20/20 Special - The List: Who Killed Jonbenet? on 15 Jan 2021

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by sgrump, Jan 15, 2021.

  1. mickey2942

    mickey2942 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,885
    Likes Received:
    101,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. I have zero faith in the DNA evidence, for the very reason that the Boulder Keystone Cops were the ones who "managed" the crime scene. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if all of this "DNA touch" evidence you guys have been quibbling about, came from one of Boulder's finest. They completely bungled the scene, every step of the way.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2021


  2. Sillybilly

    Sillybilly Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    31,237
    Likes Received:
    80,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey folks,

    Too many broken quotes are having to be repaired by Moderators. Please preview your post to make sure it appears correctly before submitting it to the thread. When we have too many broken quotes, we end up just removing them because we don't have time to do your homework for you.

    Also, do not reply within another member's quoted post or your post will be removed. Not only does it make it difficult to figure out who said what, but when your words get mixed in with theirs, it makes it appear they said things they did not say !!

    If you don't know how to quote correctly, please private message a Mod or Admin for help on how to use the quote feature properly.
     
    Seattle1, searchinGirl and Tadpole12 like this.
  3. BoldBear

    BoldBear Active Member

    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    43
    This is where I'm heartbroken over this case. Linda Arndt was brought in to be an investigator for sexual crimes. Boulder is partly a college town. Police departments in college towns treat college crimes with special gentle attention. Linda Arndt was there to be the one to communicate with women of sex crimes. She had no experience with murder or kidnapping. They treated her as...well...female and a novice. She took orders. Either she was a novice or she was a detective. Her title gave her credibility over a novice when what she focused on was sex crimes. This is where she got confused and her authority was overrated.

    She instantly sympathized with Patsy on the morning she entered the crime scene. She immediately suspected the 'man' which was John. After the ransom, note time had come and gone she wanted to help John in his nervousness and told him to look for things out of place (but not to touch them). Everyone says this is Linda's biggest mistake, but it wasn't even close. After JonBenet was found, her instincts told her John was involved. After that, she went back into her victim defense mode and insisted that since John and Patsy were in Boulder and the police could interview them any time--this is equivalent to Officer French's not searching the windowless room or even not closing that one door in Constantinople during an outside attack. What happened is that Patsy drugged-up and the Ramseys layered-up. The case was over and no one could overcome that mistake ever.

    Touch DNA exists, but not on a level you understand. We shed about 1 million skin cells every day. Those skin cells travel through the air or attach themselves to surfaces we touch. They get into our clothing. We touch them and transfer them every day. What we confuse about DNA and touch DNA is the possible source. In the past, DNA came from saliva, ripped skin, blood and seamen. Touch DNA can come from as little as 7 skin cells (my source is 3 years old so it may be smaller now). That means you can't see it with the human eye. To add confusion to that, the tDNA process can come from multiple sources. That means more than one person can be attributed to the DNA source. To add insult to injury, tDNA doesn't completely come out of a wash cycle. And the samples used to create tDNA are actually so small that they can come from the wash, from that elevator you just rode in or from that bar you just visited. That changes DNA profiling entirely. If your DNA is found, it means you need to put many more pieces of evidence to put you at the crime scene. If however, they find seamen or blood, then the defendant has a lot of explaining. So tDNA is a completely different critter.

    Now let me point out that anyone who lives in the house had DNA or tDNA everywhere. There's always a reason for the source (unless it's blood or seamen).

    So now we have to look at tDNA samples that come from multiple sources. One source for JBR's touch DNA is a family member (that includes JonBenet). Okay, scratch that one. So let's now look at the attributes that we think are not specific to her. Hmm... We have these attributes that we know are specific to this race and we have these attributes that are specific to that race and we could have another or another. Hmm... We have multiple possible contributors to this sample. But wait, this sample could have been contaminated at some point along the way. Wait a minute. It's isn't 1 out of 2, but one out of 3 or 4 or what??? What type of DNA evidence is that? Well, it's statistically someone it could possibly...be. Aargh!!!

