FINALLY SOMEONE SPEAKS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE "INTRUDER" DNA

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Tricia, May 18, 2004.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    23,602
    Likes Received:
    1,659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank God someone finally is telling the truth. Unfortunately the scientist won't let his or her name be used but she/he spells it out right here.

    From the Rocky Mountain News.

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html

    By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
    May 18, 2004

    A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

    "That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used.


    Advertisement



    The DNA sample was found commingled with blood in the underwear of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

    It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

    "You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

    The sample does not match any member of the Ramsey family or any known suspects in Boulder's unsolved Christmas night 1996 slaying, according to Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner.

    Ramsey, 60, who now resides in Charlevoix, Mich., announced May 11 he is running as a Republican for the 105th House District seat in the Michigan State Legislature.

    On Ramsey's campaign Web site, www.supportramsey.com, visitors can click on an icon titled "Family Tragedy/Update."

    "On Dec. 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the (Boulder) D.A.'s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenet. Consequently, all of the state and federal DNA data systems now have the entire profile of the unknown deposit, thanks to the identification of the 10th marker."

    It also states the following:

    "It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."

    But that's not necessarily the case, said the man who developed that tenth marker.

    "It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."

    He also said there is no way to "age" the sample, to determine whether it was left in the underwear at the time of JonBenet's murder or at some other point.

    Ramsey campaign manager John Yob didn't answer a call and e-mail Monday seeking comment.

    But Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, who has represented the Ramseys for several years but is not associated with John Ramsey's campaign, defended the campaign's assertion.

    "I agree with the statements on the Ramsey Web site," said Wood. "There is no doubt in my mind, based on my knowledge of this case over the course of five years representing this family, that the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear is the DNA of the killer.

    "Anyone in a law enforcement investigation who is searching for an innocent explanation for foreign male DNA found mixed in the victim's blood on her underwear is either incompetent or prejudiced to the point of being unqualified to participate in a fair and objective investigation.

    "I am sure that explains in part why this case was taken away from the Boulder Police Department."

    Another state forensics expert, who also asked not to be identified, said the significance of the DNA profile must be weighed conservatively, based on where it was found, and in what substance.

    Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."

    It is true that identifying the tenth genetic marker enabled Ramsey investigators to finally enter the unidentified genetic profile into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, a national database.

    As of March, the Ramsey sample was one of 78,475 unidentified forensic profiles entered in the CODIS system, where it is regularly searched for potential matches against genetic profiles of convicted offenders - 1.6 million of them, and counting.


    `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``

    YES this is what was needed for the truth to finally start coming out.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you save this page? It has "disappeared". Link no longer working.
     
  4. BrotherMoon

    BrotherMoon Former Member

    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ya gotta love science, don't ya?

    It was given to the humans by the Gods, just like fire was.

    Science and Truth, they go hand in hand.

    But!!!!!!!!!!! Given the chance, 99.99999999999999999999% of those humans that the Gods gave science to will prefer science fiction, religion and law to the truth.

    Here come da spin.
     
  5. BrotherMoon

    BrotherMoon Former Member

    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awww, that is sooooOOOoooo cute!

    Please tell me Trish, just what is "The Truth" that will come out???

    Thrill me with your acumen.
     
  6. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Jay, I had to go to the RMN homepage and do a search for "Brennan." The first story that came up was the DNA story dated May 18th. When I tried to copy and paste the link for you, it was the same one Tricia provided. I don't know why the link won't work by direct access, but at least it's still there by doing a search.
     
  7. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The link works from FFJ. I discovered that later on this morning but I assumed maybe the site had been down and had come back up.
     
  8. Watching you

    Watching you New Member

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BrotherMoon quote:

    That was a brilliant post, BM. Not.
    Chew on this for a while:

    Quote:

    This is just another example of the misleading statements put out by the RST.

    There is a burden of proof that a prosecutor must meet to say a certain suspect committed a certain crime. To do this, the analyst examines 13 locations (not 10) along the chromosome, known as "loci," which the relevent international scientific community has identified as suitable for comparison purposes. Each locus contains two alleles - one from each parent. When the STR's from a crime scene profile match an offender's profile, it means that there is a match from each and every one of the 26 alleles (genes) that comprise the 13 loci. The specificity of this forensic identification is one of the most significant powers of DNA.

    When scientists prepare the the crime scene evidence profile and the offender's profile, they look for a 100% match of the two profiles at the 13 loci.

