Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-09-2008, 09:08 PM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Defending against an intruder

Did JBR defend herself against an intruder? Did she have injuries that suggested she fought back? Could she have defended herself, or was the intruder too prepared? Why was the intruder so prepared?

It was pointed out on another thread that screaming is only for movies, and that other victims of crimes or attempted crimes did not scream. Why didn't JBR scream if she was assaulted by an intruder? Well, there is a neighbor who thought they heard a scream.

Children can defend themselves, and screaming or raising attention is in fact a basic child defense technique.


http://www.selfdefenseresource.com/c...es/12-tips.php

If someone starts touching or grabbing a child, the child should attract attention by kicking, yelling, and screaming. He can yell "He's not my dad!" "She's not my mom!" "Stranger, stranger!" and "He's attacking me!"
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-09-2008, 09:32 PM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
Did JBR defend herself against an intruder? Did she have injuries that suggested she fought back? Could she have defended herself, or was the intruder too prepared? Why was the intruder so prepared?

It was pointed out on another thread that screaming is only for movies, and that other victims of crimes or attempted crimes did not scream. Why didn't JBR scream if she was assaulted by an intruder? Well, there is a neighbor who thought they heard a scream.

Children can defend themselves, and screaming or raising attention is in fact a basic child defense technique.


http://www.selfdefenseresource.com/c...es/12-tips.php

If someone starts touching or grabbing a child, the child should attract attention by kicking, yelling, and screaming. He can yell "He's not my dad!" "She's not my mom!" "Stranger, stranger!" and "He's attacking me!"
You make good points, Holdon. This stuff should be taught more widely. It might lessen the number of children who get victimized.

Let me also say this: when I was that young, there was one thing I sure would have done: BITE!

I would say that your third question should be categorized, since it depends on the answer to the first question.

But since you know where I stand, I won't answer them unless you want me to.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-09-2008, 10:58 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Teaching young kids how to act defensively is an excellent idea, and should be part of every schools' curriculum.
As far as we know, there were no defensive injuries on JBR, on her hands, etc. that would suggest she fought an intruder. The scream is about as much as we have right now, and her scream could have been in reaction to feeling the pain of either being sexually assaulted (enough to cause bleeding), or screaming in fear if she realized what was happening. Neighbor Melanie Stanton, when first mentioning the scream, is sure it was a child's scream. As a mother myself, I do know what she means; kids screams can be distinguished from adults pretty easily. However I don't rule out the possibility that the scream may have been PR's. A woman can have a higher pitched voice that can be mistaken for a child's, especially when the person that heard it was woken up from sleep by the scream.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:03 PM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
Teaching young kids how to act defensively is an excellent idea, and should be part of every schools' curriculum.
As far as we know, there were no defensive injuries on JBR, on her hands, etc. that would suggest she fought an intruder. The scream is about as much as we have right now, and her scream could have been in reaction to feeling the pain of either being sexually assaulted (enough to cause bleeding), or screaming in fear if she realized what was happening. Neighbor Melanie Stanton, when first mentioning the scream, is sure it was a child's scream. As a mother myself, I do know what she means; kids screams can be distinguished from adults pretty easily. However I don't rule out the possibility that the scream may have been PR's. A woman can have a higher pitched voice that can be mistaken for a child's, especially when the person that heard it was woken up from sleep by the scream.
This is not true, according to what I've read. Scratching and clawing is a common defense, and supporting the idea that JBR scratched and clawed her attacker is the unknown male DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails. I believe this DNA matches the DNA that was found on her longjohns and in her underwear.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:13 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
This is not true, according to what I've read. Scratching and clawing is a common defense, and supporting the idea that JBR scratched and clawed her attacker is the unknown male DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails. I believe this DNA matches the DNA that was found on her longjohns and in her underwear.
Yet another IDI inaccuracy. The DNA under her nails does NOT match any other DNA, and was degraded (meaning much older) than the other DNA profiles. There was NO evidence of blood or skin under her nails, so the scratching and clawing is unlikely. Also, the coroner did not follow proper sterile procedures for clipping JBR's nails; he used the SAME clipper for each finger, instead of the standard procedure of a clean clipper for each nail.
If JBR hadn't washed her hands in a few days (as her mother said, JBR disliked hand-washing and avoided it whenever she could) that DNA may not have been associated with the crime, or that day, at all. Her mother said that JBE did not have a bath that day and also could not remember whether she had a bath the previous day.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:16 PM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
Yet another IDI inaccuracy. The DNA under her nails does NOT match any other DNA, and was degraded (meaning much older) than the other DNA profiles. There was NO evidence of blood or skin under her nails, so the scratching and clawing is unlikely. Also, the coroner did not follow proper sterile procedures for clipping JBR's nails; he used the SAME clipper for each finger, instead of the standard procedure of a clean clipper for each nail.
If JBR hadn't washed her hands in a few days (as her mother said, JBR disliked hand-washing and avoided it whenever she could) that DNA may not have been associated with the crime, or that day, at all. Her mother said that JBE did not have a bath that day and also could not remember whether she had a bath the previous day.
Are you simply calling this CNN news report a lie?


"Late last year, Lacy ordered a test using new methodology known as "touch" testing on genetic material found on a pair of long johns that had been pulled up over the girl's underwear. That material matched DNA that was found on the girl's underwear and under her fingernails in a test conducted in 1998. The DNA belongs to an unidentified man, Lacy said."

Maybe you can share with us your source that shares your view.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:28 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Yes. The DNA under her nails was too degraded to match conclusively with anyone. Remember this is Lacy saying this.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:35 PM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
Yes. The DNA under her nails was too degraded to match conclusively with anyone. Remember this is Lacy saying this.
Who says?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:40 PM
coloradokares coloradokares is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
Who says, you?

