Dna

[roseofsharon]

If JB was being repeatedly sexually assaulted by a parent(s), IMO, a parent would be reluctant to even take their child to the doctor for fear of being caught.

It has been reported JB saw the doctor up to 33 times in a few years, so in all those visits, even the doctor did not question the frequency of visits, nor question why JB may be having chronic yeast infections.

IMO

 

[Whaleshark]

If JB was being repeatedly sexually assaulted by a parent(s), IMO, a parent would be reluctant to even take their child to the doctor for fear of being caught.

Yes, they probably would...but a parent ignorant of the other parent's, or a sibling's, or someone else's doing the assaulting, is not going to keep from taking the child to the doctor that often....or, another option is munchausen...so there are possibilities...

It has been reported JB saw the doctor up to 33 times in a few years, so in all those visits, even the doctor did not question the frequency of visits, nor question why JB may be having chronic yeast infections. IMO

How do you know the doctor didn't question? He may have, but was afraid to say anything due to the Ramsey social status... He also said he never gave an exam to the child the way an adult would have had - that it would have required putting the child under... and there must be a reason all the medical records were sealed, anyway....

 

[BBB167893]

I watched a documentary where the investigator said she had scratched herself. he said there were little half moon marks around the material that had been tied around her neck, and blood under her fingernails. He claimed this would match up to the marks someone would make whilst struggling against being garrotted. The phrase he used was very sad, he said she had tried to save her own life.
I think the documentary was called in the Uk "who killed the pageant queen"

That was Lou Smit, and his assertion about her scratching herself while struggling against the garrote is one of several instances where he made up his own evidence out of thin air. He was a great IDI salesman, but not much else.

Chrishope is right: the autopsy report describes these marks as petechial hemorrhages, not scratches. There was no blood or flesh under her nails--hers or anyone else's.

 

[BBB167893]

I now it is still awful, but I would be glad if it was the case that she was not struggling.

According to what the pathologists said, she wasn't.

This is going to sound really weird (and pelase do not lynch me), but in a way there is a part of me that thins in some ways it would be better if it was the parents, simply because as a parents I cannot imagine the horror of coming down on boxing day and finding my child like that. And I cannot imagine how much more scary for a child being trapped there with a stranger. I know thats foolish, and we should all hope that Jonbenet did at least have parents who never harmed her and loved her, but it is just the ultimate nightmare and do hard to comprehend how they must feel.

Well, you are in the minority on that one, brit1981. Most people would prefer it NOT be the parents, because the implications there are much scarier than chalking it up to some aberration.

 

[BBB167893]

Do you really think so. It just seems so strange. The Pm report said Jonbenet died from garroting, not even strangulation. Someone had actually constructed a garrote to use on the child, that seems such a bizarre thing for a parent to suddenly do, so premeditated, yet according to the PM she did not have old bruises or signs or abuse or neglect. Why would a parent suddenly decided on Christmas day to duct tape their child up and then garrote them, and then hit her on the head after the garrotting. Garrotting, especially using something constructed for it, does not sound like a crime committed in a rage, just slow hatred. How could a parent suddenly do that? What happened, was she a favourite of one of them in particular and it was done in hatred of the other parent?

Number one, the garrote was most likely applied AFTER the hit on the head, as much as an hour afterwards.

Number two, the duct tape was most likely not put on until AFTER she was dead.

Number three, the autopsy (or as you Britishers say it, Post-mortem) report showed both chronic and acute (that is, OLD and NEW) vaginal injuries.

Number four, using garrote actually accomplished several things. it's QUIET, so no one will hear you; it doesn't make a bloody mess, so you won't get anything on you; and you can do it without having to touch the victim or look them in the face.

Lest we forget, John Ramsey was stationed in the Philippines during his Navy days, when that country was awash in terrorist groups. And they knew how to use garrotes (a leftover from the Spanish).

Number five, you seem to suggest the classic "Medea" killing: murdering a loved child to spite a spouse. Maybe.

 

[BBB167893]

I always thought the ransom note was fake, written by whoever killed her just to be sadistic. But I thought they did find one of the basement windows that had been disturbed as if someone could have climbed in. But most of the information I have from this case comes from the "who killed the pageant queen " documentary so does not really mean anything.

