A DNA expert will be available to answer your questions!

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes. I understand that and did read that page just the other day.

The problem lays with the dna sample being a mixed profile with dropout not being acceptable in court.

I see what you are saying but if it enough to identify the perp, That is something they are going to bring into court. They are going to say how they identified the perp.

And we all know as DNA goes on, There are always more tests and more intricate ways to identify someone.

 

[BOESP]

The missing link is first finding a match in CODIS then coming up with evidence that proves the match belongs to someone who can be put at the scene and evidence that proves the contributor was the responsible while at the scene. Otherwise, the samples are just an artifact.

It's a fact that any Ramsey DNA found on JonBenet or the implements and evidence involved can be linked to people who were at the scene. The problem is proving the DNA contributor is also the responsible.

It works both ways whether Intruder or Insider. If it wasn't for being such a serious issue I'd find it comical that some proponents of innocent people being found guilty seem anxious to pin it on an Intruder whose only fault perhaps was having committed a burglary, served their time, then bagged Patsy's groceries at the local market.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The missing link is first finding a match in CODIS then coming up with evidence that proves the match belongs to someone who can be put at the scene and evidence that proves the contributor was the responsible while at the scene. Otherwise, the samples are just an artifact.

It's a fact that any Ramsey DNA found on JonBenet or the implements and evidence involved can be linked to people who were at the scene. The problem is proving the DNA contributor is also the responsible.

It works both ways whether Intruder or Insider.

Except R dna is supposed to be there and idi is not.

 

[BOESP]

Except R dna is supposed to be there and idi is not.

Sorry, but touch DNA or any DNA transferred by secondary means is like Santa Claus ... it's everywhere. That doesn't mean it's contributor committed a crime.

Neither does Ramsey DNA mean it is innocent DNA.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry, but touch DNA or any DNA transferred by secondary means is like Santa Claus ... it's everywhere. That doesn't mean it's contributor committed a crime.

Sure, But where it is?? That can mean something..

And we can not discount it because we don't know where it came from. It is as important to the case as anything else. If it is there it has to be sourced, until it is it is part of the evidence that someone else was there that night.

 

[BOESP]

Sure, But where it is?? That can mean something..

And we can not discount it because we don't know where it came from. It is as important to the case as anything else. If it is there it has to be sourced, until it is it is part of the evidence that someone else was there that night.

BBM. With all due respect, you have that backwards. To be useful it must be linked to a known individual who can be placed at the scene and linked to events. DNA, like fibers, don't come with time stamps, just as deposited Ramsey DNA isn't necessarily deposited innocently.

The bottom line is that without more information the DNA is useless.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM. With all due respect, you have that backwards. To be useful it must be linked to a known individual who can be placed at the scene and linked to events. DNA, like fibers, don't come with time stamps, just as deposited Ramsey DNA isn't necessarily deposited innocently.

The bottom line is that without more information the DNA is useless.

The DNA itself with no match is artifact, But now that it is CODIS it is able to be matched to someone at some time.

The DNA is a link, When they find the link, they can match and then see if the person fits with the time, opportunity, MO... All that..

CODIS is only the first place to start but it is a place to start.. That unknown TDNA only has to link one person that was not supposed to be there that night but was.

 

[redheadedgal]

3) And it looks like my book will be out by Christmas.

:great:

 

[madeleine]

That unknown TDNA only has to link one person that was not supposed to be there that night but was.

And you know for sure that this person is not a Ramsey friend or employee who helped them out in a crisis situation because.....?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And you know for sure that this person is not a Ramsey friend or employee who helped them out in a crisis situation because.....?

In this crisis? Or another crisis?

I have to look to see how much DNA they took from people around the R's.

But I have a feeling if it was someone close to them it would have been sourced. I believe it is someone on the fringe more likely, Or someone they did not know personally that was well aware of them.

 

[madeleine]

I meant something else.
How do you know that the DNA owner is an intruder/killer and not someone who helped the Ramsey's cover the crime up?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So you are adding more people to the mix? Nah.

I don't believe the R's covered it up because I do not believe they did it.

 

[madeleine]

So you are adding more people to the mix? Nah.

I don't believe the R's covered it up because I do not believe they did it.

That's your choice,doesn't make it true though.
I think I asked a pretty valid question but you always avoid those.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That's your choice,doesn't make it true though.
I think I asked a pretty valid question but you always avoid those.

There is a difference in someone asking a question with and answer one may not like and not answering.

 

[madeleine]

There is a difference in someone asking a question with and answer one may not like and not answering.

there is a difference between IDI's who really believe IDI and are discussing IDI theories and Ramsey supporters who like to play games.

I've met a lot of smart IDI's with pretty original theories and I've noticed one thing.Yes,maybe we disagree re who killed JB, RDI or IDI...BUT there are always things we can agree on...you on the other hand...you REJECT EVERYTHING.Absolutely EVERYTHING.Which IMO is impossible if you really wanna discuss a case.I don't think you are.

When asked a VALID question you play dumb or ignore it.
So me thinks you are here only to play games.
I am done with you.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I can not think and act a way because other people want me to. If I see something differently I can not just ignore that.

I am a supporter of the truth and of facts and evidence that would support the most likely scenario.

I do not care if people don't agree with me, Or my thoughts, but I am entitled to them and nothing has changed them yet.

I believe someone broke into the home and killed JBR, I don't know how much more IDI I could be than that.

 

[2 percent]

I believe someone broke into the home and killed JBR, I don't know how much more IDI I could be than that.

Okay! Now you mention truth, facts and evidence in your post, implying others are not following that path as you are. Please;

What facts and evidence prove IDI to your satisfaction?
What is the "truth" in your opinion?

I won't ask for the same level of proof you sometimes expect (ie words from a dead woman's mouth), but I do want more than just a statement with no supporting proof. And proof relevant to the case, please.

 

[Nom de plume]

Okay! Now you mention truth, facts and evidence in your post, implying others are not following that path as you are. Please;

What facts and evidence prove IDI to your satisfaction?
What is the "truth" in your opinion?

I won't ask for the same level of proof you sometimes expect (ie words from a dead woman's mouth), but I do want more than just a statement with no supporting proof. And proof relevant to the case, please.

Why even bother to ask? You know you're not going to get any answer, no one ever has before.

 

[Chelly]

Why even bother to ask? You know you're not going to get any answer, no one ever has before.

If you guys ever see an answer (doubt you will), please let me know as I am forced to Ignore to prevent BP from escalating. Thanks ever so much.

 

[otg]

Perhaps one day there will actually be a hit in the CODIS database. Perhaps someone will be arrested for some unrelated crime which requires a DNA sample be taken, and BANG! MATCH!! "Where were you on December 25, 1996?"

Then the suspect will be investigated... and it will be found that he/she was living in China at the time and working in a garment factory that made little girls' underwear. :doh:
:takeabow: