IDI: Whats your problem?

IDI: Whats your problem?

  • DNA match will take forever.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • FBI isn't involved.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    82
See how MISinformation is still out there?

There was NO pubic hair, sourced or unsourced. What was THOUGHT on appearance to be a pubic hair (found on the white blanket that had covered JB's body) was IDENTIFIED on testing and found to be an ancillary (forearm) hair belonging to PATSY RAMSEY.
 
Your understanding is incorrect.

The panty DNA that BPD publicized was degraded. Some years later, the FBI took these samples and discovered additional DNA trace that was not degraded.

Thats the DNA that went into CODIS. From the 2nd panty DNA sample, not the first.

My understanding is the sample submitted to CODIS was augmented in order to meet the minimum 13-markers required for submission.

Still missing the point though: media reports are not evidence.
 
Misinformation or not I think it points out exactly what happened with the jury.Would YOU indict a person only based on handwriting analysis if there is unknown DNA in the victims pants?I know I wouldn't.And if you read all the articles written back then it seems that the grand jury WAS interested in the DNA and maybe this was the reason they didn't indict anyone.I was more interested in what the experts had to say re this case would be very hard to win,they're right.

I understand why Hunter didn't want to go to court backed up only with some handwriting experts,I would have done the same,any lawyer would have made him look like a clown in court,fibers and handwriting,but you don't have motive,TOD,COD,witnesses,nothing else.
I DON'T understand on the other hand why he didn't allow LE to check all the leads that pointed to RDI,phone records and so on.
 
The most damaging information against any one suspect was the handwriting analysis that concluded JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, may have written the ransom note found in the family's Boulder home.

But the most powerful evidence pointing to a killer outside the Ramsey family was a stain of body fluid inside the dead girl's panties. The stain carried DNA that police can't link to anyone.


Is THIS misinformation?
 
The DNA exists,PR writing the note is just an opinion.So I guess this favours the R's for now.
 
The evidence..............an unbiased pair of eyes would see it like this..........maybe

unknown DNA+PR wrote the note,what could this mean,what does it tell us

But nooooooooo.....both camps are stubborn and see only one side of the story......
 
The evidence..............an unbiased pair of eyes would see it like this..........maybe

unknown DNA+PR wrote the note,what could this mean,what does it tell us

But nooooooooo.....both camps are stubborn and see only one side of the story......

It tells us nothing because PR didn't write the note. Dont take my word for it, thats what the federal govt. tells us.

What about the white space on PR's exemplars vs. the ransom note? That is, the spacing between words and sentences is completely different. Not just some of the time, but ALL of the time.
 
The DNA exists,PR writing the note is just an opinion.So I guess this favours the R's for now.

The ransom note exists and can be linked to the crime. The DNA exists and can not be linked to the crime or the killer (unless there is information unknown to the public).

Totality of the evidence (circumstantial, testimonial and direct) suggests that the Ramseys at least know more than they have admitted.
 
The most damaging information against any one suspect was the handwriting analysis that concluded JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, may have written the ransom note found in the family's Boulder home.

But the most powerful evidence pointing to a killer outside the Ramsey family was a stain of body fluid inside the dead girl's panties. The stain carried DNA that police can't link to anyone.


Is THIS misinformation?

No it isn't. But the pubic hair WAS misinformation. I also don't know for sure what the "body fluid" containing the male DNA was. Or even if the was body fluid. I have been considering the male DNA as possibly left on the garment during the manufacturing process (as skin cells) or being also touch DNA, like on the longjohns (also skin cells). Other than that report above, I haven't seen evidence that the male DNA came from a body fluid. It is sometimes misleadingly reported that it was male BLOOD mixed with JB's blood (which WAS proven to be found on the panties. While there was always a report of male DNA mixed with JB's DNA in the drop of blood on the panties, i have not seen where this male DNA also came from blood in any of the verified reports (like the autopsy). Only in various media reports. And like Holdon said (and rightly so) media reports are not always accurate.
 
