Defending against an intruder

I know that DNA is and has been a thorn in the side of RDI for years.

Not as much as you'd think.

But there's just no way to read into the CNN article what you've stated here.

Not from the way it's worded. But anyone who goes back a ways in this case would know it. The DA would know it, too, if she bothered to read the case file.

I tried, but I get nothing about PI's or R lawyers in the article.

It's sound bite media, Holdon. You can fill volumes with what you don't read in it. But that one was cooked up by Michael Tracey taking the lawyers at their word. It's an old lie that has gone unchallenged, so it's accepted as truth. But no case insider outside of them has ever claimed that the fingernail DNA is anything but slag. A westword.com article says, quote: "sources in the district attorney's office have described the fingernail sample as too contaminated or degraded to be meaningful." The source was Tom Bennet, just so you know.

Maybe with some other media sources, you can further your cause that the 2007 test did not find the fingernail DNA to match the longjohn DNA.

Most of the articles I've read don't mention the fingernail DNA at all. But a lot of articles have been written up until now and they say the same thing I'm saying. The clippers used on her nails weren't even sterile.

I believe there was a ranting, somewhat rambling article I read from an obvious RDI follower who went on and on about how the 2007 test was meaningless.

Which one was that?
 
The original topic, did JBR defend herself? Lets forget about that pesky unknown male DNA under her fingernails, because thats not a defending injury anyway.

JBR doesn't really have any clear defending injuries, like bruises to her forearms, hands, knees, feet, etc. that would show she struggled. I think that is because the intruder was too prepared.

Its clear JBR was attacked (to IDI anyway), but had little or no opportunity to fight back or scream.

The idea that JBR was unable to wake neighbors or her parents (remember, I'm IDI, so her parents are sleeping at the time) with a scream or yell is supported by evidence: the garrote.

The idea that JBR had no opportunity to fight back is also supported by evidence: she had extra injuries to her backside, suggesting her attacker stayed behind her the whole time.
 
The original topic, did JBR defend herself? Lets forget about that pesky unknown male DNA under her fingernails, because thats not a defending injury anyway.

Fair enough. I'll play ball with you.

JBR doesn't really have any clear defending injuries, like bruises to her forearms, hands, knees, feet, etc. that would show she struggled. I think that is because the intruder was too prepared.

How so?

Its clear JBR was attacked (to IDI anyway), but had little or no opportunity to fight back or scream.

It's not just IDI who think that.

The idea that JBR was unable to wake neighbors or her parents (remember, I'm IDI, so her parents are sleeping at the time) with a scream or yell is supported by evidence: the garrote.

How did they get it on, since it was made on her body. It wasn't premade. I would hardly call that prepared.

The idea that JBR had no opportunity to fight back is also supported by evidence: she had extra injuries to her backside, suggesting her attacker stayed behind her the whole time.

I'll agree with the behind part, though maybe not the whole time.
 
Mr. Hat

We seem to agree JBR didn't put up much of a fight. One reason might be that she had no reason to struggle against her parents - until it was too late.

But let's not forget about the DNA under her nails, because you are repeating an inacurracy. The fingernail DNA is not matched to the LJ/panty DNA. It can't be matched because there are not enough markers. Additionally, there was cross contamination from poor technique on the coroner's part.

It is possible that the fingernail DNA is the same as the LJ/panty DNA, but we'll never know for sure. The coroner's mistake has made it impossible to substantiate.
 
The original topic, did JBR defend herself? Lets forget about that pesky unknown male DNA under her fingernails, because thats not a defending injury anyway.

JBR doesn't really have any clear defending injuries, like bruises to her forearms, hands, knees, feet, etc. that would show she struggled. I think that is because the intruder was too prepared.

Its clear JBR was attacked (to IDI anyway), but had little or no opportunity to fight back or scream.

The idea that JBR was unable to wake neighbors or her parents (remember, I'm IDI, so her parents are sleeping at the time) with a scream or yell is supported by evidence: the garrote.

The idea that JBR had no opportunity to fight back is also supported by evidence: she had extra injuries to her backside, suggesting her attacker stayed behind her the whole time.

Holdontoyourhat,
JBR doesn't really have any clear defending injuries, like bruises to her forearms, hands, knees, feet, etc. that would show she struggled. I think that is because the intruder was too prepared.
JonBenet doesn't have any clear defending injuries, most likely because she knew and trusted her killer!

This line of investigation is counterproductive for any IDI theory, particularly since JonBenet was allegedly garroted.

More salient are the dna markers discovered on the longjohns, and must mean further testing of the size-12's is mandatory?

If you can prove that the dna on her size-12's originates from semen then I reckon we have an intruder, ordinary skin cells just means it could have arrived on the longjohns by common indirect transfer.


.
 
Foreign DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails. Some prosecutors have described this evidence as a "problem". I look at it as a huge clue, and I'm grateful we have it. If JonBenet fought with her killer, she may have given us his DNA, which will ultimately be his downfall. (DOI pg. 372, hb version)

Please note that John didn't say "When JonBenet fought with her killer, she gave us his DNA, which will ultimately be his downfall."


-Tea
 
Teaching young kids how to act defensively is an excellent idea, and should be part of every schools' curriculum.
quote]

Hey ... I do agree that all children should be taught how to defend themselves against an intruder or anyone for that matter however, I do not believe it should be the schools resposibility, I believe that it should be the parents and or family of the child for the fact that the school may teach your child something they consider a defense but you would consider to be unethical or would only cause someone to easier harm the child. biting is always a good thing is they are able to do so...as is screaming...my thing would be kicking...if able i would kik anywhere i could...When i was little i was told to always(when not your parents) scream this is not my mother this is not my father...over and over again....
 
Mr. Hat

We seem to agree JBR didn't put up much of a fight. One reason might be that she had no reason to struggle against her parents - until it was too late.

But let's not forget about the DNA under her nails, because you are repeating an inacurracy. The fingernail DNA is not matched to the LJ/panty DNA. It can't be matched because there are not enough markers. Additionally, there was cross contamination from poor technique on the coroner's part.

It is possible that the fingernail DNA is the same as the LJ/panty DNA, but we'll never know for sure. The coroner's mistake has made it impossible to substantiate.

This remark directly contradicts a recent CNN news report on the DNA trace test. Not only that, but the remark seems to ignore new discovery in favor of old pre-2006 'opinion'. It would help your argument to show at least one report that is in response to the latest DNA test, that includes an expert DNA opinion on how the DNA does not match. This is because as it stands right now, the latest expert DNA test report is that the DNA DOES match, and that report has not been challeneged by any DNA scientific body anywhere.

Another poster claimed the test results were not scientific, instead created by R's lawyers and PI's. The report isn't vague, it stated that recent and new trace DNA testing showed that DNA from the longjohns matched the DNA under her fingernails. Period.

Its time to accept the DNA as matching, and move on.
 
I want to see the report that says that the unidentified fingernail DNA has the same number of markers as the unidentified underwear DNA.


-Tea
 
I want to see the report that says that the unidentified fingernail DNA has the same number of markers as the unidentified underwear DNA.


-Tea

We, as laymen in this case, are stuck with what we get as far as DNA or any other forensic testing. The latest test indicated the DNA matched. I interpret that to mean the DNA traces are so similar that an exact match cannot be ruled out. This DNA 'remnant' is prevalent at the crime scene, found in three separate locations that are criminally conspicuous, and cannot be owned by a family member. As IDI, thats good enough for me. As RDI, of course it isn't.

I'd wait for some RDI advocate in the DNA scientific world that would step up to contradict the latest test. Know of any?
 
This remark directly contradicts a recent CNN news report on the DNA trace test. Not only that, but the remark seems to ignore new discovery in favor of old pre-2006 'opinion'. It would help your argument to show at least one report that is in response to the latest DNA test, that includes an expert DNA opinion on how the DNA does not match. This is because as it stands right now, the latest expert DNA test report is that the DNA DOES match, and that report has not been challeneged by any DNA scientific body anywhere.

Another poster claimed the test results were not scientific, instead created by R's lawyers and PI's. The report isn't vague, it stated that recent and new trace DNA testing showed that DNA from the longjohns matched the DNA under her fingernails. Period.

Its time to accept the DNA as matching, and move on.

Oh, well, if CNN said it, it must be incontrovertible fact. Lord knows the media have never gotten anything wrong, ever. We can all stop debating this now - CNN said it, and that's gospel.

We'll acccept it as fact as soon as you produce a DNA expert who says it matches - DNA experts being somewhat more credible on this point than journalists.

Do you actually have any genuine interest in who killed JBR, or are you just trying to win a high school debating contest?
 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060824/ai_n16701397

Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html

Unknown male DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails and other unknown DNA was found on her body and her panties.

Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.
 
You know, I thought the dna matched also..... or at least.... they couldn't rule out the possibility that it was from one person.


In any event.... it's still doesn't come close to proving an intruder was even in the house much less that this person had anything to do w/ JB's death.


Until the test & exclude all KNOWN contacts JB had the day before & of the party & until they test OTHER evidence that MUST have traces of this same 'intruder dna' will I feel confident that this dna is an important clue to solving the case.



I posted this is a previous thread & I think it points out WHY it's so important to exclude innocent people when you have the chance. What if the dna under JB's nails came from some kid she was playing with????





http://www.courttv.com/trials/leiterman/071905_ctv.html

In 2002, cold case investigators sent several pieces of evidence, including the stockings and the blood drop, to the state police crime lab in Lansing, the largest and most state-of-the-art of the department's seven labs.

Scientists there isolated a DNA profile in the blood drop and ran it through a database of felons, who under state law are required to give a DNA sample. To the initial joy of investigators, the scientists matched the blood to John Ruelas, a convicted murderer from Detroit who was already serving a life sentence for killing his mother.

As detectives looked closer, they realized Ruelas could not be Mixer's assailant. He was 40 years old, making him just 4 years old at the time of the murder.

---



http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/62...257124006f9177


Tarnish On The 'Gold Standard': Recent Problems In Forensic DNA Testing
 
Until the test & exclude all KNOWN contacts JB had the day before & of the party & until they test OTHER evidence that MUST have traces of this same 'intruder dna' will I feel confident that this dna is an important clue to solving the case.

Oh, picky, picky

My guess is that if a DNA match were found in known contacts, the DA wouldn't rule it out as innocent contact, because of the circumstances in which the DNA was found.

Matching DNA under JBR's fingernails and in her underwear is pretty dam^ed incriminating circumstances for a rape homicide, doncha think?
 
Oh, picky, picky

My guess is that if a DNA match were found in known contacts, the DA wouldn't rule it out as innocent contact, because of the circumstances in which the DNA was found.

Matching DNA under JBR's fingernails and in her underwear is pretty dam^ed incriminating circumstances for a rape homicide, doncha think?

Oh yeah.... it's real picky to want to start investigating AFTER I know that JB didn't scratch some little kid & pick up his dna like that.

Why would anyone want to exclude innocent dna??? :rolleyes:

The last I heard.... girls can stick their OWN dirty fingers in their genital area... sometimes even on purpose! And if you're using a too small piece of toilet paper, it's VERY easy for your finger to poke through if the paper gets wet.


Exclude innocent dna WHENEVER you have the chance.... it saves time & it saves money. That's what I would insist on if it were MY daughter.
 
This remark directly contradicts a recent CNN news report on the DNA trace test. Not only that, but the remark seems to ignore new discovery in favor of old pre-2006 'opinion'. It would help your argument to show at least one report that is in response to the latest DNA test, that includes an expert DNA opinion on how the DNA does not match.
This is because as it stands right now, the latest expert DNA test report is that the DNA DOES match, and that report has not been challenged by any DNA scientific body anywhere.

The new test was done only on the longjohns, Holdon. The previous stuff was not retested. As for a new source, when this story broke, Nancy Grace interviewed the techinician who performed the test, and she did not mention the fingernail DNA at all. It hasn't been retested since 2003. They can't match it because it only has three markers. They couldn't even tell what it was from. No self-respecting scientist would say that matched anything. Maybe you didn't notice, but that CNN report did not directly quote anyone. As for being challenged, I doubt they know all that much about the case.

Another poster claimed the test results were not scientific, instead created by R's lawyers and PI's.

It may be a mere misinterpretation, but no scientific source has ever been given that says the fingernail DNA is a match to anything. Only the Ramsey lawyers and PIs have made that claim, and it was so inaccurate that when they repeated in on a CBS news broadcast, Tom Bennet came from the DA's office to say, "not so fast." Indeed, that's probably where CNN got the story. Modern news is a lazy business, Holdon. This case is a good example of that.

The report isn't vague, it stated that recent and new trace DNA testing showed that DNA from the longjohns matched the DNA under her fingernails. Period.

I'm afraid not. The report is a misunderstanding.

Its time to accept the DNA as matching, and move on.

No way.
 
The report stated the DNA on the longjohns matched the DNA in the panties. NOT under the fingernails. The fingernail DNA matched nothing, and as most people here are familiar with the unsterile and incorrect procedures used by the coroner to collect the fingernail DNA, the clippers may have been already contaminated by another corpse and have nothing to do with the JBR murder at all.
 
I want to see the report that says that the unidentified fingernail DNA has the same number of markers as the unidentified underwear DNA.


-Tea

ME TOO! I haven't heard that one before!
 
We, as laymen in this case, are stuck with what we get as far as DNA or any other forensic testing. The latest test indicated the DNA matched. I interpret that to mean the DNA traces are so similar that an exact match cannot be ruled out. This DNA 'remnant' is prevalent at the crime scene, found in three separate locations that are criminally conspicuous, and cannot be owned by a family member. As IDI, thats good enough for me.

Yeah, we know. We just wish the DA was a little more professional. It's her opinion that it's criminally conspicuous, not the scientists. They can only tell you what it is, and even then, they couldn't say for sure it was skin cells. They said, "most likely."

As RDI, of course it isn't.

Damn right. It'll take more than the word of "The DA Who Cried Intruder" to convince me. And I never take the "mainstream" media at face-value.

I'd wait for some RDI advocate in the DNA scientific world that would step up to contradict the latest test. Know of any?

Unfortunately, Holdon, RDI advocates aren't much in demand anymore, either in the DA's office or on the mainstream news. In both cases, because Lin Wood will threaten them if they have them on. But Henry Lee doesn't seem too impressed, by what I've seen.
 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060824/ai_n16701397

Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
"It had foreign DNA on it," he said.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html

Unknown male DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails and other unknown DNA was found on her body and her panties.

Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.

Thanks for posting this. Its something for Holdon to chew on for awhile.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
1,071
Total visitors
1,175

Forum statistics

Threads
589,162
Messages
17,915,043
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top