    Now let me introduce you to Mary Lacy. She presents the DNA evidence as a 1 in 1 match. The only reason why we think she did this was to stop the pressure the press and the Ramsey defense was putting on her. She excluded critical information from her findings and wrote a letter to apologize to the Ramseys. Now we come to discover that Mary Lacy left out important information regarding the tDNA evidence in order to...well no one knows her motives, but we know she chose to exclude all the DNA evidence facts. She lied to everyone.

    So what do we know? The DNA evidence could have come from 7 different sources. Some of those sources can be contaminated because the corner didn't follow the necessary protocol and used the same clippers for JB's fingernails. We also know that JB's blood was mixed with possible saliva in her panties. From the tDNA we know the sources could have been from 3 or more people. Aargh! And tTNA can come from anywhere. So what do we know?

    Nothing. We don't know anything from the DNA. Experts said this was contingent on DNA and it's not. This case demands a solution beyond DNA and, God forbid, circumstantial evidence. This is DNA evidence. This isn't the DNA evidence of my childhood. It should be a one on one match (or at least a one in a family match.) How can it possibly be 2, 3 or more people. Our science should be better than that. Only, it isn't. This is what we have. We need to go back to the evidence and use DNA as a piece, but not a determining factor (especially when it comes to family members because they can't be excluded. If you live there, it doesn't put you at the murder scene, but it doesn't exclude you.)

    This is what we have by relying on DNA exclusively. So stop. DNA is only a small part of the solution no matter what anyone tells you. Look at the evidence no matter how confusing it may be.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
  4. searchinGirl

    searchinGirl Former Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you conclude anything about the DNA found in the panties from the testing done on the longJohns? Other than the experts at Bode saying a most probable match between the two, where does the idea of 7 different sources for the UM1 profile come from?

    The analysts at Bode said they saw no indication of a third party contributing to the UM1 profile and would be willing to testify in Court to that effect. Pg 8, http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/128162457/20071101-HoritaLongMemo.pdf
     
    Tadpole12 likes this.
  5. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting, but wouldn't the dna sample from the bloodstains in the underwear have had more markers than it did? Sounds like fresh, non-degraded dna to me.
     
    searchinGirl and Tadpole12 like this.
  6. searchinGirl

    searchinGirl Former Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientists can only evaluate what they observe. And that most likely depends upon the equipment used and it’s sensitivity to the DNA in the sample.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
    icedtea4me and Tadpole12 like this.
  7. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    searchinGirl,
    You might be right.

    I tend to agree that the birefringent material comes from the painbrush, its an open question whether the paintbrush was used as an instrument of internal assault, or simply a finger, apparently Coroner Meyer suggests it was a finger:

    12-29-1996 Search Warrant for 755 15th Street, Excerpt
    If there was saliva deposited inside JonBenet should this not have shown up in the lab tests, presumably there would be more than one cell left internally?

    The missing tip of the paintbrush has been a long running mystery, why bother removing it, yet leave the remaining piece behind?

    I'm assuming the painbrush was removed from the paint-tote, broken, used on JonBenet then neatly placed back into the paint-tote, so picky, what is all that about?

    I'm thinking a sexual assault took place then someone assaulted JonBenet with the paintbrush in an attempt to mask this?

    .
     
    searchinGirl and Tadpole12 like this.
  8. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm wondering if the brush end that was left in the tote for whatever reason might have t-dna on the hairs.
     
    Tadpole12 and searchinGirl like this.
  9. searchinGirl

    searchinGirl Former Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Possibly. But I don't think you can say for sure that its absence there negates its presence in the blood drops. I would be interested in the forensic evaluation of the missing tip.

    I believe it is his souvenir.

    I'm assuming he must have broken it first, put the brush part back in the tray, constructed the garotte, assaulted JonBenet, and took the tip with him.

    Maybe both. In my opinion, this was a sadistic sexual assault that resulted in JBs death. R.I.P. JonBenet.
     