I found an interesting article re what I said


no indictment

Experts: Conviction a long shot
By Mark Obmascik
Denver Post Staff Writer

Oct. 17, 1999 - In a murder case with 590 witness interviews, at least 1,058 pieces of evidence and the eyes of the world focused upon it, the JonBenet Ramsey grand jurors faced one critical choice, legal experts say.

It was penmanship vs. panties.

The most damaging information against any one suspect was the handwriting analysis that concluded JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, may have written the ransom note found in the family's Boulder home.

But the most powerful evidence pointing to a killer outside the Ramsey family was a stain of body fluid inside the dead girl's panties. The stain carried DNA that police can't link to anyone.

That single piece of unexplained genetic material - combined with other evidence raising the possibility that an intruder murdered the 6-year-old girl - may have convinced Boulder County prosecutors they didn't have sufficient evidence to file charges, criminal-law experts who closely followed the case said.

"You've got a perfect recipe here for an acquittal souffle,'' said Scott Robinson, a top local criminal-defense lawyer. "I don't think Clarence Darrow himself could have kept a jury out more than a half-hour with the Ramsey case as we know it.''

Lawyers say there's one big caveat with all of their Ramsey analysis: Public knowledge of the crime is limited.

Much supposed evidence in the murder has been leaked by anonymous sources; there's no independent way to verify if the leaked information is true, or subject to different interpretations, until the case goes to trial.

It also is unknown whether law enforcement has other major evidence, uncovered in a $2 million, 34-month investigation, that still hasn't been disclosed to the public.

This makes interpreting the JonBeneÚt Ramsey murder probe like playing chess without knowing if you have all the pieces - or all the rules.

Still, several leading local lawyers were willing last week to analyze the case, assuming for this article that the evidence they're discussing has been portrayed accurately by the sources who leaked information to the news media.

The consensus was that much evidence tilted against Patsy Ramsey, but there was enough other information to raise reasonable doubt against a conviction.

Of the four lawyers interviewed - all of whom closely tracked the case for the news media - none expressed confidence that they personally could win a murder conviction based on the evidence disclosed so far.

"You wind up feeling that it looks like someone in the Ramsey house had something to do with it, but you can't figure out who,'' said Christopher Mueller, who teaches evidence law at the University of Colorado Law School. "If the evidence is what the newspapers say it is, I don't think it's a winnable case.''

John and Patsy Ramsey have said they believe their daughter was murdered by an unidentified intruder, but that Boulder police officials have focused recklessly on the Ramsey family.

After veteran homicide detective Lou Smit quit the case last fall and proclaimed the family was innocent, John Ramsey publicly released a letter in September 1998 saying Boulder police officials "decided they had solved this case on the very first day by reaching the incredible conclusion that because the parents were in the house, they must have done it . . . You have wasted almost two years trying to prove your original theory.

"Meanwhile, my family knows a vicious child killer still walks your streets.''

On Friday, Smit said, "I think the evidence points at an intruder, but I am not commenting on any evidence in this.''

The 1998 Ramsey letter highlighted one of the most significant pieces of evidence in the family's defense. Addressing JonBeneÚt's killer, Ramsey wrote, "We have been told that the authorities have your DNA.''

Law-enforcement sources confirmed the girl was found with "foreign'' DNA in her panties and under her fingernails. The DNA reportedly did not match genetic material collected from dozens of Ramsey family members and friends.

The scramble to trace that genetic material may have been why the grand jury temporarily halted work this past summer, lawyers said. In May, police started collecting more DNA samples from people who may have touched JonBeneÚt in the days before her murder.

Law-enforcement sources said the extra genetic material was collected to eliminate as many potential suspects as possible.

Other evidence pointing toward some outside intruder includes an unidentified pubic hair found on the blanket wrapping JonBeneÚt's body; a Hi-Tec hiking-boot print discovered near the body that hasn't been matched to any family or friends; a broken window in the basement where JonBeneÚt's body was found; and an unidentified palm print on a door by the girl's body.