How right you are!

I did read the autopsy, and I thought it said the primary cause of death was strangulation, and did it not say something about broken blood vessels in the eyes, I have never been at an autopsy of a murder victim, but I am sure I was told that was a sign of strangulation. Can anyone confirm that?

It is, but then, petechial bleeding in the eyes can be caused by a lot of things. Moreover, she may have been alive at the time, but it's possible, if not likely, that her killer didn't know that.

Also I read the three part story someone posted on this forum, and saw that someone had commented that although the parents had been exonerated, they had later been de-exonerated. Is that correct, was there anything particular that caused this?

Yes: a new DA not connected to the previous two and the cops regaining control over the case.

I also noticed that in one of the links above there were autopsy photos. Is this normal practice in the US. I am from the UK and it would be highly illegal for these pictures to be made public like this, so I found it quite shocking that the photos of Jonbenet's autopsy were online.

You can thank Lou Smit for that! He was the "investigator" you mentioned earlier. And if it isn't illegal, it damn well SHOULD be! Especially since he STOLE those pictures right out of the police evidence file!

I don't mean to get angry, brit1981, but you hit a nerve there. It wasn't your fault. You didn't know.

 

[SoBeCzar]

It would be very easy for the dna under her fingernails to have come from another child she played with at the Christmas party and she spread it to her underwear when she went to the bathroom. I think this is very likely.

 

[Maikai]

That was Lou Smit, and his assertion about her scratching herself while struggling against the garrote is one of several instances where he made up his own evidence out of thin air. He was a great IDI salesman, but not much else.

Chrishope is right: the autopsy report describes these marks as petechial hemorrhages, not scratches. There was no blood or flesh under her nails--hers or anyone else's.

You can see the half-moon scratch marks on her neck. Amazing how many think Steve Thomas was a genius, and Lou Smit a senile old man. Lou's specialty was reviewing the evidence with an open mind, and he obviously was successful in his career.

 

[Maikai]

It would be very easy for the dna under her fingernails to have come from another child she played with at the Christmas party and she spread it to her underwear when she went to the bathroom. I think this is very likely.

The DNA is from a male, and it matches other DNA found in the waistband of her longjohns, and bloodspots.

 

[SoBeCzar]

The DNA is from a male, and it matches other DNA found in the waistband of her longjohns, and bloodspots.

Well children are male too. lol I did not know it was on the blood spots. Where did you see that? I only heard fingernails and underwear. Do you have a link?

 

[Maikai]

Well children are male too. lol I did not know it was on the blood spots. Where did you see that? I only heard fingernails and underwear. Do you have a link?

This is from a Denver news channel:

Lacy explained that last summer, investigators became aware of a new method of DNA evidence collecting called "touch DNA" that would scrape places where there were no stains or other signs of DNA presence to see if genetic material could be collected. The District Attorney's Office contacted the Bode Technology Group near Washington, D.C., to scrape JonBenet's longjohns, which were probably handled by the perpetrator.
The firm confirmed that the DNA it collected on the waistband of the two sides of the longjohns matched the DNA of a blood drop on the inside crotch of JonBenet's underwear.
"The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items," Lacy wrote. "That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family."
The police have compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source of the DNA.

 

[SoBeCzar]

This is from a Denver news channel:

Lacy explained that last summer, investigators became aware of a new method of DNA evidence collecting called "touch DNA" that would scrape places where there were no stains or other signs of DNA presence to see if genetic material could be collected. The District Attorney's Office contacted the Bode Technology Group near Washington, D.C., to scrape JonBenet's longjohns, which were probably handled by the perpetrator.
The firm confirmed that the DNA it collected on the waistband of the two sides of the longjohns matched the DNA of a blood drop on the inside crotch of JonBenet's underwear.
"The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items," Lacy wrote. "That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family."
The police have compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source of the DNA.

Thanks. Not trying to be fussy but do you have the link so I can read it? I've never read this before.

