Who ultimately committed this

[Holdontoyourhat]

The likely source for the dna in the bloodstain is touch-dna falling from the longjohns onto the size-12 underwear. This may have ocurred at autopsy, or when JonBenet was being redressed. .

my bold.

The likely source for the DNA is it fell on the blood stain?!? LOL you have got to be kidding me.

The likely source for that bruise is a meteor???

UKGuy UMake me laugh.

Seriously though. There is the possibility that skin cells sloughed off the leggings waistband and landed on the blood spot of (size 12 source requested) underwear. And these cells were present in large enough quantity to be picked up and qualify for CODIS. Of course the possibility is probably one in 100000000000000000000! LOL

I ran out of zeros, anybody got more?

Now what do you suppose the likely source is for the batches of skin cells in two locations on the waistband of the leggings? Factory worker, right? LOL

Oh, it was the mystery man-bathroom helper. Is that the "likely" explanation? How about that? Somebody that nobody listed for DNA test was at the Whites party AND was in the bathroom surreptitiously helping JBR go potty, AND the same night someone else sexually assaults and accidentally kills JBR, complete with scuff marks, mystery marks, bone fragments, and petechiae. AND this person left NO skin cells while removing or replacing the leggings.

RDI is a bumbling idiotic mess.

 

[Nehemiah]

There remain two unidentified DNA samples in the case: One is dried fluid from two sources found in the 6-year-old victim's underwear.


http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/20crams.html

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The likely source for the dna in the bloodstain is touch-dna falling from the longjohns onto the size-12 underwear. This may have ocurred at autopsy, or when JonBenet was being redressed. That is the touch-dna may have a non-controversial origin? Another source for the touch-dna is via the christmas wrapping paper that the redresser would have come in contact with as the size-12's were opened.

There were no other samples of dna discovered other than on JonBenet's person. e.g. no semen, no sweat, no hair, no urine sample, no fecal sample, no blood sample, no fibers, no fingerprints, no earprints, no footprints. Absolutely zero.

But there was plenty evidence linking to and matching with the parents clothing!


.

They must not be so pathetic is you have to twist and spin them so bad like you did here. No one is saying that they fell "exactly" onto the bloodstain in her underwear. I think he's saying that the bloodstain was the only place they TESTED.

my big bold

It is implicit in UKGuy's post. Enough skin cells would HAVE to "fall" EXACTLY on the blood stain in order to be picked up in a swab and develop into the first CODIS profile. This is at a MINIMUM. Stop the spin your getting dizzy.

I'm sorry but thats just a riot. Hey maybe someone at the Whites had dandruff and it got all over JBR's clothing. Just trying to help you out there, SD.

 

[BBB167893]

my big bold

It is implicit in UKGuy's post.

Not to me. Guess I missed it.

Enough skin cells would HAVE to "fall" EXACTLY on the blood stain in order to be picked up in a swab and develop into the first CODIS profile. This is at a MINIMUM.

Well, let's say you're right, HOTYH. That leaves this issue: exactly how much is enough? And let me categorize that by reminding all of us that 1)what might not have been enough with 1997 or 1998 technology might have been "enough" for 2003 technology. 2) It had to be amplified.

Stop the spin your getting dizzy.

The only spin making me dizzy around here is the kind I have to deal with from IDI again and again. But we all need hobbies.

Hey maybe someone at the Whites had dandruff and it got all over JBR's clothing.
Just trying to help you out there, SD.

Yeah, you're a real Boy Scout. With friends like this, I don't need enemies!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, let's say you're right, HOTYH. That leaves this issue: exactly how much is enough? And let me categorize that by reminding all of us that 1)what might not have been enough with 1997 or 1998 technology might have been "enough" for 2003 technology. 2) It had to be amplified.

Please tell me you're not seriously entertaining the idea that legging skin cells sloughed off onto the underwear blood stain, and were then picked up by a swab from that stain, and the swab had enough cells on it to be able to identify a DNA profile for CODIS. All innocently while meantime JBR was sexually assaulted by someone who handled both leggings AND underwear AND left no skin cells. Is this for real?

Stick a fork in me cause I think I'm done.

 

[BBB167893]

Please tell me you're not seriously entertaining the idea that legging skin cells sloughed off onto the underwear blood stain, and were then picked up by a swab from that stain, and the swab had enough cells on it to be able to identify a DNA profile for CODIS.

I DON'T KNOW, HOTYH. That's why I ask questions. A fat lot of good it does!

All innocently while meantime JBR was sexually assaulted by someone who handled both leggings AND underwear AND left no skin cells. Is this for real?

That's YOUR characterization, not mine. This is what galls me: IDI can't answer my legitimate questions, so they put words in my mouth!

Stick a fork in me cause I think I'm done.

Don't tempt me!

 

[BOESP]

Just as a reminder...the DNA had to be augmented in order to meet mi nimum requirements for submission to CODIS.