Though there can be alternate explanations for all this evidence - the unknown DNA could be picked up by a first-grader who plays hard or swaps clothes with other kids, the hair could be from a maid, the boot and palm prints could have been left long ago by a house repairman, the window reportedly was broken earlier by John Ramsey when he locked himself out of the house - they all can be combined to form an effective defense for any accused Ramsey family member.

"You certainly can line up this evidence to say that an outsider did it,'' said Mueller, the CU law professor who has taught lawyers for 25 years. "As long as you can't figure out where the DNA came from, you've got some very important evidence for the defense.''

Frank Jamison, a 28-year University of Denver Law School professor who teaches evidence law, said the unidentified DNA is a major challenge for murder investigators.

"They've been put in the position right now of trying to clear everyone else in the world. It's hard going,'' Jamison said.

One other important factor in the Ramsey's favor: There is no evidence of any child abuse in the family. Many friends and former nannies have lauded the Ramseys as good parents. And John Ramsey's two children from his first marriage, John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey-Long, have publicly praised their father's parenting skills.

However, there is much crime information that points to the Ramsey family, lawyers said.

JonBeneÚt's body was found inside a house with "very, very little evidence of a break-in,'' Jamison said.

Can a random intruder really sneak into a locked house, capture a 45-pound girl, possibly sexually molest her, split her skull with an 8.5-inch crack, strangle her with a garrote made from a paintbrush that was stored inside the house, wipe off her vagina, find a notepad and pen, write a practice ransom note, write a final three-page ransom note and then escape - all without ever waking John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey or JonBeneÚt's r older brother Burke? It's true that the layout of the Ramseys' nearly 7,000square-foot house may have made screams hard to hear. The parents' bedroom was on the third floor, bedrooms for JonBeneÚt and Burke were on opposite ends of the second floor, and the girl's body was found in the basement.

At the same time, though, the 25-room house is so large it's hard to imagine a first-time visitor successfully navigating so many rooms, hallways and stairways in the middle of the night, while carrying a 6year-old girl, without incident.

If the murder looks like an inside job, then key evidence points to Patsy Ramsey, attorneys said.

The most damaging physical evidence against the mother is the rambling ransom note.

Handwriting experts at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation ruled out John Ramsey as the note's author, but they couldn't do the same for Patsy. After comparing one Patsy handwriting sample to the ransom note, Chet Ubowski of CBI concluded, "This handwriting showed indications that the writer was Patsy Ramsey.''

Still, handwriting analysis can make for dicey testimony in court. In the Oklahoma City bomb trial of Terry Nichols, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch scaled back prosecution attempts to include much handwriting analysis after defense lawyers called it "junk science.''

Prosecutors "ought to think twice about whether you're going to offer these conclusions'' about handwriting in court, the judge said, adding that there is "no academy of training for these people.''

Other physical evidence pointing to the Ramsey mother includes fiber found on the duct tape that covered the dead girl's mouth. The fiber matched a sweater Patsy wore Christmas night - the day before her daughter's body was found, law-enforcement sources said. She turned the sweater over to police more than a year later.

And the paintbrush handle used in the garrote that helped strangle JonBeneÚt came from Patsy's art set.

The fibers could have been picked up when John Ramsey found his daughter's lifeless body, ripped the tape off her mouth in an attempt to revive her, and then dropped the adhesive onto the floor, where the stray fiber may have become attached. A random intruder also could have chanced upon Patsy's art set and taken the paintbrush.

But one outside attorney, former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman, focused on the mother's psyche at the time.

"Whoever did this crime was clearly disturbed,'' Silverman said. "(Patsy) was recovering from cancer, had the pressures of a family vacation, the pressures of a family Christmas, the pressure of turning 40 in a few days.'' Noting that the ransom note, paintbrush and sweater fiber evidence also pointed to the mother, Silverman said, "None of these things alone are smoking guns, but it's the totality of it.''