 

[DeeDee249]

There was a lot of inaccurate info on many news reports. There was NO identifiable DNA under her fingernails. NO blood (her own or otherwise) NO skin or tissue.

There were NO scratch marks on her neck. The coroner noted NONE. The marks were identified as petechial hemorrhages and common in strangulations.

You know this, yet you keep referring to the same inaccuracies. The coroner was there- you were not. There were NO scratches on her neck.

There was a few drops of JB's OWN blood in her panty crotch. There was blood found in her vagina, and these drops oozed from there. There was male DNA (origin unknown) in the same place as these blood stains. There was NO male DNA from blood found there.

 

[KoldKase]

You can always count on the Ramsey supporters to ignore the facts of evidence and make up their own.

There were only a few identifiable markers in the fingernail DNA taken from JB at autopsy. The samples were degraded beyond use. You can't "match" so few DNA markers to any other sample and claim it proves anything. The number of people who could also have those same markers would be astronomical.

Also the medical examiner's technique for collecting the fingernail sample was so flawed, there is some debate that he used contaminated clippers to collect the fingernail samples. So that DNA may come from another corpse whose DNA hasn't been and never will be tested.

Also, DNA is so sensitive in its molecular-sized material, contamination and false-positives are common. That's been proven through research and countless other cases where convicted perps, some who finally confessed, ended up not being the source for confusing DNA found on bodies and at crime scenes. There is no time stamp on DNA, so unless there is accompanying evidence to put someone at the crime during the commission of it, DNA isn't going to convict anyone unless it's semen indisputably linked to abuse/rape, or blood left from a related wound, etc.

The red herring DNA in question in this case is not semen or blood in any sample from this crime. The only blood we are aware of came from JB herself. The unsourced DNA is from skin cells, which I believe is artifact because IF an intruder had left fresh, viable DNA behind that night, there would be much more of it, not just a few cells and fragments.

The location of the "touch" DNA on the waist of the longjohns doesn't change anything. This was the basis for the non-legal "exoneration" of the Ramseys: proclaimed by Mary "John PERV Karr" Lacy as the intruder Holy Grail when she had Bode Technology test the pants, but which (of course) has never been backed up by any legitimate documentation other than "trust us, we said so", Lacy falsely declared this proved there was in intruder. Her reasoning--if you can call it that--was that the markers found by Bode showed the intruder pulled down the longjohns and also left DNA on the crotch of the panties.

In reality, it only proves someone handled those clothes in the same way, but not when or who. Not even the source for the DNA can be stated beyond a reasonable doubt to have been anywhere near these items.

Because DNA is so small, clearly it can be transferred by touching something, as has been proven in research. It doesn't even have to be left by the person who is the source, but can be picked up on the hands or some other item and left behind upon contact that way.

So these DNA strands found on the clothing, most partial--though that is debated--could have come from being handling by forensic testing, from JB herself, even from the actual perp who got them from opening a door or tuirning on a faucet, etc.

So don't believe anyone who tries to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn: nobody knows who the DNA belongs to, when it got on the clothing, or how. Period. It's not blood and it's not semen, so it is hardly proof of any intruder who happened to also write like Patsy and managed to leave NOT ONE OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE BEHIND LEADING TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, though he is supposed to have spent hours in the silent home, brutally torturing and murdering a child while her family slept like the dead nearby.

 

[UKGuy]

You can always count on the Ramsey supporters to ignore the facts of evidence and make up their own.

There were only a few identifiable markers in the fingernail DNA taken from JB at autopsy. The samples were degraded beyond use. You can't "match" so few DNA markers to any other sample and claim it proves anything. The number of people who could also have those same markers would be astronomical.

Also the medical examiner's technique for collecting the fingernail sample was so flawed, there is some debate that he used contaminated clippers to collect the fingernail samples. So that DNA may come from another corpse whose DNA hasn't been and never will be tested.

Also, DNA is so sensitive in its sub-molecular level of material, contamination and false-positives are common. That's been proven through research and countless other cases where convicted perps, some who finally confessed, ended up not being the source for confusing DNA found on bodies and at crime scenes. There is no time stamp on DNA, so unless there is accompanying evidence to put someone at the crime during the commission of it, DNA isn't going to convict anyone unless it's semen indisputably linked to abuse/rape, or blood left from a related wound, etc.