 

[kcabnroh]

I don't really believe the touch DNA in this case. For some reason I feel like this was a ploy from the DA's office to assure the public that they did not let someone who murdered a six year old go. Maybe that's just me being paranoid. But I looked up information on touch DNA, and I was wondering since it is skin cells, would parts of the cells fall off/get contaminated therefore not having a true DNA of the person who actually did this?


Also, I feel like if it was an intruder that had this master plan to pin it on the parents would be smart enough to be wearing gloves? They left no other known evidence behind, and they were smart enough to pull this whole thing off, why would they just take the gloves off to pull her pants down. Who knows. Just brain-storming trying to figure out why this happened to a six year old. :/

 

[BBB167893]

I don't really believe the touch DNA in this case. For some reason I feel like this was a ploy from the DA's office to assure the public that they did not let someone who murdered a six year old go.

Agreed, 100% and THEN some!

Maybe that's just me being paranoid.

Anywhere ELSE, it would be. But this is the Boulder DA we're talking about. They're not even from the same solar system as the rest of us.

But I looked up information on touch DNA, and I was wondering since it is skin cells, would parts of the cells fall off/get contaminated therefore not having a true DNA of the person who actually did this?


Also, I feel like if it was an intruder that had this master plan to pin it on the parents would be smart enough to be wearing gloves? They left no other known evidence behind, and they were smart enough to pull this whole thing off, why would they just take the gloves off to pull her pants down. Who knows. Just brain-storming trying to figure out why this happened to a six year old. :/

And I'm glad you are, kcb.

 

[kcabnroh]

And I'm glad you are, kcb.

:toast:

 

[Agatha_C]

SuperDave



Anywhere ELSE, it would be. But this is the Boulder DA we're talking about. They're not even from the same solar system as the rest of us.

This planet is obviously being used as an insane asylum by other planets.
George Bernard Shaw

 

[UKGuy]

I don't really believe the touch DNA in this case. For some reason I feel like this was a ploy from the DA's office to assure the public that they did not let someone who murdered a six year old go. Maybe that's just me being paranoid. But I looked up information on touch DNA, and I was wondering since it is skin cells, would parts of the cells fall off/get contaminated therefore not having a true DNA of the person who actually did this?


Also, I feel like if it was an intruder that had this master plan to pin it on the parents would be smart enough to be wearing gloves? They left no other known evidence behind, and they were smart enough to pull this whole thing off, why would they just take the gloves off to pull her pants down. Who knows. Just brain-storming trying to figure out why this happened to a six year old. :/

kcabnroh,
Yup, you hit the nail upon the head. Why wear gloves then remove them to undertake sexual molestation?

The issue about the touch-dna is that you are not told the locations on JonBenet's clothing where the parents touch-dna was discovered e.g. the size-12's.

The lack of transparency over the forensic evidence suggests that there is an ongoing agenda.


Since JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide why is there an absence of semen dna?


.

 

[otg]

kcabnroh,
Yup, you hit the nail upon the head. Why wear gloves then remove them to undertake sexual molestation?

The issue about the touch-dna is that you are not told the locations on JonBenet's clothing where the parents touch-dna was discovered e.g. the size-12's.

The lack of transparency over the forensic evidence suggests that there is an ongoing agenda.


Since JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide why is there an absence of semen dna?

Uhhhhhhh..... UKG, "sexually motivated homicide" is technically correct, but unintentionally misleading.

Homicide simply means the death of a human being that was caused by another human being, but most people incorrectly think it means murder, where death was intended. So the question here is whether or not death was the intent.

No doubt it was sexually motivated, but again, most people think of that as meaning with the ultimate intent of some type of gratification. There was no semen present because there was no sexual gratification. So the question here becomes what type of sexual motivation precipitated the events that led to the death?

I know most people don't want to hear it, or they don't want to consider it, but I believe I could give you the answers to those questions. But in the words of Jack Nicholson, most people "can't handle the truth," and that includes most of the people investigating this. That, IMO, is why there will never be any resolution to this. There are too many things that just can't be said or talked about.

I don't expect you to agree with that -- I understand. But don't you think it possible?
.

 

[Steely]

Uhhhhhhh..... UKG, "

There was no semen present because there was no sexual gratification.
.

There was no semen found (that we know of) but does that prove that the perp didn't get sexual gratification or attempt to do so? Does that prove it was a woman or it could NOT have been a woman? Does that prove a male perp did not ejaculate at the crime scene? Many items could have been used to "catch" semen from the perp ...toilet paper (which is easily flushed), towel, cleaning cloth, rag used to pick up paint drips, a hat, perp's clothing, a sanitary napkin, baby wipes, adult incontinence "Depends" type garment, children's incontinence "Pull-ups", article of the victim's clothing from within the house, article of victim's clothing from her body (JB's socks or another clothing item we don't know about?)...and many more.

 

[otg]

There was no semen found (that we know of) but does that prove that the perp didn't get sexual gratification or attempt to do so? Does that prove it was a woman or it could NOT have been a woman? Does that prove a male perp did not ejaculate at the crime scene?