Of the four JonBeneÚt legal experts questioned, Silverman was the most hawkish about chances of prosecution. Asked if he thought he could win a conviction, Silverman said: "I don't know. I think it would be a close case. It would depend on how good a witness John and Patsy would be.'' Jamison, the DU law professor, said, "I think it would be almost an impossibility to win.''

Mueller, the CU law professor, said, "I don't think anyone would win a prosecution of the case.'' And Robinson, the defense lawyer who described the facts presented so far on the Ramsey case as an "acquittal souffle,'' said the case may never close.

Though Boulder police officers have been denounced widely for poor crime-scene management - they let John Ramsey search his home alone for his daughter, let him move the body from the basement room, let family friends clean the kitchen and possibly scour away evidence, and failed to immediately separate the parents for interviews to check for contradictions - the investigatory mistakes may not have made much of a difference, Robinson said.

"I am critical of what the police did,'' Robinson said, "but when you've got that DNA stain and the untraced pubic hair, I'm hardpressed to see how the failure to secure the crime scene did it in.''

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon101799.htm

Wonderful, madeleine! I especially liked this part:

"You wind up feeling that it looks like someone in the Ramsey house had something to do with it, but you can't figure out who,'' said Christopher Mueller, who teaches evidence law at the University of Colorado Law School.
 
This isn't what I read. I don't know where you get your case facts but clearly they are different.

The DNA that was submitted to CODIS was not from degraded DNA. BPD found degraded DNA. The FBI took the samples that BPD had and found another DNA trace that had the necessary markers.

That's wrong, HOTYH. The sample put into CODIS had 9-1/2 markers, not the necessary 13. And they had to amplify it to get THAT many.

Partial DNA profiles are EXTREMELY controversial, HOTYH. Check out some of the literature on them.
 
My understanding is the sample submitted to CODIS was augmented in order to meet the minimum 13-markers required for submission.

It WAS. And even THEN, it came up short. 9-1/2 is far from 13.
 
The evidence..............an unbiased pair of eyes would see it like this..........maybe

unknown DNA+PR wrote the note,what could this mean,what does it tell us

But nooooooooo.....both camps are stubborn and see only one side of the story......

You should talk to my brother sometime, madeleine!
 
That's wrong, HOTYH. The sample put into CODIS had 9-1/2 markers, not the necessary 13. And they had to amplify it to get THAT many.

Partial DNA profiles are EXTREMELY controversial, HOTYH. Check out some of the literature on them.

Haddon, on those who continue to argue the DNA is innocently placed despite new information that legging DNA matches underwear blood stain DNA:

"Those people are just justifying their own slander and opportunism. They're wrong, they're losers, and to the extent they continue to try to justify what they've done, that demonstrates how little conscience they have."

Hmm. Mighty strong words.
 
Haddon, on those who continue to argue the DNA is innocently placed despite new information that legging DNA matches underwear blood stain DNA:

"Those people are just justifying their own slander and opportunism. They're wrong, they're losers, and to the extent they continue to try to justify what they've done, that demonstrates how little conscience they have."

Hmm. Mighty strong words.

Strong-smelling words.

To me, they're the kind of words I'd expect from someone like him. Talk about calling the kettle black. You might do well to remember one thing, HOTYH: Hal Haddon is a defense lawyer, and a defense lawyer's duty is to his client, not to the truth. Quite frankly, his little hate barrage might make me angry, if I cared one whit what a shyster like him has to say. To hear a defense lawyer--who sends private investigators out to sabotage potential witnesses--lecture people about conscience is hysterical.
 
I suggest everyone go back and re-read Death of Innocence. My belief was that it was Patsy alone who authored and wrote the note but after reading John's story in the book, I became totally convinced that he dictated the note and Patsy wrote it.
 
Strong-smelling words.

To me, they're the kind of words I'd expect from someone like him. Talk about calling the kettle black. You might do well to remember one thing, HOTYH: Hal Haddon is a defense lawyer, and a defense lawyer's duty is to his client, not to the truth. Quite frankly, his little hate barrage might make me angry, if I cared one whit what a shyster like him has to say. To hear a defense lawyer--who sends private investigators out to sabotage potential witnesses--lecture people about conscience is hysterical.

