DNA Clears Ramsey Family!

[Linda7NJ]

That's your opinion - definitely not a fact in this case. They are criminals that evaded charges in my eyes.

Agreed!

This is AS RIDICLOUS as Karr!

 

[Linda7NJ]

For RDI: Maybe the long johns came from the same factory as the underwear?

ummm you would agree that the underwear and the long johns were in very close contact with each other right? You've heard of transfer?

 

[Ames]

So on that note, is it possible to shake hands with someone and get their "touch DNA" on your hands, and then touch the panties/long johns and transfer that "touch DNA", which isn't even yours? They were at a party that night with numerous people who they were in close contact with. I imagine there was touching with people besides immediate family.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/11/07/news/topnews/142272.txt

"I do not believe the quantity of DNA could have been from a handshake," he said."

This is from another case....in which the expert says that he did not believe that the quanitity of DNA could have been from a handshake. That leads me to believe that YES..it can be transferred by a handshake.


"Staub also addressed the issues of primary and secondary transfer of DNA. He said primary transfer, also referred to as touch DNA, occurs when someone leaves DNA on another object. Secondary transfer occurs when someone touches that object and picks up the other person's DNA, Staub explained."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

ummm you would agree that the underwear and the long johns were in very close contact with each other right? You've heard of transfer?

In reality, what you've got is an unknown male who somehow managed to leave DNA trace of himself at a crime scene. One of the traces was left in a very conspicuous place.

No matter how you look at it, this evidence favors IDI. The DA is on the record as IDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

In reality, what you've got is an unknown male who somehow managed to leave DNA trace of himself at a crime scene. One of the traces was left in a very conspicuous place.

No matter how you look at it, this is IDI supporting evidence. The DA is on the record as IDI.

The ORIGINAL DA (Hunter) actually believed that the parents were somehow involved. It was that he felt he could not prove it in court that made him back down. That, and pressure from the Governor's office and his cronies on the R defense team.

 

[BBB167893]

In reality, what you've got is an unknown male who somehow managed to leave DNA trace of himself at a crime scene. One of the traces was left in a very conspicuous place.

MAYBE. Maybe.

The DA is on the record as IDI.

That's the problem, Holdon. She has been since she started on this case. Her bias is clear. And you don't have to take my word for it.

Start here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html

 

[Silmarion]

I was logged in, but told I was not. Please explain why I cannot post.

 

[Silmarion]

I will try again...

John Mark Karr admitted committing the crime. They had a perfect right to bring him in, but he was releasd very quickly

I never thought the Ramseys had anything to do with this crime. Some of the theories that the media and other posters have come up with sounded pretty far out, imo. I have always thought an intruder or neighbor got into the house. It seemed very like the Dannielle Van Dam case in San Diego. In that case, the prosecution and defense both knew Westerfield was guilty as he was told by the prosecution before he went on trial that they wouldn't seek the death penalty if he would take them to the place where the child was left. Westerfield agreed! But, before they left, someone found Danielle Van Damm, so they proceeded with the trial. In any case, the parents were persecuted so badly on the witness stand by the defense, that it was just terrible.

Westerfield was a neighbor and friend. He broke into the house while the parents were sleeping and took the child. He seemed innocent, had a good job as an engineer, and people thought him a friendly neighbor. (though later, after the trial there was released some background of minor pedophilia discovered.) The fact that Danielle's DNA was on the van did not make a difference. According to the defense, she climbed on the van during a play period.

Intruders, even known intruders can get in and kill. I think the kidnap note was to throw the police off track. I don't think the intruder had any intention of kidnapping Jon Benet. I think he disguised his handwriting. I also think he got in while the Ramseys were out. He waited and it was then that he passed the time writing the note on Patsy's note pad with her pen. And it worked.

As I recall this was the first murder case, the police were assigned to, and they made many mistakes, which I'm sure Mr. Ramsey's friend realized. That's why he advised him to called in a lawyer.

I've heard lots of theories about the Ramseys, but imo, they all seem pretty far out. It's would be very unusual for a parent to just kill a child when there's was no background of drugs, violence, poverty, alcoholism, or mental disease, etc. There was nothing in the Ramsey's background to indicate that either of them would do such a thing. I don't believe it. In any case, Patsy is dead. Why keep harping on it when she cannot defend herself any longer.

 

[JBRMod2]

I was logged in, but told I was not. Please explain why I cannot post.

The software will time out unless you select the option to keep you logged in. If you have any persistent problems of this nature, please let us know

Moderator

 

[Silmarion]

It's all pretty confusing. I've only posted here a couple times and that was a while ago. Not sure where that option is.

 

[Daisy]

LOL - this is coming from the same woman that brought John Mark Karr to the table, so please think twice before falling for another Ram Scam!!! Mary Keenan Lacy is notorious for going out of her way to support criminals and is on her way out of office in a few months, so this nonsense is nothing more than her Going Away gift to the remaining Ramseys as Karr was for Patsy.

Agreed 100%, no make that 200%!!!! :clap:

 

[coloradokares]

Agreed 100%, no make that 200%!!!! :clap:

If we each get 100% we got a gazillion % by now. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[LI_Mom]

I still don't get this touch dna....

EVERY murder victim can have endless foreign 'touch dna' found on their body UNLESS they're living in a sterile environment.

All a defense lawyer has to do is find ONE dna fragment that DOESN'T match his client & the prosecutor has to clear the guy because it will be called reasonable doubt????

 

[Silmarion]

Not sure if this is an acceptable thing to write, but I am just totally shocked by all the people who are absolutely convinced that the parents were involved in the brutal death of their child, and got away with it. I wonder if any or many of those who absolutely believe the parents attacked their child had problems with their own parents or family members, and therefore assume a parent would be capable of doing all the things they've laid on the Ramseys. They didn't just kill the child, they fractured her skull, they choked her with a garrott, they sexually abused her, and so on and on and on.

I for one, was never even struck by either of my parents, though my mom and I had plenty of verbal arguments! Nor, were any of my friends abused by their parents. Come to think of it, my mom did slap me with a dish towel a few times, but I always got away. She would chase me around the dining room table. Too funny.

But, anyway, it would take complete and absolute proof for me to believe a parent, especially a mother who seemed to be very devoted to her daughter could murder her own child in the ways that I have read that have been described here. I don't see a shred of proof for any of these theories, but a lot of wild imaginations! It's as though they want the parents to be guilty, and refuse to look at it in any other way. I am so shocked by what I've read, that I'm beginning to believe even if they do find a killer and he's proven to be guilty, they'll never believe it. They'll still believe the parents did it.

Btw, I mean no disrespect. We all have our own feelings, and are entitled to them, it's just my own interpretation of some of the stuff I've been reading here. I know not everybody feels that way.

 

[TexMex]

I still don't get this touch dna....

EVERY murder victim can have endless foreign 'touch dna' found on their body UNLESS they're living in a sterile environment.

It's the fact that this touch DNA matches the DNA in her underwear.

The odds of that are astronomical.

 

[LI_Mom]

That's a valid point, Silmarion.

I don't think it's necessary to have personal negative experience in order to look at this case from a parent's did it position.

Even though something might be unlikely or highly unlikely, that doesn't mean it's impossible.... so it must be considered.

Now if the parents HAD cooperated fully from the very beginning & NOT given people valid reasons to question whether they had something to hide, I'd say it was simply a witch hunt & they were being persecuted.

 

[jubie]

Not sure if this is an acceptable thing to write, but I am just totally shocked by all the people who are absolutely convinced that the parents were involved in the brutal death of their child, and got away with it. I wonder if any or many of those who absolutely believe the parents attacked their child had problems with their own parents or family members, and therefore assume a parent would be capable of doing all the things they've laid on the Ramseys. They didn't just kill the child, they fractured her skull, they choked her with a garrott, they sexually abused her, and so on and on and on.

I for one, was never even struck by either of my parents, though my mom and I had plenty of verbal arguments! Nor, were any of my friends abused by their parents. Come to think of it, my mom did slap me with a dish towel a few times, but I always got away. She would chase me around the dining room table. Too funny.

But, anyway, it would take complete and absolute proof for me to believe a parent, especially a mother who seemed to be very devoted to her daughter could murder her own child in the ways that I have read that have been described here. I don't see a shred of proof for any of these theories, but a lot of wild imaginations! It's as though they want the parents to be guilty, and refuse to look at it in any other way. I am so shocked by what I've read, that I'm beginning to believe even if they do find a killer and he's proven to be guilty, they'll never believe it. They'll still believe the parents did it.

Btw, I mean no disrespect. We all have our own feelings, and are entitled to them, it's just my own interpretation of some of the stuff I've been reading here. I know not everybody feels that way.[/QUO



You can say you mean no disrespect but you have to own your words and when you say things like we 'want' the parents to be guilty or because you were not abused as a child you don't see the R's as guilty so therefore there must be something wrong (past abuse) with us to see the R's as guilty, well it sounds to me like you're being insulting. I don't for one second have a wild imagination about this, JonBenet is very much dead and it makes me sick her murderer has not been convicted for the crime.

 

[LI_Mom]

It's the fact that this touch DNA matches the DNA in her underwear.

The odds of that are astronomical.

Yeah, I get that....

what I don't get is how we know this is NOT dna the child picked up herself & transferred to her OWN body.

If this is a real suspect, there should be that same exact dna match in many, many locations of the crime scene... her nails, underpants, bottoms & TOP... the rope.... they should all show that same result....

they must have all been touched when the suspect had removed his gloves to do the attack. You don't remove your gloves ONLY to pull up the pants.

 

[Silmarion]

You can say you mean no disrespect but you have to own your words and when you say things like we 'want' the parents to be guilty or because you were not abused as a child you don't see the R's as guilty so therefore there must be something wrong (past abuse) with us to see the R's as guilty, well it sounds to me like you're being insulting. I don't for one second have a wild imagination about this, JonBenet is very much dead and it makes me sick her murderer has not been convicted for the crime.

Excuse me. I do own my own words. But some people are so absolutely convinced. I don't mean any disrespect because I do believe that people who are absolutely, completely positive that the parents killed their child, believe they did. But it seems to me that people on the internet who were not there, cannot with such total assurance convict the parents without absolute proof. And in this country we are presumed innocent unless proved guilty. We all don't see the same proof. We are all different, and we are different because we must see things differently, for whatever reason.

I mean no insult, because I do believe that those who see her parents as the killer really see it that way. But many of us (not neccessarily on the internet) do not see it that way.

Even though her killer has not been convicted of the crime, her family has been convicted in the media and on the internet. I know Jon Benet is dead, but it doesn't follow that because she is dead her parents must have killed her. It seems to me that killers have at least some quirk in their backgrounds, and I don't see it here.

I'm as sorry as you are that her killer hasn't been caught, but I think if her parents were guilty they would have been put on trial. Even a grand jury could not find a reason to put either of them on trial.

 

[trixie]

Excuse me. I do own my own words. I don't think I wrote, you WANT the parents to be guilty. If I wrote that, I apologize, because it's not what I meant. I don't mean any disrespect because I do believe that people who are absolutely, completely positive that the parents killed their child, believe they did. But it seems to me that people on the internet who were not there, cannot with such total assurance convict the parents out of hand. We all don't see the same proof. We are all different, and we are different because we must see things differently, for whatever reason.

I mean no insult, because I do believe that those who see her parents as the killer really see it that way. But many of us (not neccessarily on the internet) see nothing of the sort.

Even though her killer has not been convicted of the crime, her family has been convicted in the media and on the internet. I know Jon Benet is dead, but it doesn't follow that because she is dead her parents must have killed her. It seems to me that killers have backgrounds, and I don't see it here.

I'm as sorry as you are that her killer hasn't been caught, but I think if her parents were guilty they would have been put on trial. Even a grand jury could not find a reason to put either of them on trial.

You need to study up on this case. I know that because you mentioned Grand Jury among other things. You don't know why the Grand Jury didn't indict. Well those of us that follow this case with dilligence know. As I said about others that come out of the woodwork when something happens in this case, go do your homework, then come back and try to present an "informed" opinion. All the fluff is just a waste of time.