No, to all. It’s the old case of absence of proof not being proof of absence. But if you look at the other things we do know, it should point to the nature of the sexual part of what really happened.

Many items could have been used to "catch" semen from the perp ...toilet paper (which is easily flushed), towel, cleaning cloth, rag used to pick up paint drips, a hat, perp's clothing, a sanitary napkin, baby wipes, adult incontinence "Depends" type garment, children's incontinence "Pull-ups", article of the victim's clothing from within the house, article of victim's clothing from her body (JB's socks or another clothing item we don't know about?)...and many more.

Absolutely. We could fill up the rest of this thread page with the possible things that could have been used as a sperm depository. In fact, it seems as if I remember Jammie talking a long time ago about a “sex sock” that the “perp” brought with him specifically for that purpose. Apparently she had researched the idea and found things like that sold at places on the internet I wouldn’t even think of visiting which were designed for exactly that.

[[[ OT, but how many times can you quickly say, “Sick puppy sock puppet sex sox?” ]]]

But then,(otg hoping this doesn’t get too explicit will try to keep it clinical sounding), the male (and it would have to be a male, n'est-ce pas) would have to remove the depository along with the tape roll, the rest of the package of cord, the end piece of the paintbrush, maybe the device that cause the head injury, and all the other things that were used to wipe down her legs and the blood on her vagina. And it would be best that it be something absorbent, which then would have to be placed in something else which was not (to keep it from contaminating anything else). And it would have to have “caught” all of it -- down to the very last drop.

The above would be the scenario necessary assuming it to be an outside intruder. If a Ramsey, it would have to be in something that could be washed or destroyed before the police arrive, or taken out with them (unless it was JAR who could leave it in a blanket -- but was proven to have not been present that night).

Nope. Sorry. I just don’t believe there was any sexual gratification that night (at least not there). There is a sexual nature to this, but that is not it.
.

 

[Agatha_C]

Good job Otg......

 

[UKGuy]

Uhhhhhhh..... UKG, "sexually motivated homicide" is technically correct, but unintentionally misleading.

Homicide simply means the death of a human being that was caused by another human being, but most people incorrectly think it means murder, where death was intended. So the question here is whether or not death was the intent.

No doubt it was sexually motivated, but again, most people think of that as meaning with the ultimate intent of some type of gratification. There was no semen present because there was no sexual gratification. So the question here becomes what type of sexual motivation precipitated the events that led to the death?

I know most people don't want to hear it, or they don't want to consider it, but I believe I could give you the answers to those questions. But in the words of Jack Nicholson, most people "can't handle the truth," and that includes most of the people investigating this. That, IMO, is why there will never be any resolution to this. There are too many things that just can't be said or talked about.

I don't expect you to agree with that -- I understand. But don't you think it possible?
.

otg,
Why should I disagree with you? What you write makes perfect sense to me.

My reference to semen is intended in the context of an IDI.


.

 

[UKGuy]

There was no semen found (that we know of) but does that prove that the perp didn't get sexual gratification or attempt to do so? Does that prove it was a woman or it could NOT have been a woman? Does that prove a male perp did not ejaculate at the crime scene? Many items could have been used to "catch" semen from the perp ...toilet paper (which is easily flushed), towel, cleaning cloth, rag used to pick up paint drips, a hat, perp's clothing, a sanitary napkin, baby wipes, adult incontinence "Depends" type garment, children's incontinence "Pull-ups", article of the victim's clothing from within the house, article of victim's clothing from her body (JB's socks or another clothing item we don't know about?)...and many more.

Steely,

Well why should an intruder be concerned about semen samples when he removes his gloves to deposit touch-dna onto JonBenet's longjohns and size-12's.

In an RDI context there should be no foreign dna at all, since her longjohns and size-12's were clean on her that night.

That is was the touch-dna actually deposited by Patsy when she dressed JonBenet for bed?

.

 

[otg]

otg,
Why should I disagree with you? What you write makes perfect sense to me.

My reference to semen is intended in the context of an IDI.

My apologies, UKG. Actually though, I was addressing anyone reading my post there -- not you specifically. I’m willing to consider anything and anyone if it can make sense and satisfies logic. Considering all the possibilities, I would really prefer to think I am wrong about what I suspect. I so want to believe it to be an outside intruder. But to me, there is too much that points in the direction of my conclusions about it. I understand though that some people don’t even want to consider the possibility of what I suggest. That’s fine -- I accept that, but I will still discuss any possibility, except maybe the “SFF, Asian pedo socialist" thing. I read about it, thought about it, and discounted it. For me, it just doesn’t deserve serious discussion. But that’s just me.

I look forward to your posts, UKG. You think logically (Are you part Vulcan too? My ears are a just little pointed, you know -- at least, I'd like to think so.).
.

 

[Agatha_C]

Otg,

It isn't just you....