You are trying like h-e-double toothpicks to forget everything but Lacys apology . Twelve years of evidence there was not an intruder **poof** up in smoke. You might be sellin but I am not buyin!!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:43 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
Who says?
Yeah, me.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:50 PM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
Yeah, me.

Are you a DNA expert?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-10-2008, 12:07 AM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
Are you a DNA expert?
No, but Henry Lee is. In A documentary made by Larry Schiller in 2006, he said that the DNA under her nails only had three identifiable markers, and they had to use amplification just to get that many.

The CNN report is repeating an old lie that was started by the Ramseys and their legal machine that has been repeated without challenge for so long it's been accpeted as truth. Tom Bennet, the DA's investigator at the time, said that the DNA under her nails was of no value.

How's that?

Actually, Holdon, I'm kind of surprised that you would take a media report on this case at face value. You're always telling us not to believe anything I read, see or hear about this case. But that's neither here nor there.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-10-2008, 01:04 AM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
No, but Henry Lee is. In A documentary made by Larry Schiller in 2006, he said that the DNA under her nails only had three identifiable markers, and they had to use amplification just to get that many.

The CNN report is repeating an old lie that was started by the Ramseys and their legal machine that has been repeated without challenge for so long it's been accpeted as truth. Tom Bennet, the DA's investigator at the time, said that the DNA under her nails was of no value.

How's that?

Actually, Holdon, I'm kind of surprised that you would take a media report on this case at face value. You're always telling us not to believe anything I read, see or hear about this case. But that's neither here nor there.
The test referred to in the CNN article wasn't even ordered until 'late last year', or late 2007. Your 2006 documentary, and your claim that CNN is 'repeating an old lie' seem to be ignorant to, or in denial of, the recent news events of the case.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-10-2008, 01:22 AM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
The test referred to in the CNN article wasn't even ordered until 'late last year', or late 2007. Your 2006 documentary, and your claim that CNN is 'repeating an old lie' seem to be ignorant to, or in denial of, the recent news events of the case.
Wrong, Holdon. I am not ignorant of anything. And the only person in denial is Mary Lacy.

Look at that CNN report again. The test you speak of happening in 2007 was the new test, but it was only on the longjohns. The idea that the fingernail DNA matches that comes from much earlier. Since 2002, the Ramseys and their legal team have tried to claim that the fingernail DNA matches the underwear DNA, even though it has so few markers it can't be worth anything. That's the old lie that CNN was repeating, because they took that old lie at face value and just added this on to it. The fingernail DNA is a dead end.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-10-2008, 01:28 AM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
Wrong, Holdon. I am not ignorant of anything. And the only person in denial is Mary Lacy.
Really? Are you sure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
Look at that CNN report again. The test you speak of happening in 2007 was the new test, but it was only on the longjohns. The idea that the fingernail DNA matches that comes from much earlier. Since 2002, the Ramseys and their legal team have tried to claim that the fingernail DNA matches the underwear DNA, even though it has so few markers it can't be worth anything. That's the old lie that CNN was repeating, because they took that old lie at face value and just added this on to it. The fingernail DNA is a dead end.
Who took that old lie? CNN?

I think you're getting confused between CNN 'adding' things onto other things, and actual conclusions from a test that was ordered in late 2007.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-10-2008, 01:34 AM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-10-2008, 01:34 AM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
Really? Are you sure?



Who took that old lie? CNN?

I think you're getting confused between CNN 'adding' things onto other things, and actual conclusions from a test that was ordered in late 2007.
Damn sure. I've been at this case a long time. I know these things.

I'm not the one who's confused. Though, from the way it's worded, one could get the impression you are trying to give. No, the test on the longjohns was conducted last year. The fingernail test was back in 1997-1998.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-2008, 01:37 AM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
Damn sure. I've been at this case a long time. I know these things.

I'm not the one who's confused. Though, from the way it's worded, one could get the impression you are trying to give. No, the test on the longjohns was conducted last year. The fingernail test was back in 1997-1998.
There's no ambiguity, SD. The conclusion from the 2007 test was that the DNA found in the longjohns matched the DNA found under her fingernails AND the DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-10-2008, 01:52 AM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
There's no ambiguity, SD. The conclusion from the 2007 test was that the DNA found in the longjohns matched the DNA found under her fingernails AND the DNA mixed with blood in JBR's underwear.
The conclusion of the 2007 test was that it matched the underwear DNA, as much as they could match it because it was incomplete. But CNN was just being lazy on the fingernail angle. They were just repeating the story that Team Ramsey has been telling. Two PIs working for them came up with that. Like I said, it only had three markers and they barely got that much out of it.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-10-2008, 02:01 AM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
The conclusion of the 2007 test was that it matched the underwear DNA, as much as they could match it because it was incomplete. But CNN was just being lazy on the fingernail angle. They were just repeating the story that Team Ramsey has been telling. Two PIs working for them came up with that. Like I said, it only had three markers and they barely got that much out of it.
I know that DNA is and has been a thorn in the side of RDI for years. But there's just no way to read into the CNN article what you've stated here. I tried, but I get nothing about PI's or R lawyers in the article.

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. 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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-10-2008, 02:13 AM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
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?
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-10-2008, 02:41 AM
Holdontoyourhat Holdontoyourhat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,299
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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-10-2008, 02:44 AM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
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.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-10-2008, 04:09 AM
Chrishope Chrishope is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,802
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.
__________________
I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-10-2008, 06:48 AM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
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,
Quote:
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.


.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Assuming just for the poll that it was an intruder: Who was the intruder? newtv JonBenet Ramsey 138 11-02-2013 01:11 AM
Defending Foster ajt400 JonBenet Ramsey 14 12-02-2003 06:58 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!