kidzndogznme
A closed mouth gathers no foot
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 3
I can assure if it wasn't tested then its so degraded it does not exist in any real sense now. I live here and never heard that. JMHO This sounds like so much malarky. If they had it they'd of tested it. I can't believe otherwise . As to Lacey wanting to hire another full time investigator. She better do something to make this case look like its still investigator. Can we spell new Governor Bill Ritter is preparing his oath of office speech. :doh: Yet only $40 grand. cmonjulianne said:I've never heard that before. If their reasoning for NOT testing it was because there was such a small amount, and they didn't want to use it all up, well, then what would they be saving it for if NOT for a DNA test?????
Laundry would not explain John's shirt fibers found in her crotch. They did not get there from his shirt! John had to have direct contact with her undressed body that night. I think he molested her and he probably was her killer- I don't know how much Patsy was involved in the killing, but Patsy wrote the cover-up "ransom note" IMO.kidzndogznme said:I don't mean to be gross but in my house, all of the undies are pretty much washed together. Some are bleached if possible. If it was the same in the Ramsey house, isn't it possible that some of John's "stuff" got on JB's underwear just from laundering? Or Patsy's stuff? Or Burke's stuff? I am a germ freak and I have done some basic reading about American washers. They are notoriously poor rinsers so I try to rinse my clothes twice just to make sure. Even if there was testable DNA, would that conclusively prove anything?
The fingernail DNA has not been matched to the underwear DNA. That the DNAs match is something that has only been said by these two RST PIs Gray and Augustin, and Lin Wood's not saying it, so I think he knows it doesn't match as well. There aren't enough markers found in the nail DNA to conclusively match it to anything. There are standard similarities in DNA - that's why we need a certain number of markers to make a definitive match. If there has been a match made, it was with those standard similarities, and it isn't a conclusive match because they would need more markers to make that match - and there aren't more.LionRun said:I thought I read that the DNA on JBR's underwear matched DNA under her nails. Wouldn't that mean DNA tests were done? I heard the test may have been botched (nail clippers may not have been cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails). I've heard that various people tested via DNA were not a match. Since these are all things I've heard, sometimes beyond here-say I don't know what to think.
Was DNA tested or not tested, and if so, from where? I'm confused :waitasec:
I have nothing to add but my own e mail to surely the slew of mails Nancy Grace is going to get. Eventually Cleared really sent me sky high. Also I totally agree about the JMK. He was not in Boulder that night and till that can be prove. Somebody get the shepherds hook and get him off stage ok.Nuisanceposter said:The fingernail DNA has not been matched to the underwear DNA. That the DNAs match is something that has only been said by these two RST PIs Gray and Augustin, and Lin Wood's not saying it, so I think he knows it doesn't match as well. There aren't enough markers found in the nail DNA to conclusively match it to anything. There are standard similarities in DNA - that's why we need a certain number of markers to make a definitive match. If there has been a match made, it was with those standard similarities, and it isn't a conclusive match because they would need more markers to make that match - and there aren't more.
The coroner's office failed to use a sterile set of clippers for each nail as they are supposed to. They used the same set of clippers for all nails, so yes, there is a question of contamination.
There is no proof that any DNA under JonBenet's nails came from the killer. Patsy said JB hadn't had a bath that day, and that she wasn't fond of washing her hands, so that DNA could have been there from the day before, or even the day before. If it had come from JonBenet scratching her killer, it would have been more complete and easier to obtain markers from because it would have been fresher.
Same with the underwear DNA. It was fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete. Had the foreign DNA sample been deposited at the same time as JonBenet's, it would have been as fresh and complete. It wasn't. It's extremely likely the foreign DNA was already on the underwear before they were ever put on JonBenet's body. Dr Henry Lee obtained identical underwear, brand new and unwashed, and when he tested them, he found DNA on them.
That's another important thing about these underwear JonBenet was wearing when she was found - they were brand new, unwashed, never been worn underwear right out of the package. They had never been laundered. They were size 12/14. JonBenet's drawer was full of her underwear, size 4/6...why was she found in underwear that were way too big for her? Who put them on her?
As for Nancy Grace, she's about to get a nasty emnail from me for her shoddy show that basically highlighted the case from the JMK point of view. I normally like Nancy, but seeing a show about JB that pretty much focused on JMK was more than I could handle. That sick jerk doesn't deserve any more air time, and I'm thoroughly disgusted that he's gotten what he wanted, and now he's an integral part of the JBR investigation. That along with the announcement that the Rs "were eventually cleared" (they weren't and she should know that) is going to earn the Nancy Grace show an email from a less-than-satisfied viewer.
I heard the above also. Can anyone elaborate on it? Also, this is the first I heard of size 12/14 underwear on JBR. Not only would I like to know why they were put on; but, who'd were they? Were there any more like it in the home?scandi said:Nuisanseposter,
During the JMK period of the case, I did some reading on the case. I remember reading about another DNA sample that had been sent to a lab in the midwest that they felt they would have success with. Do you know anything about this.
About the same time I read that Dr Lee was on a talk show and said DNA would determine who the killer was in JB's death, and that is the last thing I had learned here at WS about the importance of DNA in the case.
Scandi
I have not heard that on Dr. Lee but Lou Smit keeps saying that DNA will prove the killer we just need to wait for the DNA databanks to fill up. In fact Dr. Lee was saying that this was NOT a case for DNA. That the DNA could be artifact and of no consequence in this case. He purchased a pack of underwear and proved that there was existent dna on the unlaundered underwear. So I am thinking someone has confused Dr. Lee with Lou Smit....jmhoLionRun said:I heard the above also. Can anyone elaborate on it? Also, this is the first I heard of size 12/14 underwear on JBR. Not only would I like to know why they were put on; but, who'd were they? Were there any more like it in the home?
JR stating that "Burke passed out the gifts b/c he could read and JonBenet couldn't" ---- How does THAT statement turn into JR intentionally making a comment about the Wednesday underwear????? Apples and oranges. Especially since JonBenet not knowing how to read was revealed waaaaay before DOI was even written.JMO8778 said:In ref. to the underwear saying Wed. on them,and JB knowing that,JR seems to have intentionally made a comment in DOI about that when he says that "Burke passed out the gifts b/c he could read and JB couldn't."