    For verification purposes, the 13 core loci used for STR comparisons are: TPOX, D3S1358, FGA, D5S818, CSF1PO, D7S820, D8S1179, TH01, VWA, D13S317, D18S51, D21S11, D16S539.

    Reference http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/forens...undamentals.pdf for complete text on the above.

    There is a reason I listed the 13 core loci used for STR comparisons in crime cases. Simple arithmetic proves that the above statement on the Ramesy website regarding having a complete sample for DNA comparison is fraudulent. The criteria is 13 core loci, not 10. If even one of the loci is missing from the equation, the odds of proving the probability that a certain DNA sample came from a certain person drop considerably. Take away loci TPOX, FGA, and THO1, for example, and the odds of proving a "match" may drop from 1 billion to 1 to, say, 1000 to 1. That is not a scientific number, it's my way of making a valid point.

    So, while CODIS may have accepted the DNA from the Ramsey case with its 10 core loci, that DNA will NEVER EVER identify anyone. It can eliminate a suspect, but it will never identify a suspect, as the RST claim it can. Furthermore, the only worth the DNA has at this point is either as an eliminator of suspects or as supporting evidence, if there were any other evidence to support. Since it's been 7+ years, and the RST has yet to come up with a credible intruder suspect, it's a good bet they can't build a case against an intruder because they don't have any viable evidence, and the DNA will never help them because they don't have a viable suspect with supporting evidence.

    If they had someone they could prove through circumstantial evidence was in that house that night and had access to JonBenet during the crucial hours, and if the person had no alibi and couldn't pass a polygraph, and if they could say, well, we have a partial match to the partial DNA stored in CODIS, (partial simply because the CODIS sample is incomplete), then they might have something. The DNA in this case is not a stand-alone piece of evidence, and it never will be.

    The Ramseys are lying on their website, and so is Lin Wood when he spins the DNA to be something it isn't. Anyone who buys into this propaganda is a fool.
     
  9. Cain

    Cain New Member

    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Take away loci TPOX, FGA, and THO1, for example, and the odds of proving a "match" may drop from 1 billion to 1 to, say, 1000 to 1. That is not a scientific number, it's my way of making a valid point. "


    But if that is more or less accurate, and considering they have 1,6 milion of people in the DNA database, they already should have about 1,600 parcial and utterly useless "matches".
     
  10. Watching you

    Watching you New Member

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, Cain, they've made no matches at all, not even utterly useless matches. And, they never will.
     
  11. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Excellent post, WY.

    1. If they had someone they could prove through circumstantial evidence was in that house that night
    2. and had access to JonBenet during the crucial hours,
    3. and if the person had no alibi
    4. and couldn't pass a polygraph,
    5. and if they could say, well, we have a partial match to the partial DNA stored in CODIS ...


    And if I may add to your list of necessary evidence ...

    6. and their handwriting and linguistics was matched to that of the ransom note.


    IMO
     
  12. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow, what a great article! Thanks for posting it, Tricia. It might never have been written had John not decided to run for the Michigan House. I wonder what else about the case will be revealed during his campaign. Just thinking about it makes my heart go pitty-pat.

    Also, thanks for your informative post, Watching you. :clap:

    Cherokee, glad you added the "bussiness" about the note. How interesting that five of the points appear to implicate Patsy.

    imo
     
  13. allan

    allan Inactive

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please remember that I'm new here and haven't heard it all before. But, as it relates to the Ramseys, does DNA mean Do Not Arrest? By the way, I used to be thrilled with acumen when I was a boy. They were the army that followed Aquaman. (Wince)
     
  14. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting that it is confirmed from an unidentified male...

    DNA was taken from hundreds of people in the Ramsey circle.

    Very few things I'm certain of - and one is the killer knew the Ramseys.

    They were brand new panties - straight from the package.
     
  15. BrotherMoon

    BrotherMoon Former Member

    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Optimism is not objective.

    Objectivity is crucial to the practice of the scientific method.

    Objectivity can be achieved only when the person doing the observing recognizes the human proclivity to PROJECT UNCONCIOUSLY onto what they observe.

    This DNA news will fall like a lead balloon, just like the petition to the Governor, just like the trip to Colorado.

    The only way anything will be done about the freedom the Ramseys enjoy is when the villagers take their torches and march up the hill to do away with the monster. Fortunately, John is acting like a dunce. Instead of cruising along under the radar he has managed to corner himself in Charlevoix with stated reasons for staying and then he even attempts to climb the hill of political office making himself and his wife a target for the villagers.