Since the discovery of the new DNA on two places on the leggings that matched DNA in a blood stain in her underwear, there seems to be an irrationality about proceeding with the same unwavering arguments.

The RDI argument has truly become insolvent, as can be seen in the media. Heck, the DA didn't even need to write an exhoneration letter to JR. They went out of their way to do it, as they had no obligation to do so. This letter is therefore not relevant to money.
 
Since the discovery of the new DNA on two places on the leggings that matched DNA in a blood stain in her underwear, there seems to be an irrationality about proceeding with the same unwavering arguments.

The RDI argument has truly become insolvent, as can be seen in the media. Heck, the DA didn't even need to write an exhoneration letter to JR. They went out of their way to do it, as they had no obligation to do so. This letter is therefore not relevant to money.

It's a free country, HOTYH. You're certainly welcome to make that argument. I don't agree with any of it, mind you, but I won't try to stop you. I just wish you'd have more respect for my intelligence than to quote freakin' Hal Haddon. "Not relevant to money," you say? I find that odd considering that (or so I've heard) Haddon's motto is "reasonable fee for reasonable doubt."
 
Since the discovery of the new DNA on two places on the leggings that matched DNA in a blood stain in her underwear, there seems to be an irrationality about proceeding with the same unwavering arguments.

The RDI argument has truly become insolvent, as can be seen in the media. Heck, the DA didn't even need to write an exhoneration letter to JR. They went out of their way to do it, as they had no obligation to do so. This letter is therefore not relevant to money.

It baffles me that so many here do not get this MAJOR MAJOR point. This article, which was written in 1999, dissects the problems in this case. The DNA is questioned especially since street cops and the DA's office can't keep their mouth shut. Numerous professionals throwing out how the packaged panties could contain an "unknown DNA" from inspector 12. The fingernail DNA was consistant with panty DNA but only contained 75% of the markers needed for a match. You can decide whether the term to be used should be degraded. At this point if want to beat on your RDI drum, so be it.

Something amazing happened after this time folks. While the amazing Nancy Grace's and Henry Lee's of the world keep this alive via promoting the Inspector 12 theory, another breakthrough in DNA technology was developed. This new technology, by itself, can be very dangerous. But in the right case in determining whether DNA is significant or planted, it can be the Home Run.

I understand that many people do not like the way the Ramsey's handled themselves, answered questions, and maybe in some cases lied. But someone outside of that family, at minimum, handled that little girl in that house on the night she died. They could not get a GJ indictment even when the "Inspector 12" theory was tossed up the ladder.
 
Nice to see you, Roy.

Quite frankly there are a LOT of things in this case I'm surprised people don't get.

Roy23 said:
This new technology, by itself, can be very dangerous. But in the right case in determining whether DNA is significant or planted, it can be the Home Run.

Could not have said it better myself. And to me, therein lies the problem: I have no reason to believe this IS the right case. Until a donor is found, the deciding factor as to whether or not the DNA is indicative of an intruder is whether or not you believe in the intruder theory to start with. And that, as I see it, is a big part of it: a true believer achieved the power to pursue her boogeyman. This was not Nixon going to China; far from it.

Indeed, HOTYH seized on it:

HoldontoyourHat said:
Heck, the DA didn't even need to write an exhoneration letter to JR. They went out of their way to do it, as they had no obligation to do so.

Well, that's precisely my point: the DA did a LOT for the Rs that she didn't have to do (and in my opinion, SHOULD NOT have done): taking over the case at LW's behest, purposely excluding anyone who didn't agree with her lockstep from the investigation, going to PR's funeral... Like I said: Nixon to China it ain't.

They could not get a GJ indictment even when the "Inspector 12" theory was tossed up the ladder.

That's a whole other issue, as I see it.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
211
Guests online
4,018
Total visitors
4,229

Forum statistics

Threads
595,835
Messages
18,035,203
Members
229,799
Latest member
becebooboo
Back
Top