What would you ask the DNA owner?
- Thread starter Holdontoyourhat
- Start date
Easy, friend. Allow me to elaborate:
1) I don't know if she wore size 12s all day. On the surface, it's not likely.
2) I KNOW they were size 12.
3) I'm NOT sure she wore the long johns all day. There's no evidence that she didn't. She well could have.
Yeah, they would have you believe that.
redeemed said:
And I'll turn the heat up a notch.
We don't.
I don't know about spin. But since we have no established timeline or ownership, our idea is as good as yours.
Prima facie's just about worthless in this case.
I could, if I actually thought it would GET me anywhere...
Tell that to Mark Beckner.
If ya smell what the SD is cooking...
There were dark wool fibers in her panties that matched the fibers from JR's shirt made in Israel that he wore that day.
There were also dark cotton fibers found on her thighs that were thought to be terrycloth. These were in the area where she was wiped down. JR had a navy terrycloth robe that was found in the den. Odd place, no?
I know of no brown fibers, but there were TAN cotton fibers found. JB owned several American Girl dolls. The American Girl dolls have a tan cotton body. The Pleasant Company (manufacturers of the dolls then) advised parents to put a piece of duct tape over the back of the doll's neck because the cord that was used to tie the doll's vinyl head to the cloth body sometimes interfered with fixing the dolls hair. There was a piece of duct tape which appeared to have been used before allegedly found on JB's mouth. I say "allegedly because JR claimed to have pulled it off her mouth when he "found" her. And finally, an American Girl doll was removed from the home by Aunt P in her "evidence raid" on the home, making it impossible to match those fibers to that doll. How conveeeeenient.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
You're asking me to believe a sexually assaulting pedophile DIDN'T take the panties? Are you serious? Everything you described fits in one pocket.
Using the 'why bother' logic, why bother writing an RN? why bother staging an explainable accident to look like a 1st degree capital child murder? Worst they could get with the accident is 2nd degree manslaughter.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
Is this all you ever do?Twisting people's words and ideas?????????????Read again.I said the opposite.
You didn't answer my question.Not that I am surprised though,seems that I am wasting time with you.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Is this not what you posted?
So, I posted:
And then you posted:
Look, you've got an axe to grind? Grind it with someone else, OK? I'm neither concerned nor affected by your flaming post. My post wasn't flaming, I simply contradicted your POV by noting how easy it would be to stuff all those items in a pocket, and you maybe didn't like that. I just don't think disinformation is cool.
Besides, this IDI doesn't know what happened to ANY of that stuff. Your posts are flaming and total presumptions, putting words in people's mouths. I dont want you to 'believe' anything.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Its not my fault if you can't make it thru one post without contradicting yourself. Reread it man.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
The DNA being found in multiple places doesn't mean Rdidn'tDI. For a start, we are essentially talking touch DNA so, if the LJs were folded at any point and/or one bit of them came into contact with another bit of them, then you could easily get transfer. Similarly, we have no idea how long it was since the LJs had been washed so we can't really be sure when the DNA was deposited. Someone had put LJs on a child who was asleep, someone who had been at a party shaking hands and hugging people and who had certainly (by her own timeline) not washed her hands since entering the house. She would have had to have touched the LJs in more than one place to put them on a sleeping child (or any child). JBR herself had been out - playing with neighbourhood kids in the morning (as per DoI)and at the party, touching gifts, meeting people, touching furniture. Scratching in her sleep, possibly. Blood being a liquid would mix with DNA already on the LJs.
And anyway, even it did belong to someone with guilty knowledge of the crime, that wouldn't rule out Ramsey involvement.
The DNA is just another aspect of this case and, unless and until the owner of the DNA can be placed in the Ramsey house and an innocent explanation for the DNA's deposit ruled out, it should be treated on an equal footing with the other evidence.
Generally:
(From a BBC Panorama programme)
Snip
Transference traces
DNA has unquestionably transformed forensic science.
The clear-up rate for burglaries has hugely improved, "cold cases" have been solved and murderers put away in jail, with the critical assistance of tiny - microscopically small - traces of DNA.
However, is this a system that we can trust?
Panorama speaks to senior forensic scientist Professor Allan Jamieson who is Director of The Forensic Institute, based in Glasgow. He warns that too much trust is already placed in DNA results.
He says: "People put too much faith in DNA. They're giving it an infallibility which it does not have."
He explains that finding DNA traces does not always tell you what you think it does.
"We've shaken hands. My DNA will be on your hand.
"You may touch something outside of this room that I have never touched, and therefore my DNA will be somewhere where I have never been," he adds.
Mistaken identitiy
And, although rare, mistakes can happen.
In Swindon a man with Parkinson's Disease was arrested, and charged with a burglary in Bolton.
He was frail and had never been there. But his DNA sample - it is claimed - matched one taken from the crime scene.
Eventually the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) admitted that he could not have done it.
Snip
And anyway, even it did belong to someone with guilty knowledge of the crime, that wouldn't rule out Ramsey involvement.
The DNA is just another aspect of this case and, unless and until the owner of the DNA can be placed in the Ramsey house and an innocent explanation for the DNA's deposit ruled out, it should be treated on an equal footing with the other evidence.
Generally:
(From a BBC Panorama programme)
Snip
Transference traces
DNA has unquestionably transformed forensic science.
The clear-up rate for burglaries has hugely improved, "cold cases" have been solved and murderers put away in jail, with the critical assistance of tiny - microscopically small - traces of DNA.
However, is this a system that we can trust?
Panorama speaks to senior forensic scientist Professor Allan Jamieson who is Director of The Forensic Institute, based in Glasgow. He warns that too much trust is already placed in DNA results.