    What I find interesting is the timing, not to mention the content, of Charlie Brennan's articles. He seems to be counterpunching the "good news" that surfaces supporting the Ramseys. It also seems he has a bank of information from which to draw or he has a source that is the bank.

    Brennan is a metaphorical villager. But he does not express unwarranted optimism. He's holding his cards.

    Patsy Ramsey herself has told the truth in the ransom note and in DOI. But she will never be prosecuted for creating an angel through the deliberate killing of her daughter. She won't even be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. The closest thing to justice will be if the Ramseys continue to expose themselves and become increasingly isolated as social pariahs.
     
  16. vicktor

    vicktor New Member

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In every case on trial I've heard of where a suspects DNA was connected to the scene, forensics has stated that the probability of it belonging to someone else is 1 in 6 billion or higher. Sometimes much higher. IOW the suspect was demonstrated to be the only person expected to have that profile in the world. Looking at probabilities, I would expect that for a sample with 10 markers the odds would be in the neighborhood of 1 in 1 million, that another person would have those same 10 markers. Since it has been suggested that the DNA originated at the foreign location of manufacture, this would make it unlikely that a similar sample existed in the CODIS databank.

    Hypothetically, if a suspect was found that had a couple of circumstantial things linking them to the case and their handwriting was checked and found to be in the possible catagory, and their DNA matched 10 markers from CODIS, then I feel a jury could rightly vote to convict, both reasonably and correctly.
     
  17. popcorn

    popcorn Inactive

    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Have you read the Police Files? Your statement the size 12 panties JonBenet was found dead in were brand new and fresh from a package is nothing more than internet legend. According to the official interviews the investigators only found sizes 4-6 in the home after a ten day search. Patsy would had to have opened the package that day for the statement to be true. It's evident she didn't dress JonBenet that morning as that night she looked for the pink pajama bottoms and didn't know where they were.

    I'll give you a chance to reliably source that but doubt you can.
     
  18. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Regardless of when the package of panties was opened that contained the panties JonBenet was wearing when her body was "found" by John, they were new panties, straight from the package, as TLynn stated, or at least never-before-washed-or-worn panties. There would be no other reason for investigators to test unopened panties from the same factory for DNA.

    Rocky Mtn. News article excerpt (link below)

    ...investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.

    If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying. And, investigators know the DNA found in the underwear - white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band - was not left by seminal fluid.

    "There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.

    "You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."

    Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.

    And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."


    Source

    imo
     
  19. Watching you

    Watching you New Member

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe I read somewhere that it was the Ramseys' investigator (maybe Armistead or his assistant?) who "collected" that package of underwear. I read that they were dissing the BPD because they missed the package of size 12 underwear when they were collecting evidence, but the Ramsey investigators "found" the underwear the BPD evidence collectors missed.

    I don't know if this is true, but if it is true, it opens up questions about procedure, especially concerning chain of custody issues. How strange that the BPD collected the size 6-8 panties that were in the drawer in the bathroom, but they missed the size 12 panties that were allegedly right there in the same drawer. It is equally strange that the Ramsey investigators spotted the size 12 underwear package that the BPD allegedly missed and turned them in as evidence. I'm not accusing the Ramsey investigators of doing anything shady, but you can bet a defense attorney, defending an alleged intruder in court, would suggest exactly that.

    Cops are often accused of planting evidence, whether right or wrong. Does anyone think a defense investigator is above doing the same?
     
  20. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Popcorn -

    I believe it was PMPT - it was a whole segment; Patsy & JonBenet were in New York, bought two sets of Day Of The Week panties - one for JonBenet, one for a cousin....JonBenet (from what I remember) wanted to keep the "larger" panties.

    An opened package sticking out of the dresser drawer was found...with "Wednesday" missing....

    So, what are you talking about - internet rumor?
     
  21. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't for a minute believe that the BPD missed the package of size-12 panties. In order for that to be true, we have to believe that whoever was collecting the evidence looked through the panties and made a conscious decision not to take the package because they would have been too big for her. No way I see that happening. Whoever collected the panties would have just opened the drawer and placed ALL of its contents into an evidence bag--WITHOUT any real thought about it.

    I believe the size-12 panties were stored in a different location and are more involved in the crime than anyone thinks. (Except BlueCrab that is...;))

    People who believe that Patsy may have caused her death because of a "bed wetting incident" should also consider that Patsy might have gone over the edge when she found out that not only did she wet the bed, but without permission she went in her (Patsy's) drawer, opened the underwear package that was to be a present for someone, and ruined them. A simple bedwetting incident turned into rage because of those panties.
     

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