    DeDee, mickey2942 and Tadpole12 like this.
  10. searchinGirl

    searchinGirl Former Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was something one of the Bode forensic analysts suggested but as far as I know it hasn't been tested.
     
    Tadpole12 likes this.
  11. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    searchinGirl,

    Sure, there is the old adage absence of evidence does not represent evidence the artifact does not exist, still if the origin of the saliva is via tranfer from the paintbrush tip to JonBenet internally then back out via blood to her underwear its curious no trace was left or picked up by the lab tests ran on JonBenets internal specimen samples and swabs etc?

    Must be to go with the size-6 underwear JonBenet wore to the White's along with her pajama bottoms, her pajama top can be seen on her bed in the following photographs, Patsy acknowledged that the pajama bottoms were missing in her version of events and is the reason JonBenet is said to be wearing Burke Ramsey's long johns.

    JonBenet's Bed
    [​IMG]

    JonBenet's Bed Sheet
    [​IMG]

    JonBenet's Black Velvet Pants Worn to the White's Xmas Party
    [​IMG]


    Something like that order?

    What do you think the motive is for the intrruder to stage JonBenet's sexual assault?

    .
     
    Tadpole12 likes this.
  12. mickey2942

    mickey2942 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,885
    Likes Received:
    101,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which again, highlights the disastrous Boulder police department, completely disregarding potential evidence at the scene. The scene was compromised the second Jon Benet was removed from the scene by her father. Who knows who was in that room before or after? What had been there that was removed? Or overlooked? We don't know.
     
    fcavanaugh and Tadpole12 like this.
  13. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    27,771
    Likes Received:
    37,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DeDee, icedtea4me, root661 and 3 others like this.
  14. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,809
    Likes Received:
    12,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    mickey2942,
    Sure, was the crime-scene compromised and potential evidence disregarded by design or accident?

    .
     
    Tadpole12 likes this.
  16. mickey2942

    mickey2942 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,885
    Likes Received:
    101,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that is why we can go around and around on this case...it was botched from the beginning, when Boulder PD did not take charge immediately, do a complete search of the home, and secure the scene.

    Once the police department is called, their job is to assess, and take control of the situation, including search for missing child on the premises. They did not secure anything. So, why bother to keep hashing all of this over and over? It was compromised beyond repair. Everything is suspect.
     
    Colorado303, Tadpole12 and fcavanaugh like this.
  17. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,809
    Likes Received:
    12,154
    Trophy Points:
    113


    @14:03
    A source told CM that
    There was a pair of balled up underware that were soaked with urine that had been thrown behind a chair in JBR's room.

    LS did not believe there was urine on JBRs sheets.
    Although if you open up the evidence bag the smell is putrid.

    Dr Lucy Rorke believes JBR was hit on the head first and may have survived with medical care.

    CM was told that there is not enough dna for genealogical or familial DNA testing,

    Juror appeared on camera because
    he felt its been 24 years, so you can use his face and name.

    JAR blocked WS from his twitter.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2021
  18. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,809
    Likes Received:
    12,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looking for the JK/dailybeast crime scene video for footage of the chair.
    Says 'members only', now.
    Is it visible in the crime scene photos?
     
    fcavanaugh likes this.
  19. fr brown

    fr brown Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    93
    You think the perpetrator pulled down the long johns at the waist leaving skin cells. Then he broke the paintbrush and obligingly stuck the end in his mouth not realizing that saliva is DNA-rich. The two different types of cells in two different places makes an intruder a reasonable inference.

    Did they amylase-test the waistband? It seems to be something that's not necessarily done. Perhaps it was saliva both places?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2021
    Hennarincess and Tadpole12 like this.
  20. fr brown

    fr brown Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    93
    You think the perpetrator pulled down the long johns at the waist leaving skin cells. Then he broke the paintbrush and obligingly stuck the end in his mouth not realizing that saliva is DNA-rich. The two different types of cells in two different places makes an intruder a reasonable inference.

    Did they amylase-test the waistband? It seems to be something that's not necessarily done. Perhaps it was saliva both places?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2021
    Tadpole12 likes this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice