This Could Be the Break

Shylock · Feb 9, 2004

If you think the mystery DNA proves the Ramseys are innocent and that it might eventually solve the crime, think again. The Ramseys could still hang as early as tomorrow.

The article below describes a new process that is being developed to lift previously unobtainable fingerprints off objects. Remember that the cord used in the garrote construction is nylon. Nylon, like any other plastic may easily retain the oil from a person's fingerprint. This new process might very well point the finger directly at JonBenet's killer.

If Burke's fingerprints show up on the garrote cord then Burke is the perp. Burke had no access to the garrote at any time that morning.

If John or Patsy's fingerprints show up on the garrote cord--location is everything. The Ramsey defense can claim John or Patsy touched the cord when they were falling all over JonBenet's body after John brought it up from the basement. UNLESS the fingerprint comes from within one of the knots. Such a location would prove John or Patsy actually manufactured the garrote.

Keenan and Beckner need to be made aware of this new technology so they can start packing for the UK. This may be the break that finally brings the Ramsey scam crashing down.

NEW FINGERPRINT TECHNOLOGY
British scientists say nanotechnology could in the future help
police catch criminals by providing clearer and more detailed
fingerprints. Current powders used by detectives to pick up
prints work because the oil from fingers has a natural
tackiness. But researchers at the University of Sunderland are
developing a nanoparticle dust which actively seeks out any oil,
however small the amount that is left. While current prints are
not sometimes not clear enough to lead to a suspect, the new
dust should provide a much more detailed picture, according to
New Scientist magazine.
Complete article here: http://www.platinum-celebs.com/technology/news/005907.html

IMO

Eagle1 · Feb 9, 2004

Very interesting news. Thanks.

Ivy · Feb 9, 2004

Yes, thanks, Shylock. Fascinating!

Do you know how many fingerprint markers (or whatever certain patterns of lines, whorls, etc. are called) are necessary to ID someone? I wonder because it doesn't seem to me the cord was wide enough for an entire fingerprint.
____
IMO

K777angel · Feb 9, 2004

Thanks Shylock. Interesting.

There is also another newer technique kind of related to this you mention, that also may provide further new evidence.
The article is dated from last July of 2003 in UPI Science News.
It is titled: "DNA extractable from Fingerprints"

Here is the first line in the article: "Even if the only evidence forensic analysis can pull from a crime scene is a fingerprint smudged beyond recognition, a new technique developed by Canadian scientists soon could harvest enough DNA from the print to produce genetic identity."

Fascinating. It goes on to say that the novel system can "extract DNA in only 15 minutes." It also says it is twice as cheap as current DNA extracting methods.

It will be only a matter of time with our increasing fine-tuned new technologies that we absolutely identify the killer of JonBenet Ramsey.
It will be indisputable.

Ivy · Feb 9, 2004

Because the Ramseys, through Wood, are actually controlling the new "investigation," I'm afraid that despite advances in fingerprint and DNA technologies, they'll never be used in the JonBenet case, and the killer will never be identified. What we have here is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

Anyone know how much longer Wood can demand the re-investigation continue? Also, how long before Keenan is up for re-election? If she's not re-elected, will the new DA be forced to continue the sham?
____
IMO

Ivy · Feb 9, 2004

Back to answer one of my own questions:

DA Mary Keenan's term doesn't expire until January, 2005.

Drat.
____
IMO

K777angel · Feb 9, 2004

Ivy said:
Because the Ramseys, through Wood, are actually controlling the new "investigation," I'm afraid that despite advances in fingerprint and DNA technologies, they'll never be used in the JonBenet case, and the killer will never be identified. What we have here is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

Anyone know how much longer Wood can demand the re-investigation continue? Also, how long before Keenan is up for re-election? If she's not re-elected, will the new DA be forced to continue the sham?
____
IMO

There is no real "new" investigation that is true, but there will be new DA's and other avenues to run new tests in the Ramsey case.
The governor could always call for a fresh look at the case. Not likely - but it could happen.
IF Keenan is sincere about starting over and re-testing etc. - she will have to ante up and prove it by ordering new tests that become available on old evidence. Afterall - they CLAIM they did it with the DNA in the undies.
She's stuck now with no excuse but to continue to follow through with any other technique that comes along.

Ivy · Feb 9, 2004

K777angel, do you know how, besides through Lin Wood, the information you and Shylock posted could be presented to Keenan in such a way that she'd follow up on it and try to have it applied it to the case?

As long as the DA's office continues to give the appearance of reinvestigating the case, I doubt that Governor Owens will do anything. He didn't, even before the reinvestigation started, so why would he now? Anyway, I think you may be right that if Keenan is presented with information on new technology that could solve the case, if she refused to look into it, she might have a hard time explaining why.

____
IMO

Shylock · Feb 9, 2004

Ivy said:
I wonder because it doesn't seem to me the cord was wide enough for an entire fingerprint.

The cord is only 1/4 inch wide. That is not wide enough for a complete fingerprint, but it is probably wide enough to contain the features needed for identification if it spanned the person's fingertip just right.

There are only three pieces of evidence that are positively related to the crime; the garrote, the note, and the tape. The garrote is the only one of the three that may not have given up all its secrets yet.

Babcat · Feb 9, 2004

I never ceases to astound me as to what lengths people will go to hold on to an erroneous belief ... no matter what. Who exactly are you trying to convince? Others... or yourself?

I'll crawl back into my cave now.

Shylock · Feb 9, 2004

Babcat said:
Who exactly are you trying to convince? Others... or yourself?
I'll crawl back into my cave now.

Nobody is trying to convince anyone of anything, the facts and information posted stands on its own.
The next time you go to all the trouble of "crawling out of your cave", I suggest you post something that is at the very least remotely related to the topic.

sissi · Feb 9, 2004

Wasn't there a method,as well,that fumed the body with super glue and could pick prints off of the body? This technology I believe was available at the time of her death,yet I never heard it was used.
JMO

Ivy · Feb 9, 2004

sissi, good question. As far as I know, the super glue technique wasn't used on JonBenet's body. I too have wondered if it was.

____
IMO

Ivy · Feb 9, 2004

Originally posted by Shylock
The garrote is the only one of the three that may not have given up all its secrets yet.

I wonder if the stick that the cord was wrapped around was tested for prints. My guess would be that the stick was wiped clean. If it was, that would be a strange thing for an intruder to do. Why wouldn't he just dispose of the stick?

Would the cord have damaged prints that might have been on the stick?
____
IMO

BlueCrab · Feb 10, 2004

Ivy said:
sissi, good question. As far as I know, the super glue technique wasn't used on JonBenet's body. I too have wondered if it was.

____
IMO

A BPD detective did the superglue technique for lifting fingerprints from JonBenet's body, but I don't remember his name. I think it was in PMPT.

JMO

Imon128 · Feb 10, 2004

That info about the super glue is in PMPT, hardback, page 119.

"...Trujillo ended up using a different, simpler method and lifted one partial print."

Arielle · Feb 10, 2004

From what I recall of my training, you need 10 "markers" in a fingerprint to be a match. That would be whorls, defects, loops, etc.

The superglue method is actually very easy and is good for picking up fingerprints on porous surfaces such as car interiors, paper, and bodies. I don't recall whether it was used in any connection to the Ramsey case and on what pieces of evidence. I don't think it would work for the rope, but I don't know. I never tried to lift a print from a piece of rope.

Imon128 · Feb 10, 2004

It was used on JB's body, per PMPT. I haven't read anything about using it on other things.

candy · Feb 10, 2004

As we learned in the Wolf case, Fingerprint evidence has often been ruled inadmissible in civil court and

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002....Judge.Slams.Fingerprint.science-189886.shtml

no one in Boulder is going to indict the Ramseys for murder w/ the current DA.

Imon128 · Feb 10, 2004

I sure do agree with your last statement on your post, regarding the current DA.... :clap:

This Could Be the Break

Former Member

Former Member

Inactive

Member

Inactive

Inactive

Member

Inactive

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Inactive

Inactive

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

Inactive

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics