could not have happened from ONE incident). Yet, you persist in claiming there is no indication of prior abuse. As much as you might hope it, the autopsy is not RDI spin. It is fact and that is that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 3,417 (members: 196, guests: 3,221)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
3,221
Total visitors
3,417
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,821
Messages
17,959,611
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top