The red herring DNA in question in this case is not semen or blood in any sample from this crime. The only blood we are aware of came from JB herself. The unsourced DNA is from skin cells, which I believe is artifact because IF an intruder had left fresh, viable DNA behind that night, there would be much more of it, not just a few cells and fragments.

The location of the "touch" DNA on the waist of the longjohns doesn't change anything. This was the basis for the non-legal "exoneration" of the Ramseys: proclaimed by Mary "John PERV Karr" Lacy as the intruder Holy Grail when she had Bode Technology test the pants, but which (of course) has never been backed up by any legitimate documentation other than "trust us, we said so", Lacy falsely declared this proved there was in intruder. Her reasoning--if you can call it that--was that the markers found by Bode showed the intruder pulled down the longjohns and also left DNA on the crotch of the panties.

In reality, it only proves someone handled those clothes in the same way, but not when or who. Not even the source for the DNA can be stated beyond a reasonable doubt to have been anywhere near these items.

Because DNA can't even be seen with a powerful electron microscope, it's so small, clearly it can be transferred by touching something, as has been proven in research. It doesn't even have to be left by the person who is the source, but can be picked up on the hands or some other item and left behind upon contact that way.

So these DNA strands found on the clothing, most partial--though that is debated--could have come from being handling by forensic testing, from JB herself, even from the actual perp who got them from opening a door or tuirning on a faucet, etc.

So don't believe anyone who tries to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn: nobody knows who the DNA belongs to, when it got on the clothing, or how. Period. It's not blood and it's not semen, so it is hardly proof of any intruder who happened to also write like Patsy and managed to leave NOT ONE OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE BEHIND LEADING TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, though he is supposed to have spent hours in the silent home, brutally torturing and murdering a child while her family slept like the dead nearby.

KoldKase,
Thats what I like pointing out to all IDI, e.g. zero forensic evidence.

JonBenet was cleaned up and staged to such a degree you know it has to be an inside job!




.

 

[UKGuy]

There was a lot of inaccurate info on many news reports. There was NO identifiable DNA under her fingernails. NO blood (her own or otherwise) NO skin or tissue.

There were NO scratch marks on her neck. The coroner noted NONE. The marks were identified as petechial hemorrhages and common in strangulations.

You know this, yet you keep referring to the same inaccuracies. The coroner was there- you were not. There were NO scratches on her neck.

There was a few drops of JB's OWN blood in her panty crotch. There was blood found in her vagina, and these drops oozed from there. There was male DNA (origin unknown) in the same place as these blood stains. There was NO male DNA from blood found there.

DeeDee249,
Other than her size-12's. Has it been stated where the touch-dna was found on the longjohns, inside, outside, or both?

Assuming Patsy was telling the truth about the longjohns, these are clean on JonBenet, even if they were placed on her down in the basement and not in her bedroom? I'll make the same assumption about the size-12's. So either the touch-dna was transferred by the same person who redressed her in the size-12's and longjohns, or it arrived during the autopsy procedure?

If JonBenet had transferred the touch-dna, then it would have been found elsewhere on her body, e.g. her fingers?

Did Coroner Meyer not say something about the stains on the size-12's not matching up with what you might expect, if JonBenet had actually been wearing those size-12's?

Do you reckon the bloodstain on the size-12's was the result of blood-pooling, or from an acute injury?



.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase,
Thats what I like pointing out to all IDI, e.g. zero forensic evidence.

JonBenet was cleaned up and staged to such a degree you know it has to be an inside job!




.

Of course, we're peeing in the wind, as this info has been around and debated so long, people believe what they believe, logic and evidence be darned.

One thing I want to correct in my post you quoted. I decided to make sure my statement about DNA being seen by an electron microscope was up to date, and it wasn't.

They now have engineered new instruments and procedures so that they can actually view DNA strands on electron microscopes.