He says: "People put too much faith in DNA. They're giving it an infallibility which it does not have."
He explains that finding DNA traces does not always tell you what you think it does.
"We've shaken hands. My DNA will be on your hand.
"You may touch something outside of this room that I have never touched, and therefore my DNA will be somewhere where I have never been," he adds.
Mistaken identitiy
And, although rare, mistakes can happen.
In Swindon a man with Parkinson's Disease was arrested, and charged with a burglary in Bolton.
He was frail and had never been there. But his DNA sample - it is claimed - matched one taken from the crime scene.
Eventually the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) admitted that he could not have done it.
Snip
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Boulder District Attorney's office: Unknown male DNA in multple criminally significant places on JBR is huge evidence of an intruder. Lets exhonerate the R's, put the DNA into CODIS and wait for a match.
RDI: DNA in multiple criminally significant places on JBR is just another aspect of the case.
RDI's position on the significance of the intruder DNA is oversimplified and understated. DNA found under JBR's fingernails, in her underwear, and on her longjohns were not necessarily even the same type of DNA. JBR traded paint with this person the night she was murdered, that much is clear. Understating the DNA doesn't make it go away. Its huge evidence favoring an intruder theory, and it has resulted in much, much better media coverage of JBR's murder, thats for sure.
RDI: DNA in multiple criminally significant places on JBR is just another aspect of the case.
RDI's position on the significance of the intruder DNA is oversimplified and understated. DNA found under JBR's fingernails, in her underwear, and on her longjohns were not necessarily even the same type of DNA. JBR traded paint with this person the night she was murdered, that much is clear. Understating the DNA doesn't make it go away. Its huge evidence favoring an intruder theory, and it has resulted in much, much better media coverage of JBR's murder, thats for sure.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
1) I'll repeat: even if the DNA belongs to someone with guilty knowledge of the crime, it obviously doesn't rule out Ramsey knowledge or complicity before, during or after the fact. That's self-evident and Mary Lacy shouldn't have called herself a prosecutor if she didn't see that.
2) Had the DNA types been that diverse, that would have been made known by Lacy - semen or blood would have been a massive deal and Lin Wood would have made sure we knew about it. Certainly, until last year, they weren't sure whether they were talking materials from a sneeze or cough or quite what and given how small we are led to believe the new samples are, you'd have to assume there is the same lack of certainty now. Anyway, I cough into my hand, shake your hand, you go and drink a cup of coffee and probably get two types of my DNA on your cup. Two different types of DNA could technically have a totally innocent explanation. And even if they didn't, this still wouldn't rule out Ramsey knowledge or complicity.
The most over-looked possibility in this case (other than your SFF scenario, HOTYH) is the Ramsey + A.N.Other scenario. Not that I subscribe to it necessarily, but I wonder why it has been so casually dismissed?
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Can anyone tell me what the rules are for a person's DNA being entered on CODIS? Are these rules US-wide or do they vary from state to state?
Just trying to get an idea of the way CODIS works and the chance of someone winding up on CODIS (and getting a match to the JBR DNA) even if they didn't commit the same sort of offence.
ETA: I'm assuming this is pretty accurate:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_DNA_database[/ame]
TIA.
Just trying to get an idea of the way CODIS works and the chance of someone winding up on CODIS (and getting a match to the JBR DNA) even if they didn't commit the same sort of offence.
ETA: I'm assuming this is pretty accurate:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_DNA_database[/ame]
TIA.
Ravyn
New Member
The IDI's does avoid certain questions but I have one why did JR tell JAR,MR,and the boyfriend that he found JonBenet at 11:00am... So does this mean he had enough time to change out the panties with the new ones from the UNWRAPPED package?
CODIS currently contains more than four million DNA profiles from convicted offenders and more than 160,000 DNA profiles obtained from crime scene evidence. All 50 states participate in CODIS, although the laws authorizing DNA collection, analysis, and entry into databases vary considerably. Every state takes DNA samples from convicted sex offenders, more than 40 states allow collection of samples from all convicted felons, at least 38 allow from convicts of certain qualifying misdemeanors, eleven allow from those arrested for certain crimes, and one state permits collection from individuals detained as suspects. The passage of the DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005 allowed CODIS to include samples from any individual from whom collection was authorized under state law, and also permitted inclusion of DNA from federal arrestees and from non-U.S. detainees. These changes in the law have led to a dramatic expansion of forensic DNA databases.
http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/issuebriefpdfs/DNA, Forensics, and the Law Issue Brief.pdf
That info has never been released, although I would be shocked if her profile was not found.
We can only assume JR told his kids that he found her at 11am because he DID actually find her at that time. It certainly could have happened- it was during the two hours he "disappeared" (10am- noon) from sight, when Det. Arndt thought he went to "get the mail". She said she saw him going trough mail (as if a parent waiting for word from kidnappers would really be casually looking though the mail) and she assumed he had gone to get it. What she foolishly did not realize was that the house had a mail slot right in the front door, and it was not necessary to leave the house to get the mail. Even if the family had the mail held at the Post Office for the trip (not necessary because the mail simply dropped to the floor inside the house)- why would ANY parent waiting for a call from kidnappers go on an errand during the time the call was expected?
Of course we know the answer- there WAS no call expected because there was no kidnapping and the Rs knew it.
As to whether there was time to unwrap the boxes and change the panties during that time- I suppose there was enough time, but I don't thing he would have chanced it with so many people in the house. Arndt was there by then and she could have walked through the basement looking for HIM. I think the redressing was done in the wee hours before the 911 call.