The Misdirection and Deception of the DNA

New Posts

Cottonstar

Cottonstar

Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
1,362
Website
instagram.com
A magician’s craft is misdirection. They are experts at making you look here, while they are deceiving you over there - or right in front of your face.

A local Boulder journalist, Charlie Brennan, uncovered a DNA report that was unknown to even members of law enforcement which found that although the family was previously excluded, that may not be the case. There is a reasonable chance that what has been attributed to a single individual actually represents DNA from multiple individuals that have been hobbled together into a single profile, but that report had been put aside and very few people knew about it. – from Lawrence Schiller’s Overkill: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét documentary.

Lacy isn’t a magician, but she certainly dabbled with deception.
 
ML ordered new DNA tests in 2007. When she received the results, she hid them, much like Hunter did, from the public. Only a few people knew the results.

Why did Hunter have a need to hide and conceal what the people of the Grand Jury had decided?

Why did Lacy have a need to hide and conceal the results of the new tDNA tests?

I would say for the same exact reason. Both, the True bills and tDNA is evidence that points right to the Ramseys as being responsible for JB death.

There is no Unknown Male 1. It is misdirection at it’s finest.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
To be clear: BR cannot be excluded as a contributor to the tDNA on the waistband of the long johns that JonBenét was found in. Furthermore, on all four samples tested on the pink Barbie nightgown, including the front and back of the hem area, BR’s tDNA is present.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
b850f2d20c27d6aa3d488572da9952ad.jpg


I call it the Pink Nightgown Paradox.

Why does it have JonBenet’s blood on it? Why is it balled up next to her at the murder scene. Why was it left there? Why is it riddled with BR and PR skin cells all over it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
From 1998 interview with police:

JOHN: I laid her on the bed. I didn’t — I don’t remember the cover, if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up to put her NIGHTGOWN on and get her ready for bed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
The pink barbie nightgown is probably what JonBenet was wearing before she was wiped down and placed into the wine-cellar. The person who put the nightgown there knows its directly linked to JonBenet's death, so it cannot be left say in her bedroom or the breakfast bar as it is bloodstained.

The bloodstain also tells you either JonBenet or someone who came in contact with her were at coincident locations, relocating the gown is proof of staging, unless you want to claim the intruder redressed JonBenet ?

You can expect to find BR's dna on a pair of his longjohns, the question is did he put them on JonBenet and did Patsy cover for him by saying she did it?

JonBenet had numerous nightgowns and pajama sets to select from, as did Patsy, all this talk about the longjohns being a convenience is no different from any other bedtime clothing as BR's longjohns are what they are, i.e. his!

One unanswered question is: was there any of JR's, PR's or BR's dna on the size-12's? As these were patently clean on JonBenet and she was allegedly put straight to bed?

BPD has never revealed the report details or that of the underwear taken from the house.

.
 
UKGuy said:
The pink barbie nightgown is probably what JonBenet was wearing before she was wiped down and placed into the wine-cellar. The person who put the nightgown there knows its directly linked to JonBenet's death, so it cannot be left say in her bedroom or the breakfast bar as it is bloodstained.

The bloodstain also tells you either JonBenet or someone who came in contact with her were at coincident locations, relocating the gown is proof of staging, unless you want to claim the intruder redressed JonBenet ?

You can expect to find BR's dna on a pair of his longjohns, the question is did he put them on JonBenet and did Patsy cover for him by saying she did it?

JonBenet had numerous nightgowns and pajama sets to select from, as did Patsy, all this talk about the longjohns being a convenience is no different from any other bedtime clothing as BR's longjohns are what they are, i.e. his!

One unanswered question is: was there any of JR's, PR's or BR's dna on the size-12's? As these were patently clean on JonBenet and she was allegedly put straight to bed?

BPD has never revealed the report details or that of the underwear taken from the house.

.
Click to expand...

Hey UK,

Not sure if you saw first chart in our DNA post. That far right column is the mixed sample pulled from the blood-stained size 12 underwear. I took the family's DNA profiles that we got off the BODE reports and put them in a column alongside that sample to see how many markers matched. Check out the attachment - I added in Patsy's and John's on this one so you can see them too.
 

Attachments

  • comparisons to stain on underwear.JPG
    comparisons to stain on underwear.JPG
    77.2 KB · Views: 430
lisasalinger said:
Hey UK,

Not sure if you saw first chart in our DNA post. That far right column is the mixed sample pulled from the blood-stained size 12 underwear. I took the family's DNA profiles that we got off the BODE reports and put them in a column alongside that sample to see how many markers matched. Check out the attachment - I added in Patsy's and John's on this one so you can see them too.
Click to expand...

lisasalinger,
Nope I missed the chart for some reason. So does that say the family's dna is on JonBenet's underwear or am I reading it wrong?

What do you think it suggests?

.
 
I have been reading about this murder since it happened. I have read so many books and never remember reading that there was blood on the nightgown until the last year. Which shocked me that this wasn't considered a huge piece of evidence. As said above it was always said that it stuck to the blanket in the dryer or was left by PR to comfort JBR.
 
UKGuy said:
lisasalinger,
Nope I missed the chart for some reason. So does that say the family's dna is on JonBenet's underwear or am I reading it wrong?

What do you think it suggests?

.
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, we don't have any summaries of the underwear stain testing - just pieces of those reports. But trying to get them. So I can't say for sure if any of them are excluded or included, etc. by the DNA analysts. I just think it's interesting that Burke has matching alleles at 10 out of the 13 markers, and Patsy has them at every marker. Like we were saying in our post, we believe Burke's DNA is one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1". There's no possible way they (Lacy, Ramseys & gang) honestly think Unknown Male 1 is actually one person after reading the DNA reports. So if they're intentionally putting a fake profile out there, what does that mean? As far as we're concerned, it means they're covering for someone, pointing us in the wrong direction.
 
observation,
within the mixed profile sample,
78 percent of the dna markers are comparable to a Ramsey.
 
This is why I cringe at the thought of going to a public laundromat. They should have swabbed the washing machine but it's not late to test all the other underwear and clothing they took in evidence. The alien and it's cousins have likely been replicated a thousand times over.
 
lisasalinger said:
Not surprisingly, we don't have any summaries of the underwear stain testing - just pieces of those reports. But trying to get them. So I can't say for sure if any of them are excluded or included, etc. by the DNA analysts. I just think it's interesting that Burke has matching alleles at 10 out of the 13 markers, and Patsy has them at every marker. Like we were saying in our post, we believe Burke's DNA is one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1". There's no possible way they (Lacy, Ramseys & gang) honestly think Unknown Male 1 is actually one person after reading the DNA reports. So if they're intentionally putting a fake profile out there, what does that mean? As far as we're concerned, it means they're covering for someone, pointing us in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...


lisasalinger,
Patently its a cover up, but for whom? Assuming JonBenet was sexually assaulted and it was ongoing and that BR was prepubertile then that puts JR in the frame.

I used to think if the case was BDI then BPD might institute a legal redaction of anything that relates BR to the crime, but if its JDI then it looks like a conspiracy, particularly with the same behavour across different offivers?

.
 
UKGuy said:
lisasalinger,
Patently its a cover up, but for whom? Assuming JonBenet was sexually assaulted and it was ongoing and that BR was prepubertile then that puts JR in the frame.

I used to think if the case was BDI then BPD might institute a legal redaction of anything that relates BR to the crime, but if its JDI then it looks like a conspiracy, particularly with the same behavour across different offivers?

.
Click to expand...

I think the cover up is for the benefit of both Burke and the parents. Had it been an adult sexually abusing JB, her injuries would have been a lot worse. The injuries she had of that nature speak to a different psychology. John’s connections run deep and I think he used them just as much for his own benefit as he did Burke’s. I think that indicates John and Patsy were turning a blind eye to many things in that house and it ended in tragedy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
lisasalinger said:
I think the cover up is for the benefit of both Burke and the parents. Had it been an adult sexually abusing JB, her injuries would have been a lot worse. The injuries she had of that nature speak to a different psychology. John’s connections run deep and I think he used them just as much for his own benefit as he did Burke’s. I think that indicates John and Patsy were turning a blind eye to many things in that house and it ended in tragedy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


lisasalinger,
You could be right. The staging might mean the parents were staging Burke out of the case rather than one of themselves?

.
 
lisasalinger said:
Not surprisingly, we don't have any summaries of the underwear stain testing - just pieces of those reports. But trying to get them. So I can't say for sure if any of them are excluded or included, etc. by the DNA analysts. I just think it's interesting that Burke has matching alleles at 10 out of the 13 markers, and Patsy has them at every marker. Like we were saying in our post, we believe Burke's DNA is one of the male components of "Unknown Male 1". There's no possible way they (Lacy, Ramseys & gang) honestly think Unknown Male 1 is actually one person after reading the DNA reports. So if they're intentionally putting a fake profile out there, what does that mean? As far as we're concerned, it means they're covering for someone, pointing us in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

I agree there was misdirection. In spades! However, regarding the DNA of JB's underwear:I spoke to someone more familiar with this topic. As we know, JB contributed the lion’s share of alleles, Patsy “could have” contributed four alleles, JR, three, and BR two. At issue is that one can’t decipher the possibilities without the benefit of electropherograms.

Also, a separate but vital concern is that the underwear DNA testing which was completed in 2003 for entry into CODIS, could not be replicated.
 
According to a March 24, 2008, report from Bode, a copy of which was obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS, the sample from the right side, labeled as 2S07-101-05A, included DNA containing "a mixture of at least two individuals including the victim and at least one male contributor." They got the same results on the left side, which was labeled 2S07-101-05B.

But in notes included with the report, it's clear the Bode analysts concluded that those two samples contained genetic material from at least three people. After assuming that JonBenet was one of those people, the analysts were left with the "remaining DNA contribution."

"Based on the results," according to the report, "it is likely more than two people contributed to the mixtures observed in 2S07-101-05A and 2S07-101-05B therefore, the remaining DNA contribution should not be considered a single source profile."

Christopher McKee, a former public defender in both Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and now director of the Schaden Experiential Learning & Public Service Programs at the University of Colorado Law School, concurred.

"My own personal review of the material and looking at the allele information at the various loci is that it looks and appears to me to be at least three individuals," McKee said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 217 more.
Total: 3,422 (members: 218, guests: 3,204)

Online statistics

Members online
218
Guests online
3,204
Total visitors
3,422
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,826
Messages
17,959,647
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top