Still, it's teeny, tiny. Some people can't understand matter can be broken down into parts they can't see with the naked eye, I guess. :waitasec:

 

[KoldKase]

DeeDee249,
Other than her size-12's. Has it been stated where the touch-dna was found on the longjohns, inside, outside, or both?

Assuming Patsy was telling the truth about the longjohns, these are clean on JonBenet, even if they were placed on her down in the basement and not in her bedroom? I'll make the same assumption about the size-12's. So either the touch-dna was transferred by the same person who redressed her in the size-12's and longjohns, or it arrived during the autopsy procedure?

[snip]

.

Butting in here re: handling of the clothing and contamination.

I've thought a lot about how Dr. Meyer handled those panties, actually attempting to align the bloodstain in the crotch of them with those dried on the child's genitalia. Thomas spoke about this, which is our source.

Dr. Meyer would have to have handled the panties a lot to do that, Especially the crotch where the unsourced DNA was commingled with JB's blood droplets.

He also would have pulled down her longjohns and panties as he undressed her, unless he had an assistant who did that. Either way, we all put on/take off pants like that.

So if his gloves were contaminated from clipping the fingernails or in some other way, he may have been the source of the transfer of the DNA to the clothing.

Now think of the forensic lab techs working with that clothing to obtain samples for DNA testing: they would have handled the clothing in the same way, very possibly handling the waist of the longjohns when folding/unfolding, just like we habitually do laundry.

So the opportunity of someone to have contaminated the clothing/samples is clearly there, especially back in 1996 when DNA use in criminal forensics was still hardly a decade old. The chances for contamination were abundent, and I think that's what we see in the unsourced DNA in this case.

Because there is simply not any other piece of evidence--NONE AT ALL--leading to any intruder.

And there is a mountain of evidence that it was one or more of those known to be in the home that night, NONE of whom have an alibi BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.

It's just not that hard to figure out, unless one simply isn't capable of accepting the truth they feel compelled to deny for other reasons.

 

[UKGuy]

Butting in here re: handling of the clothing and contamination.

I've thought a lot about how Dr. Meyer handled those panties, actually attempting to align the bloodstain in the crotch of them with those dried on the child's genitalia. Thomas spoke about this, which is our source.

Dr. Meyer would have to have handled the panties a lot to do that, Especially the crotch where the unsourced DNA was commingled with JB's blood droplets.

He also would have pulled down her longjohns and panties as he undressed her, unless he had an assistant who did that. Either way, we all put on/take off pants like that.

So if his gloves were contaminated from clipping the fingernails or in some other way, he may have been the source of the transfer of the DNA to the clothing.

Now think of the forensic lab techs working with that clothing to obtain samples for DNA testing: they would have handled the clothing in the same way, very possibly handling the waist of the longjohns when folding/unfolding, just like we habitually do laundry.

So the opportunity of someone to have contaminated the clothing/samples is clearly there, especially back in 1996 when DNA use in criminal forensics was still hardly a decade old. The chances for contamination were abundent, and I think that's what we see in the unsourced DNA in this case.

Because there is simply not any other piece of evidence--NONE AT ALL--leading to any intruder.

And there is a mountain of evidence that it was one or more of those known to be in the home that night, NONE of whom have an alibi BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.

It's just not that hard to figure out, unless one simply isn't capable of accepting the truth they feel compelled to deny for other reasons.

KoldKase,

So if his gloves were contaminated from clipping the fingernails or in some other way, he may have been the source of the transfer of the DNA to the clothing.

Now think of the forensic lab techs working with that clothing to obtain samples for DNA testing: they would have handled the clothing in the same way, very possibly handling the waist of the longjohns when folding/unfolding, just like we habitually do laundry.

Yes this appears to be best explanation for the touch-dna. This is why I queried its location. Also we have not been told if there is any other touch-dna on the longjohns or size-12's, even that of the R's which must be there, e.g. Patsy's.

Is it not standard practise to film autopsies, or have I been watching too much CSI?

If the touch-dna matches from different locations then I would vote for contamination at the autopsy?


.

 

[Whaleshark]

Is it not standard practise to film autopsies, or have I been watching too much CSI?

...there is some testimony reference to a video taken.... so, probably is one, but we haven't been able to see it...